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.

Under the entry in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook True Grit states:

"Bolters have a 'pistol grip', allowing them to be fired with a single hand. This takes considerable practice and skill and is not normally encouraged. Units noted as having the True Grit skill in their army list, however, have trained how to use their bolters in this manner. In game terms, this means that they may count their bolter as a bolt pistol in close combat, and will therefore be allowed to roll an extra Attack dice as if they have been equipped with an additional pistol or close combat weapon. However, a model using their bolter in this manner does not receive the +1 attack bonus for charing, as a bolter is too unwieldly to be fired with one hand while simultaneously hurling yourself at the enemy. This ability is not usable with combi-weapons of any sort. It is usable with storm bolters, but only by Space marines of the Grey Knights Chapter fro whom this is along standing specialization." - p. 76

*fingers hurt*

Now, in the Space Marines codex, when upgrading marines in a Tactical squad with assault or heavy weapons, it states:
"One Space Marine can be armed with a weapon from the following list:" p.34

It states the same under the Devastator entry, both units of which are allowed to take 'True Grit' and 'Counterattack' for 3 points/model under the special chapter traits named "Trust Your Battle-Brothers"

My question is... are models who take, lets say a lascannon, able to claim to be wielding a bolter and close combat weapon in close combat? It does not state that their bolter is replaced by, merely that they are armed with the new heavy weapon. I realize this is sorta cheesy, but I would like it clarified!

Cheers!

By the RAW, yes, as it doesn't say the bolter is replaced, they still have it, and would benefit from True Grit.

The general assumption however is that the bolter is supposed to be replaced, and you'll find that this is the way most people actually play it.

Nor does it say that it is kept, just that you may pay X points to have a model armed with a specific weapon and not a specific weapon and a bolter.

Posted By Ghaz on 03/14/2007 10:09 PM
Nor does it say that it is kept, just that you may pay X points to have a model armed with a specific weapon and not a specific weapon and a bolter.

So a model equipped with Frag Grenades has no other equipment?


The model has a bolter.
They may be armed with another weapon.

'Armed' is not exclusive. It simply means the model is equipped with that weapon. Nothing in the entry suggests that the original weapon is removed.

Sorry, but it is an assumption that they keep their orginal weapon. Using the Tactical squad as an example, it states the following:


There is nothing definitive in that statement that it is "in addition to' or "instead of" a standard Tactical Marine's bolter. 'Armed' may not be exclusive, but then again it is not inclusive either. My point has just as much validity as yours does. Nothing in the entry suggest that the original weapon is kept. Just that the model is armed with a weapon from that list.

So a model equipped with Frag Grenades has no other equipment?

What does equipping a model with grenades have to do with what weapons a model is armed with?

In a permissive rule set, which many on this and other forums have said 40k is, once you are told something is true, it is true untill you are told its false. If we are told that a marine is armed with a bolter, then he is armed with it till some rule says he isn't.

Posted By Ghaz on 03/14/2007 11:15 PM
What does equipping a model with grenades have to do with what weapons a model is armed with?

Either the terms used in the entry are exclusive, or they're not. In this context, 'equipped' and 'armed' mean the same thing: the model 'has' this item.

 'Equipped' is simply a more general term referring to equipment in general, whereas 'armed' generally refers specifically to weapons.


So, if a marine armed with a heavy weapon is armed only with a heavy weapon, because it doesn't say that he retains his bolter, then a marine equipped with frag grenades is likewise equipped only with frag grenades, since it doesn't say that he retains any other equipment.

Since the text in the relevant entries is not definitive, the best secondary source we have comes from the descriptive text above the Armoury section. It states that anyone who can take wargear may not have more than one two-handed weapon. If veteran sergeants, captains, librarians and chaplains cannot carry around two two-handed weapons, what gives the grunt the ability to lug around a heavy/special weapon, bolter, and chainsword? While it may not be stringent enough for RAW activists, it's the best rules-based logical extension for the model not being able to keep a bolter when they take up a heavy bolter or a lascannon. Moreover, if GW had intended for boltguns to be utilized by devastators, they would have constructed models to that effect.

