BrassScorpion - i take it you missed the neat little diagram that showed, with no room for argument, that +2A fits the rules AND also, coincidentally, the fluff?

+1A is an actual rules change hidden as a FAQ. Making the already garbage falchions even more useless.

nosferatu1001 wrote:BrassScorpion - i take it you missed the neat little diagram that showed, with no room for argument, that +2A fits the rules AND also, coincidentally, the fluff?

It fits one interpretation of the rules... but it was never going to be the way GW ruled it. If they had intended the +1 attack to be in addition to the two weapon bonus, it would have actually said so. The fact it didn't should have been enough to at least make it questionable.

Wow, you guys sure are spoiled. My orks pay 15 points for +1 attack. You're getting +1 attack, with a force weapon no less, for 5, sometimes 10 points, and complaining that it's no good. If my codex(s) had a +1 attack for 5, or even 10 points, it'd be a no-brainer.

Purifiers don't have an invul save. +1 attack for 5 points over a sword, yes please. This is a force weapon. This isn't good enough?

Except GW dont generally talk about the two CCW bonus.

In terms of *actual* rules, there is only one single interpretation. It also fits the fluff.

GW dont do consistency, and they hide rules changes as "FAQs" all the time.

Edit: Redbeard - then I suggest you actually looked at some of the maths behind this.

At +2A it was *barely* acceptable vs halberds. At +1A it is garbage compared to even swords.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Edit: Redbeard - then I suggest you actually looked at some of the maths behind this.

At +2A it was *barely* acceptable vs halberds. At +1A it is garbage compared to even swords.

I've looked at the math, and concluded that 5 points for +1 attack with a force weapon is considerably better than most codexes have options for.

By way of math comparisons;

An ork warboss pays 15 points for +1 attack, probably with a powerfist.
A chaos lord pays 10 points for +1 attack (Mark of Khorne)
Chaos Chosen pay between 3-6 points per model, depending on their squad size. They don't have power weapons, let alone force weapons. They can lose this if one model dies too.
Chaos terminators pay between 3-10 points per model, again depending on their squad size. They actually have power weapons.

You really think +1 attack for 5 points (on purifiers, who gain no benefit from the free sword) is too expensive. I'd trade it for the options in other codexes in a heartbeat.

No, did you look at the maths about relative costs within the codex? They were presented at length in the YMDC thread.

If you've noticed I've *repeatedly* referred to Falchions being jun k *compared* to the other options.

And Purifiers do get a bonus from Swords: theyre free. That is a huge bonus vs a 20% incease in model cost.

Redbeard wrote:Wow, you guys sure are spoiled. My orks pay 15 points for +1 attack. You're getting +1 attack, with a force weapon no less, for 5, sometimes 10 points, and complaining that it's no good. If my codex(s) had a +1 attack for 5, or even 10 points, it'd be a no-brainer.

Purifiers don't have an invul save. +1 attack for 5 points over a sword, yes please. This is a force weapon. This isn't good enough?

Compared to 2 points for +2I on a base 2A model with a force weapon...no. Compared to a free +1 to invul in CC, +2I, or a thunderhammer on a Terminator....no. It's not just the points cost of the falchion, but that you're also giving up an equal or better ability that costs less.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except GW dont generally talk about the two CCW bonus.

That's because they generally don't introduce other rules that stack with it...

In terms of *actual* rules, there is only one single interpretation. It also fits the fluff.

You can keep repeating it all you want... but that won't make it true.

This was hashed to death on YMDC. Yes, the +2 attack is one possible interpretation. Assuming that the +1 they're talking about is instead of or just is the two weapon bonus is an equally valid interpretation... moreso now, since we now have the FAQ that tells us which of those interpretations GW want us to play by.

It wasnt a valid assumption (pre-FAQ) as it required ignoring:

1) the rules for NFW - stating they grant an additional bonus. The 2CCW is not an "additional" bonus for being a NFW

2) The rules stating you are given a pair of force weapons, and the entirely different to the 2CCW language giving you +1Attack

and required you to make an assumption - that they forgot to include the line "this is the 2CCW bonus"

Yes, we know how GW want you to play it - it does not alter the plain, simple and unalterable *fact* that this is a rules change, not a FAQ

Nos I agree its a rules change, but then again so is the Dreadknight being a MC that moves like jump infantry when given a teleporter. PreFAQ the rules stated he was a jump infantry model... and then of course could ride in a storm raven if you so wanted.

I do believe it was and still is a poorly written rule regardless of GW's intention of +1 or +2 attacks, mainly because we had to discuss if it was +1 or +2 attacks in the first place, and even then we needed an FAQ for one side of the discussion to really have some credibility in the eyes of the other side.

Edit: and yes, 5 points IS too much for +1 attack with falchions. Consider your 15 point extra attack on your warboss. What kind of attack is it may I ask? Is it a s4 force weapon, or is it a s10 power weapon? It would seem that a s10 power weapon would cost a bit more than a s4 force weapon, and it turns out it does! 10 points more to be exact.

As for the marks you mention, its almost like you should get something else when you buy the mark of khorne on your termie models for needing to pay up to 10 points per model for 1 s4 attack... if only they also gave you something else rules wise that was really useful when you bought that extra attack for your whole squad, something extra... hehe.

