7th faq and 6th faq

[Captain Coolpants]

Well now i'm confused here. Everything in the 6th edition faq has not been included in the 7th..so do we completely disregard the old faq? Or do we still apply the relevant rules?

I.e falchions giving +2 attacks, mastercrafting orbital weapons, force stave granting 2++ from shooting and powers as long as the model is in CC and so forth.

Cheers guys. :-P

[organ splinter]

I would say you disregard all the old stuff in favor of 7th ed

[Valerian]

We've had an edition change, so it would be hard to argue that old rulings are somehow still valid.  Especially hard to argue when the old documents aren't even available from the official website that hosts such things.

 

If there is a certain rules issue that you think still warrants a clarification, then I would recommend sending it in to the rules team, as we have already done with several other points of concern.

 

V

[boreas]

For any similar issue that isn't resolved by a 7ed FAQ, I use the 6th ed FAQ (eg NDK's sword, Falchions attacks). Until changed, it's the easiest way to resolve a possible problem as far as I'm concerned.

[DinoDoc]

For any similar issue that isn't resolved by a 7ed FAQ, I use the 6th ed FAQ (eg NDK's sword, Falchions attacks). Until changed, it's the easiest way to resolve a possible problem as far as I'm concerned.

We're not in 6th ed anymore. Why assume FAQs written for 6th still holds sway over the way the rules are written for 7th ed?

[boreas]

Because 90% of the rules are the same and because we've got nothing else to go with? Take Falchions. Nothing has changed, rule-Wise, as far as they're concerned. Why wouldn't GW just copy paste the 6th ed FAQ? Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but until they do something, the 6th ed FAQ seems the best guess to me :)

[Slipp01]

But for the same reason they don't say "smash has changed to now being only one attack instead of half the maximum value, unlike it was in 6th Ed". They make new rule books as an I dependant version of the rules, not a carry over from the pre-existing rules. Therefore can we not assume the faq's are the same?

[Kastor Krieg]

All 6ed FAQs are obsolete and cannot be used to interpret 7ed rules. It's common sense, really. Did you use 5ed BRB FAQs when the 6ed BRB came out?

[boreas]

Until 6th ed FAQs came out, yes... I'm not telling you what to do. But this Saturday, when you assault with your termies and assume falchion give +2 attacks, my guess is your opponent will ask you what has changed from 6th to 7th to allow that. As nothing has, we can't assume that GW's answer to this question has changed. Some FAQ were rendered completely obsolete because 7th ed has changed/clarified some rules. But some things remained the same in the transition, and for those I'd rather use an obsolete FAQ than no FAQ at all...

[Quozzo]

Until 6th ed FAQs came out, yes... I'm not telling you what to do. But this Saturday, when you assault with your termies and assume falchion give +2 attacks, my guess is your opponent will ask you what has changed from 6th to 7th to allow that. As nothing has, we can't assume that GW's answer to this question has changed. Some FAQ were rendered completely obsolete because 7th ed has changed/clarified some rules. But some things remained the same in the transition, and for those I'd rather use an obsolete FAQ than no FAQ at all...

Something has changed. The FAQ now no longer says they only give +1 attack. An obsolete FAQ is worse than no FAQ as it gives you the wrong clarification. More importantly though, we do have an FAQ. We can't assume it is the same if the same clarification is no more.

[Grand Master Caloth]

I'm sorry, I feel that argument is semantics. I agree with and follow the same practice as boreas, cause nothing HAS changed as far as the rules for the falchions, and it's easier to use the old one for relevant questions if the new one doesn't cover a rule question like that.

[Kastor Krieg]

Everything has changed. Do you want to tell me that the Heldrake is still a turrent mounted torrent measured from the base? Because that's gone from the FAQ. They reverted it BACK to hull-mounted 45 degrees from the head torrent. This is a design choice, you can't up and ignore rulings which have been reverted from the 6ed rulings, as well as apply 6ed rulings which are simply not appropriate for the 7ed rules anymore.

There are only three sources or legal rules now - 7ed BRB, the codices, the 7ed FAQ. Everyone trying to apply 6ed FAQ to the 7ed era rules is just in the wrong. Sorry.

[boreas]

The thing is, not everything has changed. In fact, 80%+ of the rules are exactly the same. I just consider 6th ed. FAQs like jurisprudence (not sure if that's the same thing in English as in French -- is the legal precedents that help dictate later rulings). If GW ruled on previous questions in manner A, I don't see indication that with the same wording all-around (where weapons are concernen, say) they would rule in manner B. They might, mind you, but until they do, I'd rather have that FAQ than nothing. Now, free to you to discuss it with your opponents or even dice off. With the general reputation of the GK codex, I think they won't let you just rule on stuff in your favor (like Falchions), without trying to "cancel" other FAQ rulings like Greatsword or Vindicare allocation. That will just lead to arguments and generally spoil part of the fun for me...

 

But then again, I'm just saying that's a nice and easy way for we to have "official" wording on rules problems I might have with my opponent until GW does it's job, which they should have done on the first day those rules came out.

