After reading an existing thread, this problem arose:

Nemesis Falchions supposed ability is granting 1+ attack to users. But they are written as a "Pair" meaning two identical weapons...meaning an additional attack added on top of their ability of adding 1 attack.

My own arguement (I am neither for or against, just confused) is that it simply states "A wielder of nemesis falchions has +1 attacks", as if it speaks of the fact that they are a pair, therefore the attack is gained from that. It does not say "A wielder of nemesis falchions is granted an extra attack" It simply states they do, which is true because of the pair of identical weapons rule found on page 37 and 42 of the BRB.

(For those of you who cry "WE DONT HAVE THE CODEX!!!1!", all the information you need is in the picture below)

My guess is it was intended that a model with 1 attack base would have 2 attacks with a pair of falchions. But I do hope in earnest that I am wrong. If they indeed were intended to grant 2 attacks, they are actually worth their points. (Food for thought: Purifiers with falch's get 5 attacks on the charge. 2 Base, 1 for falch, 1 for 2 identical weps, 1 for charge. Who needs cleansing flame when you have already wiped the enemy ? )

None the less, TL;DR: Do Falchions grant 1+ attack as an ability and also give an extra for being a pair?

As I see it, yes they do grant +2 in RAW however I expect this to be FAQ'd shortly.

Psy.

ignoring the fluff (because you do) I say it does exactly what it says, it grants the wielder +1 attack, not +2, nothing there would indicate 2 extra attacks at all, I don't see where you could be reading into that

Unfortunately Stella, fluff has very little say so in the rules. Although I agree that RAI should +1 attacks, RAW they give +2.

I expect this to be corrected in the next FAQ.

Psy.

thats why I ignored the fluff, but raw I don't see how this gives +2 attacks, its a pair of weapons that gives +1 attack, thats what a pair of weapons does anyway, nothing there is saying to me +2

If a model wields two Close Combat Weapons it gains an extra attack.

Jaon is asking if they get a +1 attack on top of the falchions +1 for being a pair, which unless specifically stated in the codex, they would.

Psy.

What I am saying stella is (example):

Halberd = gives 2+ ini
Sword = gives 1+ inv save
Falchions = gives 1+ attack


but falchions are also a pair...so dont they get ANOTHER attack on top of their ability to give 1+ attack?

they are a pair yes, and it says that pair gives +1 attack, thats the only bonus, the fact its 2 weapons a pair of weapons is taken into account in that sentence, its a pair of weapons giving +1 attack, like any pair of weapons give +1 attack.

there just making it clear because they aren't called power weapons/thunder hammers/power fists/close combat weapons like most weapons are and are covered by in the rules.

if they said they grant an extra +1 attack I would probably agree they grant +2, because it is an extra on top of being a pair, but RAW its a pair that grant +1 attack just like any pair of CCW's does, they just have to make it clear in case somebody argues the rules don't make it clear the weapons are CCW's to start off with, which is true because falchions for all intents and purposes do not exist within the confines of the rules, we if the GK codex did not tell us they give +1 attack nobody would know, as they are not covered anywhere else in 40k, they are not in the main rulebook, they are not clearly labeled as CCW's to start with, and so do not exist at all or grant any bonus outside of the GK codex.

it would be like a codex saying "you can equip a model with a pair of nunchucks for 10pts", it means nothing, those weapons grant no bonus at all because they do not exist, they are not CCW's because they are not labeled as CCW's, they are nunchucks, they do nothing except cost 10pts, but if it said "you can equip a model with a pair of nunchucks that give +1 attack for 10pts", we now know what they do, and we needed them to tell us because nowhere else can tell us, and if it said "you can equip a model with a pair of nunchucks that count as a pair of CCW's that also grant an extra +1 attack for 10pts" then that would be 2 attacks

"No". I believe that this all a case of poor choice of words. If they wanted the scimitars to give +2 Attacks it
would have been really simple to, you know, just say so.

I think you've got a strong case for 'yes', but it really all comes down to how it is listed in the codex entry options. If the upgrade says the model is equipped with a pair of falchions, then I don't see why you wouldn't get the bonus for having two of the same special close combat weapon.

But if it just says 'Falchions' then its certainly a bit more ambiguous, because it could fall into the territory of the DE Demi-klave which is a single weapon but in its description it gives the option to split apart and fight in separate hands for +2 Attacks...but per the actual rules the model is still only equipped with a 'single' weapon (the demi-klave).

So again here, how is the option listed in the army list entry?


Edit: Looking at the leaked version, it does say a 'pair of Falchions' so I don't see any RAW reason that the model wouldn't get the +1A bonus for having two weapons on top of the Falchion's +1A.

I woudl expect it will be just a +1 as it doesn't specifically say "2 close combat weapons", it says "a pair of flachions".

i suppose for clarity the codex shoudl read "falchions are a pair of nemesis force weapons, and therefore count as the model having 2 close combat weapons, thus gaining +1A"


Maybe codecies are costed by the word? so it was a money savign exercise?

No (imo naturally), they do not specifically state they count as two CCWs, the +1 attack they confer is because if they didn't grant it one wouldn't be able to gain an attack "Weapons like chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades, bayonets, etc., do not confer any particular bonus to the model using them." However if th model using them also had a pistol, then they would gain the two +1's as the falchions do not state they are a two-handed ccw.

@Yak: 'Falchions' falls in the same bracket as 'claws' or 'claws and teeth'. No?

good point. Substitue the word Falchion for "lightning claws" and it makes sense again.

ChrisCP wrote:No (imo naturally), they do not specifically state they count as two CCWs, the +1 attack they confer is because if they didn't grant it one wouldn't be able to gain an attack "Weapons like chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades, bayonets, etc., do not confer any particular bonus to the model using them." However if th model using them also had a pistol, then they would gain the two +1's as the falchions do not state they are a two-handed ccw.

@Yak: 'Falchions' falls in the same bracket as 'claws' or 'claws and teeth'. No?

All Nemesis weapons are force weapons (along with giving the model the daemonbane special rule) on top of any other benefit they get. So yes, Falchions are most certainly special close combat weapons. Per the GW rulebook FAQ all close combat weapons are considered single handed unless they specify that they are two-handed, so we can safely assume that Falchions are single-handed.

Therefore, Falchions are single handed (special) close combat weapons and the model has two of them, so they SHOULD be getting the +1 Attack bonus for having two single handed CC weapons (as they are the same special weapon).

Ill agree with yak on this one, basing mine simply off of the wording from Lclaws.

Being a special CCW they need to be paired with the same for the extra attack.
This point has been met, so i believe they do get an extra attack from it.

Being a special CCW they need to be paired with the same for the extra attack.
This point has been met, so i believe they do get an extra attack from it.

What do Falchions do? Do they just add +1 attack or are they lightning claws? What is their points cost for Purifiers?

If they do nothing else than the attacks then it could also be the intent that they give +2 attacks. Then it's easy to apply the RAW and allow them the +2 attacks. If they're also lightning claws it sounds too good for a couple points per model.

Sorry, i believe they grant the +1 from thier rules, and then another +1 for using a pair of special CCW's.

I was simply using Lclaws as an example of a special CCW, i can swap that for fist, hammer etc if you would prefer?

It's pretty cut-and-dry. The text say "wielder of a pair has +1 attack". That's all.

Therion wrote:

Being a special CCW they need to be paired with the same for the extra attack.
This point has been met, so i believe they do get an extra attack from it.

What do Falchions do? Do they just add +1 attack or are they lightning claws? What is their points cost for Purifiers?

If they do nothing else than the attacks then it could also be the intent that they give +2 attacks. Then it's easy to apply the RAW and allow them the +2 attacks. If they're also lightning claws it sounds too good for a couple points per model.

All Nemesis weapons are force weapons that also have the Daemonbane special rule (if the model is immune to instant death and is wounded by a Nemesis weapon it has to take a Ld test and if it fails it is removed from play).

On top of that, as you can read from his picture at the top of this thread, a pair of Falchions give the model +1A as well.

They are 5 points for Purifiers or Paladins.

Mahtamori wrote:It's pretty cut-and-dry. The text say "wielder of a pair has +1 attack". That's all.

Yes, we're talking about the standard rules for having two close combat weapons...the rules for lightning claws for example don't say they get the +1 Attack bonus if you have two of them, but if you do have two, then you get the bonus.

Mahtamori wrote:It's pretty cut-and-dry. The text say "wielder of a pair has +1 attack". That's all.

Thats the point. The text says wielding falchions gives +1 attack. The rulebook states on top of that that wielding pairs of the same special close combat weapon confers an extra attack. Hence 2+ attacks.

Nothing prohibits the +2 attack summation----so I say yes, +2 attacks.

I also disagree that it will be FAQ'd to represent +1 attack. I don't know why they would point out 2 of one weapon gives you +1 attack when the rulebook already states as such----and an additional +1 attack would make the Falchions more unique.

+2 attacks raw.

I expect it to be faq'ed.

What exactly the faq will say is up in the air.

+2 attacks by RAW and RAI. The fluff makes it clear that Nemesis falchions are faster than ordinary weapons, so it makes sense that you would be able to attack more often with them than you would with an ordinary pair of weapons.

I think RAW it says that they only give +1A, not +2. Here's my reasoning:

The entry doesn't say that a pair of nemesis falchions GIVE +1A (implying it is given above and beyond whatever else), they say that models with a pair of them HAVE +1A, meaning the total amount of bonus attacks for wielding that equipment on top of your base from stat line is +1A. Bonus attacks from sources besides this particular piece of equipment do stack.

For 5/10 points they should give +2A though, and this should be FAQ'd.

I say RAW 2 attacks and RAI 2 attacks.


for an additional 5 points they better give +2 attacks

The BGB says on page 42 "two of the same special weapon, These models gain one additional attack. all of these attacks including the bonus attack, use the special weapons bonuses and penalties" The fact that the NFF are described as a pair would suggest that they are subject to this rule and to the bonus from the codex.

Lightening claws are a different thing as they state that only if there is another lighting claw do they grant +1 attack (for the rule stated above) same for power fists/claw/klaws and thunder hammers.

I had a look at the codex today and under the wargear section it pretty clearly says "A model armed with a pair of Falchions gets +1 attack". I couldn't find any reference ever at any part of the codex to a singular of Falchion. It seems like it's one weapon system that requires two hands to use.

Yeah it gives +2 intil FAQ comes out.

its the "pair of" part fault

Better wording should be

Nemesis Falchions
Gives +1 Attack.

The option for it would be replace X weapon with Nemesis Falchions.

They take two hands to use but count as one weapon for the purpose of bonus attacks.

So everyone who thinks it's 2 is also held to the idea that Chainsabers and Powerblades are also 2 attacks? It's worded the same, and those are only +1 attack.

It says :
'Nemisis falchions are invariably wielded as a pair'
So we know there are 2 of the same special CCW
It also says:
'The wielder of a pair of nemesis falchions has +1 attack'
So we know the weapons give +1 attack.

so we look at P.42 and "Two of the same special weapon: and we see that this model will gain an attack for wielding 2 of the same special weapon, and all of the attacks use the special weapons bonuses and penalties"

so +1 for nemisis rules, and +1 for 2 of the same Special weapon rules.

+2 total, seems clear to me.

Editing to add: If you look at the model, it has 2 swords on the model, look at the second group of images, its the model on the lower left.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1160009a&_requestid=1220647

DarknessEternal wrote:So everyone who thinks it's 2 is also held to the idea that Chainsabers and Powerblades are also 2 attacks? It's worded the same, and those are only +1 attack.

This is a pretty important facet of this discussion.

I really hope the "+2 attacks" crowd have something to add to this.

From Codex Eldar, page 33.

Chainsabres: Some Exarchs train in the use of blades paired with ancient gauntlets that houses twin-linked shuriken pistols, allowing them to level a storm of attacks at their foes. A model with chainsabres has +1 Attack and can re-roll al failed to hit and to wound rolls

From Codex Eldar, page 36.

Powerblades: powerblades are twin power weapons fitted to the forearms, enabling the wearer to use both hands freely. Powerblades confer 1+ A and ignore armour saves.

While Chainsabres might be iffy, the Powerblades are pretty definite.

As an aside, notice how GW isn't consistent in their wording. Sigh.

+2 Attacks, both RAW and RAI. If it is a pair of weapons, and you are only expecting to get +1 attack in total, then why the fluff about how FAST a GK is with them, and how thsi enables them to make moer attacks?

The +1Attack only "crowd" need to argue past the actual rules AND the fluff

2 Attacks, unless and until FAQ'd otherwise.

For another "pair of", look at the Gauntlets of Ultramar. Anyone even ATTEMPTING to claim there is only one weapon has to tell Marneus he doesnt have 2 powerfists.

Nos, what about the above mentioned weapons?

Why wouldnt they get a bonus attack?

they are a pair of power weapons, after all.

So you have always thought that a Warp Spider Exarch (born with 2 Attacks) get 4 attack, 5 on the charge, when equipped with Powerblades?

This due to going; "It gets +1 attack because that is what the Powerblades rule tells us....oh, and one more because the text mentions that it is a pair of powerblades in the introductory text of the rule"?

Even though the rules doesn't mention anything about this counting as being armed with an additional close combat weapon?

Even though other rules/equipment specifies this effect?



Take a look at the Demiklaives of the Dark Eldar. That'll be one Klaivex with 6 attacks, 7 on the charge coming up!



Look at the Hydragauntlets/Razorflails.

Want older codex?

Look at Knife Fighter Penal Legionnaires.

Older yet?

Look at Kroot Rifles.

When GW wants us to get the bonus attack for being armed with an additional close combat weapon they tell us, in no uncertain terms.



Having said that, I have no doubt that this will be FAQed to mean an additional close combat weapon simply because of the lame way GW handles anything connected with their belowed Spahz Mahreenz, and they will do it in such a way that it will only effect the Grey Knights and not help the Eldar, of course.

nosferatu1001 wrote:+2 Attacks, both RAW and RAI. If it is a pair of weapons, and you are only expecting to get +1 attack in total, then why the fluff about how FAST a GK is with them, and how thsi enables them to make moer attacks?

Fluff is irrelevant.

A model with 2 close combat weapons has +1A. A model with 2 nemesis falchions has +1A because it has 2 close combat weapons. If the falchions gave +2A the entry would read 'a model with nemesis falchions has +2 attacks.'

Let me phrase it another way.

Lets say you have a model without weaponry. It has no extra attacks.
A model with 2 ccws has +1 attack.
How many total bonus attacks would a model with nemesis falchions have? Well, the rule says they have +1 attack, so their total bonus attacks must therefore be 1. Pretty straightforward.

Culler making an unsupported leap wrote:A model with 2 nemesis falchions has +1A because it has 2 close combat weapons

Wrong. Please show me a) the explanatory text behind the rule (hint: it doesnt exist] and b) leaving aside ANY question of the powersword: you're going to argue that Marneus Calgar DOES NOT have a PAIR of powerfists?

If you could also have the courtesy to not selective quote - i gave the rule. Your "argument" is 100% wrong on the rules.

