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.

Hey dakka.

i'm a newer player and am fielding white scars currently with Khan + Command Squad. The current set up:

Command Squad - 340pts.
Apothecary w. BP/CCW
Veteran w. LC/SS/Melta
Veteran w. LC/SS
Veteran w. PF/SS/Melta
Company Champion

Now i've seen this build a plethora of other places over the internet including the White Scars Blog. However i had another player tell me that this set up was illegal today, him stating that i could only have 2 weapon options on any given model. But the way I read the entry was:

May replace BP/CCW with:
-Melta
-Misc Power Weapons

Later:

Any Veteran May have:
-Storm Shield


So i took it to mean that the SS was additional equipment, that the Veterans fired their meltas in the shooting only to holster and draw their power weapons in the Assault phase.

Again, i'm a noob so i'd like some veteran feedback as well as some solid evidence to point one way or the other.

Thanks

You're right. The SS doesn't replace anything, and is simply added to the model's Wargear. Mind you, you'd have to represent all that.

Look at Grey Hunters. They have Boltguns, Bolt Pistols, AND Chainswords.

Ok just for my piece of mind. So the veterans may in the same turn blow up my chimera with his melta gun and then the same veteran may use his power weapon stomsheild to kill the squad inside. That is totally legal? IdonO. We need more opions??

@shadekllan : I know grey hunters have blolters and bolt pistol chain sword combo but there is never a opportunity to use both.... Unless relentless. But let's say they are not. ??? I dont kniw if im right Just confussed trying to make some sense of it.

". So the veterans may in the same turn blow up my chimera with his melta gun and then the same veteran may use his power weapon stomsheild to kill the squad inside."

Yes, the weapon you fire in the shooting phase has no bearing* on the weapons you use in the assault phase.
*Rapid fire and Heavy weapons disallow the assault unless the unit firing them are relentless.

As Grey Hunters are not relentless they can fire the bolter and sit there, or fire the bolt pistol and assault.

If they were to gain the relentless special rule they could fire their bolters and assault. they would use the BP/CCW in assault.

Do we have any place in the rulebook to hunt it down and show people when they question this? IT made sense to me, but some others have been arguing that the reverse is true(ie no melta on PW/SS models) i see their point. Gah my brain!

The last codex that limited you to exactly two weapons (only one of them 2-handed) was Codex: Witchhunters which is now obsolete.

So show them your codex, and ask them to find the part that forbids a marine from carrying more than 2 weapons (or x weapons and a SS). Then have them look at the Command Squad options and read them carefully. There's no other "proof" than that.

edit: Page 128 C:SM - number 7 on the list of explanations. And/or means either, neither or both provided you fork over the points.

Masos wrote:Ok just for my piece of mind. So the veterans may in the same turn blow up my chimera with his melta gun and then the same veteran may use his power weapon stomsheild to kill the squad inside. That is totally legal? IdonO. We need more opions??

@shadekllan : I know grey hunters have blolters and bolt pistol chain sword combo but there is never a opportunity to use both.... Unless relentless. But let's say they are not. ??? I dont kniw if im right Just confussed trying to make some sense of it.

You can't shoot a transport, then assault the squad inside. The transport is not part of the same unit as the squad inside, and the rules clearly state that you cannot shoot X and assault Y.

Shadelkan wrote:You can't shoot a transport, then assault the squad inside. The transport is not part of the same unit as the squad inside, and the rules clearly state that you cannot shoot X and assault Y.

Yes you can shoot a transport, then assault the squad inside.

Re-read P.67 right column, Destroyed - explodes! section, 2nd graph, 2nd sentence.

Normally you are correct you cannot shoot X and assault Y, except in the case of a transport and its contents.

DeathReaper wrote:

Shadelkan wrote:You can't shoot a transport, then assault the squad inside. The transport is not part of the same unit as the squad inside, and the rules clearly state that you cannot shoot X and assault Y.

Yes you can shoot a transport, then assault the squad inside.

Re-read P.67 right column, Destroyed - explodes! section, 2nd graph, 2nd sentence.

Normally you are correct you cannot shoot X and assault Y, except in the case of a transport and its contents.

