If this is a common sense question i apologize in advance but........I agree that the Profile on the GK Falchion gets +1 attack.. I however have a question as my brain has turned into mush. I have set up a unit of Purifiers to be my Alpha strike unit... I gave them Fal's and was wondering the exact amount of dice each one gets on the charge... Is it 2 base +1 Falchion +1 charge= 4 total on charge OR is it 2 base +1 falchion +1 for 2 ccw(Falchion and stormbolter) and +1 charge= 5 total on charge? I'm not looking to get a Hornets nest stirred up here, have a game tonight and don't want to lose out or cheat anyone on number of attacks. Thanks to any help or fast answers out there..

The point is still contested, I think, but having originally been of the opinion that the falchions would just give +1 attack, I'm now fairly convinced they in fact give +2 (+1 for being Falchions and +1 for being 2 ccws). I'd say it'd be fair to ask what your opponent thinks (a gentleman will of course immediately give you +2 attacks), but if he says only +1 then I'd ask him to allow you to use them as 'counts as halberds' instead (or just run with only the +1 if that's your preferred option to having halberds)

thank you very much, And i am sticking a librarian with them to give them quicksilver, bumping them to I10 so thats alot of powerweapon attacks swinging first. I will plan on going with the 4 and just ask the fellas at the shop their thoughts and go with majority.

The poll here was split, but the posts seem to lean towards +2.

kirsanth wrote:The poll here was split, but the posts seem to lean towards +2.

Check out that massive thread for the entire debate.

22 pages long and there's still no clear-cut answer.

You'll have to discuss it with your opponent before the game. But, if both you and your opponent are stubborn WAAC guys, be prepared for a long fight and the game never actually being played.

looked everywhere for the post and couldn't find it.. im possibly blind. The guys i play with are excellent people, it is a small group of us but everyone is a fair and fun person to play against.

a Pair of Falchions would give the model

base attacks, +2 for Falchions, +1 for charging.


if you are still in the +1 Falchion camp it would only be a total of +2 when charging.


Frankly, i think the Warding Stave is better for the Libby. a 2++ is hard to beat with Librarians who are more of a support unit you want alive rather then killing things.

If your undecided... confer with your opponent, and until you ARE decided, or there is an FAQ, play Falcions as granting +1.5 attacks each.

so a 10 man units would gaine additional attacks from falcions, rather than 10 or 20.

Round up/down accoring to taste.

Its the only way i can think of doing it without having a big argument or 4+'ing it. Which is another option.

The whole debate boiled down to whether a pair of falchions are two close combat or just a single one. If someone argues the point of "a pair" not being "two" during a game, just let him have it and never play him again afterwards.

And, to point something out: the +2A "side" proved, conclusively, that you have 2 CCW

The +1A side proferred no evidence, no rules argument, against it. The only argument was "it is too overpowered", despite yet more evidence to the contrary.

No, the argument is that no 'pair', 'counts as two CCWs', something ever other singular piece of wargear which was clearly intended to count as a bonus CCW has. See Sniktrots pair of weapons they make special mention that he counts as having a bonus CCW so do Shardnets etc.
Gauntlet of Ultramar, flachions etc, lack text saying they count as two CCWs and none of them have been addressed in an FAQ.

It needs to be addressed so people can point to it and say yes GW considers a 'pair' as 'counts as two ccw'.
So on so forth

Artemo wrote: (a gentleman will of course immediately give you +2 attacks)

I see it the other way, when a rule is contested a gentleman should take the rule that's less advantageous. That is a gentlemanly player won't ask for the +2 until it's spelled out.

Agree with the Kid with the full tang.

I didn't say a gentleman would ask for two attacks, I said that if asked a gentleman would immediately allow two attacks. There's a difference.

ChrisCP wrote:No, the argument is that no 'pair', 'counts as two CCWs', something ever other singular piece of wargear which was clearly intended to count as a bonus CCW has. See Sniktrots pair of weapons they make special mention that he counts as having a bonus CCW so do Shardnets etc.
Gauntlet of Ultramar, flachions etc, lack text saying they count as two CCWs and none of them have been addressed in an FAQ.

It needs to be addressed so people can point to it and say yes GW considers a 'pair' as 'counts as two ccw'.
So on so forth

Pair of (NEmesis Force Weapons) == Pair of (FOrce weapons + Bonus) == Pair of (Power weapons + Bonus) == Pair of CCW (+ Bonus)

They do not need to say "counts as 2 CCW" because they *are two CCW* in every way shape and form.

It is NOT a singular piece of wargear. The entry is for a Falchion, the bonus is for wielding a pair and you BUY a pair of them. At NO POINT do you ever buy a singular weapon.

Your argument here, as there, is flawed

Morks Teeth arn't CCWs by default, they needed clarification and definition.

the Gauntlets of Ultramar(and Falchions) in contrast are CCWs by default. we are told they are a pair of Power Fists. 2 PFs gives a +1A bonus according to the BGB.

Falchions are Nemisis weapons which are Force Weapons which are Power weapons which are single handed CCWs. you buy a pair so +1A for having 2 CCWs.

Which was my point - Chris is asking for something that is NOT required. No need for "counts as..." when you explicitly *are* something!

yup

Even though I play Grey Knights I would say that Falchions only give +1 attack and thats it, the reason is even though it BRB" Has the same effects of a power weapon" it is 1. undefined as to wether they count as a 2 handed Force weapon or single, since they can only be bought in pairs it would also be legitamite to assume the possiblity of them being counted as a 2 handed force weapon ,and 2. Check the BRB FAQ and it will state on page 2 that
"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."
Seeing as it is not specifdically defnined as a one handed weapon it only get the +1 attack bonus thats it.
And if you argue that its defined as a one handed weapon then why is there a 22 page thread and why are we arguing.
Thier is also the possibility that that are one weapon since they are only ever describe as plural being and you can never ever buy just one falchion.