The LOLing above aside though, the chaos termie champion upgrade is 10 pts and all you get is +1 attack... though like I said eariler it can be +1 s8 2d6 armor pen attack, which is worth more than just +1 s4 attack of the falchion, when you put it on a chainfist model, OR it can be 10 pts for a simple s4 powerweapon on an upgraded model. With GK, its not like you spend 5 points to get an extra daemonhammer attack, its only s4 and reg init. To get an extra daemonhammer attack the best you can do is master craft it for 5 points, which MAYBE gets you one more attack, and as my other threads have shown you shouldnt bother mastercrafting your cc weapons anyway, as its not worth 5 points.

As odd as it may sound, the falchion, IMHO, might be a better weapon for the strike squad than a halberd, even factoring in the 5 point higher cost. Doubling attacks is probably better than going at a higher initiative when you only have one attack to begin with. The halberd is a much more attractive option when you already have 2A. Although for everyone with 2A or more, the halberd is by far the superior weapon.

With that said, I only ever took the falchion to grant +1A, similar to a set of lightning claws; and it would have been better if GW had been a little more careful with their language when designing the book. Although with the way they write their books, and with the rapidity that they make changes during the design process, it does not surprise me that they end up with some poorly worded references. What was intended to work one way has its intent changed but without really hashing through the language very well. Particularly because everyone playtesting it "knows" how the change is intended to work, and so they do not look at the small changes to the language versus the intent with a fresh set of eyes.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, did you look at the maths about relative costs within the codex?

Sure. And if you cannot see the value in having a few extra attacks for a minimal cost, you're still missing the point. A thunderhammer is useful, but how many of those do you want in the unit? +2I is sometimes useful. There are a large number of armies against which +2I does nothing for you. You're already swinging before orks, tau, guard, necrons, and half of the nids. +2 I doesn't avoid genestealer, wych or daemonette attacks. It's good against other marines. But it's a situational upgrade at best. +2I is often points spent for no gain. A Warrding stave is only of use against power weapon-wielding opponents. Yeah, I think it's worth including, but it's going to be dead points against several armies. +1A is always good. +1A is never wasted.

Five points for a force-weapon attack is a steal on units that can take it at that price.

Redbeard wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote: No, did you look at the maths about relative costs within the codex?

Sure. And if you cannot see the value in having a few extra attacks for a minimal cost, you're still missing the point. A thunderhammer is useful, but how many of those do you want in the unit? +2I is sometimes useful. There are a large number of armies against which +2I does nothing for you. You're already swinging before orks, tau, guard, necrons, and half of the nids. +2 I doesn't avoid genestealer, wych or daemonette attacks. It's good against other marines. But it's a situational upgrade at best. +2I is often points spent for no gain. A Warrding stave is only of use against power weapon-wielding opponents. Yeah, I think it's worth including, but it's going to be dead points against several armies. +1A is always good. +1A is never wasted.

Five points for a force-weapon attack is a steal on units that can take it at that price.

Yes, there are some thing that +1A is certainly better on, but in most instances, when you already have 2 or more attacks, the extra attack is not as important as being able to go first (or simultaneously with some of the faster units you mentioned). Plus, the halberd is cheaper.

Eldanar wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote: No, did you look at the maths about relative costs within the codex?

Sure. And if you cannot see the value in having a few extra attacks for a minimal cost, you're still missing the point. A thunderhammer is useful, but how many of those do you want in the unit? +2I is sometimes useful. There are a large number of armies against which +2I does nothing for you. You're already swinging before orks, tau, guard, necrons, and half of the nids. +2 I doesn't avoid genestealer, wych or daemonette attacks. It's good against other marines. But it's a situational upgrade at best. +2I is often points spent for no gain. A Warrding stave is only of use against power weapon-wielding opponents. Yeah, I think it's worth including, but it's going to be dead points against several armies. +1A is always good. +1A is never wasted.

Five points for a force-weapon attack is a steal on units that can take it at that price.

Yes, there are some thing that +1A is certainly better on, but in most instances, when you already have 2 or more attacks, the extra attack is not as important as being able to go first (or simultaneously with some of the faster units you mentioned). Plus, the halberd is cheaper.

Agreed. I'd like to know that I'm almost -always- going to go first, rather than hoping I'm going to get to use those extra attacks. I'm going first against Death Company, against Berzerkers with FC, against most Slaanesh-marked Chaos, against most Eldar and Dark Eldar and I'm only going at the same time as some of the faster units in the game (Daemons have some of the fastest units, and they all go at I1 anyway because of Psyk-Out Grenades). Now, if I'm going at I4 against the Death Company, there's a good chance that half of my unit is going to die (at least, maybe all depending on how they're kitted out), and I'll have to have the Falchions to recover my attacks. For me, personally, I'd much rather have the halberds and get those power weapon attacks in first, reducing the amount of incoming attacks and therefore, not needing more attacks to recover from being decimated.

No, I'm *really* not missing the point.

SItuationally that I6 will save your hide. You now go before FC blood angel terminators with LCs, for example.

And you havent had to pay 5 points per model to do it.

On average, in an all comers list, I6 will benefit you more often than a single extra S4 power weapon attack. Simply being able to reduce the number of incoming attacks is gold dust, and if you cannot see that you're missing a trick and a half.

Oh, and it *really* helps against stealers. That many more attacks to hit them - striking at the same i instead of after. If you cannot see the value in that then not much we can do to convince you otherwise.

I'm not missing that. I'm saying that the Falchions aren't a waste, even at that point cost. I believe the ideal loadout for a unit mixes some of each weapon. There are some things you want the extra attacks against, some you want the extra I, some you want the thunderhammer, and some you want the 2+ save for.

