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, frag and krak grenades both have weapon profiles, so I was thinking that they would count as weapons for the purpose of choosing wargear.... ex. A space marine captain can pick items from the chapter relics list, the stipulation is that he has to swap one of his weapons for it. So, because they are weapons can he switch his frag/krak grenades for a relic?

Deffo not RAI, but seems like RAW.

Technically yes.
But in an actual game there's no way I'd consider doing it.

Before I knew about the FAQ to Grey Knights Inquisitors, I've actually done this. (Switching out the Frag grenades for a force weapon when taking the Psyker upgrade.)

6th edition squarely made many forms of grenades into weapons. If you tried to switch out a grenade which had neither a melee nor shooting profile, I'd be less sanguine about it, but if it's listed in the weapons section of the book, and has a melee weapon profile or a ranged weapon profile, then it's a duck.

Yeah that's very dodgy!

RAW I don't think this works. The core rules never list grenades as weapons. They are listed as grenades with special rules that allow you to use them during the shooting phase or assault phase.

Within the new codex's that I own (C:SM, C:Eldar, C: DA) grenades are all listed within the wargear sections. Under the units selections the grenades are listed under wargear as well.

I don't see anything that would classify grenades as a weapon.

 Goldphish wrote:
RAW I don't think this works. The core rules never list grenades as weapons.

Check Page 50 "Every weapon has a profile. Here are two examples..."

Check Page 61... "Assault Grenade Range 8" S3 AP- Type Assault 1, blast"

Looks like grenades have a weapon profile.

They are listed as grenades with special rules that allow you to use them during the shooting phase or assault phase.

Within the new codex's that I own (C:SM, C:Eldar, C: DA) grenades are all listed within the wargear sections. Under the units selections the grenades are listed under wargear as well.

I don't see anything that would classify grenades as a weapon.

Except for, you know, the weapon profile.

RAW it works.

Would I play this way? Only if my opponent wanted to.

So, shield eternal, burning blade AND primarch's wrath? Oh yeeeeessss.

 Imperator_Class wrote:
So, shield eternal, burning blade AND primarch's wrath? Oh yeeeeessss.

Don't forget "no opponent"

I just wont point out the loadout. The onus is on him to realise why my chapter master is destroying guys left right and centre

 Imperator_Class wrote:
I just wont point out the loadout. The onus is on him to realise why my chapter master is destroying guys left right and centre

Wow, I'll be honest that truly stinks of dishonesty.
I would never swap the grenades as a weapon, and I certainly would not then hide this low deed from my opponent.
I feel sorry for anyone that plays you.

Nah Im joking , using this is fething dirty business.

Imperator_class,
This trick can be used, but expect to get the title of 'that ******* guy' when people figure out what you are doing. Hiding it from them for as long as possible will just end up making the situation a great deal worse, even if it is dirty but legal you will still be label as someone whom cheats. After all, if you are dishonest about bending a rule in a technically legal way what other things are you trying to hide that have no grounds in legality? Given at some point you will have to turn over your list, even the book states players whom are keeping their lists secret during the game have to turn them over at the end, expect your reputation to take a sudden downwards plummet before too long.

Edited:
You got in before me confirming this is in jest, which I was hoping it would be, so I take back the last sentence stating I have less respect for what you say on this board.

It's listed as a weapon in the BRB and fits all the criteria of being one.

Going to an armory loadout system for all units in 6E has been a giant headache because I don't think GW thought it 100% through with the wording. As it's currently worded, grenades are weapons and "any weapon" may be swapped for a relic. However, I and most other people I know believe the intention was any CCW/Assault weapon or Ranged Weapon (ex: chainsword, bolt pistol) could be swapped.

No.

The specific wording is "A Captain may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons.. etc lists"

Move to the lists: Ranged Weapons "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or Melee weapon with one of the following"

Is a grenade a Melee weapon? Pg 60, BRB Melee Weapons of the 41st Millennium. Note how all weapons on this page have a special rule in their profile called Melee. It is capitalized just like the rule in the codex.