Steelmage - does the Falchion *rule text* state a pair of Blades? Yes. Is *each* blade of that pair a power weapon? Yes. Guerss that means +1 Attack.

the effect of the item

Pair of NF
is +1 A

PAIR of NF = 2 CC weapons

Thus you get +1 from the effect of having the weapon
Then you furfill the Bonus +1 A for a Pair of the same weapon

So in total 1+1 = 2

means +2 A

intil they Delete The "pair of"

Or change the rule to

NFs
A model with NF allways gains the Bonus +1 A for having 2 CC weapons.

it is +2 simple and easy

Yep, Nos. Now you got it.

The rules state +1 Attacks so I guess that means.....+1 Attack.

Does the Falchion rules text state anything about "additional close combat weapon" like they have (seemingly) always done?

Essentially - the argument against the +2A total has to prove:

1) A pair isnt actually 2. good luck with that (ref: Marneus C); or
2) The +1 attack is the bonus for 2 CCW. good luck with that, as it does not say it is.

Prove 1) or 2) and you've proven it is only +1 Attack. Unfortunately - that isnt what the entry for the Falchions states, and proving that "pair" /= "2" will be rather tricky.

ThatMG wrote:the effect of the item

Pair of NF
is +1 A

PAIR of NF = 2 CC weapons

Thus you get +1 from the effect of having the pair
Then you furfill the Bonus +1 A for a Pair of the same weapon

So in total 1+1 = 2
means +2 A(Snip)

The bold above is not quite accurate. They do not get get +1 from the effect of having the pair.

They get +1 attack from the weapon because 'The wielder of a pair of nemesis falchions has +1 attack' this is this special weapons special rule
they get a further +1 attack for being armed with 2 of the same Special CCW

Culler wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:+2 Attacks, both RAW and RAI. If it is a pair of weapons, and you are only expecting to get +1 attack in total, then why the fluff about how FAST a GK is with them, and how thsi enables them to make moer attacks?

Fluff is irrelevant.

A model with 2 close combat weapons has +1A. A model with 2 nemesis falchions has +1A because it has 2 close combat weapons. If the falchions gave +2A the entry would read 'a model with nemesis falchions has +2 attacks.'

Let me phrase it another way.

Lets say you have a model without weaponry. It has no extra attacks.
A model with 2 ccws has +1 attack.
How many total bonus attacks would a model with nemesis falchions have? Well, the rule says they have +1 attack, so their total bonus attacks must therefore be 1. Pretty straightforward.

There are two bonus attacks listed in the rulebook:

1) If the model initiates the assault he gets +1A
2) If the model is armed with two-single handed weapons, he gets +1A


These are bonuses that are in the rulebook and are in effect regardless of what the model's special abilities are.

Nemesis Falchions say that the bearer gets +1A...are you trying to claim ghat a model with Falchions doesn't get the +1A when Initiating assault either? If you don't claim that, then by what basis would you not also apply the +1A bonus for having 2 CC weapons? Why would you assume the +1A bonus the Falchions give is somehow the same +1A bonus that all models get for having two CC weapons?


----


With that said, I think there is room for ambiguity simply because the description behind having two of the same close combat weapon in the rulebook is that you don't get any additional benefit from the 2nd special close combat weapon except for getting +1A. In a few cases: Nemesis Falchions, Powerblades, Chain Sabres, you have weapons whose effect is only described for using the pair of them...there isn't any description of what these weapons do on there own as you can only ever take them as a pair.

So that certainly does lead to some ambiguity (as we can see from this argument). I do think the rules seem to suggest that you'd get the bonus described by the weapons as well as the bonus attack for having 2 CC weapons...but I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see GW rule the other way if they FAQ this.

The way I see it, if it was intended for Falchions to confer only one extra attack, why didn't they simply state 'A model with a pair of NFF counts as having two close combat weapons'? That would have been crystal clear, and would have saved us all this ambiguity.

DeathReaper wrote:

ThatMG wrote:the effect of the item

Pair of NF
is +1 A

PAIR of NF = 2 CC weapons

Thus you get +1 from the effect of having the pair
Then you furfill the Bonus +1 A for a Pair of the same weapon

So in total 1+1 = 2
means +2 A(Snip)

The bold above is not quite accurate. They do not get get +1 from the effect of having the pair.

They get +1 attack from the weapon because 'The wielder of a pair of nemesis falchions has +1 attack' this is this special weapons special rule
they get a further +1 attack for being armed with 2 of the same Special CCW

Sorry for the miss understanding what I ment The EFFECT of the "weapon"

Like a Power Weapon is an effect, or double S is for power fist, Thats its effect.
But cause of pair you get +2 A


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dimmy52 wrote:The way I see it, if it was intended for Falchions to confer only one extra attack, why didn't they simply state 'A model with a pair of NFF counts as having two close combat weapons'? That would have been crystal clear, and would have saved us all this ambiguity.

cause they dont proof read stuff

or they could have not had any Falchions at all and just allowed a GK to purchase an additional Nemisis Force Sword for the indicated points.

Yup, 2 extra attacks.

GK lose True Git so all of then get 1 Attack unstead of 2 Attacks like before. Now by giving a unit a 5pt upgrade, my unit has the same amount of attacks as the last codex. Sound like a good trade.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Essentially - the argument against the +2A total has to prove:

And there we can just stop reading.

Nobody has to prove anything. We simply have to do what the rules tells us, and that is to add 1 Attack. Period.

If GW wants us to have anything count as an additional close combat weapon, they tell us. Address that, Nos.

Steelmage99 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Essentially - the argument against the +2A total has to prove:

And there we can just stop reading.

Nobody has to prove anything. We simply have to do what the rules tells us, and that is to add 1 Attack. Period.

If GW wants us to have anything count as an additional close combat weapon, they tell us. Address that, Nos.

2 Words

PAIR OF

Sigh. the rules also tell you to gain +1 Attack for having 2 CCW. Period.

For the 6th or 7th time in this thread.

1) Falchions are nemesis weapons
2) ALL Nemesis weapons are force weapons
3) All force weapons are power weapons
4) All power weapons are single handed CCW

A pair of Nemesis Falchions is 2 Nemesis Falchions

So, from 1 - 4 above you have 2 CCW (special, as they are power weapons)

Page 42 states that 2 CCW give you an additional attack

Do you need this explained any further? PLease show where the chain above is false, which requires you proving (as I have shown permission (technically, requirement) to gain the +1 attack) the two cases I gave.

So, y0ou can stop reading. MEans you are conceding the argument, of course.

Oh, and here you go with your "conceding the argument"-speech. That and your usual "retract your falsehood" is the fastest discussion-stopper on this board.


Congratulations, you have done it again.

After consistently ignoring any arguments you don't like, you stop the discussion. Well done.

How have I "consistently" ignored anything? I responded to you. I laid out, in a very clear fashion, why you get a total of +2A

I am not the only one who has posted this argument, and I have attempted to be civil despite your hostile tone throughout.

Also: your "quotes" are wildly inaccurate. I have not asked you to "retract your falsehood". Ironic, really.

Bye. Other people can continue to discuss, and maybe actually prsent a contrary argument that shows a flaw in the logic chain I gave, and maybe contribute something.

nosferatu1001 wrote:How have I "consistently" ignored anything? I responded to you.

No, you have not. Kinda scary that you can't see that.

I am not the only one who has posted this argument, and I have attempted to be civil despite your hostile tone throughout.

Sure.

Also: your "quotes" are wildly inaccurate.

How?

I have not asked you to "retract your falsehood". Ironic, really.

I didn't say that you had. Ironic indeed.


You are ruining this discussion by making it about winning, instead of about finding the right answer. Of course it is personal, as we are two people addresing each other specifically instead of the board in general, but this is taking it to an entirely different level of "personal".

Steelmage99 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:How have I "consistently" ignored anything? I responded to you.

No, you have not. Kinda scary that you can't see that.

I explained why your "stop reading" comment wasnt applicable, as you DO have to prove something - how is that not responding?

Steelmage99 wrote:I didn't say that you had. Ironic indeed.

Steelmage99 a few posts up wrote:That and your usual "retract your falsehood"

So, that wasnt you [mis] "quoting" me, despite the attribution? "Scary that you cant see that".

Steelmage99 wrote:You are ruining this discussion by making it about winning, instead of about finding the right answer. Of course it is personal, as we are two people addresing each other specifically instead of the board in general, but this is taking it to an entirely different level of "personal".

I have posted the rules, as I see them, in full as apparently the short hand (theyre a pair of power weapons) resulted in your not having to read any further

My posts have been on topic and have shown a chain of rules. Yours, on the other hand, have been hostile and have so far not actually presented a counter rules argument. Which tenet of YMDC is that again?

Steelmage99 wrote:

You are ruining this discussion by making it about winning, instead of about finding the right answer. Of course it is personal, as we are two people addresing each other specifically instead of the board in general, but this is taking it to an entirely different level of "personal".

Really he is? What do you have to as proof you don't get +2 Attacks. As for the DE exsample the word is "Pair" both the weapon rules you quoted fall to say this.

Noir wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

You are ruining this discussion by making it about winning, instead of about finding the right answer. Of course it is personal, as we are two people addresing each other specifically instead of the board in general, but this is taking it to an entirely different level of "personal".

Really he is? What do you have to as proof you don't get +2 Attacks. As for the DE exsample the word is "Pair" both the weapon rules you quoted fall to say this.

First of all, I don't have to prove that I don't get +2 attacks.
The rules doesn't work that way. I have to prove that I get +1 Attack.

I believe I have done so by showing that the rules text in question say "+1 Attack" quite clearly and by showing that when GW wants us to get the bonus for an additional close combat weapon, they tell us.

Yet the counter argument proves that your argument is inadequate.

Your failure to rebut this means you DO need to prove you get one attack only

Or, you could continue with the personal attacks.

Interesting ....
The comments about Marneus Calgar seem to indicate that he gets his statline 4A and +1 for having a pair of PF.
Does this also mean that Shrike gets his statline 3A and +1 for having a pair of LC?
Wouldn't these bonuses already be included in the statline similar to the bonus to toughness granted to a Biker?

And 5 points to have +2 attacks? That seems to be a bit underpriced for what could be a huge benefit over a normal NFW.

No, bonuses for 2 CCW weapon are never included unless EXPLICITLY stated.

Which is another nail in Steelmages arguments' coffin.

It's 5 points to LOSE either S8/10, +1 to inv save or +2I *in exchange* for +2 Attacks (as the rules currently stand)

It's like a powerfist for a chaos terminator is 10 points; they're losing the power weapon they already have and have paid for.

Shrike and Calgar's stat lines do not say that they include the bonuses. therefore, they don't.

For comparison, it costs zero points for a Paladin to gain a daemonhammer (Thunderhammer equivalent). So yes, I think +5 pts for +2 attacks is reasonable, considering they're striking at a base strength of 4 (before psychic powers, which can be nullified).

I think the outcome here is pretty clear.

Sorry steelmage, your argument has no visible basis, you just keep repeating "They gain 1+ attack because it says they do"

Well, that argument is somewhat correct. Falchion wielders do gain 1+ attack because it says they do, right after they gain another attack for having 2 of them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Culler making an unsupported leap wrote:A model with 2 nemesis falchions has +1A because it has 2 close combat weapons

Wrong. Please show me a) the explanatory text behind the rule (hint: it doesnt exist] and b) leaving aside ANY question of the powersword: you're going to argue that Marneus Calgar DOES NOT have a PAIR of powerfists?

Quite the opposite. There are 3 sides to this argument that people are arguing from what I can tell:
A) Falchions are 2 separate weapons that give +1 attack as a special ability (for +2A total)
B) Falchions are 2 separate weapons that have no special ability conferring bonus attacks, and the codex entry is merely confirming the fact they are 2 separate weapons (for +1A total)
C) Falchions are a single weapon that gives +1 attack as a special ability (for +1A total)

I am arguing for case B, while you seem to think I am arguing for case C, which I personally think is incorrect for the reasons Yakface stated. I totally agree that calgar has 2 fists and gets a bonus attack for that. Either you're misreading my posts or you are constructing a straw man argument.

Bringing up Shrike is a good argument, Helgrenze and GreyTemplar.

Special Characters do indeed not include the bonus for being armed with an additional close combat weapon in their profile (unless specified).

I'll step back with the worry that this interpretation will most likely lead to discussions about the wordings used in various entries and whether they will confer the bonus attack or not.

On the other hand my Eldar and Dark Eldar have gotten a little better, so I guess every cloud has a silver lining.

In Cullers list my gut goes with B but I wouldn't fight someone who claimed A.

Culler wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Culler making an unsupported leap wrote:A model with 2 nemesis falchions has +1A because it has 2 close combat weapons

Wrong. Please show me a) the explanatory text behind the rule (hint: it doesnt exist] and b) leaving aside ANY question of the powersword: you're going to argue that Marneus Calgar DOES NOT have a PAIR of powerfists?

Quite the opposite. There are 3 sides to this argument that people are arguing from what I can tell:
A) Falchions are 2 separate weapons that give +1 attack as a special ability (for +2A total)
B) Falchions are 2 separate weapons that have no special ability conferring bonus attacks, and the codex entry is merely confirming the fact they are 2 separate weapons (for +1A total)
C) Falchions are a single weapon that gives +1 attack as a special ability (for +1A total)

I am arguing for case B, while you seem to think I am arguing for case C, which I personally think is total crock for the reasons Yakface stated. I totally agree that calgar has 2 fists and gets a bonus attack for that. Either you're misreading my posts or you are constructing a straw man argument.

well, that does pretty much sum up the 3 possible valid arguments. I am obviously arguing for A) here, I believe yakface and nosferatu are too.

Indeed. And I was arguing C (although with another wording).

yakface wrote:
There are two bonus attacks listed in the rulebook:

1) If the model initiates the assault he gets +1A
2) If the model is armed with two-single handed weapons, he gets +1A

These are bonuses that are in the rulebook and are in effect regardless of what the model's special abilities are.

Nemesis Falchions say that the bearer gets +1A...are you trying to claim ghat a model with Falchions doesn't get the +1A when Initiating assault either? If you don't claim that, then by what basis would you not also apply the +1A bonus for having 2 CC weapons? Why would you assume the +1A bonus the Falchions give is somehow the same +1A bonus that all models get for having two CC weapons?

I thought about the assaulting thing as it does naturally follow, but I think you don't have to assume that because the model has +1A from wargear (total), but still gets bonus attacks from battlefield situations like abilities used on them or an assault bonus. Another way to phrase it with more clear synonyms would be a model owns the attacks they start with and acquire a bonus attack when they launch an assault, as normal. You get what you get from wargear, and then other things stack onto it.

I contend that any model wielding two close combat weapons has +1 attack. The wielder of a pair of nemesis force falchions is a model with two close combat weapons, therefore the wielder of a pair of nemesis force falchions has +1 attack. I underlined that section because it is the exact same text used in the codex. If it used the word "gains" instead of "has," that would imply they're getting something above and beyond normal. This means that RAW, I'm also positing that the nemesis force falchion entry is redundant with the core rulebook, and was put there simply to reinforce this concept.

I should also say that I think you are all wonderful people and this should be a casual intellectual debate, free of ad-hominem verbal assaults on one another's character. I respect those of you who do no such thing and encourage those of you who do to join the fold of rational respectful discourse, it is rare enough here on the net.

