Biker Squad special weapons and Sergeant decisions

[jboweruk]

Just a note: I've just been informed that their own Requisition app lets you take both.

[UltraPrime]

So this isn't a bug in AB? It's the RAW that's at fault? Meaning some 90% of my sergeants are now illegal? Ouch.

I do believe this is a mistake with AB, and it is perfectly legal to replace weapons. I shall back up my argument with the relevant quotes.

C:SM p.167 (Tactical Squad entry)
Wargear - Bolt Pistol and Bolter
The Space Marine Sergeant or Veteran Sergeant may replace his boltgun and/or bolt pistol with a chainsword.....free
The Space Marine Sergeant or Veteran Sergeant may take items from the Melee Weapons and/or Ranged Weapons lists.

C:SM p.159 (Space Marines Wargear List)
Ranged Weapons - A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or Melee weapon with one of the following:
Melee Weapons - A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or Melee weapon with one of the following:

So, in conclusion, it is perfectly legal for a Sergeant (who has replaced his boltgun with a chainsword) to have a Ranged Weapon and Melee Weapon, two Ranged Weapons OR two Melee Weapons. All RAW.

[jlong05]

I am sorry. Is this thread a discussion for SM bikes or SM Tactical squads? This are different units and quoting an allowance for tactical squads as an argument for bike squads will never be approved.

[fenrick]

I would say based on the OP, it impacts both since The AB files currently have overly restrictive interpretations of RAW rules for sgts, regardless of what unit they are from. The OP clearly calls out both.

[UltraPrime]

I am sorry. Is this thread a discussion for SM bikes or SM Tactical squads? This are different units and quoting an allowance for tactical squads as an argument for bike squads will never be approved.

All squads have the same options - I used the Tac Squad as an example. Sorry - should have mentioned that. Besides, the Bike Squad is correct.

[Spack]

In the past, back when GW had a forum, I remember a time when devs were quite explicit that at that time options were based on a models initial gear.Switching a weapon, then switching it again, was not intended and a couple of FAQs even spelt this out clearly. Obviously those dont apply in ths case as they were for a different version of the game, but it does provide historical rule intent from GW themselves.

In this casethe chainsword is not part of the initial gear for the model and so should not be eligible to be swapped for another weapon.

For the codexes in question the most conservative ruling is to not allow "double dipping", which is te stance that has been taken with marine lists. If the bikers are not working the same as tac sgts then the answer at this point is to fix the bikers. This may not be the solution most players are looking for, but until an FAQ clarifies the situation then this will ensure that models are definitely within RaW.

[jboweruk]

I have to disagree with you Spack, sorry but since when did GW suddenly make entire army lists illegal, odd models maybe over the years but not entire lists. Sergeants have always been able to take power weapons and/or special pistols and such. Why do you think they would suddenly change that now? And as has been pointed out the same applies to Dark Angels sergeants but AB allows it. And on top of that GW's own army roster lists in their own Digital codex allows it. So you are telling us all that GW are allowing illegal lists due to the way you perceive the rule as it's written? I reiterate - their own Codex army list creator for marines.

[jlong05]

And I will reiterate for a final time that GWs own list tool, is not a full fledged army creation tool, in past their prior list tool had allowed illegal options in some cases. And finally, yes GW has in many cases over time made prior modeled units completely illegal as options have changed.

Arguing options from the DA rules is also a fallacy since they are NOT codex Space Marines. They are Codex Dark Angels and as such have unique options available to them that other stricter chapters do not allow.

Spacks point on double dipping is factual and also been a generally upheld rule from GW.

I am now locking this tread pending a FAQ update from GW clarifying this discrepancy on their rules. Do not create a new thread for this until that time. If one is, it will be nuked and the person opening will receive a permanent vacation from the website.