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.

Brother Ramses wrote:Poor, poor Gwar!

I am quoting page numbers and rules to you while you have yet to point out a single rule or page number that backs up your argument.

Nice exit.

Gotta say, personnel attacks on Gwar are:
a. pointless: way too thick I hide on him
b. self-defeating: Gwar pretty much has the 'legal' aspect of the rules down and will admit error when someone produces an argument that he can get behind. Though it seems like he isn't responding to points sometimes, it seems IMHO to be because the points don't invalidate his, only through more mud into the pool.


On topic, don't know wordings but shouldn't this same argument apply to all characters that can purchase from the armoury (vet sgts, heroes) as they all come with some weapons and therefore it would never be legal to buy lightning claws in a pair. (depends on the wording) [I also realize I may be skirting RaI if I'm right]

and the armour argument is moot as there is no limit to the number of armours you can wear (RaW) like the weapons have, so you can have power, artificer + terminator, but you can only take the best save anyway... same end result as replacing them.

I agree that the Chappie can take two LCs by RAW as provided here. I sure hope this does not turn into another Yes/No thread that goes on and on for 8+ pages.

G

So since you guys are arguing that the "Any" in the Chaplain entry overrules the limits in the Armory then you could give a BT chaplain as many weapons as you want, right?

Upgrade weapons are something that specifically replace another weapon, such as a Plasma Gun replacing a Boltgun, not just a weapon that you consider to be better.

And finally, you should never arm a Chaplain with anything other then his Crozius Arcanum. It's his frickin' badge of office.

Now I see why it's nice to be rid of armories in new codices.

DruidODurham wrote:So since you guys are arguing that the "Any" in the Chaplain entry overrules the limits in the Armory then you could give a BT chaplain as many weapons as you want, right?

It's not a matter of the 'any' over-riding the limits in the Armoury.

It's simply that the limit on the number of items you can select from the Armoury applies to the number of items you can select from the Armoury. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything the model already has.

And finally, you should never arm a Chaplain with anything other then his Crozius Arcanum. It's his frickin' badge of office.

Since the Armoury doesn't say to replace anything when you select new weapons, he would still have it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deminyn wrote:Gotta say, personnel attacks on Gwar are:

...against forum rules, which is really all you need.

On topic, don't know wordings but shouldn't this same argument apply to all characters that can purchase from the armoury (vet sgts, heroes) as they all come with some weapons and therefore it would never be legal to buy lightning claws in a pair.

If the argument was correct, then yes, this would apply.

Fortunately for everyone who still has a codex with an Armoury, in this instance Gwar is simply flat-out wrong.

As fascinating as the debate is, can we skip ahead to the part where the Chaplain can't get the bonus attack from the dual lightning claws because the crozius is still present to trigger the two different special close combat weapons rule?

solkan wrote:As fascinating as the debate is, can we skip ahead to the part where the Chaplain can't get the bonus attack from the dual lightning claws because the crozius is still present to trigger the two different special close combat weapons rule?

I agree 100% here, but then again, some people think Calgar gets the bonus attack...

solkan wrote:As fascinating as the debate is, can we skip ahead to the part where the Chaplain can't get the bonus attack from the dual lightning claws because the crozius is still present to trigger the two different special close combat weapons rule?

How is it still present? Under the Options definition is specifically says that it is lost once replaced.

If you apply the rule that upgrades replace original kit to Armoury selections (which means you're counting Armoury selections as upgrades), you're also going to have to apply the one in the same paragraph that says that upgrades can't be given to characters... which might cause a kerfuffle.

Gwar! wrote:

solkan wrote:As fascinating as the debate is, can we skip ahead to the part where the Chaplain can't get the bonus attack from the dual lightning claws because the crozius is still present to trigger the two different special close combat weapons rule?

I agree 100% here, but then again, some people think Calgar gets the bonus attack...

What is this doing on your website then?

