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.

And purchasing a set of twin weapons is different than purchasing a pair of something?

nixti wrote:And purchasing a set of twin weapons is different than purchasing a pair of something?

Eldar Codex, page 65 wrote:
The Exarch may also be equipped with powerblades at +X points

Grey Knights Codex, page 91 wrote:
Any model may replace his Nemesis force sword with one of the following:
-Pair of Nemesis Falchions....X points

Notice how the GK codex specifies a pair, while the Eldar codex does not.

Their description states that they are in fact a set of "twin" blades meaning that there are two of them.

And a lightning claw is a set of many small power blades, meaning that there are several of them. Your point?

So your saying that if in the GK codex, in their Wargear entry stayed the same but in the unit entries it said "Nemesis Falchions....X points" saying nothing about them being a pair they would not receive a +1 for having two ccw's?

And a lightning claw is a set of many small power blades, meaning that there are several of them.

And how many time in the SM codex are "pairs of Lightning Claws" simply referred to as "Lightning Claws"?

nixti wrote:So your saying that if in the GK codex, in their Wargear entry stayed the same but in the unit entries it said "Nemesis Falchions....X points" saying nothing about them being a pair they would not receive a +1 for having two ccw's?

You would only recieve the +1A that is in their wargear description.

And a lightning claw is a set of many small power blades, meaning that there are several of them.

And how many time in the SM codex are "pairs of Lightning Claws" simply referred to as "Lightning Claws"?

A lightning claw (singular) has an entry in the armoury. There is no entry for a singular power blade.

Same as there's no entry for a flachion.

But they're specifically noted as a pair in the army list and the wargear section specifically acknowledges the bonus gained while weilding a pair. It's inconsistant, but it still makes sense.

Your arguement is that a "pair" of weapons counts as two ccw but "twin" weapons doesn't?

Fafnir wrote:But they're specifically noted as a pair in the army list and the wargear section specifically acknowledges the bonus gained while weilding a pair. It's inconsistant, but it still makes sense.

So +1 attack???

Powerblades aren't taken as an upgrade btw their basic wargear described as "Twin power weapons". That are "fitted to the foremarms" ect.

ChrisCP wrote:

Fafnir wrote:But they're specifically noted as a pair in the army list and the wargear section specifically acknowledges the bonus gained while weilding a pair. It's inconsistant, but it still makes sense.

So +1 attack???

+1 Attack, which is in addition to the bonus for having two close combat weapons. It was covered fairly well in the previous topic, and there was nothing in over 20 pages to suggest otherwise.

Powerblades aren't taken as an upgrade btw their basic wargear described as "Twin power weapons". That are "fitted to the foremarms" ect.

Which is fluff. Just as lightning claws are multiple power blades on a single weapon.

Steelmage99 wrote:






So in the case of Falchions it is all "hard" rules and in the case of Powerblades it is simply fluff? Really?

Rules, fluff. Your distinctions seem a little hazy to me, care to break it down? It all appears to be a description of the piece of wargear to me... unless the +1A from the blades is fluff too

One might say that the Grey Knight codex is completely (a single exception not withstanding) consistent in that their wargear contains a paragraph of fluff, then a break and then the wargear in questions game effect.

One might also say that the game effect paragraph describes the complete and total sum of game effects for that piece of wargear.

Explain how "fitted to the forearms" is part of the hard rules, and I'll accept that "twin power weapons," contained within the same sentance, extends beyond fluff.

Steelmage - excpet you have nothing that actualy states their complete and total game effects are contained there

It is immediately wrong, for a start - as they are all NFW meaning they have additional effects outside of that paragraph, for *every* single weapon.

The "twin weapons" section is fluff. The sentence following that contains exactly the in game rules.

Twin: either of two persons or things closely related to or closely resembling each other.
to be paired or coupled.

Pair: two identical, similar, or corresponding things that are matched for use together.

They ARE the same thing, you guys need to form your arguments around the fluff/not fluff thing, as the Pair/twin thing is utterly wrong.

Now my take, The NFF do give +1 attack and grant another for 2 ccw, the power blades also act in the same way, the problem comes in when you try to seperate fluff from rules.

The rule part for exarchs is sqaushed together, space was at a premium, The GK codex does not have this problem, as with most 5th ED codexii, It can be argued that had GK codex been written in 4th, it would have the same problem, and this argument would be over.

but the ruling doesnt state they are 2 ccw. the rule is simply +1A for having that weapon on it. the pair and twin is put in the fluff.

kenzosan wrote:but the ruling doesnt state they are 2 ccw. the rule is simply +1A for having that weapon on it. the pair and twin is put in the fluff.