It's unlikely that the entire squad would be wiped at I5 or faster, especially if you have some halberds in there. So you lose the halberds from faster attacks, and the extra falchion attacks help you win the combat. Everything has a place.

But that occurent does not justify the 250% extra cost compared to a halberd (Purifiers) or 12.5% raise in model cost (termies)

That is why they are garbage.

We're going to have to disagree. I think 5 points for a force weapon attack is a steal, regardless of the cost of the model.

Obliterators are daemons? What? They're victims/hosts of a mysterious techno-organic virus that warps them into hulking gun totes with 2+ armor saves. How is that a daemon? Is that a hint that they'll be changing up the fluff next CSM codex?

Maybe. I am expecting Ward to get CSM, just because of that comment about following through on some GK fluff on a future project.

Hopefully, Mortarion will be so ticked someone carved a name in his heart while having a kip he'll be off in pursuit leading a crusade into the Imperium.

I still think a falchion has a place in the army, per my comments above. I think it is a good choice for any model with only 1 base attack. But for anything with 2 or more attacks, the halberd is better.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I am expecting Ward to get CSM

Great. Greater Daemons with Daemonic Daemonfists of Daemonhood.

Did Ward write the Grey Knights codex?

Redbeard wrote:We're going to have to disagree. I think 5 points for a force weapon attack is a steal, regardless of the cost of the model.

I agree, I tend to view the hammer and halberd as being significantly under-costed in comparison to wargear available in other codices.

Redbeard wrote:We're going to have to disagree. I think 5 points for a force weapon attack is a steal, regardless of the cost of the model.

So work it out yourself then

Put 5 GKT with falchions against 5 lightning claw terminators, neither side gets the charge, and to help out the GK even pass their hamerhand check.

The LCs still win, despite costing less.

I'm still in shock after seeing pulse weapons come under the plasma siphon's rules. I know, if they're within 12" they're screwed anyway, but now on one of the few occasions where they can double tap they can't hit to save their lives? Literally???

TrollPie wrote:I'm still in shock after seeing pulse weapons come under the plasma siphon's rules. I know, if they're within 12" they're screwed anyway, but now on one of the few occasions where they can double tap they can't hit to save their lives? Literally???

I'm not seeing how it's a problem personally.

The only two times you really should be double tapping with the Fire Warriors are if you are in a gunline and he's about to assault you, or if you are going Mech.

If he's going to assault your FW gunline, he's probably bringing Terminators/Paladins with him. If he is, your Pulse Rifles weren't going to do much anyway and at least this way you can be certain that this particular group of FW will disappear quickly on his assault phase, giving you a chance to have your suits snipe off some more TEQs while keeping more than 12" away from the Inquisitor during your next turn.

If you are going Mech, you have the ability to maneuver so that when you do disembark to double-tap, you can do it on the far side of the clump from where the Inquistor is, or far enough out so that the unit is in range but the Inquisitor is outside of 12".

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Redbeard wrote:We're going to have to disagree. I think 5 points for a force weapon attack is a steal, regardless of the cost of the model.

So work it out yourself then

Put 5 GKT with falchions against 5 lightning claw terminators, neither side gets the charge, and to help out the GK even pass their hamerhand check.

The LCs still win, despite costing less.

I haven't faced a lightning claw terminator in a competitive game in over two years. For that matter, I haven't faced a unit of them in any game in that time, and maybe two in a five-man assault unit, with the other guys carrying shields... How about a comparison with something you might actually face, I dunno, how about storm shield terminators?


Edit: BTW: your halberd guys don't fare much better against said LC terminators. Work it out yourself, and you'll see they drop all of two terminators, and then the remaining terminators win the combat and leave you maybe 1-2 guys for the next round.

Ok this what I do with my Purifier Squads they are given falchions and a Librarian with the powers Qucksilver and Might of Titan. With this combo you are going at I 10 and S 6 with 20 Force Weapons on the attack or 15 Force Weapons. Thats why I think Falchions rock.

But that FAQ is crazy good for the Grey Knights.

If Im doing that wrong with my Purifiers and Librarian please tell me.

Redbeard wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Redbeard wrote:We're going to have to disagree. I think 5 points for a force weapon attack is a steal, regardless of the cost of the model.

So work it out yourself then

Put 5 GKT with falchions against 5 lightning claw terminators, neither side gets the charge, and to help out the GK even pass their hamerhand check.

The LCs still win, despite costing less.

I haven't faced a lightning claw terminator in a competitive game in over two years. For that matter, I haven't faced a unit of them in any game in that time, and maybe two in a five-man assault unit, with the other guys carrying shields... How about a comparison with something you might actually face, I dunno, how about storm shield terminators?

Good point, comparing them to the better option will likely completely undermine his point that Falchions giving one attack for +5 points on terminators is about as horrible a choice you can make with them. However, you will likely be disappointed by the fact that he has already done this math in the YMDC thread. It doesn't really matter how much other codices pay for +1 attack, for GK it is a foolish choice compared to any other option that they are presented. It really is funny how so few people seem to understand the opportunity cost part of using Nemesis Force Falchions, even when they have an example of it in the codex.

Redbeard wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Redbeard wrote:We're going to have to disagree. I think 5 points for a force weapon attack is a steal, regardless of the cost of the model.

So work it out yourself then

Put 5 GKT with falchions against 5 lightning claw terminators, neither side gets the charge, and to help out the GK even pass their hamerhand check.

The LCs still win, despite costing less.

