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.

Grey Templar wrote:Force Weapons are Power weapons.

power weapons are CCWs.


CCWs are ALWAYS single handed unless specifically designated otherwise.

Actually.... BRB (or BGB) pg 50 states that Force Weapons "have the same effects as power weapons....." It does not say they ARE power weapons.

helgrenze wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Force Weapons are Power weapons.

power weapons are CCWs.


CCWs are ALWAYS single handed unless specifically designated otherwise.

Actually.... BRB (or BGB) pg 50 states that Force Weapons "have the same effects as power weapons....." It does not say they ARE power weapons.

Doesn't matter. That's why I left it out of my flow chart for the reading impaired:

ph34r wrote:

All weapons are one handed unless specified otherwise. This is why power swords, basic close combat weapons, and everything else are able to be used to gain an additional "dual-wield" attack.

doesn't giving a hive tyrant 4 weapons do something like this? the weapons give 1 extra attack then do something else even though they should add 4 attacks since the weapon says, it doesnt stack. idk if i remember that wrong, i dont have my nid codex on me right now.

what i mean is, it wouldn't stack, since theres no way to get just 1 falchion right?

kenzosan wrote:doesn't giving a hive tyrant 4 weapons do something like this? the weapons give 1 extra attack then do something else even though they should add 4 attacks since the weapon says, it doesnt stack. idk if i remember that wrong, i dont have my nid codex on me right now.

what i mean is, it wouldn't stack, since theres no way to get just 1 falchion right?

as has been said before,

Nids work their CCWs completely different from other codexs because GW said "lets just totally screw the nids over"


Nids NEVER get the bonus for wielding 2 CCWs. it says so in the codex.



So people, stop bring Nids up.

Grey Templar wrote:

kenzosan wrote:doesn't giving a hive tyrant 4 weapons do something like this? the weapons give 1 extra attack then do something else even though they should add 4 attacks since the weapon says, it doesnt stack. idk if i remember that wrong, i dont have my nid codex on me right now.

what i mean is, it wouldn't stack, since theres no way to get just 1 falchion right?

as has been said before,

Nids work their CCWs completely different from other codexs because GW said "lets just totally screw the nids over"


Nids NEVER get the bonus for wielding 2 CCWs. it says so in the codex.



So people, stop bring Nids up.

my bad, 20 pages is alot of text. but my point was the second thing i said. i just used a bad example of why i came to that conclusion.

kenzosan wrote:my bad, 20 pages is alot of text. but my point was the second thing i said. i just used a bad example of why i came to that conclusion.

It doesn't really matter. A pair is still two weapons, regardless of whether or not it will let you take only one.

ph34r wrote:

This is absolute, pure, unadulterated win. This is win. If you argue against this, you better come with a very good rules based argument.

Edit:

To clarify:
1) quote the rulebook with a page number that says that a pair of weapons is not 2 weapons.
2) quote the rulebook with a page number that says that a pair of special weapons do not get +1 attack.
3) quote the rulebook with a page number that says that force weapons are not single handed close combat weapons.

PS, I'm only saying "show it can't", because we have already shown permission, now you have to prove that due to some other rule, we do not have permission.

kryhavok wrote:

Black Fiend wrote:I dont see anywhere in the rules where it explicitly states the force weapon is single handed. Maybe I missed it?

Where does it say Lightning Claws are single handed?

What about Power fists?

Thunder hammers?

You meant to list the 3 types of weapons that were made exceptions of in the BRB, didnt you?

did i miss something. it says in the big picture there "a pair of nemisis falchions has +1 attack" theres no extra, its saying in black and white the pair give +1 period

but a pair of Falchions is ALSO a pair of CCWs.


so you get 1 Attack for wielding a Pair of Falchions AND you get 1 atytack for wielding 2 CCWs.


the 2 are NOT mutually exclusive and the +1A falchions give is NOT stated to be the 2 CCW bonus, therefore it isn't and you get both.

Jaon wrote:You meant to list the 3 types of weapons that were made exceptions of in the BRB, didnt you?

Find ANY weapon in a 5th edition codex that says it is single-handed. The only weapons that aren't single-handed specifically say so.

kenzosan wrote:did i miss something. it says in the big picture there "a pair of nemisis falchions has +1 attack" theres no extra, its saying in black and white the pair give +1 period

No, because without that line, it would give a bonus attack, since you'd be wielding two weapons. There's nothing to suggest that statement was reminder text, just that it is a rule that works in conjunction with all other rules.

somerandomdude wrote:

kenzosan wrote:did i miss something. it says in the big picture there "a pair of nemisis falchions has +1 attack" theres no extra, its saying in black and white the pair give +1 period

No, because without that line, it would give a bonus attack, since you'd be wielding two weapons. There's nothing to suggest that statement was reminder text, just that it is a rule that works in conjunction with all other rules.

but were does it say that the falchion counts as a single weapon. the rule for the PAIR of falchions is +1 attack, it says right on the codex. if we wanna get into the rules, its just reminding you that its 2 ccw more so then its telling you that the falchion gives an extra attack.