GE - see the other thread. You're not reading ALL of the FAQ

ALL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS are single handed, unless specifically stated to be 2 handed

ALL of them

Now see both mine and GT posts which prove you have 2 of them

Why is there a 22 page thread? Because some people are incapable of reading and following rules, and others are under the delusional belief that +2A is somehow overpowered, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Thats how.

Fine ill let it go for now but I bet you when the faq comes out it will only grant 1 attack and nothing for 2 ccw.

You'll "let it go" meaning you dont have a rules argument to back up your stance?

Given its SM, I bet its +2 attacks total, as otherwise NOONE in their right mind would take the expensive downgrade that is a falchion.

ChrisCP wrote:No, the argument is that no 'pair', 'counts as two CCWs', something ever other singular piece of wargear which was clearly intended to count as a bonus CCW has. See Sniktrots pair of weapons they make special mention that he counts as having a bonus CCW so do Shardnets etc.
Gauntlet of Ultramar, flachions etc, lack text saying they count as two CCWs and none of them have been addressed in an FAQ.

It needs to be addressed so people can point to it and say yes GW considers a 'pair' as 'counts as two ccw'.
So on so forth

A "pair" of weapons most certainly is defined as having 2 of them. Would you argue that any of the following do not get +1A for having 2 of the same special CCW?

See Furioso Dreadnought in BA Codex. Pg. 85. "Replace both blood fists with a pair of blood talons (the built-in weapons are retrained)......free"
See Kayvaan Shrike in SM Codex. Pg. 92 "The Raven's Talons: These are a pair of master-crafted lightning claws. They also bestow the Rending special rule on Shrike's close combat attacks."
See Sword Brethren Terminator Assault Squad in Black Templar Codex. Pg. 34. "Weapons: Sword Brethren Assault Terminators will all have either a pair of lightning claws or a thunder hammer and storm shield. Any combination of these two types may be included in the squad".

The flachions are much closest to the Blood Talons.

In the BA Codex in the Vehicle Armory section defines "Blood Talon" (not a pair). Then in the army section you purchase a "pair" of them. You're not allowed to buy just one. They have an additional bonus ability only activated when wielding 2 of these, and that is the extra attacks.

In the GK codex, the armory section defines Nemesis Flachions (not a pair). Then the fluff talks about them always being used in pairs (but we all know fluff does not = rules). In the army section, when you replace your NF Sword, you're not buying "Nemesis Force Flachions" as they are called in the armory, but "A pair of Nemesis Force Flachions". You're only allowed to buy them in pairs because that's their fluff, and their bonus ability is only activated when you have a pair of them (just like the Talons)

If it's FAQ'd to only 1 attack, I'll make sure to remind my BA friend that he only gets 2 base (+1 for assault charges) dice to start is "infinite" dice rolls with.

Same with nosferatu1001.

Talking about "overpowered", IMO it's only fair to give falchions A+2 with storm bolter, as halberd, a two-handed CCW that gets a A+1 already can strike with I+2.

And just so I know, when did storm bolter count as CCW/ pistol?

the Dh codex gave GKs "True Grit"


True Grit made the models with it count their Bolters or Stormbolters as a CCW in CC, but they could never claim the attack bonus for charging(so GKs had 2 attacks all the time)

models in Terminator armor didn't benifit from True Grit.

The argument was based on whether the "+1 attack" written in the codex is a "bonus" or a recitation of the normal rule that you get an extra attack for having 2 CCW.

The "2 attacks" crowd argued that "+1 attack" was a bonus, while the "1 attack" crowd argued that it was reciting the general rule.

That said, why take falchions when there are better weapons? +2 I is better for a take-all-comers list than +2 attacks.

the +1A in the Falchion rules isn't the bonus for 2 CCWs because it doesn't say that it is.

this is a permissive rules set.

what the first thread being locked by endless bickering wasn't enough?

Because a unit with Falchions with an attached Quicksilvering Librarian is I 10.

As regards the argument, I now lean to +2, but I've absolutely no intention of wasting time arguing the toss if someone else prefers the +1 interpretation because both are actually reasonable interpretations as things stand (yes, the evidence favours +2, I'd now say, but you just have to look at the poll in the other thread to see about half of people prefer the other definition). I'd dice for it or, were my opponent vehement, just go with the +1 until the FAQ

the thread was actually quite civil for all the contention there was.

up until the very end where some people started getting upset with their arguments not holding any water.

Which was the point

It boiled do to the +1 attack side having no rules basis for their decision, and when confronted with evidence utterly refuting their argument tended to ignore / gloss over it.

Fluff AND RAW point to +2 attacks, so no "RAI" argument for +1 attack can possibly be made.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Pair of (NEmesis Force Weapons) == Pair of (FOrce weapons + Bonus) == Pair of (Power weapons + Bonus) == Pair of CCW (+ Bonus)
They do not need to say "counts as 2 CCW" because they *are two CCW* in every way shape and form.
It is NOT a singular piece of wargear. The entry is for a Falchion, the bonus is for wielding a pair and you BUY a pair of them. At NO POINT do you ever buy a singular weapon.
Your argument here, as there, is flawed

The entry is for 'Nemesis Flachions'....

kryhavok wrote:
A "pair" of weapons most certainly is defined as having 2 of them. Would you argue that any of the following do not get +1A for having 2 of the same special CCW?

See Furioso Dreadnought in BA Codex. Pg. 85. "Replace both blood fists with a pair of blood talons (the built-in weapons are retrained)......free"
See Kayvaan Shrike in SM Codex. Pg. 92 "The Raven's Talons: These are a pair of master-crafted lightning claws. They also bestow the Rending special rule on Shrike's close combat attacks."
See Sword Brethren Terminator Assault Squad in Black Templar Codex. Pg. 34. "Weapons: Sword Brethren Assault Terminators will all have either a pair of lightning claws or a thunder hammer and storm shield. Any combination of these two types may be included in the squad".

In the BA Codex in the Vehicle Armory section defines "Blood Talon" (not a pair). Then in the army section you purchase a "pair" of them. You're not allowed to buy just one. They have an additional bonus ability only activated when wielding 2 of these, and that is the extra attacks.

