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.

I'd say the fact that you buy them as a pair is pretty good indication.

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).

All pistols, close combat weapons and any weapons that are specifically stated as single-handed weapons in their rules.
It is still a close combat weapon, thus one-handed unless specifically stated to be two-handed, like the Halberd on the same page.

Fafnir - shush, logic gets in the way of a good ignore - the - rules argument!

Okay my turn:

*Clears Throat*

No it doesn't!

</sarcasm>

Honestly, I am not sure how this will fall out. I can kind of see it both ways. Personally I will probably play it as being only a +1A, as that is the interpretation that gives me the least advantage, until it is FAQed.

This is a win-win for me at least as if it is FAQed as a +1A then I am not missing anything, and if is FAQed as a +2A then I get a really cool bonus that makes my guys that much better.

Just my .02 cents.

AG

If you play them as +1A, then you might as well not take them at all, because then they're completely useless.

Fafnir wrote:If you play them as +1A, then you might as well not take them at all, because then they're completely useless.

Like spinefists or spike rifles on a gant?
Or toxin sacs on a carnifex?

/boggle

Oh wait.
I get it.
Its a marine codex, they are not allowed to have bad options.
Is that it?

Not necessarily. You are arbitrarily saying they are completely useless no matter what if they are only +1A, but they still give a model the +1. While I might find other options to be better, I doubt that I will not find at least some occasions where the extra odd attack will help.

You are making a blanket statement that the option is worthless no matter what. I can't agree with that logic. It might not be the greatest option, but it is still an option that is available to use if I deem it a tactical advantage to have.

AG

A pair sounds like they meant it to be +2A, though I guess it won't be utterly resolved until they FAQ us a clearer explanation...

WarOne wrote:...I guess it won't be utterly resolved until they FAQ us a clearer explanation...

This +1.

nosferatu1001 wrote:G - yet it does not state it is the bonus for wielding 2 CCW, therefore it is not.

Hideously simple, no?

No.

Does a single NF grant +1 attack? Nowhere is this indicated in the relevant codex.

Does wielding 2 NF grant +1 attack? Yes, as specified in the rule book (2 ccw) and in the codex (a model wielding...).

Bicat - please find the RULE stating that the +1 attack is the SAME as the BRB quote. You have not done so.

Simply stating "no" and then repeating what has already been shown to be different isnt an argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Bicat - please find the RULE stating that the +1 attack is the SAME as the BRB quote. You have not done so.

Simply stating "no" and then repeating what has already been shown to be different isnt an argument.

You asked if it was "hideously simple." It's not.

First, you have to show that a NF is a single-handed CCW. See the faq:

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.

Do the rules specifically state that a NF is a single-handed weapon? That is, if you wield a NF with a pistol, do you get +1 attack for being armed with 2 CCW?

Second, you have to show that it's a benefit of the NF that merely the act of wielding it grants an additional attack. If a model is armed with a NF and a pistol, do they get +1 attack for 2 CCW and +1 attack from the NF (for a total of +2)?

Finally, you have to explain how this is any different from, e.g., the Chaos Dreadnought. "an additional DCCW . . . this will add +1 to the number of Attacks on the profile above." Does the Chaos Dread get +2 attacks for having a second DCCW?

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Bicat - please find the RULE stating that the +1 attack is the SAME as the BRB quote. You have not done so.

Simply stating "no" and then repeating what has already been shown to be different isnt an argument.

You asked if it was "hideously simple." It's not.

First, you have to show that a NF is a single-handed CCW. See the faq:

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.

Do the rules specifically state that a NF is a single-handed weapon? That is, if you wield a NF with a pistol, do you get +1 attack for being armed with 2 CCW?

Second, you have to show that it's a benefit of the NF that merely the act of wielding it grants an additional attack. If a model is armed with a NF and a pistol, do they get +1 attack for 2 CCW and +1 attack from the NF (for a total of +2)?

Finally, you have to explain how this is any different from, e.g., the Chaos Dreadnought. "an additional DCCW . . . this will add +1 to the number of Attacks on the profile above." Does the Chaos Dread get +2 attacks for having a second DCCW?

For the first part:
Read the thread. Unless a ccw is stated to be a two handed weapon, it's considered a single handed ccw. That's in the brb. You don't need to define the falchion as a one handed weapon. Since it's not declared to be a two handed weapon, by default it's a one handed weapon.

