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.

As per page 99 of the 2007 Chaos Codex "Up to 2 Raptors may replace their pistol with a plasma pistol for x pts per model, or take one of the following: Plasma Gun for x...." and so on. The way the entry is worded it seems as though a raptor does not replace his BP and CCW with a special weapon but instead gains it as a third weapon. Is this correct, do rators with special weapons retain their CCW+BP?

Yes, they add the special weapon.

Cheers for the swift response, looks like my Raptors will be getting meltas to back them up

yup! great, ain't it?

while we're at it, bikes get two attacks too, since they are armed with BP/CCW. Note they actually _do_ lose their close combat weapon if they take a special weapon, for whatever reason.

Don't you guys know, if you walk on your own two legs out of the eye of terror you get a free Bag of Holding at the door!

Bikers, no bag for joo!

Yep, any of the last few codexes have new rules as to how many weapons they may and can have.

I think the first codex to be configured this way was the tyrranid one but may be mistaken.

Codexes like chaos, orks, eldar... all lack an "armoury" and all their options are listed in the unit entry, in such codexes replace meens just that and if it does not say that you replace a weapon then you have that weapon in addition to any other weapons.

A point however, the raptor entry may meen you may replace the bolt pistol with plasma pistols or replace the pilstol with one of the following.
I am not sure, there is a "," that confuses things for me, not being a native english speaker I will let others disect the exact meening of it.

"Up to 2 Raptors may replace their pistol with a plasma pistol for x pts per model, or take one of the following: Plasma Gun for x...."

I would have to say that this is saying that you can replace their bolt pistol with plasma pistol or plasma gun or melta gun or flamer.

so, basically you have the option of a ccw and bp, or ccw and pp, or ccw and pg, or ccw and mg, or ccw and fl. I know everyone likes to argue either or, but in this case it's pretty clear.

Rubbish, tht. It is pretty clear, but in the opposite direction. If I give you a doughnut and tell you, "You can exchange your doughnut for this bagel, or take a muffin from this plate," do you need to give me back the doughnut if you take the muffin?

yeah...
so if i don't want the bagel, I can have the Doughnut and the muffin...Aweome!
Panic
yeah...

YMDC should not make me hungry...

two_heads_talking is correct. The Chaos Raptors entry is just like all the other entries in the Chaos Marine codex: you are replacing something (Bolt Pistol or Bolter) with something else (Plasma Pistol, Plasma Gun, Melta Gun, or Flamethrower).

That is a claim, not an argument.

Yes, yes it is.

two_heads_talking wrote:"Up to 2 Raptors may replace their pistol with a plasma pistol for x pts per model, or take one of the following: Plasma Gun for x...."

I would have to say that this is saying that you can replace their bolt pistol with plasma pistol or plasma gun or melta gun or flamer.

so, basically you have the option of a ccw and bp, or ccw and pp, or ccw and pg, or ccw and mg, or ccw and fl. I know everyone likes to argue either or, but in this case it's pretty clear.

no.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Rubbish, tht. It is pretty clear, but in the opposite direction. If I give you a doughnut and tell you, "You can exchange your doughnut for this bagel, or take a muffin from this plate," do you need to give me back the doughnut if you take the muffin?

yes.

Nurglitch wrote:two_heads_talking is correct. The Chaos Raptors entry is just like all the other entries in the Chaos Marine codex: you are replacing something (Bolt Pistol or Bolter) with something else (Plasma Pistol, Plasma Gun, Melta Gun, or Flamethrower).

no.

It is what it is, and if it isn't it's a FAQ issue. But as it stands it says what it says.

Raptors and Assault squads should never lose their two attacks anyway. It's what they do.

Don't like the take three weapon argument as it doesn't treat the sentence correctly. I would lean to PG replaces BP/CCW.

However, If you are maintaining that PG can be taken in addition I would suggest there is a grammar error. To me it reads it is replace with option A or option B. In other words:

Up to 2 Raptors may replace their pistol with a plasma pistol for x pts per model, or take one of the following: Plasma Gun for x...."

EQUALS

Upto 2 Raptors may replace BP with a plasma pistol or plasma gun.

In other words, Three options 1) BP/CCW 2) PP/CCW 3) PG/CCW.

