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.

RAI is unknown

Fluff is that Imperial Guardsmen are well trained too, and all Eldar have superhuman reflexes too, and SMs are easily worth 10 regular soldiers etc so whatever.

Rules are that two weapons give +1A

The only issue I can see here is nothing to do with the wording of a "pair", it's just wondering if they meant that +1 attack because of being a pair, or if they could have simply said (like with the mirrorswords) that it grants an additional +1 attack, or if they were just being redundant by stating that the falchions are a pair that (as a pair) grants +1 attack, as often happens.

I don't have any investment whatsoever in the +1 or the +2 camp, the thing that irks me is that it is ambiguous what the intention was in writing that little tag. It could be a redundant reminder, as some think, and it could be an extra bonus just ambiguous because it was not worded as clearly as the Mirrorswords entry in the eldar codex, which is the same thing the +2 people are advocating. If they intended that, why not write it like they wrote it CLEARLY explained for mirrorswords? Laziness? Oversight? I wouldn't be surprised if that's the reason, and happily concede the +2 side - but until we know what they meant...

Just saying its ambiguous.

Find a case where they redundantly state that a pair of CCW grants a bonus attack for having 2 CCW. We've shown plenty where they dont.

You have NOT shown it is ambiguous, as you have yet to find a *rules* gap.

None.

You have no argument, just a "it doesnt feel right". =

nosferatu, that was an arguement. We don't KNOW what was meant for the +1 attack. Is it an unspecified version of the same thing that was made extremely clear in earlier rules (+2), or is it overly restated rule as a reminder, like with a pair of lightning claws (+1)?

You have NOT shown that it is NOT ambiguous either. That's like the "there are blue ducks in asia until you prove their aren't" kind of logic. If I say there are, you cannot prove me wrong because you can't proove non-existance so therefore I must be right? It does not say (like mirrorswords) that it is an additional +1 attack. It says that it is +1 attack. Prove me wrong. Prove me wrong we sound like a bunch of bitches on a daytime talkshow waiting for the DNA results of our babydaddys.

Look I am not hating on GK or saying they should "only get +1A because its unfair if they get +2". My only point is that until it is clarified what that entry was intended as referred to, no amount of arguement can "prove" anything. You cannot prove that something doesn't exist, and there is yet to be evidence satisfactory without cross referencing a mishmash of other rules examples via assumed related reasoning that it does.

I am not saying that I am right, or that the +2s are wrong. I am saying we don't KNOW if it is the same bonus or not, and we can't know until they make it clear.

Again, why didn't it have an entry like mirrorswords? Would have been problem solved for the +2s.

Since i got this snowball rolling, i will add my bit in. Now i play the GK's obviously and i am going with the +1. NOW i do not agree that is should be 1 attack and i find it in GW's error to not take care of this stuff. I have been reading a lot of their material lately and i am finding a lot of errors here and there ((mostly WD which i am sure is a different animal all together) Has anyone thought about calling GW and asking them right out? and no I'm not trying to be funny. If i remember correctly i think i have heard something about rules questions when i had to call customer support before(which is the only thing they do beyond 100% lol) And with that in mind.. any word at all on when a FAQ would be coming out? lord knows there is a lot of questions in my mind, but i just ask the guys at the shop and we talk it over, i go with majority rule -shrugs- it's just a game to me.. unless there's money on it lol

@guitardian

because the Falchion's entry doesn't say the +1A was the bonus for 2 CCWs, we have to assume its not. if it was, they would have just defined Falchions as being shortened Nemisis Swords that didn't give the bonus to Invuln saves.

the +1A is clearly seperate from the bonus from wielding 2 CCWs.


as a result it is perfectly legitimate to combine the Falchion's +1A with the bonus for wielding 2 CCWs(which Falchions have been shown to be)

If we're making assumptions, because the Falchions' entry doesn't say they count as two ccws, we have to assume they don't.

A pair of lightning claws is two ccws because the rules for a single lightning claw actually exists. So having a pair of them conforms to the rules in the BGB.

All we know is that "Nemesis Falchions" is a force weapon. Since it's a Nemesis weapon.