For the second part:
If a model was armed with a nfw and a pistol you would get +1a for 2 ccw's. Since you can't take them that way, we have no idea how that would work out with the bonus that having 2 falchios would work.

I don't have a chaos space marine book, so if you could give a direct quote, that could work wonders for your argument.

Biccat - see the other 17 pages. Been proven. REPEATEDLY

I suggest you read page 50, note that FW are (power) weapons used in CCW. thus they fall under the first part (hell, if you'd read the thread it was bolded FOR you) and are thus single handed

So, please state if you now agree or disagree. You've had a number of pages now to a) find this argument (hint, page 1 is where it starts) and b) attempt to disprove it.

You have not done so, ergo it is proven.

Secondly: we can show that the wording for the Falchion grants it +1 Attack. and that this does NOT state it is the bonus for wielding 2 CCW. therefore it is not

Point proven

Your second query is nonsense, btw, and if you'd read the thread / grabbed a codex you would have seen EXACTLY why. Hint: note the word "pair" is used when describing the bonus received for the Falchions, and note how you dont get a bonus for wielding one. Point proven through your question being null through even 5 seconds of work on your part.

Finally: we dont have to explain how it is different. We have shown how, clearly, the two bonuses are separate, and that the NF benefit from both.

Anything else is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to this argument.

imweasel wrote:For the first part:
Read the thread. Unless a ccw is stated to be a two handed weapon, it's considered a single handed ccw. That's in the brb. You don't need to define the falchion as a one handed weapon. Since it's not declared to be a two handed weapon, by default it's a one handed weapon.

It's my understanding that the FAQ has priority over the BRB where the two contradict. FAQ says if it's not called a CCW, it's not a CCW.

imweasel wrote:For the second part:
If a model was armed with a nfw and a pistol you would get +1a for 2 ccw's. Since you can't take them that way, we have no idea how that would work out with the bonus that having 2 falchios would work.

Which tends to suggest that the "+1 attack" is a property of wielding two falchions. That is, you would not get a two-weapon bonus if you only had 1 of them.

imweasel wrote:I don't have a chaos space marine book, so if you could give a direct quote, that could work wonders for your argument.

"The other arm must be armed with one of the following: an additional Dreadnought close combat weapon incorporating a twin-linked bolter for 10 pts. This will add +1 to the number of Attacks on the profile above."

biccat - except FW are specifically stated as being close combat weapons. So that part of your argument is moot

Seriously, this was raised on page 1. Could you do us the courtesy of, MAYBE, actually reading the thread, noting that your argument is neither new nor valid, and come back?

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.

Exactly what is being overpowered again?

biccat wrote:

imweasel wrote:For the first part:
Read the thread. Unless a ccw is stated to be a two handed weapon, it's considered a single handed ccw. That's in the brb. You don't need to define the falchion as a one handed weapon. Since it's not declared to be a two handed weapon, by default it's a one handed weapon.

It's my understanding that the FAQ has priority over the BRB where the two contradict. FAQ says if it's not called a CCW, it's not a CCW.

So what you are saying is...

All books that do not explicitly state their power weapons to be CCWs, do not have them count as CCWs.

Because NFW are force weapons. And force weapons are power weapons. And power weapons are CCWs.


Either you don't think any power weapon in the entire game counts as a CCW, or you concede that a NFW counts as a CCW. There is no third option.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Biccat - see the other 17 pages. Been proven. REPEATEDLY

Actually, it hasn't. I have read through the thread, and nowhere has it been shown that a Nemesis Falchion is a ccw as required by the faq.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I suggest you read page 50, note that FW are (power) weapons used in CCW. thus they fall under the first part (hell, if you'd read the thread it was bolded FOR you) and are thus single handed

Lightning claws are power weapons (p. 42) but have specific rules for getting a bonus attack.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, please state if you now agree or disagree. You've had a number of pages now to a) find this argument (hint, page 1 is where it starts) and b) attempt to disprove it.

You have not done so, ergo it is proven.

I'm not sure what you want me to agree or disagree about. Has the argument I articulated above been rebutted by reference to specific rules? I don't see it.

