Legality of my Vet Sgt

[Sons_of_Medax]

Hey All,

 

I hope this is the right place to post a question such as this.

 

Recently I decided to get back into SM's with the introduction of fifth ed as a distraction from my Tau.. that and the fact that I had a heap of AoBR mini's lying around. I decided to get creative and have given my Tactical Squad's Vet Sgt a powerfist that I had lying around from a spare termie. I've even green stuffed some wreaths onto the top of the fist and I'm really happy with the finished result given my limited GS experience.

 

However, I may have encountered a problem. My friend asked if it was legal to have the Vet Sgt with the chainsword and PF, and I was a little confused by this. Looking at the Codex, it states that

 

"The Space Marine Sergeant may replace his boltgun and/or bolt pistol with xxx options"

 

So to my interpretation, you could choose to replace say his boltgun with option a, and bolt pistol with option b, allowing me to field both the chainsword and PF. Is this correct??

 

Many thanks for your help.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[Captain of The Inceptors]

I think that you're perfectly correct to do that.

You could have two powerfists if you wanted!

[Mjolniir]

i think so, but its useless.

 

the Mighty Overruling Tome of 40k states that a model wielding a powerfist may not claim +1 attack for a second ccw unless the second ccw is a powerfist.

 

sorry mate, better off replacing it with something shooty...or throw in a holstered bolt pistol and let your opponent know that the chainsword is just for looks

[Sons_of_Medax]

Thanks for the responses... glad to know that I'm ok to run it.

 

To be honest I'm not too concerned about bonuses for 2nd ccw (although it would be nice!). I'm just wanting to ensure my model is legal, given the guys at my local gw are pretty strict about WYSIWYG.

 

Cheers

[Koremu]

It is legal. It's a bit pointless (it would be better to have a Bolt Pistol), but t is legal and occasionally helpful.

 

I remember a battle report in WD where Karandras fought with his Chainsword so as to get high Init attacks.

[Ravinella]

A chainsword isn't a special weapon afaik, therefore the BRB says all attacks must use the fist on 1 rather than being able to use the chainsword on initiative

[Cygnwulf]

You can always choose not to use a special rule, unless it states that you must always use it in the model/character's rules. Besides, Khandras has a special weapon called a 'scorpion chainsword' which gives +1 strength. Meaning he has 2 weapons to choose from that, because of the powerfist's rule, can't benefit each other. He will use one or the other.

[Spagunk]

In a way, it is similar to the old problem with chaplains. They can take a power fist in addition to their crozius. As such, they technically can choose which attack they want each turn. I have yet to try this but I can image using your Crozius in the first turn then switching to power fist in the 2nd turn to be certain you finish the squad off.

[Banville]

Not any more. No Powerfists for the skull-faced boys in black I'm afraid.

[Commander Sasha]

Sorry guys, I read on GW FAQ this evening that if you have a special CCW and a standard, you have to use the benefits and penalties of the special.

 

So to the OP, no, no point in having a PF and a chainsword, other than aesthetics...use the sword to pick the bits of genestealer out from under your powerfingernails!

 

You will get the extra attack if you have 2 PFs, of course, but at 50 points you'd better hope your opponent doesn't have Telion or a Cally! Can anyone remember Kenny Everett's Preacher...!

[Seahawk]

To the OP: Yep, you're legal!

 

For using a chainsword and powerfist together: you have to use the powerfist, all the time. Says so right in the rulebook on page 42: "All of their attacks...benefit from the special weapon's bonuses." By the same token you'd take all the negatives too.

 

Lastly, chaplain can have powerfists. Just check the options part of its entry. Also, he can switch between the crozius and fist, per page 42.

[Agrab]

the wording allows it to be used only once because it does not allow a second usage

[nighthawks]

the wording allows it to be used only once because it does not allow a second usage

please expound upon this - I'm curious what you're getting at...

[Agrab]

the wording allows it to be used only once because it does not allow a second usage

please expound upon this - I'm curious what you're getting at...