[quote=Culler) but I think you don't have to assume that because the model has +1A from wargear (total), but still gets bonus attacks from battlefield situations like abilities used on them or an assault bonus. Another way to phrase it with more clear synonyms would be a model owns the attacks they start with and acquire a bonus attack when they launch an assault, as normal. You get what you get from wargear, and then other things stack onto it.

I contend that any model wielding two close combat weapons has +1 attack. The wielder of a pair of nemesis force falchions is a model with two close combat weapons, therefore the wielder of a pair of nemesis force falchions has +1 attack. I underlined that section because it is the exact same text used in the codex. If it used the word "gains" instead of "has," that would imply they're getting something above and beyond normal. This means that RAW, I'm also positing that the nemesis force falchion entry is redundant with the core rulebook, and was put there simply to reinforce this concept.

I should also say that I think you are all wonderful people and this should be a casual intellectual debate, free of ad-hominem verbal assaults on one another's character. I respect those of you who do no such thing and encourage those of you who do to join the fold of rational respectful discourse, it is rare enough here.

Noir wrote:
Thats it the model has +1 Attack from the Falchions, like you said 2

I didn't say that, and that's where the distinction is.

The model doesn't get an extra attack from the falchions (nor does the codex say it does) but rather a model wielding the falchions has an extra attack (which is what the codex says.) It's not the falchions that give the extra attack, it's having 2 ccws that gives the extra attack.

The codex fails to specify where this extra attack (a wielder of 2 nemesis falchions has) comes from, and that is what we're debating. I think, because of the language used, that the extra attack comes from the 2 weapon bonus in the rulebook. Others disagree, and their argument for +2A has merit (you can indeed build a convincing case for either,) but I feel the way I have interpreted it is more correct as it is working with rules that exist rather than assuming a new special rule.

Culler wrote:

Noir wrote:
Thats it the model has +1 Attack from the Falchions, like you said 2

I didn't say that, and that's where the distinction is.

The model doesn't get an extra attack from the falchions (nor does the codex say it does) but rather a model wielding the falchions has an extra attack (which is what the codex says.) It's not the falchions that give the extra attack, it's having 2 ccws that gives the extra attack.

The codex fails to specify where this extra attack (a wielder of 2 nemesis falchions has) comes from, and that is what we're debating. I think, because of the language used, that the extra attack comes from the 2 weapon bonus in the rulebook. Others disagree, and their argument for +2A has merit (you can indeed build a convincing case for either,) but I feel the way I have interpreted it is more correct as it is working with rules that exist rather than assuming a new special rule.

Like you underlined the model has +1 attack for form the Falchions in the codex, while model with a pair of or 2 CCW gain a bouns attack from the BRB. So codex +1 Attack while BRB gives a bonus attack. The BRB never say a +1 Attack, it say a bouns attack for 2 CCW. While the Falchion give you +1 Attacks. Wording is important.

+2 Attacks, it seems.

Wonder how long this massive FAQ is going to take to come out...there's a lot of confusion already, and there's only store copies.

Nemisis falchions are special weapons (like all other nemesis weapons)
'Nemisis falchions are invariably wielded as a pair'
So we know there are 2 of the same special CCW

'The wielder of a pair of nemesis falchions has +1 attack'
So we know the Nemisis falchions give +1 attack as special weapon bonus.

That is where the attack comes from.

Check out the GK wielding the Nemisis falchions on the GW website, that model is holding 2 blades.

DeathReaper, while you are right, you are quoting fluff there. None the less, in the rules section, it STILL refers to them as "Take a pair of nemesis falchions"

No more personal arguments/hostility please.

Let's avoid making characterizations about the other people involved in the discussion, dramatically sighing in exasperation, or otherwise escalating the frustration level.

If another poster becomes exasperating, please take a minute away from the computer to crack the cold refreshing beverage of your choice, and relax. Contemplate the freedom and leisure to enjoy discussing our toy soldier hobby, in comparison with the downtime activities of 90%+ of the human race throughout recorded time, such as picking nits off one another, preserving rotting meat with salt, and snuggling with a loved one who probably hadn't bathed in months. We've really got it pretty good, don't we?

Jaon, Its not fluff, it says they are wielded as a pair, and they are bought as a pair. same is same no?
Just look at the model, it is wielding 2 swords (Nemesis Falchions)

Special weapons that give +1 attack from the weapons special quality, and 1 bonus attack for having 2 of the same special CCW.

RAW is clear on this one.

DarknessEternal wrote:So everyone who thinks it's 2 is also held to the idea that Chainsabers and Powerblades are also 2 attacks? It's worded the same, and those are only +1 attack.

So by this logic my warp spider exarch should be getting more power weapon attacks .

I think all this stacking isn't right. I mean how is the wording different from the examples above?

Woah, woah. I think you're all missing something here. Look at it carefully again.

"+1 Attack"

It's the capital "A" that gives it away. What they're refering to is the attack CHARACTERISTIC of the model's statline. Otherwise, if they were just gaining another attack, there would be no reason whatsoever to have the capital A. Remember, GW always capitalizes proper nouns, and characteristics, like Leadership and Weapon Skill are always capitalized.

The way I read this is that when you give them this upgrade, the little number under the A goes up by one. Then you add on any extra attacks to their base attacks as normal.

akaean wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:So everyone who thinks it's 2 is also held to the idea that Chainsabers and Powerblades are also 2 attacks? It's worded the same, and those are only +1 attack.

So by this logic my warp spider exarch should be getting more power weapon attacks .

I think all this stacking isn't right. I mean how is the wording different from the examples above?

AFAIK that's the way I've always played them. +1 to the Characteristic and treat them as a pair (which they are).

I'm with the +2 crowd, for reasons already stated.

I think this thread has become quite conclusive. I will be able to quote it if my friends have any problems with this.

Ok, so you rules guys all agree that Demiklaives, Power Blades, and Chainsabers also give +1 Attack for being 2 Close Combat Weapons then? In the case of Power Blades and Chainsabers, they will also get an additional +1 Attack all the time (Demiklaives will have to decide each turn).

As an editorial aside, there's no friggen way any one would have agreed to this when it was only Eldar who had this issue.

imweasel wrote:+2 attacks raw.

I expect it to be faq'ed.

What exactly the faq will say is up in the air.

/thread

Let's take a quick look at the Eldar codex...

Powerblades: "Powerblades are twin power weapons" "Power blafes confer +1 Attack"

So, along the line of this thread, thats +2 Attacks, 1 for the Powerblades rule, 1 for the pair.

Chainsabres: "Blades paired with with ancient gauntlets" "Has +1 Attack and etc"

So along the time of this thread, thats +2 Attacks, 1 for the Chainsabres rule, 1 for the pair.

...

But then we look at Mirrorswords: "Paired Blades" "extra hand weapon that confers +2 Attacks instead of the usual +1"

So thats +2 Attacks, 2 for the Mirrorswords rule, 0 for the pair.

...

If Falcions, powerblades and chainsabres were intended to grant +2A, why didn't they follow the wording on Mirrorswords? Instead of writing it out clearly that they gain +2A as opposed to the usual +1A why state +1A and let players assume an additional attack for the pair?

Essentially you are saying that all the above weapons grant +2A, which is not the case, as only the Mirrorswords state as much. The blades and sabres simply confer +1A, because they are a pair, not in addion to being a pait. They are worded in a similar way to Falcions.

+5/10 points for one extra attack is nothing new. Take a look at mandiblasters for an Autarch or an attack squig.

You get a (pair of falchions) which have the ability to give +1 attack.

If you took (falchion)+ (falchion) you would get +3 attacks (+1 per falchion, +1 for extra CCW)

However you get (pair of falchions) not 2 falchions

Phototoxin wrote:You get a (pair of falchions) which have the ability to give +1 attack.

If you took (falchion)+ (falchion) you would get +3 attacks (+1 per falchion, +1 for extra CCW)

However you get (pair of falchions) not 2 falchions

This is how I read it as well.

Doesnt Lightning claws give you +1 attack for the pair, and for a pair of weapons the rulebook give you +1 attack.

isnt this the same thing?

Not exactly, LCs are a power weapon(single handed CCW that ignores armor saves) that rerolls failed wounds.

you are also not allowed to claim the +1A bonus for having 2 CCWs unless the 2nd CCW is also a LC.



the main issue is this, the Nemisis Falchion's rules say there are 2 of them and that they give the wielder +1A(as a special rule just like Nemisis halbards give +2I)

the fact there are 2 of them means the wielder gains +1A for having 2 CCWs. the special rules also say they give +1A.




For some clarification lets put forth the following scenerio.


lets say in some codex, there is a sword that is an upgrade for a character.

the Rules for this sword say that it is a Power Weapon and gives the bearer +1A.

the character that can purchase this also can get/already has a pistol.


if he bought both the weapon and the pistol he would most certaintly get +2A total. 1 because of special rules and 1 for having 2 CCWs.


Falchions are similer. they have a special rule saying they give +1A and they are 2 CCWs.

well reading that rule and the Fluff (which many disregard, but it can be used to understand intent) its seems RAI is +2 attacks, and RAW is +2 attacks, so i fail to see the issue here?

Well, it's either one of 3 the way I see it;

Ward forgot the rule in the main book-----and thought he needed to tell people that 2 of the same special grants +1 attack
Ward wanted the Falchions to grant +2 attacks
6th Edition is not going to allow two of a special weapon to stack unless specifically stated

ooo that third one would be funny lol

To quote from the FAQ:

Q: What weapons count as single-handed weapons for the
purposes of gaining additional attacks in close combat? (p37)
A: All pistols, close combat weapons and any weapons
that are specifically stated as single-handed weapons in
their rules.

Nowhere in that rule did I see that it is specifically states as a single-handed weapon.

Or, are we now saying that Demiklaves from the DE book give +3 attacks when wielded separately?

Where in the rules (BRB) does it state a power weapon counts as a single handed CCW? I seem to remember reading this but can't remember where I saw it.

Have you seen the GK model that has a pair of falchions, he is literally wielding 2 swords...

look at the second group of images, its the model on the lower left.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1160009a&_requestid=1220647

Shrike325 wrote:To quote from the FAQ:

Q: What weapons count as single-handed weapons for the
purposes of gaining additional attacks in close combat? (p37)
A: All pistols, close combat weapons and any weapons
that are specifically stated as single-handed weapons in
their rules.

Nowhere in that rule did I see that it is specifically states as a single-handed weapon.

Or, are we now saying that Demiklaves from the DE book give +3 attacks when wielded separately?

A pair of Falchions. Two weapons. Unless otherwise stated, a weapon is one-handed.

From the Dark Eldar codex (wych weapons):

"Shardnet and impaler: a shardnet and impaler count as two close combat weapons."
"Hydra gauntlets: these count as two close combat weapons, however instead of granting +1 attack as normal,..."
"Razorflails: Razorflails count as two close combat weapons."

Each of those clarify that that single wargear entry counts as two close combat weapons even if (in the case of the gauntlets and flails) they are two identical weapons.
The rules as written (based on the OP's picture) don't specify that the "Nemesis Falchions" wargear entry counts as two CCWs. It might be clarified that they do, and thus grant two(2) +1 attack bonuses, but right now RAW would only be one(1) +1 attack bonus for a model that takes that upgrade.

If you can buy a single "Nemesis Falchion" then that would probably also remove the need for them to clarify that that piece of wargear ("Nemesis Falchions") "counts as two close combat weapons."

Shrike325 wrote:To quote from the FAQ:

Q: What weapons count as single-handed weapons for the
purposes of gaining additional attacks in close combat? (p37)
A: All pistols, close combat weapons and any weapons
that are specifically stated as single-handed weapons in
their rules.

Nowhere in that rule did I see that it is specifically states as a single-handed weapon.

Or, are we now saying that Demiklaves from the DE book give +3 attacks when wielded separately?

Demiklaives are never stated as being 2 Power Weapons or a pair like the other examples in this thread. They are simply Power Weapons that can be wielded individually, we never get how many there are, just their bonus. Incidentally, it's never stated that using them assembled make it 2-handed, either, so we don't know if individual Demiklaives are even 1-handed weapons. Either way, there is no way to argue by the rules for the +3 attacks. It's a different situation worded differently(unlike the 2 Craftworld Eldar examples argued here).

Codex: Dark Eldar, pg. 31:

"Demiklaives are power weapons that can either be wielded separately - adding +2 to the bearer's Attacks - or clasped together to form a much larger blade that confers +2 to the wielder's Strength (choose which to use each round before the bearer make his attacks)."

Now, with the relevant rules, can we stop using the Demiklaives argument?

As for the Falchions, to me, it depends on how the wording on purchasing them is. Do you purchase Nemesis Falchions(only +1) or a PAIR of Nemesis Falchions(+2).

the wording is "a Pair of Nemisis Falchions"

Grey Templar wrote:the wording is "a Pair of Nemisis Falchions"

I'mma have to side with the "You buy a pair of weapons that also gives +1A, resulting in +2 total" group.

Platuan4th wrote:
"Demiklaives are power weapons that can either be wielded separately - adding +2 to the bearer's Attacks - or clasped together to form a much larger blade that confers +2 to the wielder's Strength (choose which to use each round before the bearer make his attacks)."

Now, with the relevant rules, can we stop using the Demiklaives argument?

No. DemiklaiveS means there are at least two of them.

Rulebook say two of identical things, but falchions can't be wielded as one of them, they always go as Pair. And so all they do is give wielder +1 attack, not two. Go read C: DE Scissorhand - it specifically says its a pair of weapons that can be combined with something else for +1 attack.
ie its not two falchions, its pair\set of them with fixed bonus.

penek wrote:Rulebook say two of identical things, but falchions can't be wielded as one of them, they always go as Pair. And so all they do is give wielder +1 attack, not two. Go read C: DE Scissorhand - it specifically says its a pair of weapons that can be combined with something else for +1 attack.
ie its not two falchions, its pair\set of them with fixed bonus.

Pair - noun: Two similar or identical things taken together; often followed by of. Unless you want to argue that Nemesis Falchions is a binary noun?

The problem is "Nemesis Falchions" is the name of the single wargear entry. If you can buy a single Nemesis Falchion, then having a pair of them would indeed grant you the extra attack for two ccws (in addition to any other special rules that apply to the weapon). Otherwise, there should be a clarification like there is with the DE wych weapons.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

penek wrote:Rulebook say two of identical things, but falchions can't be wielded as one of them, they always go as Pair. And so all they do is give wielder +1 attack, not two. Go read C: DE Scissorhand - it specifically says its a pair of weapons that can be combined with something else for +1 attack.
ie its not two falchions, its pair\set of them with fixed bonus.

Pair - noun: Two similar or identical things taken together; often followed by of. Unless you want to argue that Nemesis Falchions is a binary noun?

Then fit "a Pair of Pants/Trousers" into your definition......

In English - yes, in game rules its nothing.
First of all because its nowhere stated that Falchion are single-handed special weapon from the beginning. So its just your assumption that it will give your additional +1 attack. It just something that look like pair of swords and give +1 attack, and use rules for nemesis weapons.
By RAW you need TWO Pairs of Falchions to get +1 attack for 2ccws

Falchion are single-handed special weapon if you look at the model GW made for them, it is clearly a pair, meaning two, single-handed special weapons.

Remember WYSIWYG!