Note, I still believe it is either BP (PP)/CCW or PG. But if you are going to argue different I don't agree with the three weapon premise.

Tacobake wrote:
Raptors and Assault squads should never lose their two attacks anyway. It's what they do.

Disagree with this. Yes they should if they take a weapon combo that doesn't allow this.

fullheadofhair wrote:

Tacobake wrote:
Raptors and Assault squads should never lose their two attacks anyway. It's what they do.

Disagree with this. Yes they should if they take a weapon combo that doesn't allow this.

I meant from a design perspective, just a general comment. Not from a RAI or RAW perspective.

I find it personally irratating in Space Marine Assault squads that you have to lose an attack to take a special. It dilutes the cool factor of the assault squad.

Tacobake wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:

Tacobake wrote:
Raptors and Assault squads should never lose their two attacks anyway. It's what they do.

Disagree with this. Yes they should if they take a weapon combo that doesn't allow this.

I meant from a design perspective, just a general comment. Not from a RAI or RAW perspective.

I find it personally irratating in Space Marine Assault squads that you have to lose an attack to take a special. It dilutes the cool factor of the assault squad.

ahhh totally agree with this. A clout over the head with a plasma gun and a boot in the crotch counts as two attacks to me and is always guarenteed to cause minor swelling.

fullheadofhair wrote:

Tacobake wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:

Tacobake wrote:
Raptors and Assault squads should never lose their two attacks anyway. It's what they do.

Disagree with this. Yes they should if they take a weapon combo that doesn't allow this.

I meant from a design perspective, just a general comment. Not from a RAI or RAW perspective.

I find it personally irratating in Space Marine Assault squads that you have to lose an attack to take a special. It dilutes the cool factor of the assault squad.

ahhh totally agree with this. A clout over the head with a plasma gun and a boot in the crotch counts as two attacks to me and is always guarenteed to cause minor swelling.

well said! lol

Unless, of course, you fired the Plasma Gun during the Shooting phase. In which case you can't assault at all.

Face it, losing the Pistol effect of the Bolt Pistol if you upgrade to the Plasma Gun instead of a Plasma Pistol is why these two options cost the same amount of points.

You guys are just making assertion after assertion. Let's see some arguments, people. Granted, Nurglitch, what you said is an argument--my mistake--but it is a worthless one, as all it says is

1) The Raptor options are like all the other options.
2) All the other options replace the BP.
C) The Raptor options replace the BP.

You have not given any evidence that 2 is true.

As for why the plasma pistol and plasma gun cost the same, did you ever consider that you can fire the pistol and the charge, but can't do that with the gun? Come on, you point out the latter fact yourself. I don't find it at all implausible that GW should consider being able to charge after firing as valuable as the one extra shot (because face it, the 24" shot will hardly ever get used).

Correction, I am simply making assertion after assertion, just like you and the others who would merely deny the truth of #2 in your syllogism rather than make an argument in favour of that denial. Since no argument is yet forth-coming about why it is that we should read the sentence to mean that only the Plasma Pistol replaces the Bolt Pistol and all the other options are simply added to that Bolt Pistol, I see no need to return a courtesy I am not offered at the outset.

And yes, I did indeed mention that you can fire the Plasma Pistol and then charge, unlike when the Plasma Gun is fired. That's the mysterious "Pistol effect" that I mentioned. You know, being able to attack in the Shooting phase before charging, as well as adding a bonus attack in the ensuing assault.

Indeed, given this Pistol effect I find it more plausible that GW should consider being able to charge and gaining +1 Attack in the ensuing close combat to be the equal of not being able to charge and gaining +1 Shot during the Shooting Phase. The attack gained in close combat is not the equal of that gained in shooting, the shooting attack has a +3 Strength advantage and ignores armour saves.

Nurglitch, when one proposes a syllogism, the burden of proof is on the proposer to demonstrate the truth of his premises, else I could post hundreds of ludicrous arguments for why my interpretation is correct and claim victory until such a time as you demonstrate that each one contains a false premise.

Of course, if I did actually post hundreds of arguments and claim that I'm in the right until you demonstrate the falsity of each, I would probably be labeled a crank and ignored. Care to guess what the lesson is here, Nurglitch?

