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.

biccat wrote:I'm interested in discussing this further, but no one else appears to be. The only rules that have been cited by the +2 attacks crowd are against their position, yet they stubbornly cling to the idea that Nemesis Falchions give +2 attacks because it makes the option worth taking (how this applies to a rules argument is unclear).

WRONG

Please retract this falsehood (underlined), as you are now stating ulterior motives behind the argument. Your argument was dead and buried, and you've burnt it just to make sure by impugning others integrity

We have shown that FW are special CCW, using the flow chart which you still couldn't understand, apparently. We have shown, via the FAQ (which apparently you have failed to read correctly, despite even quoting it yourself and having others bold the important bit for you!) that these are single handed CCW, thus you gain a bonus attack

Please explain how these rules are "against" our position - currently they are ENTIRELY for it

Secondly - we have shown that the bonus ability of the NFW "Falchion" is the +1 attack for wielding a pair, in the same way that the bonus ability for the DH is to act as a TH, and so on. Again, there was a REALLY handy flowchart for you, but again you seem to believe this shows the opposite

Points values only came into it to defeat the "Well clearly RAI is +1A as +2A is overpowered!!!!!!!!" crap argument. Pretending this is the ONLY reason is clearly wrong from someone who joined in only after what, 17 pages?

Reported.

Reported.

Oh SNAP! It's on! Everybody, it's on! IT'S ON!!

biccat wrote:Sure I will. If a force weapon isn't a single-handed CCW, then you don't get a bonus for 2 CCW.

Like we've pointed out, by that logic then any SM with a Power Sword and a Bolt Pistol doesn't get +1A for wielding 1 CC weapons either because Power Weapons are not labeled as single handed. Please show me where regular Power Weapons are listed as being single handed. The fact that we all know they are holds true for force weapons. They are listed on Pg. 42 of BRB under the same section heading as Power Weapons, and all the other single handed CCW. To deny the fact that Force Weapons are single handed is to also deny the fact that regular power weapons are single handed (and we all know power weapons are single handed)...unless you can show a specific example within the BRB, the FAQ that says otherwise.

biccat wrote:I'm interested in discussing this further, but no one else appears to be. The only rules that have been cited by the +2 attacks crowd are against their position, yet they stubbornly cling to the idea that Nemesis Falchions give +2 attacks because it makes the option worth taking (how this applies to a rules argument is unclear).

Time and time again we've show IN THE RULES how you're getting the +2A total. Do you really need me to quote the posts above again to point them out? You'll notice in here there is NO mention about their cost, or how it makes it "effective". Simply that the RAW grants both a +1A for the special ability of the weapon (as shown on PG. 54 of the GK codex), and +1A for wielding 2 of the same special close combat weapon (as outlined on page 42. of the BRB).

sourclams wrote:Oh SNAP! It's on! Everybody, it's on! IT'S ON!!

@Schadenfreud - pure awesome.

sourclams wrote:

Reported.

Oh SNAP! It's on! Everybody, it's on! IT'S ON!!

I just get tired of someone ignoring the rules, having very clear diagrams drawn for them (surely a first in this type of discussion?) and then claiming that the exact opposite has happened - and, to cap it all, that the only reason we're arguing against them is to gain some personal benefit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I just get tired of someone ignoring the rules, having very clear diagrams drawn for them (surely a first in this type of discussion?) and then claiming that the exact opposite has happened - and, to cap it all, that the only reason we're arguing against them is to gain some personal benefit.

I am personally astounded by the variety that actually agrees on this one.

Yep. Fling, Yak, Ph34r et al ALL agreeing really has to be a first.

The sheer apparent blindness to the rules is just mind blowing. It could just be the most subtle troll ever?

This thread is temporarily closed until after I've had lunch so as to avoid permanently banning five to ten people.