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 had a question about intercessors sergeants can they take both a power sword and rifle option or is this limited to one or the other I have read the rules on the pages a few times but am still confused on the wording.

Yes, they can. Since there are models for an Intercessor Sgt without a rifle, the rules allow you to either replace the rifle with a melee weapon or to add a melee weapon to the model while keeping the rifle. However, it cannot have two melee weapons.

Stalked21 wrote:
I had a question about intercessors sergeants can they take both a power sword and rifle option or is this limited to one or the other I have read the rules on the pages a few times but am still confused on the wording.

The wording is a mess.

but by RAW, the Sgt can Have:

1) Bolt weapon and Bolt Pistol(stock).

2) Bolt Pistol + Hand Flamer, Plasma Pistol, Power Sword, or Chainsword.

3) Bolt Weapon and Bolt pistol + Chainsword, Power Sword, Power Fist, or Thunder Hammer.

For whatever reason, you are not allowed to have a Hand flamer/Plasma Pistol and a melee weapon.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Stalked21 wrote:
I had a question about intercessors sergeants can they take both a power sword and rifle option or is this limited to one or the other I have read the rules on the pages a few times but am still confused on the wording.

The wording is a mess.

but by RAW, the Sgt can Have:

1) Bolt weapon and Bolt Pistol(stock).

2) Bolt Pistol + Hand Flamer, Plasma Pistol, Power Sword, or Chainsword.

3) Bolt Weapon and Bolt pistol + Chainsword, Power Sword, Power Fist, or Thunder Hammer.

For whatever reason, you are not allowed to have a Hand flamer/Plasma Pistol and a melee weapon.

Yes, you can.

The 3rd bullet point lets you swap the rifle for an alternate pistol. The model now has 2 pistols.

The 4th bullet points then lets you equip it with a melee weapon, because it doesn't have one.

MadSpy wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Stalked21 wrote:
I had a question about intercessors sergeants can they take both a power sword and rifle option or is this limited to one or the other I have read the rules on the pages a few times but am still confused on the wording.

The wording is a mess.

but by RAW, the Sgt can Have:

1) Bolt weapon and Bolt Pistol(stock).

2) Bolt Pistol + Hand Flamer, Plasma Pistol, Power Sword, or Chainsword.

3) Bolt Weapon and Bolt pistol + Chainsword, Power Sword, Power Fist, or Thunder Hammer.

For whatever reason, you are not allowed to have a Hand flamer/Plasma Pistol and a melee weapon.

Yes, you can.

The 3rd bullet point lets you swap the rifle for an alternate pistol. The model now has 2 pistols.

The 4th bullet points then lets you equip it with a melee weapon, because it doesn't have one.

Agreed. The sarge can have bolt pistol, plasma pistol/hand flamer, and a melee weapon.

Bullet points are not sequential, having a melee weapon precludes you from having a special pistol.

This is also why the 3rd bullet point is worded the way it is; if it was sequential or even intended to allow the special pistol and melee weapon, then the option for the pistol would not state you cannot have the melee weapon(that you can only get through itself or the 4th bullet point).

You're correct, they are not sequential. They are independent. You check them at the time of using them.

The 3rd bullet does not say that you cannot have a melee weapon at all, it states that if you already have one, you can't swap your rifle.

i.e. if you've first used the 4th bullet to give the model a power fist, he has to keep his rifle.

If you use the third bullet first, you can give him a hand flamer; then you check the 4th bullet, he does not have a power sword or chainsword, so you can then give him a melee weapon.

MadSpy wrote:
You're correct, they are not sequential. They are independent. You check them at the time of using them.

The 3rd bullet does not say that you cannot have a melee weapon at all, it states that if you already have one, you can't swap your rifle.

i.e. if you've first used the 4th bullet to give the model a power fist, he has to keep his rifle.

If you use the third bullet first, you can give him a hand flamer; then you check the 4th bullet, he does not have a power sword or chainsword, so you can then give him a melee weapon.

While I desperately want you to be correct; the wording seems more to indicate a check for legality at the end. In other words; once you have a melee weapon, you retroactively could not have swapped the rifle.

