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.

Guitardian - um, no, not at all right there

A pair of Falchions is, literally, a pair of (nemesis force weapons + bonus) - it is a pair of CCW.

Really, been over this a dozen times. If you want proof of exactly how bad +1A is, see previous pages.

So the arguement for the "+2" is that GKs get an assault 2 shooty weapon, then charge which would give a total of 5 power weapon attacks before the NFW roll for each model with the Falchions, and that only having 4 power weapon attacks on a charge.. after the 2 shooting attacks is somehow "underpowered"?

Oh... and lets not forget that the Falchions ARE NFWs.... meaning the potential for each Power weapon wound to cause ID.

All for the cost of what, less than 30 points per model?

the cost of being a Force weapon is already paid for.


the cost of the falchion is ONLY for the +2A.


the falchion doesn't include the cost of being a force weapon, power weapon, or having deamonbane.



and the 30 points is only on certain models. a Strike Squad costs 30 points for a PAGK with Falchions. but he only has 3 attacks after the falchion.


Purifiers don't gain as much from the Falchion as they have 2 base attacks.



to get a falchion, you also give up gaining +2I or wielding a Deamonhammer(terminators also give up +1 invuln which is huge)

Grey Templar wrote:the cost of being a Force weapon is already paid for.
the cost of the falchion is ONLY for the +2A.
the falchion doesn't include the cost of being a force weapon, power weapon, or having deamonbane.
and the 30 points is only on certain models. a Strike Squad costs 30 points for a PAGK with Falchions. but he only has 3 attacks after the falchion.
Purifiers don't gain as much from the Falchion as they have 2 base attacks.
to get a falchion, you also give up gaining +2I or wielding a Deamonhammer(terminators also give up +1 invuln which is huge)

I was talking about total cost per model, because that also includes the Stormbolter along with everything else.
Essentially though, its a tactical choice. Since you get Either: +2I, or a deamonhammer, or falchions, or the staff, or just keep the base sword... and all without losing the Stormbolter.

Each having its own subjective purpose.
Sword is the base weapon.... no real advantage other than being NFW.
Deamonhammer = Thunderhammer... Plus being NFW
Halberd grants (minimum) +2 Init.... Good for fighting high Init models.... Plus being NFW
Falchions gives extra attack(s)... good for blobs and hordes... Plus being NFW.

And Falchions is the only weapon listed as granting extra attack(s).

Helgrenze wrote:So the arguement for the "+2" is that...

the rules say it is +2A. Quite simply put, there is NO argument (or not one that has yet been presented) that they only get +1A. No rules argument, no fluff argument, no "RAI" argument. Nothing.

Seriously, see the other pages for the effectiveness of GKT with and without Falchions if you want to argue that they are somehow "overpowered" at +2A.

So, 17 pages of arguing whether a pair of weapons are two weapons? And I thought blood talons were bad... *powerklaw facepalm*

So the arguement for the "+2" is that GKs get an assault 2 shooty weapon, then charge which would give a total of 5 power weapon attacks before the NFW roll for each model with the Falchions, and that only having 4 power weapon attacks on a charge.. after the 2 shooting attacks is somehow "underpowered"?

Oh... and lets not forget that the Falchions ARE NFWs.... meaning the potential for each Power weapon wound to cause ID.

All for the cost of what, less than 30 points per model?

Yes point for point the falchions loose out to cheaper tllc models.
Gp back a page or two and re-read a couple of things.

And by all means, do try to explain how a 30p marine that goes down just as easy as a 15p marine is anyway near powerful.


To sum it up:
For what they cost the falchions will be as much taken as the psilencers (that is never) if tehy only add +1A.
And we all agree that we really want to see yet another useless and never taken wargear.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Guitardian - um, no, not at all right there

A pair of Falchions is, literally, a pair of (nemesis force weapons + bonus)

2x(nemesis force weapon) + (bonus), not 2x(nemesis force weapon + bonus). That's exactly the problem.