The Dreadnoughts from the BA codex one might note that Both Blood Fists are listed in it's wargear, two seperate entries, both titled 'Blood Fist/Talon', two separate weapons.


Please, someone show where a pair is defined as "Counts as two CCWs", I've showen repeatedly that there are many pieces of wargear, many mentioning 'pair' or 'XXX & YYY' and that they need to mention that they 'Count as two CCW'. Any other conclusion on the nature of the weapon is a large assumption & 'Well I want it to be this way, so it is.' There is no precedent for 'something being called a pair is the same as it saying 'counts as two ccw'.

ChrisCP wrote:Please, someone show where a pair is defined as "Counts as two CCWs", I've showen repeatedly that there are many pieces of wargear, many mentioning 'pair' or 'XXX & YYY' and that they need to mention that they 'Count as two CCW'. Any other conclusion on the nature of the weapon is a large assumption & 'Well I want it to be this way, so it is.' There is no precedent for 'something being called a pair is the same as it saying 'counts as two ccw'.

P.84 Space marine codex.

Wargear
Gauntlets of Ultramar: These are a matched pair of power fists. they also contain a pair of integrated bolters that can be fired with the following profile: (ETC.)

Makes reference to a pair of power fists, though it does not specifically describe what that is, Calgar has 2 powerfists.

Just like Shrike has ʻa pair of master-crafted lightning clawsʼ. we know Shrike has 2 lightning claws.

they are even depicted as wielding a power fist/Lightning claw in each hand.

Pair is 2 weapons. do not pretend it is not.

Assault Terminators may swap their Thunder Hammer and Stormshield for a PAIR of LCs.



Prove that a Pair is NOT 2 of something(in this case, Nemisis Force Weapons)


Nemisis Force Weapons are, by definition, CCWs(with additional Benifits)


when buying the item in question you buy a PAIR of Nemisis Force Weapons.

DeathReaper wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Please, someone show where a pair is defined as "Counts as two CCWs", I've showen repeatedly that there are many pieces of wargear, many mentioning 'pair' or 'XXX & YYY' and that they need to mention that they 'Count as two CCW'. Any other conclusion on the nature of the weapon is a large assumption & 'Well I want it to be this way, so it is.' There is no precedent for 'something being called a pair is the same as it saying 'counts as two ccw'.

P.84 Space marine codex.

Wargear
Gauntlets of Ultramar: These are a matched pair of power fists. they also contain a pair of integrated bolters that can be fired with the following profile: (ETC.)

Makes reference to a pair of power fists, though it does not specifically describe what that is, Calgar has 2 powerfists.

Just like Shrike has ʻa pair of master-crafted lightning clawsʼ. we know Shrike has 2 lightning claws.

they are even depicted as wielding a power fist/Lightning claw in each hand.

Pair is 2 weapons. do not pretend it is not.

And can you show where they "Count as two CCWs" - People have been claiming this bonus attack from these single items of wargear for ever. They are the "Ravens Talons" one doesn't have two "Ravens Talons" so no bonus for two of the same SCCW, as we are not told that this single entry of wargear counts as two CCWs.

@Grey: Which termis are you talking about??
Vanilla swap 'claws' Out, not in, for SS and TH... BA are the same... SW replace for Wolf Claws one at a time for two different pieces of wargear... Canis entry goes as far as to say he has Two Wolf Claw...

The arguement for the +1 comes from that an individual falchion does not confer +1 attack, so two of the same type would not apply, since it would not be two weapons that confer +0 attacks, as a single falchion would be. The pair of falchions gives +1 attack as noted in the description.

ph34r wrote:

this +9000

That picture is awesome. (And throwing my hat in for the +2 argument).

If they were intended to be just a pair of weapons granting one additional attack, they would have been listed as a pair of force weapons, similar to how BA Assault terminators come with 'lightning claws'.

I would have to cite the Eldar codex for about falchions, namely the Mirror Swords for the Howling Banshee Exarch, they gain +1 attack for a 2nd weapon and an additional +1 attack because apparently Mirror Swords are so awesome. Mirror Swords also cost twice as much to give to an Exarch though.

They also specify +2 instead of the otherwise +1.

Guitardian wrote:They also specify +2 instead of the otherwise +1.

No, they don't...

Huh. I wasn't aware Mirrorswords were spelled "powerblades". Thanks for clearing that up too.

Guitardian wrote:Huh. I wasn't aware Mirrorswords were spelled "powerblades". Thanks for clearing that up too.

Guitardian wrote:Huh. I wasn't aware Mirrorswords were spelled "powerblades". Thanks for clearing that up too.

Haha Doh, I automatically assumed he was talking about the other.

For completeness sake...


They still take the time to say that they count as having an 'extra hand weapon'. Something missing from certain entries.

Yes missing from Blood angels Terminator assault squad as well, it just lists Lightning claws under wargear in the army list, P.86 BA codex

On P.28 of the same codex it mentions they have a pair of lightning claws.

But if we go by Pair meaning 1 weapon, then assault terminators with 'Lightning claws' do not get the bonus attack, neither does M. Calgar etc.

Well, pair doesn't mean one weapon. But the only way to have the bonus for them is to have both of them. That is where the dilemma comes from. Is it the same bonus or not? Only the inevitable FAQ can answer it. I'm surprised they haven't been flooded so much with this issue as to release a verdict already just to get it to stop.

Ther eis no dilemma: it is not the same bonus because, and here's a hint: it does not say it is.

EVERY time the bonus for 2 CCW is included in a bonus they tell you it is. Every. Time.

They havent done here - so guess what, it isnt tht bonus.

Guitardian - can you agree that the fluff means it is +2A? Aftger all, +1A is as fast as any old schmo with 1 of the CCW, which does not fit. You're normally an RAI fan (nothing wrong, just stating a common theme i see from your posts) yet the only RAI from this can be gleaned from the fluff text - which states that striking with Falchions, specifically a pair of them, is FAR faster than you can normaly hit with weapons. +1A is *exactly* as fast as you can normally hit with 2 weapons, meaning the Falchions are actually not that quick - directly contradicting the fluff.

