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 guys. I play guard and my sergeants wielding chainswords not only does not make sense to my regiment fluff wise but also seems pointless to me. Considering guardsmen are allergic to cqb why would I give them any thought of going into it. My question is if I can just equip them with a lasgun? If I was playing in a gw (god forbid) would they accept it?

What does your codex say?

The weapons for an IG sgt represent how officers classically carried a pistol and sword as symbols of rank and authority. Remember that the Imperium of Man is not exactly progressive and practical and most respects. Authority, tradition, symbols of power, are all priorities in their military. Although not giving the officer a rifle was also somewhat practical in the sense that it reminded him that his job was to be surveying the battlefield, giving orders and directing everyone else's fire. Not focusing on regular fire like his men.

But he isn't really an officer. He's a sergeant, and in many BL books the sergeants use lasguns. I can see some regiments, like mordians, using chainswords. But for most regiments it doesn't make sense, both practically and, uh, culturally. But that's beside the point. Do you think it would be allowed? It isn't specific in the codex that you can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and with veterans in a PCS they can exchange their lasguns for chainswords and las pistols, so presumably they are worth the same.

Each unit specifies its options. What does it say the sgt has/may have?

I have no idea why they changed the rules in the latest codex so that I-guard infantry squad sergeants cannot take lasguns. But, they did. Heck, you can't even opt to not bring the sergeant anymore, either.

No, there is no option in the book for it, he comes with a laspistol instead of a lasgun, and he has certain options to change it to, none of which are lasguns.

Damn. It's a shame, especially since they used to have the option, which I hadn't realised they used to have. It makes not sense to me why they would get rid of it. Oh well, thanks guys.

The fluff is fluff, not rules.

If your codex army list does not list the lasgun as an option for the sergeant, and I don't think it does, then the sergeant can't take a lasgun.

It wasn't specific against it (the codex), and I knew that this would probably would be the outcome, but it was worth a try.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The weapons for an IG sgt represent how officers classically carried a pistol and sword as symbols of rank and authority. Remember that the Imperium of Man is not exactly progressive and practical and most respects. Authority, tradition, symbols of power, are all priorities in their military. Although not giving the officer a rifle was also somewhat practical in the sense that it reminded him that his job was to be surveying the battlefield, giving orders and directing everyone else's fire. Not focusing on regular fire like his men.

But a Sergeants job is not that of an Officer, the Sergeant is there to keep the men motivated by example, impose orders from the Officer and fight with the squad shoulder to shoulder. The amusing thing about this is the officers themselves, from Platoon Command JO's up, have access to other rifles like Boltguns. Where the Sergeant, in most cases, only has access to a Bolt Pistol.

So as a work around I like modeling my Sergeants with Carbines using space marine size Bolt pistols with stocks or SMG style Laspisols. I play necromunda on occasion and there they have Auto Pistols, which are typically small sub machine pisols that look more like an Ingram Mac 10 Sub Machine Gun, so using that basis even a small caliber SMG or SMP can be a 'Pistol'. So it works for them without breaking the rules...not to mention it looks awesome and fitting for a Sergeant.

 andtheyshallknownofear wrote:
It wasn't specific against it (the codex), and I knew that this would probably would be the outcome, but it was worth a try.

Please, take a moment to appreciate how the rules are written - as it will be helpful in any future rules discussions.

The rules of WH40K shows you what you are allowed to do.
In order to do anything in the game - perform an action or buy an option for a unit - you need an specific permission to do so by the rules.
Anything not specifically allowed is simply not an allowed action and cannot be performed.

- This is known as being a Permissive rule-set (though some people use another term for it).

This contrasts with the way the laws are written in most countries.
In law you have a set number of restrictions, and you are allowed to do whatever you like - perform any action - as long as you can't be presented with a law that prevents you from taking that action.

- This is known as a Restrictive rule-set.

When you say;" The codex wasn't specific against it" you are appealing to the "wrong" kind of rule-set.

I got around this a bit by giving my sergeants smg/carbine versions of the hasslefree weapons I used. Doesn't look quite as foolish as just a pistol but is distinct enough to make it clear who the sergeant is. Also as all sergeants have chainswords I didn't bother modelling them on all my sergeants, in the same way that few people model all marines with bolt pistols and all flavours of grenade.

 Bausk wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
The weapons for an IG sgt represent how officers classically carried a pistol and sword as symbols of rank and authority. Remember that the Imperium of Man is not exactly progressive and practical and most respects. Authority, tradition, symbols of power, are all priorities in their military. Although not giving the officer a rifle was also somewhat practical in the sense that it reminded him that his job was to be surveying the battlefield, giving orders and directing everyone else's fire. Not focusing on regular fire like his men.

But a Sergeants job is not that of an Officer, the Sergeant is there to keep the men motivated by example, impose orders from the Officer and fight with the squad shoulder to shoulder. The amusing thing about this is the officers themselves, from Platoon Command JO's up, have access to other rifles like Boltguns. Where the Sergeant, in most cases, only has access to a Bolt Pistol.

Is a sergeant not an officer in the ig? just not a commissioned one.

it was incredibly annoying when they changed this in the nwe book, since all my cadian sergeants had either lasguns or bolters :(

whats funny is that krieg (the most likely regiment to participate in CQB) have the option to equip their sergeants with lasguns

A sergeant most certainly is an "officer". He's an officer of the non-commissioned variety (NCO). In old-style militaries, before they broke the rank of sergeant into like 20 varieties, you went from Sergeant to Lieutenant (a Commissioned Officer rank) if the guy above you happened to catch a bullet in the face.

 Psienesis wrote:
A sergeant most certainly is an "officer". He's an officer of the non-commissioned variety (NCO). In old-style militaries, before they broke the rank of sergeant into like 20 varieties, you went from Sergeant to Lieutenant (a Commissioned Officer rank) if the guy above you happened to catch a bullet in the face.

Define old-style militaries, because that isn't really that accurate when you are talking about the British army in colonial times and what not

edit: also what does this have to do with the OP's question?

 motyak wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
A sergeant most certainly is an "officer". He's an officer of the non-commissioned variety (NCO). In old-style militaries, before they broke the rank of sergeant into like 20 varieties, you went from Sergeant to Lieutenant (a Commissioned Officer rank) if the guy above you happened to catch a bullet in the face.

Define old-style militaries, because that isn't really that accurate when you are talking about the British army in colonial times and what not

edit: also what does this have to do with the OP's question?

It is a tangent.

I would love it if the sergeant could take a bolter. I like giving the sergeants a bolt pistol.

I give the pcs a bolter always.

 spears wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
The weapons for an IG sgt represent how officers classically carried a pistol and sword as symbols of rank and authority. Remember that the Imperium of Man is not exactly progressive and practical and most respects. Authority, tradition, symbols of power, are all priorities in their military. Although not giving the officer a rifle was also somewhat practical in the sense that it reminded him that his job was to be surveying the battlefield, giving orders and directing everyone else's fire. Not focusing on regular fire like his men.

But a Sergeants job is not that of an Officer, the Sergeant is there to keep the men motivated by example, impose orders from the Officer and fight with the squad shoulder to shoulder. The amusing thing about this is the officers themselves, from Platoon Command JO's up, have access to other rifles like Boltguns. Where the Sergeant, in most cases, only has access to a Bolt Pistol.

Is a sergeant not an officer in the ig? just not a commissioned one.

Sorry, I don't recall saying that a Sergeant wasn't an officer.