deathwing terminator serg

[Carthage]

I've been lurking here for a while and looking at some of the most amazing work some of you have done. But 1 think keeps ppopping up but never gets explained and thats the war gear of our terminator sergeants.

It states in our codex that "any model can replace all of his weapons with lightning claws or thunder hammer" I read this as including our sergeants as further down it says only 1 "deathwing terminator" per 5 models can take a heavy weapon which point to only the normal squad members because its missing the important "any".

My confusion comes as I've seen people state that a 5 man thunder hammer unit is a illegal squad build and I can't see why. Please feel free to illuminate my ignorance.

[Chaplain Lucifer]

In the DA FAQ, it states taht any model can exchange his power fist and storm bolter for LC or TH/SS. The sgt has no powerfist so he cant make that exchange.

[Frater Cornelius]

Don't have the codex in front of me right now but if you quoted it correctly then it is legal to have 5man TH/SS squad seeing as it sais 'any model'. NVM, FAQ'd. The reason the sarge can not take a heavy weapon is because he is not a 'Deathwing Terminator' but a 'Deathwing Terminator Sergeant'. It's the same reason why an Apothecary can not take a banner.

[Aradiel]

like chaplain lucifer stated, the dark angels faq changed the wording from "any model can replace all of his weapons" to "any model can exchange his power fist and storm bolter"

the sarge not having a power fist to make the change is stuck with its default weapons of sb & sword

[Carthage]

Thats a shame. So the only way to get a pure combat based squad is knights or command then. Looks like I need to glue a spare banner to one of my thunder hammer guy's

[Thorgrin]

Indeed, as it was written above, Deathwing Sgt. must be equipped with SB and Power Sword. It's quite a shame but we can't change that. But at least our power swords have a nice design :P

 

The other sad thing is, that claws are quite useless nowdays (the deathwing ones from command box allows to make outstanding and very dynamic model).

[march10k]

Thats a shame. So the only way to get a pure combat based squad is knights or command then.

LOL. "To the warp with you, Nottingham! Why do you force me to have at least one stormbolter in every squad?!? Why???"

 

Funniest whine I've heard all month...

[SvenONE]

Luci's answer.

 

I've come to sort of accept the Sergeant's power sword, but I'm still not particularly happy about it.  Assaulting into difficult terrain and having an I1 Power Sword is a real drag.

 

When I play, my sarge is never really in the back for any reason, I have no problem letting him eat a wound and die.  People always question why I don't LOS his wounds.  I always respond with:  "Would you LOS a power fist for a power sword?"

[Pbenner]

 

Thats a shame. So the only way to get a pure combat based squad is knights or command then.

LOL. "To the warp with you, Nottingham! Why do you force me to have at least one stormbolter in every squad?!? Why???"

 

Funniest whine I've heard all month...

 

I find it funny that we just had this conversation of coffee.  

 

There are tactical benefits of this, you just need to find them and exploit them.

 

Paul

[march10k]

I find the sergeant's forced loadout to be an elegant way for GW to balance our ability to combine heavy weapons with melee terminators. Are four thundernators really dramatically less effective than five? To clarify the tactical benefit that Pbenner mentioned (yes, it is funny that we just talked about this the other day at Starbucks!), the sergeant's stormbolter can be fired at your charge target while the squad's heavy weapon shoots at something else.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Totally agree March, funny as whine (tbh I was part of that group until experience has shown the error of my ways);

I love putting a heavy flamer over fire warriors and targetting a 'fish with the storm bolter then crushing it with hammers. That is only possible because the FAQ forced me to keep the Sgt with 'sub optimum' gear. It does mean he gets killed in challenges but the Hammers still go to work on the opponents squad nonetheless.

s

[Master Avoghai]

I find the sergeant's forced loadout to be an elegant way for GW to balance our ability to combine heavy weapons with melee terminators. Are four thundernators really dramatically less effective than five? To clarify the tactical benefit that Pbenner mentioned (yes, it is funny that we just talked about this the other day at Starbucks!), the sergeant's stormbolter can be fired at your charge target while the squad's heavy weapon shoots at something else.

The problem isn't a sgt in thundernator squad but rather in SB/PF squad.

