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.

I've recently come across a few posts in which people pointed out that members of an IG command squad who carry special weapons are technically able to carry a laspistol and close combat weapon for free, since these are each one-handed weapons and the switch from lasgun to this combination is a free option for them. With this in mind, I'm planning to model many of my special weapon carriers this way (especially flamerthrower troops), but this realization also made me wonder. . .

Does this trick (or something similar) work for any other kinds of guardsmen? I'd like to model them properly if so.

Here are my thoughts so far:
- I believe (if I remember the entry right - I'll check the codex when I can) that Hardened Veterans have essentially the same free options, so their special weapon carriers should work the same way.
- This should not be possible for special weapon carriers in line squads unless they're using the "warrior weapons" doctrine, in which case they call all do this.
- If a special weapon carrier has a laspistol, I assume he can choose to fire it as a ranged weapon instead of his special weapon (although I don't see a use for this).

Here are the questions I've come up with:
1. Is there any way to do this with any kind of heavy weapon crewman? This would be nice, as it would let them move and still shoot something, but I seem to remember them having to exchange their standard gear for the heavy weapon, so I'm guessing the answer is no.
2. Is there any way a non-character guardsman can keep a lasrifle in addition to a special or heavy weapon? (I'm guessing that the answer is no, as these are probably both considered "two handed".)
3. Am I missing any types of guardsmen who have options like this? (Something outside of command squad/hardened veterans/warrior weapons)

Quidlon wrote:I've recently come across a few posts in which people pointed out that members of an IG command squad who carry special weapons are technically able to carry a laspistol and close combat weapon for free, since these are each one-handed weapons and the switch from lasgun to this combination is a free option for them.

Actually the legality of this is somewhat nebulous, as the rules for special weapons say that they may be 'armed' with them without indicating if it's 'in additon to' or 'instead of'.

I'm sorry, perhaps the 5th edition rulebook doesn't specify this (I'm pretty sure I've read it in the previous editions....) but can't models only be armed with "three hands?" i.e.; three single handed weapons (pistols, swords, and the like), or one two handed weapon and a single handed weapon. If so, then sure, go on and carry a special weapon and a pistol or chainsword for a side arm, but you don't gain an attack bonus because now you've only got one CCW/Pistol, and not the requisite other to acquire the stat boost. However, the codex doesn't say "CCW and/or Pistol" as far as you have notified, so then you have sort of hit a brick wall in that now you can't arm the poor bugger with a two handed weapon anymore...

This is, of course, all moot if 5th edition does not limit the number of weapons your character can carry.

I don't recall there being any rule like that in either the 4th of 5th edition rulebooks. It might've existed in individual codices, but CSM for example, certainly didn't adhere to a restriction like that.

The restriction on the number of weapons a model could have was allways in an individual codex's wargear section.

The Imperial Guard codex does have a restriction in the wargear section like this, but it specifically references "Imperial Guard characters" so by RAW you could claim it doesn't apply to a special weapons trooper.

I've allways played that those squad based wargear options are a replacement for the standard equipment unless it clearly says otherwhise, I'm pretty sure most people play it this way too which is why GW don't explicitly state it.

If popular opinion is to the contrary I would love to hear it though, cause I sure wouldn't mind being able to give my Incubi blasters and keep their punishers.

Most rulings state that the model replaces something with something. If this is not in the section for upgrades, then they keep all original equipment.

Except once again, you have no proof that they keep all of their original equipment.

im thinking it would have to say "in addition" when adding weapons, rather than a model running about carrying twice his own weight in weapons.

Although not saying "replaces" begs the same response.

Ah, but hopefully soon we will have a better worded codex. (crosses all fingers & toes).

Unless it says replaces or something similar I see no reason why the model should not retain it's original equipment.

Else every squad that took any form of grenades would be weapon-less (except for the grenades).

Ghaz wrote:Except once again, you have no proof that they keep all of their original equipment.

I'm going to have to call you on this one, Ghaz. This is obviously an example of broken logic. If it makes no inference that the equipment is replaced, then their is no inference that they do not have their original equipment. No proff is needed. Typical line of thought would infer that by purchasing a weapon would replace their original weapon, however it is not explicitely stated that their original equipment is lost, so it is logically retained.

