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.

Dracos- the Rulebook states you only ever use one weapon, with all its effects. Page 42 from memory.

So just 2A, nothing else

No. It doesn't mention the pair as counting as two separate weapons, and there's a precedent for considering a weapon that only ever appears as a pair as a single weapon, so the weapon is "a pair of falchions wielded as one weapon with two parts" and not "a single weapon being taken twice". Take the special weapons Wyches can take for example: from their names and descriptions, it's obvious that each consists of two weapons, on the models they're two weapons, but the codex still takes the time to say that they count as two weapons in their descriptions, implying that without that the paired weapons would just be one weapon that consists of two parts. Saying that the falchions grant +1 attack is just an idiosyncratic way of saying "since there are two, you get an extra attack".


Edit: to try to word that more coherently: nemesis falchions are a single weapon that happens to consist of two parts and grants +1 attacks, since you only ever see them described as a pair, rather than a single weapon that one takes two of, and which grants a special bonus when taken as a pair.

Perhaps, but when a model takes Falchions it takes a PAIR of falchions, not Falchions.

Witches take Hydragauntlets, not a pair of hydragauntlets.

And the wargear entry for the weapons describe them as "Falchions." Not "pair of falchions"

the only way to see NFF as "a pair of falchions wielded as one weapon with two parts" is if they are scissors. And I've already said that Nemesis Force Scissors are just silly.

If that's how it turns out, I'm putting them on a Dark Angel or UM honor guard with a one of those feathered headdresses and calling him 'Runs With Scissors'.

VoidAngel wrote:the only way to see NFF as "a pair of falchions wielded as one weapon with two parts" is if they are scissors. And I've already said that Nemesis Force Scissors are just silly.

It sounds awesome, actually.

No, no, no. This way leads to Nemesis Force Paste, Nemesis Force Construction Paper, String, and Googly Eyes... It sounds like Arts and Crafts day at the Inquisition's Preschool.

Can you take a single NFF?

My genestealers have rending claws. Does that count as an extra weapon since there are claws on both hands? My wychs have razorflails or hydragauntlets. Does this apply to them?

augustus5 wrote:Can you take a single NFF?

My genestealers have rending claws. Does that count as an extra weapon since there are claws on both hands? My wychs have razorflails or hydragauntlets. Does this apply to them?

Are you taking a specifically noted pair with a weapon who's wargear entry describes them in a singular manner?

Talking to my Local GW store manager, he reckons that you get +1 attack as RAW, and also +1 attack as RAW in the BRB. This will most certainly be covered in the first FAQ.

-Alex.

augustus5 wrote:Can you take a single NFF?

My genestealers have rending claws. Does that count as an extra weapon since there are claws on both hands? My wychs have razorflails or hydragauntlets. Does this apply to them?

Rending claws are neither stated ass "pair of" nor as a weapon in the first place. They are an upgrade, not a weapon. They give the model rending, but cannot literally be wielded in sets.

Although watching a genestealer swing around another genestealer's arm as a weapon would be quite comical.

My genestealers have rending claws. Does that count as an extra weapon since there are claws on both hands? My wychs have razorflails or hydragauntlets. Does this apply to them?

No tyranid model wields CCWs so they don't ever get the bonuses for that as it specifically states this in their codex.

Yes Hydra gauntlets and razorflails do count as 2 CCWs as listed in their entries and you gain the additional attack for wielding those again as specified in the relevant codex.

In fact they bring up an important example they both state they count as 2 CCWs and thus grant and extra attack. Where as the Falchions give +1 attack and are also 2 CCWs...

Falchions give +1 attack. Falchions are CCW 's.
You have TWO of them right?
Two close CCW 's gives +1 attack right?

You could argue about RAI, but RAW totally overrides RAI. Until the FAQ, RAW will have control.

-Alex.

I think arguing that you get an additional attack on top of the +1 Attack granted for having a pair of falchions is being intellectually dishonest in the service of exploitation.

I think it is pretty clearly implied by the wording 'the wielder of a pair...' as well as the points cost of the upgrade that the expectation is the falchions grant you an additional 1 attack in close combat by increasing the Attack stat by one point. Not two, not three, not five.

