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.

Hello,

In the french of the dark eldar v2 codex, the disloquers don't seem to replace the incubus punisher. Can anyone with an official english codex confirm this please ?

Thanks,
Wilme

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Hmm, right...

The retinue of a Vovoïde can either be dark eldar warrior or Incubi (incubus ?). These incubi carry a punisher (the 2h energetic weapon which grant a F+1 bonus). They also have the option to the the F8 PA2 12" lance. Does taking that option replace their energetic weapon or can the incubi carry both weapons ?

Wilme

Taking a different weapon from the punisher does replace the 2H weapon.

Do us a favor, and go here: http://humanities.uchicago.edu/orgs/ARTFL/forms_unrest/FR-ENG.html

See if you can get the english word for Disloquers. :-)

burb1996 wrote:Taking a different weapon from the punisher does replace the 2H weapon.

Well, it isn't as simple as you make it out to be. The fact is, its more loosey-goosey wording that was fairly common in early 3rd edition codexes. You also have to remember that the 3rd edition rulebook had a rule that when models took an upgrade weapon option it meant they replaced their standard weapon (a rule that no longer exists).


Their entry just says they are "armed with a tormenter helm and punisher" and that they "may be armed with a shredder. . .or blaster at +X pts each."

Now, you can look at being "armed" as simply being equipped with further equipment or you can interpret it as their total package of armament (in which case taking the alternate weapon would also remove their tormenter helm).


Personally I think by the RAW the Incubi keep their original weapons when they take the shredder or blaster, but if you want to carry intent on over from 3rd edition (especially considering the models armed with the blaster/shredder clearly don't have their punisher anymore) then you could play that the punisher is indeed replaced.

Now, you can look at being "armed" as simply being equipped with further equipment or you can interpret it as their total package of armament (in which case taking the alternate weapon would also remove their tormenter helm).

When the codex says they're armed with "A punisher, tormentor helm and a blaster" they'll have the lot, seeing as they're only armed with a blaster no, they armed with a blaster.

Suggesting they keep the punisher is pure and simply "doesn't say you can't" logic, which isn't how the game works.

Hymirl wrote:

When the codex says they're armed with "A punisher, tormentor helm and a blaster" they'll have the lot, seeing as they're only armed with a blaster no, they armed with a blaster.

What exactly is this sentence SUPPOSED to say? (I THINK it's two sentences combined) Hard to tell.

Hymirl wrote:

Now, you can look at being "armed" as simply being equipped with further equipment or you can interpret it as their total package of armament (in which case taking the alternate weapon would also remove their tormenter helm).

When the codex says they're armed with "A punisher, tormentor helm and a blaster" they'll have the lot, seeing as they're only armed with a blaster no, they armed with a blaster.

Suggesting they keep the punisher is pure and simply "doesn't say you can't" logic, which isn't how the game works.

Sigh. No, that is ONE INTERPRETATION as I stated in my previous post.

If you are armed with a pistol and I say: You may be armed with a pistol for $50 bucks, do you automatically lose your pistol if you purchase the rifle? Of course not, you are then just armed with both.


There was a reason that the 3rd edition rulebook had a rule that said when you take a unit weapon option you have to REPLACE a weapon to do so, because most of the wording in the codex didn't clearly support this idea on their own, as is with this case.



And here it is formally:


P1) An Incubi model is armed with a Punisher and Tormenter helm.
P2) An Incubi has the option to be armed with a Shredder or Blaster.
P3) Arming the Incubi with the Shredder or Blaster option does not state the model replaces any of his weapons.

C) Therefore, an Incubi model which has taken the option to be armed with a Shredder/Blaster is armed with a Punisher, Tormenter Helm and the Shredder/Blaster.

I had looked at this fairly recently myself as I never took Incubi w/ either a blaster or Shredder because I hated losing their punisher back in 3rd ed. While I was understanding my CSM better in 5th, I started re-analyzing the DE codex and reached the conclusion that Yakface proposed. One thing that would actually be precedence for Incubi still keeping their Punisher would be the DE Wyches. If you have models that take Wyche weapons, those are still considered to have splinter pistols regardless if they are modeled or not. So I'd have to say that unless you are told that you are giving up a weapon to replace it w/ an upgrade, the model will still retain it's base weaponry per RaW.

I never even thought about this either. But, it looks like you can have both. Just remember to model them correctly, should make for some pretty neat modeling conversions, like maybe finding a way to convert the punisher weapon to have a blaster/shredder attached to either end would be neat.

Thanks a lot for these insights.

Best regards,
Wilme

yakface wrote:If you are armed with a pistol and I say: You may be armed with a pistol for $50 bucks, do you automatically lose your pistol if you purchase the rifle? Of course not, you are then just armed with both.

And I say what has this got to do with the what we're talking about, you're example is a case where you add a weapon, and don't specify what the guy is armed with. So completely different.
The codex states what the trooper is now armed with, therefore he is now armed with the weapons listed, which is only the shredder or blaster mentioned.

There was a reason that the 3rd edition rulebook had a rule that said when you take a unit weapon option you have to REPLACE a weapon to do so, because most of the wording in the codex didn't clearly support this idea on their own, as is with this case.

Rules as intended? You're not going to get far with that...

And here it is formally:

P1) An Incubi model is armed with a Punisher and Tormenter helm.
P2) An Incubi has the option to be armed with a Shredder or Blaster.
P3) Arming the Incubi with the Shredder or Blaster option does not state the model replaces any of his weapons.