Unfortunately GW has not given us any answer on this. Just before the new Codex dropped I built a bunch of sgts with Pfist + PP/HF and T-hammer + HF.

And cue the screaming WAAC players that already modeled their Sarges with pistol, flamer, and sword.

Yeah, all those tournament winning lists that hinged on Intercessor Sergeants with hand flamers and power swords.

Seriously, how does that combo make you a "WAAC player"?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, all those tournament winning lists that hinged on Intercessor Sergeants with hand flamers and power swords.

Seriously, how does that combo make you a "WAAC player"?

It might make you a WAAC Player if you only played against all-Grot armies Other than that, it's a bold claim to be throwing out.

Why do people ever come to this sub forum and stick their head in the sand, over the interpretation of a specific word in a very clear rule? It's because they think it will convey an advantage, and they refuse to be talked out of the idea that rule doesn't mean what they say it does. If your sole intent in the argument is because of advantage, that is WAAC.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why do people ever come to this sub forum and stick their head in the sand, over the interpretation of a specific word in a very clear rule? It's because they think it will convey an advantage, and they refuse to be talked out of the idea that rule doesn't mean what they say it does. If your sole intent in the argument is because of advantage, that is WAAC.

Or, it's their interpretation, and you're attributing a WAAC attitude where none exists. You're assuming that because there might be an advantage that the person is WAAC, and because the person is WAAC the only reason for them to interpret it that way is for advantage. Circular reasoning.

That is mish mash high school logic. It's not circular reasoning if the described behavior matches the term/title/statement. If a player ONLY does something, I.E. argues unceasingly does an action solely because to not do so would put them at a distinct disadvantage, then that action is by definition, WAAC. Win at all Costs isn't just about list building. It can also be about refusing to acknowledge rules or interpretations of those rules that you find disadvantageous. IE when we have a 5 page thread on whether or not taking a wound means you ever took a wound.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/792156.page

By definition waac is a cheater. Its not cheating to hold a differing interpretation and to discuss the validity of that interpretation outside a game in a rules forum. Infact I would say that's the exact opposite of cheating and so by definition not waac, as your encouraging your statement to be countered before using it in a game; which if invalid, a good argument will do. Its also not cheating to do something that gains an advantage if it is within the rules. Every BA player takes Sanguinary guard because it gives them an advantage, this is fine not WAAC. Its only WAAC if you did something illegal like take too many Sanguinary guard units. It is also only WAAC then if you know what you are doing is against the rules as 40k is a complex game and its easy for new players and even experienced players to make mistakes.

Doctorom however is correct in his assessment. Your statement is circular does nothing to add to the discussion in question and is in violation of the 5th tenet of YMDC.

"5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To get back on topic The wargear rules state

"8. WARGEAR OPTIONS
Some datasheets have a bullet-pointed list of wargear options. When you include such a unit in your army, you can use these options to change the weapons and other wargear of models in the unit. The order you use these options in does not matter, but each can only be used once."

Its quite clear you can apply the bullet points in any order you choose it is perfectly RAW

So I can take

bolt pistol + bolt rifle
Bolt pistol + bolt rifle + astartes grenade launcher
Bolt pistol + bolt rifle + melee weapon
Bolt pistol + bolt rifle + melee weapon + astartes grenade launcher

Hand flamer/plasma pistol + bolt pistol

Hand flamer/ plasma pistol+ bolt pistol + melee weapon

Now because you can apply bullet points in any order i can also

Start with a stock bolt pistol + bolt rifle since I have the bolt rifle add the astartes grenade launcher then apply the bullet point swapping the bolt rifle for hand flamer then apply the bullet point for melee weapon for a glorious

Hand flamer/plasma pistol + bolt pistol + melee weapon + astartes grenade launcher

U02dah4 wrote:
By definition waac is a cheater. Its not cheating to hold a differing interpretation and to discuss the validity of that interpretation outside a game in a rules forum. Infact I would say that's the exact opposite of cheating and so by definition not waac, as your encouraging your statement to be countered before using it in a game; which if invalid, a good argument will do. Its also not cheating to do something that gains an advantage if it is within the rules. Every BA player takes Sanguinary guard because it gives them an advantage, this is fine not WAAC. Its only WAAC if you did something illegal like take too many Sanguinary guard units. It is also only WAAC then if you know what you are doing is against the rules as 40k is a complex game and its easy for new players and even experienced players to make mistakes.