Grenades Pg 61 BRB. None of the profiles here show the tag Melee. They have special rules for how they work in assaults. Ergo, Grenades are not Melee Weapons. Nor are they bolt pistols or bolt guns. They are not valid replacement options.

While I agrre with the sentiment Dessorag, the relic section says to "replace one weapon".

This does bring up the Question of how Imperator_Class is going to exchange three weapons for three relics, when it says one weapon may be exchanged.

Double Shinanigans!

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Goldphish wrote:
RAW I don't think this works. The core rules never list grenades as weapons.

Check Page 50 "Every weapon has a profile. Here are two examples..."

Check Page 61... "Assault Grenade Range 8" S3 AP- Type Assault 1, blast"

Looks like grenades have a weapon profile.

They are listed as grenades with special rules that allow you to use them during the shooting phase or assault phase.

Within the new codex's that I own (C:SM, C:Eldar, C: DA) grenades are all listed within the wargear sections. Under the units selections the grenades are listed under wargear as well.

I don't see anything that would classify grenades as a weapon.

Except for, you know, the weapon profile.

RAW it works.

Just because every weapon has a profile does not mean that everything with a profile is a weapon. That is bad logic. The fact that all people have hearts doesn't mean that all hearts have people.

Someone else suggested that grenades are listed under 'weapons' in the BRB while the poster that you responded to said that they are never listed as weapons. I don't have time to check, but whichever one of them is correct really decides this question.

Rules lawyering to gain advantage, cheating and will be seen as such by others, good old RAW haha

Rapture,
Within a Rule as Written format, those sort of descriptions are absolutes and anything that meets those requirements will fall under the terminology being described. Without that fact we end up in situations where we can simply state a Rule can not be applicable simply because we, personally, don't believe it should meet the definition put forth. Not to mention the reverse is also true, if the description is not absolute then we can form arguments that things which do not meet the description still count because we, personally, believe in a much wider definition of X. If you personally believe in a much smaller or wider definition then there is no reason you can't make House Rules around them and ask for them to be used in game. Still, that is a great deal different then posting on a Rule forum to state a definitions within the book does not matter.

If the definitions are not meant to be absolutes, then the only correct way to write a Rule would be to to actually state everything that could be effected by said Rule by name. This is not a possibility with Warhammer 40K due to the huge number of every changing Models and other factors. That is the very reason we have terminologies and their definitions, so the rule writers can simply state things like Models, or Weapons, without having huge arguments over what falls under these terminologies. They stated outright what is and isn't counted, and we have to take that list as complete and absolute... even in situations where we believe it isn't complete or absolute, but those are Game Workshops responsibilities to officially correct.

Besides:
They are listed in the Weapon section.

 grendel083 wrote:
While I agrre with the sentiment Dessorag, the relic section says to "replace one weapon".

This does bring up the Question of how Imperator_Class is going to exchange three weapons for three relics, when it says one weapon may be exchanged.

Double Shinanigans!

Oops, yes, Chapter Relics does say "weapon" not anything else specific. I answered the wrong question.

The rule 'weapon" isn't capitalized, so it's not a specific thing. Go ahead, have fun, replace your grenades. Theoretically, you could take all 5 of the relics a captain could take then. And increase his cost by 220 points...

I do recommend the OP take this question to the Tactics forum to discuss why anyone would care if you do. The only scenario I am seeing is that you want a superbolter, a powerful melee weapon, AND a bolt pistol because you are quite convinced you are a space wolf and want an extra attack without losing your ability to stand and shoot. This ability is very clearly worth 55 to 75 points...

