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.

According to the new Deathwing FAQ, in a deathwing terminator squad: "Any model may replace his storm bolter and powerfist with: A pair of lightning claws, thunder hammer and storm shield".

This means that the Sarge cannot have a TH/SS or lightning claws because he doesn't have a power fist. This seems pretty clear to me RAW.

So my question is, do you think that this was just a poorly written way of clarifying that terminators can take a CML and TH/SS, or were they really trying to say that the sarge can never have anything but a power sword and storm bolter? I'm asking this mainly because I just converted my sergeants to TH/SS before this came out.

Leave your vote on the poll above. I'm interested to see what people think.

I think this is an unintentional change due to piss poor editing and authoring by GW requiring an FAQ to fix the the CML confusion.

I wouldn't be surprised if next FAQ they give it back to the sarge as he has had that option for at least 2 codex.

I hope so. My plan was to have a TH/SS sarge to stand in front and take the low AP shots and make/accept challenges. Since I fight GK most of the time a powersword is almost useless in most challenges since there is so much 2+ armour.

Your poll's wording is backwards. You ask "Would you mind if your opponent did this', and then put "no" as ALLOWING it, and "yes" as NOT allowing it.

I recommend deleting/editing the poll to start over.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Your poll's wording is backwards. You ask "Would you mind if your opponent did this', and then put "no" as ALLOWING it, and "yes" as NOT allowing it.

I recommend deleting/editing the poll to start over.

Thanks, I changed it. It shouldn't have affected the results since I clarified after the yes, and the no, but thanks for catching that.

I think this was a mistake in the errata to change the rules so that the Terminators can take CML and TH/SS, I don't believe for a second the intention was for the Sergeant to lose the ability to upgrade.

I don't believe the intention was as such, however I was forced to vote no at a tourney (which I don't do anyway) and yes for friendly.

Happyjew who forced you to vote that way?

It just doesn't make sence to not let the Sgt have it. I think it wasn't thought through at all. I have not even the slightest issue letting my opponent pay to upgrade to TH/SS

So It seems like the majority are okay with them (just maybe not at a tournament). I'm hoping that they will give us an update to fix it soon (but they probably aren't in a rush).

If they wanted the Sarge to be able to take a TH/SS they would have said:

'Any model may replace his storm bolter and powerfist or Powersword with...'

I think the change was intentional.

It's certainly not without precedent... We've had previous codexes where sergeants were unable to swap their power sword as it was considered a badge of rank for Termie sarges.

I see no reason to not assume it's a deliberate change.

Aside from the fact that 15 years of previous dw tradition allowed the swap

tgf wrote:
Aside from the fact that 15 years of previous dw tradition allowed the swap

And 6th Ed has changed a lot of rules that were "Traditional".

Things do in fact change with new rules editions so tradition means nothing.

tgf wrote:
Aside from the fact that 15 years of previous dw tradition allowed the swap

Sweet, so if I play you my lightning claws and powerswords will ignore armour saves?

Why bother making a 'any model' tag for something that effects just one model in the group?

I don't think it was intentional but just another example of the rules needing a better editor. It wouldn't be the first time RAW didn't make sense, and far from the worse example of it breaking something. I would allow it for friendly games, but can see where rule lawyers could get it denied.