Melee Challenge beast

[FerociousBeast]

 

 

 

I Thought only 1 of the Chapter Relics was allowed per model according to the Codex?

 

page 91 under Chapter Relics

 

"A model can replace One weapon with one of the following"

 

or am I missing something?

Still being debated - does it mean you can only swap one weapon full stop!? Or does it mean you can swap one weapon for one relic and one weapon for a different relic?

 

I agree with you, but many go with the latter interpretation until FAQed (if ever!).

It's only being debated because certain cheaters refuse to accept reality. If you were intended to be able to take more than one choice, it would read "may replace [each/any] weapon with one of the following" The only other possible reading of the use of the word "one" is that they intended to preclude you from dropping more than one weapon per choice taken. And that's patently absurd! "gee, Ralph, what if someone exchanges his pistol AND his sword in exchange for the lion's roar. Why, that'd be overpowered!" "You're right, Harold, we'd better prevent that by specifying that only ONE weapon may be dropped for each relic taken." C'mon, man! One means one. Either it means only one swop, or it means that you can't drop multiple weapons in exchange for each relic taken. It can't mean anything else.

 

A model can replace one weapon. Full stop. That clause stands on its own as a complete sentence. It doesn't read "can replace each weapon," it doesn't read "may replace as many weapons as he has." It reads "may replace one weapon." That's plain English that leaves no room for interpretation. The rest of the sentence "with one of the following" is a prepositional phrase that acts as an adverb, answering the question "replaced how?" In no way does the prepositional phrase modify the word "one," it has NOTHING to do with that word, it is only concerned with the word "replace."

 

You have a nasty habit, march10k, of so utterly failing or refusing to see any other viewpoint than your own, that you ascribe differences in opinion or interpretation as moral failing and/or idiocy in your opponent. It is not pleasant, and I wish you would stop.

 

As to your argument itself, that "it can't mean anything else," you are incorrect. It can mean something else. It can mean that a model can replace weapons on a 1:1 ratio. If the sentence were rewritten to say "a model can replace one and only one weapon with one relic," then your argument would be on sturdier ground. In either case, GW's historical nebulousness on this and similar wordings, however, puts anyone who argues for strict grammatical interpretations at a disadvantage.

[MadMek83]

@ Menchalior:TDA Chappy still keeps 4++ iirc(at work)

 *sighs* true to that, I started mixing thing as I got Terminator Librarian in work's and when I started typing somehow the I started thinking Librarian and not chaplain... lol. But still what the point was that Bike chappy has more layered protection than the TDA chappy. The 3+ armor, 4++, jink and constant toughness 5 to 2+ armor 4++ rosarius and increased toughness you need DWK and to be base contact with model with this rule. That makes bike chappy a tad better surviving challenges or against grav weapons... in theory. But yeah true, TDA Chappy won't lose rosarius.

 

What comes to The Shroud of Heroes, it doesn't replace any gear or such and considering all the codexes afterwards you can take as many artefacts as you can per model but only one per army. (and some have limits with the weapons but that's per codex). Eldars can buy many artefacts per heroe, Mantle of the Laughing God, Shard of Anaris and Phoenix Gem's. C:SM's can use more than one artefact on their characters. Like taking that artefact armor, artefact weapon and artefact stormshield, albeit that costs like landraider... 

[Master Avoghai]

As to your argument itself, that "it can't mean anything else," you are incorrect. It can mean something else. It can mean that a model can replace weapons on a 1:1 ratio. If the sentence were rewritten to say "a model can replace one and only one weapon with one relic," then your argument would be on sturdier ground. In either case, GW's historical nebulousness on this and similar wordings, however, puts anyone who argues for strict grammatical interpretations at a disadvantage.

I second to that.

 

The failure on your argument, march10k, is that you consider that only the readers could be totally ignorant of grammar rules...

 

But I can't see a single clue that would lead to the conclusion that a GW rules creator is the new Nobel Prize of literature ...