If you were across the table from me and tried to claim three base attacks for having a pair of falchions on your model, I'd politely tell you to give your head a shake. Two attacks for 5 points? Not a chance. I'll listen to arguments that present similar weapons upgrades granting two additional attacks for the same points value, but I'm willing to bet no such upgrade exists.

If the RAI was to have the extra Attack value added by the falchions seperate from the fact of them being paired, then I think GW would have spelled it out loud and clear that "THIS ATTACK IS IN ADDITION TO THE BONUS FOR WIELDING A PAIR OF CCW" (because they know people will do anything to try and stack more attacks, a fact being played out, rather sadly, here), rather, it's just the opposite: the Attack bonus is granted in a clause which includes the word 'pair', and I think the implication is pretty clear that the bonus is the consequent of having the pair, not exclusive of it.


I understand the arguments to the contrary, and I respectfully reject them in their entirety as being contrary to a reasoned expectation of fair play and rules lawyering to the aim of malicious exploitation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

alexgm101 wrote:Falchions give +1 attack. Falchions are CCW 's.
You have TWO of them right?
Two close CCW 's gives +1 attack right?

You could argue about RAI, but RAW totally overrides RAI. Until the FAQ, RAW will have control.

-Alex.

Except that's not what the rule says. The rule says a model equipped with a pair of flachions gets the extra attack, so your argument is absurd, claiming that the pair of falchions are seperate from the 2 ccws.

Here is that logic in a nutshell:

"Two testicles are always accompanied by a penis. I have two testicles. Therefore, I have two penises, because my two testicles are also a pair."

I think it is pretty clearly implied by the wording 'the wielder of a pair...' as well as the points cost of the upgrade that the expectation is the falchions grant you an additional 1 attack in close combat by increasing the Attack stat by one point. Not two, not three, not five.

If you were across the table from me and tried to claim three base attacks for having a pair of falchions on your model, I'd politely tell you to give your head a shake. Two attacks for 5 points? Not a chance. I'll listen to arguments that present similar weapons upgrades granting two additional attacks for the same points value, but I'm willing to bet no such upgrade exists.

Have you looked at the points values for the other upgrades? How many points is double your strength? Or + 2I. If it is just +1 attack then they are massively overcosted compared to other options. Even with +2 attacks I wouldn't take them on Terminators or normal Grey Knights. So they are either a total waste of a slot that no one would ever take or they are priced right in line with the other options and something worth considering on units you are using for horde control...

And to use your own argument:

"I think arguing that you do not get an additional attack on top of the +1 Attack granted for having a pair of falchions is being intellectually dishonest in the service of exploitation.

I think it is pretty clearly implied by the wording 'the wielder of a pair...' as well as the points cost of the upgrade that the expectation is the falchions grant you an additional 1 attack in close combat by increasing the Attack stat by one point. And that you obviously still gain the normal benefits for wielding a pair of CCWs.

If the RAI was to have the extra Attack value added by the falchions being from the fact of them paired, then I think GW would have spelled it out loud and clear that 'the weapons count as 2 CCWS and therefore deliver +1 attack' as they did with the DE weapons..."

FlingitNow wrote:
Have you looked at the points values for the other upgrades? How many points is double your strength? Or + 2I. If it is just +1 attack then they are massively overcosted compared to other options. Even with +2 attacks I wouldn't take them on Terminators or normal Grey Knights.

wait, you're saying if you could double the base attacks of your assault terminators (from 2 to 4) for five points you wouldn't do it? to each their own, i guess. i'll grant that having four base attacks isn't for every situation, but if you don't see how broken doubling or tripling the attacks of an assault model for 5 points is, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

FlingitNow wrote:I think it is pretty clearly implied by the wording 'the wielder of a pair...' as well as the points cost of the upgrade that the expectation is the falchions grant you an additional 1 attack in close combat by increasing the Attack stat by one point. And that you obviously still gain the normal benefits for wielding a pair of CCWs.

read that again: you're telling me you get the bonus from having a pair, as well as the bonus from having a pair? looks like you want your cake to eat as well.