DeathReaper wrote:Falchion are single-handed special weapon if you look at the model GW made for them, it is clearly a pair, meaning two, single-handed special weapons.

Remember WYSIWYG!

I don't care about your models, and i don't care about WYSIWYG. By GK codex its single entry for something that gives you +1 attack, its doesn't even say that its single handed or double handed weapon - all you got "force weapon that give +1 attack for that particular entry".
Don't confuse game rules with strange fantasies.

models buy a PAIR of nemisis falchions.


it is impossable to use two 2 handed weapons at once(and don't bring up Stormshields because they arn't weapons) therefore, they are a singlehanded weapon.

because there is a PAIR of weapons bought in this instance the model clearly has 2 Nemisis weapons.


Nemisis Weapons are defined as Force Weapons with additional rules for the different types.

Force Weapons are Power Weapons.

Power Weapons, unless otherwise specified, are single handed CCWs.


therefore, the model with Nemisis Falchions has a pair of Force Weapons that have an additional rule granting +1A.

Power weapons unless otherwise specified is only do not allow Armor saves, and its have nothing with one or two handed it is.
I will agree with you if you show me quote from Rulebook.

helgrenze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

penek wrote:Rulebook say two of identical things, but falchions can't be wielded as one of them, they always go as Pair. And so all they do is give wielder +1 attack, not two. Go read C: DE Scissorhand - it specifically says its a pair of weapons that can be combined with something else for +1 attack.
ie its not two falchions, its pair\set of them with fixed bonus.

Pair - noun: Two similar or identical things taken together; often followed by of. Unless you want to argue that Nemesis Falchions is a binary noun?

Then fit "a Pair of Pants/Trousers" into your definition......

They're a binary noun, there's no singular of trousers.

penek wrote:In English - yes, in game rules its nothing.
First of all because its nowhere stated that Falchion are single-handed special weapon from the beginning. So its just your assumption that it will give your additional +1 attack. It just something that look like pair of swords and give +1 attack, and use rules for nemesis weapons.
By RAW you need TWO Pairs of Falchions to get +1 attack for 2ccws

Weapons are one-handed unless something else is stated...

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Weapons are one-handed unless something else is stated...

Where did you find that? In your dreams? All you have is reference to Force Weapons from Rulebook. (which again just say that they don't allow armor saves)

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

helgrenze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

penek wrote:Rulebook say two of identical things, but falchions can't be wielded as one of them, they always go as Pair. And so all they do is give wielder +1 attack, not two. Go read C: DE Scissorhand - it specifically says its a pair of weapons that can be combined with something else for +1 attack.
ie its not two falchions, its pair\set of them with fixed bonus.

Pair - noun: Two similar or identical things taken together; often followed by of. Unless you want to argue that Nemesis Falchions is a binary noun?

Then fit "a Pair of Pants/Trousers" into your definition......

They're a binary noun, there's no singular of trousers.

Ok.. now Can you buy a SINGLE Falchion for your GKs? if so, what is the points cost... 2.5 points?
It is possible to buy a single lightening claw, if you so desire.

nowhere, anywhere, are any weapons explicity stated as being 1 handed.

However, sopme weapons are explicity stated as being 2 handed(and not able to be used with other 2 handed weapons or single handed weapons)



Proove to me that Force or Power weapons are NOT single handed.

Power or Force weapon is just a effect that negate armor saves and in second entry give you ability on Psy test to do ID
with same success they can be used on pistols (but they have Ap for this)
ps. by your logic - everything that shine are gold.

penek wrote:Power or Force weapon is just a effect that negate armor saves and in second entry give you ability on Psy test to do ID
with same success they can be used on pistols (but they have Ap for this)
ps. by your logic - everything that shine are gold.

Would that be the same pistols that you're only allowed to use another 1-handed weapon in CC with? Also, power weapons, and by extension force weapons, are not "just an effect that negates armour saves". They're special close combat weapons, and as such grant a model wielding them in concert with another ccw an extra attack. Given that that is what this thread is all about I find it hard to understand how you could miss that.

By my logic, everything that shines MIGHT be gold, but isn't unless explicitly stated.

I was with you, penek, until you started arguing that a "power weapon" isn't a one-handed ccw that ignores armor saves. Many special weapons state that they are power weapons, *and then* go onto elaborate on any further abilities that they have (instant kill, increasing another stat, being two-haned, etc). The DE klaives, for example, state specifically that they are two-handed.


With such a small entry for the Nemesis Falchions, it's hard to tell if they had intended them to simply be the GK equivalent of BP/CCW, or if they wanted them to have an extra attack in addition to the bonus for being armed with two ccws. I'd lean toward the latter, but it's not cut and dry either way.

Judging by the point cost, I'd hope they intentioned for the latter, because they're just not worth taking at all unless you get +2 attacks.

Time (faq) will show.

penek wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Falchion are single-handed special weapon if you look at the model GW made for them, it is clearly a pair, meaning two, single-handed special weapons.

Remember WYSIWYG!

I don't care about your models, and i don't care about WYSIWYG. By GK codex its single entry for something that gives you +1 attack, its doesn't even say that its single handed or double handed weapon - all you got "force weapon that give +1 attack for that particular entry".
Don't confuse game rules with strange fantasies.

WYSIWYG IS rules...... P.47 this says you should care about models and WYSIWYG. the model comes armed with two CCW'S that is the way GW modeled it, that is the way they intended it, even if it is not super-clear to some people in the rules.

All close combat weapons are single-handed unless specifically stated otherwise, as per the FAQ, they are bought as a Pair of single-handed weapons with the special quality of granting an extra attack, and the 'two of the same special weapon' rules tell us they get a bonus attack for wielding the pair in CC.


Q: What weapons count as single-handed weapons for the
purposes of gaining additional attacks in close combat? (p37)
A: All pistols, close combat weapons and any weapons
that are specifically stated as single-handed weapons in
their rules

Furthermore, Attack is different than attack in the rulebook. Attack modifies the profile while attack does not modify the profile.

Bonus, Bonus, Bonus attack, the BRB give a bonus attack, not a +1 Attack. While the end result is the same, it not the same as a +1 Attack.

One give you +1 Attack, while the other gives a bonus to your number of attacks. There not even close to the samething, dispite the effect they give being the same. Like I said before WORDING is IMPORTANT.

It's not that it's not 2 weapons, just that the +1 attack in the description *could be* the same +1 attack as for having 2 weapons...

That's what the discussion is about.

Slinky wrote:It's not that it's not 2 weapons, just that the +1 attack in the description *could be* the same +1 attack as for having 2 weapons...

That's what the discussion is about.

But you don't get +1 attack for 2 CCW, you get a Bonus attack. Different wording, different ability.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:
"Demiklaives are power weapons that can either be wielded separately - adding +2 to the bearer's Attacks - or clasped together to form a much larger blade that confers +2 to the wielder's Strength (choose which to use each round before the bearer make his attacks)."

Now, with the relevant rules, can we stop using the Demiklaives argument?

No. DemiklaiveS means there are at least two of them.

And you know for certain that the s means plural how? The fact is, the rules don't say there are actually multiple demiklaives, just that you can use the demiklaives as separate parts.

Look at the Incubi entry, you replace a Klaive with Demiklaives. No mention of a number(just like the actual rules for Demiklaives).

Look at the Grey Knight entry, you replace their Nemesis Force Sword with a PAIR of Nemesis Force Falchions.

Do you see the difference or do I need to point you to something that explains the difference grammatically?

It has already been stated that Demiklaives are 2 handed weapons, and as such, their arguement is moot.

"Q: What weapons count as single-handed weapons for the purposes of gaining additional attacks in close combat? (p37)
A: All pistols, close combat weapons and any weapons that are specifically stated as single-handed weapons in their rules "

Doesn't DR say it best with the FAQ answer? And Shardnet & Impaler follow this reasoning ', a "Pair of Flachions" do not state that they count (or each count) as single-handed weapons, nor is there any option to buy a single Flachion, where-in one could be defined as a CCW.

So 'a Pair of flachions' is a single handed CCW as per the rules and FAQ, they grant a bonus attack due to it's rules, as if they were being weilded as a pair of special CCW.

There is not standpoint from a rules perspective to say that this pair counts as two CCW weapons - if they were meant to they would have a qualifer along the lines of 'counts as two CCWs' as we see in the DE codex. As things stand one recives the bouns of +1 attack as if one was using the rules for two of the same special CCW.

Chris, A Nemeisis falchion is a single-handed CCW, but you buy a PAIR of Nemeisis falchions, so you get two falchions.

Seriously people check out the way the model is WYSIWYG on the 40k website, clearly a pair of Nemeisis falchions are two close combat weapons. It may not be clear in the rules, but the model is indisputable.

DeathReaper wrote:Chris, A Nemeisis falchion is a single-handed CCW, but you buy a PAIR of Nemeisis falchions, so you get two falchions.

Where do you buy a single flachion? Where is the wargear entry for a single flacion? Where is a single Flachion defind as a weapon at all in the codex? Rules man.

There is no option to buy a single falchion, you must buy the pair for the for the points listed.

Have you seen the model on the GW website?

WYSIWYG!

ChrisCP wrote:"Q: What weapons count as single-handed weapons for the purposes of gaining additional attacks in close combat? (p37)
A: All pistols, close combat weapons and any weapons that are specifically stated as single-handed weapons in their rules "

Doesn't DR say it best with the FAQ answer? And Shardnet & Impaler follow this reasoning ', a "Pair of Flachions" do not state that they count (or each count) as single-handed weapons, nor is there any option to buy a single Flachion, where-in one could be defined as a CCW.

So 'a Pair of flachions' is a single handed CCW as per the rules and FAQ, they grant a bonus attack due to it's rules, as if they were being weilded as a pair of special CCW.

There is not standpoint from a rules perspective to say that this pair counts as two CCW weapons - if they were meant to they would have a qualifer along the lines of 'counts as two CCWs' as we see in the DE codex. As things stand one recives the bouns of +1 attack as if one was using the rules for two of the same special CCW.

it doesn't matter that they can't be purchased singly.


Nemisis Falchions are a Pair of nemisis weapons.

Nemisis Weapons are Force Weapons with additional rules for each type(Sword, Halbard, Falchion)


Force weapons are Power weapons with additional rules.

Power weaponms are, unless specified in an entry, a single close combat weapon.


because there is a PAIR of Falchions, the model is wielding 2 force weapons.

because Force Weapons are defined as Power weapons the model is wielding 2 CCWs.



the Falchion's rules also say the wielder gets +1A for using them.


therefore, the wielder gets +2A RAW.

It is still a single item therefore weapon when purchased.
If it counted for two then it would recive a qualifer like Hydra Gauntlets, a pair of gauntlets, which say 'These count as two CCW'.

The weapon, is a "Pair of Flachions", 'invariably wielded as a pair.' If a GK had a single Flachion they wouldn't be able to use it. If they counted as two CCWs then they would recive the same treatment as other items which count for two CCWs. Pending an FAQ ruling otherwise, they are bought as a single item and grant a bonus attack.

Grey Templar wrote:models buy a PAIR of nemisis falchions.


it is impossable to use two 2 handed weapons at once(and don't bring up Stormshields because they arn't weapons) therefore, they are a singlehanded weapon.

because there is a PAIR of weapons bought in this instance the model clearly has 2 Nemisis weapons.


Nemisis Weapons are defined as Force Weapons with additional rules for the different types.

Force Weapons are Power Weapons.

Power Weapons, unless otherwise specified, are single handed CCWs.


therefore, the model with Nemisis Falchions has a pair of Force Weapons that have an additional rule granting +1A.

Powerblades are also bought as a pair. Powerblades grant +1 Attack.
Power blades are power weapons. Power weapons are single handed.
So a model armed with powerblades gains +1 Attack, and +1 attack.

Chain sabres are also bought as a pair. Chainsabres grant +1 Attack.
Chainsabres are CCW, they are not stated as 2-handed, so are assumed to be single handed.
So a model arned with chainsabres gains +1 Attack, and +1 attack.

Now, if this is the case... why have the following...

Mirror swords are also bought as a pair. Mirror swords grant +2 Attack as opposed to the +1 normally for having 2 CCW.

---

If a pair of weapons, bought together as a single item (see Powerblades, chainsabres, mirror swords and falchions) indeed granted +1 +1 attacks. Why would you have the mirror swords entry?

ChrisCP, look at the model I referenced on the GW site, How many CCW's does it have?

ChrisCP wrote:It is still a single item therefore weapon when purchased.
If it counted for two then it would recive a qualifer like Hydra Gauntlets, a pair of gauntlets, which say 'These count as two CCW'.

The weapon, is a "Pair of Flachions", 'invariably wielded as a pair.' If a GK had a single Flachion they wouldn't be able to use it. If they counted as two CCWs then they would recive the same treatment as other items which count for two CCWs. Pending an FAQ ruling otherwise, they are bought as a single item and grant a bonus attack.

just because they are bought together doesn't mean they are a single weapon.


my Assault Marine sergeant can buy a pair of LCs. does that mean he doesn't get the bonus for 2 CCWs?

DeathReaper wrote:ChrisCP, look at the model I referenced on the GW site, How many CCW's does it have?

We are discussing rules here DR, if you want to take that modelling stuff over to the P&M section I'll gladly address it there.

Again one buys 'Nemisis Flachions' as a pair. A single item of wargear or weapon. If they counted as two then they would have recived the same treatment as items from previous and recent codex by the same author 'Count as two CCW'.
They may have been meant to count as two sperate items of wargear but they do not when one follows the rules. They are a Pair of flachions and grant +1 attack, as if they were two of the same CCW. If they were two CCW's then the entry for this single item of wargear would state it.

ChrisCP wrote:
Again one buys 'Nemisis Flachions' as a pair. A single item of wargear or weapon. If they counted as two then they would have recived the same treatment as items from previous and recent codex by the same author 'Count as two CCW'.

What, you mean like in C:SM and C:BA, both written by the same author, where you buy a pair of Lightning Claws as a single item?

ChrisCP wrote:Again one buys 'Nemisis Flachions' as a pair. A single item of wargear or weapon. If they counted as two then they would have recived the same treatment as items from previous and recent codex by the same author 'Count as two CCW'.
They may have been meant to count as two sperate items of wargear but they do not when one follows the rules. They are a Pair of flachions and grant +1 attack, as if they were two of the same CCW. If they were two CCW's then the entry for this single item of wargear would state it.

The model "has +1 Attack", thats not the same as being granted +1 attack. Uppercase means there talking about characteristics. While a pair of weapons (pair is what you buy then as, the codexs says so) gives a Bonus attack by BRB.

ok chriscp let us discuss rules, WYSIWYG P.47 says '...weapons and wargear they can use - ... The rule is that such equipment must be visually represented on the model...'

So now please tell me: how many weapons are visually represented on the model that has a pair of nemesis falchions?

DeathReaper wrote:ok chriscp let us discuss rules, WYSIWYG P.47 says '...weapons and wargear they can use - ... The rule is that such equipment must be visually represented on the model...'

So now please tell me: how many weapons are visually represented on the model that has a pair of nemesis falchions?

Where are their bolters?





Where are their bolt pistols and close combat weapons?





Where are their bolt pistols?

There is wargear on the sprues to make those guys WYSIWYG if you want.

most people choose not to put the extra wargear on.

