Only one weapon upgrade for ASM Sgt.?

[Quixus]

I just found an example contradicting your "infallible pictures" theory. Look at the FOC of the allied detachment in the rulebook. The picture shows 1 compulsory HQ, 1 compulsory Troop as black squares with icons on them, this corresponds to the text below. However the graphic also shows 1 optional HQ, 2 optional troops and 3 optional choices of each of the tree other types of battle field roles, indicated by the grey squares. The text on the other hand claims you can have at most 1 HQ, 2 Troops, 1 Elites, 1 fast attack, 1 Heavy Support choice. So which one is correct? Which one makes the game more enjoyable for both players?

[MomentoMori]

Quixus you obviously failed to remember we are now in 7th edition, thus the picture is perfectly unbound legal. The Emperor sees all and knew this exact discussing would occur now. For now even he who sits on his throne bequeath this gift to you.

BOOM! That be some verbal explosion.

[Quixus]

It would be legal for an unbound army, but isn't the point of battle-forged armies that they are restricted by the FOC but get benefits in return? So which FOC (the written one or the pictured one) must an allied detachment adhere to to gain these benefits?

[MomentoMori]

Yerrr idk I was just instigating.

 

But ...

 

Hypothetical questions like "isn't the point" sounds to me like RAI not RAW. =o

[xmercx]

I just found an example contradicting your "infallible pictures" theory. Look at the FOC of the allied detachment in the rulebook. The picture shows 1 compulsory HQ, 1 compulsory Troop as black squares with icons on them, this corresponds to the text below. However the graphic also shows 1 optional HQ, 2 optional troops and 3 optional choices of each of the tree other types of battle field roles, indicated by the grey squares. The text on the other hand claims you can have at most 1 HQ, 2 Troops, 1 Elites, 1 fast attack, 1 Heavy Support choice. So which one is correct? Which one makes the game more enjoyable for both players?

 

Is that a picture of a model that is geared in a way that is illegal per the written rules at the time the rules were put on paper? No?  Ok keep trying.  Also, try to list at least page numbers when you sight something, so it can be found without flipping through the whole book.  Also, the one in my rule book that I found (digital version) does not show all those extra slots, nor does it list them in the picture (at least for the first ally foc that I found).

 

And how about we play a little game of what is more likely:

 

Pick one answer:

 

A) Games Workshop decided that BA Assault Marine Sergeant would simply be too powerful if they were allowed to take two weapon swaps.  An option that, in 5th ed codex's was given to every other power armored sergeant on foot in at least two different codex's (I only have  BA and vanilla) and they decided to included a picture of this illegal weapon swap in the codex as the only labeled picture of an Assault Marine Sergeant in the book.

 

or

 

B) its either a typo or an edit for space that the copy editor didn't realize would cause a conundrum four years after the fact.

[Demoulius]

xmercx, GW wouldnt make mistakes with pictures? Just like they wouldnt make mistakes with chalices of blood, power swords and whatnot? I think basing whatever or not an option on a model is legal on a picture is a very bad idea. By that same premise all power weapons other then swords would be normal close combat weapons because the codex did not list them. It would be powersword or a chainsword.

 

Also, im not nitpicking. An / can be read as an AND or as an OR. Thats the whole point here. Its unclear and while I doubt many or any opponent really would make a fuss about it, its still better to be safe then sorry. Fact that im using the basis that something is RAW seems to me be a little obvious, but fail to see why it makes me annoying? I play devils advocate and that makes me a bad person or not fun to play around? I play with RAW yes, as its the only bloody thing I can do. I apply RAI with friends (hardly play tourneys) if something confusing arises and it isent mentioned in any FAQ. In a tournament thats probably not a solution for people so I think its a good thing that we try to anwser the OP's question.

 

I think 99.999999% of the people will know what the authors mean. But if options are clearly stated and you deviate from those options your making an illegal combo. If people are taking illegal combinations theyre breaking the rules. (I very much doubt youd agree to play a carnifex with both crushing claws AND two sets of scything talons, would you?) The whole point here (again) is that its unclear and thus were trying to figure out what to make of it...

[xmercx]

xmercx, GW wouldnt make mistakes with pictures? Just like they wouldnt make mistakes with chalices of blood, power swords and whatnot? I think basing whatever or not an option on a model is legal on a picture is a very bad idea. By that same premise all power weapons other then swords would be normal close combat weapons because the codex did not list them. It would be powersword or a chainsword.

 

Also, im not nitpicking. An / can be read as an AND or as an OR. Thats the whole point here. Its unclear and while I doubt many or any opponent really would make a fuss about it, its still better to be safe then sorry. Fact that im using the basis that something is RAW seems to me be a little obvious, but fail to see why it makes me annoying? I play devils advocate and that makes me a bad person or not fun to play around? I play with RAW yes, as its the only bloody thing I can do. I apply RAI with friends (hardly play tourneys) if something confusing arises and it isent mentioned in any FAQ. In a tournament thats probably not a solution for people so I think its a good thing that we try to anwser the OP's question.

 

I think 99.999999% of the people will know what the authors mean. But if options are clearly stated and you deviate from those options your making an illegal combo. If people are taking illegal combinations theyre breaking the rules. (I very much doubt youd agree to play a carnifex with both crushing claws AND two sets of scything talons, would you?) The whole point here (again) is that its unclear and thus were trying to figure out what to make of it...

See, the thing is, the picture removes the ambiguity for me.  If i was wondering which way they meant the rule, and then flip through the pictures and see how they have armed the one assault sergeant in the book it would make it pretty clear how the rule should be interpreted.  Anyone saying it's unclear can simply be shown the picture to clear up any confusion.  Again, the book is four years old.  If this was an actual issue at tournaments then it would have been brought and discussed repeatedly already and you would have a bunch of links in this thread to those older threads.  I fail to see why anyone would have any uncertainty with this.

[Demoulius]

I agree with you. Fact that it hasent been brought it up is probably because noone noticed. Heck I use assault marines in every list I play and I dident notice. I read the "sarge can replace x and/or y" so many times i just assumed it was like that for each sergeant. And tbh its kinda silly that it would be different just for ONE sergeant.

 

Its an old book that was filled with typos and confusing sentances when it was released. And since GW doesent edit their books, just releases FAQ's to solve these issues means its all still in there.