Also, presenting an irrefutable argument doesn't mean that the argument is valid, it only shows that the argument is not invalid.

The "+1 attack" side also can't be affirmatively refuted, so does that mean both are equally valid?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Secondly: we can show that the wording for the Falchion grants it +1 Attack. and that this does NOT state it is the bonus for wielding 2 CCW. therefore it is not

Point proven

Except the codex only grants you the bonus for wielding 2 of the same weapon, which is entirely consistent with the rules on Lightning Claws and Power Fists. Absent evidence that the NF is a single-handed CCW, the FAQ tells us not to treat it as such.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your second query is nonsense, btw, and if you'd read the thread / grabbed a codex you would have seen EXACTLY why. Hint: note the word "pair" is used when describing the bonus received for the Falchions, and note how you dont get a bonus for wielding one. Point proven through your question being null through even 5 seconds of work on your part.

The point isn't proven by my question being null. If a NF is supposed to grant +1 attack inherently, then you shouldn't have any problem showing that wielding a NF and a pistol would grant +2 attacks.

noseferatu1001 wrote:Finally: we dont have to explain how it is different. We have shown how, clearly, the two bonuses are separate, and that the NF benefit from both.

No, you've shown that the "+1 attack for wielding a pair of NF" is not specifically listed as the same as the bonus for wielding 2 CCW. On this we agree. The question then should turn to: what is the "+1 attack" bonus? Is it the 2-weapon bonus for wielding 2 of the same weapons, or is it a different bonus? The language is unclear on this point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Anything else is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to this argument.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. The point has already been proven, it cannot be argued, and anything else is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. What else is there other than "you're totally right"?

Fafnir wrote:If you play them as +1A, then you might as well not take them at all, because then they're completely useless.

Are there any other NFW that can be taken as a pair? If there isn't an option for two NFswords or two NFhalberds then I guess they aren't completely useless to somone who would rather have an extra attack of almighty NFW goodness than an extra init, or a save, or whatever it is the other weapons do. If you can find any other NFW that a model can be equipped with 2 of for the same price, then I will concede that they are useless.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Biccat - see the other 17 pages. Been proven. REPEATEDLY

Actually, it hasn't. I have read through the thread, and nowhere has it been shown that a Nemesis Falchion is a ccw as required by the faq.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I suggest you read page 50, note that FW are (power) weapons used in CCW. thus they fall under the first part (hell, if you'd read the thread it was bolded FOR you) and are thus single handed

Lightning claws are power weapons (p. 42) but have specific rules for getting a bonus attack.

You think that because Lightning Claws tell you that you can only get a bonus attack with two of them, means that you would never get a bonus attack if they did not have that clause?

Have you actually read the Warhammer 40k rulebook? It sounds like you have not.

ph34r wrote:Either you don't think any power weapon in the entire game counts as a CCW, or you concede that a NFW counts as a CCW. There is no third option.

"A lightning claw is a power weapon..." p. 42.
"A power fist is a power weapon..." p. 42.
"A dreadnought close combat weapon is a power weapon..." p. 73.

Please resolve this issue.

Guitardian wrote:

Fafnir wrote:If you play them as +1A, then you might as well not take them at all, because then they're completely useless.

Are there any other NFW that can be taken as a pair? If there isn't an option for two NFswords or two NFhalberds then I guess they aren't completely useless to somone who would rather have an extra attack of almighty NFW goodness than an extra init, or a save, or whatever it is the other weapons do. If you can find any other NFW that a model can be equipped with 2 of for the same price, then I will concede that they are useless.

What you give up for Falchions is not worth it if they only give +1 attack. A Terminator with a sword has 50% more survivability against power weapons than a model with Falchions, while also costing less. That's a huge difference.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, please state if you now agree or disagree. You've had a number of pages now to a) find this argument (hint, page 1 is where it starts) and b) attempt to disprove it.

You have not done so, ergo it is proven.

I'm not sure what you want me to agree or disagree about. Has the argument I articulated above been rebutted by reference to specific rules? I don't see it.

Also, presenting an irrefutable argument doesn't mean that the argument is valid, it only shows that the argument is not invalid.

The "+1 attack" side also can't be affirmatively refuted, so does that mean both are equally valid?

