Assault Sgt. 2 power fists?

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.

**cadbren**

PolecatEZ wrote:
Hulksmash wrote:Is it more likely to believe (exclusive of the written evidence which allows it, this is just a common sense statement) that they allowed Assault marine sergeants to take 2 power fists?

it is exclusionary like every other rule in WH40k. They don't allow you to pick the same entry multiple times, ... In regular power armor [captains are], unfortunately, limited to using a single claw.

Where in the codex does it say that only one of each kind may be taken? You are infering something from previous editions I think.
Marines in terminator armour are given specific options for what they may replace their original wargear with which is why there are two entries. The single entry for marines in power armour means they can replace either of their original wargear options for what's on the list. This allows them to take pairs of things.
Also, if captains in power armour cannot take paired lightning claws, then why is there a photo of one in the codex on p108 which shows the commander figures you can buy?

**JCarter**

Back to English. The construction and/or means that either word can be used in the sentence. So "may replace his bolt pistol and chainsword with a [i.e., one] power fist." Alternative wording "may replace his bolt pistol or chainsword with a [i.e., one] power fist." Either way, you get only one power fist. Notice the difference in the Captain with TDA entry where it specifies that each of two different weapons may be exchanged for a lt claw but not a pwr fist. result: only one power fist, but two lt claws possible.

**Lordhat**

Yes but neither does the codex say that after replacing the bp OR the chainsword with A powerfist, you can't also replace the other with A powerfist.

**porkuslime**

Man.. this is gonna make my future Angry Marines sad.. course.. Codex trumps Rulebooks.. lol

-Porkuslime

**BBeale**

You can't ignore the fact that some entries allow for options to be taken as a pair. The assault sergeant entry being the prime example. The inclusion of "pair of lighning claws" in that entry, and its exclusion in others, is dispositive on this issue. If you ignore this fact, you have to argue that the codex is internally inconsistent in order for a tactical sergeant to be able to take multiples of entry options, which is a huge assumption on your part.

Brice

**Webbe**

Of corse it's inconsistent and full of typos, it's GW!

The double claw for the assault sergeant is clearly a typo.

And you are of course allowed to replace both bolt pistol and chainsword/bolter for the same weapon. You are never told you can, but you aren't told you can take two different weapons either.

**cadbren**

If only one item was allowed to be used the entry would state: "Replace bolt pistol or chainsword with:"

That would mean that you could replace either weapon with a power fist but not both of them.

By including the word 'and', we have the option of replacing both original weapons with anything on the list; that means that paired weapons are possible.

So 'and/or' means that you can replace the bolt pistol with a power fist OR you can replace the chainsword with a power fist, but it also means you can replace a bolt pistol with a power fist AND a chainsword with a power fist giving you twin power fists like ol' Marnie himself.

**cadbren**

JCarter, your interpretation is incorrect. Page 128 clearly states that the options to replace apply to neither, either or both of the original weapons.

The bolt pistol and chainsword are not counted as a single unit as they are seperate weapons. If we followed the logic that they were a single unit then replacing the bolt pistol and chainsword with one of the listed items would mean that the captain would be left with a single weapon, obviously this is not the case.

In this case 'and' means the option to upgrade applies to both the bolt pistol and chainsword, not as you suggested that both weapons are replaced for a single listed item.

The options under TDA are not relevant as it is clearly stated what can be replaced with what; the confusion has been about power amoured marines.
Overall the marines in TDA are very limited in their choices and I guess the reason for that is to stop everyone having terminator HQ units. The current rules clearly promote power amoured commanders by giving them lots more options.

**Tri**

looks like this is one for the FAQ no ones going to agree ... my veiw is that a pair counts as 2 so you replace both with it; if you are going to replace your bolt pistol with a power fist and replace your chainsword with a power fist, you're going to pay an extra 25p which is a waste for one more attack. ok its your call, personaly i think a melta bombs for 5pts is going to work out better... and if you get in CC with a Wrathlord or something you can't hurt? fail you're LD test fall back 3D6" and go after some thing else.

edit @: cadben thanks i have a blind spot for things like that

**cadbren**

The word is 'your', you're is short for you are.

As for what you put, I agree.

**Lordhat**

The word is wrote, not put.

Grammar check fail.

**cadbren**

Lordhat wrote:The word is wrote, not put.

Grammar check fail.

Actually, typed is the correct word. You write with a pen or pencil, or possibly crayon in your case. Put is more correct than wrote mate.

Tri, not a problem. I've found myself spelling things wrongly simply because I spend so much time on the net looking at bad spelling. I had very unforgiving teachers when it came to spelling but I'm grateful for their efforts.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Can you Asshats start another thread about internet typos and get outta here?!

Sheesh.

**Homer S**

I think the point on a pair of LC's for the Assault Sergeant is to let him keep a pistol. Funny that he is the only one worded that way, other than Assault Termies.

I think it is intended to let you purchase pairs of items, really pricey, but there it is. What I think should be more harshly dealt with is those who read pg. 128 to mean you can make a model a Swiss Army Knife and keep the bolt pistol/CCW and keep taking options like it was a shopping spree!

Homer

**JCarter**

No, cadbren. "And/or does not mean what you said. The construction means that either word can be used alone in the sentence. If you use the "and", then both weapons must be replaced for a single claw (or fist). If you select the "or", then one may be replaced, but not the other. The word "or" is exclusive in this context.

**temprus**

JCarter, that is silly. Why would you choose to replace both weapons for only one Option when you can get that Option by replacing JUST one weapon?