I haven't faced a lightning claw terminator in a competitive game in over two years. For that matter, I haven't faced a unit of them in any game in that time, and maybe two in a five-man assault unit, with the other guys carrying shields... How about a comparison with something you might actually face, I dunno, how about storm shield terminators?

Edit: BTW: your halberd guys don't fare much better against said LC terminators. Work it out yourself, and you'll see they drop all of two terminators, and then the remaining terminators win the combat and leave you maybe 1-2 guys for the next round.

Terminators are not what break halberds, rather, it is purifiers that reap the most benefit to being kitted this way (with paladins a very close second). To be honest, GK terminators are not that great, but they are better than strike squad GK's.

But there are other considerations as well, because the 5 GK terminators are a Troop, whereas most assault terminators are Elites (with some notable exceptions). Also, basic NFW-armed GKT's are going to strike before most SS-equiped terminators, and would therefore be a much better choice because the initiative boost of the halberd is irrelevant. But that is one specific exception where the halberd is not optimal.

The gold standard to consider halberds versus are the basic MEQ power-armored model. There will always be outlier types of units and/or armies that are much more effective than halberd-armed GKT's; but they are generally exceptions rather than the norm. The idea here is what is the best optimal build for an all-comers type of list? For most units in the GK army, and against most opponents, it is halberds.

Redbeard wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Redbeard wrote:We're going to have to disagree. I think 5 points for a force weapon attack is a steal, regardless of the cost of the model.

So work it out yourself then

Put 5 GKT with falchions against 5 lightning claw terminators, neither side gets the charge, and to help out the GK even pass their hamerhand check.

The LCs still win, despite costing less.

I haven't faced a lightning claw terminator in a competitive game in over two years. For that matter, I haven't faced a unit of them in any game in that time, and maybe two in a five-man assault unit, with the other guys carrying shields... How about a comparison with something you might actually face, I dunno, how about storm shield terminators?


Edit: BTW: your halberd guys don't fare much better against said LC terminators. Work it out yourself, and you'll see they drop all of two terminators, and then the remaining terminators win the combat and leave you maybe 1-2 guys for the next round.

To be fair, that just means you don't get to face off against many Blood Angel or Black Templar players. In my area, Lightning Claw terminators are seen often in those armies because of access to furious charge and various ways to get re-roll to hit.

Lets run the math shall we? Let's also be realistic, I am going to run typical squads versus typical squad and assume that the Grey Knight players is getting charged.

5 Purifiers w/ 3 Halberds, 2 Psycannons versus 30 shoota boys = Cleansing Flame equals 12.5 die, Halberds go and kill about 1.5. 15 Orks attack at the same time as the Psycannons. Orks kill 2.4, Psycannons kill about 1, Power Claw kills roughly 2 Purifier = Combat Resolution is Purifiers scored 15 to the Orks 4, Orks take 11 fearless saves. (Odds favor one purifier living, but not by much.)

5 Purifiers w/ 3 Falcions, 2 Psycannons versus 30 shoota boys = Cleansing Flame equals 12.5 die, 17 Orks attack and kill 2.8 Purifiers, Grey Knights kill 2.25, Psycannons kill 1, Power Claw kills roughly 2 Purifier = Combat Resolution is Purifiers scored 16 to the Orks potential 5, Orks likely wiped the squad. (2.8 + 2 from Powerclaw, means, to me anyways, strong probability to wipe the squad)

5 Purifiers w/ 3 Halberds, 2 Psycannons versus Black Templar Assault Terminator Sqaud (3 Lightniong Claws, 2 TH/SS, Preferred Enemy/Furious Charge) = Purifiers cast Hammerhand, Halberds go first kill roughly one (assuming allocation to a SS), Lightning Claws kill the Squad. Terminators have maybe one less model.

5 Purifiers w/ 3 Falcions, 2 Psycannons versus Black Templar Assault Terminator Sqaud (3 Lightniong Claws, 2 TH/SS, Preferred Enemy/Furious Charge) = Purifiers cast Hammerhand, Lightning Claws wipe the squad.

The initiative boast of a Halberd is huge because it decreased the likelyhood of the purifiers getting wiped in the first combat, and gave the grey knight player a chance to cause damage before certain death against the Black Templar player. In most circumstances the Halberd will be preferred, mathmatically speaking. Add to the fact that it is cheaper, and you have a very strong argument as to why most GK players will consider the Falcion an inferior choice.

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) the rules for NFW - stating they grant an additional bonus. The 2CCW is not an "additional" bonus for being a NFW

I don't see the word 'additional' anywhere in the Falchion entry.

and required you to make an assumption - that they forgot to include the line "this is the 2CCW bonus"

That was my point, yes. But it was a safe assumption, given that it didn't state that the +1 for wielding the Falchions was in addition to anything else.

Yes, we know how GW want you to play it - it does not alter the plain, simple and unalterable *fact* that this is a rules change, not a FAQ

And if it makes ou feel better to keep insisting that, go for your life. But ultimately it makes no difference now.

Mahu wrote:
To be fair, that just means you don't get to face off against many Blood Angel or Black Templar players. In my area, Lightning Claw terminators are seen often in those armies because of access to furious charge and various ways to get re-roll to hit.

Lets run the math shall we? Let's also be realistic, I am going to run typical squads versus typical squad and assume that the Grey Knight players is getting charged.