Both look the same to me, only diference is the lack of gap in th GK one.

where EXACTLY does the fluff for either end?.. infact the eldar one doesn't even look like fluff to me? It starts bye telling us that they are power weaponS ,
where on the model they must go, and the fact they dont use any hands (important in 3rd 4th, with the prevelence of 2 hand weapons etc.) and then tells us that you get +1 attack and ignore armour saves.

the last sentance, where it states the ability, just like every other entry in the eldar codex.

if your reading the eldar codex and cant seperate fluff then stop trying. i know its how its written, but its obvious the parts that aren't fluff.

and even in the fluff it doesnt say either of those are 2 ccw. a pair of swords does not equate to 2 one handed ccw for the rules sake, it has to say that 1 of those "twin" or "pair" count as 1 ccw.

kenzosan wrote:the last sentance, where it states the ability, just like every other entry in the eldar codex.

if your reading the eldar codex and cant seperate fluff then stop trying. i know its how its written, but its obvious the parts that aren't fluff.

and even in the fluff it doesnt say either of those are 2 ccw. a pair of swords does not equate to 2 one handed ccw for the rules sake, it has to say that 1 of those "twin" or "pair" count as 1 ccw.

So you can tell the rest of us EXACTLY what is and isn't fluff, my point is still valid, the blurb doesn't "look" like fluff.
Compare it to the GK one, see what I mean?

quick question, has powerblades been FAQ'ed?

no. and tbh, they dont need to be. like i said, even in the fluff it never says they count as 2 ccw, unlike snikrot in the orks that specifies they are 2 ccw.

I'd say it's 4 attacks on the charge.

The powerblades, rulewise, are not specified as being a pair of CCWs and it is only the +1A specified that makes them have extra attacks.

I think the reason why they're not simply specified as a pair of close combat weapons is because then it'd be harder to fit the idea of having a ranged weapon too, and the fact that the powerblades are unique makes this easier.

The "twin" part is pure fluff. Therefore in the RULES they are never 2 CCW.

42 points for this entire conversation plus the rest of the squad. idk who this would even be effective against? am i missing something?

I never interpreted power blades as meaning more than +1 attack, especially given that Warp Spiders are a shooting rather than close combat unit. The days of Exarchs as insane ninja masters were left behind with the 2nd edition codex. One power weapon, that grants +1attack as a nod to them being a pair.

I suspect Falchions are worded as conferring +1 attack AND imply the +1 for paired weapons to make up for the absence of lightning claws in the codex.

When you by "power blades" effectively you just bought a powersword that also gives plus 1 attack.

If he had a close combat weapon he'd get an extra attack. Warp spiders don't have a close combat weapon so they would end up having only one Close combat weapon.

He has NO pistol, NO close combat weapon and you can by Powerblades (Which is a singular weapon choice). The +1 attack is the aspect that these are essentially two power swords (but not technically).

In point of fact, I recall now that the Harlequin codex had an option for combining power blades + a pistol/CCW adding up to 2 additional attacks. So the 'blades count as one weapon.

kenzosan wrote:check the rules, it says no where that they are 2 ccw. i mean specifically. they are called a "pair of ccw" or "twin ccw" they call it 1 weapon.

"twin identical weapons" and "a pair of identical weapons" is the exact same as "two identical weapons". If you think different, prove it.

snikrot specifies that they are 2 ccw.

They are still a single entry and a pair of weapons that are actually two onehanded weapons, proving your assumptions above wrong.

how are you weilding 2 falchions AND a pistol? thats 3 hands.

You concluded yourself that falchions are one weapon, because otherwise you would get a 2CCW bonus. As it does not state to be a two handed weapon, a pair of falcions would be a single-handed weapon and allow a pistol to be wielded in addition.

Most likely the warp spider exarch power blades are meant by GW to be a pair (also known as twin, two or more than one) of close combat weapons. And the entry noting that they give the exarch +1 attack is the common redundant GWese method of saying yes, these really are two ccw so the exarch does get the +1 attack for having two ccw.

Its always a little hard to judge exactly what an older codex means, especially one like the eldar codex which was written in between rules sets....and was flavored with terms from 4th or 5th, or even terms that may merely have been contemplated at the time it was written but didnt make it into 5th.



Sliggoth

by alot of the reasoning im seeing here, the NFF dong get +1 attack either for 2ccw.

Pair is part of the fluff and it refers to them being a pair, as that is in the fluff.