Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Okay then.. here we go..

1: Do Khorne Berserkers start with the 'Feel No Pain' skill? If I'm reading it correctly, the two points cost are listed for IC and Aspiring Champions, and it says nothing about the troops. Hell, Feel No Pain are practically what Berserkers are known for..

2: How do you get the free Aspiring Champion when your unit becames Favoured? I mean, what little rules are there. Do you have to be a pure (say) Khorne army to benefit from Favoured. My current army list has 8 Berserkers in a unit, with a Khorne Lord but with unmarked troops aswell; do I still get the free Aspiring Champion? Or do I need to dedicate those other troops to beneift from it? Or, worse still, do I need to be a World Eaters legion just to benefit from it?

3: In a battle not so long ago, a friend of mine claimed that his Necron Scarab Swarms count as not only Jetbikes, but also Skimmers, and require 6's to hit in shooting and close combat. I thought it sounded a bit dodgy, but wasnt sure, as I'm not familiar with the 'Cron rules, and decided not to argue. Was he sh*ttin' me?

4: This is just a general question that always seems to get me; you're allowed 3 One-handed Weapons, or a Two-handed Weapon and a One-handed Weapon.. right?

 

Thanks in advance..

 

[Edit] Thought of another..

 

5: Berserker Glaive doubles the attacks of a profile. But, you need the Mark of Khorne to use it, which gives +1 attack. I think I already know the answer (just checking if I can milk some more attacks out), but., you double the attacks, then add one, dont you? Not the other way around.. (Say, the Lord has 3 base, double it then add one, making 7, rather than 8 if it was the other way)

1) Berserkers do not get the skill. Its only available to models that can take Khornate gifts. (ie, Khorn ICs and Aspiring Champs)

2) The number of models in the unit must equal the favored number depending on the God. Tzzentch 9, Khorn 8, Nurgle 7, Slanneesh 6. So if your doing Khorn, your squad has to be 8 strong or a multiple of it (ie, 16, 24). You may then make one model in it an Aspiring Champion for free. Note this is only the cost of the upgrade to AC, not all of his gear, gifts, skills, etc. (as per CSM codex page 38,48, 52, 56, and 61) Note that this only applies in World Eaters, Death Guard, Emperor's Children. and Thousand Sons armies. Also, some of those have bonuses other than free AC and some do not give a free AC. You have to read each one for their specific bonuses.

3)Scarabs are infantry but follow the rules for jetbikes for movement only. They are not vehicles and so are not skimmers. Skimmers and jetbikes are two different animals. (as per the BBB page 264)

4)Your allowed 2 weapons. Only one can be two handed. (as per codex usualy at the beginning of the armory where it explains the limits).

5)It doubles the "basic" number of attacks which means before bonuses, so you would double your attacks then add 1 for Mark of Khorne. Thats pretty much standard in all lists unless the specific rule states otherwise (nids biomorphs are only one I can think of off hand that actually change the base profile).

There is no general limit to the number of weapons a model can have. In the past, there was a limit in all of the codices that a model could only have two single-handed or one single and one two-handed weapon but that has not been the case in the current codices with units such as Space Marine Chaplains, Eldar Autarchs and Dark Angel Interrogator-Chaplains.

Posted By Ghaz on 03/11/2007 12:14 PM

4)Your allowed 2 weapons. Only one can be two handed. (as per codex usualy at the beginning of the armory where it explains the limits).

There is no general limit to the number of weapons a model can have. In the past, there was a limit in all of the codices that a model could only have two single-handed or one single and one two-handed weapon but that has not been the case in the current codices with units such as Space Marine Chaplains, Eldar Autarchs and Dark Angel Interrogator-Chaplains.

Correct. There is no general limit, there is a specific limit, as detailed in the Armory section of the codexes. And as how he was asking about Chaos specificaly, it says so in the CSM codex.

As far as the new DA and Eldar codex, I don't know what to tell you except that I will lay money on it that it will be FAQ'ed. Comes with their little experiment with the new codex layout which I will also lay money on will go the way of the Dodo. They tried to re-invent the wheel with the new format. It clearly was an oversight, one of many.

I think the new codex format is here to stay.

also would like to know where it says you can only take advantage of the favored number in those armies??? By the way all the marks get the champion for free except undivided they get to reroll ld tests. Favored demon units can add plus one to there summoning roll.

Posted By 5thelement on 03/11/2007 1:43 PM
also would like to know where it says you can only take advantage of the favored number in those armies???

It doesn't specifically state that they can only be applied to Cult armies... however the Favoured bonuses are only listed under the various Cult army rules, as a part of the rules for playing that army.

Favoured simply doesn't do anything for other army lists.

No, there is not a specific limit in all of the Armories. There is no limit listed in Codex Space Marines, Codex Eldar or Codex Dark Angels.

