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.

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

No it can't that argument holds no water at all given you have missed out that a DH is free for the Terminators too. Compare a TH with +1 attack in any other codex and the TH is at least double the cost...

Grey Templar wrote: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.

Good point. This is a turning point in our discussion. But the fact still remains, while I am a pro-+2A, we were never clearly given the definition that Falchions are 2ccw, as much as I personally think its absurd to think they aren't. WYSIWYG is an important part of the rules, but sadly rules dictate wysiwyg, not the other way around. For all we know, the 2 swords we see on the sprue arent even Falchions ( we all know they are).

If there are any citations of rules where "pair" is still used to describe 2 single handed identical ccw, they would be helpful.

Grey Templar wrote: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.

Actually, when you put it that way, all you're getting is an extra attack inside the bonus attack for having two close combat weapons. It's like yo put attacks on your attack so you can attack while you're attacking! **Someone roll up the meme pic for this please!**

not at all.


the rule is that 2 special CCWs use their special rules and give +1A.

it just so happens that the Special rule for nemisis Falchions is that they give +1A, are Force Weapons, and have the Deamonbane special rule.

Grey Templar wrote:not at all.


the rule is that 2 special CCWs use their special rules and give +1A.

it just so happens that the Special rule for nemisis Falchions is that they give +1A, are Force Weapons, and have the Deamonbane special rule.

But what was this...?

"All of their attacks, including the bonus attack [gained from two indentical close combat weapons], use the special weapon's bonuses and penalties"

So the attacks use the ability, which is +1 attack, as you are attacking. Which does nothing.
Don't these things give you some sort of invlun in CC to boot? What's so bad about ONLY getting another awesome power attack?

No,

nemisis Swords add +1 to any invuln you have in CC(so models without Invulns gain nothing)

Halbards add +2 to your I

Falchions give +1A.

Deamonhammers double your Str and auto-stun vehicles


all of them have the Deamonbane special rule

all of them are force weapons



all of the attacks including the bonus attack use any special abilities. this is meant for things like power/force weapons.

the +1A obviously does do anything to the models previous attacks. it just gives the model another attack(in additon to the +1 for wielding 2 CCWs)

Not exactly what you were arguing last page mate!

What do you mean?

the end result is NFF give +2A.

Grey Templar wrote:What do you mean?

the end result is NFF give +2A.

is a /Thread in order?

FlingitNow wrote:

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

No it can't that argument holds no water at all given you have missed out that a DH is free for the Terminators too. Compare a TH with +1 attack in any other codex and the TH is at least double the cost...

You snipped one line and heavily edited the post. The context of that sentence can be seen in the full quote.

schadenfreude wrote: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

Your belief that your RAI is undeniably correct and the other interpretation is so completely incorrect that the argument doesn't hold water is your subjective opinion. My observation that the debate has gone on for 15 pages now is an objective fact. The objective fact shows that RAI is not clear, and thus many people are very confused. Your subjective opinion is that you are 100% correct. What matters more in a debate your subjective opinion, or an objective fact?

RAI + Fluff + RAW = 2 Attacks

Read the actual fluff text, whcih states that Falchions allow the GK to fight with lightning speed

+2A is lightning speed. +1 Attack is not.

VERY simple

Besides, all things being equal, 3 lightning claw attacks do more damage on average than 4 falchion attacks due to their re-roll to wound. Even more so on the charge, when you get 4 vs 5 attacks.

Are 2 extra attacks really that absurd then, especially when you consider what you lose to take those 2 extra attacks?

And what you lose? +1 to inv. ? which applicable only in CC and half of units don't get benefit at all?? Or maybe "free" DH? with which you strike last? +2 Ini against normally more bodies or 3++ having models?
tell me please what you lose???

All of the above is what they lose. Striking first against eldar, or simultaneous with Wyches, is golden. 4++ in CC is a lot better than a 5++ for expensive terminators. DH let you kill everything in the game.

Penek - do you have a rules argument? Anything? Any counter to the fluff that they attack far faster than normal?

