Assualt Marines with flamers

[Tengu]

I will be very interested to see how the new codex is worded because I just noticed something quite interesting in the current one.

 

I always field a 10-man assault squad with two flamers but I just recently re-read the rules. It says that 2 men "may be equipped with flamers ". It does not say that they replace their bolt pistols and chainswords. Some might complain of cheese but unless that wording changes in the new codex I fully intend to model those marines with pistols and swords on them, in addition to the flamers.

 

The same wording exists in the tactical squad section so I think I am well within the rules to model heavy weapon marines with slung bolters and get an additional two shots on the move.

 

To be clear, the entry for the tac sergeant clearly states that he may replace his bolter with a pistol & chainsword so the lack of that word elsewhere is significant.

[ShinyRhino]

I will be very interested to see how the new codex is worded because I just noticed something quite interesting in the current one.

 

I always field a 10-man assault squad with two flamers but I just recently re-read the rules. It says that 2 men "may be equipped with flamers ". It does not say that they replace their bolt pistols and chainswords. Some might complain of cheese but unless that wording changes in the new codex I fully intend to model those marines with pistols and swords on them, in addition to the flamers.

 

The same wording exists in the tactical squad section so I think I am well within the rules to model heavy weapon marines with slung bolters and get an additional two shots on the move.

 

To be clear, the entry for the tac sergeant clearly states that he may replace his bolter with a pistol & chainsword so the lack of that word elsewhere is significant.

 

In the second example, you'd be in violation of the one two-handed weapon per model rule.

I'd cry cheese on both.

[Tengu]

I'll concede your point on the two handed rule, although strictly speaking that is only mentioned in relation to purchasing from the armoury, which normal marines cannot do.

 

I don't see how you can argue with the first point though. If we are using the RAW system, as GW is so keen to these days, it is a very natural conclusion to come to. For example it also states that they may be equipped with krak grenades or meltabombs, but no-one would argue that either of those replace the frag grenades that the previous paragraph says all assault marines have.

[ShinyRhino]

Oh, I don't dispute that by careful interpretation of the rules, you might be able to do that.

I just don't agree with doing so for reasons which shall remain my own.

[Tengu]

I don't think that there is any "careful interpretation" necessary at all. At no point does it say anywhere that you lose the weapons that are already equipped.

 

I would expect anyone claiming that I can't do this to give a good reason why not.

 

I respect you having an opinion but it would be nice of you to share it rather than refusing to even contemplate the idea.

[Marek Grimfang]

Well more On Topic.

 

BoLS have posted that for 5th Ed. Assault MArines can drop the Jump Packs and replace them with a Rhino, or a Drop Pod if so inclined.

 

I like this.

 

2x Flamers, Rhino, Drive by flaming. Yeah it sucks they can't assault after disembarking, but for a mechanized assault force this is good.

[ShinyRhino]

I respect you having an opinion but it would be nice of you to share it rather than refusing to even contemplate the idea.

 

True enough.

I disagree with it because it feels, to me, to be counter to consistency and common sense.

Examples:

 

Command Squads: "all Marines may replace their bolters with a bolt pistol and close combat weapon at no extra points cost." pg 29, C:SM

 

Terminator Command Squad and Terminator Squad: "Up to two Terminators may replace..." pgs 31-31, C:SM

 

The same language is used for veteran Squads, Dreadnaughts, Tactical Squads, etc.

 

The "armed with" wording comes down to semantics, which I really hate arguing about, being both a technical writer and holding a BA in English. The English language is so mutable and open to interpretation, it gets silly arguing meanings of words.

 

But, were I going to counter your argument at the table, I'd point out that the Weapons section states what members of a unit are "armed with." The Options section also states that members can be "armed with" other weapons for various points costs. Note that grenades/meltabombs are always described as "equipped with."

The first step in constructing a unit is selecting its members, as we see from the Number/squad section being listed first. Then you arm the members, as decribed in the Weapons section. Next, you add upgrades by "arming with" the selected item. Since the upgrades come after the arming, their "arming with" replaces the selection in Weapons.

 

It simply doesn't hold with me that one member of the squad replaces his items, as is the case with a tactical sergeant, and the others ADD special items. One would like to think that the rules are consistent and logical. We all know they aren't. Your idea proves they aren't.

 

I can see how you arrived at your decision, and by using the RAW, it would probably be legal. I'm a fluffy player, and it hurts my senstive mind to think that the RAW is held to instead of the common sense, fluffy way of thinking. lol. Spirit of the game and all that. Everyone plays it differently, however, so we all have our own views and motivations.

 

/salute

[Tengu]

To be clear the wording of that section says that you "may equip" up to 2 with flamers. I doesn't say "arm". You have also backed up my interpretation because the cases you cite specifically say "replace". You are assuming that this word applies elsewhere, which is a very dangerous thing to do. As you say the language can be ambiguous at times but to me the absence of a word is significant when it is clearly present elsewhere. If GW truly intended for the flamer to replace the other weapons, why didn't they use the word "replace"?

 

The reason that this question came up here is that my nephew pointed out a similar situation in the Chaos codex where it uses the word replace in one part of the squad description but not in another.

 

This is all academic, however, as I don't intend to do anything until I see the new codex.

 

Fluff wise, I see plenty of real life examples where a weapons specialist also retains his issued sidearm as a back-up. I don't see it as much of a stretch that an assault marine could have his pistol holstered and ccw slung ready for when he gets up close and personal. We also see other examples of marines and chaos marines with two sets of weaponry, DA for example, but I agree that allowing my marines an extra two attacks in close combat could be seen as unbalancing the game :D

[Tengu]

Sometimes I suspect that GW actually enjoy watching these debates and deliberately obscure the true intention of the rules to wind people up.

 

I am a pedant of the first order. They should employ me to pull these things apart.

[Interrogator Chaplain Espen]

Lets make this a thumb-rule:D

 

Flamers vs. horde armies w/ 6-5 saves

 

PP vs. armies with alot of 3-2 saves

 

Like flamers vs. eldar, tau(if it lacks suits), Imp, ORCS:O

 

and PP vs. Rines, CSM, DH, Necrons,

 

Or you can choose which one to use, depending on what role you give them, if the opponent has a balanced army.

 

to choose, or not to choose, that is the question :rolleyes: ^_^ :P