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.

It's clear that by using the rules from the Templar codex if you equip a Chaplain with a pair of lightning claws the model loses his Crozius, so irregardless of the rules for multiple special weapons the Chaplain gains +1A for having a pair of lightning claws.

In regards to old Eldrad the rules for his magical staff unfortunately do not define it as a single handed weapon so he does not get +1A.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:It's clear that by using the rules from the Templar codex if you equip a Chaplain with a pair of lightning claws the model loses his Crozius, so irregardless of the rules for multiple special weapons the Chaplain gains +1A for having a pair of lightning claws.

In regards to old Eldrad the rules for his magical staff unfortunately do not define it as a single handed weapon so he does not get +1A.

I apologize for this pet peeve but it's 'regardless'. And I looked in the special characters, wargear, and Chaplain section of the Codex:BT and could find no mention of losing or trading in the Crozius. It would make the whole issue a lot easier to deal with.

zeshin wrote:On a related tangent someone earlier mentioned that the BT chaplain would actually trade in the Crozius but I can find no such reference in the codex.

I mentioned it in relation to 4th edition, it was in the 4th edition Main rule book. I will Quote it later, when I find mine.

The OP also referenced the wording in Options: on page 30 of the codex where it tells you that basic weapons are lost when a model upgrades his weapons(although that was handled already).

Edit: No Bloodstar, it doesn't. Not anywhere. As i just said earlier in this Post it did say that in the 4th edition rules, but 5th edition is doing away with armory pages and the options are now part of the armylists, so we are stuck with 4 weapon-toting Chaplains for Black templar.(and a 'nilla Company Champion that can have 4or 5 weapons as well)

Kommissar Kel wrote:

zeshin wrote:On a related tangent someone earlier mentioned that the BT chaplain would actually trade in the Crozius but I can find no such reference in the codex.

I mentioned it in relation to 4th edition, it was in the 4th edition Main rule book. I will Quote it later, when I find mine.

The OP also referenced the wording in Options: on page 30 of the codex where it tells you that basic weapons are lost when a model upgrades his weapons(although that was handled already).

The one section I didn't check. Though in reading through the 'options' section it says "Any model who takes an upgrade weapon loses the weapon he was originally armed with unless otherwise stated." This A: seems to be referring only to actual upgrade weapons choices primarily found in squads and B: if it applied to the Chaplain would mean you could never have a Crozius and another weapon (not even a pistol) because the first weapon picked would replace the Crozius.

Edit: also the BT chapies can only have three weapons as they start with a Crozius and are limited to two weapons by the wargear section of the codex.

The first Part is what I told the OP(armory choices are not considered "upgrades")

#2 ah, you are correct i hadn't, noticed that they do not come with a pistol.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:In regards to old Eldrad the rules for his magical staff unfortunately do not define it as a single handed weapon so he does not get +1A.

That's actually not the issue. It's not defined as single-handed, but it's also not defined as two-handed, so it's defaulted to one hand.

If all he had in his wargear was the staff and a pistol, there'd be no problem and he'd get a bonus attack.

But, he has a witchblade (that is actually totally worthless, the staff is better in every way), so he has 2 "special" ccw, and therefor doesn't get the bonus attack by RAW.

Grakmar wrote:But, he has a witchblade (that is actually totally worthless, the staff is better in every way), so he has 2 "special" ccw, and therefor doesn't get the bonus attack by RAW.

Not against vehicles. The Staff doesn't get S9 against them. The Witchblade does.

Gwar! wrote:

Grakmar wrote:But, he has a witchblade (that is actually totally worthless, the staff is better in every way), so he has 2 "special" ccw, and therefor doesn't get the bonus attack by RAW.

Not against vehicles. The Staff doesn't get S9 against them. The Witchblade does.

Yeah, I guess I read the staff description and thought "Oh, it's just a power-weapon witchblade". But, you're right, no S9 vs vehicles.

Still, I'd rather he "forget" the witchblade at home and get the bonus attack.

Perhaps I'm just not seeing the problem here. If there is a special character that fits this situation, shouldn't we just differ to his rules. Calgar apparently has a power sword and the gauntlets(which are 2 power fists), the advantage to choosing the power sword is it strikes in initiative order. Now, I am not an expert so the question is does he get +1 A for having two power fists if he uses the gauntlets? That, to me, is the same as having 2 claws with the crozius. If not, then all these other guys are right in saying you wouldn't get the +1. Also, I have always been told by friends that an old codex is not over ruled by new rulebook, so like Templars have different point costs for a lot of things then would be found in the current space marines codex. So by that theory it shouldn't matter what the big rulebook says if the Templar codex specifically states he loses the crozius. People arguing about intent have no real basis, as we do not know the intent of rules unless they are clarified. So even if you think its unfair its ridiculous to argue the chaplain can't take lightning claws at all because "armories are no longer in use". That is really stretching just to get your way. Just my thought on the matter, and of course I could be completely wrong.

Arise, ye threads of yore! Let your broken husks haunt these decripit halls once again!


Nice necro there.