Insaniak:
"So, if a marine armed with a heavy weapon is armed [i]only with a heavy weapon, because it doesn't say that he retains his bolter, then a marine equipped with frag grenades is likewise equipped only with frag grenades, since it doesn't say that he retains any other equipment."[/i]

Sophistry! Ah... well, I jest (somewhat). Since we acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference in the way GW treats "armed" and "equipped" as weapons and gear, respectively, we can tackle this. Sometimes GW is clear when weapons replace originals (terminator chainfists and special weapons; veteran close combat weapons & bolt pistols), but sometimes they're not (imperial guard heavy weapon teams--do they lose a lasgun on each model with a heavy weapon?). We just have to deal, I guess

The Terminator entry is another good spot to see when GW wants to clarify that a model can carry more than the standard number of weapons--Terminators with cyclone missile launchers specifically note that it is added to their existing weaponry. To err on the side of caution, we should assume "armed with" is synonymous with "replaces original weapon with".

Equipment, however, is additive, since the only limit to the amount of gear a model can take is the 100pt limit in the armoury, wherein a model may take multiple grenades, etc. Additionally, what other equipment does a space marine squad have? Their options are limited to frag and/or krak grenades... every other equipment is typically taken by the vet sgt. Now, I confess to not having the Space Wolves codex in front of me, but I don't recall any special equipment they had either which would "disappear" once they took a grenade option.

Back to the original topic: while you may be able to pay for True Grit, the particular models who have indeed sacrificed their bolters for specialized weaponry will not be able to benefit from the special rule, though their compatriots would.

Cheers~

Posted By Geddonight on 03/15/2007 12:02 AM
It states that anyone who can take wargear may not have more than one two-handed weapon.

No it doesn't.

It states that models with access to the Armoury may only select one two-handed weapon.

It places no restrictions on how many weapons, of any type, that they may carry. Just on how many they can select from the Armoury.

Posted By Geddonight on 03/15/2007 12:02 AM
If veteran sergeants, captains, librarians and chaplains cannot carry around two two-handed weapons, what gives the grunt the ability to lug around a heavy/special weapon, bolter, and chainsword?

The fact that they have different rules...?

I could just as easily say "If veteran sergeants, captains, librarians and chaplains cannot carry around Special or Heavy weapons, what gives the grunt the ability to lug around a heavy/special weapon?"

Posted By Geddonight on 03/15/2007 12:02 AM
Insaniak--there is a diction-based distinction between armed and equipped:

Armed (1st definition from dictionary.com) bearing firearms; having weapons: a heavily armed patrol.

Equipped (1st definition from American Heritage) To supply with necessities such as tools or provisions

Which, given that Frag Grenades are not a necessity, proves that simply grabbing the first definition from the dictionary doesn't work...

Within the context of the unit entry, 'equipped' and 'armed' mean the same thing. The model may have that item.

Posted By Geddonight on 03/15/2007 12:02 AM
Your argument that since the entry for equipping marines with grenades doesn't mention stripping away the marines' bolters, then arming them with different (or as you might posit another) weapon doesn't either is a rather poor sophism.

That was Ghaz's argument, not mine.

My argument was simply that the entry says that the Marine has a bolter, and may be armed with another weapon.


Edit (to respond to your edited post):

Posted By Geddonight on 03/15/2007 12:02 AM
To err on the side of caution, we should assume "armed with" is synonymous with "replaces original weapon with".

This is, in fact, exactly what I said in the first reply to this thread...

There is absolutely no way I would attempt to pass off a basic troop model as having two two-handed weapons, True Grit or not. That's just plain low.

I just wanted to throw the question out there, I know that trying to claim the best of using a Lascannon and a Bolter/Chainsword for a model depending on the situation is pretty sketchy, but I was mainly curious if there was any definitive statement (my friend plays World Eaters, so I've quickly learned there are some rules which are just stupidly good, like beyond stupid).

Since I am interested in fair play first, and kicking butt second, it is more than reasonable in my mind to not try and take advantage of the not 100% clear (no explicit statements) rules, and just accept that if a marine is lugging around a Heavy Bolter, he won't reasonably have a bolter and chainsword (though by the rules he technically is considered to have a CC weapon when things get up close and personal... haha or maybe he just uses the heavy weapon!)

Thanks for the spirited discussion folks!

I actually think this line of the rules should raise interest:

Posted By eldritchzephyr on 03/14/2007 3:23 PM
However, a model using their bolter in this manner does not receive the +1 attack bonus for char[g]ing, as a bolter is too unwieldly to be fired with one hand while simultaneously hurling yourself at the enemy.

Everyone I know treats True Grit as a counter-charge deal. If you get charged, you get an extra Attack due to using the two-handed Bolter as a one-handed weapon, etc.

But am I alone in thinking that this line of text infers it is possible to charge after firing a Bolter? Remember that the Bolter would still need to be treated as a Bolt Pistol (you can't fire a Rapidfire weapon and charge) and so you'd only get one shot.