5 Purifiers w/ 3 Halberds, 2 Psycannons versus 30 shoota boys = Cleansing Flame equals 12.5 die, Halberds go and kill about 1.5. 15 Orks attack at the same time as the Psycannons. Orks kill 2.4, Psycannons kill about 1, Power Claw kills roughly 2 Purifier = Combat Resolution is Purifiers scored 15 to the Orks 4, Orks take 11 fearless saves. (Odds favor one purifier living, but not by much.)

5 Purifiers w/ 3 Falcions, 2 Psycannons versus 30 shoota boys = Cleansing Flame equals 12.5 die, 17 Orks attack and kill 2.8 Purifiers, Grey Knights kill 2.25, Psycannons kill 1, Power Claw kills roughly 2 Purifier = Combat Resolution is Purifiers scored 16 to the Orks potential 5, Orks likely wiped the squad. (2.8 + 2 from Powerclaw, means, to me anyways, strong probability to wipe the squad)

Okay, so first, you have the orks initiative wrong. Orks are base I2, I3 on the charge. So, the falchions also swing before the orks, and with more attacks than the halberds. I'll allow you to redo that math. And this is also a really bad example, because 30 shoota boyz will never charge 5 purifiers. They'll shoot them. Ork players aren't going to charge into Cleansing Flames when they've got 60 shootas to fire.

5 Purifiers w/ 3 Halberds, 2 Psycannons versus Black Templar Assault Terminator Sqaud (3 Lightniong Claws, 2 TH/SS, Preferred Enemy/Furious Charge) = Purifiers cast Hammerhand, Halberds go first kill roughly one (assuming allocation to a SS), Lightning Claws kill the Squad. Terminators have maybe one less model.

5 Purifiers w/ 3 Falcions, 2 Psycannons versus Black Templar Assault Terminator Sqaud (3 Lightniong Claws, 2 TH/SS, Preferred Enemy/Furious Charge) = Purifiers cast Hammerhand, Lightning Claws wipe the squad.

The initiative boast of a Halberd is huge because it decreased the likelyhood of the purifiers getting wiped in the first combat, and gave the grey knight player a chance to cause damage before certain death against the Black Templar player. In most circumstances the Halberd will be preferred, mathmatically speaking. Add to the fact that it is cheaper, and you have a very strong argument as to why most GK players will consider the Falcion an inferior choice.

So your second example is against a unit that is going to wipe your squad anyway, and the halberds are better because you stand to kill one terminator instead of zero. Yay.

...

Again, I'm not trying to claim that falchions are always the best loadout, but neither are halberds. There are many units in the game where you'd rather than +1A than +2I. There are also units where you want the initiative. Personally, I think mixing the two is better. Your halberds swing first, but fewer. Then you allocate wounds to them first, then your falchions go and try to push the wounds to win you the combat. Halberds allow you to maximize the damage you deal to genestealers, but falchions are the better option if those stealers have to fight you in cover, right?

It does say additional in the descrption of Nemesis Force Weapons as a whole though. It states that each Nemesis Force Weapon is a Force Weapon in addition to a bonus:
Nemesis Force Sword give a better invulnerable save;
Nemesis Halberd gives +2 Initiative;
Nemesis Daemonhammer is a Thunderhammer;
Nemesis Warding Staff gives you a 2++ in CC;
Nemesis Doomfist is a DCCW;
Nemesis Greatsword re-rolls Hits, Wounds & AP rolls;
...but for the "bonus" of the Falchions, it just restates a rule it has never restated in any other codex or in another section of the same codex (as I pointed out in the YMDC thread, Death Cult Assassins don't have a blurb about getting +1 attack, because they don't need it, Neither do these) and doesn't even clarify that is what its doing?

You never know, the wording for the Falchions might be because of changes for 6th. Your example of the Death Cult is interesting, as they have 2 power weapons and not 1 PW and 1 CCW, which is all they would need under current rules for an extra attack. This would not be the first time GW has made subtle changes well before a version change that make more sense after the change. The fact that the DK has Doomfists and not some special to it alone Nemesis Weapon might make sense/be useful beyond being Nemesis Weapons in 6th.

Magister187 wrote:...but for the "bonus" of the Falchions, it just restates a rule it has never restated in any other codex or in another section of the same codex (as I pointed out in the YMDC thread, Death Cult Assassins don't have a blurb about getting +1 attack, because they don't need it, Neither do these) and doesn't even clarify that is what its doing?

There's never been any need to state it before, that I can recall.
And they have clarified it... That's the point of the FAQ, to clarify issues that should have been written better in the first place.

insaniak wrote:

Magister187 wrote:...but for the "bonus" of the Falchions, it just restates a rule it has never restated in any other codex or in another section of the same codex (as I pointed out in the YMDC thread, Death Cult Assassins don't have a blurb about getting +1 attack, because they don't need it, Neither do these) and doesn't even clarify that is what its doing?

There's never been any need to state it before, that I can recall.
And they have clarified it... That's the point of the FAQ, to clarify issues that should have been written better in the first place.

There was no need to state it here either, it was completely inconsistent, which doesn't really surprise me. Putting a BRB rule in a codex makes no sense at all, which is essentially what that is doing.

The point I'm trying to make is that the argument for +2 attacks WAS stronger until this faq clarified it. People want to paint it like people made this huge leap to +2 attacks, when the reality was it was a far more consistent reading of GW rules, prior to the faq obviously. I am glad they faq'd it, because like many things in this codex it was horribly worded.