@Arrathon: I don't know if things have changed in the past few years, but in the past it was commonly accepted that if you called GW about a rules question 4 times, you'd get 4 different answers.

well....in that case lets have fun with this..Tomorrow at 11 am Your own time..everyone call GW and ask them about this rule. What could it hurt..

better yet, lets all call GW at 10am Eastern time and jam their phone lines.

that'll tell them they need to FAQ this and fast if nothing else.

Grey Templar wrote:better yet, lets all call GW at 10am Eastern time and jam their phone lines.

that'll tell them they need to FAQ this and fast if nothing else.

bushido wrote:If we're making assumptions, because the Falchions' entry doesn't say they count as two ccws, we have to assume they don't.

A pair of lightning claws is two ccws because the rules for a single lightning claw actually exists. So having a pair of them conforms to the rules in the BGB.

All we know is that "Nemesis Falchions" is a force weapon. Since it's a Nemesis weapon.


@Arrathon: I don't know if things have changed in the past few years, but in the past it was commonly accepted that if you called GW about a rules question 4 times, you'd get 4 different answers.

The flowchart convinced me (though because GW are slipshod in their writing at times, I don't necessarily think that is what they intended -- though I do think it probably is). But if you need to produce a flowchart to make a case (and remember about half the people responding to the poll thought +1 Attack, not +2), then the rule actually needs to be clearer. Because it is not, and because it should not be necessary to trawl through the rules to make what should be a very simple case either way, the +1 attack interpretation is still reasonable (it may well not be correct, but that's a different thing).

Personally I'd be rather loathe to produce a chart, or lead my opponent point by point through the rules like that in a gaming situation (quite different on a rules forum, and producing it here was commendable, whoever did, thankyou).

Artemo wrote:
Personally I'd be rather loathe to produce a chart, or lead my opponent point by point through the rules like that in a gaming situation (quite different on a rules forum, and producing it here was commendable, whoever did, thankyou).

Wait, so in case your opponent misunderstood something that's clearly written in the rulebook you wouldn't want to take the time to go through that in an ordered and calm fashion?

Actually I think the point is that about 50% of people do not think it's clear that falchions get +2 attacks. It's not the fact that you can prove they do, it's the fact that it's currently a reasonable, if erroneous, assumption that they do not...

Also, look how many people are unconvinced even by the flowchart (Presumably because they feel quite reasonably that +1 attack might be the intended benefit). what then? Do you refuse to play them?

Artemo wrote:Actually I think the point is that about 50% of people do not think it's clear that falchions get +2 attacks. It's not the fact that you can prove they do, it's the fact that it's currently a reasonable, if erroneous, assumption that they do not...

Also, look how many people are unconvinced even by the flowchart (Presumably because they feel quite reasonably that +1 attack might be the intended benefit). what then? Do you refuse to play them?

That's the point of the flow chart though. No matter how much I believe that the sky is yellow, it's still blue.

Guitardian - your saying it is ambiguous does not make it so.

They did not say the +1A is the bonus for 2 CCW, so it isnt. Its that simple.

And, to back this up - EVERY time they mean for smething to be the bonus for 2 CCW, they tell you it is. Every. Time.

So no, you dont have an argument. Well,you have a poor one that has been dismissed everytime you propose it, yet you stubbornly cling to it

The sky isnt ambiguously blue or yellow, just because you say it is.

I see all of the people who fought for my camp in the First War for the Falchions still fight under our banner

But this one is a tired war, no one is willing to except the RAW, other than those who already have. From now until the FAQ, I will politely ask my opponent what he thinks. I fear GW are worse at wording than they are at deciding their intentions, and as such, I suspect the FAQ to give us only a single 1+ attack, although I am still a firm believer of 2+A.

Inane "the sky's blue, so my argument is correct" comments aside, if the rule was as easy to interpret as you claim, why the need for a flow chart? Why not simply have the entry read, "counts as two close combat weapons" like they do EVERY other time you buy two weapons at once? Every. Time.

This is the same codex in which Dreadknights that purchase a personal teleporter are no longer Monstrous Creatures, after all.

I'm fairly confident that it will be ruled +2 bonus attacks total, but come on. Parents may be able to get away with using "because I said so" to declare themselves the winner of an argument, but it's not really going to fly anywhere else.

bushido wrote:Inane "the sky's blue, so my argument is correct" comments aside, if the rule was as easy to interpret as you claim, why the need for a flow chart? Why not simply have the entry read, "counts as two close combat weapons" like they do EVERY other time you buy two weapons at once? Every. Time.