RB.42.02 – Q: In close combat, can a model armed with two or more special weapons AND a normal single-handed weapon choose to fight with a special and normal weapon?
A: Yes. In this situation the model must use at least one of his special weapons but may also utilize the normal weapon in order to gain the +1 Attack bonus (assuming both weapons are single-handed and are allowed to be used together to gain the bonus Attack, of course). [Clarification]

This is the same situation, rules wise, as a model with two of the same special weapon AND another special weapon.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

solkan wrote:As fascinating as the debate is, can we skip ahead to the part where the Chaplain can't get the bonus attack from the dual lightning claws because the crozius is still present to trigger the two different special close combat weapons rule?

I agree 100% here, but then again, some people think Calgar gets the bonus attack...

What is this doing on your website then?

RB.42.02 – Q: In close combat, can a model armed with two or more special weapons AND a normal single-handed weapon choose to fight with a special and normal weapon?
A: Yes. In this situation the model must use at least one of his special weapons but may also utilize the normal weapon in order to gain the +1 Attack bonus (assuming both weapons are single-handed and are allowed to be used together to gain the bonus Attack, of course). [Clarification]

This is the same situation, rules wise, as a model with two of the same special weapon AND another special weapon.

When it applies to Calgar, let me know. As it is, Calgar has TWO special weapons (A Power Weapon and "The Gauntlets of Ultramar") and must choose one of two special weapons each turn, thus can never get the bonus attack.

I'm still not sure what about "pair of" in the description of the Gauntlets of Ultramar indicates that they are a single weapon. They are two weapons, with a single combined description. This is exactly the same as a pair of lightning claws; a pair of lightning claws is two weapons, not one, but the two weapons have a single, combined description.

Are we all in agreement that buying someone a "pair of lightning claws" gives them an extra attack? Then why are we confused about the fact that the Gauntlets of Ultramar (ie "A pair of power fists) give an extra attack?

insaniak wrote:If you apply the rule that upgrades replace original kit to Armoury selections (which means you're counting Armoury selections as upgrades), you're also going to have to apply the one in the same paragraph that says that upgrades can't be given to characters... which might cause a kerfuffle.

Reread the Options rule.

It separates unit from model in the second and third sentence specifically to prevent you from say attaching a chaplain to devastator squad and then giving him a plasma cannon (a unit upgrade), i.e. a ws5, 4+ inv plasma cannon toting independent character who can then leave the squad.

The last sentence uses the word model, therefore encompassing either a model in a unit being upgraded or a character being upgraded. In the case of a devastor squad, a model being upgraded with a unit upgrade (a plasma cannon), would then lose his issued bolter. A chaplain being issued a pair of lightening claws would then be losing his issued crozius.

BeRzErKeR wrote:I'm still not sure what about "pair of" in the description of the Gauntlets of Ultramar indicates that they are a single weapon. They are two weapons, with a single combined description. This is exactly the same as a pair of lightning claws; a pair of lightning claws is two weapons, not one, but the two weapons have a single, combined description.

Are we all in agreement that buying someone a "pair of lightning claws" gives them an extra attack? Then why are we confused about the fact that the Gauntlets of Ultramar (ie "A pair of power fists) give an extra attack?

There should be no confusion about this. Somehow such folks cannot understand that a named weapon does not necessarily imply that the weapon be singular. Calgar's Gauntlets are 2 powerfists, no matter how much one stamps his foot otherwise. When I look at the model I see 2 powerfists. All the linguistic gymnastics in the world can't deny that fact. Separate threads have been started and argued about this, so it's probably wise not to derail this one. Run some searches for calgar gauntlet and its bound to come up.

Back on topic. The Chaplain starts at a base of N points. You do not ever 'select' the weapon (Crozius) and equipment at this base price, he simply comes with them. You may then select up to two weapons from the Armoury. There is nothing in the Chaplain's unit entry that says these selections replace his Crozius. Hence, the Chaplain may select a pair of Lightning Claws and have these in addition to his Crozius.