[march10k]

FerociousBeast, on 14 Oct 2013 - 02:20, said:

As to your argument itself, that "it can't mean anything else," you are incorrect. It can mean something else. It can mean that a model can replace weapons on a 1:1 ratio. If the sentence were rewritten to say "a model can replace one and only one weapon with one relic," then your argument would be on sturdier ground. In either case, GW's historical nebulousness on this and similar wordings, however, puts anyone who argues for strict grammatical interpretations at a disadvantage.

I could as easily insist that for your view to be correct, the sentence must read "may replace as many weapons as you like at a 1:1 ratio." Of course there are always ways to make a statement clearer. That doesn't mean that it's not clear in the first place. Sometimes the wording of a rule is vague. But the English language does have rules, even if most native speakers don't know them and speak the language on instinct.

 

In this case, if the first part of the sentence read "may replace each weapon," then it would mean that you may take as many relic weapons as you have mundane weapons in the model's profile, plus the shroud. There would no need to say "may replace as many weapons as desired at a 1:1 ratio" or any other complicated phrase. "Each" would suffice. Of course, then you'd have people arguing that "each" then means that if you replace any weapons at all, you must replace all of them, or some such nonsense.

 

And "GW's writers have been proven to use bad English in the past, so I can make it mean whatever I want" is no argument. I might as well argue that "salvo: 2/4" in the dakkapole rules might be a typo, so until the issue is settled via an FAQ, I'm assuming that they meant 3/6.

 

Anyway, grammatical arguments aside, I think GW's intent was to limit you to one relic per non-named character. Surely they don't want the master of the eighth company running around with more of the chapter's sacred treasures than Ezekiel, Asmodai, or Belial? Hell, if you don't count the jetbike or the modified iron halo, nobody except Azrael has more than two. But an unnamed character is intended to be able to take three? I doubt that! As it is, I think you're supposed to be able to take one weapon. As for the shroud....it's ambiguous. I have no idea if GW's intent of only one applies to the cloak. I can see them being okay with a weapon plus the cloak, and I can see them intending one relic, period.

 

/edit/

 

Ferocious,

 

I do have an intellectual superiority complex....and there are a lot of cheaters and cheesemongers in 40k, but I only, as you say, ascribe differences of opinion to one of those two causes...about 70% of the time. But I allow that there's room for a difference of opinion without either party being wrong about 20% of the time, and I am convinced by the other person 10% of the time. There are plenty of people on these boards who can be persuaded 0% of the time.

[ValourousHeart]

Honestly, the weakest leg of March10k's argument is the shroud.

 

I personally think that limiting a hero to 1 ranged, 1 melee, and 1 armor relic is the best policy. But then I don't like models that are useless at anytime during the game... And a model without a gun is useless in the shooting phase.

 

But you also have to look at cost benefits. Is it better to have that hero decked out or to have a basic hero with a tactical squad and a predator?

[march10k]

How does the shroud weaken my argument, when the shroud explicitly states that it does not follow the normal relic rules?  By the way, VH, you've told us what you would do if you were in charge, but you haven't said what you think GW intended. 

 

I'm not particularly worried about a DA player spending 100 points on mace, shroud, and roar.  Anyone can see that that's just a waste of points that won't make the model last even one turn longer against a squad of thundernators than he would if he were naked.  I'm just saying that I think GW's intent was either one relic or maybe the shroud plus one weapon....and that anyone who argues that the text of the rules, as written, means "take as many 1:1 swops as you like" is wrong.

 

I think an interrogator on a bike with the shroud and the mace would be a one-model cruise missile.

[FerociousBeast]

I'm actually not saying that I think the 1:1 ratio is the absolutely correct interpretation. I'm just saying it's a valid alternative interpretation, and that one who adopts it shouldn't be labeled a cheater and/or imbecile.

 

In fact, I would naturally agree with your interpretation of "one weapon," except for one detail. The lightning claw. The melee weapons section is also ruled by the "a model can replace one weapon" clause, and there's only one entry for lightning claw. So by your interpretation, GW does not intend to allow Company Masters to be able to wield two lightning claws, since they can only replace one weapon with a lightning claw.

 

I can't imagine that's their intention, so I assume the 1:1 ratio is RAI.

[march10k]

I know about the lightning claw thing...I can think of several reasonable alternatives to your conclusion about that issue. 

