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.

1) IG Heavy weapons teams.
Strictly according to the RAW, models carrying Heavy Weapons and Special Weapons also have Lasguns.
--(nearly all entries in the codex imply that the model is simply 'armed with' a Heavy/Special weapon; conversely the Special Weapon Squad entry specifies the lasgun is 'replaced', which would seem to reinforce the idea that normal heavy weapon teams do not 'replace' their lasguns.)
According to FAQ's however, it appears that if you purchase Special/Heavy weaps, you do not need to pay the points for Warrior Weapons on those models - this could be a faily significant points saving.
Thus, logically, those models are not equipped with lasguns. Odd, seems to go against all other implications, but that is what GW said.
I know i've posted this recently, but, What do you think was intended? to replace or not replace?


2) Rough Riders and Hunting Lances
The wording of the hunting lance upgrade implies that all models in the squad must swap either their CC weap or Laspistol for a hunting lance. (the squad may replace their CC weap with a hunting lance)
However the wording for the rest of the upgrades for the unit seems to imply that it is possible to have models without hunting lances (up to 2 models without hunting lances may have special weapons)
Should those be interpreted as 'if the squad does not have hunting lances, then 2 models may take special weapons' ?


3) IG Characters.
All IG characters are armed with Laspistol + CC weapon.
If I arm a character with a Plasma Pistol, does this replace their current weaponry? The Laspistol, the CC weapon, none or both?
There are a lot of IG Commander models armed with a Laspistol + Power Fist. This would seem to indicate that they may purchase a weapon and replace only one part of their old armament.
What then, is the point of the "Close Combat Weapon" for 1pt from the IG Armory? If they can keep their old CC weapon, every weapon combination is better than 2 CC weapons.

4) Similarly, Warrior Weapons
Is there any situation where 2 Close Combat weapons is superior to 1 CCW + 1 Pistol?

5) Are IG Battle Cannon large or small blast?
The BGB says 'All ordnance weapons are large blast unless otherwise noted' - does this overrride the Codex simply saying Ordnance 1/Blast (indicating small blast) ?

1) Allmost every codex that I know of other than codex guard means for you to replace weapons when it offers options, I'm not sure why guard players constantly come up with the idea that it's not a swap, I suppose something to do with the fact that the loader on a heavy weapon team keeps a las rifle. I'm pretty sure that the actual heavy weapon gunner is swapping his weapon though.

2)tough to say, could just be saying that you can only take those special weapons if you don't take the lances or could be that the lances are meant to be a model by model upgrade. But the way it's written looks like the whole unit gets them at once. I think your interpretation is correct

3)The close combat weapon and basic pistol for 1 point was standard fare in all the old armories, you can replace any gear with any other gear, but you are restricted to two weapons and no more than one two handed weapon. I would assume they are there for completeness, even if there are few situations where they are a good buy.

4)strictly speaking, it's superior when your unit is modelled with two close combat weapons and no pistols to make it a legal unit, other than that, no a pistol is always a close combat weapon and also has additional functionality, it will allways be a better choice.

5)Once again a strict reading would have all the ordnance weapons in the IG codex use the normal blast template, but logic dictates that this is not the intention, Just don't expect to be able to make a solid RAW argument for it.

"...does this overrride the Codex simply saying Ordnance 1/Blast (indicating small blast) ? "

Ordnance 1/Blast means 1 Ord. blast template, which is the large blast template.

No. It is not possible to have some models with Hunting Lances and some without, nor does the wording of the entry lead one to believe so. The wording is such that you can not take a special weapon if the squad is equipped with Hunting Lances.

The hunting lances are all or nothing. Which is why none of my RR have lances, as I prefer the melta/flamer/plasma option and meltabombs.

Ordnance blast is the big one.

Warrior weapons: Superior only if you don't want to soften them up before assaulting. Pistol + ccw at least lets you shoot on the way in, and you get the same number of attacks in assault as 2 ccw. Sometimes you want to kill them in their assault phase (so you can move afterwards).

5)Once again a strict reading would have all the ordnance weapons in the IG codex use the normal blast template, but logic dictates that this is not the intention, Just don't expect to be able to make a solid RAW argument for it.

unless of course you read pg 58 of the BGB:

Unless their profile specifies otherwise, all Ordinance Blast weapons use the large Blast Marer

I suppose you have a point, I was aware of that rule but I assumed that by using the phrase "blast" they refer to the normal blast template as is the case with frag missiles and plasma cannons etc.

I suppose my issue is with their choice to have a "normal blast marker" and "large blast marker" small and large with non ordnance blasts ruled defaulting to small would have been alot clearer.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:
unless of course you read pg 58 of the BGB:

Unless their profile specifies otherwise, all Ordinance Blast weapons use the large Blast Marer

It was that ruling that was getting to me: saying only 'Blast' on the weapon profile rather than 'large blast' could be taken to be specifying the small template. But I agree with you.

Drunkspleen wrote:
1) Allmost every codex that I know of other than codex guard means for you to replace weapons when it offers options, I'm not sure why guard players constantly come up with the idea that it's not a swap, I suppose something to do with the fact that the loader on a heavy weapon team keeps a las rifle. I'm pretty sure that the actual heavy weapon gunner is swapping his weapon though.

It's because the wording is exactly the same for BOTH members of the team, yet the rulings have been that the 'loader' is allowed to fire his lasgun whilst the 'gunner' fires the Heavy Weapon. Logically if the wording for arming each model is exactly the same, then they are armed with the same weapons, thus logically the 'gunner' has a lasgun somewhere. The terms 'gunner' and 'loader' never appear in the Codex; it reads simply 'two guardsmen may become a heavy weapons team and my be armed with ...'. So either both members should have lasguns, or neither should.
Also there are only a few separate instances throughout the book where the word 'replace' actually appears- for all other entries the word 'armed' is used. This would indicate that the wording was done differently for a reason, and thus the places where 'replace' isn't specified, they are armed with their heavy (and even special) weapon in addition to their lasgun.

However GW's FAQ rulings have consistently implied that one member of the Heavy Weapons team gives up his lasgun, and that the special weapons person also gives up his lasgun.

Thanks for the help people!