No, it isnt the problem

You get a bonus for having a pair of them. You also get a bonus for having 2 CCW

Seriously - please point out where each is not a single handed CCW, and thus eligible for the bonus in the rulebook OR point out where the bonus they get (which is stated as being because they are a Nemesis weapon) is somehow the 2CCW weapon bonus, despite it not saying anything like this.

WTH does cost have to do with anything?

There are existing options in existing codexes that when chosen force a model to be worse for more points.

+1 or +2, the cost of the option has exactly ZERO bearing on the rule.

Seriously, every time I read someone saying something should occur because x points were spent, I just assume the person has no idea what they are talking about and their entire post must be worthless.

Kirsanth - the "cost" argument was to disprove people saying "RAI" they should only get +1A

RAW, costing AND fluff all state +2A. All of them. There is literally no argument, other than the pretty bad one of "I dont like it!", that points to +1A

Guitardian wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Guitardian - um, no, not at all right there

A pair of Falchions is, literally, a pair of (nemesis force weapons + bonus)

2x(nemesis force weapon) + (bonus), not 2x(nemesis force weapon + bonus). That's exactly the problem.

Right. Two weapons (1), plus bonus (1). You get the bonus from having a "pair" once, not twice, and you get the bonus for having 2 ccws once, not twice. Two bonuses of +1. +2.

Nemesis force weapons cannot be taken separately, you can only take "a pair of nemesis falchions".

This is not two close combat weapons, rather one weapon that grants the user +1 attack.

The last line of the entry does not say "The wielder of a pair of Nemesis falchions has +2 attacks" like so many posters assume it does.

biccat wrote:Nemesis force weapons cannot be taken separately, you can only take "a pair of nemesis falchions".

This is not two close combat weapons, rather one weapon that grants the user +1 attack.

The last line of the entry does not say "The wielder of a pair of Nemesis falchions has +2 attacks" like so many posters assume it does.

So you're ignoring the part where a PAIR means TWO WEAPONS and you gain a +1 attack bonus for having 2 close combat weapons? Just like blood talons, lightning claws, and everything else listed in this thread?

I like how everyone ignored my post explaining how the falchions work concisely and pefectly. Good to know that in the face of a good point, most people just ignore it to save face.

Fafnir wrote:I like how everyone ignored my post explaining how the falchions work concisely and pefectly. Good to know that in the face of a good point, most people just ignore it to save face.

I read it. Same thing that I just said, right?

Yep. Guitardian ignored it completely.

It's funny how that works. If someone presents working logic that you dislike, just ignore it and it'll go away.

biccat wrote:Nemesis force weapons cannot be taken separately, you can only take "a pair of nemesis falchions".

This is not two close combat weapons, rather one weapon that grants the user +1 attack.

The last line of the entry does not say "The wielder of a pair of Nemesis falchions has +2 attacks" like so many posters assume it does.

No one assumes that the line reads that. What we are saying is that line is simply a bonus ability for having a pair of NFF.

If NFF instead said "The wielder of a pair of Nemesis Force Flachions has +1WS" there would be no argument that taking NFF gives you +1WS and since you're wielding 2 CCW you receive +1A.

The wargear section entry is listed only as Nemesis Force Flachions, not a pair. It then goes on to describe the weapon as always used as a pair. The bonus ability of the weapons is +1A for wielding a pair. What would have been better is to say that a wielder of a single NFF has +.5A, this item can only be purchased as a set of 2. But since listing 1 half of an attack is not only silly, but can't be done, the bonus ability is only activated when using 2, and that ability is +1A. Wielding 2 of the same CCW allows you to use all the weapons abilities, plus 1A for having 2, if 1 NFF gave +1A then you'd get +1A for each NFF and +1 for having 2 CCW. That would be a bit much, hence why the wording only gives you the ability for having the 2.