 

1.  It's entirely reasonable to assume, as I do, that GW screwed us and do not intend for a DA HQ character to be able to have dual lightning claws.  Single lightning claws are by no means rare, they even make metal one piece models with only one claw. 

 

2.  The absence of an "s" in the entry could be a typographical error.  On page 62, it says lightning claws.  No other entry in that box, except for power weapons (because there are multiple types) is listed in the plural.  Maybe they meant for you to be able to make one exchange, but for your choice of either one or two claws, and were either too lazy to spell that out, or it didn't occur to them.

 

By the way, your interpretation would allow weird outcomes, such as dual thunderhammers, that GW certainly did not have in mind.  I find it far easier to imagine that GW screwed us out of the second claw or made a typo, than to assume that GW meant for us to be able to take both a power sword and a power axe on the same model for +1A and the choice of which one's profile to use in a given fight.  The 1:1 interpretation is more problematic, not less so, in the melee weapons section. 

 

It's possible that 1:1 is GW's intent, but it is not a valid understanding of the rule as written.

[ValourousHeart]

March10k, I feel that you have made a very strong argument.  The weakness is the fact that you admit that there is an exception to your one and only one stance.  It doesn't invalidate anything that you have said, it just means that there is an exception... and generally when there is one exception, another can be made.

 

I don't know if any of us can claim to know what GW's intention was... each of us is only venturing a guess.  But my guess is that if they had wanted it to be only one they would have used more deliberate language.  GW has in the past used very deliberate language to limit something, I am sure that most of us recall the 0-1 limits that used to be very prevalent.

 

My rationale is from an old FAQ entry about a SM Captain being armed to the teeth with something like a half dozen weapons.  The tone of their response was that they hadn't thought anyone would have done that, but if you model the figure that way, then yes you could have all of those weapons.  They showed their intention in this new edition by limiting weapon swaps to a 1:1 ratio, but I don't think they are bothered by multiple relics showing up in a single game, let alone on a single model.

 

As for your point about none of the special characters other than Azreal have more than 2 relics.  No I don't expect that the Captain of the 8th company to have more relics than the Head Librarian of Dark Angels.  But I do feel that GW has given us license to define who we think leads any of the successor chapters.  And I feel that our defining of those heroes should not be confined to a single relic.  If GW wanted to define those characters, they would have, as they have done in other codex.

I also believe that GW feels that this is our game just as much as it theirs.  And providing us the opportunity to crate new and unique heroes is part of how we express ownership.

 

And finally I do not believe that anything in this game is done out of malice.  There are certainly times when it could seem that way, and the internet certain latches on to those events.  But the internet is only our dark nature finding a voice, it speaks out of loneliness, helplessness and fear… but it does not speak truth.  And when you say those fears out loud the ludicrousness of it all becomes apparent.

 

Say this out loud… with conviction.  “Jervis broke into my house, and rummaged through my collection of miniatures.  Then he wrote the new DA codex specifically so that I would have to either rip apart my entire collection or buy new models.”  Repeat that as many times as necessary until you either believe it or get the joke.

[march10k]

LOL...well, my favorite scout sergeant, with a powerfist and stormbolter, hasn't been legal in ages...so why not?  As for the leaders of successor chapters, I guess I had assumed that people would use existing named characters and paint/name them differently...it is a really good point, but it doesn't prevent the situation where the aforementioned master of the 8th company is better armed than Zeke.  As for one exception making room for another, that argument fails because the one exception is specified in the codex, while the "another one" that you assume is therefore okay...isn't. 

 

Anyway, in the end, EVERYTHING, even what's explicitly allowed in the codex, such as ten man tactical squads, is "with your opponent's permission" in the end.  After all, he doesn't have to agree to play against you.  And in tournaments, we all know that the TO's opinion trumps GW's.  So I guess we've all been engaged in a rousing bit of intellectual masturbation here...

[FerociousBeast]

I know about the lightning claw thing...I can think of several reasonable alternatives to your conclusion about that issue. 

 

1.  It's entirely reasonable to assume, as I do, that GW screwed us and do not intend for a DA HQ character to be able to have dual lightning claws.  Single lightning claws are by no means rare, they even make metal one piece models with only one claw. 