Doctorom however is correct in his assessment. Your statement is circular does nothing to add to the discussion in question and is in violation of the 5th tenet of YMDC.

"5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To get back on topic The wargear rules state

"8. WARGEAR OPTIONS
Some datasheets have a bullet-pointed list of wargear options. When you include such a unit in your army, you can use these options to change the weapons and other wargear of models in the unit. The order you use these options in does not matter, but each can only be used once."

Its quite clear you can apply the bullet points in any order you choose it is perfectly RAW

So I can take

bolt pistol + bolt rifle
Bolt pistol + bolt rifle + astartes grenade launcher
Bolt pistol + bolt rifle + melee weapon
Bolt pistol + bolt rifle + melee weapon + astartes grenade launcher

Hand flamer/plasma pistol + bolt pistol

Hand flamer/ plasma pistol+ bolt pistol + melee weapon

Now because you can apply bullet points in any order i can also

Start with a stock bolt pistol + bolt rifle since I have the bolt rifle add the astartes grenade launcher then apply the bullet point swapping the bolt rifle for hand flamer then apply the bullet point for melee weapon for a glorious

Hand flamer/plasma pistol + bolt pistol + melee weapon + astartes grenade launcher

And no you cannot, because as you make the choices out of order(which itself is legal); you retroactively invalidate choices that have already been made.

You take the AGL on your sgt, and then invalidate that model's option to take the AGL by swapping to the had flamer/Plasma Pistol from the Bolt Rifle required for the AGL. You then Invalidate the option to swap the Bolt Rifle for the pistol by taking the melee weapon.

The end result is all that matters(just like with points cost for the unit/model); after all of your bullet points have been taken, you find that several of those bullet points were not allowed. And this end result of illegal options is cheating; which as you define is WAAC.

Now, the Assault Intercessor and Veteran Intercessor(if the unit is given Heavy Bolt pistol and Chainsword) Sgt can have the weapon options(other than AGL); so we know the wording can be done to give both.

Where does it say they are able to retroactively invalidate choices - it doesn't it just says you can apply them in any order and I have done so

they only apply at the point you select them and if at that point they are legal to select they are legal

you absolutely can take the agl on the sgt then invalidate it because at the point im taking the agl it is legal to do so. The use of that point only becomes illegal to select later which is irrelevant because it has the AGL at that point.

the process is what matters it gives you the end result

Then the result is legal I applied the points in a legal order as you have stated so unless you can find a RAW quote supporting your statement that all points must be legal in all possible permutations of order you are applying a restriction that is not in the rules

To take the AGL don't you need a rifle? Unless the AGL means something other than what I think it does I thought it was the grenade launcher attachment to the Bolt Rifle.

As previously quoted you can apply points in any order

It has one at the point you take the AGL

Start with a stock bolt pistol + bolt rifle

I apply my first point since I have the bolt rifle add the Astartes grenade launcher as I meet the requirement to do so at this point.

Now I have a stock bolt pistol + bolt rifle + AGL

Now I apply my next point Swapping Bolt rifle for hand flamer this is legal as the only restriction to this point is in relation to melee weapons. The AGL bullet point does not trigger again because you can apply them in any order but you cannot apply them multiple times

Now I have a stock bolt pistol + hand flamer + AGL

Now I apply my next point to add a melee weapon as I meet the only requirement not already having a melee weapon. (again the previous bullet points don't trigger again as no rule tells you to do so.).

Now I have a stock bolt pistol + hand flamer + AGL + Melee



Now komissar kell is saying that the above is cheating and they all have to be retroactively legal for all permutations which would change that but he has provided no rules quote stating that so is wrong untill he does

Dust is rolling komissar Kel wheres your quote or are you ready to admit you were making rules up again (which would be directly cheating)

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If your sole intent in the argument is because of advantage, that is WAAC.

