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.

It basically boils down to this:
If they add +1A nobody will use them and we wont see much variation on the tabletops.
If they add +2A they will be used.

This is what and why GW needs to hear this.
Basically we dont want yet another gakky and completely useless wargear, the psilencer that will N E V E R be used nor seen in GK armies is enough.

just to offer my insight
i think they used the wording Pair to stop people taking one+ sword for +1 attack and using sword or any nemesis weapon


but im on the side of 2+ attacks it seems the most logical in every sense

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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?

The poll results do not display this is a definitive conclusion.

Yeah, but as someone (Jaon?) said pages ago - the comments don't match up. So the poll responses indicate the way people *want* them to work, rather than they way they honestly *think* they work.

I agree that those people are mostly thinking in terms of not wanting to face them across the table if they get +2 attacks.

VoidAngel wrote:Yeah, but as someone (Jaon?) said pages ago - the comments don't match up. So the poll responses indicate the way people *want* them to work, rather than they way they honestly *think* they work.

Or people vote without commenting.

That happens frequently enough.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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?

No, you've tried to prove why it that upgrade should give +2 attacks. Some arguments were, I can say, fair enough, but I still think that stuff is way underpriced in C: GK.

Proof of this is that any other Codex, even more recent ones, pay through the nose for a single extra attack. The fact that GK players pay so little (or nothing at all) for some great upgrades gives the feeling that +5 for one extra NFW attack is a lot.

If it really gives one extra attack, and under the appreciation of the MatHammer society, it seems to be a useless choice. But for Johnny Doe, who plays by WYSIWYG and cares only for the rule of cool instead of a better 12.5266%* chance of going better against six* of the twelve* armies/cookie cutter lists that currently dominate the Tournament Scene.

Nowhere does it say that they can claim the bonus for 2 CCW. The way I see it, regardless of it being a pair (and yes, I'm not blind, I know that a pair = two) the upgrade you're buying gives you a bonus attack.

This is my interpretation, and so far I've read every post and I don't completely agree with everything in favour, I would play a game against any of you with a roll of a d6 deciding the rule usage. Not very unreasonable, I think.

(*random numbers)

DarknessEternal wrote:
The poll results do not display this is a definitive conclusion.

And? The poll is meaningless compared to the actual rules, as it seems to give what people prefer rather than what the rules say. Biased, in other words.

Noone has been able to give a *rules* based argument against +2A. There have been attempts, but they were all shown to be flawed

Destrado - if you have a rules argument for +1A, please present it. Until then the proven +2A remains as the actual rules

that JUST so happens to coincide with the fluff. Amazing.

Pro+2A seems to be in favour at the moment, Ill just go over some of the more important factors of this discussion:

The force weapon argument. FW = PW = single handed CCW

The fluff argument. Lightning fast should be faster than normal units.

The WYSIWYG argument. Clearly, they are holding 2 weapons.

The points value argument. The points cost is so low because of what you lose when taking falchions, and because of GK's relatively bad survivability. It is also much lower than other codexes because falchions do not grant the user a power weapon, the user already has one.

The relative effectiveness argument. Halberds, DH and Swords are all good options, Falchions have every right to be on par, especially when they cost more.

Then there are the against arguments:

Fluff =/= Rules

They are never described directly as 2 ccw (does not hold water)

Undercosted for +2A (disproved)

They are a single piece of wargear (Lightning claws? Gauntlets of Macragge?)

Jaon wrote:Pro+2A seems to be in favour at the moment, Ill just go over some of the more important factors of this discussion:

The force weapon argument. FW = PW = single handed CCW

The fluff argument. Lightning fast should be faster than normal units.

The WYSIWYG argument. Clearly, they are holding 2 weapons.

The points value argument. The points cost is so low because of what you lose when taking falchions, and because of GK's relatively bad survivability. It is also much lower than other codexes because falchions do not grant the user a power weapon, the user already has one.

The relative effectiveness argument. Halberds, DH and Swords are all good options, Falchions have every right to be on par, especially when they cost more.

Then there are the against arguments:

Fluff =/= Rules

They are never described directly as 2 ccw (does not hold water)

Undercosted for +2A (disproved)

They are a single piece of wargear (Lightning claws? Gauntlets of Macragge?)