 

2.  The absence of an "s" in the entry could be a typographical error.  On page 62, it says lightning claws.  No other entry in that box, except for power weapons (because there are multiple types) is listed in the plural.  Maybe they meant for you to be able to make one exchange, but for your choice of either one or two claws, and were either too lazy to spell that out, or it didn't occur to them.

 

3. By the way, your interpretation would allow weird outcomes, such as dual thunderhammers, that GW certainly did not have in mind.  I find it far easier to imagine that GW screwed us out of the second claw or made a typo, than to assume that GW meant for us to be able to take both a power sword and a power axe on the same model for +1A and the choice of which one's profile to use in a given fight.  The 1:1 interpretation is more problematic, not less so, in the melee weapons section. 

 

4. It's possible that 1:1 is GW's intent, but it is not a valid understanding of the rule as written.

 

1. I do not find that likely in the slightest. And such restrictions do not apply to the Space Marine codex or Chaos Space Marine codex (which use the "and/or" language for melee weapons).

2. In that case, we get either one LC for 15 points or two LCs for 15 points? Not likely...

3. Dual thunder hammers are not weird. There is art in Codex Space Marines showing a space marine with two thunder hammers, and it's perfectly legal in C: SM as well under your interpretation of the wording due to the "and/or" language. Also, I'm not sure what the problem is with a model paying for both a power sword and power axe... Asmodai's (true) model has a crozius and power sword, after all.

4. Again, I disagree with you on your RAW position, but I'm not going to try to convince you anymore.

[march10k]

So a bit of art is now a signal of GW's intent that we be able to field dual thunderhammers? I think the asmodai model is from 2nd edition? That alone makes it a laughable argument in 6th edition. I know in 3rd it was just counted as him having a power weapon with the same +1A that a pistol would give, because the crozius had the same profile as the sword. I don't think you really believe the arguments you just made about the axe+sword and dual thunderhammers, I think you're just being stubborn.

You do have a good point about the 15 points for your choice of one or two claws. I guess that leaves us with option one: GW screwed us. "Other MEQ codexes get it, therefore we must get it, too?" What kind of an argument is that? You're saying both of those codexes, one written before ours and one written after ours, use the same wording that differs from ours...but our different rule must have the same meaning as their rule, because every MEQ codex should have the same options?

 

I don't have C:UM, so I don't know the full text of their rule.  But I do agree that and/or means you can make two substitutions.  If they intended that you be able to make two substitutions in the melee weapon and relic sections, why say "one" instead of "and/or?"  When they make a change to the wording like that for very similar rules in the same text box, chances are high that the two different wordings don't mean the same thing!  GW might be a little sloppy with its language sometimes, but when they are clearly making an effort to use consistent rules language across different codexes of the same edition, it's incredibly unlikely that they would just randomly switch back and forth between "one" and "and/or."  If they used a different word, it seems obvious that they intended a different meaning.

[FerociousBeast]

"I don't think you really believe the arguments you just made about the axe+sword and dual thunderhammers, I think you're just being stubborn."

 

Color me perplexed. I absolutely believe them. If you don't find art convincing, I also mentioned that dual thunder hammers (and dual lightning claws and dual power fists and dual power weapons and two power weapons of different types) are 100% legal via army list in CSM and SM. Therefore GW's intent is quite clear.

 

"What kind of an argument is that? You're saying both of those codexes, one written before ours and one written after ours, use the same wording that differs from ours...but our different rule must have the same meaning as their rule, because every MEQ codex should have the same options?"

 

Yes, pretty much. Different phrases, same meaning. It's not a complicated point I'm making.

 

Here's another argument in favor of a 1:1 ratio interpretation. Elsewhere in the codex they explicitly limit options to one by including the phrase "may take up to one." That phrase is not present in the relics section.

[InstantKarma]

I strikes me that the thread here has gone 'slightly' off topic (or at least it is related indirectly).

 

If I can make one observation and a statement.