You are then granted an additional 1A for wielding 2 of the same special CCW. The Armory only allows you to purchase these as a pair because that is their fluff. If we're to assume that a single entry in the units army list that is purchased as a "pair" or something, then all BA Dread's that purchased a "pair" of blood talons would then lose 1A overall because they had to replace both DCCW for the single "pair of blood talons", since you can't buy just 1. Since that's not the case, then the same holds true for the GK.

Had the entry listed the bonus for a pair as having +2A, then we'd have a 17page discussion on if the item granted +2 or +3 A total.

Fafnir wrote:Yep. Guitardian ignored it completely.

It's funny how that works. If someone presents working logic that you dislike, just ignore it and it'll go away.

Funny how that works. When someone is provided an inconsistency to exploit, they'll jump all over it with their opinion as a fact until they get their munchkin point or not and decry all of those who disagree with their logic as just not paying attention, or too dumb, or something. Then when the FAQ comes out and you have your +1A will they realize that maybe directly insulting people for an arguement they lost was kind of a dumb thing to do, but its okay because they will just ignore your +2A arguement and it goes away.

People ignore "facts" from those who act as if they KNOW what they clearly just have an opinion on, as NOBODY KNOWS. That's why religion debates never get anywhere either. No clear definative answer has been provided. You explained exactly how you THINK they work as if you know. I can explain to you clearly how unicorns exist to. If it were that clear, there wouldn't be 20 pages of this stuff wondering about the ruling.

If they wanted it to give +2 attacks, why didn't they word it exactly like the mirror swords wording, which is more clarifying as a pair of powerswords that grants +2A instead of the usual +1? Instead they worded it closer to the Shrike wording, who gets +1A for a single entry and explains it as it is a pair of claws, thus granting +1A. So, since they left out the word "thus", you jump on a chance to get a very overpowered ugrade and imply that all who disagree are idiots?

kryhavok wrote:What we are saying is that line is simply a bonus ability for having a pair of NFF.

Just because a rule is repeated in more than one place doesn't mean you get to apply the bonus multiple times.

Page 37 of the main rulebook says you get +1 attack for fighting with two single-hand weapons. Page 42 says models fighting with "two of the same special weapon" "gain one additional attack." Does this mean that if you have 2 lightning claws (or two power weapons) you get +1 attack for fighting with 2 single-hand weapons (because a LC is a single-hand weapon) and +1 for fighting with two of the same special weapons - for a total of +2 attacks?

No, because page 42 is explanatory, just like the Nemesis Falchion rule.

Edit: If the Nemesis Falchion rule said "models wielding a pair of Nemesis Falchions do not gain an extra attack", would we argue over whether it was +0 or +1 attacks? I don't think so.

I ask the "honorable" members of the only +1A camp to disprove the arguments and rule interpertations that point to +2A


Rule Arguments

1) Nemisis Falchion=Nemisis Weapon=Force Weapon=Power Weapon=CCW. therefore, 2(Pair)Falchions=2 CCWs

2) Nemisis Falchions grant +1A

#1 gives 1 attack

#2 gives 1 attack


they are NOT the same bonus, therefore they stack


Logic Argument

1) +2A is not in any way shape or form overpowered for the cost on each different unit. it is barely on par with the other weapon options.

2) the fluff says they attack with lightining speed. +1A is found in ever single codex(Tyranids exempt ) and can't be considered lightining fast. +2A is lightning fast.

The arguement is whether or not they are the same bonus. Your arguement relies on the assumption that they are NOT the same bonus. Capital letters DO NOT indicate truth, just a louder type interpretation than the opposition interpretation saying they are indeed the same bonus and therefore do not stack.

Logic Arguement:

1) 'overpowered' is a subjective word, thus not applicable to logic.

2) Fluff says all kinds of awesome things for the fanboys and kids out there to enjoy and is therefore not applicable to logic either.

biccat wrote:

kryhavok wrote:What we are saying is that line is simply a bonus ability for having a pair of NFF.

Just because a rule is repeated in more than one place doesn't mean you get to apply the bonus multiple times.