You're trying to suggest they attack as fast as any chump with a sword and pistol (+1 attack) which doesnt exactly make sense.

penek wrote:And what you lose? +1 to inv. ? which applicable only in CC

That's still a considerable bonus that is lost. When you consider the base investment in terminators, a 50% increase in close combat survivability against the unit's biggest weakness is huge.

and half of units don't get benefit at all??

Which explains the increase in cost on those units (except for Purifiers, who are an undercosted anomally in all respects)

Or maybe "free" DH? with which you strike last?

And allows you to pop armour. Kind of a big deal. 4 S5 Falchion attacks aren't going to do anything to a Dreadnought. 2 S10 Daemonhammer attacks will make it gak itself. Make no mistake, every single Grey Knight squad of any shape or form will be carrying at least one hammer. They're just that important.

+2 Ini against normally more bodies or 3++ having models?

4++, actually. 2+ initiative is incredibly useful against high initiative units that can force enough armour saves to take wounds, or to take down enemy elite enemies before they can fight back, avoiding considerable casualties.

Fluff has nothing to do with how its played.

penek wrote:Fluff has nothing to do with how its played.

Which is why, looking at how quantitatively +1 attack Falchions are simply worse than Halberds or Swords but at a premium paid in point cost, I don't see how your argument holds any water.

penek wrote:Fluff has nothing to do with how its played.

OK, so you've answered one question. Any of the others?

All signs point to +2A. ALL

Because all the codexes are awesomely balanced and there aren't any bad options whatsoever.

So what's your solution? Where there's ambiguity revert to the interpretation that makes an option go from acceptable to crap?

At +2A/5 points, Falchions might be taken. Might. As in, they're an acceptable option, not better or worse than Halberds or Swords categorically, but with situational advantages (or disadvantages).

"the pair grants 1 attack" seems pretty cut and dry... the 2 weapons are already counted for attacks purposes.. so no aditional +1 for two close combat weapons.. sorry no cheese for you

Lord_Ghazghkull wrote:"the pair grants 1 attack" seems pretty cut and dry... the 2 weapons are already counted for attacks purposes.. so no aditional +1 for two close combat weapons.. sorry no cheese for you

You';re lacking a rules quote there

The +1 attack text does not state it is the bonus for 2CCW, so it isnt. Its THAT cut and dried.

It's quantitatively proven to not be cheese. Unless all you fight is Guardsmen without power weapons, either Halberds for striking first against MEQs and Furious Charging base I4 units or swords for greater durability against power weapons outperform falchions at the premium paid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's quantitatively proven to not be cheese. Unless all you fight is Guardsmen without power weapons, either Halberds for striking first against MEQs and Furious Charging base I4 units or swords for greater durability against power weapons outperform falchions at the premium paid.

if thats what you think nos.. normally i tend to agree with your common sense rulings but imho... they grant 1 attack.. just my thoughts



Automatically Appended Next Post:
and also.. if the pair gets +1 attack for 2 close combat weapons wouldnt my tyranid warriors and prime get + 1 attack for using 2 boneswords?

No, because you are Tyranids and GW screwed you over

Grey Templar wrote:No, because you are Tyranids and GW screwed you over

really?.... i thought it was normal for an ic to not be able to join a squad arriving from deepstrike in a drop pod like item.. >.>

it's the paragraph says that tyranids don't use CCWs and all their "CCWs" really just alter the properties of their basic attacks.

Lord_Ghazghkull wrote:if thats what you think nos.. normally i tend to agree with your common sense rulings but imho... they grant 1 attack.. just my thoughts

and also.. if the pair gets +1 attack for 2 close combat weapons wouldnt my tyranid warriors and prime get + 1 attack for using 2 boneswords?

Your special rules state that nids dont use CCW, so you can never gaint he bonus attack.

See the other posts, which show just how BAD +1 attack only is. Hell, +2A isnt a lot better...

nos.. there is a siiiimple fix to this... if you dont like the rules for said upgrade...dont use the upgrade.. use something else...

Huh?

We've shown the rules for the upgrade give +2A. Have done since page 1. Do you have a rules quote, or anything, that indicates it is only +1A?