YEs, I am aware fluff /= rules. But given we have shown the rules repeatedly, and you still dont agree with them (despite not offering a decontrsuct of the presented argument) so I wanted to know your opinion on this.

CHris - we have shown that they ARE 2 CCW

No need for "counts as"

A pair of Nemesis Falchions is a Pair of single handed CCW, by definition. "Counts As" is not required

Debate THAT point rather than repeatedly asking for the spurious "counts as", which is not required in *any* case where you actually HAVE 2 CCW. Hence, see shrike, marneus, and so on.

Our case is proven, yours lacks any evidence.

Also note, that if "a pair" of any ccw would not count as two weapons the whole pair would be one-handed, you would be able to wield another ccw or pistol in addition.

As this is obviously not right, we have another nail to the coffin of "a pair is not 2 ccw!".

The nail is the ENglish language heavily disagreeing that it means anything other than 2

Everything else is siimply dicing the deceased into ever smaller parts. Ironically probably with a pair of falchions.

ChrisCP wrote:

kryhavok wrote:
A "pair" of weapons most certainly is defined as having 2 of them. Would you argue that any of the following do not get +1A for having 2 of the same special CCW?

See Furioso Dreadnought in BA Codex. Pg. 85. "Replace both blood fists with a pair of blood talons (the built-in weapons are retrained)......free"
See Kayvaan Shrike in SM Codex. Pg. 92 "The Raven's Talons: These are a pair of master-crafted lightning claws. They also bestow the Rending special rule on Shrike's close combat attacks."
See Sword Brethren Terminator Assault Squad in Black Templar Codex. Pg. 34. "Weapons: Sword Brethren Assault Terminators will all have either a pair of lightning claws or a thunder hammer and storm shield. Any combination of these two types may be included in the squad".

In the BA Codex in the Vehicle Armory section defines "Blood Talon" (not a pair). Then in the army section you purchase a "pair" of them. You're not allowed to buy just one. They have an additional bonus ability only activated when wielding 2 of these, and that is the extra attacks.

The Dreadnoughts from the BA codex one might note that Both Blood Fists are listed in it's wargear, two seperate entries, both titled 'Blood Fist/Talon', two separate weapons.


Please, someone show where a pair is defined as "Counts as two CCWs", I've showen repeatedly that there are many pieces of wargear, many mentioning 'pair' or 'XXX & YYY' and that they need to mention that they 'Count as two CCW'. Any other conclusion on the nature of the weapon is a large assumption & 'Well I want it to be this way, so it is.' There is no precedent for 'something being called a pair is the same as it saying 'counts as two ccw'.

So by your logic (that a "pair does not equal 2") then, the Furioso Dread is replacing 2 separate CCW for a single piece of wargear called "a pair of blood talons"?

Yes both Blood fists are listed individually in it's wargear. However under options you're replacing BOTH with "a pair of blood talons". This can lead to only 1 of 2 conclusions:

A) If the "pair" doesn't count as 2 CCW, then you're replacing 2 Blood fists for 1 "pair" of blood talons. The means the dread loses it's extra attack for having 2.
B) If the term listed in the options of "a pair" counts as 2 and you're replacing 2 weapons for 2 weapons and thus keep the extra attack.

As for the Raven's Talon's, it is a single piece of wargear, but it's it's very descriptions says "a pair of master crafted lightning claws". So you're saying that since a "pair" does not mean "2 of" he doesn't get +1A for having 2 CCW?

Also, you asked Grey which Termies he was referring to. You only looked at 3 out of 6 armies that use lightning claws. As I mentioned previously, look into Black Templar Sword Brethren Assault Terminators. Right there is a prime example as their weapons lists "a pair of lightning claws". Pg. 34 BT Codex. And I hadn't looked at the Dark Angels codex in a while, but sure enough on Pg. 82, Deathwing Terminators are equipped with a Storm Bolter and Power Fist (listed separately) and under options: "Any model may replace it's weapons with either a pair of lightning claws, or a thunder hammer and storm shield, for free". Even Chaos Space marines buy "a pair of lightning claws". See champions and terminators on pg. 94 Both list an option of replacing wargear with "a pair of lightning claws".

So I guess by the logic of "a pair" of something does not equal having "2 of" something, they don't get the +1A either?

You keep asking for us to show were a pair means having 2, but won't acknowledge when evidence is given with book names and page numbers. There's plenty of precedence out there that supports that replacing a piece or pieces of wargear with a pair of something means they are picking up 2 CCW. Either that or every BT, DA, BA, SM, CSM player out there who uses one of these models with these options has been playing incorrectly.

Alessio specifically mentions the Gauntlets of Ultramar as an example of a pair of powerfists granting the 2CCW bonus in the 5th Ed Designers' notes in reference to the rule change denying single SCCW the +1A for 5th.

Denying *some* SCCW the +1A

kryhavok wrote:
You keep asking for us to show were a pair means having 2, but won't acknowledge when evidence is given with book names and page numbers. There's plenty of precedence out there that supports that replacing a piece or pieces of wargear with a pair of something means they are picking up 2 CCW. Either that or every BT, DA, BA, SM, CSM player out there who uses one of these models with these options has been playing incorrectly.

And to nail the final nail in the coffin:

Codex: Black Templars even specifies that a pair of lightning claws is, infact, 2 weapons. Who would've guessed?

So, we're back to:

Chris is required to show that this codex is the only one where a "pair" does not mean "2", and if unable to do so that means the model inherently has 2 actual, real, definite CCW, meaning no need for "Counts as 2 CCW" to ever be mentioned again.

ChrisCP, your arguments are tired. If you applied them to any variant of SM assault terminators with lightning claws, they would not get +1 attack either.