And yes, of course one attack gained in close combat is not the equal of one more plasma shot, but I'm willing to bet that all the squad's CC attacks are. Really, the choice is

1) Fire your plasma gun. Gain one shot. No one can charge.

2) Fire your plasma pistol. Lose one shot. Everyone can charge.

You're saying that if all else were equal (i.e. you get the 2 CCW bonus in either case), 1 would be superior to 2? On Raptors? Are you serious?

Tacobake, is that your honest answer? I have to admit I'm surprised. Would it change if the clause read, "You can take a muffin from this plate or exchange your doughnut for this bagel"? If so, why?

Crikey. Been a while since I have seen such a good thread.

I'll exchange my Doughnut for a Bagel, thanks.

That's my interp of the rules.

Can't carry 3 weapons.

That's just silly.

Meltagun: 2-handed
BP: 1-handed
CCW: 1-handed

Bolter: 2-handed
BP: 1-handed
CCW: 1-handed

Do Raptors have fewer pockets than normal CSMs?

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Tacobake, is that your honest answer? I have to admit I'm surprised. Would it change if the clause read, "You can take a muffin from this plate or exchange your doughnut for this bagel"? If so, why?

Is what my honest answer?


I think Nurglitch is back to being confused of the difference between RAI and RAW, a habit I had thought we had broken him of. You can't say that Raptor meltaguns replace Raptor bolt pistols because infantry meltaguns replace infantry bolters. Heck, you can't even say it because Raptor Plasma Pistols replace Raptor Bolt Pistols.

The RAI argument works both ways. You can say via RAI they are supposed to switch out their bolt pistol because all the other squads do it, and you can say they are NOT supposed to because they are an assault squad.

Which is why noone cares about RAI. Game designers don't even care about RAI. And if they do care (like say Privateer Press), then they release errata.

I'm having a hard time understanding the confusion. The rules seem pretty clear. Two raptors may:

A. REPLACE their BP with a PP

OR

B. TAKE a Special Weapon

In the latter choice, there is no replacement, and thus you would have 3 weapons. That's the RAW.

If they all were meant to replace the BP, the rules would have simply said: Up to two Raptors may replace their BP with a PP for xx points, a PG for xx points, a melta gun for xx points, or a flamer for xx points. But they are separated, and one says "replace" while the rest say "take."

And even from a RAI perspective it makes sense that the Plasma gun doesn't cost any more than the pistol even though it's a superior gun because firing it costs the unit the chance to assault, which is one of the major strengths of the unit.

Totally agreed. The word "take" makes the option completely clear. You don't replace a bolt pistol when you take a Meltagun.

I agree with the 3 weapon group.

And actually, the premise in the rest of the army is to allow people to have all three weapons, EVEN if you upgrade.

Noisemarines have bp/ccw and bolters, and may upgrade the bolters to sonic blasters or a blastmaster - every model still has bp/ccw in addition. Same with CSMs and havocs who buy special or heavy weapons.

The thing with the raptors is that they just didn't start with bolters, they started with bp/ccw and that's it. So, when it came to special weapons, they allowed them to tack it on in addition to their bp/ccw, as there was no bolter to replace.

And the wording reflects that anyway, undeniably. Sorry if you think it SHOULD replace their pistols, but that's not what it says they do.

But hey if we're gonna do RAI, I'm gonna say GW of course intended the new daemon codex to be used with CSM, and combine the two - regardless of what the rules say

Here's a cut and paste from the last thread that popped up in the Tactics subforum regarding this very issue:

tomguycot wrote:Actually, if you look at the Raptor listing closely you will notice that Raptors do not have bolters and under the option for the meltagun it says, and I quote: "Up to two Raptors may replace their pistol with a plasma pistol for 15 pts per model, or take one of the following: ...meltagun for 10 pts per model..."

The operative word there is "take". They do not replace anything to get the meltagun (they have no two handed weapon so they don't need to replace anything). Therefore they still get their +1 attack bonus in hand to hand. You can have your cake and eat it!

Edit: And to clarify if you look under the listing for regular Chaos Marines you will notice that they "replace" their bolter in order to get their meltagun. This makes me quite positive that the wording of take instead of replace in the raptor listing is quite intentional and not just sloppy wording on GW's part.

So I don't see why regular Chaos marines would still get two attacks when armed with a special weapon and raptors wouldn't?