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.

I disagree. I have asked several times what is that value of the argued configuration, and the result was always, I don't plan on running this, it's completely inferior.
Then why are we discussing this?

There is no reason to have this thread in the first place.

Presumably, because the original poster wanted to know if they could do it. Whether you can legally do something and whether it is tactically desirable to do so in a competitive format are too completely different points.

YMDC is a rules forum there is a separate tactics thread. Not all players who ask questions are looking for competative builds.

Secondly when rule disputes come up like this they tend to impact multiple rulings so we try and come up with why it works the way it does so if GW create a future datasheet we know what the answer is(each point once in any order). Most people only look at the end of a thread so you want it to be clear.

I agree to the pointlessness of the thread because the rules answer has been RAW yes since page 1 and we have had two pages of people saying otherwise with no evidence which were as wrong as they were on page one

U02dah4 wrote:
Presumably, because the original poster wanted to know if they could do it. Whether you can legally do something and whether it is tactically desirable to do so in a competitive format are too completely different points.

YMDC is a rules forum there is a separate tactics thread. Not all players who ask questions are looking for competative builds.

Secondly when rule disputes come up like this they tend to impact multiple rulings so we try and come up with why it works the way it does so if GW create a future datasheet we know what the answer is(each point once in any order). Most people only look at the end of a thread so you want it to be clear.

I agree to the pointlessness of the thread because the rules answer has been RAW yes since page 1 and we have had two pages of people saying otherwise with no evidence which were as wrong as they were on page one

Yeah I was confused by the wording and was wondering if I could or not my current 2 SGTs have a power sword and bolt pistol combo for my auto bolt rifle squads since they will be running in and probably getting charged first. So I was asking if the SGTs can have rifles also or if the words are just wonky as written. After all these posts I’m still as confused as ever


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I disagree. I have asked several times what is that value of the argued configuration, and the result was always, I don't plan on running this, it's completely inferior.
Then why are we discussing this?

There is no reason to have this thread in the first place.

Please read the first post I just wanted a yes or no but than it kinda blew up in a way I never really want it to. Still no idea if I can legally or not. It’s not “should I use this?” It was “can I legally use this cause I’d like to glue a rifle onto my guy if I can” and than depending on the situation use a guy with or without a power sword....

One of my first comments in this thread was about how the answer was not quick to get because you and others were arguing about what was and wasn’t WAAC.

RAW isn’t always clear, here I think it is. That doesn’t take from the irony of having to explain your interpretation of RAW as a reason for not allowing interpretation.

Getting a definitive answer is nice where possible but sometimes it isn’t. So having a discussion about HIWPI and reasonable steps to take to stop problems is perfectly valid but you very rudely and authoritatively gak down any of that. That’s not been nice. It makes this a toxic part of the forum where genuine people with real questions are shut down and lectured to by rules lawyers with superiority complexes. It’s not a nice place to come and I see very few of the discussions on here end in a civilised or helpful manner.

Your in agreement with the RAW your also not arguing with my definition of RAW. So while in some context HIWPI is relevant in this context its not. Bringing it or RAI in therefore only clouds the issue. (And yes course there are times when its relevant here isn't one) Yes when its used inappropriately it should be shut down as you say the RAW is clear so we don't need it. The only irony is that it needs explaining to people contributing because if you don't understand a rules answer should be couched where possible in the rules you shouldn't be contributing.

A rules forum is a place to get to rules answers so people can go away and have fun and play. If people are getting shut down it is because at times these forums become unhelpfull and 95% of the time it is not the rules lawyers it is the people couching rules answers based on what they think it should be, giving objectively wrong answers without supporting there argument with evidence. Because if you took those out of it you would have a simple clear answer. (Of course supported counter arguments are always welcome).

So you end up with 3 choices ignoring misleading statements meaning a casual players/readers doesnt recognise what the ruling is

Trying to educate people not to do it

Ending up like a broken record when the twentieth time in a thread we establish the same clear RAW answer and then someone else chimes up with the same unsupported answer that has been debunked as having no evidence twenty times or that RAI/HIWPI can be relevantin other situations.

Maybe I’ll just run tacticals

Stalked21 wrote:
Please read the first post I just wanted a yes or no but than it kinda blew up in a way I never really want it to. Still no idea if I can legally or not. It’s not “should I use this?” It was “can I legally use this cause I’d like to glue a rifle onto my guy if I can” and than depending on the situation use a guy with or without a power sword....

To answer your question, your Intercessor Sgt can have:

bolt pistol and the squad's type of bolt rifle

bolt pistol, the squad's type of bolt rifle, and one of the following: Astartes chainsword; power fist; power sword; thunder hammer

bolt pistol, hand flamer/plasma pistol, and one of the following: Astartes chainsword; power fist; power sword; thunder hammer

Bolt Pistol and one of the following: hand flamer; plasma pistol; Astartes chainsword; power sword.

Finally, the only real bone of contention is that the Interessor Sgt can be the 1 in 5 models to be equipped with an Astartes grenade launcher. The wording of that wargear bullet point can be considered to be ambiguous as to whether it is legal to have the AGL without the rifle.

Note: This datasheet is a mess. It looks like they forgot you can use the wargear bullet points in any order rather than sequentially. It makes much more sense if you have to use sequentially, but even then it is not quite right.

 alextroy wrote:
the only real bone of contention is that the Interessor Sgt can be the 1 in 5 models to be equipped with an Astartes grenade launcher. The wording of that wargear bullet point can be considered to be ambiguous as to whether it is legal to have the AGL without the rifle.