I think you very much missed my point.

I don't think anyone has ever taken a hand flamer and a power sword on an Intercessor Sergeant because of a "WAAC mentality". What's considerably more likely is that they did so because they liked the combination of weapons and it seems like a logical choice, and not something that GW would specifically prohibit in the rules because of their fething slowed wargear list restrictions.

Here’s me actually coming here for some advice and finding this hot mess. Thanks for nothing. To summarise for others doing the same, no one agrees and they are all calling each other names. I don’t know either. Hence why I’m here. The bullet points seem to disallow you to take a fancy melee weapon of you have taken a pistol but that makes no sense and the rules don’t explain how to fix it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So no info on the FAQ.

Rules and probs as follows, bullet point 1 and 2 are about swapping whole squads rifles with another type, not the issue here.

Bullet point 3 says if you don’t have a melee weapon you can swap the sgts rifle for a pistol or sword only.

Bullet point 4 states if the has no chain or power sword it may take any of the 4 melee weapons.

So if you take a melee weapon using point 4 that precludes you from making a swap in point 3. Now the rules don’t say these have to be applied in order but they must all the criteria must be met. So I think I agree with Kel. A Sgt can have pistol or sword or rifle and melee. NOT Pistol and melee. Anything and you are not meeting the criteria of the two bullet points only one or the other.

Some rules questions have clear answers they are short

Some rules questions do not so you get opinions this is common on complex questions especially when people don't follow the tenets understand raw vs rai and cite rai arguments as raw without evidence clouding the issue.

Look at your own argument as an example "Now the rules don’t say these have to be applied in order" [RAW FACT SO FAR]"but they must all the criteria must be met" [STATED AS FACT BUT RAI AS NOONE HAS QUOTED TO SUPPORT THAT MUST SO ITS NOT A RAW MUST] arguments of this quality tend to spin threads out because they misrepresent opinion as fact by tieing irrelevant requirements in with factual proven ones and putting them on the same footing.



The facts are that RAW it has been established that you can activate points in any order and that you can only activate each point once.
The fact is also that
No one has established any rules quote stating that restrictions on points previously activated apply to future points or that all points have to be continuously met. There is therefore no RAW evidence to support such reasoning.

Those are the facts


We are then left with the RAW argument that you can because that's what the facts as have been established say

Vs

RAI argument that some people but not all people feel that it is the intention that all point restrictions should apply


Now following the standard convention that because RAI arguments are subjective RAW arguments overule them unless the raw doesn't work (and it does here even if the outcome is unpopular) we are left with only 1 RAW answer.

That only changes if someone provides a rules quote establishing that restrictions on points previously activated apply to future points. However if that post exists someone would have posted it.

So in short you have a clear answer if your following the rules RAW trumps RAI and in the absence of a further faq or quote you can. Whether it was intended that this should be the case is speculative and opinion at best and more importantly irrelevant.

Andykp wrote:
Here’s me actually coming here for some advice and finding this hot mess. Thanks for nothing. To summarise for others doing the same, no one agrees and they are all calling each other names. I don’t know either. Hence why I’m here. The bullet points seem to disallow you to take a fancy melee weapon of you have taken a pistol but that makes no sense and the rules don’t explain how to fix it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So no info on the FAQ.

Rules and probs as follows, bullet point 1 and 2 are about swapping whole squads rifles with another type, not the issue here.

Bullet point 3 says if you don’t have a melee weapon you can swap the sgts rifle for a pistol or sword only.

Bullet point 4 states if the has no chain or power sword it may take any of the 4 melee weapons.

So if you take a melee weapon using point 4 that precludes you from making a swap in point 3. Now the rules don’t say these have to be applied in order but they must all the criteria must be met. So I think I agree with Kel. A Sgt can have pistol or sword or rifle and melee. NOT Pistol and melee. Anything and you are not meeting the criteria of the two bullet points only one or the other.

Per the Basic Rules on Wargear Options "The order you use these options in does not matter, but each can only be used once".