Artemo wrote:The point is still contested, I think, but having originally been of the opinion that the falchions would just give +1 attack, I'm now fairly convinced they in fact give +2 (+1 for being Falchions and +1 for being 2 ccws). I'd say it'd be fair to ask what your opponent thinks (a gentleman will of course immediately give you +2 attacks), but if he says only +1 then I'd ask him to allow you to use them as 'counts as halberds' instead (or just run with only the +1 if that's your preferred option to having halberds)

Couldn't it just be the new Codex layout? You can't decide to have the pair of ccws so it says it gives just +1, not +2. I'm almost certain it says a second Lightning Claw gives +1 in Chaos SM codex, and it says Abbadon gets +1 from the Drach'nyen, but he has 4 base attacks, not 5.

I think the lack of clarity, or just failing to be consistent in language, in the rules/codices (yes, by trawling through the rulebook and several codices, one may arrive at proof that will satisfy some, most or all, but that's hardly the hallmark of good rules writing) is a problem. And pursuing RAW at all costs tends to lead to rules-lawery kind of mentality, I feel (however well intended/good-spirted). After all, it is in fact the RAI that matters -- but the problem then is interpretation, and one may easily interpret wrongly where wording is inconsistent from one codex to another, or simply slacker than it could have been.

The easiest answer is to look at the points cost. The falchions cost more than a Daemon Hammer. The falchions grant extra power weapon attacks the Daemon Hammer is a Thunderhammer (ignoring the constant of both be nemesis for now). Taking say any SM codex a power weapon that you gain the +1 attack for 2 CCWs is 15 points. Giving up that bonus attack to take a Thunderhammer is 30 points. So double the cost and you lose an attack. So there is no way the Falchions can grant just +1 attack if their points cost is in line with any other codex in the entire range.

Artemo - which is why i was asking the simple question:

The fluff states the wielder of a pair attacks FAR faster than normal. +1A is clearly NOT RAI as that is *exatly as fast* as any old schmo with a pair of ccw

So RAI is 2A
Fluff is 2A
RULES are 2A

There is absolutely no argument that holds ANY water against +2A. Seriously, NOTHING

RAI is unknown

Fluff is that Imperial Guardsmen are well trained too, and all Eldar have superhuman reflexes too, and SMs are easily worth 10 regular soldiers etc so whatever.

Rules are that two weapons give +1A

The only issue I can see here is nothing to do with the wording of a "pair", it's just wondering if they meant that +1 attack because of being a pair, or if they could have simply said (like with the mirrorswords) that it grants an additional +1 attack, or if they were just being redundant by stating that the falchions are a pair that (as a pair) grants +1 attack, as often happens.

I don't have any investment whatsoever in the +1 or the +2 camp, the thing that irks me is that it is ambiguous what the intention was in writing that little tag. It could be a redundant reminder, as some think, and it could be an extra bonus just ambiguous because it was not worded as clearly as the Mirrorswords entry in the eldar codex, which is the same thing the +2 people are advocating. If they intended that, why not write it like they wrote it CLEARLY explained for mirrorswords? Laziness? Oversight? I wouldn't be surprised if that's the reason, and happily concede the +2 side - but until we know what they meant...

Just saying its ambiguous.

Find a case where they redundantly state that a pair of CCW grants a bonus attack for having 2 CCW. We've shown plenty where they dont.

You have NOT shown it is ambiguous, as you have yet to find a *rules* gap.

None.

You have no argument, just a "it doesnt feel right". =

nosferatu, that was an arguement. We don't KNOW what was meant for the +1 attack. Is it an unspecified version of the same thing that was made extremely clear in earlier rules (+2), or is it overly restated rule as a reminder, like with a pair of lightning claws (+1)?

You have NOT shown that it is NOT ambiguous either. That's like the "there are blue ducks in asia until you prove their aren't" kind of logic. If I say there are, you cannot prove me wrong because you can't proove non-existance so therefore I must be right? It does not say (like mirrorswords) that it is an additional +1 attack. It says that it is +1 attack. Prove me wrong. Prove me wrong we sound like a bunch of bitches on a daytime talkshow waiting for the DNA results of our babydaddys.

Look I am not hating on GK or saying they should "only get +1A because its unfair if they get +2". My only point is that until it is clarified what that entry was intended as referred to, no amount of arguement can "prove" anything. You cannot prove that something doesn't exist, and there is yet to be evidence satisfactory without cross referencing a mishmash of other rules examples via assumed related reasoning that it does.

I am not saying that I am right, or that the +2s are wrong. I am saying we don't KNOW if it is the same bonus or not, and we can't know until they make it clear.

Again, why didn't it have an entry like mirrorswords? Would have been problem solved for the +2s.

Since i got this snowball rolling, i will add my bit in. Now i play the GK's obviously and i am going with the +1. NOW i do not agree that is should be 1 attack and i find it in GW's error to not take care of this stuff. I have been reading a lot of their material lately and i am finding a lot of errors here and there ((mostly WD which i am sure is a different animal all together) Has anyone thought about calling GW and asking them right out? and no I'm not trying to be funny. If i remember correctly i think i have heard something about rules questions when i had to call customer support before(which is the only thing they do beyond 100% lol) And with that in mind.. any word at all on when a FAQ would be coming out? lord knows there is a lot of questions in my mind, but i just ask the guys at the shop and we talk it over, i go with majority rule -shrugs- it's just a game to me.. unless there's money on it lol

@guitardian

because the Falchion's entry doesn't say the +1A was the bonus for 2 CCWs, we have to assume its not. if it was, they would have just defined Falchions as being shortened Nemisis Swords that didn't give the bonus to Invuln saves.

the +1A is clearly seperate from the bonus from wielding 2 CCWs.


as a result it is perfectly legitimate to combine the Falchion's +1A with the bonus for wielding 2 CCWs(which Falchions have been shown to be)

If we're making assumptions, because the Falchions' entry doesn't say they count as two ccws, we have to assume they don't.

A pair of lightning claws is two ccws because the rules for a single lightning claw actually exists. So having a pair of them conforms to the rules in the BGB.

All we know is that "Nemesis Falchions" is a force weapon. Since it's a Nemesis weapon.