Correct, the only limitation is that you can't shoot the transport and blow it up with a melta and them fire everything else at the squad that gets out. But yes, you can assault the squad.

Also, only the unit that blows up the transport is eligible to assault the unit inside, so if Unit A shoots at the transport and fails to blow it up, but Unit B does blow it up, ONLY Unit B can assault the occupants.

Happyjew wrote:Also, only the unit that blows up the transport is eligible to assault the unit inside, so if Unit A shoots at the transport and fails to blow it up, but Unit B does blow it up, ONLY Unit B can assault the occupants.

And of course C-Z that didn't fire at the transport at all.
(I know you know that - just clarifying for others)

rigeld2 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Also, only the unit that blows up the transport is eligible to assault the unit inside, so if Unit A shoots at the transport and fails to blow it up, but Unit B does blow it up, ONLY Unit B can assault the occupants.

And of course C-Z that didn't fire at the transport at all.
(I know you know that - just clarifying for others)

So... Let me get it straight. Let's restart. Unit 1 kills the transport, its allowed to assault. Unit 2, who hasn't shot at anything, can or cannot assault the squad inside?

Shadelkan wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Also, only the unit that blows up the transport is eligible to assault the unit inside, so if Unit A shoots at the transport and fails to blow it up, but Unit B does blow it up, ONLY Unit B can assault the occupants.

And of course C-Z that didn't fire at the transport at all.
(I know you know that - just clarifying for others)

So... Let me get it straight. Let's restart. Unit 1 kills the transport, its allowed to assault. Unit 2, who hasn't shot at anything, can or cannot assault the squad inside?

Can.

Unit 1 shoots the transport, fails to pen. Unit 2 shoots the transport, pens, spills out all the goodies. Units 2-n can assault the goodies.

It's only if you shoot the transport and fail to destroy it but it is later destroyed by something else that you cannot assault the unit (that was) inside.

Unit 1 blows up the transport. He is allowed to assault the unit inside.
Unit 2 (who has done nothing yet) is free to shoot at the unit that was embarked (and assault them, assuming they can assault normally)

Spetulhu wrote:The last codex that limited you to exactly two weapons (only one of them 2-handed) was Codex: Witchhunters which is now obsolete.

So show them your codex, and ask them to find the part that forbids a marine from carrying more than 2 weapons (or x weapons and a SS). Then have them look at the Command Squad options and read them carefully. There's no other "proof" than that.

edit: Page 128 C:SM - number 7 on the list of explanations. And/or means either, neither or both provided you fork over the points.

You can even show them the Assault Squad Sergeant, who can wield 4 lightning claws and a combat shield.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:The last codex that limited you to exactly two weapons (only one of them 2-handed) was Codex: Witchhunters which is now obsolete.

So show them your codex, and ask them to find the part that forbids a marine from carrying more than 2 weapons (or x weapons and a SS). Then have them look at the Command Squad options and read them carefully. There's no other "proof" than that.

edit: Page 128 C:SM - number 7 on the list of explanations. And/or means either, neither or both provided you fork over the points.

You can even show them the Assault Squad Sergeant, who can wield 4 lightning claws and a combat shield.

The difference with that is that, you can replace your Chainsword and/or Bolt Pistol for the items, limiting you to two weapon options in that case.

If items are additional, like, a Stormshield, then you can have a Stormshield, a Melta Gun, and a Power Weapon.

In the Command Squad entry, you can replace one of the default weapons (or even both) with a pair of Lightning Claws. Then you can add a Storm Shield and then you can give one Veteran the Company Standard.

So you can have a guy with four LCs, a SS and the standard.

Oh yeah, and he can then ride a bike. He steers with his legs, that much is for certain. But all of this is perfectly legal, even though it is both useless to have a guy with two pairs of LCs as well as absurd. But it is legal.

The stormshield is not a weapon so you could have a bp/cc and still benefit from a ss if you have one. The thing is in almost every codex entry you have to replace one of your weapons to get the ss. However, in the command squad you do not have to replace anything so it's leagal to have 2 weapons and a ss.