Therefore, you may use Bullet Points 3 and 4 in the order of your choice. Thus, you may swap the Rifle for a Pistol (BP 3) and then add a melee weapon since the model does not have an Astartes Chainsword or Power Sword.

U02dah4 wrote:
Some rules questions have clear answers they are short

Some rules questions do not so you get opinions this is common on complex questions especially when people don't follow the tenets understand raw vs rai and cite rai arguments as raw without evidence clouding the issue.

Look at your own argument as an example "Now the rules don’t say these have to be applied in order" [RAW FACT SO FAR]"but they must all the criteria must be met" [STATED AS FACT BUT RAI AS NOONE HAS QUOTED TO SUPPORT THAT MUST SO ITS NOT A RAW MUST] arguments of this quality tend to spin threads out because they misrepresent opinion as fact by tieing irrelevant requirements in with factual proven ones and putting them on the same footing.



The facts are that RAW it has been established that you can activate points in any order and that you can only activate each point once.
The fact is also that
No one has established any rules quote stating that restrictions on points previously activated apply to future points or that all points have to be continuously met. There is therefore no RAW evidence to support such reasoning.

Those are the facts


We are then left with the RAW argument that you can because that's what the facts as have been established say

Vs

RAI argument that some people but not all people feel that it is the intention that all point restrictions should apply


Now following the standard convention that because RAI arguments are subjective RAW arguments overule them unless the raw doesn't work (and it does here even if the outcome is unpopular) we are left with only 1 RAW answer.

That only changes if someone provides a rules quote establishing that restrictions on points previously activated apply to future points. However if that post exists someone would have posted it.

So in short you have a clear answer if your following the rules RAW trumps RAI and in the absence of a further faq or quote you can. Whether it was intended that this should be the case is speculative and opinion at best and more importantly irrelevant.

It’s not my first time here, well aware of the RAW vs RAI wars that have gone on. No, the frustration comes when threads are derailed by “your WAAC”, “no you are” , “it’s cheating no it’s not “ silliness and dick waving.

The answer is at the minute it’s very unclear and as you say until FAQd will remain thus. I normally fall on to rule of cool vs RAW side of things but the intention here seems to have been to limit what you can have or not have and in what combinations. It’s unclear how limiting they intended it to be. Bring back equipment tables, would clear this up in seconds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I have found your rules quote now and that changes my opinion. Each bullet point can be used once in any order so melee and a pistol is allowed. But not melee, pistol, and rifle?..

As I say convention is RAW over RAI and the RAW is not the least unclear

Intention is unclear but intention is irrelevant given RAW is clear

You are of course able to do cool over RAW but then you are deviating from the rules which is fine if that's what you want to do in your games. It doesn't however make the rule unclear your just house ruling

Yes melee and pistol is allowd but the rifle must go if you want a handflamer by raw you can also take agl as you apply its point first.

U02dah4 wrote:
As I say convention is RAW over RAI and the RAW is not the least unclear

Intention is unclear but intention is irrelevant given RAW is clear

You are of course able to do cool over RAW but then you are deviating from the rules which is fine if that's what you want to do in your games. It doesn't however make the rule unclear your just house ruling

Yes melee and pistol is allowd but the rifle must go if you want a handflamer by raw you can also take agl as you apply its point first.

Thank you. I’m happy, RAW and RAI intended now. All makes sense.

So how do you take a Grenade launcher with no rifle? That's like taking a HK missile without the vehicle. It doesn't matter if you you pay the points, if you don't have the appropriate base for the attached weapon. You can't take sponsons without the baneblade.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So how do you take a Grenade launcher with no rifle? That's like taking a HK missile without the vehicle. It doesn't matter if you you pay the points, if you don't have the appropriate base for the attached weapon. You can't take sponsons without the baneblade.

No, it would be like taking the AGL without the Primaris Marine. If it's RaW you can take the AGL without a rifle, then it's RaW and works fine, you don't need a rifle to use the AGL. There are already wrist mounted AGLs on other models.

Rules as written you have to take a specific rifle to take the AGL. You cannot take the AGL with the SBR unless they changed that, which is possible. I have not kept up with Intercessor rules. So it is directly tied to a specific weapon, not a model.