@Arrathon: I don't know if things have changed in the past few years, but in the past it was commonly accepted that if you called GW about a rules question 4 times, you'd get 4 different answers.

well....in that case lets have fun with this..Tomorrow at 11 am Your own time..everyone call GW and ask them about this rule. What could it hurt..

better yet, lets all call GW at 10am Eastern time and jam their phone lines.

that'll tell them they need to FAQ this and fast if nothing else.

Grey Templar wrote:better yet, lets all call GW at 10am Eastern time and jam their phone lines.

that'll tell them they need to FAQ this and fast if nothing else.

bushido wrote:If we're making assumptions, because the Falchions' entry doesn't say they count as two ccws, we have to assume they don't.

A pair of lightning claws is two ccws because the rules for a single lightning claw actually exists. So having a pair of them conforms to the rules in the BGB.

All we know is that "Nemesis Falchions" is a force weapon. Since it's a Nemesis weapon.


@Arrathon: I don't know if things have changed in the past few years, but in the past it was commonly accepted that if you called GW about a rules question 4 times, you'd get 4 different answers.

The flowchart convinced me (though because GW are slipshod in their writing at times, I don't necessarily think that is what they intended -- though I do think it probably is). But if you need to produce a flowchart to make a case (and remember about half the people responding to the poll thought +1 Attack, not +2), then the rule actually needs to be clearer. Because it is not, and because it should not be necessary to trawl through the rules to make what should be a very simple case either way, the +1 attack interpretation is still reasonable (it may well not be correct, but that's a different thing).

Personally I'd be rather loathe to produce a chart, or lead my opponent point by point through the rules like that in a gaming situation (quite different on a rules forum, and producing it here was commendable, whoever did, thankyou).

Artemo wrote:
Personally I'd be rather loathe to produce a chart, or lead my opponent point by point through the rules like that in a gaming situation (quite different on a rules forum, and producing it here was commendable, whoever did, thankyou).

Wait, so in case your opponent misunderstood something that's clearly written in the rulebook you wouldn't want to take the time to go through that in an ordered and calm fashion?

Actually I think the point is that about 50% of people do not think it's clear that falchions get +2 attacks. It's not the fact that you can prove they do, it's the fact that it's currently a reasonable, if erroneous, assumption that they do not...

Also, look how many people are unconvinced even by the flowchart (Presumably because they feel quite reasonably that +1 attack might be the intended benefit). what then? Do you refuse to play them?

Artemo wrote:Actually I think the point is that about 50% of people do not think it's clear that falchions get +2 attacks. It's not the fact that you can prove they do, it's the fact that it's currently a reasonable, if erroneous, assumption that they do not...

Also, look how many people are unconvinced even by the flowchart (Presumably because they feel quite reasonably that +1 attack might be the intended benefit). what then? Do you refuse to play them?

That's the point of the flow chart though. No matter how much I believe that the sky is yellow, it's still blue.

Guitardian - your saying it is ambiguous does not make it so.

They did not say the +1A is the bonus for 2 CCW, so it isnt. Its that simple.

And, to back this up - EVERY time they mean for smething to be the bonus for 2 CCW, they tell you it is. Every. Time.

So no, you dont have an argument. Well,you have a poor one that has been dismissed everytime you propose it, yet you stubbornly cling to it

The sky isnt ambiguously blue or yellow, just because you say it is.

I see all of the people who fought for my camp in the First War for the Falchions still fight under our banner

But this one is a tired war, no one is willing to except the RAW, other than those who already have. From now until the FAQ, I will politely ask my opponent what he thinks. I fear GW are worse at wording than they are at deciding their intentions, and as such, I suspect the FAQ to give us only a single 1+ attack, although I am still a firm believer of 2+A.

Inane "the sky's blue, so my argument is correct" comments aside, if the rule was as easy to interpret as you claim, why the need for a flow chart? Why not simply have the entry read, "counts as two close combat weapons" like they do EVERY other time you buy two weapons at once? Every. Time.

This is the same codex in which Dreadknights that purchase a personal teleporter are no longer Monstrous Creatures, after all.

I'm fairly confident that it will be ruled +2 bonus attacks total, but come on. Parents may be able to get away with using "because I said so" to declare themselves the winner of an argument, but it's not really going to fly anywhere else.

bushido wrote:Inane "the sky's blue, so my argument is correct" comments aside, if the rule was as easy to interpret as you claim, why the need for a flow chart? Why not simply have the entry read, "counts as two close combat weapons" like they do EVERY other time you buy two weapons at once? Every. Time.

Because it does already? It's the exact same thing as Lightning Claws, see the Shrike example. It's two lightning claws, and as such grant an extra attack, the same way that two force weapons grant an extra attack.

Shrike: two weapons and as such grants +1A...
Banshee: "grant +2A instead of the normal +1A for having two weapons..."

I don't see either specification for the falchions. If they could be clear elsewhere, why not here?

Guitardian wrote:Shrike: two weapons and as such grants +1A...
Banshee: "grant +2A instead of the normal +1A for having two weapons..."

I don't see either specification for the falchions. If they could be clear elsewhere, why not here?

Because the codices tend to be pushed out under pressure of time and are not adequately checked for clarity (this is not unique to GW of course but the old board games companies like SPI did much better).

It's patently unclear because 50% or thereabouts of people who read the falchion write up thought it was +1 and the other half thought +2. You don't get that kind of split with clear rules. I agree, it is pretty conclusive that they get +2 if you follow the RAW and draw precedents from other codices to back the argument. I utterly disagree that it is a clear rule as written. it's just not and claiming it is seems to indicate that the 50% of people who claimed +1 were just being wilfully obtuse.

Guitardian - marneus calgars gauntlets of ultramar. No "gets +1 attack" there.

Sigh.

bushido - our argument isnt "because we said so" - we have a rock solid argument that so far has no actual, rational reasoned and RULES BASED argument against it.

None.

