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.

Man, read the codex, and follow some logic...

Every unit who have the option to rade 2 guys for a HWT, can only do it one time, and anytime the codex want to suggest you can do the thing described in the bullet more than one time, it clearly state that with a "any model can..."

On top of that: we KNOW that infantry units on platoons could take only one HWT (if you want more HWT in the same squad, you buy a HWT Squad). And the wording for HWT are the same on the said infantry and the veterans.

Nowhere in the codex or core rules states that you cannot take the option multiple times, therefore ending with multiple veteran weapon teams. Example: I take the option to replace 2 Veterans with a Mortar Team, then i take the option to replace 2 veterans with a mortar team, and then i take the option to replace 2 more veterans with another mortar team.

Nowhere in the codex or core rules states that you cannot take the option multiple times...

As has already been stated that is not how the rules work. Where does it say that you CAN take an option multiple times? That is what you need to support your position.

Ghaz wrote:You do realize that Army Builder is not an official GW product and the datafiles are put together by volunteers who have no special insight into the rules. What Army Builder does or does not say is inconsequential.

however true or not this may be, I have never been to a tourny where what army builder says is and is not allowed has been disputed. As far as any TO I have ever encountered army builder is the final say in any list building setup, regardless making the vet squad all carry heavy weapons is exploiting RAW technicallities and is likely to be banned as an option in any competitive list.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

Ghaz wrote:You do realize that Army Builder is not an official GW product and the datafiles are put together by volunteers who have no special insight into the rules. What Army Builder does or does not say is inconsequential.

however true or not this may be, I have never been to a tourny where what army builder says is and is not allowed has been disputed. As far as any TO I have ever encountered army builder is the final say in any list building setup, regardless making the vet squad all carry heavy weapons is exploiting RAW technicallities and is likely to be banned as an option in any competitive list.

It's 100% true as Army Builder is normally allowed and used quite frequently, it is not a GW product and has had its own series of issues.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:however true or not this may be, I have never been to a tourny where what army builder says is and is not allowed has been disputed. As far as any TO I have ever encountered army builder is the final say in any list building setup, regardless making the vet squad all carry heavy weapons is exploiting RAW technicallities and is likely to be banned as an option in any competitive list.

I find that interesting, since from my experience, both personal and 15+ years of forum lurking, quite a lot of TO's actively dislike army builder and in some cases will refuse to allow army lists built with it, due in part to the fact that it does from time to time include glitches that result in illegal lists.

Either way the legitimacy of army builder is not whats in question here, it was simply used as a backing point. The issue at hand is wether a vet squad can have more than 1 heavy weapons unit in it. The most common answer here seems to be no. I do agree that this was RAI if not (by some stretch of the imagination) RAW.

As a former member of the team that put the 40K datafiles together I can assure you that some of the rulings were by simple majority when the rules were unclear. Other times an option was disallowed simply because we would rather have the datafiles not allow you to take a legal option rather than allow you to take an illegal option.

Regardless the tenets of the forum says only the rules and FAQs are official. Army Builder is neither.

Kai wrote:Nowhere in the codex or core rules states that you cannot take the option multiple times, therefore ending with multiple veteran weapon teams. Example: I take the option to replace 2 Veterans with a Mortar Team, then i take the option to replace 2 veterans with a mortar team, and then i take the option to replace 2 more veterans with another mortar team.

Find where it says you CAN take the option multiple times, otherwise the option you are repeating ITSELF limits you to taking it once.

If you replace 4 vets with 2 HWT then you have NOT replaced 2 vets with a HWT. See the difference?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Kai wrote:Nowhere in the codex or core rules states that you cannot take the option multiple times, therefore ending with multiple veteran weapon teams. Example: I take the option to replace 2 Veterans with a Mortar Team, then i take the option to replace 2 veterans with a mortar team, and then i take the option to replace 2 more veterans with another mortar team.

Find where it says you CAN take the option multiple times, otherwise the option you are repeating ITSELF limits you to taking it once.

