exchanging weapons

[Boniface]

I know i've opened up a can of worms here but something i noted by badly written rules and it is legit as far as the rules are written (despite any intention to the contrary).

 

Melee weapons (page 91)

A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.....

 

Now every space marine comes with 4 'weapons' as standard.

boltgun

bolt pistol

Krak grenade

Frag grenade

 

Why dont we exchange krak grenades for it?

 

There is no argument that a grenade is a weapon, it comes under the ranged weapons section and has a profile for being used as such.

 

This is true of Chapter relics too.

 

Whilst Ranged weapons specifies "a model can replace his bolt pistol and/or close combat weapon with one of the following"

 

As no model comes with a "close combat weapon" in theory you cant exchange anything but your bolt pistol. In fact there is no such thing as a close combat weapon. Every mention everywhere (as far as I can find) is "Melee weapon". 

 

The intention is different of course, but in the case of exchange any weapon i think its allowed that you can change a grenade one cannot argue a grenade is a weapon on any level especially since you can now use them as such.

(Does anyone ever use them except in or involving combat btw?)

[shortysl]

I know i've opened up a can of worms here but something i noted by badly written rules and it is legit as far as the rules are written (despite any intention to the contrary).

 

Melee weapons (page 91)

A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.....

 

Now every space marine comes with 4 'weapons' as standard.

boltgun

bolt pistol

Krak grenade

Frag grenade

 

Why dont we exchange krak grenades for it?

 

There is no argument that a grenade is a weapon, it comes under the ranged weapons section and has a profile for being used as such.

 

This is true of Chapter relics too.

 

Whilst Ranged weapons specifies "a model can replace his bolt pistol and/or close combat weapon with one of the following"

 

As no model comes with a "close combat weapon" in theory you cant exchange anything but your bolt pistol. In fact there is no such thing as a close combat weapon. Every mention everywhere (as far as I can find) is "Melee weapon". 

 

The intention is different of course, but in the case of exchange any weapon i think its allowed that you can change a grenade one cannot argue a grenade is a weapon on any level especially since you can now use them as such.

(Does anyone ever use them except in or involving combat btw?)

This is a question that won't have a resolution.

 

Personally I find threads like this to be abhorrent. That's just my opinion on the matter. Trying to swap grenades out for an alternative weapon, especially a Chapter Relic just smacks of looking for loopholes which is a direct link to the Win At All Cost player, and such players are a personal hate of mine.

 

Yet another RAI vs. RAW thread that can't be resolved. Some players are going to argue that you can do it because it doesn't specifically state you can't, while others are going to argue that it's obvious grenades were never intended to be used like this. I know where I stand on the matter but I honestly don't think this thread is going to generate a satisfactory conclusion. 

[Boniface]

Of course, thread like this do generate issues but that is only because those issues are already there. And it's not winning at any cost it's a legitimate point. Ignore wording for a moment.

 

Where does it state anywhere in the rules or any piece of rule based literature that a person may only exchange certain weapons despite having additional others?

 

I agree with all rules the adhere to weapons as specified (ie exchange boltgun for etc.) and weapons that are part of something else I.e. bikes have twin linked bolters so you can't exchange them unless something specifically says you can.

 

The point is where/when was a decision made that you can only exchange some certain weapons because otherwise your cheating?

 

This is 6th edition rules. In 2nd edition or any other one yes there might have been some stipulation that you could only change x for y.

 

A grenade is a weapon in all 6th edition rules regardless of anyone's feelings to the contrary. You can use it every turn (if able to due to range) you can use it for a variety of things.

A grenade is a weapon that over the generations has evolved from a supportive wargear to a weapon with additional rule.

 

Therefore I don't think this is in least bit controversial but I know others do because they're used to old iterations and rules. Tell me now that one new person who picks up the codex will think any differently knowing nothing about the old ways.

 

If it wasn't specifically a weapon I of course agree.

[Aromir]

I am sorry but this issue is on no means unclear. 

 

Grenades are special issue wargear, that can, in some cases, be used as shooting or melee weapons.

 

This should be very clear to anybody reading the Dark Angels Codex, as Frag grenades, Krak Grenades and Melta Bombs are all listed in the Special Issue Wargear Section of the Armoury on page 63 of the current Codex.