But it is stated that a model (theoretically) can charge while 'using' their Bolter one-handed. Does 'using' equal 'firing'?

Bolters are listed as a rapid-fire weapon. Nowhere does the rules state certain Space Marines can squeeze off a single shot at 12".

- Greenie

You're reading the quote out of context, the "using their bolter in this manner" reffers to the earlier part of the rule "In game terms, this means that they may count thier bolter as a bolt pistol in close combat,..." nothing in the rule, when read as a whole, even implies that it may be used to count a bolter as a pistol in the shooting phase. there is nothing stoping a marine from giving up his shooting to retain his ablity to assault, and I believe bloodclaws are even required to do so if they are in charge range.

Posted By Green Bloater on 03/15/2007 7:23 AM
Bolters are listed as a rapid-fire weapon. Nowhere does the rules state certain Space Marines can squeeze off a single shot at 12".

- Greenie

Granted, Steve. But the rules for True Grit do state you can fire and charge, with a rapidfire weapon that is treated as a Bolt Pistol.

Just interested in seeing what people think.

Where does it say this? It says Bolters are treated as bolt pistols FOR CLOSE COMBAT...but not for shooting. It says nothing about bolters being treated as anything other then a rapid fire weapon in the shooting phase.

and to my knowledge, there is no passage, words or anything that says they can shoot rapid fire weapons and assault.

If I'm wrong, please give specific references.

Posted By Sinjin on 03/15/2007 7:40 AM

Where does it say this? It says Bolters are treated as bolt pistols FOR CLOSE COMBAT...but not for shooting. It says nothing about bolters being treated as anything other then a rapid fire weapon in the shooting phase.

and to my knowledge, there is no passage, words or anything that says they can shoot rapid fire weapons and assault.

If I'm wrong, please give specific references.

I already have done. See my original post. The quote there states that you may charge while using the Bolter, which is against what the rulebook says. 'Using' doesn't necessarily equal 'firing', of course, which I already stated.

But it's possible to charge while 'using' a rapidfire weapon in the same turn.

Posted By Imriel on 03/15/2007 7:27 AM
You're reading the quote out of context, the "using their bolter in this manner" reffers to the earlier part of the rule

Actually, no I'm not. You just haven't read the rules quoted clearly enough, or my post, it doesn't matter which.

To quote the relevant passage again:

Posted By eldritchzephyr on 03/14/2007 3:23 PM
However, a model using their bolter in this manner does not receive the +1 attack bonus for char[g]ing, as a bolter is too unwieldly to be fired with one hand while simultaneously hurling yourself at the enemy.

Note that this clearly references firing a bolter and charging in the same turn, even stating that you lose one of the normal benefits because of it.

I'd argue that this was a fluff explanation for a rule and fluff does not equal rules. However, it does infer you can fire a rapidfire weapon ("a bolter... to be fired"  and charge ("hurling yourself at the enemy" albeit without the +1 bonus attack.

Don't get me wrong; I don't play this way, never met anyone who does, but it's interesting to discuss.

However that's just your opinion. You have nothing to back it up.


And we have been told differently. For X points, he is armed with a special or heavy weapon, period. Where does it say that this is 'in addition to' a bolter?

You can argue all you what that 'armed' is not exclusive, but it is not inclusive either. You have nothing defintive to back your position.

Actually Ghaz, you have nothing to back your position.

In order to prove your assumtion, you would have to provide a quote from the rulebook or a codex that states your definition of armed.

If there was a portion of the text that says "a model is armed with a single weapon, if the model can be armed with a different weapon, then the new weapon replaces the old". But no line of text exists.

Since your arguement relies on the word armed, let's look at that, here is the definition:

armed
?adjective

1. bearing firearms; having weapons: a heavily armed patrol.
2. maintained by arms: armed peace.
3. involving the use of weapons: armed conflict.
4. equipped: The students came armed with their pocket calculators.
5. (esp. of an animal) covered protectively, as by a shell.
6. fortified; made secure: Armed by an inveterate optimism, he withstood despair.
7. (of an artillery shell, bomb, missile, etc.) having the fuze made operative.


Nowhere in the definition does it give a quantity. For example, I can be armed with a Pistol and a Machine gun, just as much as I can be armed with a Machine Gun and a Bazooka. It would be a little clumsy for me, but I still satisfy the definition of being armed with those weapons.

This is clearly an Intent arguement though, as every Marine Codex that has come out after the Marine Dex has stated that Bolters are replaced. But as far as the RAW of the Marine Codex, Insanik is right.