What Grey Templar said.

The GK pic shows you exactly what i mentioned, a Pair of Force falchions.

Again, I bring up the idea of a "Pair of Trousers". There is no way to buy a single trouser.....
Just as there is no way to buy a single Falchion.

LCs can be bought singly, and buying a "pair" costs extra points.

Regardless of how the weapon is modelled, (granted it is listed as a "pair" when purchased) it is still a single weapon system, purchased as such, much like you would purchase a "pair" of scissors, which is, similarly a "pair" of blades that are invariably used together.

Grey Templar wrote:There is wargear on the sprues to make those guys WYSIWYG if you want.

most people choose not to put the extra wargear on.

Of course, which was the point of me posting the picture. A person cannot reference a model from Games Workshop to reinforce an interpretation of the rules----as there are multiple instances of Games Workshop photos (which those are directly linked from their site) showing erroneously armed models.

Why are we even talking about the appearance? It's the wording that's the issue.

WYSIWYG is an awful argument.

It only applies to specific war gear, as general war gear is automatically included. Just because something is represented as being 2 swords DOESN'T make it 2 swords in the game according to the rules.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440239a&prodId=prod1060094

Look at this Eldar Warlock. He is clearly wielding a 2 handed witch blade. We know he has a shuri pistol as well, but WYSIWYG- according to your interpretation would mean he would only get 1 attack because the pistol isn't modeled, and hes wielding a 2 handed weapon.

WYSIWYG only applies insofar as your opponent can clearly understand what wargear you have. It does not dictate how many attacks you get per model or anything else.

The fact still remains that a PAIR of force weapons is two force weapons.

DeathReaper wrote:ok chriscp let us discuss rules, WYSIWYG P.47 says '...weapons and wargear they can use - ... The rule is that such equipment must be visually represented on the model...'

So now please tell me: how many weapons are visually represented on the model that has a pair of nemesis falchions?

The upgrade, the weapon, has been clearly represented on the model. It's a pair of Flachions, and purchased as such. There is no privisor to count each as a 'single flachion' as they are invariably weilded as a pair. That's why one only pays the upgrade for the wargear item once.

Point being the WYSIWYG is a seperate rule from the lack of one we are discussing - otherwise none could claim a FF save or any other pice of wargear that somehow misses it's visual representation... as others have already pointed out, plese stop throwing this strawman around.

Again RAW we have a single wargear entry, no indication that it 'counts as two CCW'. Two blades invariably wielded as a pair, one weapon, one wargear purchase, one entry for the pair. And no text saying they count as more than one weapon.

^This actually makes some sense...

My word that GK FAQ will be massive

They are bought as a pair of weapons. they are invariably wielded as a PAIR.
This indicates there is 2 of them.

DeathReaper wrote:They are bought as a pair of weapons. This indicates there is 2 of them.

and, since Nemisis Weapons are defined as Force Weapons with additional abilities,

and since Force Weapons are defined as Power Weapons with additional abilities,

and since Power Weapons are defined as CCWs that disallow armor saves in CC,

we can finally conclude that the Falchions give the wielded +2A total. one for being Nemisis Falchions, and 1 for being 2 CCWs.




and the pair of pants argument is a little rediclous. it's an exception rather then a rule.

helgrenze wrote:Again, I bring up the idea of a "Pair of Trousers". There is no way to buy a single trouser.....
Just as there is no way to buy a single Falchion.

LCs can be bought singly, and buying a "pair" costs extra points.

Regardless of how the weapon is modelled, (granted it is listed as a "pair" when purchased) it is still a single weapon system, purchased as such, much like you would purchase a "pair" of scissors, which is, similarly a "pair" of blades that are invariably used together.

BA Assault terminators come by default with a "lightning claws". it doesn't say 1, 2 or even 3. I mean, technically, "claws" means 2 or more. My assault terminators could therefore have 20 lightning claws each if I wanted them to. Infantry rules state that they can only ever get +1 for 2 or more weapons though, but that's not he point here. The point is, we have to use the English language and the written rules to determine how many CCWs a model has. If anything, "claws" is more ambiguous than "A pair of nemesis falchions".

Yes, and the pair of Flachions is defined as a single weapon as per the rules. To classify a piece of wargear as two CCWs one needs a qualifier as seen with 'Razorflails'.
They can't be used alone so how can one be one CCW weapon. It isn't and there is nothing in the rules to indicate that one is.

The Word Pair in the rules is an indicator that it is in fact, a, wait for it, Pair of weapons, and not a single weapon.

ChrisCP wrote:Yes, and the pair of Flachions is defined as a single weapon as per the rules.

where?

by your definition, if i buy a pair of LCs for my assault marine sergeant he doesn't have 2 LCs.

the fact i can buy them singly is irrelavent.

ChrisCP wrote:Yes, and the pair of Flachions is defined as a single weapon as per the rules. To classify a piece of wargear as two CCWs one needs a qualifier as seen with 'Razorflails'.
They can't be used alone so how can one be one CCW weapon. It isn't and there is nothing in the rules to indicate that one is.

Tell me where in the rules "Lightning Claws" are explicitly stated as 2 (and only 2!) weapons.

This is an interesting thread, to say the least.

Culler wrote:A) Falchions are 2 separate weapons that give +1 attack as a special ability (for +2A total)
B) Falchions are 2 separate weapons that have no special ability conferring bonus attacks, and the codex entry is merely confirming the fact they are 2 separate weapons (for +1A total)
C) Falchions are a single weapon that gives +1 attack as a special ability (for +1A total)

I'd side with Culler's B.

From where I stand, a Lightning Claw is a Close Combat Weapon. You buy a pair of them, and you get +1 attack. The tradeoff is not having a Storm Bolter (Wolf Guard, for example).

I don't have the GK codex (so please bear with me) but don't NFW cause ID on a failed LD test per wound?
If so, one extra attack on 5-10 guys could mean a LOT.
For 5 points gaining two extra attacks seems a bit OTT.

Apologizing in advance if I got it wrong, but I'm curious about this discussion. People on both sides have made interesting points.

to activate the ID part of a FW it requires a psychic test to cause one attack to be ID.

so a regular GK squad can only do one ID attack each.


Level2 and 3 Gk psykers could do multiple ID attacks with their force weapons though.

Ah, thanks GT. Still, having an extra attack to hit and wound under those circumstances still seems good, given that you're improving your chances of landing that blow, right?

I would be ok with playing a game with someone who presented one of the more sensible arguments about the pair getting +2, though. It's a thin line, after all.

Grey Templar wrote:to activate the ID part of a FW it requires a psychic test to cause one attack to be ID.

so a regular GK squad can only do one ID attack each.


Level2 and 3 Gk psykers could do multiple ID attacks with their force weapons though.

Wrong. A GK Squad makes every attack inflict instant death if they pass their test. See Brotherhood of Psykers on page 21 and Nemesis Force Weapons on page 54.

Really?

Thats, interesting.

It's really freaking awesome, is what it is.

And even better, Terminators and Paladins can take a banner which makes them automatically pass the psychic test for them to activate, so not even Tyranids are safe.

To me it's kind've like the Templar's Chapter Banner. Units that charge a BT squad with the Banner give it both counter-attack and an additional attack (page 27, wargear section). Is it stretching? Hell yeah, but it's written in black and white. At least to me, anyway.

Grey Templar wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Yes, and the pair of Flachions is defined as a single weapon as per the rules.

where?

by your definition, if i buy a pair of LCs for my assault marine sergeant he doesn't have 2 LCs.

the fact i can buy them singly is irrelavent.

Except that you CAN'T buy Pair of lighting claws to your assault sergeant, do you have codex at all? In all latest books that share similar design you buy\switch items one by one, not as pairs.

Grey Templar wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Yes, and the pair of Flachions is defined as a single weapon as per the rules.

where?

the fact i can buy them singly is irrelavent.

By the wargear entry, 'weapons' are purchsed singularly or one at a time. The 'weapon' one is purchasing is a 'pair of flachions' which grant +1A and count-as a nemisis force weapon. If one was in fact purchasing two CCW's then the enrty need to explictly state this, as shown with 'Shardnet and impaler' and many other things which 'count as' two CCW.

Lightning Claws BRB
"Lightning claws are commonly used as matched pairs and consist of a number of blades, each a mini-power weapon, normally mounted on the back of the hand. A lightning claw is a power weapon and it also allows the wielder to re-roll any failed roll to wound." Is defined as a singular item. Thus when one has two one gains a bonus attack for two of the same special CCW. They are bought as a single item - unless you want to say that every entry which allows one to swap for two claws is redundant.

Nemisis Flachions are a singular wargear entry, for it to 'counts as two CCWs' it actually needs word to that effect. As other pairs of items which are purchased as pairs of items show.
For a single wargear entry/purchase, it's one weapon unless told otherwise.

So Marneus Calgar's Gauntlets of Ultramar, are 1 weapon because they are one wargear entry, even though they are listed as a pair of power fists?

Hint: they are two power fists, Pair means two.

DeathReaper wrote:So Marneus Calgar's Gauntlets of Ultramar, are 1 weapon because they are one wargear entry, even though they are listed as a pair of power fists?

Two approachs for this issue depending on which argument one wished to make.

1) Yep that's right, they are.

2) No they are in-fact two weapons but as a PF is clearly defined as a single handed CCW in the dex there's no issue there. Can you find a flachion defined as a CCW?

Is a falchion a CCW? then it is one handed, since it does not state that it is two handed, as per the FAQ.

Your #1 is a logical fallacy, since P.42 tells us, under "two of the same special weapon', that you use only the special weapon's bonuses and penalties.

Better lol.

That's just it a 'flachion' does not exist. They are only ever 'used in pairs' they can not be used independantly, so one alone can not be a CCW. If it were defined at all as a CCW then yes they'd have two CCWs but as things stand a flachion is not a CCW and it will need an FAQ to right it.

ChrisCP wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Yes, and the pair of Flachions is defined as a single weapon as per the rules.

where?

the fact i can buy them singly is irrelavent.

By the wargear entry, 'weapons' are purchsed singularly or one at a time. The 'weapon' one is purchasing is a 'pair of flachions' which grant +1A and count-as a nemisis force weapon. If one was in fact purchasing two CCW's then the enrty need to explictly state this, as shown with 'Shardnet and impaler' and many other things which 'count as' two CCW.

Lightning Claws BRB
"Lightning claws are commonly used as matched pairs and consist of a number of blades, each a mini-power weapon, normally mounted on the back of the hand. A lightning claw is a power weapon and it also allows the wielder to re-roll any failed roll to wound." Is defined as a singular item. Thus when one has two one gains a bonus attack for two of the same special CCW. They are bought as a single item - unless you want to say that every entry which allows one to swap for two claws is redundant.

Nemisis Flachions are a singular wargear entry, for it to 'counts as two CCWs' it actually needs word to that effect. As other pairs of items which are purchased as pairs of items show.
For a single wargear entry/purchase, it's one weapon unless told otherwise.

Im going to be civil and simply state: The only reason they are bought as a pair is so they dont get taken as single weapons, hence looking like nemesis force swords. Being bought as a pair removes the possibility of confusing, and is a defining WYSIWYG of the model. I am not saying that because the model has 2 they are counted as 2, I am saying they are counted as 2 so the model is forced to take 2 to be WYSIWYG.

Or they could be a weapon 'set' like a 'shardnet and impaler' but aren't two close combat weapons... Taking them as a 'single weapon' isn't possible due to the codex section restrictions, and even if taking one was possible the GK in question has no other way of gaining a bonus attack.

So I put to you. They are a pair for the rule of cool, a guy wielding two looks cool than with one. They grant a bonus attack, because they are so cool, otherwise they'd be force swords. If they'd stated grant +2 attacks we'd still be having this discussion for people wanting +3. If they'd been intended to grant +2 attacks then they would have stated 'counts as two CCW' or it will be attended to in the FAQ.

As things stand I would love for someone to show me what a 'nemesis falchion' is in the 40K Rules Universe and then justify it with Rules as being two CCWs. Powerfists are defined singularly, so are lightning claws. Flachoins are invariably wielded as a pair - otherwise they would be force swords. +5pts +1 attack not bad. Basically if people still disagree that A Falchion is not anything in a rules context, and that wargear does not need to explicitly state that it counts as two CCWs - then we will remain at this impasse until the issues is addressed by GW.

Putting the main issue aside. I have a sense or foreboding from the idea of counting anything with a plural or indication of a second item as an additional CCW. But it might give some old codexs a buff when they need it most.

Grey Templar wrote:Really?

Thats, interesting.

Yeah, it is so you dont have to roll every single gk's attacks individually so you know if any gk's didnt cause any wounds.

Falchion (pronounced /ˈfɔːlʃən/, from Old French fauchon, ultimately from Latin falx "sickle") is a one-handed, single-edged sword of European origin, whose design is reminiscent of the Persian scimitar and the Chinese dao.

Definition of PAIR

a (1) : two corresponding things designed for use together (2) : two corresponding bodily parts or members

The argument that you can't use a single falchion is ridiculous. You can't BUY a single falchion, but it certainly is a weapon in its own right.

The 'pair' of pants argument is similarly inane. A 'pair' of scissors would have been a better illustration - but please tell me that none of you would suggest that GW meant its most elite warriors to be running about with Nemesis Force Scissors. Everyone knows that's just not safe.

I think it's safe to say that everyone knows what a pair is. It's been insisted time and time again that a pair grants +1 Attack, if you have two CCW.

You pay for the pair, and as far as we know, that combination is a single CCW that grants +1 attack. Perhaps it is a pair on the miniatures because they found it had to be different to the regular Nemesis Force Sword. If it was meant to be an extra CCW it'd be easier if you bought a Falchion in addition to the NFW you already had.

Ok.... since a "pair of pants" is a bad comparison...how about this for a real world example...

A "Pair of" Chopsticks! Now it can be argued that you only need one but they are best used as a single item. Yes, you get 2 chopsticks, but they are most effective when employed as a single item.

So, who wants to argue that having a "pair of" chopsticks means you can pick up more with each because they are a "Pair"?

The same can be said for Knitting needles...... You need two for them to be any use, but individually, they are nearly useless.

That's just it a 'flachion' does not exist. They are only ever 'used in pairs' they can not be used independantly, so one alone can not be a CCW.

You'd have a point if their wargear entry also listed them as a pair of falchions. They are listed only a falchions and they have special rules that apply to falchions and when purchased you get a pair and alll the benefits that stem from that...

FlingitNow wrote:

That's just it a 'flachion' does not exist. They are only ever 'used in pairs' they can not be used independantly, so one alone can not be a CCW.

You'd have a point if their wargear entry also listed them as a pair of falchions. They are listed only a falchions and they have special rules that apply to falchions and when purchased you get a pair and alll the benefits that stem from that...

The wargear entry simply says what the Falchions rule is.


However, the unit entry says you buy a PAIR of them.

so what you can only ever buy them in a pair. i can only buy shoes in pairs, but there are still 2 of them.

helgrenze wrote:Ok.... since a "pair of pants" is a bad comparison...how about this for a real world example...

A "Pair of" Chopsticks! Now it can be argued that you only need one but they are best used as a single item. Yes, you get 2 chopsticks, but they are most effective when employed as a single item.