-Yad

Brother Ramses wrote:It separates unit from model in the second and third sentence specifically to prevent you from say attaching a chaplain to devastator squad and then giving him a plasma cannon (a unit upgrade),

There is no actual way of attaching a Chaplain to a Devastator squad to begin with. What that rule is there for is to stop you from giving the upgrade to the squad's Sergeant.


Re-reading the section, the options bit does refer to squads taking upgrades on the 'not giving them to characters' bit... although that brings us back to the problem of 'squad' not being a defined term in the 40K rules, so having no basis for categorisation.

However, there's also another problem with taking that replacement rule to apply to characters: The Chaplain comes with the Crozius. The Options section says that models that take upgrade weapons lose the weapon they started with. If we assume that weapons in the Armoury should be considered 'upgrades' then taking any additional weapons for the Chaplain would cause him to lose the Crozius.

Yad wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:I'm still not sure what about "pair of" in the description of the Gauntlets of Ultramar indicates that they are a single weapon. They are two weapons, with a single combined description. This is exactly the same as a pair of lightning claws; a pair of lightning claws is two weapons, not one, but the two weapons have a single, combined description.

Are we all in agreement that buying someone a "pair of lightning claws" gives them an extra attack? Then why are we confused about the fact that the Gauntlets of Ultramar (ie "A pair of power fists) give an extra attack?

There should be no confusion about this. Somehow such folks cannot understand that a named weapon does not necessarily imply that the weapon be singular. Calgar's Gauntlets are 2 powerfists, no matter how much one stamps his foot otherwise. When I look at the model I see 2 powerfists. All the linguistic gymnastics in the world can't deny that fact. Separate threads have been started and argued about this, so it's probably wise not to derail this one. Run some searches for calgar gauntlet and its bound to come up.

Back on topic. The Chaplain starts at a base of N points. You do not ever 'select' the weapon (Crozius) and equipment at this base price, he simply comes with them. You may then select up to two weapons from the Armoury. There is nothing in the Chaplain's unit entry that says these selections replace his Crozius. Hence, the Chaplain may select a pair of Lightning Claws and have these in addition to his Crozius.

-Yad

Wrong.

The crozius description tells you that it is a lethal close combat weapon and that in game terms it is treated as a power weapon. The last sentence in the options rule states:

"ANY model who takes an upgrade weapon loses the weapon he was originally armed with unless otherwise stated." (emphasis mine)

So while a badge of office is all fine and dandy, the crozius is in game terms a weapon. Nothing stated in the codex prevents him from losing this weapon when he upgrades. So therefore, a chaplain that selects a pair of lightening claws (a pair of weapons) from the armory loses his crozius (original weapon he was originally armed with).

Why bother with a huge flame war?

Whats one extra attack anyway!

Most people give him termie armour and stick him with a 5-10 man termie assault squad, Is one extra attack worth this?

25+ re-rollable hit, re-rollable wound power weapon attacks is enough!

Anyone who swaps out a BLACK TEMPLAR CHAPLAINS CROZIOUS is committing pure heresy and shouldn't be playing this army!

Brother Ramses wrote: So therefore, a chaplain that selects a pair of lightening claws (a pair of weapons) from the armory loses his crozius (original weapon he was originally armed with).

As does a Chaplain who selects a bolt pistol from the armoury...

insaniak wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote: So therefore, a chaplain that selects a pair of lightening claws (a pair of weapons) from the armory loses his crozius (original weapon he was originally armed with).

As does a Chaplain who selects a bolt pistol from the armoury...

Only if he is choosing to upgrade his crozius to a bolt pistol. Otherwise he is still under the legal umbrella of having two single handed weapons, a bolt pistol and a crozius.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Yad wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:I'm still not sure what about "pair of" in the description of the Gauntlets of Ultramar indicates that they are a single weapon. They are two weapons, with a single combined description. This is exactly the same as a pair of lightning claws; a pair of lightning claws is two weapons, not one, but the two weapons have a single, combined description.