If you replace 4 vets with 2 HWT then you have NOT replaced 2 vets with a HWT. See the difference?

it doesnt say anywhere in the rulebook or codex that i can only take an option once, this issue isnt even addressed in the rulebook, so it doesnt say i can, nor does it say i cannot.

It says you can replace 2x Vets with a HWT.

It does not say you are allowed to take 4xVets and take 2xHWT.

Also note the singular use of words in the text.

Jordanis - no, you're wrong : it DOES RESTRICT YOU. You are allowed to trade two vets for one hwt. If you trade 4 you have done something the rule does not give you permission to do.

jordanis wrote: it doesnt say anywhere in the rulebook or codex that i can only take an option once, this issue isnt even addressed in the rulebook, so it doesnt say i can, nor does it say i cannot.

And this is the problem for you. As has been pointed out in numerous posts above you have to have a rule that says you can do something in order to actually be able to perform your action. Since the rules are silent on this issue then you can not do it.

I can use every codex in one fight!

Since I'm limited to one codex, I'll pick an HQ from it. Then I'll limit myself to one codex for a troop choice... etc.

Replace 2 vets with 1 HWT - if you do this action more than once, you've replaced 4 vets with 2 HWT which the rule explicitly disallows. This doesn't even need a rule - simple logic and reading skills would allow someone to deduce this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Kai wrote:Nowhere in the codex or core rules states that you cannot take the option multiple times, therefore ending with multiple veteran weapon teams. Example: I take the option to replace 2 Veterans with a Mortar Team, then i take the option to replace 2 veterans with a mortar team, and then i take the option to replace 2 more veterans with another mortar team.

Find where it says you CAN take the option multiple times, otherwise the option you are repeating ITSELF limits you to taking it once.

If you replace 4 vets with 2 HWT then you have NOT replaced 2 vets with a HWT. See the difference?

I have to call you on this one.

Permission is grated to take Options.

Options are not restricted to 1/entry(and we do make multiple with some entries, such as the veterans Lasgun to shotgun exchange, you technically take that option for every member that takes the shotgun, so usually 6 times).

Now to re-address why you still cannot take the 2-vets for 1 team option multiple times:

Most options(and why the prevailing assumption is that you can only select an option once) limit themselves. The permission for HWT says you may exchange exactly 2 for 1, if you take that option more than once, you have exchanged more than 2 for 1(say, 4 for 2) and thus have broken the rules for exchange.

I do find it funny that the OP thinks this only works on vets, not every unit in the IG Codex.
I think a single 1000 point Leman Russ executioner with 20 Plasma Sponsons(40 Plasma Cannons) would be pretty funny(to model). But no, we buy the pair of sponsons, we then go back to take the option again and check: "has this model taken a pair of sponsons?" We answer: "yes", then we have fulfilled the option to take a pair, and to take another pair would be taking 2 pairs, which permission is not granted for.

All this is the reason you are allowed to take 2 WWP on a Haemonculous (you can technically take 2 Vexator Masks, Soul traps, liquifier guns, Scissor-hands, or Hex-rifles; but none of them really do anything when doubled)

I think that I can finally put down a logical argument for only 1 HWT per unit. In the option for the Shotgun upgrade it specifies that ANY veteran may exchange his lasgun, but I in the HWT option it specifies 2 veterans may be formed into a HWT. If the team was intended to be able to use multiple HWT then the wording would have been more like: Any number of veterans may be paired into HWT for X points per team.


PS: Thank you design team for keeping this problem out of my Tyranid codex. Now, about the Mawloc...

i never said it works only on vets, its jus the primary example...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kai wrote:I think that I can finally put down a logical argument for only 1 HWT per unit. In the option for the Shotgun upgrade it specifies that ANY veteran may exchange his lasgun, but I in the HWT option it specifies 2 veterans may be formed into a HWT. If the team was intended to be able to use multiple HWT then the wording would have been more like: Any number of veterans may be paired into HWT for X points per team.


PS: Thank you design team for keeping this problem out of my Tyranid codex. Now, about the Mawloc...

thank you