 

well, it is pretty simple in my mind (though i tried to argue for the ability to do both near the emergence of this codex)

 

"The Space Marine Sergeant may replace his boltgun and/or bolt pistol with xxx options"

 

Okay, so here is my reasoning

 

1) The wording does not say 'each of', which would allow it done to both items. Merely, it is one, the other, or both

2) All purchasing is done at once, so you can not use the same clause twice - if this were not the case, you could buy the upgrades before termi armor allowing you to have a :cuss ton of cool items

3) In my opinion, it is clear that they have different sections to indicate that each can be used once

 

 

#1 is the primary issue to look at

 

now, looking at the actual wording, if you wished, you could say that the wording where it has the word AND actually (and in all reality truly) means that it is a comparison area which limits the consideration to only when you have that option

[Seahawk]

I'm still not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you saying "you could choose to replace say his boltgun with option a, and bolt pistol with option b, allowing me to field both the chainsword and PF" as the OP asked, or incorrectly disagreeing with that? Or "c", where he can replace with two options, but they can't be the same options (can't take two power fists, for example)?

[Banville]

Don't get ya Agrab. Your first point is a self-contradiction.

 

Also, sorry about the confusion with Chappies and Powerfists. I was thinking of Librarians. Late night.

[angry man]

agrab, im a little confused by what your saying...

 

are you suggesting a tac sgt cannot swap his pistol for a fist and bolter for a chainsword?

if you are, then you are also suggesting that a sternie sgt cannot buy both a PF and combi-weapon?

 

i hope you're not as i have seen your grasp of the English language is better than that

 

AM

[nighthawks]

I think that agrab (and correct me if I am wrong) reads the codex as allowing a single item from the upgrade list to be purchased for the bolter and for the chainsword, but not the same item for each - so two PF or whatever.

 

I think that this is wrong, but anyone who studies the language in fine detail will have a hard time playing 40k anyhow. it's just not written that well.

[boinkage]

I think what he's saying is just that the wording of the clause, "The Space Marine Sergeant may replace his boltgun and/or bolt pistol with xxx options" could be rephrased as "the sergeant may replace either his boltgun or bolt pistol with this one option, further he can replace both the pistol and bolter with xxx options, but not with the same options" therefore you can still take your pf/chainsword but you cant take a pf/pf or combi-weapon/combi-weapon.

[Agrab]

Interesting variations on what i was saying, i like the interpretation

 

I am saying (figured out how to say this last night when heading to bed) that the wording and/or implies a conditional based on the choice between the then-following list. This means that you have the option if and only if the choice between the two things is there. Replacing one removes the choice

 

This means, in my interpretation of the writing, that you can only chose one item from that list

[Agrab]

Don't get ya Agrab. Your first point is a self-contradiction.

 

Also, sorry about the confusion with Chappies and Powerfists. I was thinking of Librarians. Late night.

 

 

not self-contradictory:

you can replace item X, item Y or XY for item Z

[SeattleDV8]

In this case you can replace either the Boltgun for XXX choice ,the bolt pistol for ZZZ choice, or both.

The wording is rather loose .

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

Is there any choice where it would make sense to replace the bolter and the bolt pistol with a single choice from the list? Can my chapter master only have either a storm shield or a relic blade now? Does it make sense to replace both of the weapons he comes with with a storm shield, so that he has to fight with his bare (okay, power-armoured) hands?

 

If the answer to any of the above questions was yes, the game designers who wrote this were morons, or just indifferent. However, I think the answer to all of these questions has to be no, and that while Agrab's interpretation may, semantically, make sense, it is not what the writer intended, nor does it make sense in the game.

 

So yes, raplacing one with a power fist and the other with a chainsword should be legal, if useless.

 

Saying he does have a bolt pistol, chainsword and a powerfist would hypothetically not be legal, but since the effect on the game is exactly the same as a bolt pistol and power fist, I think it is entirely allright.

 

Edit: typo.

[Agrab]

I strongly disagree wolf,

if the authors had intended it to be used it would say "blah blah blah may replace BOTH his XXX with Z and YYY with Z"

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

We will have to agree to disagree, then, because while I do understand the whole RAW idea, I completely ignore it and play RAMS, "Rules As Make Sense (To Me)".

 

And it does not make sense at all to only be able to choose one in exchange for both when for the same points you could get that one choice but keep either the bolter or bolt pistol.

Especially since the wording does not clearly support your view, even though I agree one could read it like that.

 

I think that agrab (and correct me if I am wrong) reads the codex as allowing a single item from the upgrade list to be purchased for the bolter and for the chainsword, but not the same item for each - so two PF or whatever.

 

I think that this is wrong, but anyone who studies the language in fine detail will have a hard time playing 40k anyhow. it's just not written that well.

 

 

The above, by the way, is the reason why in my opinion, RAW does not work, because it means discussing bloody semantics all the time, about words and phrases that were written without semantics in mind.