Page 128 explains it pretty well (at least in the English version). With two replaceable weapons, you can keep them both, replace one, or replace both. Each replacement entitles the model to one of the given Options in that section of their entry. If GW had wanted to limit a model to selecting an Option only once when replacing both weapons, they would have spelled it out on page 128.

The Assault Sgt can have the two PFs as Deathmachine asked about (previously confirmed). The Assault Sgt can have a gun and a pair of LCs (as has been mentioned). The Assault Sgt could also end up with 2 pairs of LCs (also mentioned before) since he has two replaceable weapons (this gives no game benefit beyond the +1A for having two LCs, but it can be purchased, and would make an interesting model

).

5th does not have any special meaning for the term "pair" as it did before in 40k, a model just needs to have two of the same weapon for PF/TH/LC to get the +1A benefit. For those that think GW will "close this loophole" and remove the choice of the same Option twice, why do they have a Chapter Master pictured on page 52 with 2 Thunder Hammers, if he has no way to purchase it? Yes, it could just be "Rule of Cool", but I doubt it, using two Thunder Hammers was mentioned as a SM perk at one of the recent seminars and they did not imply then that it was for Terminators only.

I admit that they might kill the dual pairs of LCs with a FAQ though.

**Deathmachine**

YES I KNEW I COULD USE 2 thanks temprus it just seemed worded kinda weird.

**JCarter**

"What are you doing in the ordnance room, Sarge?"
"I just came to pick up a lightning claw, Master Sergeant."
"OK, Sarge, just turn in your chainsword or your bolt pistol or both and take a claw off the rack."
"Thanks, Master Sergeant, I'll turn in my chainsword." Goes to the rack and turns to leave.
"Hey, Master Sergeant, I'll turn in my pistol too and get another claw."
"Whoah, there Sarge. I said turn in your pistol or sword or both. You wanna turn in both, that's up to you, but you only get one claw."
"But I already turned in a sword, Master Sergeant, now I want to turn in a pistol and get another claw."
"You think I just fell off the watermelon truck? That sword and pistol are registered to you. If you want to turn in both, OK, but you're not walking out of here with two claws for a pistol and sword. Read the instructions right there on the wall. And don't try any of your dog-robbing ploys on me. I was a sergeant when you were still getting implants."
"Yes, Master Sergeant." Leaves.

**Deathmachine**

that was stupid and pointless.

**Breton**

So by the both for one logic, those devastator squads are all illegal... up to four marines may replace their boltguns with one of the following.. so four guys can give up their boltguns to lug around one heavy weapon... And I'd better not see anyone carring four heavy bolters, or four missile launchers in one dev squad either... since you can't take the same option twice.

**Deathmachine**

where does it say you cant take the same option twice???

**Breton**

Aome argue you can't take two PF's because you're only allowed a given option once. Others because you can't trade your BP for one, and your CCW for the other.

Obviously, either of those logical applications would render Devastator squads comicially ridiculous.

**Deathmachine**

this has nothing to do with squads this is for sgts. only they can be given any wargear from the space marine weapons list. it has nothing to do with a normal marine taking 4 lascannons.

**Breton**

Actually it would be four normal marines taking 1 lascannon.

And the point was- its basically the same wording... the Sgt may exchange... up to four may exchange...

And by the way:

If you do apply the same logic to virtually the same wording:

Your devastator squad will have either 1 heavy weapon, or 3.

With the and/or crowd, up to four may trade their boltguns for one lascannon.

With the no option twice crowd, up to four may replace for three different options:

Option 1
The ML/HB/MM
Option 2
The PC
Option 3
The LC.

**Deathmachine**

you still have no point this is for an assualt sgt not devs. sgts may replace there wargear and weapons it does not say you cant take two of the same thing. what you are talking about is different it says up to 4 models may replace there bolters for heavy weapons. there for you cant take more thats easy enuff to see. but it does not put restrictions on sgts ie. it does not say he may only replace one item and can not have 2 of the same things

**sourclams**

Deathmachine wrote:where does it say you cant take the same option twice???

I'm curious about this one as well. I assumed it carried over from 4th ed, but I can't actually find it anywhere.

**Breton**

Its not there Sourclams. I was trying to refute both that position, and the and/or meaning trade both weapons for one weapon arguements by pointing to another entry with very similar wording that with similar application would be worthless.

If the Sgt can only trade his bp, his CCW or both his BP And his CCW for a power fist, then:

A devastator squad may have 1, 2, 3, or 4 marines trade their bolter for one lascannon, etc.

If the Sgt can trade his BP for X, and his CCW for Y, then a devastator squad may:

Have one marine trade his boltgun for a ML, MM or HB.
Have one marine trade his boltgun for a PC
and
Have one marine trade his boltgun for a LC.

**sourclams**

Yeah, I'm with the 2 powerfist people on this one. My sergeant can replace his chainsword with a powerfist. He can then replace his bolt pistol with a powerfist. He now has two powerfists and no other weapons.

Now, on the other hand, if we accept the and/or statement to mean that any one choice can be swapped for the bolt pistol or the chainsword, my sergeant can then replace his chainsword with two lightning claws and retain his bolt pistol.

If anything, the way this entry is written makes the twin lightning claw combo more powerful as it also allows him to retain a shooting attack.

No need to bring devastator squads, 4th edition, 3rd edition, 1st edition, or your FLGS rules chipmunk into it. It's all straight up out of 5th ed rules.

**Breton**

Actually I was pointing at similar wording in the same codex to show that two fists was the intended as-written.

**Deathmachine**

Rigggghhtttt....