Because it does already? It's the exact same thing as Lightning Claws, see the Shrike example. It's two lightning claws, and as such grant an extra attack, the same way that two force weapons grant an extra attack.

Shrike: two weapons and as such grants +1A...
Banshee: "grant +2A instead of the normal +1A for having two weapons..."

I don't see either specification for the falchions. If they could be clear elsewhere, why not here?

Guitardian wrote:Shrike: two weapons and as such grants +1A...
Banshee: "grant +2A instead of the normal +1A for having two weapons..."

I don't see either specification for the falchions. If they could be clear elsewhere, why not here?

Because the codices tend to be pushed out under pressure of time and are not adequately checked for clarity (this is not unique to GW of course but the old board games companies like SPI did much better).

It's patently unclear because 50% or thereabouts of people who read the falchion write up thought it was +1 and the other half thought +2. You don't get that kind of split with clear rules. I agree, it is pretty conclusive that they get +2 if you follow the RAW and draw precedents from other codices to back the argument. I utterly disagree that it is a clear rule as written. it's just not and claiming it is seems to indicate that the 50% of people who claimed +1 were just being wilfully obtuse.

Guitardian - marneus calgars gauntlets of ultramar. No "gets +1 attack" there.

Sigh.

bushido - our argument isnt "because we said so" - we have a rock solid argument that so far has no actual, rational reasoned and RULES BASED argument against it.

None.

Guitardian wrote:Shrike: two weapons and as such grants +1A...
Banshee: "grant +2A instead of the normal +1A for having two weapons..."

I don't see either specification for the falchions. If they could be clear elsewhere, why not here?

Shrike's entry doesn't say +1A because it doesn't need to.

Mirrorswords are more explicit. and mirrorswords aren't CCWs by default so they required the additional clarification.



Nemisis Weapons ARE CCWs by default and as such the clarification isn't needed. not needed doesn't mean it wouldn't be preferable. clarification would have been nice, but it wasn't needed.

Didn't want to start a new thread on this issue but I wanted to add to the discussion that I was going with only +1A for them until I built my Paladin squads. With the options for Paladins Nemesis Force Weapons I can take a Sword for +1 Inv. Save (awesome), a Halberd for +2 I (powerful for sure), or even a Hammer for double S (usually an expensive upgrade)... all of these options are free. If I want to take the Falchions and get +1 A I have to give up one of the other weapons (that I would say are twice as valuable as an extra attack) AND pay 5 pts. All the examples of other dual weapon codex entries and the awesome flowchart in this thread combined with the points cost associated with Falchion upgrades throughout the book make me sit strongly in the +2A corner now.

I hope it gets FAQed soon... and I really hope that this issue is in there because I love the look of dual wielding guys in Power and Terminator armor. Even feeling like I do, without a FAQ I would play it with +1A and I did last night in fact... it's a game after all.

GODSDAMIT!!!!! I REWORDED MY POST WRONG FOR THE 3RD TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is what I was trying to say... Next time, I should not use the quick reply.

RE-EDIT:
I have to lean towards The Pair of Falchions give only 1 Attack.

Think of it for a moment.

Now a purifier has base 2 attacks

He has a force sword. Upgrade to Nemesis falchions.

Weapon change to Nemesis Falchoin. Add second falchion. Becomes a pair.

Thus said, your force sword is change to 2 nemesis falchions, granting you a +1 Attack.

So, your base attack is 2. You have a force sword, so it is still 2 Attacks, RIGHT?

So, you change force sword to "A" nemesis falchion.

So, it is still a base 2 Attacks. Give it another, so you have a pair of nemesis falchions. So, 2 close combat weapons.

This gives you an extra +1 Attack.

In the end, your base is 2 Attacks + the pair of nemesis falchions giving you the extra attack because it is 2 close combat special weapons of the same type. So now, your humble purifier has 3 Attacks. When charging, it receives 4 Attacks.

BUT TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT!!!
The BRB explicit says both special weopons of the same type offers +1 Attack

The BRB also says, when charging, it offers an extra +1 Attack

Even so, the Codex GK also explicitly says having a pair of Falchions give a +1 Attack

So in the end, it means (Base) 2 + (2 Falchions) +1 (Extra CCW of the same type) +1 (charging) +1= 5 ATTACKS!!!