You still arn't going to see many people play it like that though.

Posted By Stu-Rat on 03/15/2007 7:49 AM

Posted By Imriel on 03/15/2007 7:27 AM
You're reading the quote out of context, the "using their bolter in this manner" reffers to the earlier part of the rule

Actually, no I'm not. You just haven't read the rules quoted clearly enough, or my post, it doesn't matter which.

To quote the relevant passage again:

Posted By eldritchzephyr on 03/14/2007 3:23 PM
However, a model using their bolter in this manner does not receive the +1 attack bonus for char[g]ing, as a bolter is too unwieldly to be fired with one hand while simultaneously hurling yourself at the enemy.

Note that this clearly references firing a bolter and charging in the same turn, even stating that you lose one of the normal benefits because of it.

I'd argue that this was a fluff explanation for a rule and fluff does not equal rules. However, it does infer you can fire a rapidfire weapon ("a bolter... to be fired"  and charge ("hurling yourself at the enemy" albeit without the +1 bonus attack.

Don't get me wrong; I don't play this way, never met anyone who does, but it's interesting to discuss.

The rule you quote only makes note that a model with True grit does not receive +1 attack for charging. It makes no mention that a model with True grit can fire a bolter and still be able to charge.  It in no way supercedes the core rule that bolters are rapid-fire weapons and the way they function in the shooting phase.
If you use the bolter in the shooting phase, you can not charge. Now if you don't fire the bolter in the shooting phase you can charge, ut do not gain a +1 to your attack.

If you were to read my posts you will see that I've said a couple of times there is no definitive support for either position. However, I'm not the one who's assuming that when it says that for X points a model can be armed with a lascannon that it actually means a lascannon and a bolter. Quantity has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Actually there is, because unless it tells you that the bolter is replaced, the only logical conclusion is that the bolter is still there.

You are thinking about it backwards, you assume that it has to tell you that the model retains it's bolter which is clearly not logical, nor does it follow the pattern of how 40k rules are laid out.

Think if it like this. You are armed with a sling shot. You can then spend 10 dallars to also be armed with a knife. Would you just drop the sling shot because your mind just can't comprehend having two items on you at the same time? That's why there is nothing that supports your position.

But again, this is clearly not the intent of the rules, and rarely do people play it that way. GW has even admitted it's mistakes and worded it properly in every Marine codex since then.

However, per RAW, there is no other way to interpret it.

As I have often said people take RAW too far at times. This discussion shows there is a need for common sense when playing the game. What is common sense for Joe might not be for Tommy but even an idiot knows not to stick his tongue in an electric outlet.

- Greenie

Go back to Wikipedia, Stu-rat. That's a trollish line of reasoning and you know it.

Posted By Stu-Rat on 03/15/2007 7:49 AM
Note that this clearly references firing a bolter and charging in the same turn, even stating that you lose one of the normal benefits because of it.

Not quite.

What it is referring to is the model firing the weapon as they charge... not in the shooting phase before they charge.

What they're saying is that a model with a pistol can squeeze off shots as they charge into combat. These are represented by the model gaining +1 attack on the charge, rather than as a shooting attack.

A model with a bolter can not do this.

Posted By Green Bloater
As I have often said people take RAW too far at times. This discussion shows there is a need for common sense when playing the game.

This discussion that said right from the start that the general assumption is that the weapon is replaced?

The fact that we argue that the rules say a certain thing doesn't mean that we in any way suggest that it should actually be played like that. In this case, it's even been said that it's not generally played like that.

If you're not interested in RAW discussion for the sake of discussion, then you're more than welcome to not participate.

Posted By Ghaz on 03/15/2007 8:40 AM
You can argue all you what that 'armed' is not exclusive, but it is not inclusive either. You have nothing defintive to back your position.

When there are two possible interpretations, and one of them works, and the other results in a marine equipped only with Frag Grenades and no weapons, which of those interpretations would you consider correct?

That's if we assume that there are two interpretations... an interpretation that doesn't make sense isn't really much of an interpretation...

Don't put words in my mouth.

- Greenie

The frag grenades argument is a very weak one, as you equip frag grenades but arm special and heavy weapons.

GWI obviously flubbed this one. "Replace" or "upgrade" or "add" are used in reference to every other weapon option in C:SM, and these are much less semantically ambiguous than the neutral "armed". Armed merely states a fact about a unit. But two two-handed weapons? Give me a break.

Just remember that "all weapons and wargear must be represented on the model."