Posted By Ghaz on 03/11/2007 4:27 PM

Correct. There is no general limit, there is a specific limit, as detailed in the Armory section of the codexes.

No, there is not a specific limit in all of the Armories. There is no limit listed in Codex Space Marines, Codex Eldar or Codex Dark Angels.

I already said there wasn't in the DA or Eldar but you need to re-read the Codex Space Marines armory page. As to the DA and Eldar thats how many codexs out of how many? Exactly.

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/11/2007 4:49 PM
I already said there wasn't in the DA or Eldar but you need to re-read the Codex Space Marines armory page.

You might want to do the same.

The Marine Armoury doesn't limit how many weapons a model may carry... just how many they may select from the Armoury.

I stand by my statements. There is not a specific limit in all of the codices whereas you said a limit could be found "... in the Armory section of the codexes..."

Posted By insaniak on 03/11/2007 5:16 PM

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/11/2007 4:49 PM
I already said there wasn't in the DA or Eldar but you need to re-read the Codex Space Marines armory page.

You might want to do the same.

The Marine Armoury doesn't limit how many weapons a model may carry... just how many they may select from the Armoury.

So you would probably be referring to the Crozius example right? Ohh yeah, about that. Isn't the Crozius listed in the armory? And so is Force Weapons. And every other free weapon ICs can take. So the very first sentence still restricts you to two weapons from the armory so you can choose the free weapon or a something else, but are still limited to the restrictions in the first sentence. :|

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/11/2007 6:56 PM
So you would probably be referring to the Crozius example right?

Er... no. I'm referring to the Armoury, which restricts the number of weapons a model can select, rather than the number they can carry.

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/11/2007 6:56 PM
 Isn't the Crozius listed in the armory?

No.

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/11/2007 6:56 PM
 And so is Force Weapons.

No they're not.

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/11/2007 6:56 PM
And every other free weapon ICs can take. :|

... and...?

ICs aren't the only models that select from the armoury...

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/11/2007 6:56 PM
So the very first sentence still restricts you to two weapons from the armory so you can choose the free weapon or a something else, but are still limited to the restrictions in the first sentence. :|

Pardon?

Posted By insaniak on 03/11/2007 5:16 PM

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/11/2007 4:49 PM
I already said there wasn't in the DA or Eldar but you need to re-read the Codex Space Marines armory page.

You might want to do the same.

The Marine Armoury doesn't limit how many weapons a model may carry... just how many they may select from the Armoury.

I am being dense or missing the point? I have reread the thread and am not quite understanding. The first line of the SM codex armory says :

"Models with access to the armory may select upto two weapons".

So, they can select one or two but not three. How is that not a limit?

Admittedly we can go down the track of does a veteran sargeant replace his bolter or is it in addition to his bolter etc, so you could argue in some cases the maximum is 4. This argument could easily apply to the chaplin. He comes with a bolt pistol and croxius - I know it third it was a replacement but I cannot see that in the 4th (unless some-one can quote me a page)

So I would say (unless I am wrong about the "replacing" bit) that the SM armory does limit the number you can carry and that is 4.

Posted By fullheadofhair on 03/11/2007 8:32 PM
So, they can select one or two but not three. How is that not a limit?

Of course it's a limit.

But it's a limit to the number of weapons the model can select from the Armoury, not the number of weapons the model can carry.

Posted By fullheadofhair on 03/11/2007 8:32 PM
So I would say (unless I am wrong about the "replacing" bit) that the SM armory does limit the number you can carry and that is 4.

No it doesn't. The weapons that come from the army list entry have nothing whatsoever to do with the Armoury.

Yes, the model is limited by a combination of the number of weapons they start with, and the number they can select from the Armoury... but there is no actual defined limit  imposed by the rules as to the number of weapons the model can carry. He is simply limited by the number of weapons he has access to.

(On a side-note, Chaplains don't come with a bolt pistol in the Marine codex...)

Allow me to break it down for you guys that are missing it.

1)The restrictions are stated in the first sentence on page 22 of the SM codex, for that codex.

2)The Chaplain gets a free Crozius.

3)Wait a sec. Page 22 doesn't it listed! Oh Noes! All is lost.

4)Wait. Whats this? It says wargear is part of the armory. Huh? Now it has the Crozius is listed on page 23 under wargear.

5)So your limited to 2 choices from the armory, one of which has just been defined as a Crozius. The fact that the Chaplain gets it free is irrelevant.

Sorry, but you're still wrong because the Crozius was never selected from the Armoury. It came with the Chaplain.

Posted By Ghaz on 03/12/2007 8:29 AM
Sorry, but you're still wrong because the Crozius was never selected from the Armoury. It came with the Chaplain.

Oh the semantics game again. Ok. I'll play your silly game. You can either choose the one that came free, or you can choose another one you have to pay for. :|  again.