 

Special Issue Wargear are not weapons even if it sometimes can be used as such.

[Lysere]

Grenades are a piece of wargear, they are not actually a weapon. We are given the option to use them in such a manner, but it is limited to one model in a squad. Because something can be used to make an attack does not mean it is a weapon by default. Frag grenades do not normally have a profile for shooting attacks or melee attacks. Also if you look in a codex's armory section (or equivalent) grenades are always listed as a wargear item, and not with the full list of weapons. (Unlike Bolters, Bolt Pistols, Melta Guns, and so on)

 

That is reason enough for me to say grenades are not weapon all on their own.

 

Another thing to look at is the Servo arm. It is a piece of wargear that a techmarine has that may be used as a close combat weapon. It is not itself a weapon however as it is not listed as one. A piece of wargear may have a profile to be used as a weapon, but if it is never classified as a "weapon" then it is not one for purposes of weapon trading.

 

This is why by RAW a DA biker sergeant could trade a twin-linked boltgun out since he is granted it as a separate piece from his bike. It is a weapon and he can trade one for another. This is also why a DA character may not do the same thing if they take a bike, since their bike has a bolter as part of it, not as a weapon that comes with him.

[shortysl]

Of course, thread like this do generate issues but that is only because those issues are already there. And it's not winning at any cost it's a legitimate point. Ignore wording for a moment.

 

The point is where/when was a decision made that you can only exchange some certain weapons because otherwise your cheating?

 

 

In my personal opinion, which I'm entitled to have and voice, it is in fact attempting to Win At All Costs. I don't disagree that the issues are already there, but then again it'd be impossible to write a rules set in which there are no issues; even legal systems are full of conflicting points and definitions. It is my personal belief that taking advantage of such issues is an attempt being unsportsmanlike. That's not a personal attack on you or indeed any players that behave as such, it's simply that such players and I will never agree and/or play against one another.

 

As to when a decision is made about cheating, that's kind of a subjective point in regard to this particular post. This post will be controversial because it's such a strong matter for debate; Rules As Intended as opposed to Rules As Written. Each has it's own adherents and so neither party will agree.

[Boniface]

My apologies. In this instance I am wrong. The confusion came from having them appear as ranged weapons and having weapon characteristics. Now knowing they're special issue wargear I agree they cannot be changed.

I know there are issues in rules but some things like this cause confusion.

Maybe I'm just thick.

[Master Avoghai]

Actually I find topic like this interesting... 

 

Not for exploiting loopholes, but to get an answer to a guy who'd argue such thing against me.

[Lysere]

I'm a fan of people who manage to come up with this and present them to the forum. Pulling this out at a tourney or something isn't very nice, but here where we can discuss things to no end it's a good way to spark thoughts and put an end to ideas that are just too much before they do show up in a tourney.

[Brother Immolator]

Brain hurts and farts

The DA subforum should be renamed the pointless discussion subforum as of late.

The very fact that they are under a specif category (PG 61 not 60 of the rulebook) describes what they are (or rather what they are not) pretty well.

The third paragraph of their general discription is explicitely clear too.

The sad (or rather sane to this thing, is that rules like that wont be FAQ ever because they are clear as day.

And yet the bickering continues.

This
is why by RAW a DA biker sergeant could trade a twin-linked boltgun out
since he is granted it as a separate piece from his bike. It is a
weapon and he can trade one for another. This is also why a DA character
may not do the same thing if they take a bike, since their bike has a bolter as part of it, not as a weapon that comes with him.

As I said on the other thread you are wrong on this by virtue of profile.

[Azoriel]

I hope nobody minds if I add my two cents...

Looking at the DA codex again, the first three categories are "Ranged Weapons", "Melee Weapons", and "Special Issue Wargear".  The beginning of each of these categories starts with references to the BGB.  (For example, Melee Weapons says to include the BGB entries for Chainsword, Chainfist, etc.)  Under "Special Issue Wargear", one is told to include Krak grenades, Frag grenades, Melta bombs, and Psychic hood.  Given that these things fall under "Special Issue Wargear" (vice "Melee Weapons" or "Ranged Weapons"), I'll accept that one can't swap out grenades as a weapon (given that it doesn't fall under one of the two weapon categories).