Sev wrote:

Nagashek wrote:Actually Kroot weapons are powder based weaons that have pulse charges in them. They too are pulse weapons. Nothing armed by any Troops Choice in the Tau Codex can by used against that piece of wargear. Luckily, 35 pts negating 1000 pts worth of an army couldn't be in any fashion broken. Needed, though, given how much Tau armies have been dominating the tourney scene for the last 10 years

Please tell me how the hell you are going to fit 1000 pts of shooting tau models within 12"? If you're within 12" you're going to get assaulted and very very deaded by Grey Knights the next turn with the exception being JSJ. Just means you can't rapid fire them. I'm not saying that it doesn't suck for Tau but your crying the sky is falling because you are overlooking the fact that it only applies to models that are within 12" of one model out of the entire Grey Knight army. If a Tau player is deliberately fighting within 12" of the only model/unit in the GK army that negates most of his weaponry then he is doing it wrong.

Cuz... I.... thought the plas syphon was the Ring of Hotek, and it wasn't. Excuse me whilst I go punch my local GK player.

puma713 wrote:

Agreed. I'd like to know that I'm almost -always- going to go first, rather than hoping I'm going to get to use those extra attacks. I'm going first against Death Company, against Berzerkers with FC, against most Slaanesh-marked Chaos, against most Eldar and Dark Eldar and I'm only going at the same time as some of the faster units in the game (Daemons have some of the fastest units, and they all go at I1 anyway because of Psyk-Out Grenades). Now, if I'm going at I4 against the Death Company, there's a good chance that half of my unit is going to die (at least, maybe all depending on how they're kitted out), and I'll have to have the Falchions to recover my attacks. For me, personally, I'd much rather have the halberds and get those power weapon attacks in first, reducing the amount of incoming attacks and therefore, not needing more attacks to recover from being decimated.

I don't know what flavour of Dark Eldar you're fighting, but my Dark Eldar usually hit at I6 or I7 in Melee. I don't assault with my Kabalites and I don't think anyone else does, and that's waht you're implying there.

Alkasyn wrote:

puma713 wrote:

I'm only going at the same time as some of the faster units in the game

I don't know what flavour of Dark Eldar you're fighting, but my Dark Eldar usually hit at I6 or I7 in Melee. I don't assault with my Kabalites and I don't think anyone else does, and that's waht you're implying there.

I think he is implying that he goes at the same time as your I6 guys and get first hits against all of your kabalite and coven troops.

I said this before but no one said if I was right or wrong so here its is again.....

Ok this what I do with my Purifier Squads they are given falchions and a Librarian with the powers Qucksilver and Might of Titan. With this combo you are going at I 10 and S 6 with 20 Force Weapons on the attack or 15 Force Weapons. Thats why I think Falchions rock.

But that FAQ is crazy good for the Grey Knights.

If Im doing that wrong with my Purifiers and Librarian please tell me.

Now this codex is not how good one thing is but how great these 2 or more things work together. But then again that ever good codex.

army310 wrote:I said this before but no one said if I was right or wrong so here its is again.....

Ok this what I do with my Purifier Squads they are given falchions and a Librarian with the powers Qucksilver and Might of Titan. With this combo you are going at I 10 and S 6 with 20 Force Weapons on the attack or 15 Force Weapons. Thats why I think Falchions rock.

But that FAQ is crazy good for the Grey Knights.

If Im doing that wrong with my Purifiers and Librarian please tell me.

Now this codex is not how good one thing is but how great these 2 or more things work together. But then again that ever good codex.

Yea, there's nothing wrong with that, you can cast hammerhand, quicksilver, and might of titan giving you +2 str/initiative 10 and then 5 guys who all have falchions would net 20 attacks.

Mind you, this is an ideal situation where your 5 guys get to the target alive, and you've dedicated a nearly 200 point hq, and a 145 point squad to do it. Also, it probably doesn't have bearing on the "falchion vs halberd" debate, which is centered on whether it's better to swing first, or swing one more time.

If you've got one squad and you plan on attaching a libby with quicksilver to it, then yes, halberds are 100% pointless and falchions are the way to be.

targetawg wrote:
Mind you, this is an ideal situation where your 5 guys get to the target alive, and you've dedicated a nearly 200 point hq, and a 145 point squad to do it. Also, it probably doesn't have bearing on the "falchion vs halberd" debate, which is centered on whether it's better to swing first, or swing one more time.

Which is one of the reasons I don't use Quicksilver. I hate relying on a psychic power, especially in the age of Eldar, Psychic Hoods, Shadows in the Warp and other Grey Knights. If you run up against another squad of GK and your Quicksilver doesn't go off or it gets blocked and they have halberds, your falchions aren't going to do much for you.

puma713 wrote:

targetawg wrote:
Mind you, this is an ideal situation where your 5 guys get to the target alive, and you've dedicated a nearly 200 point hq, and a 145 point squad to do it. Also, it probably doesn't have bearing on the "falchion vs halberd" debate, which is centered on whether it's better to swing first, or swing one more time.

Which is one of the reasons I don't use Quicksilver. I hate relying on a psychic power, especially in the age of Eldar, Psychic Hoods, Shadows in the Warp and other Grey Knights. If you run up against another squad of GK and your Quicksilver doesn't go off or it gets blocked and they have halberds, your falchions aren't going to do much for you.

True, but thats in one matchup, typically, I4 is just fine, and the falchions aren't an irrelevant option imo.

But, this is coming from someone who doesn't use GK's in general anymore. I hate relying on psychic powers in general, and I found I did with GK's. Either warpquake popping my justicars on turn 1, or needing hammerhand and failing, or charging a unit of boyz with purifiers and having cleansing flame fail, etc.