So, who wants to argue that having a "pair of" chopsticks means you can pick up more with each because they are a "Pair"?

The same can be said for Knitting needles...... You need two for them to be any use, but individually, they are nearly useless.

Good examples...but a single falchion is perfectly serviceable weapon. A single chopstick or a single knitting needle can't really do the job they were intended for - a single falchion, can.

yes, i can still spear my food with a single chopstick, or poke someones eye out.

if i have 2 i can do it even better.

The wargear entry simply says what the Falchions rule is.


However, the unit entry says you buy a PAIR of them.

so what you can only ever buy them in a pair. i can only buy shoes in pairs, but there are still 2 of them.

I agree entirely

Wargears just says what falcions do. So thus what each falchion does, that you have to purchase them as a pair is largely irrelevant it just means you have to gain a further benefit.

Destrado wrote:I think it's safe to say that everyone knows what a pair is. It's been insisted time and time again that a pair grants +1 Attack, if you have two CCW.

You pay for the pair, and as far as we know, that combination is a single CCW that grants +1 attack. Perhaps it is a pair on the miniatures because they found it had to be different to the regular Nemesis Force Sword. If it was meant to be an extra CCW it'd be easier if you bought a Falchion in addition to the NFW you already had.

Except that would give you the benefit of both +1 attacks for 2 CCWs as well as the +1 to the invulnerable save granted by the orignal NFW.

Rephistorch wrote:Except that would give you the benefit of both +1 attacks for 2 CCWs as well as the +1 to the invulnerable save granted by the orignal NFW.

I merely meant it as illustrative. Imagine changing the bonus around. The Falchions grant +2 Initiative, the Halberd +1 to the Invulnerable Save, and the Sword +1 Attack.

If it was written like this, would the Falchions being a pair grant another attack on top of it? I still think they did it like that to show a clear difference between the equipment you pick.

Let's look at it another way. What does a single Falchion do? Give 0.5 attacks? 1 Attack?

If it was written like this, would the Falchions being a pair grant another attack on top of it?

Yes in your example the falcions would give both +2 I and +1 attack for being double armed.

yup, the Falchions would give +2I and +1A for being 2 CCWs in that situation.

FlingitNow wrote:Yes in your example the falcions would give both +2 I and +1 attack for being double armed.

I know that the Falchion is a single weapon, and wielding a pair of (nearly all, not necessarily identical) CCWs grants you an extra attack.

In order for that to happen a single Falchion must be a CCW - and it is stated nowhere that it is as such. Let us distance ourselfs from "pair", falchions, etc. so that I can try to make my point clear.

Upgrade X - 4 points, +2 Ini

Upgrade Y - 5 points, +1 Att

We're talking about LD 9/10, WS4 troops that cost 20 points, have 1 base attack that on a successful roll causes ID. Getting another two attacks on the base profile should be worth a LOT more than 5 points.

At least I think that was what Ward was thinking... Of course we'll only know until the 'dex gets FAQ'd, but it is a problem that could be answered by the Developer on one of the GW's site daily posts.

Actually, Falchions are stated as being CCWs.


they are called nemisis force weapons.


nemisis force weapons are Force Weapons.


force weapons are power weapons.


power weapons are, unless specifically stated as such, CCWs.

Grey Templar wrote:Actually, Falchions are stated as being CCWs.

We know that, fluff wise, a NFW is a NFW no matter what.

But here they are only available in pairs, and the benefit for that upgrade is another Attack.

I don't think we'll ever reach a conclusion, GT. I see your point, but I still think that the rules weren't intended as that. There was a case where the Developer specifically stated that an upgrade granted, or didn't, the extra attack. I just can't remember where (and what edition) it was.

But if a Falchion is a NFW,

and a NFW is a FW,

and a FW is a PW,

and PW is a CCW,

therefore, according to the rules of Logic, a Falchion = CCW.

I'm not for making things any more over powered than they are...but it seems fairly clear that no one would take the falchions for +1 attack only. The halberd is a better choice for the same or lesser cost (depending on unit) in most cases.

Grey Templar wrote:But if a Falchion is a NFW,

and a NFW is a FW,

and a FW is a PW,

and PW is a CCW,

therefore, according to the rules of Logic, a Falchion = CCW.

If Falchion = NFW, it has no benefit alone (the Sword has +1 to Inv Saves, the Halberd for +2 Ini). Then you have two NFW that, together grant +1 Attack, as stated in the entry, which ought to reiterate what is stated in the BGB, under the entry regarding two CCWs.

Individually, it's just a NFW without any other bonus. Bought as a pair, it has the said bonus.

@Void, there are a lot of weapon options that are worse than other upgrades. Some people might prefer the look of the Falchions, or do it because they fight some enemies where +1 Attack might justify it. Not everyone cares for Mathammer - take, for example, if fighting lower initiative enemies like Orks or Necrons - in this case the extra attack upgrade would be a lot more useful (though the Halberd is more versatile).

Destrado wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:But if a Falchion is a NFW,

and a NFW is a FW,

and a FW is a PW,

and PW is a CCW,

therefore, according to the rules of Logic, a Falchion = CCW.

If Falchion = NFW, it has no benefit alone (the Sword has +1 to Inv Saves, the Halberd for +2 Ini). Then you have two NFW that, together grant +1 Attack, as stated in the entry, which ought to reiterate what is stated in the BGB, under the entry regarding two CCWs.

Individually, it's just a NFW without any other bonus. Bought as a pair, it has the said bonus.

@Void, there are a lot of weapon options that are worse than other upgrades. Some people might prefer the look of the Falchions, or do it because they fight some enemies where +1 Attack might justify it. Not everyone cares for Mathammer - take, for example, if fighting lower initiative enemies like Orks or Necrons - in this case the extra attack upgrade would be a lot more useful (though the Halberd is more versatile).

however, the Falchion, as a NFW, has additional rules. the additional rule is that Falchions(plural being the same plural by which the Halbard Entry says Halbards)


if a person bought a single Falchion(if it were possable) then, RAW, they would get +1A.

adding another Falchion gives an additional attack because you have a Falchion and an additional CCW. the additional CCW just happens to also be a Falchion.

According to Jaon's image on the first post, it clearly states that a pair of Falchions adds 1 Attack. It doesn't state that each Falchion gets 1 attack.

In any case, I emailed GW. I'm curious as to what their opinion on this might be.

the people who work the GW help line know absolutly nothing about the rules.

after you get the answer back, send the email again. you will most likely get a different answer.

It's not like I think it will settle the argument, but who knows what we'll get. It's not like we're nearing the end of the discussion (although I think it managed to stay quite insult-free).

Nice arguing with you, GT, and some others. People managed to pass their point without resorting to insults.

I could argue RAI, but if I did something as stupid as that I'd have to know exactly what Nemesis Force Weapon does (as in, is it ever possible to have two NFW? How much are the costs between these two options on an as similar model as possible?)

Regardless, there is such a thing as being overly clear on the rules. Re-stating what a weapon or pair of weapons do just for clarity is not beyond GW and may very well be exactly just that.

It is generally accepted that the two Eldar options that Steelmage99 brough up on page 2 only gives exactly what the rulebook entry says - and no extra attack for being a pair.
What changes that for Grey Knights when it is how we've been playing other armies for nearly a decade now? I mean, it's nice if I can add power weapon and +2 attacks for +10 points on a Warp Spider (which is far, far, below the standard fare for such upgrades), but it's still a pretty marginal gain for me personally.

Previously a single weapons entry meant that in spite of the actual model having two weapons and it being described as a dual weapon, on Dakkadakka it had been accepted as being a single weapon.

But regardless, I'm doing something silly and have skipped a few pages of posting. I believe the real answer lies in how much the weapon upgrade costs, if that can even be discerned.

P.S. helgrenze, stop bringing up trousers. It's a pair since each leg is one. The fact that it's sewn together into a single item of clothing is a very recent thing and it wasn't that many years ago (historically speaking) when it was two or three separate pieces of clothing.

P.p.s. So I did skim them after all...

Let's look at it another way. What does a single Falchion do? Give 0.5 attacks? 1 Attack?

It would grant the user +1 attack as that is the rules for a model armed with a falchion, if he also had another CCW he would gain a further additional attack.

Initially I read the NemFalch entry and responded to the OP 'huk huk 1 attack stoopid'. Then going through this thread, and especially looking at how Grey Templar broke it down, I think RAW it probably is 2 attacks, such that a charging Grey Knight Terminator would get 5 attacks total.

So now I'm completely undecided as to how they should work. It wouldn't be the first time wargear improved an attack characteristic (Thunderwulf Cav), but it would be the first time that a weapon did so without being a variable number (daemon weapon d6, MotW d6).

It's not worth 5 points if all it does is increase the A characteristic by 1, but I'm not sure if 5 points is enough spent to justify increasing by 2. Taken in a vacuum, 8 grenade-toting Terminators getting forty attacks on the charge with force weapons certainly does seem worth 360 points.

And in all fairness, the terminators end up sacrificing a significant increase in invulnerable save in order to get it. I'd say, for five points, it's a fair trade off.

For a normal Grey Knight it is 10 points, given that giving him a superior version of a thunderhammer only costs 5 points (is free for the terminators) gaining 2 attacks seems about right for the spend.

Im interested to see what the GW dudes say, reguardless of their lack of knowledge. I will play it as 2 attacks for wysiwyg purposes, until it is FAQ'd.

From a pointswise standpoint, it does seem 10 points = 2 attacks more. Now just grant them counter attack and the unit is rock hard

Ah, so I see the dogma has shifted back to Demiklaives, Powerblades, and Chainsabers all giving +2/3 attacks then.

Demiklaives are listed as a two handed weapon (dont quote me, someone else said it)

I have realized something so very horrible.

Terminator with 2 attacks base. 1+ for banner. 2+ for falchion, 1+ for charge / counter attack (if given). 6 attacks.

Between 4 terminators, thats already 24 power weapon attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
..now I feel bad :/

Yup, its brutal.

although a squad like that is costing 250 points minimum and they only have a 5++ save so TEQ hunters will rip them up pretty bad.

Jaon wrote:Im interested to see what the GW dudes say, reguardless of their lack of knowledge. I will play it as 2 attacks for wysiwyg purposes, until it is FAQ'd.

From a pointswise standpoint, it does seem 10 points = 2 attacks more. Now just grant them counter attack and the unit is rock hard

I'd argue pointswise that 10 points for 2 extra attacks is too cheap. Given that Power Armour Grey Knights wouldn't be sacrificing anything to make that trade.

To the best of my knowledge, everyone else who wants an extra attack with no strings attached pays 10 points for it. (Mark of Khorne on a Lord, Aspiring Champion Upgrades)
Alternatively, they pay less for the extra attack, but have to sacrifice shooting ability to get it (swap boltgun for bolt pistol).

Power Armour Grey Knights don't give up any shooting ability when buying Falchions, nor do the Falchions have any built in drawbacks like initiative loss. They lose a bonus to an invulnerable save they don't have, but that doesn't mean anything. Ten points for 1 attack looks fair to me.

A 50% increase in price for 1 attack? Nope, definintely not "fair"

Only 1 attack really doesnt fit with the description - they can attack "lightningly fast", yet at +1 attack they can attack exactly the same number of times as someone holding ONE of the weapons and a pistol?

The RAW is fairly clear, as there is nothing stating the +1attack replaces the bonus attack for 2CCW and you literally have a pair of (Force Weapon) Falchions

They go from being a complete nobrainer of a none choice to a serious contender.

Chrysis wrote:

Jaon wrote:Im interested to see what the GW dudes say, reguardless of their lack of knowledge. I will play it as 2 attacks for wysiwyg purposes, until it is FAQ'd.

From a pointswise standpoint, it does seem 10 points = 2 attacks more. Now just grant them counter attack and the unit is rock hard

I'd argue pointswise that 10 points for 2 extra attacks is too cheap. Given that Power Armour Grey Knights wouldn't be sacrificing anything to make that trade.

To the best of my knowledge, everyone else who wants an extra attack with no strings attached pays 10 points for it. (Mark of Khorne on a Lord, Aspiring Champion Upgrades)
Alternatively, they pay less for the extra attack, but have to sacrifice shooting ability to get it (swap boltgun for bolt pistol).

Power Armour Grey Knights don't give up any shooting ability when buying Falchions, nor do the Falchions have any built in drawbacks like initiative loss. They lose a bonus to an invulnerable save they don't have, but that doesn't mean anything. Ten points for 1 attack looks fair to me.

what you forget is you are putting the price of a single marine up to 30 points. Every plasma shot fired into that repays for the plasma gun and the model firing it.

I'd argue pointswise that 10 points for 2 extra attacks is too cheap. Given that Power Armour Grey Knights wouldn't be sacrificing anything to make that trade.

To the best of my knowledge, everyone else who wants an extra attack with no strings attached pays 10 points for it. (Mark of Khorne on a Lord, Aspiring Champion Upgrades)
Alternatively, they pay less for the extra attack, but have to sacrifice shooting ability to get it (swap boltgun for bolt pistol).

Power Armour Grey Knights don't give up any shooting ability when buying Falchions, nor do the Falchions have any built in drawbacks like initiative loss. They lose a bonus to an invulnerable save they don't have, but that doesn't mean anything. Ten points for 1 attack looks fair to me.

You're not factoring in survivability or what other options are available. Everyone to take a THunderhammer or Powerfist is normall paying 25-30 points the Grey Knights get a superior version for just 5 points. So in comparison they are comparatively paying 50-60 points for the falcions.

Look at Purifiers they have 1 more attack (and no strings) are 4 points more that a Strike. Everything in the codex points towards Falchions being +2 attacks.

As much as I love it, purifiers are horribly undercosted

Jaon wrote:Demiklaives are listed as a two handed weapon (dont quote me, someone else said it)

Demiklaives: Demiklaives are power weapons that can either be wielded separately - adding +2 to the bearer's Attacks - or clasped together to form a much larger blade that confers +2 to the wielder's Strength (choose which to use each round before the bearer makes his attacks).

Nothing in there about being two handed weapons. Same wording as Falchions on the bonus attack part. So if Falchions are +2 attacks, Demiklaives are +3 when used for extra attacks.

Culler wrote:I think RAW it says that they only give +1A, not +2. Here's my reasoning:

The entry doesn't say that a pair of nemesis falchions GIVE +1A (implying it is given above and beyond whatever else), they say that models with a pair of them HAVE +1A, meaning the total amount of bonus attacks for wielding that equipment on top of your base from stat line is +1A. Bonus attacks from sources besides this particular piece of equipment do stack.

For 5/10 points they should give +2A though, and this should be FAQ'd.

This.

Except nothing stating they are a pair, which is a fairly critical aspect....

Well, the Wargear entry AND the unit entry both say there are 2 of them.

Grey Templar wrote:Well, the Wargear entry AND the unit entry both say there are 2 of them.

No, it doesnt. Page 31 just contains the rules text noted above - which never mentions a number, just a plural - and the Unit Entry simply states "Demiklaives"

Demiklaives are 1 weapon, whereas Nemesis Falchions DO come in pairs.

I have to agree with DarknessEternal.

As long as Powered Blades, Chainsabers, and Demiklaives are not being given a "free" attack I don't see why GKs should get one for a wargear with similar wording?

