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 think the outcome here is pretty clear.

Sorry steelmage, your argument has no visible basis, you just keep repeating "They gain 1+ attack because it says they do"

Well, that argument is somewhat correct. Falchion wielders do gain 1+ attack because it says they do, right after they gain another attack for having 2 of them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Culler making an unsupported leap wrote:A model with 2 nemesis falchions has +1A because it has 2 close combat weapons

Wrong. Please show me a) the explanatory text behind the rule (hint: it doesnt exist] and b) leaving aside ANY question of the powersword: you're going to argue that Marneus Calgar DOES NOT have a PAIR of powerfists?

Quite the opposite. There are 3 sides to this argument that people are arguing from what I can tell:
A) Falchions are 2 separate weapons that give +1 attack as a special ability (for +2A total)
B) Falchions are 2 separate weapons that have no special ability conferring bonus attacks, and the codex entry is merely confirming the fact they are 2 separate weapons (for +1A total)
C) Falchions are a single weapon that gives +1 attack as a special ability (for +1A total)

I am arguing for case B, while you seem to think I am arguing for case C, which I personally think is incorrect for the reasons Yakface stated. I totally agree that calgar has 2 fists and gets a bonus attack for that. Either you're misreading my posts or you are constructing a straw man argument.

Bringing up Shrike is a good argument, Helgrenze and GreyTemplar.

Special Characters do indeed not include the bonus for being armed with an additional close combat weapon in their profile (unless specified).

I'll step back with the worry that this interpretation will most likely lead to discussions about the wordings used in various entries and whether they will confer the bonus attack or not.

On the other hand my Eldar and Dark Eldar have gotten a little better, so I guess every cloud has a silver lining.

In Cullers list my gut goes with B but I wouldn't fight someone who claimed A.

Culler wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Culler making an unsupported leap wrote:A model with 2 nemesis falchions has +1A because it has 2 close combat weapons

Wrong. Please show me a) the explanatory text behind the rule (hint: it doesnt exist] and b) leaving aside ANY question of the powersword: you're going to argue that Marneus Calgar DOES NOT have a PAIR of powerfists?

Quite the opposite. There are 3 sides to this argument that people are arguing from what I can tell:
A) Falchions are 2 separate weapons that give +1 attack as a special ability (for +2A total)
B) Falchions are 2 separate weapons that have no special ability conferring bonus attacks, and the codex entry is merely confirming the fact they are 2 separate weapons (for +1A total)
C) Falchions are a single weapon that gives +1 attack as a special ability (for +1A total)

I am arguing for case B, while you seem to think I am arguing for case C, which I personally think is total crock for the reasons Yakface stated. I totally agree that calgar has 2 fists and gets a bonus attack for that. Either you're misreading my posts or you are constructing a straw man argument.

well, that does pretty much sum up the 3 possible valid arguments. I am obviously arguing for A) here, I believe yakface and nosferatu are too.

Indeed. And I was arguing C (although with another wording).

yakface wrote:
There are two bonus attacks listed in the rulebook:

1) If the model initiates the assault he gets +1A
2) If the model is armed with two-single handed weapons, he gets +1A

These are bonuses that are in the rulebook and are in effect regardless of what the model's special abilities are.

Nemesis Falchions say that the bearer gets +1A...are you trying to claim ghat a model with Falchions doesn't get the +1A when Initiating assault either? If you don't claim that, then by what basis would you not also apply the +1A bonus for having 2 CC weapons? Why would you assume the +1A bonus the Falchions give is somehow the same +1A bonus that all models get for having two CC weapons?

I thought about the assaulting thing as it does naturally follow, but I think you don't have to assume that because the model has +1A from wargear (total), but still gets bonus attacks from battlefield situations like abilities used on them or an assault bonus. Another way to phrase it with more clear synonyms would be a model owns the attacks they start with and acquire a bonus attack when they launch an assault, as normal. You get what you get from wargear, and then other things stack onto it.

I contend that any model wielding two close combat weapons has +1 attack. The wielder of a pair of nemesis force falchions is a model with two close combat weapons, therefore the wielder of a pair of nemesis force falchions has +1 attack. I underlined that section because it is the exact same text used in the codex. If it used the word "gains" instead of "has," that would imply they're getting something above and beyond normal. This means that RAW, I'm also positing that the nemesis force falchion entry is redundant with the core rulebook, and was put there simply to reinforce this concept.

I should also say that I think you are all wonderful people and this should be a casual intellectual debate, free of ad-hominem verbal assaults on one another's character. I respect those of you who do no such thing and encourage those of you who do to join the fold of rational respectful discourse, it is rare enough here on the net.

[quote=Culler) but I think you don't have to assume that because the model has +1A from wargear (total), but still gets bonus attacks from battlefield situations like abilities used on them or an assault bonus. Another way to phrase it with more clear synonyms would be a model owns the attacks they start with and acquire a bonus attack when they launch an assault, as normal. You get what you get from wargear, and then other things stack onto it.