In the Pro section you forgot to mention that the +1A listed in the description on that armory is clearly defined as an extra ability they provide and not the +1A for having 2 CCW.

And that in the unit options the single item is purchased as a pair, which falls inline with other pieces of wargear (in Codexes as recently as the new BA) that are only purchasable as a pair (because of fluff) that do provide the additional +1 for 2CCW on top of extra abilities (ie Furioso Blood Talons).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Destrado - if you have a rules argument for +1A, please present it. Until then the proven +2A remains as the actual rules

that JUST so happens to coincide with the fluff. Amazing.

In every Marine codex I've checked (except Black Templar), it goes like this.

You pay X points (in this case) for a Wolf Guard. You pay a further Y for a Lightning Claw. Then you pay another Y for another Lightning Claw, which grants you one extra attack for two CCW. All together that's nearly fifty points for a Power Armoured Marine to get 4 attacks. If you pay for TA, you get a Wolf Claw for Y and another for a bit less.

Nowhere I've seen do you buy Lightning Claws as a pair. Two special CCWs (you paid for both) to give you +1 A, and lose a shooting attack.

Everyone in favor is saying that it's 2 CCW. It doesn't strike me as it was intended like that, rather than the extra attack comes from buying a wargear piece that happened to be represented by two falchions.

The NFSword gives an invulnerable save bonus in CC if you already have one. Why wouldn't they write that the +1 Attack is in addition for the bonus +1 Attack for two CCW? Or that at least, you're equipped with 2 CCW? Because, for all gaming effects, they are a single piece of wargear that grants +1 A. This is how I interpret it. In other descriptions they go to the trouble of explaining some perks/limitations (Nemesis Doomhammer for Dreadknight strikes in initiative, NFSword doesn't grant anything to someone who doesn't already have an Inv Save). Lapses exist in the Codex (the 5 Jokaero, for example - It doesn't state that the bonus doesn't add up for the consecutive roll).

And the matching the fluff (amazingly) can be erroneous, as I can give you several examples from the fluff that do not directly translate into the game.

Destrado wrote:Nowhere does it say that they can claim the bonus for 2 CCW.

To paraphrase nos...

Huh?

You mean that for 2 ccw to provide a +1A it has to state it specifically in the codex?!?!?

I know that codex trumps brb, but there is absolutely no basis on which to present this argument that you don't get the bonus for +1A for having 2 ccw's. It's already a given. The codex would have to specifically state that you would not get the bonus +1A for having 2 ccw's as stated in the brb.

Do you think we can get this to 50 pages of, "does not!" "does too!" before the FAQ comes out?

imweasel wrote:

Destrado wrote:Nowhere does it say that they can claim the bonus for 2 CCW.

To paraphrase nos...

Huh?

You mean that for 2 ccw to provide a +1A it has to state it specifically in the codex?!?!?

I know that codex trumps brb, but there is absolutely no basis on which to present this argument that you don't get the bonus for +1A for having 2 ccw's. It's already a given. The codex would have to specifically state that you would not get the bonus +1A for having 2 ccw's as stated in the brb.

Instead of stating that you also get the bonus for Two Close Combat Weapons, in addition to the extra attack?

I doubt we'd hit fifty pages.The anti and the pro are pretty much set on their interpretations.

Hey, let's make this better. Instead of discussing who and what and why, let's bet something.

I'm willing to pay 4 beers to whomever comes to Portugal that is in favor of this. Or have a pic taken saying "X was right! Sorry!".

Destrado wrote:In every Marine codex I've checked (except Black Templar), it goes like this.

You pay X points (in this case) for a Wolf Guard. You pay a further Y for a Lightning Claw. Then you pay another Y for another Lightning Claw, which grants you one extra attack for two CCW. All together that's nearly fifty points for a Power Armoured Marine to get 4 attacks. If you pay for TA, you get a Wolf Claw for Y and another for a bit less.

Nowhere I've seen do you buy Lightning Claws as a pair. Two special CCWs (you paid for both) to give you +1 A, and lose a shooting attack.