My observation is that from what I can see looking at our Cousin codex (Space Marines) we have similar wording to our own relics.  It first states, as our codex does, that the primary limitation is 1 relic per Army, due to the rairty of the items in question.  The second line states that you may replace one weapon with one of the following.  Now I will say that my inclcination is to agree with Ferocious, since having say 2 weapons on a Company Master, you could replace the CC wep with 1 relic, and his shooty wep with another relic since what you have is the 1:1 ratio of one wep replaced by one relic.   That being said, after reading it I can see where march10k's point comes from, given that it says one weapon, you cannot therefore replace two (which is what is the result, regardless of any ratio). 

Now in pratice with the few Space Marine players I've encountered at my GW, I've seen both used.  I've seen unnamed characters with 2 or 1 relic, and usually this is related to points cost, and less to rules wording. 

[FerociousBeast]

I apologize for contributing to bringing the thread slightly off track, but I find it an interesting question, and I do have one additional comment to make.

 

There is the open question as to why GW would use different wording for different sections. They say either "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/ or close combat weapon with one of the following," or "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

 

There's something key there to notice... If the relic section also used the "bolt pistol and/or close combat weapon" language, models without a bolt pistol or close combat weapon, like characters in terminator armor, couldn't take relic weapons! And power armor models would have to replace their bolt pistol. Consider the chaplain, for example. If the and/or language were used, you couldn't replace the chaplain's crozius with the mace of redemption. You could only replace his bolt pistol. With the "one weapon" language, however, now you can. Because that one weapon can be anything the model is equipped with.

 

So, why would GW use different wording? Because in some cases, they don't want a character to be able to swap out his default wargear (like replacing a crozius with a bolter), and in other cases (like w/ Relics), they do.

 

While this doesn't mean GW doesn't ALSO want one weapon to mean one and only one, it does provide a very reasonable alternative explanation for why the phrase "one weapon" was used instead of "bolt pistol and/or close combat weapon."

[Master Avoghai]

I'm happy to have a foreign codex...

 

Actually in my language, if you want to say one and only one you have to write "one single"...

 

And since my codex doesn't have this kind of wording, I feel free to swap the number of weapons I want. It seems that official traductor didn't receive the answer by GW that he needs such precision...

[[TA]Typher]

GW isn't known for it's well written rules. do the best you can and adapt if they clarify it in a way that runs counter to how you understood the rule. The original DWA rule is a prime example of this. It was so poorly written that there was not one or two different interpretations but at least three. I don't think anyone is trying to abuse or trick people with the wording, it's just poorly written.

 

With that said let's move on. From reading the posts it seems that it's ran it's course.

 

 

[march10k]

FB, your explanation that and/or prevents models with a crozius or a stormbolter from making a change makes perfect sense. It doesn't change my opinion of the meaning of "one," but it does perfectly explain why there would be a difference in wording independent of any difference in meaning. So, based on the difference between C: DA and C:UM, DA chaplains can drop the crozius, and others cannot? That's surprising, and a benefit for us, since our chappies are the only ones not stuck with AP4, then...

 

Avoghai,

 

Not to say that your codex is mistranslated, we honestly don't know if GW made a mistake in English in the first place...but there have been some...spectacular translation failures over the years. I remember one codex in third edition had power weapons ignoring all saves! I can only imagine that more than one individual had to be hit over the head with a sock full of dice for attempting to enforce that ...

[FerociousBeast]

Heheh, good times. I think the codex with uber power weapons was Codex Black Templars, wasn't it? Or was it Daemonhunters?

 

So, based on the difference between C: DA and C:UM, DA chaplains can drop the crozius, and others cannot?

 

Well, DA and UM both can drop the crozius for a relic, since the "one weapon" phrasing is universal in the 6th edition codexes. But only DA chaplains could drop the crozius for a thunder hammer or power axe or something. Interesting. And frankly probably a typo. (Completely tangentially, I've said it before, but why oh why, in the first edition since 2nd where Asmodai could actually make decent use of both his crozius and power sword, did they take his power sword away??!)

 

To try to bring this back around to the topic in the OP, is there any way that Dark Angel players can exploit this opportunity to make Interrogator-Chaplains particularly nasty in CC?

[ValourousHeart]

I would like to point out that the classic Asmodi model is not actually Asmodi.

The blister pack that he came in was labeled as Asmodi... but the original casting of the model had Saphidon on the cross piece between his feet.