I mean when you think about it, you are doubling a Strike Squad's melee attacks for 50% of the cost. Thats not really a bad trade off...

I mean there is no reason that GKs should be different from anybody else in how their rules are interpreted.

As has been mentioned before, what a model is armed with by the rules, and how that is represetned on the table top are 2 very different things. I can model a khorne demon weapon as being 2 blades, but that doesn't make it more than one weapon.

If a pair of Falcions grants + 1 attack, then thats what a PAIR does.

I am constantly gaining more and more respect for the job Phil Kelly did writing the Eldar codex. Look at the entry for Mirror Swords. It says roughly that a model weilding mirror swords gets +2 attacks instead of the usual +1 for wielding 2 weapons. That is an example of a clearly worded pair of weapons granting +2 attacks.

If you play Powered Blades as granting +1 attack, then you need to play Falcions the same way. Simple as that.

+1Attack /= BONUS attack

Guess what 2 CCW gives you. Hint: not the former.

Until the rules state otherwise, you get +2A, 1 for the special rule and 1 bonus attack for 2 CCW from having 2 power weapons.

Seriously - the fluff has them attacking far faster than normal. Well, according to some "faster than normal" == "like any schmuck with a power weapon and pistol"

Oh wait, thats not faster. Thats the same. Sigh

Look through the codexes. +10 points is standard fare for a sergeant model to gain power weapon for his 2 basic attacks. For stronger (PA) sergeants it's not uncommon with +15 points.

Here we're talking about a model that gets an additional force weapon attack at +10 points. Not at all unreasonable. Now, you're only allowed to make the single force weapon check, but each additional attack makes you more likely to use it. +2 force weapon attacks for mere +10 points sounds insanely strong. (Plus it'd have ramifications on how other codexes are played)

akean also brings up a very good example where +1 power weapon attack costs exactly +10 points, albeit from a 4th edition codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now, here's another leading question: can these models use a normal force weapon with a pistol?

If they can, then having +2 attacks from a considerably more expensive upgrade is not unreasonable. If a force weapon might as well be or is two-handed, on the other hand...

Mahtamori - yet 10 points to LOSE +1 inv save on your terminators to gain 1 attack makes NO sense whatsoever, points wise

RAW is clear, FLUFF is clear (for once!) so why the problem?

If it were as clear as you seem to think, I don't think this giant thread would be here...

my guess is that the people who think it doesn't give 2 attacks don't want to be on the recieving end of those attacks.

Slinky wrote:If it were as clear as you seem to think, I don't think this giant thread would be here...

No, the thread is here because people try to ignore the rules in favour of their perceived ideas of what the rules should be saying.

The rules in this case are very, very simple. You havea pair of power weapons that give you +1Attack. they are 2 CCW so you get a bonus attack

REALLY simple

nosferatu1001 wrote:Mahtamori - yet 10 points to LOSE +1 inv save on your terminators to gain 1 attack makes NO sense whatsoever, points wise

RAW is clear, FLUFF is clear (for once!) so why the problem?

That's +5 points to lose +1 inv to gain +1A. +10 points is on the models that doesn't give up anything.

akeon nailed it in my opinion, with the Mirror Swords. No one is ignoring the rules, the rules are badly written and can be differently interpretated.

If a pair of Falcions grants + 1 attack, then thats what a PAIR does.

No it is what Falchions do. Not what a pair do they are never referred to as a pair in their wargear section. The +1 attack is for weilding 1 or more falchions. Thus weilding 2 falchions grants +1A plus another +1A for being double armed.

This is the difference between Falchions and the other wargear you have mentioned. Falchions have an entry and are then purchased as a pair. Your examples have their entry and are purchased as per their entry. The entry for falchions makes no mention of them being a pair, that only comes from the purchasing option. Sop just like purchasing a pair of lightening claws you gain +1 attack alongside any other bonuses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Look through the codexes. +10 points is standard fare for a sergeant model to gain power weapon for his 2 basic attacks. For stronger (PA) sergeants it's not uncommon with +15 points.

Here we're talking about a model that gets an additional force weapon attack at +10 points. Not at all unreasonable. Now, you're only allowed to make the single force weapon check, but each additional attack makes you more likely to use it. +2 force weapon attacks for mere +10 points sounds insanely strong. (Plus it'd have ramifications on how other codexes are played)

akean also brings up a very good example where +1 power weapon attack costs exactly +10 points, albeit from a 4th edition codex.

Look at standard codexes Thunder hammers and powerfists are 25-30 points, here the daemon hammer (which is superior) is a 5 point upgrade compared to the 10 points you are paying for the falchions. Double strength or +1 attack in every other incidence in every other codex you pay far more for double strength than for 1 extra attack... Surely that tells you within the confides of this codex that the Falchiosn MUST do more than be +1 attack.

Very good point right there.

More over. Purifiers have 2 attacks and cleansing flame AND the ability to take twice the special weapons FOR HALF THE PRICE! And they are 24 points, as opposed to Strike squads being 20ppm. This leads us to believe that Falchions give 2+ attacks, because otherwise purifiers would be 30 points each.

Moreover, Halberds are 2+ ini. Thats an insane boost, and they are half the cost of something that supposedly adds one attack. That doesnt sound right does it?

FlingitNow wrote:
No it is what Falchions do. Not what a pair do they are never referred to as a pair in their wargear section. The +1 attack is for weilding 1 or more falchions. Thus weilding 2 falchions grants +1A plus another +1A for being double armed.

Not wanting to be too picky but the wargear section does indeed call them a pair I'll quote the book

"A wielder of a pair of Nemesis falchions has +1 attack"

Now I'm on your side here i think it's 2 bonus attacks for falchions it makes sense really the wording to me reads that a model with them receives +1 to their attack characteristic and it's makes no mention to multiple CCW therefore we follow the rules as stated in the rule book which state model with 2 single handed close combat weapons receive an additional attack in close combat which we know a pair of falchions are as they are as stated in the codex a pair which is 2.

Any way that's just the way I read it.

Grey Templar wrote:my guess is that the people who think it doesn't give 2 attacks don't want to be on the recieving end of those attacks.

Actually, I just want my Demiklaives and Powerblades to get an extra attack too. Chainsabers aren't used, so no one cares about them.

Either way, these 4 weapons all work the same way.

Well, Demiklaives sure wouldn't give you an extra attack as they already do in their rules.

Grey Templar wrote:my guess is that the people who think it doesn't give 2 attacks don't want to be on the recieving end of those attacks.

If the GW would just make it clear that it gives 2 Attacks instead of 1 like Mirrorswords, this thread wont be needed.
I'd go with 2 Attacks, but there's the wording of Chainsabres and Powerblades... But the Eldar Codex is pretty old, so I am not sure if that counts for anything in this case.
RAI, hard to argue, 5 pts for 1 extra attack instead of other option seems bad, but it's not like sub-optimal options never appear in a codex.
Fluff, doesnt matter when it comes to actual gameplay...

If you want a newer codex, have a look at the Dark Eldar codex. All of the paired weapons explicitly state that they count as an extra hand weapon, and in the case of the Hydra Gauntlets that the +1 bonus is replaced with +d6.

Given that there's no rules for "A Nemesis Falchion" only for "A Pair of Nemesis Falchions" and that the rules don't explicitly state they count as having an extra hand weapon then they don't. On the basis they aren't explicitly stated as having two weapons in the rules, they don't technically have two weapons and so don't qualify for the two weapon bonus attack.

Btw last mention of PAIR lc's was in SM vanilla codex) all ones after that say claws, and when you switching weapons you switch each hand separately.

Jackster wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:my guess is that the people who think it doesn't give 2 attacks don't want to be on the recieving end of those attacks.

If the GW would just make it clear that it gives 2 Attacks instead of 1 like Mirrorswords, this thread wont be needed.
I'd go with 2 Attacks, but there's the wording of Chainsabres and Powerblades... But the Eldar Codex is pretty old, so I am not sure if that counts for anything in this case.
RAI, hard to argue, 5 pts for 1 extra attack instead of other option seems bad, but it's not like sub-optimal options never appear in a codex.
Fluff, doesnt matter when it comes to actual gameplay...

Forgive me, but I can't find chainsabres or powerblades anywhere. What page is this wargear option listed? I'm guessing codex: eldar from the context, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit:Nevermind, found it.

I would say yes, they get +2 as well, depending on how you argue it. The upgrade option states that you can replace both of your weapons with chainsabers. I could very easily assume that means 2 of them, and would allow +1, and the +1 for two CCWs.

Powerblades listed as i remember in Warp Spiders section

Chainsabres and Powerblades are from Codex: Eldar. Check the Striking Scorpions and Warp Spiders entries respectively. Contrast them with Mirrorblades from the Howling Banshees entry.

I think the _+1 attack is intending to point out that it is in fact only an additional CCW based on this "A Pair of Nemesis Falchions" ... unfortunatly not a "special" CCW ie: +2 ini etc.

really for now its going to boil down to whom your playing as to how it will be interpreted.

I didn't see this so I'll add it ...
the said weapon is often the most or second most expensive weapon within the loadout options. in other words could be an indicator that it does indeed grant a +2 (fingers cross) esp. with ini. 4

the hali's give +2 ini
the Hammer = thunder @ ini. !!!
stave = 2++ in CCW

all this placed side by side, then slide in the point cost ... makes it really look like we are really gaining a +2 attack

ohh I don't remember ever seeing that termies can deep strike, but we know they can.

FAQ needed sort of

Hammer go by ini only vs demons\psykers - no?

penek wrote:Hammer go by ini only vs demons\psykers - no?

No. But since almost everyone in the codex has psyk out grenades, Daemons and psykers will be striking at I1 anyway.

Nope ... always based on ini. true they shall

Fafnir wrote:

penek wrote:Hammer go by ini only vs demons\psykers - no?

No. But since almost everyone in the codex has psyk out grenades, Daemons and psykers will be striking at I1 anyway.

It's ini 1, but in addition, it's at normal initiative if it's being wielded by the dreadknight.

Then you need go and read it better. its strike by ini only on Dread Knight.

damn I can't read ... Thanks!

And about blahblah Halberds +2Ini why i must lose +1 to invul(that not all models have) and get just one attack at 4Ini.. maybe you forgot that GK can get Ini10 ? And two force weapon attacks at 10\5 points is too much imho

penek wrote:And about blahblah Halberds +2Ini why i must lose +1 to invul(that not all models have) and get just one attack at 4Ini.. maybe you forgot that GK can get Ini10 ? And two force weapon attacks at 10\5 points is too much imho

With all the psychic defense out there, think of the halberd as insurance.

I voted no, because 2+ means '2 or more'. They certainly don't give you 2 or more attacks...

They might give you +2 attacks though, I'm not sure.....

Chrysis wrote:If you want a newer codex, have a look at the Dark Eldar codex. All of the paired weapons explicitly state that they count as an extra hand weapon, and in the case of the Hydra Gauntlets that the +1 bonus is replaced with +d6.

Given that there's no rules for "A Nemesis Falchion" only for "A Pair of Nemesis Falchions" and that the rules don't explicitly state they count as having an extra hand weapon then they don't. On the basis they aren't explicitly stated as having two weapons in the rules, they don't technically have two weapons and so don't qualify for the two weapon bonus attack.

4

Incorrect.

the entrry is for a Nemesis Falchion. ALL Nemesis Weapons are categorically listed as Force Weapons. All Power Weapons are Single Handed CCW, as defined in the BRB.

Thus you have a Pair of Nemesis Falchions == Pair of (Force Weapon) Falchions == Pair of (Power weapon + bonus) Falchions == Pair of (single handed CCW+ Bonus) Falchions == Pair of CCW (Falchions)

This has been posted 10 or 11 times now, so please either refute the decomposition given above or refrain from claiming the dont count as 2 CCW. They DO.

Grey Templar wrote:Well, Demiklaives sure wouldn't give you an extra attack as they already do in their rules.

Not by the logic the pro-2 Attack Falchions group are using.

Demiklaives should always give +1 attack more than what it says, whether you're using the extra attack or extra strength options. They are more than one close combat weapon after all, just like Falchions.

Demiklaives have 2 profiles.


1 is a single 2 handed weapon and the other is 2 blades.

the Single weapon gives you a Str bonus, the 2 blades give you +2 attacks.


you get the bonus aready.

Grey Templar wrote:Demiklaives have 2 profiles.


1 is a single 2 handed weapon and the other is 2 blades.

the Single weapon gives you a Str bonus, the 2 blades give you +2 attacks.


you get the bonus aready.

That's exactly the same as saying one already receives the bonus from NF btw.

ChrisCP wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Demiklaives have 2 profiles.


1 is a single 2 handed weapon and the other is 2 blades.

the Single weapon gives you a Str bonus, the 2 blades give you +2 attacks.


you get the bonus aready.

That's exactly the same as saying one already receives the bonus from NF btw.

no its not.


now, if Demiklaives said, the wielder of Demiklaives gains +1Str and then went on to say that they have 2 options of wielding them. as a single handed weapon with +2Str, or 2 CCWs with +1A. the single handed weapon would give a total of +3Str(1 for being a Demiklaive, 2 for being used 2 handed) the 2 CCWs would be +1A and +1 Str.




when i said you get the bonus already i meant Demiklaives get +2A for the same reasons the Falchions do.


Falchions give the wielder +1A. the wielder of Nemisis Falchions always uses 2 of them, therefore he also gets a bonus attack for using 2 hand weapons.

..So the wielders of Demis always receive +2 attacks, and is using two of them, so receives a bonus attack for two fo the same SCCW...

(Gosh I dislike wireless sometimes)

The wielder of the demiklaives only recieves +2A when using them as 2 CCWs.


When wielded as a single blade they give the Str bonus(the 2 weapons become 1 blade so arn't 2 CCW anymore)


for reference as to how this works look at Logan Grimnar's ax.

it is a CCW that has 2 options for how to wield it. either as a PF or a frost blade.


the Demiklaives are a special type of 2 CCWs that have 2 options for how to use them. either as 2 CCWs or as a single CCW. both ways have special rules.




Falchions are way simpler. they are a special type of CCW that gives the bearer +1A. because there are 2 of them they give a total of +2A.

Yes and as I'm wielding them as two of the same SCCW then I also recive the +1 bonus for that, just as you are saying for NF.

Very well. you can have the bonus attack as it seems to be the rules.


so Demiklaives actually give +3A when used as 2 blades(no bonus attacks when used as a single weapon)

2ChrisCP
its meaningless... its GK they are elite, so normal rules doesn't work for them.. so they get +2 attacks with falchions and others get 1 less attack with something alike. Their vehicles psykers, but can't be targeted by stuff that target psykers... because they psykers only when they want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:so Demiklaives actually give +3A when used as 2 blades(no bonus attacks when used as a single weapon)

they don't have any bonus attacks when in "Huge-blade" mode.

penek wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:so Demiklaives actually give +3A when used as 2 blades(no bonus attacks when used as a single weapon)

they don't have any bonus attacks when in "Huge-blade" mode.

Thats what i said

note bolded print


i think the main reason people are getting worked up is that they missed the hidden bonus attacks in those previous codexs, but the GK players were actually perceptive enough to find it in theirs.

GKs have also changed the most as far as their Structure and Wargear is concerned since their previous codex so everyone was analyzing the codex in detail. the DE codex got alot of new toys, but many changes were subtle and so got missed.