Are we all in agreement that buying someone a "pair of lightning claws" gives them an extra attack? Then why are we confused about the fact that the Gauntlets of Ultramar (ie "A pair of power fists) give an extra attack?

There should be no confusion about this. Somehow such folks cannot understand that a named weapon does not necessarily imply that the weapon be singular. Calgar's Gauntlets are 2 powerfists, no matter how much one stamps his foot otherwise. When I look at the model I see 2 powerfists. All the linguistic gymnastics in the world can't deny that fact. Separate threads have been started and argued about this, so it's probably wise not to derail this one. Run some searches for calgar gauntlet and its bound to come up.

Back on topic. The Chaplain starts at a base of N points. You do not ever 'select' the weapon (Crozius) and equipment at this base price, he simply comes with them. You may then select up to two weapons from the Armoury. There is nothing in the Chaplain's unit entry that says these selections replace his Crozius. Hence, the Chaplain may select a pair of Lightning Claws and have these in addition to his Crozius.

-Yad

Wrong.

The crozius description tells you that it is a lethal close combat weapon and that in game terms it is treated as a power weapon. The last sentence in the options rule states:

"ANY model who takes an upgrade weapon loses the weapon he was originally armed with unless otherwise stated." (emphasis mine)

So while a badge of office is all fine and dandy, the crozius is in game terms a weapon. Nothing stated in the codex prevents him from losing this weapon when he upgrades. So therefore, a chaplain that selects a pair of lightening claws (a pair of weapons) from the armory loses his crozius (original weapon he was originally armed with).

Really? Perhaps if you were to read the entire Options section instead of cherry picking your point...

Options:
This lists the different weapon and equipment options for the unit and any additional points cost... If a squad is allowed to have models with upgrades, then these must be given to ordinary members, not to a character in the unit. Any model who takes an upgrade weapon loses the weapon he was originally armed with unless otherwise stated.

In short the Options section of the BT codex does not apply to any character in the BT army. The Chaplain starts with the Crozius. The Chaplain may select up to two additional weapons from the Armoury. The Chaplain keeps his Crozius. The Options rules apply in total. The sentence you quoted does not exist in a vacuum.

-Yad

Brother Ramses wrote:Only if he is choosing to upgrade his crozius to a bolt pistol. Otherwise he is still under the legal umbrella of having two single handed weapons, a bolt pistol and a crozius.

There is no rule that says characters can only have two single handed weapons. Just the armoury rule that says they can select two weapons.

So the Chaplain starts with the Crozius. He can select two weapons from the Armoury. Applying your reasoning that armoury selections are upgrades, he is bound by the Options rule which states that models who take upgrades lose their original weapon... so there is no way to keep the Crozius and take a bolt pistol.


And no, I'm not arguing that this is the way it should work. To me, this is proof that the Options entry doesn't actually apply to Armoury selections.

I had one thing written out for you Yad, but figured out a easier way for it to be explained. Breaking down the Options rule under the Army List Entries:

Options:

This lists the different weapon and equipment options for the unit and any additional points costs for taking these options.

This is for all the units in the Black Templars army that have an Options section in their army entry

If a squad is allowed to have models with upgrades, then these must be given to ordinary unit members, not to a character in the unit.

This prevents a Chaplain from joining a Sword Brethren squad and then taking that squads options upgrade (such as a heavy bolter) for himself. This sentence only pertains to characters that join a squad and the squads specific upgrades.

Any model who takes an upgrade weapon loses the weapon he was originally armed unless otherwise stated.

As the previous sentence specifically points out and defines squads and how characters cannot take a squads option upgrades this last sentence uses the much broader term of "models". The word "model" would encompass the Sword Brethren that loses his bolter to upgrade to a heavy bolter, the Dreadnought that loses his storm bolter to upgrade to a heavy flamer, a Razorback that loses it's twin-linked heavy bolter to upgrade to a twin-linked lascannon, and lastly a Chaplain that loses his crozius to upgrade to a pair of lightening claws.