I know many old school players ("1st" and 2nd edition players) who even keep their lasguns when they purchase their heavy weapons, and usitilize them when they move, as neither codex (current or the previous) dictate that their lasguns (or sometimes autoguns) are lost in the purchasing of their heavy weapons. I, too, have adopted this trend, though it rarely comes up and even more rarely gets questioned (what good does one more lasgun do anyhow?).

Drunkspleen wrote:The restriction on the number of weapons a model could have was allways in an individual codex's wargear section.
The Imperial Guard codex does have a restriction in the wargear section like this, but it specifically references "Imperial Guard characters" so by RAW you could claim it doesn't apply to a special weapons trooper.
I've allways played that those squad based wargear options are a replacement for the standard equipment unless it clearly says otherwhise, I'm pretty sure most people play it this way too which is why GW don't explicitly state it.
If popular opinion is to the contrary I would love to hear it though, cause I sure wouldn't mind being able to give my Incubi blasters and keep their punishers.

Oh dear, quite right, my mistake. I suppose this rule just got stowed away as universal, I have never had to prompt questions against it except when building my own units.... I suppose I had better investigate my options with my new Space Marine army now as well....

Webbe wrote:Unless it says replaces or something similar I see no reason why the model should not retain it's original equipment.

Except you've got no rules support for that situation. Just because you say so does not mean that it is.

Webbe wrote:Else every squad that took any form of grenades would be weapon-less (except for the grenades).

Apples and oranges. The rules say you are 'equipped' with grenades and not 'armed' with them. That's a very deliberate choice of wording on GW's part since it is consistent through multiple codices.

Ghaz wrote:

Webbe wrote:Unless it says replaces or something similar I see no reason why the model should not retain it's original equipment.

Except you've got no rules support for that situation. Just because you say so does not mean that it is.

Except that there is no support against it. The Imperial Guard codex does not actually say the weapons are replaced, just that the Guardsmen are armed with them (though is does vaguely, and indirectly, and/or confrontationally suggest otherwise, it is not RAW).

Actually, older codices like Dark Eldar, 3ed Eldar and 3.5 ed Chaos use the words "armed with" for grenades also.

So? It still does not support your arguments that when you take an option to be armed with a different weapon that you keep the original weapons that the model had.

Your argument isn't supported either.

InquisitorFabius wrote:Your argument isn't supported either.

Agreed. You can't simply state that original issue weapons are forfeight without any evidence. Although his arguement is that lack of proof proves the rule, Ghaz's agruement has no proof of even lack of proof! Such far, Ghaz's arguement simply is that being "armed" includes the idea that the original weapon is no longer available to the unit. However, there are multiple points in several codexes where "armed" is used to describe several weapons in succession, while not nullifying previous/alternative/original weapons, including frag grenades (as Webbe has suggested). Perhaps current codexes DO have different wording, Ghaz's previous statement that the wording is deliberate, is proven false (if Webbe's evidence is to be relied upon), as past examples exist where careful wording was not present, and without verification from the source, is simply coincidental in the most current codexes. If armed is to mean "replaced" then we all had better start reading our codexes very carefully to make sure that by being armed with frag/krak/melta/ect... grenades or carapace armor, or a power weapon, our characters do no lose their pistols or other weapons/equipment.

ok, theres nothing saying you can or you cant, look at other codices, all other ones make you replace a weapon, you dont have a marine with missile launcher and bolter.
how would a pissy little guard carry more than a marine? simple logic one would think.

and grenades are wargear, not weapons, the same as giving an ork a bosspole.

JD21290 wrote:ok, theres nothing saying you can or you cant, look at other codices, all other ones make you replace a weapon, you dont have a marine with missile launcher and bolter.
how would a pissy little guard carry more than a marine? simple logic one would think.

and grenades are wargear, not weapons, the same as giving an ork a bosspole.

As far as I know it's the same for marines as for guards, there is nothing that say replace original weaponry with heavy/special weapon.

Edit: Looking through the space marine codex (4ed) I also noted that if "armed with" meant replace then assault marines that take plasma pistols won't have any other weapons (thus losing an attack in close combat) and I'm pretty sure that's wrong.

As far as I know it's the same for marines as for guards, there is nothing that say replace original weaponry with heavy/special weapon.

not a marine player so i dont have the new dex, but old one was "replace"
maybe GW needs to save money, so they cut some printing out and save ink?