Dessorag,
There is some debate if a model can take more then one weapon from the Relic List at a time, because the swap X for Y does state 'one x for one y.' Some people think it means 1:1 ratio, regardless of how many are exchanged. Some people believe that you have permission from the Army List to evoke the ability to swap multiple times to get around the 'one X for one Y' rule. Others believe it is a sold one for one situation, with no flexibility or ability to re-evoke, so you are limited to only one relic per model. Regardless of which one is correct, the fact there is so many different views mean's it is impossible to state that taking 5 relics is legal for 100% certainty.

I'm just glad I use Tau, where is we don't have a 'one for one' restriction.

JinxDragon wrote:
Rapture,
Within a Rule as Written format, those sort of descriptions are absolutes and anything that meets those requirements will fall under the terminology being described. Without that fact we end up in situations where we can simply state a Rule can not be applicable simply because we, personally, don't believe it should meet the definition put forth. Not to mention the reverse is also true, if the description is not absolute then we can form arguments that things which do not meet the description still count because we, personally, believe in a much wider definition of X. If you personally believe in a much smaller or wider definition then there is no reason you can't make House Rules around them and ask for them to [/quote be used in game. Still, that is a great deal different then posting on a Rule forum to state a definitions within the book does not matter.

If the definitions are not meant to be absolutes, then the only correct way to write a Rule would be to to actually state everything that could be effected by said Rule by name. This is not a possibility with Warhammer 40K due to the huge number of every changing Models and other factors. That is the very reason we have terminologies and their definitions, so the rule writers can simply state things like Models, or Weapons, without having huge arguments over what falls under these terminologies. They stated outright what is and isn't counted, and we have to take that list as complete and absolute... even in situations where we believe it isn't complete or absolute, but those are Game Workshops responsibilities to officially correct.

The definition is not presented as an absolute or otherwise - it is not presented as a definition. The wrote simply said that'weapons have profiles.' A Space Marine has a profile. Is a Space Marine a weapon? From what was quoted, the idea that anything with a profile is a .weapon' is just wrong.

As to the rest, I don't really know why you bothered. None of that is applicable in this situation

JinxDragon wrote:

Besides:
They are listed in the Weapon section.

That is not a 'besides.' That is, like I said before, the only thing that maters. I couldn't care less as to whether people think that it is fair or intended and the rules don't care either.

Only the section goes on to describe what a Weapon Profile looks like, so any profile which does not match that description is clearly not a weapon related profile.

JinxDragon wrote:
Regardless of which one is correct, the fact there is so many different views mean's it is impossible to state that taking 5 relics is legal for 100% certainty.

I appreciate your background on the history of rule arguments, but you've missed my point. I'm saying I don't care. I'm suggesting the community shouldn't either. I see negligible advantage from any reading of the text proposed. The OP found a rule that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and exterminates Xenos like a duck. My ability to defeat him is not unfairly impacted by whether or not he brings his duck. Enjoy the duck.

Your reasoning is also false. Existence of multiple interpretations in no way invalidates rulings with 100% certainty. If it did, TOs would have a very sad job indeed. I also have no idea why you assume I can speak with perfect, divine understanding regarding a rules question. I'm a faceless neckbeard on the internet. I've given my opinion, I've backed up my opinion with rule text, and I've suggested the community worry a little less about this one. For anything else, I appreciate your assertion of my capability to dictate reality, but I do regret to inform you that I am not secretly Robin Cruddace.

Dessorag,
While I personally think it is stupid to put so many relics on a single model, even if I was to play Space Marines, it is undoubtedly useful as many people want to do it. This would make it impossible to state we should ignore the implications because they are 'negligible' even if that was a suitable answer to a Rule debate. It doesn't matter if someone was using a very unusual interpretation simply because it it gives a negligible advantage if it is wrong. Now how broken an interpenetration is can make a difference in a great deal of rule disputes I often use it as a measuring stick if two opposing views are using the same Rules as their 'Written support,' but even then it has never been enough to prove a side correct beyond any reasonable doubt.

Also I never stated it invalidates the rule, just that it makes it uncertain to know the rules intent.