FlingitNow wrote:I think GW would have spelled it out loud and clear that 'the weapons count as 2 CCWS and therefore deliver +1 attack' as they did with the DE weapons..."

that's certainly possible!

wait, you're saying if you could double the base attacks of your assault terminators (from 2 to 4) for five points you wouldn't do it? to each their own, i guess. i'll grant that having four base attacks isn't for every situation, but if you don't see how broken doubling or tripling the attacks of an assault model for 5 points is, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You're also giving up +1 invun or +2 initiative or double strength... Look at every other codex in existence which costs more and extra attack or a Thunder hammer? Given that a Daemon Hammer is actually slightly better than a TH and for a normal GK costs half what the Falchions cost maybe just maybe that should tell you something.

Tell me a codex where a TH or PF is half the points of +1 attack and you'd have a point about the cost of the upgrade. Given that in every other codex a TH is double the cost of an extra attack it looks like you are living in a dream world regarding the points value...

read that again: you're telling me you get the bonus from having a pair, as well as the bonus from having a pair? looks like you want your cake to eat as well.

Yes I want the bonus for wielding a pair of falcions and the bonus for weilding a pair of CCWs. So do BA dreads with a pair of blood talons not gain +1 attack? The bonus for weilding a pair is the extra generated attacks, but they still get the bonus for wielding 2 CCWs just like everyone else and notice a total lack of wording specifying that they get the bonus for 2 CCWs in the wording for the BTs rules...

Going back to your vulgar example:

"A pair of Ts are always accompanied by a P. I have Falchion Ts which mean I have an extra P. Therefore, I have two Ps, because my two Falchion Ts are also a pair."

But if they only wanted it to be +1 attack, they would have said you get an extra attack for having two weapons, or they would have said nothing hoping that you would notice the two weapons.....

But they just say +1 attack, with no reason. I think RAI you just get the +1, but RAW you get +2.

hemingway wrote:
read that again: you're telling me you get the bonus from having a pair, as well as the bonus from having a pair? looks like you want your cake to eat as well.

FlingitNow wrote:I think GW would have spelled it out loud and clear that 'the weapons count as 2 CCWS and therefore deliver +1 attack' as they did with the DE weapons..."

that's certainly possible!

hemingway wrote:

Except that's not what the rule says. The rule says a model equipped with a pair of flachions gets the extra attack, so your argument is absurd, claiming that the pair of falchions are seperate from the 2 ccws.

Ahh, but they do clearly define that extra attack as a special ability of the NFF, NOT the attack granted from having 2CCW.

All NFW are described to have 3 or more special rules, Force Weapon, Daemonbane, and "One of more other ABILITIES as listed on this page. These always apply in addition to the Force Weapon and Daemonbane abilities given above." The +1A listed for the NFF is an extra ability conferred from the fact that it is a NFF. It's mentioned that the +1A is the bonus ability for the pair because they don't want people to think you get +1A for each one. As in most all Codexes, if this was the extra attack for having 2 CCW, then it would say as such. Something along the lines of "the wielder of a pair of Nemesis Force Flachions gets +1 attack as if wielding 2 close combat weapons".

The other additional extra attack comes from the fact that this piece of wargear is purchased as a pair. In the armory the entry is for a Nemesis Force Flachion, and since the fluff is that it is always wielded as a pair, it can only be purchased as a pair. and thus you're wielding 2 of the same special CCW. People keep asking if it's possible to purchase just 1, no it's not, however that fact that the points cost listed is for purchasing a pair, meaning 2 of the same, means you're buying 2 CCW.

To deny that fact, is the same as saying in the SM Codex, Shrike, who comes with 1 item that is defined as "a pair of lightning claws" doesn't get +1A for having 2 weapons. Also to say that Black Templar Sword Brethren don't get +1A for wielding a pair of lightning claws. Or that a BA furioso dreadnought doesn't get +1 attack for purchasing a pair of blood talons.

Yes the 2 attacks come from 2 different sources. +1A for the special ability of the NFF, and +1A for wielding 2 of the same CCW. Since the rule book states that having 2 of the same special CCW you get to use the weapons special abilities (the cake) and get the additional attack for wielding 2 weapons (eating the cake too).