Like I said, if it was reminder text, it would say so. I'm not sure how "a pair of [weapons]" does not equal "two [weapons]".

kenzosan wrote:

somerandomdude wrote:

kenzosan wrote:did i miss something. it says in the big picture there "a pair of nemisis falchions has +1 attack" theres no extra, its saying in black and white the pair give +1 period

No, because without that line, it would give a bonus attack, since you'd be wielding two weapons. There's nothing to suggest that statement was reminder text, just that it is a rule that works in conjunction with all other rules.

but were does it say that the falchion counts as a single weapon. the rule for the PAIR of falchions is +1 attack, it says right on the codex. if we wanna get into the rules, its just reminding you that its 2 ccw more so then its telling you that the falchion gives an extra attack.

Just like a pair of lightning claws gives +1 attack, plus a bonus reroll to wound, a pair of falchions gives +1 attack, plus a bonus +1 attack.

In an earlier version of the rules, it was rumored that the falchions were the same rules as lightning claws, which would make sense as they just shifted them to bonus attacks as it makes it so you do not have to separate out falchions from swords and staves when you attack.

And for the record, Codex: Space Marines lists Assault Terminators as being armed merely with "lightning claws" with the description of them in the wargear section referring to lightning claws as being used in "pairs" and the rulebook entry for them also referring to them being used in "pairs", and this is on a weapon that can even be used as a single weapon!

If anything, GW has tightened the wording on paired weapons since the Space Marines codex came out. If Lightning Claws were just put in as a new, never before seen weapon today, they would be seen as having even more ambiguous wording than Falchions. GW could have got away with just saying "Falchions" if they were purely going off previous wording, but of course we would have been even more confused. They did us a favor.

Falchions are paired in the exact same way as Lightning Claws.

somerandomdude wrote:Like I said, if it was reminder text, it would say so. I'm not sure how "a pair of [weapons]" does not equal "two [weapons]".

i understand that, but if it didnt say that the pair gave +1 id agree. the fact that it actually says it is actually bugging me cuz personally i like the idea of having +2 attacks but why wouldn't it tell us that it counts as 2 ccw and that it give +1 attack (explaining it fully as "+2 attacks, instead of the normal +1 attack for two ccw").

I can see it either way for reasons given. However as a TO without a FAQ from GW I'd rule it's just +1A which is probably due to them being two singled hand weapons... In either case they don't confer +2A for the reasons given. Thanks for providing the passages from the appropriate material. What I'm basically saying is that the extra attack is granted simply because they are two single handed weapons, not due to some arcane power. To me that is the most simple answer and it covers everything.

Black Fiend wrote:I can see it either way for reasons given. However as a TO without a FAQ from GW I'd rule it's just +1A which is probably due to them being two singled hand weapons... In either case they don't confer +2A for the reasons given. Thanks for providing the passages from the appropriate material. What I'm basically saying is that the extra attack is granted simply because they are two single handed weapons, not due to some arcane power. To me that is the most simple answer and it covers everything.

If you'll note my edit you will see how they are set up in the exact same way as Lightning Claws. You wouldn't deny a Space Marine player their +1 attack for using "Lightning Claws" on their assault terminators would you?
There isn't even a "Lightning Claw" entry in the book. It's always ClawS.

because GW doesn't always remind you of these things.

they kinda assume you would jump to the conclusion yourself that they also get the bonus for 2 CCWs.


GW doesn't write rules that are airtight because they assume the people who play their games have enough smarts to put 2 and 2 together. that and they don't feel like hiring proof readers is a good idea(frankly, they could probably easily find someone willing to look for Rule problems before release of all codexs for pretty much free. perhaps a 2k army of the codex in question. could be a nice little side promotional)

Let's see... A SM with a pair of lightning claws is granted +1 attack, not +2 attacks. Same logic applies here, or are you explicitly implying a pair of lightning claws should grant +2 attacks (not including the base number of attacks built into a terminator)

Black Fiend wrote:Let's see... A SM with a pair of lightning claws is granted +1 attack, not +2 attacks. Same logic applies here, or are you explicitly implying a pair of lightning claws should grant +2 attacks (not including the base number of attacks built into a terminator)

ph34r wrote:Just like a pair of lightning claws gives +1 attack, plus a bonus reroll to wound, a pair of falchions gives +1 attack, plus a bonus +1 attack.

Black Fiend wrote:Let's see... A SM with a pair of lightning claws is granted +1 attack, not +2 attacks. Same logic applies here, or are you explicitly implying a pair of lightning claws should grant +2 attacks (not including the base number of attacks built into a terminator)

a Pair of LCs only give +1A because thats all their rules allow for.


now, if you swap the LCs Reroll to wound rule for +1A you will understand how Falchions get +2A


Falchions give +1A for being Falchions and then another +1A for being 2 CCWs.


make sense?

it can't get much clearer

Black Fiend - the reason they get two attacks is that each NFW gives an additional bonus, over and above being a FW with Daemonbane.