Demiklaves are not a pair of weapons. Demiklaves have an 's' at the end of the word, but that does not mean that you have a pair (2) demiklaves. You DO have a pair of falchions, however, so you have 2 falchions.

I dont know what the writer intended, and I eagerly await the FAQ. I do know that here, a model has 2 daemonbane force weapons. Thus the BRB grants a bonus attack. In addition, under the nemesis weapon rules, it states that all nemesis weapons have an additional rule. The only rule listed for Nemesis weapons is that when you have a pair of falchions you get +1 attack. So we have a special rule saying +1 attack for a pair, and the BRB saying bonus attack for a pair. The bonuses are not exclusive.

As for the eldar weapons...
A model with chainsabers has +1 attack and rerolls all to-hit and to-wound rolls. In addition, it is implied that chainsabers count as a pistol weapon.

Now, you must replace 2 ccw weapons for chainsabers on an exarch. This leaves you with 1 weapon, chainsabers, that most likely count as a twin linked pistol (though they dont have the pistol rule explicitly, it is implied). You do not replace your claw+pistol for a PAIR of chainsabers.

Powerblades: "Powerblades confer +1 attack and ignore armor saves.//The exarch may also be equipped with powerblades at +10 points." Powerblades are also demonstrated to be purchaced SINGLY, not in a PAIR.

So both Powerblades AND Chainsabers are purchased singly, not in pairs, AND their special rules are very different than a PAIR of nemesis force falchions. Using powerblades, klaves, and chainsabers to illustrate your point about nemesis force falchions is the defination of a strawman argument, as you hold up for an example to prove your point an item that is only superficially similar, but not even close to identical.

As a final note, I did kick around for balance purposes the effect of falchions granting a total of +2 attacks over a base guy. The results are that on terminators, versus halberds or force swords, the charger wins the combat. If neither side charges, then halberds beat falchions and falchions beat force swords.

Versus Lclaw termies of the vanillia variety, without hammerhand then even on the charge lclaw termies do more damage than falchion termies. With hammerhand active, the falchion termies have to assault to eventually win combat.

Versus vanilla THSS termies, again falchion termies need both hammerhand to go off AND to get the charge in order to beat THSS termies, just like Lclaws.

Without the +2 attacks, falchions would never make their points back compared to the other grey knight weapons, and would not even beat vanillia termies (either variety) on the charge.

While the statistics dont make the rules, I would hope that the statistics would at least be convincing that +2 attacks is not at all overpowered for termies. In fact, +2 attacks just barely puts the falchions on par with vanilla termies, WITH hammerhand going off, by making the side that gets the charge the one with the advantage (the way it should be IMHO). Without +2 attacks, the elite GK termies are never better than their vanilla brethren in CC.

DevianID wrote:Demiklaves are not a pair of weapons. Demiklaves have an 's' at the end of the word, but that does not mean that you have a pair (2) demiklaves. You DO have a pair of falchions, however, so you have 2 falchions.

go and recheck all last SMurf codexes, BA especially - you not find any assault termies with PAIR of LC's ... you find Assault Terminators that have "Lighting Claws"

Grey Templar wrote:
i think the main reason people are getting worked up is that they missed the hidden bonus attacks in those previous codexs, but the GK players were actually perceptive enough to find it in theirs.

People did notice, that's why this is a problem. The previous zeitgeist was that such weapons provided no bonuses over what they specifically stated.

Well, i sure didn't notice anything like it when the DE codex came out.


and a model with Falchions is clearly wielding 2 weapons while the Demiklaive rules are kinda wierd.

DevianID wrote:Demiklaves are not a pair of weapons. Demiklaves have an 's' at the end of the word, but that does not mean that you have a pair (2) demiklaves. You DO have a pair of falchions, however, so you have 2 falchions.

I dont know what the writer intended, and I eagerly await the FAQ. I do know that here, a model has 2 daemonbane force weapons. Thus the BRB grants a bonus attack. In addition, under the nemesis weapon rules, it states that all nemesis weapons have an additional rule. The only rule listed for Nemesis weapons is that when you have a pair of falchions you get +1 attack. So we have a special rule saying +1 attack for a pair, and the BRB saying bonus attack for a pair. The bonuses are not exclusive.

As for the eldar weapons...
A model with chainsabers has +1 attack and rerolls all to-hit and to-wound rolls. In addition, it is implied that chainsabers count as a pistol weapon.

Now, you must replace 2 ccw weapons for chainsabers on an exarch. This leaves you with 1 weapon, chainsabers, that most likely count as a twin linked pistol (though they dont have the pistol rule explicitly, it is implied). You do not replace your claw+pistol for a PAIR of chainsabers.

Powerblades: "Powerblades confer +1 attack and ignore armor saves.//The exarch may also be equipped with powerblades at +10 points." Powerblades are also demonstrated to be purchaced SINGLY, not in a PAIR.

So both Powerblades AND Chainsabers are purchased singly, not in pairs, AND their special rules are very different than a PAIR of nemesis force falchions. Using powerblades, klaves, and chainsabers to illustrate your point about nemesis force falchions is the defination of a strawman argument, as you hold up for an example to prove your point an item that is only superficially similar, but not even close to identical.

As a final note, I did kick around for balance purposes the effect of falchions granting a total of +2 attacks over a base guy. The results are that on terminators, versus halberds or force swords, the charger wins the combat. If neither side charges, then halberds beat falchions and falchions beat force swords.

Versus Lclaw termies of the vanillia variety, without hammerhand then even on the charge lclaw termies do more damage than falchion termies. With hammerhand active, the falchion termies have to assault to eventually win combat.

Versus vanilla THSS termies, again falchion termies need both hammerhand to go off AND to get the charge in order to beat THSS termies, just like Lclaws.

Without the +2 attacks, falchions would never make their points back compared to the other grey knight weapons, and would not even beat vanillia termies (either variety) on the charge.

While the statistics dont make the rules, I would hope that the statistics would at least be convincing that +2 attacks is not at all overpowered for termies. In fact, +2 attacks just barely puts the falchions on par with vanilla termies, WITH hammerhand going off, by making the side that gets the charge the one with the advantage (the way it should be IMHO). Without +2 attacks, the elite GK termies are never better than their vanilla brethren in CC.

Thank you for having the time to post the argument I have been brimming to make while reading this whole thread. Your points are absolutely the salient points of this discussion, including the specific wording on the wargear entry, the lack of the same (not similar, similar doesn't count) wording on other wargear purchases besides lightning claws; and lastly, the balance issues associated with the two interpretations: Either A) completely underpowered and uncompetitive option for all the units who can take it; or B) On par with both other options available in the same codex AND with other similar units in other codices.

Part of the problem (strictly from a balance perspective) is that it's not just Terminators you can put the things on.

Purifiers, already the best unit in the 'dex IMHO - become 4 attacks standing there, 5 on the charge!

I fielded 3 squads of them last week, but they never got into combat for me to see how they'd do. They SHOT everything to death first!

From a rules perspective...there's no argument. Just for a moment, think about the thought process of the designer. If you have an atom of imagination...it went a little like this:
"OK, we have guys with one long pointy force thing. Lets give them an initiative bonus. We have guys with a Force Sledge-O-Matic...they get STR...and..um...speed vs. Demons. Makes sense. Let's see...what else...ok, the basic weapon. We'll make that a sword. Swords are cool. It's a force weapon. Hmmm...needs something else...oh! How about a parry rule! That hasn't been around since 2nd edition! Er...because it made things take forever...*sigh*...ah, just make it a save bonus. Fine. Now, what about this idea for a guy with a weapon in each hand? Hmm..two weapons. Ok, you buy them as a pair...and...that's +1 attack...but they are quick, and lighter than Lightning Claws...so...they...confer an attack inherently! Cool. Done."

The models have two weapons. They are described as two weapons, fast, etc. Just because you label that 'fluff' doesn't mean you can ignore it when you try to interpret a vaguely written rule. I think you have to factor in what the designer was LIKELY to be thinking. It's not hard to figure out what someone else is thinking - you do it every day.

DevianID wrote:
As for the eldar weapons...
A model with chainsabers has +1 attack and rerolls all to-hit and to-wound rolls. In addition, it is implied that chainsabers count as a pistol weapon.

Now, you must replace 2 ccw weapons for chainsabers on an exarch. This leaves you with 1 weapon, chainsabers, that most likely count as a twin linked pistol (though they dont have the pistol rule explicitly, it is implied). You do not replace your claw+pistol for a PAIR of chainsabers.

Powerblades: "Powerblades confer +1 attack and ignore armor saves.//The exarch may also be equipped with powerblades at +10 points." Powerblades are also demonstrated to be purchaced SINGLY, not in a PAIR.

So both Powerblades AND Chainsabers are purchased singly, not in pairs, AND their special rules are very different than a PAIR of nemesis force falchions. Using powerblades, klaves, and chainsabers to illustrate your point about nemesis force falchions is the defination of a strawman argument, as you hold up for an example to prove your point an item that is only superficially similar, but not even close to identical.

Chainsabres are two chainswords which also comes with gauntlet mounted pistols. The Exarch replaces his pistol and normal sabre for them. It says in the description that powerblades are two power weapons, which are fix to forarm so you dont lose any weapons for it. (If you ask me I think the Eldar Codex was a lot better at dealing with these things than the GK one)

The "pair" thing is a matter of wording, there are plenty of places where lightning claws are simply refer to as "Lightning Claws" or they are bought one at a time, but we assume they mean the same thing.

The problem with the entry for Falchions is that they're headed in the wargear section as just 'Falchions' while you take a pair of them when equipping your models.

Which doesnt alter that a "Falchion" is a power weapon, RAW, and you take a pair of them. The Heading is entirely irrelevant there.....

DevianID wrote:Powerblades: "Powerblades confer +1 attack and ignore armor saves.//The exarch may also be equipped with powerblades at +10 points." Powerblades are also demonstrated to be purchaced SINGLY, not in a PAIR.

Jackster already wrecked your argument on Chainsabres, so I'll just wreck your argument on Powerblades.

Codex wrote:Powerblades are twin power weapons fitted to the forearms, enabling the wearer to use both hands freely. Powerblades confer +1 A and ignores armour saves.

It's actually the Eldar weapons which have a bonus not explicitly stated as for the pair, so I honestly don't understand where this argument sprung from. In fact, while the Falchion explicitly states what you get for wielding a pair, let's have a new argument;

Eldar Powerblades offer +1 attack per powerblade and is a single handed special close combat weapon purchased as a pair. Subsequently, logically, the Warp Spider Exarch gains +3 attacks - one for each powerblade and one extra for having two special close combat weapons.

No, I'm not serious, but if the argument for Falchions are serious, that's the kindred outcome - the Warp Spider Exarch is suddenly a rather good melee model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Which doesnt alter that a "Falchion" is a power weapon, RAW, and you take a pair of them. The Heading is entirely irrelevant there.....

Actually, they are force weapons, which "have the same effect as power weapons".

I went to my local black shirt and discussed this situation in length with him. He came to the conclusion that until there is a FAQ on the subject the total attack for this weapon to be used in combat is +1A and +1A only.

That is how it will be played in his store until an FAQ states otherwise.

go and recheck all last SMurf codexes, BA especially - you not find any assault termies with PAIR of LC's ... you find Assault Terminators that have "Lighting Claws"

Dont worry, i did. Shrike. 'Pair' of master crafted claws that also grant rending. No mention anywhere about the bonus for wielding a pair of lightning claws. Yet he has 2 lightning claws, and 2 claws give you a bonus attack. Shrike has a 'pair' of something, with special rules. Falchions are a 'pair' of something, with special rules. In both cases, no mention of having the 2 ccw bonus is in the codex, yet thanks to the BRB we can claim that a model with 2 identical special close combat weapons gets a bonus attack.

jackster says "Chainsabres are two chainswords"
Sadly this is wrong. Neither the words two or chainswords are in the writing for chainsabres. They are NOT 2 chainswords, they are not chainswords, and there is not two of them, if they were I would not have stated my argument as I did.

As for powerblades, powerblades have fluff telling you they are powerweapons... twin ones at that, grafted to your arms I like to think Guyver style. HOWEVER, powerblades sadly are not even power weapons. They do ignore armor saves, but only have the power weapon description in the fluff. If powerblades were a power weapon it would use a hand, by the way.

As an aside, L Claws have many micro powerweapons on a single claw. That too is fluff, and does not state you are armed with multiple power weapons with a single claw.

Adam LongWalker wrote:I went to my local black shirt and discussed this situation in length with him. He came to the conclusion that until there is a FAQ on the subject the total attack for this weapon to be used in combat is +1A and +1A only.

That is how it will be played in his store until an FAQ states otherwise.

This is almost entirely irrelevant (Is there a difference between blackshirts and redshirts?), he has no authority to make rulings other than in his own store, so it doesnt affect anyone here.

Jaon wrote:

Adam LongWalker wrote:I went to my local black shirt and discussed this situation in length with him. He came to the conclusion that until there is a FAQ on the subject the total attack for this weapon to be used in combat is +1A and +1A only.

That is how it will be played in his store until an FAQ states otherwise.

This is almost entirely irrelevant (Is there a difference between blackshirts and redshirts?), he has no authority to make rulings other than in his own store, so it doesnt affect anyone here.

The lenght of time since their last shower

Sorry GW staff

[quote=DevianID

As for powerblades, powerblades have fluff telling you they are powerweapons... twin ones at that, grafted to your arms I like to think Guyver style. HOWEVER, powerblades sadly are not even power weapons. They do ignore armor saves, but only have the power weapon description in the fluff. If powerblades were a power weapon it would use a hand, by the way.

VoidAngel, did you bother to read the rest of the rule? I will quote the rest.

"Powerblades are twin power weapons fitted to the forearms, enabling the wearer to use both hands freely. Powerblades confer +1 attack and ignore armor saves.//The exarch may also be equipped with powerblades at +10 points."

Now, is the model armed with 2 one handed powerweapons?

Come on man! It says they "are twin power weapons". ARE. Are we going to argue what "is" is?

Where does it say that a weapon must be held in the hand? Can you please point that out to me? Does a tyranid warrior have to hold his bonesword in his hand? Oh, wait, it IS his hand...now what? The intent is obvious. There is no need to make things so difficult.

Nowhere does it state they count as single handed weapons in either the codex or the BRB. Seeing that's it's a completely new weapon the BRB being an older source for rules cannot adequately account for this particular case. We can look for precedences set in older codices but they do not necessarily apply.

Void angel, think about it. You are saying that the powerblades should grant the bonus for using 2 of the same 1 handed weapons. In the same sentence you mention that powerblades 'say' they are powerweapons, it also says they use 0 hands. The bonus for 2 ccw is not compatible.

Read page 42, under 'Fighting with 2 single handed weapons.' Your argument is that powerblades falls under the subheading 'Two of the same special weapon' but you dont qualify as they are not 2 single handed weapons. As I said, powerblades are not even powerweapons as defined in the BRB, as those are 1 handed. The powerblades specifically say they are 0 handed, making them different from regular power weapons.

PS: I remember powerblades from before this codex, where you would put them on Harlequin solitares, while keeping your hands open for even more ccw weapons. Man he was a brute!