The DE Wych weapons are specially labeled as "+1A as if wielding 2 CCW" because to take them you are replacing both your splinter pistol and your regular CCW, and since they are not purchased as a "pair" of any of them (thus only buying 1) the wording is needed to ensure you get the bonus attack.

hemingway wrote:
wait, you're saying if you could double the base attacks of your assault terminators (from 2 to 4) for five points you wouldn't do it? to each their own, i guess. i'll grant that having four base attacks isn't for every situation, but if you don't see how broken doubling or tripling the attacks of an assault model for 5 points is, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Here is why the Falchions seem cheap. and in actuality are not cheap.


Opprotunity cost, it's something you learn in Economics.



For terminators buying a pair of Falchions for 5 points.

however, in paying those 5 points and gaining 2 attacks, the terminators is losing a point to his invuln. by increasing his cost by 25% he is taking a 16% decrease in survivability and gaining a 100% increase in his attacks.

in addition, the GK loses the opprotunity to increase his Inititive by 2, or get a 2++ invuln, or get Str10 attacks(hammerhanded Str plus TH)


on a regular PAGK(who pays 10 points), he increases his cost by 50% to get a 200% increase in his attacks(he doesn't lose any survivability)

He loses the ability to get a Deamonhammer(Str10 attacks) for the same cost. he also loses the ability to take a Halbard for half the cost.

it isn't about the actual points cost. it's what you give up to get it as well.

Why is "pair" good to enough to say "two of", when the use of plural or "twin" isnt?

Pair can only mean two.

Plural could be any number above 1

Twin in 40k has connections to Twin-linked and therefore would be confusing to have twin close combat weapons.

Steelmage99 wrote:Why is "pair" good to enough to say "two of", when the use of plural or "twin" isnt?

because Pair, in common usage, means 2 of something. there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.


unless specified otherwise, in English, pair means 2 of something.



Twin isn't treated the same way.

it could mean you have 2 identical objects, but it could also mean 2 things are inseperable and always found/used together. it's more vauge in its usage then pair is.

Grey Templar wrote:
however, in paying those 5 points and gaining 2 attacks, the terminators is losing a point to his invuln. by increasing his cost by 25% he is taking a 16% decrease in survivability and gaining a 100% increase in his attacks.

Please everyone, stop saying 25% cost increase. It's a 12.5% increase (5 / 40). This keeps getting thrown around, and it's just inaccurate. I guess I'm a math nazi.

ooops


either way, it's still a significant point increase when you factor in what you lose to take the Falchions.

I thought I remembered that speil on page 42 applying to lightning claws, power fists, and thunder hammers (and their equivalents). Or was it more general?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I say this because it would be simply hilarious if, after 14 pages of discussion, this was the answer.

14 pages of debate on Falchions alone makes 1 thing official: Based on the criteria of the rules being written in a clear and concise manner being the most important aspect of writing a rulebook the GK codex is officially the worst written codex of 5th edition.

RAW=2 attacks

RAI=Who the hell knows?
Giving up +1 invo or +2 I for +1 attack at at a 12.5% increase in cost can be successfully argued as too weak for RAI
Giving up +1 invo or +2 I to double a terminators base number of attacks to 4 for a 12.5% increase in cost can be successfully argued as too overpowered for RAI

actually, it looks like you may have found some definite proof of Falchions giving +2A total.

under Fighting with 2 singlehanded weapons.

2 of the Same special weapon.

"these models gain one additional attack. all of their attacks, including the bonus attack, use the special weapon's bonuses and penelties"


in the case of Falchions, the Bonuses and Penalties is the +1A the Falchions have for being a Nemisis Weapon.



and to settle the Force Weapon = single handed CCW debate.

page 50 "They have the same effect as Power Weapons"

Page 42 "Power Weapons" it doesn't say they require 2 hands, therefore they must be a single handed special CCW.



therefore, we can conclude that all Nemisis weapons are single handed CCWs. and a model buys a Pair of Nemisis Falchions, in the same way a Vanilla Terminators buys a pair of LCs.


therefore, a GK with a Pair of Falchions gains +2A.

Grey Templar wrote:therefore, we can conclude that all Nemisis weapons are single handed CCWs

Not that it matters much, but Halberds are specifically stated as being two-handed weapons.