The limitation on characters taking upgrades is in place to prevent a Chap, Castellan, or SC from leading a command squad and taking one of the upgrade options.

As others have pointed out, any model with access to the armory may take two weapons, including the Chap.

Brother Ramses wrote:Is a Chaplain a squad?

We don't know. The rules don't tell us what a 'squad' is comprised of. Just that they exist, and are units.

Does the options section in the chaplain entry detail specific squad upgrades?

It details what options he is allowed. Whether or not they are 'squad upgrades' depends on the definition of 'squad'...

The Options section prohibits, AS I POINTED OUT, a chaplain from joining a devastator squad, taking a squad upgrade such as a plasma cannon, and then becoming a ws5, 4+inv, independent character with a plasma cannon.

And as I pointed out before, it does nothing of the sort, and doesn't need to, because you can't do this anyway.

The Chaplain can't be attached to the unit. He can't join the unit until Deployment. So there is no possible way under the current rules for him to be given squad upgrades. It's simply not possible.

It does NOT however prevent him from losing his crozius when he replaces it with two single handed weapons.

If you apply it to characters. In the context of the passage as a whole, it certainly looks like that entire 'Options' section is referring to squads, not lone characters (assuming that we take the real-world definition of 'squad' since the rules don't give us one).

Applying that one sentence to characters could be taken as 'cherry picking'... and still runs you into the problem of losing the Crozius if he takes any other weapons.

insaniak wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Is a Chaplain a squad?

We don't know. The rules don't tell us what a 'squad' is comprised of. Just that they exist, and are units.

Does the options section in the chaplain entry detail specific squad upgrades?

It details what options he is allowed. Whether or not they are 'squad upgrades' depends on the definition of 'squad'...

The Options section prohibits, AS I POINTED OUT, a chaplain from joining a devastator squad, taking a squad upgrade such as a plasma cannon, and then becoming a ws5, 4+inv, independent character with a plasma cannon.

And as I pointed out before, it does nothing of the sort, and doesn't need to, because you can't do this anyway.

The Chaplain can't be attached to the unit. He can't join the unit until Deployment. So there is no possible way under the current rules for him to be given squad upgrades. It's simply not possible.

It does NOT however prevent him from losing his crozius when he replaces it with two single handed weapons.

If you apply it to characters. In the context of the passage as a whole, it certainly looks like that entire 'Options' section is referring to squads, not lone characters (assuming that we take the real-world definition of 'squad' since the rules don't give us one).

Applying that one sentence to characters could be taken as 'cherry picking'... and still runs you into the problem of losing the Crozius if he takes any other weapons.

Actually, we do know. Under the Chaplain entry he is listed as an independent character. Under such things a Command Squad, Sword Brethren Squad, or Land Speeder Squadron it is listed as Numbers/SQUAD.

Under the Options entry for chaplain the sentence starts out with, "A Chaplain....". I don't see squad in there either.

I didn't put the rule in there. So if it is redundant or not, that is not my problem. The point is that GW chose to put into writing, specific prohibitive rules to NOT allow a character to take squad upgrades. RAW stating that if a squad is allowed upgrades, a character with that squad cannot take that squad's option entry specific upgrades. Whether or not that scenario could possibly happen is not up to me. It must be or else it would not be in the codex to prevent it from happening. Akin to why put Warp Field in the DoM entry if he doesn't get a 3+ inv.

The Options entry, even taken as a whole still provides for all entries in the Black Templar army since it adds the specific condition of "unless otherwise stated." Nothing in the Chaplain entry or the crozius entry states that the crozius stays when upgraded with another weapon.

So the chaplain buys a bolt pistol, big deal. Per RAW the chaplain now has a single handed weapon in the form of a bolt pistol and a single handed power weapon which follows the rules per the first sentence of the Black Templars Armoury page 25. Now if the chaplain were to buy the pair of lightening claws (counts as two weapons) one lightening claw fulfills one single handed weapon, you lose the crozius per the options rule, and the other lightening claw fulfills the second single handed weapon and thus falling into line with the first sentence of the Black Templars Armoury page 25. To NOT lose the crozius in the transaction leaves you with three single handed weapons which breaks the rule on page 25.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In addition, to the third point Insaniak, look on page 22 under Black Templar Characters, the 2nd paragraph.