 

That being said, I will need to disagree w/Lysere's reading of the Servo-arm; while the Servo-harness is specifically listed as "Special Issue Wargear", the Servo-arm is listed under melee weapons alongside Crozius Arcanum and Corvus Hammer.  Now, I'm sure many of you might rankle at the idea of a techmarine without Servo-arm or harness - but I still recall a time when you could get artificer armored "tech adepts" in your command squads (4th edition BA codex), so I don't necessarily see it as unprecedented.  (Though I'd probably give a heads up to whoever's trying to field such a figure that other people may refuse to play them.)

 

IMO, this should not be about winning at all costs, nor should it be about presuming people to be cheaters at the slightest disagreement - this is (or at least was at one point) a beer and pretzels game.  Why do we need to be so surly about things?  Can we not ask speculative questions prior to fielding armies?  (It may be perfectly legal for me to do things like fielding three LRC with SoD and PFG, but getting negative feedback about that somewhere like here is by far preferable to getting it after the models have been bought, glued, and painted.)

[Lysere]

Well unlike every other current marine Dex DA handle the servo arm differently. IE you use it as an actual weapon, it doesn't just act as one on top of your own weapons. (Or so people have told me, I have not looked myself.)

 

Also note I am referring to the servo arm and servo harness wargear options in every other codex in this case. And the servo arms built into a servo harness can not be removed from said harness.

 

The issue with that is I don't think the Techmarine has an entry that specifically states he can exchange a "weapon" for another, and thus wouldn't even have a choice of trying to give it up.

 

Also the idea of dropping standard issue krak grenades so you can add another weapon on top of all your other wargear is not just being disrespectful, but it falls completely into the category of win at all costs. There is a reason there are limits to what you can and can not take, and trying to circumvent them by claiming something every marine has standard (except Black Templar but we're working on that) can be traded for something you chose to not take in your normally allowed limits is not within the spirit of the game in the slightest.

[Azoriel]

FYI, the DA techmarine "may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, and/or Special Issue Wargear sections of the wargear list", the first of which (melee weapons) starts "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following"...  (Of course, why anyone would want to ditch their servo-arm when they also have a bolt pistol and bolter to trade as well is beyond me.)  And I fully agree with the servo-harness thing.  Unless GW later specifies that Special Issue Wargear can count as weapons for the purposes of trading, in which case I would count the whole servo-harness as a single weapon, (i.e. you must trade the entire harness if you want to swap for something).

 

I don't see things in quite the same light - is trading krak grenades really that different from trading twin-linked bolters off of a bike (also a standard issue armament)?  Not that I'd suggest trying to do either for tournament play, but at least swapping krak grenades is a clean trade (i.e. you're swapping an entire entry, not part of one like with the hypothetical servo-harness situation).  One may note that bolt pistols are also standard issue for PA, and there's no controversy with swapping them.  Again, this is not to suggest that trading grenades (Special Issue Wargear) is the same thing as trading bolt pistols (Ranged Weapons) - only to demonstrate that the difference between the two is less clear cut than one may think.

[Lysere]

FYI, the DA techmarine "may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, and/or Special Issue Wargear sections of the wargear list", the first of which (melee weapons) starts "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following"...  (Of course, why anyone would want to ditch their servo-arm when they also have a bolt pistol and bolter to trade as well is beyond me.)  And I fully agree with the servo-harness thing.  Unless GW later specifies that Special Issue Wargear can count as weapons for the purposes of trading, in which case I would count the whole servo-harness as a single weapon, (i.e. you must trade the entire harness if you want to swap for something).

 

I don't see things in quite the same light - is trading krak grenades really that different from trading twin-linked bolters off of a bike (also a standard issue armament)?  Not that I'd suggest trying to do either for tournament play, but at least swapping krak grenades is a clean trade (i.e. you're swapping an entire entry, not part of one like with the hypothetical servo-harness situation).  One may note that bolt pistols are also standard issue for PA, and there's no controversy with swapping them.  Again, this is not to suggest that trading grenades (Special Issue Wargear) is the same thing as trading bolt pistols (Ranged Weapons) - only to demonstrate that the difference between the two is less clear cut than one may think.

