Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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).