Everyone in favor is saying that it's 2 CCW. It doesn't strike me as it was intended like that, rather than the extra attack comes from buying a wargear piece that happened to be represented by two falchions.

The NFSword gives an invulnerable save bonus in CC if you already have one. Why wouldn't they write that the +1 Attack is in addition for the bonus +1 Attack for two CCW? Or that at least, you're equipped with 2 CCW? Because, for all gaming effects, they are a single piece of wargear that grants +1 A. This is how I interpret it. In other descriptions they go to the trouble of explaining some perks/limitations (Nemesis Doomhammer for Dreadknight strikes in initiative, NFSword doesn't grant anything to someone who doesn't already have an Inv Save). Lapses exist in the Codex (the 5 Jokaero, for example - It doesn't state that the bonus doesn't add up for the consecutive roll).

And the matching the fluff (amazingly) can be erroneous, as I can give you several examples from the fluff that do not directly translate into the game.

So I take it you don't let vanilla space marine assault terminators get +1A for wielding 'lightning claws'?

Or that Calgar gets +1A for the 'gauntlets of ultramar'?

Or Shrike for the 'raven's talons'?

Really?

imweasel wrote:

So I take it you don't let vanilla space marine assault terminators not get +1A for wielding 'lightning claws'?

Or that Calgar gets +1A for the 'gauntlets of ultramar'?

Or Shrike for the 'raven's talons'?

Really?

Oversight rather than the norm.

A model with Nemesis force warding stave "gets X".
A Nemesis Daemon Hammer uses the rules for ThunderHammers.
A model with Nemesis Greatsword re-rolls failed to Hit... etc.

The wielder of a pair of NFFalchions gets 1 attack. Why not state that a model with a Falchion gets +1 attack? And then, sell two for 5? This I would agree with. Otherwise it just looks like an Easter Egg.

Destrado wrote:Oversight rather than the norm.

A model with Nemesis force warding stave "gets X".
A Nemesis Daemon Hammer uses the rules for ThunderHammers.
A model with Nemesis Greatsword re-rolls failed to Hit... etc.

The wielder of a pair of NFFalchions gets 1 attack. Why not state that a model with a Falchion gets +1 attack? And then, sell two for 5? This I would agree with. Otherwise it just looks like an Easter Egg.

So your basis for your argument has no bearing from a rules stand point.

Well at least we know where you stand.

imweasel wrote:

So your basis for your argument has no bearing from a rules stand point.

Well at least we know where you stand.

Go and re-read the entries. Take a careful look at how they are worded.

Notice any differences?

Why doesn't it state that a single falchion grants +1 attack?

Listen, it's not that I don't understand your point. It makes sense to me, but it still doesn't feel correct. I'll back down from the conversation, since it's got more to do with how overly over-powered it seems to be for me. Also, I seem to stand alone in this by now against five or six people, so no point in further arguments.

If it helps destrado, roll 8 termies with +2 attack falchions versus 9 twin lclaw marine termies. Try with and without hammerhand, and with and without each side charging.

You will find that when the Lclaws charge, they win. When the falchions charge, they win. When neither charges, and the falchions dont get hammerhand, they lose. When they do get hammerhand, they tie.

Then do the same thing when the falchions give only 1 attack. You will see that the lclaws now are always winning, as they have the same number of attacks, but WHEN hammerhand goes off they are wounding 66%, while the lclaws have an extra model (thus more wounds and more attacks total) and wound 75%. So the lclaws have more attacks, more wounds, no need for dangerous psychic checks, and STILL do more wounds.

The issue is that the appearance of overpowered that many feel +2 attacks grants is just smoke and mirrors. Vanilla termies are stronger point for point, regular orks are stronger point for point, heck almost every cc unit other than a tactical marine is stronger point for point.

Destrado wrote:

imweasel wrote:

So your basis for your argument has no bearing from a rules stand point.

Well at least we know where you stand.

Go and re-read the entries. Take a careful look at how they are worded.

Notice any differences?

Why doesn't it state that a single falchion grants +1 attack?