You don't get the choice to not select it, or to select it. No choice, therefore it isn't a choice.

now, it is a choice as to which one to use; however, that is a completely separate choice.

Posted By Antonin on 03/12/2007 11:26 AM
You don't get the choice to not select it, or to select it. No choice, therefore it isn't a choice.

now, it is a choice as to which one to use; however, that is a completely separate choice.

By definition, if one item is a choice, then other option (to use the default item) is also a choice. You simply selected the default equipment.

AM, check out the stickied thread at the top about how to have a rules debate. It largely explains why you seem to be in conflict with some people widely recognized as experts on this rules system. In your most recent arguments, you are inventing language to support your argument instead of using the words printed in the appropriate books. This simply undermines your point.

Posted By Slyde on 03/12/2007 2:06 PM
AM, check out the stickied thread at the top about how to have a rules debate. It largely explains why you seem to be in conflict with some people widely recognized as experts on this rules system. In your most recent arguments, you are inventing language to support your argument instead of using the words printed in the appropriate books. This simply undermines your point.

Actually I have read it. And if you guys read your codexes you would see what I posted is printed word for word in all the Codexes except for the new Dark Angels and apparently (can't confirm because I don't have a copy) the new Eldar. That leaves all the rest with it in it. Omissions from two codexes, especially when they changed the format and may not of thought of everything, do not set a precident when the majority have it otherwise. You want to call it a special rule for those codexes, thats fine. It still doesn't change it for every other codex in the game.

Also, rules expert wouldn't be a term I would just throw around. Your so called "rules experts" apparently have problems with reading comprehension. I'm not trying to flame anyone, just pointing out how ridiculous a claim that would be when you simply decline to accept whats written in black and white and instead try to insert your own meaning through a twisted interpretation or the infamous "if it doesn't say I can't do it, then I can" mentality. By the way, if you had read that "how to have a intelligent rules debate" you would note that both those points I just mentioned are in there more or less.

Just to make a point, I have played this game in Texas, Michigan, Korea, and Germany all with people from all different walks of life. I have yet to see anyone come up with some of the wild interpretations I see in these forums half the time. You point it out in black in white with a simple interpretation and people will say things like "well, that depends on what your interpretation of "is" is". I mean, come on. Its not really that hard guys. I stick by my stanard "if it reads fine on a casual reading then it requires no further interpretation". Problems arise, when you start to see obvious errors, omissions, or try to take ridiculous interpretations that go against the theme/standard/common sense being used to claim its the rule of thumb. Thats why people run into problems playing, thats why people get docked sportsmanship at GTs. Its not about winning, its about having fun. Sure we all like to win, but thats not what its all about. Overcompetiveness is what breeds this sort of "let me get a magnifying glass and find a loophole" mentality. Its quite shameful really.

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/12/2007 2:58 PM
Actually I have read it. And if you guys read your codexes you would see what I posted is printed word for word in all the Codexes

Given that you haven't actually posted any quotes, which part is 'word for word'?

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/12/2007 2:58 PM
Your so called "rules experts" apparently have problems with reading comprehension.

Wait a second, who is it again who is trying to claim that the Crozius is selected from the Armoury when it comes standard with the Chaplain and doesn't even appear on the Armoury page...?

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/12/2007 2:58 PM
 just pointing out how ridiculous a claim that would be when you simply decline to accept whats written in black and white and instead try to insert your own meaning

Indeed...

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/12/2007 2:58 PM
 through a twisted interpretation or the infamous "if it doesn't say I can't do it, then I can" mentality.

Ok, maybe my reading comrehension is lacking after all... because I don't recall seeing this argument used at all in this thread.

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/12/2007 2:58 PM
 I have yet to see anyone come up with some of the wild interpretations I see in these forums half the time.

We get this sort of comment quie a lot from people who have missed the point of the YMTC forum.

We discuss what the rules actually say, in order to understand, well, what the rules actually say. Sometimes, this differs from what people generally assume the rules to mean, or the way the game is actually played.

The aim is to promote a better understanding of what the rules actually say, which allows people to better judge how they would prefer to play. In that rare circumstance when your opponent does say 'Hey, you can't do that, because the rules say...' you already have all of the answers.


That, and we just like arguing. So long as the arguments make some sort of sense.

Angelus Mortis, could you break your argument down into two or more premises and a conclusion?

I like what Angelus has to say. But Angelus remember these guys are here to show you what a real prick in tournamnet play will turn up with, Or even a very big jerk of a player. we go over things here and really dont get mad (ok we do) because thats the point. we want to cut this stuff down to a minimum when we hit the tables. Thats why we are here. Im fairly new also, but ill tell you what ive gotten some wonderful answers from these guys that are right. Usually when my "buddies" are trying to pull a fast one with an unfamiliar codex it all comes out in the wash here.
I have rules issues as well, but thats usually because ive played through 4 versions of them. So look from there point of view and use facts all the time and you will rock. Later.

