Iron Warriors War(p)smith

[Fulminata]

I like the new Warpsmith, he will definitely find a place in my Iron Warriors army, but I am a little disappointed to find my Warsmith model of old is once again illegal. Neither the Chaos Lord nor the Warpsmith can have dual powerfists. However, I may have found a way around it and want to pass it along to see what others think about my 2 solutions.

 

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh111/fmcbide4/Iron%20Warriors/P7250055.jpg

 

1) he is a chaos lord, exchanges his bolt pistol for the combi-melta and the close combat weapon for the powerfist. For the second power fist, it will be a mechanical combat familiar, (Iron Warriors wouldn't have a slimy little daemon imp mewling around its legs, would it?) I lose the second powerfist, but gain an additional attacks at better initiative. This will also allow me to add the better invulnerable save wargear.

 

2) he will be turned into a chosen champion and will be allowed to have both powerfists. I have always wanted a chosen squad armed with nothing but melta guns (cheesy, I know, but these guys would act like sappers against defenses), and they would ride in my captured Razorback and escort the Warpsmith.

 

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh111/fmcbide4/Iron%20Warriors/2c3362e0.jpg

 

 

So what do you guys think? I like both options, I am going to have a Warpsmith as well, and have 5 other HQ choices for my Iron Warriors. Thx.

[Payce]

Using the servo-arm as a "counts as" Combat Familiar isn't a bad idea at all!

 

I've been wondering how I'd model my Huron's Hamadrya, and using a Techmarine Servo-Harness with two claws and the flamer fits perfectly. Thanks for the idea :cuss

[Warsmith Aznable]

I like the idea of counting the servo-arm as a combat familiar.

 

I'm debating using him as the Sergeant of a squad, actually. I was thinking the servo-arm and cybernetic-arm could represent trading a bolt pistol and CCW for a pair of Lightning Claws, leaving the bolter as a bolter or available to replace as any of the ranged weapons from the wargear list (or just buying the combi-melta if you didn't feel like sawing it off the model)

 

EDIT: never mind the twin LC idea, because "and/or... with one of the following". So as I read that, no twin LC for non-TDA, right?

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

EDIT: never mind the twin LC idea, because "and/or... with one of the following". So as I read that, no twin LC for non-TDA, right?

 

That appears to be the case. Non-TDA Lords can only sport a single claw. Guess the Warp Talons are hogging all the power-armored lightning love.

[Aidoneus]

EDIT: never mind the twin LC idea, because "and/or... with one of the following". So as I read that, no twin LC for non-TDA, right?

I read the and/or to mean that you can replace the bolt pistol with one of the following and/or you can replace the CCW with one of the following. I don't see why the authors would have bothered to write "and/or" if only to let you give up an additional piece of standard kit for no reason. So, to make any sense at all, it must be that you can take one upgrade for each standard weapon (BP or CCW) you give up.

 

Back to the OP, why not just say the servo-arm is decorative? Since it's not obviously a weapon or existent piece of wargear, why must it "count as" anything? Not to say using it as a combat familiar or second lightning claw wouldn't work; I like both of those ideas. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's necessary to find a use for that arm in order to field the model.

[Warsmith Aznable]

Not to derail this thread, but as it is relevant to how I would use that particular model, this interpretation business seems important. Having another look at it, I'm not sure my parsing of the and/or that caused me to retract my idea was correct. If I applied the same method to the Aspiring Champions entry that let's us go to the wargear section in the first place I'd get a result that said multiple items were purchasable, which wouldn't make sense if the wargear section in question demanded only one item was purchasable.

 

And then there's the more straightforward logic of Aidoneus, because why would you voluntarily give up two weapons for no extra gain if you didn't have to? Is there anyone who can demonstrate the value of that?

 

Based on that, I think having twin LC is supported until something official from GW clarifies it negatively, or until someone cites a previous example that does the same.