Listen, it's not that I don't understand your point. It makes sense to me, but it still doesn't feel correct. I'll back down from the conversation, since it's got more to do with how overly over-powered it seems to be for me. Also, I seem to stand alone in this by now against five or six people, so no point in further arguments.

the rule book doesnt need to say that a single falchion gives +1A

it says that the wielder of a pair of falchions gets +1A


it does NOT say that this bonus is the same as for wielding 2 CCWs.

therefore, it is NOT the same and they do indeed stack.



would it have been nice for GW to clarify by having a little sentence saying that the bearer gets a total of +2A?

yes, but this is GW and clarification is a rare commodity in their codexs.

DevianID wrote:If it helps destrado, roll 8 termies with +2 attack falchions versus 9 twin lclaw marine termies. Try with and without hammerhand, and with and without each side charging.

You will find that when the Lclaws charge, they win. When the falchions charge, they win. When neither charges, and the falchions dont get hammerhand, they lose. When they do get hammerhand, they tie.

Then do the same thing when the falchions give only 1 attack. You will see that the lclaws now are always winning, as they have the same number of attacks, but WHEN hammerhand goes off they are wounding 66%, while the lclaws have an extra model (thus more wounds and more attacks total) and wound 75%. So the lclaws have more attacks, more wounds, no need for dangerous psychic checks, and STILL do more wounds.

The issue is that the appearance of overpowered that many feel +2 attacks grants is just smoke and mirrors. Vanilla termies are stronger point for point, regular orks are stronger point for point, heck almost every cc unit other than a tactical marine is stronger point for point.

except that GK can bump Ini to 10, and with that +1 or +2 attacks makes great difference

bumping to I10 helps all attacks regardless of the weapon.

and it requires a Libby and only works with 1 unit at a time.

And it's worth noting that a decently equiped Librarian is likely to run you around 250+ points to begin with, which kind of defeats the entire purpose of your comparison. If a Grey Knight Terminator squad pays 250 extra points to strike at I10 (amoung other things...), then they deserve to obliterate them. At that point, you'll be spending well over double the cost of the vanilla terminators.

And so? that not means that Ini10 are not here...
arguments like - zomg... its helluva shtload of points, no one will play that. - not acceptable here, because by you logic, we simply can throw more then half of that codex right in to the trash. and isn't you are "Elite" - ie small on numbers? you wanna all the cookies and no drawbacks?
and you not needed to take EVERYTHING he can take, to run him in army.

You're still failing to get the point.

You're comparing a 500+ point unit to a 200 point unit and complaining that the 200 point unit is at a disadvantage.

Destrado wrote:

imweasel wrote:

So your basis for your argument has no bearing from a rules stand point.

Well at least we know where you stand.

Go and re-read the entries. Take a careful look at how they are worded.

Notice any differences?

I think you're the one who has to reread the entry page. Specifically, the part of the NFW box labeled "further abilities". It makes it quite clear that a pair of falchions grant 1A as a special ability, and that there's 2 of them.

penek wrote:And so? that not means that Ini10 are not here...
arguments like - zomg... its helluva shtload of points, no one will play that. - not acceptable here, because by you logic, we simply can throw more then half of that codex right in to the trash. and isn't you are "Elite" - ie small on numbers? you wanna all the cookies and no drawbacks?
and you not needed to take EVERYTHING he can take, to run him in army.

Penek - fair enough, points arguments arent valid here

However, we have given the rules argument. You have yet to offer a counter argument - in fact, your argument is it is too CHEAP to get +2A.

Cant win. We show you the rules, and you claim it doesnt matter because the points values make it too cheap. We then show you how even with +2A it still isnt great value, and you then complain that making an argument based on points values isnt allowed here, as if that is the ONLY pro +2A argument that has been made

Fact: RAW and arguably RAI and fluff back +2A. Until you can find a rules argument otherwise this is the de facto case.

Does the wielder of a single falchion then get +1/2 attack?

I just voted because I see "a pair of falchions gives +1 attack" attempting to be combined with "2 identical special ccw give +1 attack".

I don't see anything that a pair of falchions could be identicle to, other than another pair of falchions.

As I can't see the unit entry, I don't know how they are bought. I am assuming from reading some of the debate, they are only bought as a pair, from a list of which weapon option you want to buy for your guy.

I am also assuming that a pair of falchions wouldn't be considered equal to a one handed ccw. I can't see that working at all.