I contend that any model wielding two close combat weapons has +1 attack. The wielder of a pair of nemesis force falchions is a model with two close combat weapons, therefore the wielder of a pair of nemesis force falchions has +1 attack. I underlined that section because it is the exact same text used in the codex. If it used the word "gains" instead of "has," that would imply they're getting something above and beyond normal. This means that RAW, I'm also positing that the nemesis force falchion entry is redundant with the core rulebook, and was put there simply to reinforce this concept.

I should also say that I think you are all wonderful people and this should be a casual intellectual debate, free of ad-hominem verbal assaults on one another's character. I respect those of you who do no such thing and encourage those of you who do to join the fold of rational respectful discourse, it is rare enough here.

Noir wrote:
Thats it the model has +1 Attack from the Falchions, like you said 2

I didn't say that, and that's where the distinction is.

The model doesn't get an extra attack from the falchions (nor does the codex say it does) but rather a model wielding the falchions has an extra attack (which is what the codex says.) It's not the falchions that give the extra attack, it's having 2 ccws that gives the extra attack.

The codex fails to specify where this extra attack (a wielder of 2 nemesis falchions has) comes from, and that is what we're debating. I think, because of the language used, that the extra attack comes from the 2 weapon bonus in the rulebook. Others disagree, and their argument for +2A has merit (you can indeed build a convincing case for either,) but I feel the way I have interpreted it is more correct as it is working with rules that exist rather than assuming a new special rule.

Culler wrote:

Noir wrote:
Thats it the model has +1 Attack from the Falchions, like you said 2

I didn't say that, and that's where the distinction is.

The model doesn't get an extra attack from the falchions (nor does the codex say it does) but rather a model wielding the falchions has an extra attack (which is what the codex says.) It's not the falchions that give the extra attack, it's having 2 ccws that gives the extra attack.

The codex fails to specify where this extra attack (a wielder of 2 nemesis falchions has) comes from, and that is what we're debating. I think, because of the language used, that the extra attack comes from the 2 weapon bonus in the rulebook. Others disagree, and their argument for +2A has merit (you can indeed build a convincing case for either,) but I feel the way I have interpreted it is more correct as it is working with rules that exist rather than assuming a new special rule.

Like you underlined the model has +1 attack for form the Falchions in the codex, while model with a pair of or 2 CCW gain a bouns attack from the BRB. So codex +1 Attack while BRB gives a bonus attack. The BRB never say a +1 Attack, it say a bouns attack for 2 CCW. While the Falchion give you +1 Attacks. Wording is important.

+2 Attacks, it seems.

Wonder how long this massive FAQ is going to take to come out...there's a lot of confusion already, and there's only store copies.

Nemisis falchions are special weapons (like all other nemesis weapons)
'Nemisis falchions are invariably wielded as a pair'
So we know there are 2 of the same special CCW

'The wielder of a pair of nemesis falchions has +1 attack'
So we know the Nemisis falchions give +1 attack as special weapon bonus.

That is where the attack comes from.

Check out the GK wielding the Nemisis falchions on the GW website, that model is holding 2 blades.

DeathReaper, while you are right, you are quoting fluff there. None the less, in the rules section, it STILL refers to them as "Take a pair of nemesis falchions"

No more personal arguments/hostility please.

Let's avoid making characterizations about the other people involved in the discussion, dramatically sighing in exasperation, or otherwise escalating the frustration level.

If another poster becomes exasperating, please take a minute away from the computer to crack the cold refreshing beverage of your choice, and relax. Contemplate the freedom and leisure to enjoy discussing our toy soldier hobby, in comparison with the downtime activities of 90%+ of the human race throughout recorded time, such as picking nits off one another, preserving rotting meat with salt, and snuggling with a loved one who probably hadn't bathed in months. We've really got it pretty good, don't we?

Jaon, Its not fluff, it says they are wielded as a pair, and they are bought as a pair. same is same no?
Just look at the model, it is wielding 2 swords (Nemesis Falchions)

Special weapons that give +1 attack from the weapons special quality, and 1 bonus attack for having 2 of the same special CCW.

RAW is clear on this one.

DarknessEternal wrote:So everyone who thinks it's 2 is also held to the idea that Chainsabers and Powerblades are also 2 attacks? It's worded the same, and those are only +1 attack.

So by this logic my warp spider exarch should be getting more power weapon attacks .

I think all this stacking isn't right. I mean how is the wording different from the examples above?

Woah, woah. I think you're all missing something here. Look at it carefully again.