Guitardian wrote:Shrike: two weapons and as such grants +1A...
Banshee: "grant +2A instead of the normal +1A for having two weapons..."

I don't see either specification for the falchions. If they could be clear elsewhere, why not here?

Shrike's entry doesn't say +1A because it doesn't need to.

Mirrorswords are more explicit. and mirrorswords aren't CCWs by default so they required the additional clarification.



Nemisis Weapons ARE CCWs by default and as such the clarification isn't needed. not needed doesn't mean it wouldn't be preferable. clarification would have been nice, but it wasn't needed.

Didn't want to start a new thread on this issue but I wanted to add to the discussion that I was going with only +1A for them until I built my Paladin squads. With the options for Paladins Nemesis Force Weapons I can take a Sword for +1 Inv. Save (awesome), a Halberd for +2 I (powerful for sure), or even a Hammer for double S (usually an expensive upgrade)... all of these options are free. If I want to take the Falchions and get +1 A I have to give up one of the other weapons (that I would say are twice as valuable as an extra attack) AND pay 5 pts. All the examples of other dual weapon codex entries and the awesome flowchart in this thread combined with the points cost associated with Falchion upgrades throughout the book make me sit strongly in the +2A corner now.

I hope it gets FAQed soon... and I really hope that this issue is in there because I love the look of dual wielding guys in Power and Terminator armor. Even feeling like I do, without a FAQ I would play it with +1A and I did last night in fact... it's a game after all.

GODSDAMIT!!!!! I REWORDED MY POST WRONG FOR THE 3RD TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is what I was trying to say... Next time, I should not use the quick reply.

RE-EDIT:
I have to lean towards The Pair of Falchions give only 1 Attack.

Think of it for a moment.

Now a purifier has base 2 attacks

He has a force sword. Upgrade to Nemesis falchions.

Weapon change to Nemesis Falchoin. Add second falchion. Becomes a pair.

Thus said, your force sword is change to 2 nemesis falchions, granting you a +1 Attack.

So, your base attack is 2. You have a force sword, so it is still 2 Attacks, RIGHT?

So, you change force sword to "A" nemesis falchion.

So, it is still a base 2 Attacks. Give it another, so you have a pair of nemesis falchions. So, 2 close combat weapons.

This gives you an extra +1 Attack.

In the end, your base is 2 Attacks + the pair of nemesis falchions giving you the extra attack because it is 2 close combat special weapons of the same type. So now, your humble purifier has 3 Attacks. When charging, it receives 4 Attacks.

BUT TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT!!!
The BRB explicit says both special weopons of the same type offers +1 Attack

The BRB also says, when charging, it offers an extra +1 Attack

Even so, the Codex GK also explicitly says having a pair of Falchions give a +1 Attack

So in the end, it means (Base) 2 + (2 Falchions) +1 (Extra CCW of the same type) +1 (charging) +1= 5 ATTACKS!!!

Does this makes sense?

Let me recap.

When you take the pair of falchions, you change you force sword to "A" falchion. But your nemesis falchion comes in pairs, so you get 2 Falchions for the points you are paying. You no longer have a force sword. You now have a PAIR OF FALCHIONS with the captioned section saying +1 Attack.

1 PAIR = Extra 1 Attack for the 2 close combat weapon of the same type. But there is more, falchions are special weapons. They are power weapon + force weapon.

So, having both of the same type means it grants you a +1 Attack ONLY.

Why should it be like this?

(Base) 2 + (Pair of falchions, which is already 2 CCW of the same type) +1= 3 Attacks

Should it not be like this?

(Base) 2 + (Pair of falchoins) +1 + (extra CCW) + 1 = 4 Attacks

Remember, the Falchions are a pair, so the BRB says 2 of the weapon types offer extra +1 attack. Taking into account the description, "The wielder of a pair has +1 Attack."

Why would GW restate the obvious? After all, we all know 2 CCWs are extra +1 Attack. The quoted sentence is already specific. Having this pair not only means 2 CCW of the same type, it also means it offers the bonus of an extra +1 Attack, in conjunction with the bonus it offers as 2 CCWs

The wielder of a pair of Nemesis falchions has +1 Attack.

That's what the rules say. If they wanted +2, they would have said +2, they didn't.

Why would they restate it? Why not?

Well, if that is the case, I would be very happy. So, that would be (base) 2 + (Falchions) 2 + (CCW) + 1 (charge) +1= 6 attacks


I am taking into account what both the BRB and the codex says. I combine both, not one because in the gaming arena, we need to have both avaliable and rules from both books apply with codex taking the first say in any rule conflicts.

However, in view of this codex rule, it only says an add on of +1 Attack. It do not conflict with any rules in the BRB, so both rules, one from codex saying +1 attack and one from the BRB saying both weapons of the CCW type +1 Attack are combined.

Until FAQ comes out... this debacle would not be profitable for those playing tourneys. I am one of those that play to win at tourneys and GK is now main army. I could not afford a unit that has broken rules.

I am in the camp that they grant +2 attacks RAW.

That said, I can not and will not argue for either 1 or 2 attacks from the falchions with an opponent. The topic is too hotly debated. People who argue stuff in a real game get a bad rep. Thus, despite having an opinion on what RAW says, all I can do is point out that the Falchions are either +1 or +2 attacks, and it is unclear what GW thinks is correct.

I think the best responce in this topic was that this is the same codex who says RAW on the Dreadknight with a teleporter is Jump Infantry not a MC. Thus, using RAW to say that +2 attacks on the falchions is correct also says that the Dreadknight loses MC status, right? I think I would rather abstain from playing the GK until this crap is sorted out by GW, or at least the INAT, which I strongly support.

since the +1A stated in the Falchion description is NOT stated as being the bonus for 2 CCWs it HAS to be seperate.

Falchions have clearly been shown to be CCWs by themselves. since you have 2, you get the bonus for wielding 2 CCWs.

the total is(for a Purifier)

2 base attacks,

1 for wielding Falchions,

and 1 for wielding 2 CCWs.

so a Falchion Purifier has 4 attacks(5 on charge) in the end.