C) Therefore, an Incubi model which has taken the option to be armed with a Shredder/Blaster is armed with a Punisher, Tormenter Helm and the Shredder/Blaster.

You're using the "doesn't say I can't" argument, we could use EXACTLY the same logic for;

P3) Arming the model with a shredder or blaster option does not state the model can't put on a superman outfit and fly about the table shooting lasers from his eyes...

The option arming the model with a shredder does not state many many things, and just because it doesn't state that something does not happen isn't cause for it doing so. This is the basic theory of the permissive ruleset.
The rules do not say you keep the orignal weapons therefore you don't, you're armed with what it says you're armed with, which is a shredder. Sorry, you're wrong. You say that what I'm describing is only only one intrepration and I would agree with you on that, there are other intrepretions than this one but they're all at best mistaken and at worst barefaced cheating.

So you are basically saying that Wyches that take the option to be armed with plasma and/or haywire grenades lose their pistols and CCWs?

IMO your argument fails.

If it doesn't say replace, upgrade to, substitute or something similar then "armed with" mean in addition to the original equipment.

Hello,

Just from a logic viewpoint, i was skeptical about your above-mentionned analysis of the P3) :
- Puting a superman outfit and fly about the table shooting laser from his eyes is an active action...
- Replacing one equipement by another one is an active action...
- Not replacing an equipement by another one is passively following the guidelines, which only mention that they may be armed with X

The rules do not say you lose the orignal weapons therefore you don't, you're armed with what it says you're armed with, which is a shredder, a punisher and a tormentor helm, as stated in the previous sentence.

Wilme

If it doesn't say replace, upgrade to, substitute or something similar then "armed with" mean in addition to the original equipment.

So you're trying to claim that "armed with" in fact means "also armed with." Thats what it looks like you're trying to say...

You don't have a leg to stand on.

The rules do not say you lose the orignal weapons therefore you don't, you're armed with what it says you're armed with, which is a shredder, a punisher and a tormentor helm, as stated in the previous sentence.

I don't think that distinctions between active or passive actions matter, the fact is ther you're attempting to do something based on the lack of a prohibition against it. The very fact that your argument is based on something the rules don't say is why its wrong.

Until you fight a rule that states the Incubi is armed with a blaster, punisher and tormentor helm he won't be (and no, dodgey so called logical detuction isn't a rule.

If you really like I can prove I'm right by a completely alternative method, the DE armoury states besides punishers that "No other weapon may be used."
I know that people are having trouble with basic phrases in this thread but I'm sure I don't need to plain that Blasters are a weapon, and that if you have a punisher it would not be able to be used.

So either theres my way and its replaced, or the whole thing is pointless as your purchase a useless blaster shaped fashion accessory.

Hymirl wrote:You're using the "doesn't say I can't" argument, we could use EXACTLY the same logic for;

P3) Arming the model with a shredder or blaster option does not state the model can't put on a superman outfit and fly about the table shooting lasers from his eyes...

The option arming the model with a shredder does not state many many things, and just because it doesn't state that something does not happen isn't cause for it doing so. This is the basic theory of the permissive ruleset.
The rules do not say you keep the orignal weapons therefore you don't, you're armed with what it says you're armed with, which is a shredder. Sorry, you're wrong. You say that what I'm describing is only only one intrepration and I would agree with you on that, there are other intrepretions than this one but they're all at best mistaken and at worst barefaced cheating.

No he's using the "doesn't say to" argument which is entirely valid, it doesn't say to put on a superman outfit and fly around the table shooting lasers, which is the reason you don't do that, because it needs to explicitly state something is an option or happens for it to be allowed, as the phrase doesn't at any time say that you replace your old gear and you are merely inferring it from the term armed with which is hardly clearly defined it is possible to interpret the phrase a number of ways one of which results in not losing any of the basic equipment.

Hymirl wrote:
So you're trying to claim that "armed with" in fact means "also armed with." Thats what it looks like you're trying to say...

You don't have a leg to stand on.

actually his "leg to stand on" is in the form of his cited example where grenades use the exact same phrase in making them available to the unit, which means grenades replace all the models other equipment by your reasoning, a concept most people would find ludicrous.

Hymirl wrote:If you really like I can prove I'm right by a completely alternative method, the DE armoury states besides punishers that "No other weapon may be used."
I know that people are having trouble with basic phrases in this thread but I'm sure I don't need to plain that Blasters are a weapon, and that if you have a punisher it would not be able to be used.

So either theres my way and its replaced, or the whole thing is pointless as your purchase a useless blaster shaped fashion accessory.

You may have a point here, but this could equally mean merely that no other weapon could be used at the same time as the punisher which was my immediate interpretation of the phrase. which would merely mean that the blaster cannot be used in close combat at the same time as the punisher.

I think the key argument is this: The codex was written for a main ruleset that clearly stated when you buy an upgrade weapon you loose your origional. The new BRB does not state this. Thus is what happens when they leave a codex around unchanged for 2 main rules cycles. According to the NEW 5th Ed rules - you don't loose it.

I say that they keep the punishers based on the Imperial Guard Precident. It is accepted that imperial gaurdsmen when "armed with" heavy weapons and assault weapons that they keep their las guns. The DE codex says has the same "Armed with" phrase.