If the SGT is equipped with a bolt rifle, auto bolt rifle or stalker bolt rifle at the time you take the AGL, he can be equipped with 1 Astartes grenade launcher.

If you trade away the rifle after you choose that bullet point, it is still legal as per the rule about bullet points in any order.

Doesn't that argument inherently convey the fact that you require a rifle to have the AGL at all?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Doesn't that argument inherently convey the fact that you require a rifle to have the AGL at all?

Yes, but only at the time you take the AGL. Once you've satisfied the conditions of that bullet point you don't have to keep checking it. So you can then trade away your rifle for something else, according to the restrictions in the other bullet points.

Slipspace wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Doesn't that argument inherently convey the fact that you require a rifle to have the AGL at all?

Yes, but only at the time you take the AGL. Once you've satisfied the conditions of that bullet point you don't have to keep checking it. So you can then trade away your rifle for something else, according to the restrictions in the other bullet points.

Yep

Slipspace wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Doesn't that argument inherently convey the fact that you require a rifle to have the AGL at all?

Yes, but only at the time you take the AGL. Once you've satisfied the conditions of that bullet point you don't have to keep checking it. So you can then trade away your rifle for something else, according to the restrictions in the other bullet points.

100% this.

Once you use a bullet point, and satisfy the conditions, it does not matter if you later trade away something that you needed for that point.

This might settle things. It is from the official 40K app so is GWs take in the rule. You can clearly see the AGL taken with no rifle and permitted.

Andykp wrote:
This might settle things. It is from the official 40K app so is GWs take in the rule. You can clearly see the AGL taken with no rifle and permitted.

If anything that should be taken as proof that you DO need the rifle, simply because of GW's incompetence when it comes to their own rules. That being said, the RaW does seem to agree with GW on this rare occasion.

I mean I'm a proponent of the raw supporting letting you take the bullet points in any order but unfortunately that app has too many errors to be considered a credible source at the moment

This is brings into question what is an official source on the rules, 3rd party apps definitely not but this one, although it has many errors it still an official source and has to be considered when having these discussions.

It seems well know to be extremely buggy at the moment and by extremely buggy I mean a catalogue of discrepancies with the books dozens flagged in some codexs in the past 60 days

one day it might be considered a rules source but at the moment if it comes to a conflict between the app and a book the book supercedes it

This reminds me of when people posted Facebook messages from the GW Facebook page as proof of an argument. Would you accept battlescribe as proof? Because I would trust battlescribe OVER the GW app in it's current state. It's barely out of alpha, infact it's STILL in beta. It's not a trustable source.

At this point the most honest proof I would want is a "like" interpretation of a similar rule. Is anyone familair with another unit that has bullet point weapon options that conflict? I would assume we could apply the same argument to the lowly IG trooper squad? Does the same interpretation hold water for them?

Andykp wrote:
This is brings into question what is an official source on the rules, 3rd party apps definitely not but this one, although it has many errors it still an official source and has to be considered when having these discussions.

We know what is an official source of rules for discussions in this forum. From the Tenets of You Make Da Call:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop can be easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

2a. Rulings via GW's social media accounts, twitch streams, etc., even though often provided by the actual games designers, are still not considered official rulings by GW until they are actually published in a errata/FAQ. As such, while it is fine to bring up rulings provided this way in YMDC, it must always be couched with the understanding that these are not official, binding rulings until they actually make their way into a errata/FAQ. If you are mentioning such a ruling, please take the time to post a link to where it can be found so that others can verify for themselves what you're referring to.

It might be buggy, but the GW app could be more of an indicator of what their RAI is on this. We already know the RAW allows you to take the AGL and later trade away the rifle (as has been documented many a time in the thread), so it can be seen as a pleasant surprise that the app follows RAW.

Andykp wrote:
This might settle things. It is from the official 40K app so is GWs take in the rule. You can clearly see the AGL taken with no rifle and permitted.

This pre beta software is not a source for valid rules.

The tenets may need to change though as “books” go digital. I agree book over rules the app, especially now but on matters like this where the book and app agree by one understanding of it it adds weight to the argument, say that the AGL doesn’t require a rifle on the model.

Battle scribe isn’t “official” so it may be more up to date or accurate now but no would take it over GW rules. Not saying it’s a deal breaker now but it may become on later on.

Andykp wrote:
The tenets may need to change though as “books” go digital.

There are no digital rules releases for 9th edition. Regardless, a 'rulebook' is still a 'rulebook' no matter if it's in a dead tree or digital format.

Oh, to me a book is a paper thing. An app with codex code entered and information downloaded is a different thing from an ebook.

Look the argument is over. We all understand that until it is FAQ'd, the best case scenario is to talk about it with your opponent before hand.

"All my SGTs have this oddly inferior load out that serves no purpose, but I argued about in on a forum for 3 pages, so I am doing it. They fire krak grenades out of their, you know what? It doesn't matter, here is my army list."

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
"All my SGTs have this oddly inferior load out that serves no purpose, but I argued about in on a forum for 3 pages, so I am doing it. They fire krak grenades out of their [Astartes Grenade Launcher since hey have one], you know what? It doesn't matter, here is my army list."

Fixed that for you with the Cyan.

An Astartes Grenade Launcher does not necessarily attach to the rifle, it could be its own thing.

But do not try to bring realism into a fantasy/sci-fi setting, it never ends well.

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical. It is a rules system, an abstract system used to play a game by those rules.

If you are going by what is weird compared to the real world, then over 90% of the game is weird, as most of it can not really happen.

Bad post, self deleted.