Combining these assumptions, I think the bonus for taking them instead of another weapon option is that you get to have two of them.

Is there an option for any of the other NFW options to be bought more than once? If there is, then it makes sense that the falchions would have some other ability just like the rest of them (or just be cheaper). As I don't have the unit entry to read, and I don't know the comparative costs to other NFW options that can be taken instead, I can't make that judgement: but my hunch is that either they are the cheaper option than two of any other kind of NFW, or none of the others in the entry are allowed to buy a secondary, making the falchions option the only NFW option available that lets you wield two weapons, thus getting the +1A. It seems to me inherent in the meaning of a "pair" of falchions that it is two identicle weapons. If having a pair of them gives you +1A, then having another pair of them gives you +1A for having a second special weapon of the same type.

Its difficult to word it short of a flakey 'feels wrong' but it just blows a logic circuit in my head. I feel that a pair of falchions is not a single handed ccw. It may be a ccw that takes two hands to wield but that part, which is necessary to state for a single weapon with one big handle like a relic blade or a executioner or (probably but I don't know for fact) a halbard. The fact that this is true of a pair of falchions may not have been mentioned for the common sense GW writers thought people had that they wouldn't think a pair of falchions was a single weapon.

In my Eldar Codex, a Howling Banshee "armed with mirrorswords counts as having an extra hand weapon that grants +2A instead of the usual +1A" is the wording. If they wanted the pair of nemesis falchions to grant +2A why wouldn't they have worded it as precisely as that?

The lightning claws on regular vanilla terminators are implied as being two weapons of the same type, and stated to give +1A because of this. There is also no option for them to buy another pair so there is no confusion. Maybe they got slack about restating something that should be obvious and that caused all this confusion.

I really don't care as I don't play tournaments and have no interest in collecting another army either, I just find the debate interesting because it's so difficult to get around either bad logic or poor wording or inconsistent rules when they are so intertwined like this - it's hard to tell where the flaw is. Sorry to be on the "no" side which seems like the minority at least in the debate part of the poll, but like I said, it just 'feels' wrong to me. I don't think 5 points for a second NWF attack is overpriced either. Perhaps compared to the bonuses of the other options but I don't know their costs. I don't even know or care the specifics of a NFW I just know they are superior to a power weapon though, and points values for same weapons vary between codex anyway.

Good luck GK guys, getting your +2A, but I just don't think it's likely.

Because reiterating the BRB isnt needed in every case? BEcause a NFW is, literally defined as a single handed CCW? For any of the other reasons shown so far in this thread?

Fact: you have 2 single handed CCW, thus getting +1 attack
Fact: you gain an additional +1 attack from the special rule for the Falchions, a special rule that does NOT state that it replaces the normal bonus.

Guitardian wrote:Does the wielder of a single falchion then get +1/2 attack?

No. They would not get any bonus (other than being a 1-handed Nemesis Force Weapon).

Grey Knights Codex, page 54 wrote:
The wielder of a pair of Nemesis falchions has +1 Attack.

So, similar to how Blood Talons only gain their bonus attacks if you have a pair, Nemesis Falchions only grant their bonus attack (for a total of +2) if you take a pair.

However, similar to Blood Talons, which also gain the bonus attack for being a pair, you can only take Falchions in a pair. Convenient, eh?

nosferatu1001 wrote: BEcause a NFW is, literally defined as a single handed CCW?

But a pair of falchions is not a NFW any more than a pair of shoes is a shoe. This is where I get confused. If its two of the same weapon, then it is two of a weapon that does not have +1A. If the pair itself gives +1A, then I would think that two of the condition that gives +1A would give the brb bonus for two of the same type.

I don't like the subjectivity arguement much about the points cost, but it supports the +1 more than the +2 I would think, as 5 for +1 attack is reasonable, if a bit high compared to the other options available (again, assumption as I don't know how much they cost), while 5 for +2A is pretty drastically low. The difference between slighly high or outrageously low cost can give a bit of insight into the intentions of the game designers, even if their work is often flawed, would it be that flawed? Like it or not, I'm just stating how I think this will be FAQed out and my reasons for thinking so.