 

I've experienced it again last week end : it's always nice to have a Th/SS character to make challenge and let the PF and the IC crash the rest of the squad

[Freman Bloodglaive]

The frustrating thing is that they're still using the "any model" language. Nerfing the Deathwing Sergeant was unintentional (especially given that Sergeants with special melee weapons have been legal since second edition). The problem is that they haven't done an update for the FAQ since they printed that one. It should have been "power fist/sword".

[Isiah]

I think we can all agree on that Freman :yes:. Love him to have access to combi-weapons, different power weapon options and things like auspexes too.

 

He is after all an elite of the Elite <_< .

 

Cheers

I

[march10k]

...and I would love a chicken salad sandwich on rye bread, and a beer to wash it down. Imagine my disappointment!

[Isiah]

Indeed. But your sandwich is something you can actually legally buy (providing you are over a certain age). So your disappointment is thankfully short lived :)

 

Cheers

I

[marvmoogy]

Just to throw a curve-ball...

 

I raised this point at a local GW store and in their infinite wisdom (which was "apparently" instructed from head office after questioning....make of that what you will) a terminator sergeant with LCs / TH&SS it IS a legal build.

 

Naturally, if you are in a tourney then someone will object and you have no leg to stand on, but I have converted one from the DV termie sergeant and, well....he's probably one of my favourite conversions - which I can and do use in friendly games

[SvenONE]

I don't see how that could be. That's no language to suggest they could ever equip weapons other than the power sword and storm bolter.

 

I love my local gw staff. But they don't write the rules.

 

Edit: friendly games excluded of course, you can do uust about anything then.

[marvmoogy]

SvenOne - I agree with you, hence why I put the tourney caveat in my post (along with the "apparently" and "make of that what you will")

 

But, I think we can all agree that it is an oversight rather than a decree that our Deathwing Sergeants can't take this wargear

[Isiah]

The effect is the same whatever. Nothing but power sword and storm bolter can be taken as per Codex RAW.

 

Houserules are a different thing of course and are a way around this providing both players agree.

 

There's little point in discussing how or why it came about from a rules writing perspective because we can't get into the mind of the writer.

 

Cheers

I

[JJD]

The thing that frustrates me is that this is clearly a mistake (How can it be intended that the sgt has fewer options that the rank and file). A mistake that could easily be fixed and yet here we are months later still pretending that this is working as intended.

 

They could fix the other obvious error in the blade of caliban at the same time.(But that's another gripe entirely)

[Diavlo]

The funny thing is that if we are all so RAW then I should play with my sergeant wielding hammer.

Polish version of the codex is already patched with the first FAQ that came out, so I have fixed all that belial with and without halo etc.

The thing is that they have never released aprlis faq in polish, all other codices have polish FAQ versions.

 

So I should play with polish rules, sadly I'm not :( I use aprils FAQ and get mad each time.

[march10k]

RAW is dead. Period. However, RAI does not give license to change a rule that you don't like. There has to be room for honest debate about what an awkwardly worded rule means, such as in the question of how many weapon changes a character can make. In this case, it is debatable whether or not the rule is a mistake, but there is no room for debate over what the rule actually means. RAW vs RAI doesn't come into play here.

[Isiah]

Well most people would use RAW as a basis to interpret a system of rules for gameplay - otherwise who'd know what havoc would ensue.

 

House rules are another matter however - then anything's viable - provided everyone agrees to them ;)

[march10k]

Naturally, house rules change everything...but that's as much a useless platitude as the obvious statement that "everything is with your opponent's permission only," since nobody can be compelled to play against you.  To illustrate, you can argue all day long that it's perfectly legal to field nine vendettas, but at the end of the day, my models are staying in the case.

 

RAW is identical to RAI 98.54% of the time...but when RAW is mandated by GW (as it was in the past), the ensuing chaos is increased, not reduced, because common sense is no longer in play.  For example, before the 5th edition flickerfield was FAQed, it did precisely nothing AS WRITTEN.  Why? It conferred an invulnerable save on the vehicle...the problem is that invulnerable saves only protect against wounds, not glances or pens...oops!  RAI, the vehicle would obviously get the intended save, but RAW (which was mandated at the time!), no save because no wound.