Which comes down to the very reason this site exists: Because it is very important that we know the rules, understand the rule interactions and obey them. There are dedicated and experienced players here, not more then a handful of my fellow Rule Lawyers, and people post here asking for nothing more then their input onto a questionable rule or scenario. While I do agree with you that it is vastly more important how one's local group plays it as opposed to the internet as a whole, the very fact we are posting here sort of proves we consider this communities input to be valid and care about what each other posts.

After all, why should we bother posting here if we didn't give a damn about what the community here thinks?

Dessorag wrote:
No.

The specific wording is "A Captain may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons.. etc lists"

Move to the lists: Ranged Weapons "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or Melee weapon with one of the following"

Is a grenade a Melee weapon? Pg 60, BRB Melee Weapons of the 41st Millennium. Note how all weapons on this page have a special rule in their profile called Melee. It is capitalized just like the rule in the codex.

Grenades Pg 61 BRB. None of the profiles here show the tag Melee. They have special rules for how they work in assaults. Ergo, Grenades are not Melee Weapons. Nor are they bolt pistols or bolt guns. They are not valid replacement options.

Check that part again...

"Some grenades can be used against vehicles and/or
Monstrous Creatures, but have to be clamped in place to
maximise effect.
A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon..." (61)

Grenades can be used as a melee weapon in CC against MCs and vehicles.

Would still get wrecked by a Daemon Prince.

I don't see the value in doing this other than showing off a fancy way of making a 400 point model "look" strong.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Goldphish wrote:
RAW I don't think this works. The core rules never list grenades as weapons.

Check Page 50 "Every weapon has a profile. Here are two examples..."

Check Page 61... "Assault Grenade Range 8" S3 AP- Type Assault 1, blast"

Looks like grenades have a weapon profile.

BRB p.50 does make this annoying, but BRB p.61 lists grenades in their own section with their own special rules. It is odd that they have written the rules under each grenade differently, but if you look under specific grenades it is said, "Unless used in assault against vehicles...(grenades) have no effect," or "When they are used in assaults against vehicles or Monstrous Creatures...(grenades) have the following profile."

I would argue that grenades have no profile unless they are used within their own special rules, ie "throwing a grenade instead of using another shooting weapon," or against specific CC encounters a unit may choose to use the grenades special rule to perform a single attack instead of their own.

They are listed as grenades with special rules that allow you to use them during the shooting phase or assault phase.

Within the new codex's that I own (C:SM, C:Eldar, C: DA) grenades are all listed within the wargear sections. Under the units selections the grenades are listed under wargear as well.

I don't see anything that would classify grenades as a weapon.

Except for, you know, the weapon profile.

RAW it works.

Would I play this way? Only if my opponent wanted to.

p.50 does state that anything with a weapon profile counts as a weapon, but this may just be bad writing. Specific wargear such as Eldar's Serpent Shield becomes a weapon. Psychic powers with weapon profiles are now weapons and psychic powers. Does a Techmarine with the servo-harness upgrade count as having 1 additional weapon it could exchange out since it has a weapon profile? What if a vehicle with the special rule Psychic Pilot takes a penetrating hit and rolls Weapon Destroyed. I don't know if there is a vehicle yet that can take BRB powers, but what happens when/if there is one? Does the psychic power with a weapon profile count as a weapon to be destroyed?

Really this just comes down to HQ's and how many relics they can take which is a lot of different arguments. Grenades have weapon profiles under specific circumstances in the game. They are never listed as weapons except for the BRB p.50 weapon synopsis. RAW I don't think it works, but I can see the argument for it.

 Goldphish wrote:


p.50 does state that anything with a weapon profile counts as a weapon...

Grenades have weapon profiles under specific circumstances in the game. They are never listed as weapons except for the BRB p.50 weapon synopsis. RAW I don't think it works, but I can see the argument for it.

So Grenades do have " weapon profiles under specific circumstances"?

If yes then they do in fact have a weapon profile, and count as a weapon.