Falchions give a bonus attack (which, if you read the fluff, jibes with them allowing the wielder to strike much faster than normal)
Halberds increase your I
DH are Thunderhammers

And so on.

The additional attack from 2CCW is NOT the same as "+1 attack", because it does not state it is the bonus attack for 2CCW

Finally: GW are very inconsistent on including (or even reminding you of) the 2 CCW bonus: however any time it IS included they always reference it in some way. they have not done so here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Black Fiend - the reason they get two attacks is that each NFW gives an additional bonus, over and above being a FW with Daemonbane.

Falchions give a bonus attack (which, if you read the fluff, jibes with them allowing the wielder to strike much faster than normal)
Halberds increase your I
DH are Thunderhammers

And so on.

The additional attack from 2CCW is NOT the same as "+1 attack", because it does not state it is the bonus attack for 2CCW

Finally: GW are very inconsistent on including (or even reminding you of) the 2 CCW bonus: however any time it IS included they always reference it in some way. they have not done so here.

i feel like an idiot, i completely forgot that all nfw give a bonus stat increase

biccat wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Biccat, go read the BRB FAQ again; it says the opposite of what you're claiming (I'm assuming we wrote our walls of text at the same time.

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.

Er, how is that the opposite of what I said?

From what I've gathered, you're reading it as if "all pistols, close combat weapons [...]" is required to prove they're single-handed, while everyone else uses the sensible interpretation; that the last part refers to any weapons not covered by pistols or CCWs.

Biccat seemed to be reading it that NFW werent, in fact, CCW. Which they are, as ph34rs excellent scanning and chopping of images shows quite handily.

Biccat - can you now agree or disagree that they are single handed CCW? Given the overwhelming evidence (which HAS been there since page 1, you have just missed it, repeatedly, but at least it is now in pictoral form for you) I would assume you agree, but if you do not please obey the tenets of this forum and, for once, give an argument (with RULES backing) as to why.

I think ph3ar just owned so much it should have a permanent link up on dakka in the hall of owning people.

So far we get +2A on falchions but I also know pretty much that this will last only till GW releases the FAQ where no matter the rules, falchions will be nerfed to uselessness.

I do love how +1 power weapon attack is considered "Useless" though.... Especially when linked to the same model also having an assault 2 stormbolter....

Wow 2 attacks on a 30 point space marine with the same staying power as a 15p ditto, how useful.
I take it you arent winning much games.

helgrenze wrote:Just waiting on the FAQ..... with the champagne chilling.

I do love how +1 power weapon attack is considered "Useless" though.... Especially when linked to the same model also having an assault 2 stormbolter....
Really..... We all know the FAQ will incite all kinds of nerd rage when the +2 camp is denied.

So, do you have a rules argument, or just an opinion that it is "overpowered", despite the mathshammer demonstrating almost the exact opposite?

I do love how +1 power weapon attack is considered "Useless" though....

Right would you pay 30 points for that? Lets for instance take a SM Chaplain has a power weapon basic. Say he ha sthe bolter option.

IN line with the GK where the DH is 5+ and the Falcions 10 points.

We can see a PF is 15 points for the chaplian (slightly less of an upgrade than DH). So would you pay 30 points (double the 15 upgrade) to get him an extra bolt pistol (to give him +1 attacks for double armed what you are claim the falcions do)?

Who here would pay 30 points for that bolt pistol?

So points wise the falcions becoe useless if they are indeed +1 attack. RaW they are +2 attacks, their points cost means they should be +2 attacks and fluff indicates they should be +2 attacks.

Granted that doesn't mean they won't be FaQ'd to +1 attack, but that is far from guarnateed either. We'll see until then it is +2 attacks.

Me and Fling actually agreeing on something - even agreeing with ph34r on this as well. Wonders, ceasing and all that. Even Yak agrees with us, way back on page 2 or something!

Any actual rules arguments from the +1A side, or just more pointless sniping about "celebrating" when this is FAQ'd to +1A?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Black Fiend - the reason they get two attacks is that each NFW gives an additional bonus, over and above being a FW with Daemonbane.

Falchions give a bonus attack (which, if you read the fluff, jibes with them allowing the wielder to strike much faster than normal)
Halberds increase your I
DH are Thunderhammers

And so on.

The additional attack from 2CCW is NOT the same as "+1 attack", because it does not state it is the bonus attack for 2CCW

Finally: GW are very inconsistent on including (or even reminding you of) the 2 CCW bonus: however any time it IS included they always reference it in some way. they have not done so here.

This is the definitive point right here - the extra attack is what differentiates the falchions from the other nemesis weapons.