"+1 Attack"

It's the capital "A" that gives it away. What they're refering to is the attack CHARACTERISTIC of the model's statline. Otherwise, if they were just gaining another attack, there would be no reason whatsoever to have the capital A. Remember, GW always capitalizes proper nouns, and characteristics, like Leadership and Weapon Skill are always capitalized.

The way I read this is that when you give them this upgrade, the little number under the A goes up by one. Then you add on any extra attacks to their base attacks as normal.

akaean wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:So everyone who thinks it's 2 is also held to the idea that Chainsabers and Powerblades are also 2 attacks? It's worded the same, and those are only +1 attack.

So by this logic my warp spider exarch should be getting more power weapon attacks .

I think all this stacking isn't right. I mean how is the wording different from the examples above?

AFAIK that's the way I've always played them. +1 to the Characteristic and treat them as a pair (which they are).

I'm with the +2 crowd, for reasons already stated.

I think this thread has become quite conclusive. I will be able to quote it if my friends have any problems with this.

Ok, so you rules guys all agree that Demiklaives, Power Blades, and Chainsabers also give +1 Attack for being 2 Close Combat Weapons then? In the case of Power Blades and Chainsabers, they will also get an additional +1 Attack all the time (Demiklaives will have to decide each turn).

As an editorial aside, there's no friggen way any one would have agreed to this when it was only Eldar who had this issue.

imweasel wrote:+2 attacks raw.

I expect it to be faq'ed.

What exactly the faq will say is up in the air.

/thread

Let's take a quick look at the Eldar codex...

Powerblades: "Powerblades are twin power weapons" "Power blafes confer +1 Attack"

So, along the line of this thread, thats +2 Attacks, 1 for the Powerblades rule, 1 for the pair.

Chainsabres: "Blades paired with with ancient gauntlets" "Has +1 Attack and etc"

So along the time of this thread, thats +2 Attacks, 1 for the Chainsabres rule, 1 for the pair.

...

But then we look at Mirrorswords: "Paired Blades" "extra hand weapon that confers +2 Attacks instead of the usual +1"

So thats +2 Attacks, 2 for the Mirrorswords rule, 0 for the pair.

...

If Falcions, powerblades and chainsabres were intended to grant +2A, why didn't they follow the wording on Mirrorswords? Instead of writing it out clearly that they gain +2A as opposed to the usual +1A why state +1A and let players assume an additional attack for the pair?

Essentially you are saying that all the above weapons grant +2A, which is not the case, as only the Mirrorswords state as much. The blades and sabres simply confer +1A, because they are a pair, not in addion to being a pait. They are worded in a similar way to Falcions.

+5/10 points for one extra attack is nothing new. Take a look at mandiblasters for an Autarch or an attack squig.

You get a (pair of falchions) which have the ability to give +1 attack.

If you took (falchion)+ (falchion) you would get +3 attacks (+1 per falchion, +1 for extra CCW)

However you get (pair of falchions) not 2 falchions

Phototoxin wrote:You get a (pair of falchions) which have the ability to give +1 attack.

If you took (falchion)+ (falchion) you would get +3 attacks (+1 per falchion, +1 for extra CCW)

However you get (pair of falchions) not 2 falchions

This is how I read it as well.

Doesnt Lightning claws give you +1 attack for the pair, and for a pair of weapons the rulebook give you +1 attack.

isnt this the same thing?

Not exactly, LCs are a power weapon(single handed CCW that ignores armor saves) that rerolls failed wounds.

you are also not allowed to claim the +1A bonus for having 2 CCWs unless the 2nd CCW is also a LC.



the main issue is this, the Nemisis Falchion's rules say there are 2 of them and that they give the wielder +1A(as a special rule just like Nemisis halbards give +2I)

the fact there are 2 of them means the wielder gains +1A for having 2 CCWs. the special rules also say they give +1A.




For some clarification lets put forth the following scenerio.


lets say in some codex, there is a sword that is an upgrade for a character.

the Rules for this sword say that it is a Power Weapon and gives the bearer +1A.

the character that can purchase this also can get/already has a pistol.


if he bought both the weapon and the pistol he would most certaintly get +2A total. 1 because of special rules and 1 for having 2 CCWs.


Falchions are similer. they have a special rule saying they give +1A and they are 2 CCWs.

well reading that rule and the Fluff (which many disregard, but it can be used to understand intent) its seems RAI is +2 attacks, and RAW is +2 attacks, so i fail to see the issue here?

Well, it's either one of 3 the way I see it;

Ward forgot the rule in the main book-----and thought he needed to tell people that 2 of the same special grants +1 attack
Ward wanted the Falchions to grant +2 attacks
6th Edition is not going to allow two of a special weapon to stack unless specifically stated

ooo that third one would be funny lol

To quote from 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.

Nowhere in that rule did I see that it is specifically states as a single-handed weapon.

Or, are we now saying that Demiklaves from the DE book give +3 attacks when wielded separately?