 

Except it's perfectly clear cut in the codex. Note your words bolded for emphasize. The distinction between a weapon and special issue wargear is made by the codex.

[Azoriel]

Yes, the distinction between "Ranged Weapons" vs "Special Issue Wargear" is clear (as I said).  However, to effectively say someone is a cheesemonger for trying to trade out grenades because they're standard issue is both an ad hominem fallacy and an invalid argument (my point).

[BigGumbo]

Yes, the distinction between "Ranged Weapons" vs "Special Issue Wargear" is clear (as I said).  However, to effectively say someone is a cheesemonger for trying to trade out grenades because they're standard issue is both an ad hominem fallacy and an invalid argument (my point).

I agree that it's invalid but I fail to see how it's ad hominem.

[Lysere]

My point with that statement is that trying to trade out something that is as common to every single marine in every codex (again except for BT, and no the bolt pistol is not on every single marine model nor in every single one of their warger lists) as power armour just so you can take another weapon above and beyond what is normally allowed for characters and sergeants as per your codex would be being a cheesemonger. It is also breaking the rules as established. Which is to me the real issue, because being a cheesemonger once in awhile can make for an interesting game so long as it's legal.

 

Even though it is 100% legal taking 4 weapons on a Black Templar sergeant is already almost pushing it though, and they are allowed to do that as per the codex rules.

 

Also bolt pistols are not standard issue like grenades are. A marine will always have power armour, frag grenades, and krak grenades. Many will have bolt pistols as well but some won't and some will trade it for something more specialized. If we wanted to be Canon they would have a close combat weapon as well but oh well.

[Azoriel]

I think we've mostly reached common ground on this matter, but, to clarify...

Yes, the distinction between "Ranged Weapons" vs "Special Issue Wargear" is clear (as I said). However, to effectively say someone is a cheesemonger for trying to trade out grenades because they're standard issue is both an ad hominem fallacy and an invalid argument (my point).

I agree that it's invalid but I fail to see how it's ad hominem.

I don't mind calling a spade a spade. ("That would be unsportsmanlike.") However, accusing someone of being a cheesemonger is calling their integrity into question. ("How dare you even consider option X? Only the most horrible of cheaters would even think about that!") That's a personal attack, vice arguing the point. ("Option X doesn't work because of Y.") The intent might be to shame the other guy into submission, but, if you haven't actually convinced him he's incorrect, he doesn't feel shame at all - he just gets PO'ed and digs in. (And then we get a locked thread.)

[Lysere]

I guess unlike most people I view cheesemongers differently, ie not as being evil for claiming ridiculous things, just not worth gaming against.

 

I will say nothing wrong with using ad hominem but adding fallacy behind seems like a redundant statement. I don't like critiquing grammar but when it comes to latin I tend to mention it more.

 

Either way it seems despite the continued discussion we are all so far in agreement, meaning this thread has served it's purpose.

[BigGumbo]

I think we've mostly reached common ground on this matter, but, to clarify...

Yes, the distinction between "Ranged Weapons" vs "Special Issue Wargear" is clear (as I said). However, to effectively say someone is a cheesemonger for trying to trade out grenades because they're standard issue is both an ad hominem fallacy and an invalid argument (my point).

I agree that it's invalid but I fail to see how it's ad hominem.

I don't mind calling a spade a spade. ("That would be unsportsmanlike.") However, accusing someone of being a cheesemonger is calling their integrity into question. ("How dare you even consider option X? Only the most horrible of cheaters would even think about that!") That's a personal attack, vice arguing the point. ("Option X doesn't work because of Y.") The intent might be to shame the other guy into submission, but, if you haven't actually convinced him he's incorrect, he doesn't feel shame at all - he just gets PO'ed and digs in. (And then we get a locked thread.)

Agreed but it's not an "ad hominem fallacy" since this involves arguing the point via a personal attack - e.g. "BigGumbo's argument is invalid because it's BigGumbo making it and BigGumbo is an idiot". Calling someone a cheesemonger whilst ignoring the merits of their argument is merely a personal attack, not a logical fallacy.

[S7RYPE]

I would allow it but that model would lose the binefits of said grenade when charging/being charged. So in short your charactor may well loose the attack/defense bonus that the grenades incur.