Does this makes sense?

Let me recap.

When you take the pair of falchions, you change you force sword to "A" falchion. But your nemesis falchion comes in pairs, so you get 2 Falchions for the points you are paying. You no longer have a force sword. You now have a PAIR OF FALCHIONS with the captioned section saying +1 Attack.

1 PAIR = Extra 1 Attack for the 2 close combat weapon of the same type. But there is more, falchions are special weapons. They are power weapon + force weapon.

So, having both of the same type means it grants you a +1 Attack ONLY.

Why should it be like this?

(Base) 2 + (Pair of falchions, which is already 2 CCW of the same type) +1= 3 Attacks

Should it not be like this?

(Base) 2 + (Pair of falchoins) +1 + (extra CCW) + 1 = 4 Attacks

Remember, the Falchions are a pair, so the BRB says 2 of the weapon types offer extra +1 attack. Taking into account the description, "The wielder of a pair has +1 Attack."

Why would GW restate the obvious? After all, we all know 2 CCWs are extra +1 Attack. The quoted sentence is already specific. Having this pair not only means 2 CCW of the same type, it also means it offers the bonus of an extra +1 Attack, in conjunction with the bonus it offers as 2 CCWs

The wielder of a pair of Nemesis falchions has +1 Attack.

That's what the rules say. If they wanted +2, they would have said +2, they didn't.

Why would they restate it? Why not?

Well, if that is the case, I would be very happy. So, that would be (base) 2 + (Falchions) 2 + (CCW) + 1 (charge) +1= 6 attacks


I am taking into account what both the BRB and the codex says. I combine both, not one because in the gaming arena, we need to have both avaliable and rules from both books apply with codex taking the first say in any rule conflicts.

However, in view of this codex rule, it only says an add on of +1 Attack. It do not conflict with any rules in the BRB, so both rules, one from codex saying +1 attack and one from the BRB saying both weapons of the CCW type +1 Attack are combined.

Until FAQ comes out... this debacle would not be profitable for those playing tourneys. I am one of those that play to win at tourneys and GK is now main army. I could not afford a unit that has broken rules.

I am in the camp that they grant +2 attacks RAW.

That said, I can not and will not argue for either 1 or 2 attacks from the falchions with an opponent. The topic is too hotly debated. People who argue stuff in a real game get a bad rep. Thus, despite having an opinion on what RAW says, all I can do is point out that the Falchions are either +1 or +2 attacks, and it is unclear what GW thinks is correct.

I think the best responce in this topic was that this is the same codex who says RAW on the Dreadknight with a teleporter is Jump Infantry not a MC. Thus, using RAW to say that +2 attacks on the falchions is correct also says that the Dreadknight loses MC status, right? I think I would rather abstain from playing the GK until this crap is sorted out by GW, or at least the INAT, which I strongly support.

since the +1A stated in the Falchion description is NOT stated as being the bonus for 2 CCWs it HAS to be seperate.

Falchions have clearly been shown to be CCWs by themselves. since you have 2, you get the bonus for wielding 2 CCWs.

the total is(for a Purifier)

2 base attacks,

1 for wielding Falchions,

and 1 for wielding 2 CCWs.

so a Falchion Purifier has 4 attacks(5 on charge) in the end.

Until the FAQ comes out, it would be best to combine both laws from the BRB and the codex, with the codex having first in any rule conflict.

But in game, when undecided, it would be better to treat it with combination. Taking both advantages and disadvantages.

Example: Dreadknight with PT
Conflicted rules:
MC/JI status (Combine both status)
Advantage: Relentless, move 12 inches
Disadvantage: Taking cover as any MC would, not entering transports (unless they are like the super heavies in Apoc), taking dangerous terrain test if movement ending in difficult terrain.

Example 2:
Nemesis Falchion
Since there are no rules conflicting each other, why not have both from BRB and codex since codex rules do not conflict any rules from BRB
Combine rule: Extra attack for having the same special weapon (+1) and the statement "The wielder of a pair has +1 Attack." (+1)

Damn it!
I ordered a pair of pants, and they only gave me one pant.....grrrr.

HEH a pair does not always mean two.