Until the FAQ comes out, it would be best to combine both laws from the BRB and the codex, with the codex having first in any rule conflict.

But in game, when undecided, it would be better to treat it with combination. Taking both advantages and disadvantages.

Example: Dreadknight with PT
Conflicted rules:
MC/JI status (Combine both status)
Advantage: Relentless, move 12 inches
Disadvantage: Taking cover as any MC would, not entering transports (unless they are like the super heavies in Apoc), taking dangerous terrain test if movement ending in difficult terrain.

Example 2:
Nemesis Falchion
Since there are no rules conflicting each other, why not have both from BRB and codex since codex rules do not conflict any rules from BRB
Combine rule: Extra attack for having the same special weapon (+1) and the statement "The wielder of a pair has +1 Attack." (+1)

Damn it!
I ordered a pair of pants, and they only gave me one pant.....grrrr.

HEH a pair does not always mean two.

Maybe this is a forest beyond the trees thing but I just read that falchion description as you have a pair, you get +1 attack. Then again I have never been a RAI player so I ignore the fluff in this summation.

Actually a pair does always mean two. Thats kinda the defination.

1 pant does nothing as an article of clothing, while a pair of pants is useful. I assume that was your point, but 1 nemesis falchion is a 1 handed force weapon, which is very different from 1 pant, which is not a 1 handed force weapon. Actually, what is 1 pant?

Cecil replies:

Fret not, my little anchovy. Ann Landers might puppy out and tell you to get professional counseling, but here at the Straight Dope, we deliver.

Now for the facts.

First of all, let's note there is a class of objects that are thought to consist of two independent but connected parts, usually identical or at least similar to each other. In addition to pants and trousers, there are eyeglasses, scissors, tweezers, shears, pliers, and so on.

The terms for these objects are always plural in form, and they are usually referred to as "a pair of ...." This usage goes back to at least 1297 AD, when we have the expression "a peire of hosen."

The implication is that the two parts are separable in some sense, and in fact a pair of hose can often mean two separate pieces. (True, you can't separate tweezers, but I never claimed the English language was rational.)

In contrast to trousers, a shirt is thought of mainly as a covering for the torso, and may or may not have sleeves. Hence no pair.

The "pair of ..." designation is somewhat arbitrarily applied. At one time it was common to speak of a pair of compasses (for drawing), a pair of nutcrackers, or a pair of bellows. But I would venture to say that in the U.S., at least, these expressions are dying out.

On the other hand, we do speak of a pair of panties, even though panties aren't really a pair of anything, having (usually) no legs. But clearly this is merely an extension of the expression, "pair of pants."

Further confusing matters is "a dozen pairs of rosaries," even though there are 50-some beads. This harks back to an old use of the word "pair" to mean "a set of more than two like or equal things making a whole."

A related usage, supposedly common in the theater business for many years, is "a pair [flight] of stairs." Occasionally theatrical types will say of a pair that it is "nice," and one assumes the rest of the superstructure ain't bad either. But that's a discussion for another day.

— Cecil Adams

We should never accept this sort of argument, "Just because it did not say no, I could do it." It shows no supporting material and it is a short not well though answer.

If there is something that seem strange or descriptions that maybe weird, citing the page and the codex to support the rules for your unit is the best possible answer.

My statement for purifiers armed with 2 falchions having 4 attacks (5 Attacks for charge),

Break down:
Purifier base attack: 2 Attack

I cite the Extra CCW weapon for the model has 2 of the same CCW due to the wording "pair" of falchions.
2 CCW same weapon: +1 Attack

I quote, "The wielder of a pair of Nemesis falchions have +1 Attack."
Statement description gives: +1 Attack

Charging rules: +1 Attack

However, I have read the tenets of YMDA. I do not wish to invoke the anger and hellfire of the mods (I say this with respect, not mockery). I agree, to what nosferatu1001 told me in my last post. I apologise for behavior that time.

Though it may not be a good source, I am calling GW to regarding the Falchions. A company rep telling on the on the phone is a loose fact, but better than nothing. If anyone does not believe the loose fact, they should call to reconfirm at GW. For those that doubt me, my chances of lying are extremely slim. They are just a phone call away. I never call once, I call thrice as always.

I have a mock tourney with a Bruneian player in Singapore on the 1st of May when I am there to stock up on models from Paradigm Infitium and we both are playing GK vs GK.

As a new face on DakkaDakka, I wish to contribute as much as possible in anyway I could. Since I am calling soon in a few hours, I may as well share what I got later for you all.

Guess I take the 40K You Make Da Call to the letter.

SeattleDV8 wrote:Damn it!
I ordered a pair of pants, and they only gave me one pant.....grrrr.

HEH a pair does not always mean two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurale_tantum

There is such a thing as a falchion in singular, thus your "argument" is moot.

This thread has gone off topic fast. If you wish to debate whether or not you get an additional extra attack for 2 CCW, I suggest you take that to a relevant thread.

The original question was: do I get an extra attack for having a pair of Nemesis Force Falchions (NFF) and a Storm Bolter?

The answer is two-fold:
1. No, a pair of NFF takes up both the model's hands as it is two weapons, and you can't use a pistol at the same time. They are, additionally, special close combat weapons and therefore do not allow you to mix/match with other weapons.
2. No, Storm Bolters are not pistols and do not count as a one-handed close combat weapon in melee, and would never grant additional attacks.

Oh hell, I forgot today of all days, IT'S SUNDAY!!!!!!

I'll have to call them tommorrow. ON MONDAY!!!!!!!

Mahtamori wrote:

The answer is two-fold:
1. No, a pair of NFF takes up both the model's hands as it is two weapons, and you can't use a pistol at the same time. They are, additionally, special close combat weapons and therefore do not allow you to mix/match with other weapons.

Actually, you can have a falchion and a pistol (in theory) and still get an extra attack for 2 weapons. The only weapons that need to be the same are Lightning Claws, Power Fists and Thunder Hammers. The rule book is actually very specific for once.