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.

So going through the codex, there is no entry for the cyclone missile launcher. Yet, when you hit terminators, it says you can take a cyclone for 20 points. So how do I know what the cyclone does? Considering that the cyclone isn't even in the summary, it's quite confusing. Is it:

1. Use the Dark Angel's cyclone since the blood angel's rules are closest to those and around the same time frame (the use common sense rule since this codex is before space marines).

2. Use the Space Marine's cyclone since those are the proper latest rules.

3. Treat the cyclone as a standard missile launcher (which is defined in blood angel's), and sadly lose the ability to shoot your storm bolter and cyclone at the same time.

4. Something else not listed.

5. Don't use the new space hulk terminators, just take some other elite's choice and the problem goes away.

Option 1

The WD/pdf dex is a copy-paste of the DA dex.

scuddman wrote:So going through the codex, there is no entry for the cyclone missile launcher. Yet, when you hit terminators, it says you can take a cyclone for 20 points. So how do I know what the cyclone does? Considering that the cyclone isn't even in the summary, it's quite confusing. Is it:

1. Use the Dark Angel's cyclone since the blood angel's rules are closest to those and around the same time frame (the use common sense rule since this codex is before space marines).

2. Use the Space Marine's cyclone since those are the proper latest rules.

3. Treat the cyclone as a standard missile launcher (which is defined in blood angel's), and sadly lose the ability to shoot your storm bolter and cyclone at the same time.

4. Something else not listed.

5. Don't use the new space hulk terminators, just take some other elite's choice and the problem goes away.

The answer is 4.
The answer is: It does nothing.
Of Course, considering there are about 3 Different Cyclone Missile Launcher rules floating about now, best thing to do is clear it up pre game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

1hadhq wrote:The WD/pdf dex is a copy-paste of the DA dex.

No, it isn't.

Nope. IS a copy paste effort of DA. And the least beneficial option to go.

Since he mentions space hulk termies, he may stick with the supplied assault cannon and heavy flamer if he cant clear it before a game.

I would think the options closest to actual RAW is to treat it as a missile launcher (short of just saying "doesn't exist" of course)

Well, if we look at it from a purely "mathematical" standpoint, we see that there are currently 2 Different Versions of the CML, one found in Dark Angels and Black Templars with the other being Found in Codex: Vulkan (and Space Wolves, both Current and I assume upcoming).

The Ones in the DA/BT Codex Count only as a Normal Missile Launcher (Heavy 1) and cost x for DA and x+5 for BT, Presumably because DA Terminators have a Higher Base Cost.

The ones in Codex: Counts as Salamanders are Heavy 2 Missile Launchers and cost x+10 Points.

The Blood Angels ones cost x Points.

Thus I deduce that the "Fairest" option would be to count them as a Heavy 1 Missile Launcher, as the cost x, the same as Dark Angel ones.

Edit: Yes I am that Bitter and I really don't like the new Marine Codex
Edit2: Changed Points costs to x because GW keep 17 lawyers on retainer

The only thing I wish to add is that, while Gwar! raises interesting comparisons in the point cost of the 'cyclone' upgrade, the termies themselves are not created equal, thus the cost of the upgrade can not be used as a basis for how the weapon should perform.

What I mean by this--A dark angel termie squad + cyclone = zz+35. A BA termie squad with the same upgrade costs zz+20. A codex termie costs zz+30. Each is different.

HOWEVER, the DA termies are also fearless with deathwing assault, and can mix in cc weapons, the BA termie come with a free 30 point death company, and the codex termies get combat tactics. Thus, while the cost of the cyclone upgrade may be similiar in BA and DA, the capabilities of the units are very very different, and you can not base the cost of the cyclone entirely on the upgrade itself while ignoring the unit its with. Its not like BA termies arnt already supposed to be the cheapest cost termies as it is, thanks to the 30 point DC included in the cost.

As an aside, the INAT faq has ruled that BA cyclones get 2 shots. The US head GT and 'ard boyz event judge in 2008 also ruled that BA cyclones get 2 shots. Thus, the most authoritative judges for US events have said to use 2 shot cyclones.

I understand that Devian, and to be honest even I am not so much of a mean git (unless you are a total ********************************* [try and work THAT one out ]) that I would decree "NO SHOTS FOR YOU HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!" and would generally follow the INAT FAQ, as Dubious as most of the "Clarifications" are.

The DA one makes sense for two reasons: it's the vision of CML's that was current when the BA pdf was released, and the points match the most.

That said, there's not a CML rule set out there that turns BA terminators into anything approaching over powered.

I think RaW you can't find any entry in the codex or in the BRB summaries, so you would be forced to treat the word "cyclone" as fluff and model the termie with a ML (which is an item in both the BRB and the BA dex).

That or declare the CML to be useless.

I think if the CML were in the BRB summaries you would be able to use that.

ajfirecracker wrote:I think RaW you can't find any entry in the codex or in the BRB summaries, so you would be forced to treat the word "cyclone" as fluff and model the termie with a ML (which is an item in both the BRB and the BA dex).

That or declare the CML to be useless.

I think if the CML were in the BRB summaries you would be able to use that.

Well, firstly, RaW, it IS useless, regardless of what the BRB says.

Secondly, the reason it isnt in the BRB is because the BRB has the 4th edition Space Marine Codex Summeries when the CML was in fact just a renamed Missile Launcher.

