Gentlemanloser Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 They are still Force Weapons... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3716596 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Master Caloth Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Yes, if activated. Not saying they aren't, my friend. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3716616 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 :) It's one thing they have over Lightning Claws. Although Falchions are still too expensive... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3716636 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigvard Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I have to admit I have been considering putting them on a unit of interceptors and really getting in the enemies face with them. @Kastor Krieg - you are right in this matter - regardless of how little the rules have changed (even though with the amount of tweaks and twists the rules have change substantially) this is not 6.5 or 6.75 or any incarnation of 6th edition. The core rule set is now Warhammer 40,000 7th Edition. Any previous FAQ no longer available for a previous edition hold no credence in any game that you play unless you are using the 6th edition rule set. We have to stop assuming that GW have made mistakes because so far any such mistakes have been rectified. As it is at the minute Falchions with RAW +2 attacks, Deadshot means you always allocate wounds because that is what the rule states, Nemesis Greatswords grant re-rolls for firsts because it reads any models with it may re-roll hits, wounds and pens. Sorry for those who disagree but 6th edition is gone and using an faq from that edition is just incorrect. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3716733 Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I guess we'll wait for the 7th ed FAQ and one camp will get to say a big HA! :) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3716755 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Coolpants Posted June 12, 2014 Author Share Posted June 12, 2014 Lol Why were they even brought up anyway? They have nothing to do with grey knights :-P And it works out cheaper to have a squad of falchions and an inquisitor with prescience to re-roll than a squad with two Lightning claws each :-P Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3716766 Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 That extra attack (for falchions) is kind of amazing, considering it comes with force weapons (instead of a RAS unit's CCWs) on a unit with storm bolters (instead of a RAS's pistols) and, you know, Hammerhand. If we're talking about a GK Jump team, they have Shunt too. I think assuming +1A is the right way to go for now, if for no other reason than it goes over better with an opponent than one trying to argue for *more* power. If your opponent thinks they should go +2A, give it a go and let us all know how people feel after that game: is it too powerful? Better? Not good enough? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3716845 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 on a unit with storm bolters (instead of a RAS's pistols) Yeah, it's not like those Bolt Pistols give +1A in CC for free. ;) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3716850 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Coolpants Posted June 12, 2014 Author Share Posted June 12, 2014 I've never used falchions. But I'm considering them on interceptors now :-P But is it really worth the large amount of points? Would be 36 points a model maaaan :O Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3716862 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quozzo Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Lightning claws are our equivalent weapon to falchions to cause the maximum number of wounds on a target. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3717011 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigvard Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 @Boreas - The 7th Ed FAQ already exists.... If we work off the +2A thing at the minute and working with Hammerhand on a 10 man squad - thats 41 attacks @S6, AP3, Force on the charge! That is horrendously scary! Imagine the possibilities!! Maybe drop a couple and add in some hammers and you basically have a flying meat grinder! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3717600 Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I know it exists. The thing is GW did their usual sloppy job at it. It's extraordinarily ridiculous how a "serious" company can bungle the FAQs at each and every new edition. One would believe they'd take the time to analyse existing FAQs to see what should be kept, etc.... So in the meanwhile, we're in a conundrum. If in 6th ed Rule A+Rule B were interpreted as equaling C (as the falchions) and in 7th ed we have Rule A and Rule B that are the same, but no more C interpretation, what do we do? Do we re-debate like we did when codex GK came out? Do we assume a "clean slate"? Do we assume that GW will re-integrate ruling C when they get their thumbs out of their nether regions? The way I see it it that 6th ed FAQ still exist. JJ didin't go all over the world like some Evil Santa to collect you printed sheets and erase you disk drives. It's just not the official FAQ anymore. So in the meanwhile, I prefer to assume that the rule persons at GW will rule again on those issues because we'll keep pestering them (please do pester them!) and that they will rule the same way. That's just the way I see it and I think it's a fair and easy way to proceed. And since I believe that GW will revert ot the same judgements, I won't have to magnitize all those falchion for nothing Now, I your gaming group prefer to dice off on such issues, or downright accepts such things as +2attacks with falchions, all the more power to you! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3717699 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quozzo Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 You're metaphor is wrong. There were no variables. GW blatantly said in the FAQ that they only have +1A. without that its clearly +2A. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3717752 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Master Caloth Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 In no way is it clear, cause if it were, we wouldn't be debating, we would be celebrating and discussing how the change effects our potential use of them. However, like Boreas, I feel it's very poorly written and explained (they could've put "in addition to the bonus for two CCW"), and feel we should err on the side of caution and the "weaker" ruling of the set precedence until a clearer FAQ or ruling is put out Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3717756 Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Happy for you that you and your gaming group agree to that. The exact same debate happended with the exact same argument. It was not clear then, it's still not clear now! http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/228620-nemesis-falchions-do-not-give-2-attacks/?hl=falchions Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3717758 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Coolpants Posted June 13, 2014 Author Share Posted June 13, 2014 Lmao maybe I shouldn't have re-started this whole thing again xD I just hope that GW hurry and either update the FAQ ,or preferably a new codex with a solid description/ ruling. Plus new characters and upgrade models ;-p But in the meantime we should apply how it is written. So we should exploit +2 attacks while we still can!!! :-D Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3717803 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigvard Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 @Boreas - your point sir is well made. Whilst the 6th Edition FAQ no longer exists, if you and your gaming use the previous FAQ's for clarification thats fine. Mine treats the FAQ's as current and things that are not included in them are RAW or house ruled. I think we will have to agree to disagree but I do enjoy a healthy debate. Either way I really am hoping for a new GK Codex soon with the loss of our psychic powers I am finding certain things less and less viable - Brotherhood Champion those poor fellas.... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3717826 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teetengee Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 FAQ's do change things between editions, just look at the heldrake for instance. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3717834 Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 That just further muddies the situation since one could argue that GW felt the need to change it's ruling on the Helldrake and did so, but not on the falchion. Big fan of Newton, and inertia tells me that if things weren't changed they stay the same :p Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3717869 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 They even change within an edition: TH/SS and 2LC went from any model in the Deathwing Terminator squad (codex) to any Deathwing Terminator (early Errata) back to any model (later errata, IIRC before 7th hit). It still is this way in the 7th Ed. errata document. [pet peeve]Please call the rules changes errata and not FAQ. Errata can change the rules, FAQ cannot. The latter can only clarify what is within the rules.[/pet peeve] @boreas: the removal of a rules change is a change. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3717875 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Please call the rules changes errata and not FAQ. Errata can change the rules, FAQ cannot. The latter can only clarify what is within the rules. Like when the Devs FAQes that Quicksilver couldn't make Daemonhammers I10, when by the rules it could? That wasn't an Errata nor an Amendment. But a FAQ answer. That broke the rules as they were written. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3717947 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 And if that ruling is under FAQ, it does not apply to RAW games. It is a houserule. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3717965 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elric Greywolf Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Please call the rules changes errata and not FAQ. Errata can change the rules, FAQ cannot. The latter can only clarify what is within the rules. Like when the Devs FAQes that Quicksilver couldn't make Daemonhammers I10, when by the rules it could? That wasn't an Errata nor an Amendment. But a FAQ answer. That broke the rules as they were written. Nope. The RAW on Quicksilver with Hammers was still Initiative 1. Quicksilver made a model have I10. Hammers have Unwieldy, which makes you strike at I1, regardless of your model's initiative. RAW was in agreement with FAQ. Compare that to the 6e falchion, when RAW was in disagreement with FAQ. Now, we have RAW for falchions again, with no meddling from the FAQ. +1A for two CCWs. +1A for special rule. RAW, a Termie with Falchions has 4A base. There's nothing to say otherwise. (Looking to an old ruleset is just silly.) And wow...a full unit with a banner and nothing but falchions does 48A base. It doesn't matter that we don't have AP2, with that many attacks! Unfortunately, for every good thing the removal of the 6e FAQ gave, it also took away. Like the Vindicare nerf: fine, I can allocate wounds via Deadshot, but my enemy can LOS! those wounds. He's become a vehicle killer and heavy-weapon killer. Characters just shove someone in front of his bullet. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3717996 Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 You see, on your last part, you,ll find people disagreeing. Reclusiarch Darius will defend the old vindicare ruling. RAW is not even clear, because "a falchion pair" was interpreted by GW as being a single weapon. Some models (can't remember which, but Kroot hounds, IIRC) also have mutliple CC weapons that count as one. Wording is like "Wargear: claws and fangs, count as a CC weapon". Looking at past interpretation is not silly. What's silly is GW's INability to produce clear rules and complete, up-to-date FAQs (or erratas, etc) Edit: GM Caloth is right: inability! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3718019 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Master Caloth Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Inability, mate. Lol. And no, I still hold that the Vindicare shots cannot be affected by LOS. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/292289-7th-faq-and-6th-faq/page/2/#findComment-3718391 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.