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.

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