Special weapon squads 'replace' their weapons (p. 39). Would that be the proof you're looking for?

thank you george
dont have the IG dex, glad someone looked

George Spiggott wrote:Special weapon squads 'replace' their weapons (p. 39). Would that be the proof you're looking for?

This distinction is ONLY made for special weapons squads. It seems to be omitted (nay, exchanged for "armed") in all other listings. This includes (perhaps not limited to) command squads, infantry platoons, hardened veterans, conscripts, and armoured fist squads. In my opinion, this flies directly in the face of any "they wrote it this way once" arguements, and perhaps is actually proof of the contrary. Since they wrote it differently in one section, but alternatively in all other sections, suggests that perhaps a distinction is specifically being made.

In my opinion, the "three hands" rule utilized in the wargear section over-rides this confliction. However, a legitimate arguement can be made since the wording in the Armoury section states "Imperial Guard characters may have two weapons..." where typically "model" is used to denote a unit other than a "special character."

You could count Commissar Yarrick' s (p. 52) hands if you like, he has a Laspistol, Stormbolter and Battleclaw. Rough riders (p. 46) also use the 'replace' terminology. Fire support, Anti tank and Mortar squads (p. 38) are equipped (not armed) with heavy weapons. It seems to me that RAW are pretty clear here.

It's applied illogically but there is a clear distinction, 'armed' or 'equipped' means 'in addition'.

Check the wargear section. Powerfists (profile stipulates that the Powerclaw counts as a Powerfist) are Wargear and are not counted as a "hand," and a laspistol is one handed, stormbolter is two; still three hands. Rough riders DO replace their laspistol and close combat weapon with a hunting lance, but their special weapons are stilled "armed" to the model. As well as with Stormtroopers.

I would not say it is applied illogically. Pistols are light and easy to carry. Swords (and other close combat weapons) often come with a scabbard, sheath, or some method of attaching the weapon to a person (safely), so then carrying a rifle would not be too big of a deal. However lugging around a heavy weapon while also carrying a rifle would be a major burden, it is not impossible (as I have done so myself).

Skinnattittar wrote:Check the wargear section. Powerfists (profile stipulates that the Powerclaw counts as a Powerfist) are Wargear and are not counted as a "hand," and a laspistol is one handed, stormbolter is two; still three hands.

That was my intent, I'm not sure we're disagreeing.

Rough riders DO replace their laspistol and close combat weapon with a hunting lance

No they don't, they keep one of them, laspistol or close combat weapon, players choice. OT: I just noticed that the Rough Rider entry has one of those 'Nurglitch style' read the entry backwards parts concerning hunting lances and assault weapons.

I would not say it is applied illogically. Pistols are light and easy to carry. Swords (and other close combat weapons) often come with a scabbard, sheath, or some method of attaching the weapon to a person (safely), so then carrying a rifle would not be too big of a deal. However lugging around a heavy weapon while also carrying a rifle would be a major burden, it is not impossible (as I have done so myself).

Again we aren't disagreeing. There is precedent for Guardsmen carrying three weapons at the same time (Yarrick). 'Armed' and 'equipped' are applied illogically, they mean the same thing but are applied unevenly, rather than applying the same word in every instance.

To recap my point; unless the codex says replace then you keep your original weapon(s).

It seems we were not. Some points seemed unclear. However, Yarrick is not violating any rules in the codex, as he is only occupying "three hands." Besides that, we are in agreeance.

(And yes, you are right about the rough riders. My mistake.)

Skinnattittar wrote:Yarrick is not violating any rules in the codex, as he is only occupying "three hands."

I was under the impression that you believed he could only carry weapons in the two hands that he has (technically he only has one, he lost the other at Hades), as we know the rules do not prohibit this.

InquisitorFabius wrote:Your argument isn't supported either.

So my argument that it's not clear isn't supported? Right...

Skinnattittar wrote:Check the wargear section. Powerfists (profile stipulates that the Powerclaw counts as a Powerfist) are Wargear and are not counted as a "hand,"

I checked it, and it looks an awful lot to me like a powerfist is a 1 handed weapon, but a special character really has no bearing, they have X wargear no more no less and can break a few rules. because they are special.

If you could explain exactly where you are seeing powerfist as wargear that would help