Gwar, I think if the BRB had rules for your item, but your codex did not, you would be able to use it. There are plenty of items that tell you explicitly to look it up the BRB (PF, anyone?)

I don't see how having an item described in the BRB would still be unusable, it is still rules, after all.

ajfirecracker wrote:Gwar, I think if the BRB had rules for your item, but your codex did not, you would be able to use it. There are plenty of items that tell you explicitly to look it up the BRB (PF, anyone?)

I don't see how having an item described in the BRB would still be unusable, it is still rules, after all.

Because the Summaries explicitly state that where the BRB and Codex Differ, the codex wins. Even if the BRB had a Blood Angels CML, the Codex Wins out, because the Rulebook says the Codex wins.

Off-topic: But the codex doesn't disagree with the BRB (pretending the BRB has a CML). It simply does not have the profile. Shouldn't it therefore use the BRB? I don't see how the two can be said to be in disagreement if one simply lacks the information.

On-topic: Oh, well. I guess it doesn't matter either way since neither the codex nor BRB has a CML.

Well, if the Codex says "IT DOES NOTHING!" and the Rulebook Says "NO IT DOES THIS BUT USE THE CODEX REGARDLESS OF WHAT I SAY!" then it does nothing.

The rulebook does not say to ignore the summaries, it says that in the event of a contradiction use the codex.

If the codex says nothing (not "it does nothing", which is slightly different), then it cannot contradict the BRB.

ajfirecracker wrote:The rulebook does not say to ignore the summaries, it says that in the event of a contradiction use the codex.

If the codex says nothing (not "it does nothing", which is slightly different), then it cannot contradict the BRB.

The codex says nothing. This contradicts the BRB which says something. Thus, you use nothing.

I think you're wrong with your interpretation of contradicts, Gwar, but I'll henceforth drop it as the point is moot.

Gwar! wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:The rulebook does not say to ignore the summaries, it says that in the event of a contradiction use the codex.

If the codex says nothing (not "it does nothing", which is slightly different), then it cannot contradict the BRB.

The codex says nothing. This contradicts the BRB which says something. Thus, you use nothing.

That's not how contradication works. General rules apply when there the specific rules are silent on an issue. Otherwise, we wouldn't have general rules.

The point is Moot of course. I'll STFU nao

Gwar! wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:The rulebook does not say to ignore the summaries, it says that in the event of a contradiction use the codex.

If the codex says nothing (not "it does nothing", which is slightly different), then it cannot contradict the BRB.

The codex says nothing. This contradicts the BRB which says something. Thus, you use nothing.

Just how in god's name can nothing contradict something?

augustus5 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:The rulebook does not say to ignore the summaries, it says that in the event of a contradiction use the codex.

If the codex says nothing (not "it does nothing", which is slightly different), then it cannot contradict the BRB.

The codex says nothing. This contradicts the BRB which says something. Thus, you use nothing.

Just how in god's name can nothing contradict something?

Easy. Book A Says you may use Apples, Bananas and Grapes. Book B Says you may use Apple, Bananas, Pears and Grapes, but where Book A and B Contradict Each other use Book A.

Thus, you can only use Apples, Bananas and Grapes.

On page 19 of the Blood Angels codex pdf it states that one terminator may take a cyclone missile launcher for X amount of points.

The writers failed to include the cyclone launcher in the wargear section or reference page of the pdf but certainly intended to have it there as the cyclone is included as an option for a terminator squad.

I think this is a situation that is easily resolved by looking at the BGB. The Bllod Angels codex also fails to define what a lightning claw is in their wargear section so does that also mean that the lightning claw simply does nothing? There is no entry for a force weapon either so poor Mephiston is going to be SOL in CC... Or we could inject a little common sense and look to the BGB to help us out where the codex drops the ball.

We are not contradicting the codex in any way by doing so.

EDIT Book BA does say you can use pears BTW, it just fails to define what they are exactly.

It's only a contradiction if the list in book A is exclusive.

If book A says "You may only eat .." than it's a contradiction. If is simply says "you may eat any of the following..." than it's not a contradiction to add more to the list.

Most english text is not logically formal, and applying those rules where they don't belong can be risky.

So I think I am missing something again, as I fail to see the Cyclone Missle Launcher in the main rulebook nor do I see it in the BA codex.

I can find them in various other codecii, but that isn't that a whole different can of worms?

kirsanth, the argument moved on from BA to the principle of using BGB to to look up unlisted gear. Should the situation arise with any other gear (BA force weapons, lightning claws have been given as an example), I would feel confident, RaW, using the BGB to look up the items.

I caught that, but I do not see the mentioned weapon in the main rules, so I was confused as to the connection.

shrug

kirsanth, the cyclone is listed in the back on the reference pages of the BGB.

Doesn't GW make playing this game easy on us? We're all gluttons for punishment.

That is where I was looking (in the main book, pg.291). . . and I am apparently still missing it.

augustus5 wrote:kirsanth, the cyclone is listed in the back on the reference pages of the BGB.

Doesn't GW make playing this game easy on us? We're all gluttons for punishment.

Odd, I am looking at my Rulebooks (All 3 of them) and not a single one lists Cyclone Missile Launcher on Page 291 (Page 99 for you AoBR Fans)