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/12/2007 10:43 AM

Posted By Ghaz on 03/12/2007 8:29 AM
Sorry, but you're still wrong because the Crozius was never selected from the Armoury. It came with the Chaplain.

Oh the semantics game again. Ok. I'll play your silly game. You can either choose the one that came free, or you can choose another one you have to pay for. :|  again.

I'm not the one who's playing the 'silly semantics game'.  That's you.  The crozius was never 'chosen' from the armoury.  It came with the Chaplain.  Therefore it once again does not count against the number of weapons that mey be selected from the armoury.

Posted By insaniak on 03/12/2007 3:51 PM

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/12/2007 2:58 PM
Actually I have read it. And if you guys read your codexes you would see what I posted is printed word for word in all the Codexes

Given that you haven't actually posted any quotes, which part is 'word for word'?

"4)Your allowed 2 weapons. Only one can be two handed. (as per codex usualy at the beginning of the armory where it explains the limits)."

Quoted from the second post in the thread (mine, btw) which is paraphrased right out of the Space Marine codex. The very first line(minus the title "armory"   )on page 22. If you would prefer a direct quote since you think my paraphrasing is inaccurate, then here you go.

"Models with access to the Armoury may select up to two weapons of which only one can be a two-handed weapon."

Then, if you pan down the page you will see a section of the armory listed called "wargear". Next, look on the very next page (page 23), middle collumn, second item from the bottom. It says "Crozius Arcanum". So it appears the Crozius is listed in the Armory. The fact that its not listed on page 22 or that its listed as being free and the default item on the Chaplain is completely irrelevant, as is the physical/mental action of making a choice. There is no such thing as only having one choice. The definition of choice requires two options (minimum), regardless of wether ones default or not. You select to go with default or with another choice. It is still a choice.

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/13/2007 5:04 AM
"4)Your allowed 2 weapons. Only one can be two handed.

"Models with access to the Armoury may select up to two weapons of which only one can be a two-handed weapon."

So you honestly don't see that those two statement say completely different things?

The actual line in the codex does not impose a restriction on all Space Marine models.

It limits the number of weapons that models with Armoury Access can select from the Armoury.

That's all.

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/13/2007 5:04 AM
Next, look on the very next page (page 23),

You mean the page after the Armoury...?

Which is beside the point anyway. It makes no difference whether or not the Crozius is included in the Armoury (and I notice you have focussed on the Crozius, and ignored the Force Weapon after that first mention. Is that perhaps because you noticed that its rules entry in fact isn't included in the Marine Codex?)...

You don't select a Crozius. You select a Chaplain, who comes with a Crozius as standard, and has access to the Armoury. As a model with access to the Armoury, he can select up to two weapons from it... which leaves him with a possible total of three weapons.

Posted By insaniak on 03/13/2007 6:21 AM

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/13/2007 5:04 AM
"4)Your allowed 2 weapons. Only one can be two handed.

"Models with access to the Armoury may select up to two weapons of which only one can be a two-handed weapon."

So you honestly don't see that those two statement say completely different things?

The actual line in the codex does not impose a restriction on all Space Marine models.

It limits the number of weapons that models with Armoury Access can select from the Armoury.

That's all.

You know exactly what I was saying with it paraphrased. Lets not get childish with the "you didnt exactly say that" garbage.

That would be correct. The one titled wargear which is listed in the armory. Are you going to try and say that wargear is not part of the armory now?

Its besides the point if you want to cherry pick your rules and ignore that fact that the rule is in there. It shows its a choice from the armory. You are allowed 2 weapons from it. :|  

Yes I did. Its obvious that the lack of the Force Weapon from that page is an omission. I will cede that fact since we don't have a new priniting as of yet. I'm willing to bet that gets corrected in the next printing. Care to explain why the Crozius got an entry but the Force Weapon with its more complex rules was omitted? Let me guess... its not wargear right? :(

Thats my point. When you chose to take a Chaplain, you then decide what wargear you want to take on him. You have several choices.  Take the default or take one of the options listed for the points listed. The fact that you did not conciously make a choice is irrelevant. You made the default choice. Its still a choice.

That's easy. The crozius is included so that you know it is treated as a power weapon. The rules for power weapons and force weapons are included in the main rulebook, not the codex. If librarian's force weapons were called "soulrippers" they would need an entry in the codex stating that they are treated as force weapons.

You continue to oversimplify rules, argue as if you know the designer's intent, and make faulty leaps of logic.

What is relevant is the crozius was not and has never been chosen from the armoury. You're grasping at straws. A Space Marine Chaplain can legally have up to three weapons.