Page 37 of the main rulebook says you get +1 attack for fighting with two single-hand weapons. Page 42 says models fighting with "two of the same special weapon" "gain one additional attack." Does this mean that if you have 2 lightning claws (or two power weapons) you get +1 attack for fighting with 2 single-hand weapons (because a LC is a single-hand weapon) and +1 for fighting with two of the same special weapons - for a total of +2 attacks?

No, because page 42 is explanatory, just like the Nemesis Falchion rule.

Edit: If the Nemesis Falchion rule said "models wielding a pair of Nemesis Falchions do not gain an extra attack", would we argue over whether it was +0 or +1 attacks? I don't think so.

No, or course not, just 1 additional attack for having 2 CCW. However, when using 2 of the same special weapon you get to use all of the bonuses and penalties of said special weapons.

Ie, the lightning claws get 1 additional attack for wielding 2 of the same special CCW. And on top of that you get to use the bonus ABILITIES of the lightning claws (power weapon and re-roll wounds).

Same with blood talons, 1 additional attack (for 2 of the same CCW) and get to use it's abilities (Ignore armor, re-roll wounds, bonus attacks for unsaved wounds)

The same applies for a pair of Flachions. 1 attack for wielding 2 of the same CCW, and use of all of it's special abilities: Force weapon, daemonbane, and +1A when used as a pair.

Seeing that +1A listed in the item description is very VERY clearly listed as a bonus ABILITY of the weapon. And NOT the bonus attack for having 2 of the same special CCW. Which is exactly why that ability is only available when used as a pair, so people can't claim they get +2A from the swords, and +1A from having 2 weapons.

the Gk codex does NOT say that the Falchion +1A is the bonus for wielding 2 CCWs.

therefore, as this is a permissive rules set, it is NOT the same bonus.

Grey Templar wrote:the Gk codex does NOT say that the Falchion +1A is the bonus for wielding 2 CCWs.

therefore, as this is a permissive rules set, it is NOT the same bonus.

the +1A is the bonus for wielding a pair of falchions.
wielding a pair of falchions = wielding two one handed special weapons of the same type
a falchion is (as has been hammered home already) a single handed ccw of the same type as another falchion.
a pair = two
wielding two one handed special weapons of the same type = wielding a pair of falchions

the requirements are the same, the effect is the same? looks like the same bonus to me just worded more specifically.

and yet its not specified as the same is it?
its quiite clear that the +1A is an ability of the pair of falchions, not just the bog standard +1A from two SCCW's

G - yet it does not state it is the bonus for wielding 2 CCW, therefore it is not.

Hideously simple, no?

ok, i got time to read faq, which is "zomg argument" of +2A camp.
Q: What weapons count as single-handed weapons for the
purposes of gaining additional attacks in close combat? (p37)
A: All pistols, close combat weapons and any weapons
that are specifically stated as single-handed weapons in
their rules.

Where the hell its written SPECIFICALLY in NFW section, falchions in particular, where you found line that specifically state that its single-handed weapon? and btw Force weapon section doesn't say this too. and it don't say that FW are = PW, they have same effects (ignoring armor saves).

penek wrote:ok, i got time to read faq, which is "zomg argument" of +2A camp.
Q: What weapons count as single-handed weapons for the
purposes of gaining additional attacks in close combat? (p37)
A: All pistols, close combat weapons and any weapons
that are specifically stated as single-handed weapons in
their rules.

Where the hell its written SPECIFICALLY in NFW section, falchions in particular, where you found line that specifically state that its single-handed weapon? and btw Force weapon section doesn't say this too. and it don't say that FW are = PW, they have same effects (ignoring armor saves).

Bolded.

Penek - sorry, you read the FAQ and STILL missed it?

FW are a weapon used in close combat. They are a close combat weapon, that has the same effect as a power weapon (note: not the wording you used, which is incorrect. Odd that!)

So they are a close combat weapon. Gee, guess that makes them single handed then!

Over to you. You still need to find that they are explicitly doublehanded, or the +2A argument is STILL correct.