I can refute the +1 attack side, it's called go read the 40k rulebook, are you serious right now?

kirsanth wrote:

Fafnir wrote:If you play them as +1A, then you might as well not take them at all, because then they're completely useless.

Like spinefists or spike rifles on a gant?
Or toxin sacs on a carnifex?

/boggle

Oh wait.
I get it.
Its a marine codex, they are not allowed to have bad options.
Is that it?

Or like the grot riggers that doesnt work anymore with the kans.. or the Meganobz that are totally overpriced compared to a normal common terminator... it is really so hard to believe the new daemonhunters codex has a bad wargear option?? I mean... Really???

Are there any other NFW that can be taken as a pair? If there isn't an option for two NFswords or two NFhalberds then I guess they aren't completely useless to somone who would rather have an extra attack of almighty NFW goodness than an extra init, or a save, or whatever it is the other weapons do. If you can find any other NFW that a model can be equipped with 2 of for the same price, then I will concede that they are useless.

By that logic if SM got a wargear option of having a powerfist that granted +3A for a cost of 300 points you would stubbornly claim it is worth taking (iow: not useless) simply because all other powerfist options dont grant this wonderful bonus.

Now if you are through grasping straws and can do basic math you will realize the falchions will pretty much never be taken (ergo: useless) since they cost way to much for what they do.
10p for having +1A on a space marine, no thankyou.

The same is applied to psilencers, useless.

ph34r wrote:The "+1 attack" side also can't be affirmatively refuted, so does that mean both are equally valid?

I can refute the +1 attack side, it's called go read the 40k rulebook, are you serious right now?

biccat wrote:

ph34r wrote:Either you don't think any power weapon in the entire game counts as a CCW, or you concede that a NFW counts as a CCW. There is no third option.

"A lightning claw is a power weapon..." p. 42.
"A power fist is a power weapon..." p. 42.
"A dreadnought close combat weapon is a power weapon..." p. 73.

Please resolve this issue.

"All Nemesis weapons are force weapons" (first page GK armory)
"Force weapons are potent psychic weapons used exclusively by trained psykers. They have the same effect as power weapons..." (page 50 40k rulebook)

ISSUE RESOLVED

Biccat : one, final time, just for you.

1) Every. Single. Page. has shown this. See ph34rs response just above yours. See the quote where I told you to look at page 50.

Just because you havent seen it, doesnt mean it isnt there.

2) LC are the exception to the standard rules for gaining bonus attacks. Not sure why you have posted an irrelevant example otherwise.

3) I want you to either AGREE or DISAGREE that a NFW is a single handed CCW. The appropriate rules have been shown, I would just like you to actually post a conclusion, rather than a lot of questions where you seemingly choose to ignore 17 pages proving you wrong.

The +1 attack side has been refuted as well, repeatedly. I guess you missed it?

4) See point 1. It IS A SINGLE HANDED CCW. It is also NOT one of the exceptions listed on page 42 to the standard rules for gaining a bonus attack, therefore it isnt

5) Wow, seriously. read the codex It explicitly states that you get a bonus attack for wielding a pair. NOONE has claimed that a single NF grants +1 attack by itself. You are now resorting to that great fallacy - the strawman argument.

BTW: if you actually had read the codex you would notice that the rules for Nemesis weapons state they grant an additional bonus. The bonus for 2 CCW is never an "additional" bonus but an inherent one.

6) The language is not unclear. The special Nemesis bonus of the Flachion is you get +1 attack if you have 2 of them, same as the special Nemesis bonus of a Halberd is to increase your initiative. The language is VERY clear - it does not say it is the bonus for 2 CCW, so it isnt

So, that is your points comprehensively dealt with. Oddly enough every single one of your points was dealt with on the previous pages, whcih you have chosen to pretend dont exist.

Or like the grot riggers that doesnt work anymore with the kans.. or the Meganobz that are totally overpriced compared to a normal common terminator... it is really so hard to believe the new daemonhunters codex has a bad wargear option?? I mean... Really???

Great logic indeed.
Because GW screwed up elsewhere and made useless wargear then lets be happy and hope they keep screwing up in other armies by making useless wargear for those as well.
Just show how jealous and narrow minded some people can be. If my army got a crap piece of something then I want everyone else to be given crap too. Cant let anyone else be happy because I am miserable.

If this logic prevailed through out history we would still be living in caves.