I'm gonna stick with the underpriced fortitude..you folks can have your silly assault phase

Insaniak - so youre seriously saying assuming that the additional bonus, explicitly stated in the NFW entry, for Falchions is....the same, standard bonus as found in the BRB?

And that was a *safe* assumption?

AS I pointyed out: if you simply read the actual rules, you get +2A. You have to assume, which is never a safe position in a rules debate,something in order to get +1A

It is a blatant rules change, and arguably goes against fluff as well.

Why not go for the best of both worlds, DCA. 3 attacks and I6 at half the cost

I honestly don't see the real fuss about falchions, they're not fantastic and you'd only ever see them in a paladin squad for the purpose of wound allocation. The way I see it: You still keep your ranged weapon and you're paying as much for +1A as a chaos terminator is for a champion. I never saw the +2A from falchions, they were just another NFW option. They were mentioned as a 'pair' in both the weapon upgrade and weapon entry in the GK codex if I can recall correctly, however I think +1A was a reasonable assumption.

Falchions aren't the most popular weapons and now more than ever. They're not worth it on a purifier or a terminator simply because they're not the best allocation of points. If you have 10pts spare in the purifier squad: take a psycannon, or a daemonhammer and mastercraft it. They're simply not efficient weapons. Sure you can argue quicksilver but that's only on one unit with a 1/12 chance of failing to gain that ability and a 1/18 chance of wounding your own librarian. In addition, you throw runes of warding, a psychic hood or any other nullifying piece of wargear into the mix and suddenly it breaks down. Take a halberd and be over with it: no psychic powers involved and cheaper.

I love the look of the falchions and think they look awesome on terminators and I've built a couple simply because they look awesome but they're not practical.

EDIT: Oh and on terminators, that 25pts you save by taking halberds on a regular squad of 5 and not falchion can get you a psycannon or psybolt ammo in addition to being able to mastercraft you justicar's weapon. In paladins that gets you master crafting for the squad.

A word from the other side of the fence, here.

Maybe it's just from coming from a Tyranids, Tomb Kings and Night Goblins background - all three armies relying on synergy to get the best out of seemingly overcosted units - but it strikes me that the 'worth it' benchmark for a piece of wargear really can't be accurately determined by abstract 'one-off pit fight' mathhammer.

In a wider army, I can totally see the utility of throwing an extra attack on a fairly modest jump infantry unit that's very adept at using cover to zero in on poorly-protected support infantry.

When I'm trying to eat your Purifiers and Terminators, I'm going to be throwing armfuls of I6 single-wound models with FNP at you; sometimes they'll be Rending. They'll more than likely be S4 and Poisoned, so 75% of hits will wound.

With Genestealers re-rolling to wound, there's a good chance you'll have to put a Rending wound on everybody in the squad. Trading 5pts and a point of Invulnerability means that your Falchion Terminators are 33% more likely to die before striking - but if they do survive, they'll probably inflict 25%-33% (depending on Hammerhand getting through SitW) more wounds on me.

In the case of Gaunt tide, you're going to be rolling a lot of 2+ saves. You will not be able to give your Falchion guys a much better chance of surviving to strike than the rest of the squad, because everybody's going to be rolling multiple saves. And of course, being Gaunts, the blob will make you roll a lot of 2+ saves when it shoots before charging. 20 Fleshborers = 10 hits = 5 saves; your Falchion guy is as likely to die as anyone else.

If I do see a Falchion-heavy unit, I'll be happy; I'll be looking at a unit that will politely wait its turn to strike when I charge, and paid for the privilege. Unless it's got teleporters, in which case I'll have to draw units away from the front to bubble-wrap my Tyrannofexes.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - so youre seriously saying assuming that the additional bonus, explicitly stated in the NFW entry, for Falchions is....the same, standard bonus as found in the BRB?

Since, again, it's not listed as an 'additional' bonus, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Again, I understand the other interpretation. I simply disagree that it's the only one... and yes, to anyone more than passingly familiar with the trend of GW's rules writing over the years, guessing that they would rule against the +2 should have been every bit as safe a bet as guessing that GK Dreadnoughts would score and that Daemons would count as Daemons.

Then reread the NFW entry: it states each weapon grants a bonus to the wielder. The "bonus" for Falchions is the +1 attack....that they apparently would get anyway, simply for having the pair of FW they have.
And the point was that, out of the two intepretations:

1 required no assumptions
1 required a LARGE assumption: that GW is restating the 2CCW bonus, despite never doing so in any codex that I can think of
To get +1 requires an actual, real, CHANGE to the rules as they are written.

It doesn't strike me as a large assumption that GW released a Codex without bothering to get a fresh set of eyes with a strong mind for English and cross-referencing to look through the rules and say 'hang on, this is a bit vague'.

In fact, I'd say it fits bang in to their established modus operandi.

Magister187 wrote:

Alkasyn wrote:

puma713 wrote:

I'm only going at the same time as some of the faster units in the game

I don't know what flavour of Dark Eldar you're fighting, but my Dark Eldar usually hit at I6 or I7 in Melee. I don't assault with my Kabalites and I don't think anyone else does, and that's waht you're implying there.

I think he is implying that he goes at the same time as your I6 guys and get first hits against all of your kabalite and coven troops.

Aye, I understood as much, but if you assault Kabalite Warriors theyre dead anyway. No use in basing your argument about superiority of Halberds on that. Its a lil different with the Coven, true.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And the point was that, out of the two intepretations:

...GW chose one, and thus arguing over whether or not it was RAW before the FAQ was published is pretty pointless.

