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.

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/13/2007 9:00 AM
You know exactly what I was saying with it paraphrased..

Yes: You were claiming that it says something completely different to what it actually says...

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/13/2007 9:00 AM
That would be correct. The one titled wargear which is listed in the armory. Are you going to try and say that wargear is not part of the armory now?

The Wargear listed in the Armoury is a part of the Armoury.

The Wargear section after the Armoury is a listing of the various items available to the Space Marine Army.

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/13/2007 9:00 AM
It shows its a choice from the armory.

No, it shows that it is an item that can be taken in a Marine army. It is not selected from the Armoury, because the Chaplain entry makes no mention of it being selected from the Armoury. It's that simple.

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/13/2007 9:00 AM
Care to explain why the Crozius got an entry but the Force Weapon with its more complex rules was omitted?

It was omitted deliberately, because the rules for it, like the rules for close combat weapons, power weapons, power fists and the like are in the main rulebook, as they use standardised rules for multiple armies .

So, how does that fit your scenario? If it's not in the Armoury, where exactly does the Force Weapon come from? Why would the Crozius come from the Armoury, while the Force Weapon doesn't?

Posted By Angelus Mortis on 03/13/2007 9:00 AM
When you chose to take a Chaplain, you then decide what wargear you want to take on him.

But you don't choose the Crozius. It's an integral part of his listing.

When you get up in the morning, do you choose whether or not to have a nose? No. It simply comes with your face as standard. The Chaplain is the same. When you take a Chaplain, he has a Crozius. You then select whatever options his listing allows.

But Ok. For the sake of argument, let's assume you're right, and the fact that the Crozius is listed in the Wargear section means that it is selected fromt he Armoury.

Now let's take a different unit. Say an Assault Squad. They come with Jump Packs. Jump Packs are listed in the Armoury... which means that the Jump Packs that the Assault Squad have (and which you can choose to remove, which by your logic makes them a selection) must be selected from the Armoury, right?

But wait! Assault Squad members don't have access to the Armoury!

Guess they don't get their Jump Packs after all. We'll also have to remove our Bikers' bikes. And, for that matter, bolt pistols, close combat weapons and bolters from every non-character model in the army...

That's where your logic leads. Still sound right to you?

Look guys your getting way out there. One of you is trying to say that the chaplain can take one weapon from the armoury because he already has one. One of you is saying he comes standard wuiith the weapon and thus he can pick 2 weapons. Make this easy proove it. If you cannot verify by rules alone thet he can take 2 weapons/ or one, than just shut up until you know for sure. Both sides are backed by facts but both also do not know for sure. So stop arguing the same point from differant angles. Find a faq or find somewhere that ir says he can only take one weapon. Otherwise he can have 2 weapons. until theres a faq or better proof this argument has made the rounds and gone no where.

At the moment he can indeed have two weapons (plus crozius) there is no true argument for that.

Posted By 5thelement on 03/14/2007 1:19 PM
Both sides are backed by facts but both also do not know for sure. 

No, I know for sure, because it's what the book actually says.

Whether or not it's what they intended is anybody's guess. But 3 weapons is what the Codex actually allows the Chaplain or Librarian to have.

Posted By 5thelement on 03/14/2007 1:19 PM
At the moment he can indeed have two weapons (plus crozius) there is no true argument for that.

So nobody else can know for sure (despite the book being quite clear on it), but you do?

If you read the bottom of my post thats what i said friend.

B&C has two threads so long on this topic that it would take all night to read. And stil there has been no solution.

At the moment there is no argument you can take three and there is nothing saying otherwise.




03/14/2007 5:08 PM Quote Reply Alert
Posted By 5thelement on 03/14/2007 1:19 PM
Both sides are backed by facts but both also do not know for sure.
No, I know for sure, because it's what the book actually says.


You just posted this so dont give me any harrassing buddy. We both said the same thing but you still trying to be a little flamer.

By the way you dont know it is clearly able to be interpreted in 2 seperate ways.  And yes legally (and stupidly) you can take 3 weapons. More than likely if it gets a faq it will be two weapons. And even GW's own army builder program allows for only 2 weapons to be taken.  Thats a pretty clear cut sign of what was intended. AND YES I KNOW ITS NOT PROOF.

Posted By 5thelement on 03/14/2007 2:16 PM
You just posted this so dont give me any harrassing buddy. We both said the same thing but you still trying to be a little flamer.

No, I'm just trying to work out why you would claim I had nothing to back up my argument, and then immediately afterwards state the exact same thing that I've been saying all along...

5thElement - here's the deal. One side, Insaniak most recently, has referred throughout to the actual, black and white rule. The other side has paraphrased the rule to say exactly the opposite of what it actually says.

So, in short, this is only a discussion, and there is only an issue, if you don't think the black and white rules are black and white rules. Or, more simply said, one side (most recently represented by Insaniak) is right and the other is wrong, and we do not have to "d6" it just because other side is too arrogant to just read the rule and abide by it.

Thats not at all true. First off i never said anything about insaniak not haveing a great argument. In fact there is no doubt (as i already stated two times now) you can have three weapons.

But i can also see why the argument would exist. This one model (that i would never pay points to change just for clarification) can take three weapons. Now just the fact that GW's own hero builder program only allows for 2 weapons to be taken makes it very obvious to me how they intended the rule to be. So really its not so black and white. It really should be a faq.

And yes i know that the program is not a ruling.

Posted By 5thelement on 03/14/2007 2:46 PM
Thats not at all true. First off i never said anything about insaniak not haveing a great argument. In fact there is no doubt (as i already stated two times now) you can have three weapons.

And yet you claimed:

Posted By 5thelement on 03/14/2007 1:19 PM
Both sides are backed by facts but both also do not know for sure. 

Posted By 5thelement on 03/14/2007 2:46 PM
This one model (that i would never pay points to change just for clarification) can take three weapons.

The Chaplain and Librarian can both take 3 weapons.
Veteran Sergeants can have up to 4.

And that's just in this codex. Eldar Autarchs can also have three weapons, and Dark Angels Masters can have up to 4.

Posted By 5thelement on 03/14/2007 2:46 PM
Now just the fact that GW's own hero builder program only allows for 2 weapons to be taken makes it very obvious to me how they intended the rule to be.

This would be the GW army builder that's riddled with mistakes...? The one that, for example, won't let a Statured Daemon Prince take a second CCW, but will let him have a bolt pistol...?

Posted By 5thelement on 03/14/2007 2:46 PM
So really its not so black and white. It really should be a faq.

Half of that statement is correct.

The rule is black and white. The intention is what is foggy... which is why we prefer to argue rules here, rather than intentions.

But yes, if they didn't intend for characters to take more than 2 weapons, it should be in the FAQ.

Yup you got me there man. And now the DA have a bolt pistol as standard equipment also. So there many other chances to get three weapons or more.

So who or what person do we write to to get a faq?

But also the da codex clears up the deal also. As it says "Replace" in most listed areas.

My other question would be why? why would you pay hefty points (especially in a tournament where ten points can really make a differance) to replace (sorry add to) the crozius?