[Grand Master Caloth]

It sets precedence, exactly. I don't see how they aren't appropriate, Kastor

[Quozzo]

It sets precedence, exactly. I don't see how they aren't appropriate, Kastor

They don't exist anymore. It's like a judge going back on what he said and no-one was entitled to PPI claims anymore. If falchions only benefited one extra attack then there would be no need to include it in their profile as a special rule. No other CCW weapon has +1 attack if two are taken as a special rule so why are the falchions any different.

[jeffersonian000]

The issue with Falchions is the by RAW in 5th, 6th, and 7th, it granted 2 Attacks due to being two separate weapons with a special rule granting an addition Attack. The 6th Ed FAQ ruled against RAW. The 7th Ed FAQ does not have a ruling regarding Falchions that goes against RAW, so we follow RAW and get that additional Attack that was denied in 6th. And we wait for an update to either the FAQ or in our upcoming codex to see how Falchions are treated in 7th.

 

Since no one uses Falchions any more due to Hammers and Halberds being more useful, and Swords being cheaper, its not like an extra Attack here or there unbalances the game. Although an Invisible GKT squad with 9 Falchions and a Banner would be awesome if it actually got into CC. : )

 

SJ

[Quozzo]

36, even on strikes, even more if charging. They may just be worth taking again

[Rurik the blessed]

Previous Rule says (6th Ed):

 

A model fighting with this weapon does not receive +1 Attack for fighting with two weapons unless both weapons have the Specialist Weapon rule. P.42

 

 

what says the actual (7th ed) ?.

i don't have the rule book at hand.

[Valerian]

Previous Rule says (6th Ed):

 

A model fighting with this weapon does not receive +1 Attack for fighting with two weapons unless both weapons have the Specialist Weapon rule. P.42

 

 

what says the actual (7th ed) ?.

i don't have the rule book at hand.

That's not relevant to this case.

[jeffersonian000]

Previous Rule says (6th Ed):

 

A model fighting with this weapon does not receive +1 Attack for fighting with two weapons unless both weapons have the Specialist Weapon rule. P.42

 

 

what says the actual (7th ed) ?.

i don't have the rule book at hand.

That's not a 6th Ed rule. In 6th, the only time two CC weapons did not confer an extra attack was one was a Specialist Weapon and other was not, a Two-Hander was equipped, or a Shield was equipped. It's the same in 7th. Falchions aren't specialist weapons, nor are they 2-handlers, nor shields. Per pg. 54 of the GK Codex, under Nemesis Force Weapons:

 

"Further Abilities: The various types of Nemesis force weapons have one or more other abilities, as listed on this page. These always apply in addition to the Force Weapon and Daemonbane abilities given above."

 

"Nemesis Falchions

The wielder of a pair of Nemesis Falchions has +1 Attack."

 

The +1 Attack granted from wielding Falchions is an additional ability per the Further Abilities entry, which is in addition to the normal +1 Attack grant for being a pair. Now granted, GW probably intended for Falchions to have no additional abilities at all, which may be why the 6th Ed FAQ changed the rules. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), we don't know GW's intent, and the lack of a rules change in 7th means the Rules as Written have not been bypassed by an errata or FAQ. So far, anyway.

 

SJ

[Grand Master Caloth]

Or it could be read as the PAIR of weapons, thus giving +1A. It's saying "this is a pair of weapons, so you get the extra attack of having two CCW with them"

[Captain Coolpants]

I can only assume that GW intended it for just the +1 attacks and no nore. But I do suppose that for the points that they cost, you can semi justify the exploitation of the rulings/description.

The best solution for this matter is to decrease the cost of the falchions to about the same as the helberds. Less people would be trying to find reasons to take them then;because right now... Not worth it. Although 5pts for Terminators isn't bad, couple this up with a Bro banner and that's Terminators with 5 strength 6 attacks each on a charge :-P

[Quozzo]

I can only assume that GW intended it for just the +1 attacks and no nore. But I do suppose that for the points that they cost, you can semi justify the exploitation of the rulings/description.

The best solution for this matter is to decrease the cost of the falchions to about the same as the helberds. Less people would be trying to find reasons to take them then;because right now... Not worth it. Although 5pts for Terminators isn't bad, couple this up with a Bro banner and that's Terminators with 5 strength 6 attacks each on a charge :-P

And yet its worse than dual lightning claws, but barely better than one. Well, without the extra strength.

[Captain Coolpants]

 

 

I can only assume that GW intended it for just the +1 attacks and no nore. But I do suppose that for the points that they cost, you can semi justify the exploitation of the rulings/description.

The best solution for this matter is to decrease the cost of the falchions to about the same as the helberds. Less people would be trying to find reasons to take them then;because right now... Not worth it. Although 5pts for Terminators isn't bad, couple this up with a Bro banner and that's Terminators with 5 strength 6 attacks each on a charge :-P

And yet its worse than dual lightning claws, but barely better than one. Well, without the extra strength.

Indeed. But lighting claws are 10/15pts EACH. Where as falchions are just 10pts :-P and 2 lighting claws also means you trade off your shooting capabilities. (unless you're on a bike)

[Grand Master Caloth]

But lightning claws have shred, letting you re-roll failed wounds, and wolf claws let you choose to re-roll hits or wounds. All the falchions give is an extra attack