A chaplain can lead a command squad and becomes a member of that squad to which he cannot leave. He only becomes an independent character for close combat or when the entire squad is destroyed. The whole combined squad is considered 1 HQ choice.

In this instance the ruling on Options on page 30 makes perfect sense and is an instance where you would need a specific rule that prohibits you from giving the Chaplain any of the Command Squads entry specific options such as a heavy bolter, missile launcher, multi-melta, plasma cannon, lascannon, flamer, meltagun, or plasmagun.

Brother Ramses wrote:Actually, we do know. Under the Chaplain entry he is listed as an independent character. Under such things a Command Squad, Sword Brethren Squad, or Land Speeder Squadron it is listed as Numbers/SQUAD.

That tells us that certain things are squads. It doesn't define what a squad is.

Although I'll concede that we should only make the assumption that something is a squad if the rules say it is...

I didn't put the rule in there. So if it is redundant or not, that is not my problem. The point is that GW chose to put into writing, specific prohibitive rules to NOT allow a character to take squad upgrades.

My point isn't that the rule is redundant. My point is that it doesn't apply to independant characters, because they don't have access to squad upgrades anyway.

It applies to squad-based characters like Sergeants. Of which the BT list has two.

Per RAW the chaplain now has a single handed weapon in the form of a bolt pistol and a single handed power weapon which follows the rules per the first sentence of the Black Templars Armoury page 25.

It doesn't, though... The rules you've been quoting specifically say that if he takes an upgrade, he loses the original weapon.

So there isno way to take a bolt pistol without it replacing the Crozius. If you apply that Options rule to IC's, he simply has no option to do so. The moment he selects a weapon from the Armoury, he loses the Crozius.

The only way you can get him with two weapons is to select them both from the Armoury.

To NOT lose the crozius in the transaction leaves you with three single handed weapons which breaks the rule on page 25.

The rule at the top of the armoury covers how many weapons a character can select... not how many they can have.

(It's page 26, by the way )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:A chaplain can lead a command squad and becomes a member of that squad to which he cannot leave.

Which is very different to joining a Devastator squad (which interestingly enough, BT don't have anyway...), which was your original example...

So the chaplain buys a bolt pistol, big deal. Per RAW the chaplain now has a single handed weapon in the form of a bolt pistol and a single handed power weapon which follows the rules per the first sentence of the Black Templars Armoury page 25.

But aren't you arguing the options rule applies hence the minute you purchase an option you lose your original weapon. Hence he doesn't have a bolt pistol and PW, he just has a BP. Whether that breaks the rule on pg26 at this point is irrelevant the "upgrade" rule demands that when you purchase a weapon you lose your original weapon...

Now if the chaplain were to buy the pair of lightening claws (counts as two weapons) one lightening claw fulfills one single handed weapon, you lose the crozius per the options rule, and the other lightening claw fulfills the second single handed weapon and thus falling into line with the first sentence of the Black Templars Armoury page 25. To NOT lose the crozius in the transaction leaves you with three single handed weapons which breaks the rule on page 25.

I beleive this is the rule:

"Models with access to the Armoury may select up to two weapons of which only one can be a two-handed weapon."

No mention of single handed weapon or how many weapons you can be equiped with. It simply states you can only select (or add if you will) 2 wepaons from the armoury. Of these 2 weapons only 1 can be two-handed. So you are free to select a two-handed weapon AND another weapon. You are free to possess any number of weapons, though it will only ever be possible to have 2 more than you start with.

However if you apply the upgrade rule then 2 is he maximum number of weapons you can ever have. But then when you buy the first weapon you must give up a weapon you are originally armed with...