Saphidon was a model from the 2nd ed Angles of Death codex, and was the head Chaplin prior to Asmodi assuming the position.

He was armed with a Cronus and Power Sword, which in the 2nd ed BRB had different rules.

 

3rd Ed came along and Saphidon was dropped from the codex, the model recieved a new mold which changed the cross piece to say Asmodi, but it was the same model.

3rd Ed also changed all PW to be the same.

 

@ March10k - I really don't want to turn this into a counseling session, but you keep repeating that you feel that GW screwed us.

Do you feel marginalized by GW?  And do you thing that has lead you to read the rules from a darker perspective than you would if you didn't feel marginalized?

 

For example - the tactical squad rules state that 1 model can be upgraded to carry a heavy weapon.

The positive way to read that is that 1 model per tactical squad may have a Heavy weapon.

The very negative way to read that is that only 1 model, no matter how many tactical squads you take, may have a heavy weapon.

 

I am not saying that you are saying that... I am just saying that the rules for the tactical squad do not say that 1 model per squad can have a heavy weapon... It just says 1 model may take a heavy weapon.

And that could be read from a very dark POV.

[march10k]

???

 

Do I feel marginalized by GW?  I played DA with the real DA codex in 5th edition...so...probably not.  I do feel that there are some decision makers in Nottingham who have a personal dislike for DA, but do I feel like GW has dedicated itself to making me miserable?  No.  Even if I did feel that DA was unplayable, which was not the case even in 5th, no matter how many people played DA using C:UM, I have IG, Tau, SoB, Empire, TK, and WoC on my shelf...I'll find a way to have fun.  Actually....yeah, there is an unplayable army right now, and it's Sisters.  Not DA.

 

Do I think GW limited us to one lightning claw as a melee weapons swop option?  Yes.  If that's true, is that sodomy?  You be the judge...

 

I have no idea what you're talking about vis a vis tactical squads and heavy weapons...

 

 

Saphidon

 

You mean Sapphon?  Pretty cool bit of trivia about the model being recycled to represent a new character, though!  Also, Asmodai was never the "head chaplain."  His technical skills were off the charts, earning him a record number of pearls, but he was never a good leader, and therefore was not put in a leadership position like Sapphon was.  He's not Sapphon's successor, except in the sense that he replaced him as the named chaplain in the 3rd Edition C: DA.  But he didn't take over Sapphon's position in the Inner Circle.

[Interrogator Stobz]

They must have been quicker than that in changing the name on the base, I brought the 'proper' Asmodai in 2nd and it says Asmodai on the base.

[FerociousBeast]

So, here's my melee challenge beast:

 

Company Master w/ artificer armour, storm shield, thunder hammer, digital weapons, boltgun, frags, kraks, iron halo

- 165 points

 

Pros: 2+/3+, S8, re-roll one failed wound

Cons: not EW, not T5, no +1A, needs transport or jump pack for mobility

 

Fairly cheap. 2+ save w/out sacrificing sweeping advance. Should beat both Azrael and Belial in a duel due to their AP3 weapons and lack of EW. Should have a decent chance against power fists and thunder hammers due to high WS and 3++. Swapped out the bolt pistol for boltgun since BP can't grant +1A, so he can contribute a little to shooting w/ his BS5.

[march10k]

Hmmm.  He has a better save than the bike interrogator with mace, at 2+/3++, and an AP2 weapon at +1WS, those are definitely plusses.  The biker has +1A (dual-wield), +1T, will almost always get the charge bonus, and has hammer of wrath...Obviously, the master will beat the chappy head to head, but against a third party, it's a tough call.  The master may not get the opportunity because he's on foot, so an enemy warlord who he'd easily beat will try to avoid him.  The chappy is going to get stuck in at will, but he isn't AP2. 

[Phoebus]

Not to take us off topic again, but being a stickler for detail I'd like to point out that the Thunder Hammer has the Specialist Weapon rule in its entry.  Does this not mean the rules as written allow for a Character to be able to purchase two Thunder Hammers?  If one couldn't, then there would be no reason to attach this rule to Lightning Claws, Power Fists, Thunder Hammers, etc.