In the Falchion entry there is no reference to them being 2 close combat weapons. They count as a single weapon unlike mirrorswords for a howling banshee exarch which specifies in the weapon entry that the set of weapons counts as having an extra hand weapon. The entry is not split into two seperate 'Nemesis Force Falchions' dot points in their wargear. If the entry split them into two seperate weapons, they would gain the bonus for having two of the same special weapons, however they function only as a pair, you can't just buy one Nemesis Force Falchion then buy the other.

They are a weapon set which does not specify they grant an additional attack, and it is a massive assumption they do count as 2 of the same CCW weapon. My basis for this is also Shrike. His Raven Talons in his entry state he has a pair of lightning claws. Yes there is no specification that he gains an extra attack from this, however single lightning claws have an entry, and as such you can have two of them. With falchions they are a weapon set which cannot be bought seperately or have an entry in the BRB. Essentially to make Nemesis Force Falchions work, you need 2 of them and they act as a two-handed weapon.

odd question considering i havnt seen ahriman in any armies lately (although my friend adores him), how does his whole staff thing "...even allows him to use several powers that count as firing a weapon in the Shooting phase..." Several conventionally means 3 or 4, and as there are only 2 psychic shooting powers he has access to, it would seem as if this rule implies Ahriman can fire off 2-3 bolts of tzeentch in one turn. Maybe this is a stretch (and i'm not familiar with the chaos faq) so maybe someone cud clarify

Ehsteve - wrong, wrong and a bit more "wrong"

Seriously, its not worth time debating this: you buy a PAIR of Falchions. States so directly in the codex entry for Falchions. Each falchion is a NFW -> PW -> Special CCW -> single handed CCW unless otherwise stated.

Please, before responding - actuallly look up the YMDC thread which proves you conclusively wrong.

Insaniak - no, I am stating that they have changed the rules with a FAQ, something that is supposed to require an errata. In that they have codified an assumption unsupportable in the actual rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - no, I am stating that they have changed the rules with a FAQ, something that is supposed to require an errata.

Is it really worth complaining about every time they do that, though? Or, after 15 years or so of them doing that can we all just try to accept that it's what they do?

Particularly when not everyone agrees that it's an actual change in the first place...

The "Not agreeing" side have no rules basis for that disagreement. None at all. You've said it yourself - you were making an assumption. The actual rules side werent making any assumptions at all.

They have an assumption thatr GW, contrary to normal practice, decided to talk about hte 2CCW bonus. Something that is never normally mentioned.

And, secondly, they need to assume that the standard 2CCW bonus is, in fact, the SPECIAL bonus conferred by being a NFW.

Two unsafe assumptions that require a rules change? Errata in all but name

nosferatu1001 wrote:The "Not agreeing" side have no rules basis for that disagreement. None at all. You've said it yourself - you were making an assumption. The actual rules side werent making any assumptions at all.

...other than the assumption that the +1 attack mentioned in the Falchions entry was an additional bonus on top of the +1 for having two weapons, rathe rthan just being that bonus.

And the assumption that the slightly vaguely written rule should be taken as written (or rather, as some people chose to interpret it), rather than allowing for the possibility that it's just not written as clearly as it should have been.

But no, other than those two, no assumptions at all.

Its not an assumption, Insaniak: As I repeatedly post, and you repeatedly ignore, the RULES for NFW state each type grants you an additional bonus.

Its not an assumption when the rules tell you it is an ADDITIONAL bonus.

So no, no assumptions at all.

Blatant rule change, disguised as FAQ.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Its not an assumption, Insaniak: As I repeatedly post, and you repeatedly ignore, the RULES for NFW state each type grants you an additional bonus.

Yes, I keep 'ignoring' it because it's not what the rules actually say at all, and because I disagree with your interpretation of just what it means. I thought we already covered that.

Once again, this is a non-issue. It quite simply doesn't matter if it's a rules change, or a clarification of some sloppy writing. It doesn't matter if your interpretation is the only possible one, handed down from the mountain on stone tablets or if there are multiple ways of reading the rule in question. It doesn't matter if people on the other side of the planet disagree with your take on the rules, or disagree that your interpretation is the only possible one to make.

GW have made a ruling, so now we know how they think it should be played. But by all means continue to be horrified that others can hold to an opinion based on reasoning with which you disagree if it helps you sleep at night.

Aren't we done with this?

This isn't a question of who was "wrong" and who was "right" (as there is no such thing when it comes to GWs FAQs).

Isn't this a simple matter of accepting that this is the ruling ("right" or "wrong") and simply moving on from there?

One would hope so...

Steelmage99 wrote:
Isn't this a simple matter of accepting that this is the ruling ("right" or "wrong") and simply moving on from there?

Oh, you poor, naive poster...

If only it were EVER that simple.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Lash whips work against halberds! VICTORY FOR THE NIDS!

I'm glad for some of the clarifications, namely the Henchmen one and Falchions. However given how they ruled the Scoring Dreadnought, I guess I have a few apologies to make.

Surtur wrote:HAHAHAHAHAHA! Lash whips work against halberds! VICTORY FOR THE NIDS!

The consistency of the ruling is hilarious.

So.

Lash whips all around!

Surtur wrote:HAHAHAHAHAHA! Lash whips work against halberds! VICTORY FOR THE NIDS!

But don't work against rough rider spears

... wat?

One is a modifier, the other is a set value. Bearing in mind furioius charge doesnt help rough riders either.