Space Marine Sergeants and Bikers need consistancy

[jboweruk]

thanks Ultra Prime, that's exactly what I was referring to.

[Spack]

I believe this refers to the Tyranid Prime entry, where it states that you can exchange the Devourer for Scything Talons, but these cannot further be exchanged.

In fact, the Tyranid codex is a good example of multi-exchanging. For example, the Hive Tyrant comes with Lash Whip/Bonesword and Scything Talons as standard. You may exchange the LW/BS for ST. It then states you can exchange any set of ST for Deathspitters or Devourers.

This is an example of an explicit reference of "double swapping", and reinforces the position of the maintainers that not allowing the Marine Sgt weapon chainsword is correct (if not by intention, then at least by the rules as they are written); if it was allowed, by example above, it would clearly state so in the unit entry, rather than be an implicit allowance which is the position of the nay-sayers

Of course the Prime entry then explicitly forbids the "double swap", so we're back to square one again. Using the Nids as an example to support either stance in this case will not work, as it is the one codex where the upgrading rules for wargear are laid out much more clearly than in other codexes.

[jlong05]

Just went thru my copy on the Nid Codex and the only unit that can double swap is the Hive Tyrant. All others explicitly state no double swapping. Very interesting taht in both these cases GW clearly stated when it can double swap and when they cannot, but in the other codex books there is no mention to this doubleswapping at all. Just an unknown implied status that players have determined must exist.

I guess we could all just wait for the 6E Nid rulebook release and see how they reword stuff there?

[jboweruk]

Okay, you insist it's rules as Written that sarge can't have what sarge always had. But then in that case I could argue you are wrong due to the wording under the sgt himself and I quote:
"May take items from the melee and/or ranged weapons list"

That sentence alone implies intent. You're ignoring the 'and' part of the sentence here to and I'm sorry to say it just be stubborn. You can see what the consensus is, all other sources disagree with your idea of RAW on this, including GW's own list building tool and Battlescribe, not to mention AB's own fan base. And you're ignoring that there is nothing anywhere in the FAQ's or rules about getting shot of that Chainsword for a weapon, or as you put it 'double dipping', if anything that and'/or implies quite the opposite, that you can lose it for a further choice.
If you maintain this whole 'we're right and you aren't' then all that will happen is folks will begin to drift away from AB seeing it as a bug that you refuse to rectify, and that would be a shame.

[Magpie]

One thing I have noticed, just tonigth actually, is that the entry for the Tac Squad Sgt say they make take items from the ranged and/or melee weapons lists.

If you don't have two things to swap then there is no and just the or.

[gungagreg]

I know and understand that you guys don't have the time to mentor or instruct people in using the tool, however I was wondering - what does it take to change the Sergeant entries using the editing tools so that a Bolter is an option as an exchange for something off of the Melee or Ranged tables? I haven't been able to figure it out and I've been trying for a few hours to work my way through the logic - but it's beyond me. Is it easy enough that you can share what it takes to modify the record ourselves? I understand if not, but if it is an easy thing to share can you do that?

[Guchi]

I've not used army builder for 40k due to this issue since the file was released. I've yet to see this interpretation of RAW come up in any of my gaming groups, nor do I expect this issue to be resolved by the eventual FAQ and other way than either the wording being changed or double swaps being allowed. it would simply invalidate too many models.
I've done a little data file editing in the past and when i get time i will try to alter the behaviour, if I am successful I will upload the patched file somewhere.

But I ask the authors, Please can we at least have the option for the popular opinion because right now, despite your best intentions it really does feel like your holding out on this issue out of spite rather than genuine intentions.

[gungagreg]

Its very frustrating that the only people arguing that Sergeants can't do the double swap are three people - all of whom are the maintainers/admin. No one else either here or in the community at large are taking your position. Do you really want all of us to go away and not be listened to? Take a look at the number of people posting bugs on this and comments on this - this far and away exceeds the volume you've gotten for any of the other codexes outside of CSM...why not listen to your community and allow the flexibility here? Clearly in your minds it's controversial...but given that there's a strong desire for some flexibility, what is so wrong about giving it? What's the point in having a community if you're going to ignore them? Who else is arguing for the current AB40K stance? We'd like to hear from them because as it stands you guys look like the lone voices in the wilderness tanking a stance here and frankly that's just going to make people go away.

[Magpie]

I have to add in that I support what Greg says.

Army Builder is a great product and I encourage all my mates to buy it and use these data files that you guys make for us, but I want it to be something to help me build my lists not tell me what the rules are. Granted there needs to be certain regulations but something that is open to interpretation like this one needs to be left open so we can each build our armies according to our local interpretations IMO.

[PitFriend]

I'll add into the request to change the files to allow swapping the Bolter for something other than just a Chainsword. Although not "rules" more evidence that this should be allowed is White Fwarf magazine. In the Battle Reports and articles you see Sergeants with Bolt Pistols and Power Swords, Combi-Bolters without Bolters, or Plasma Pistols and Power Fists. None of these are possible with the current Army Builder files but GW must intend for them to be possible or they wouldn't be in the magazine.

[Homer_S]

I'll add into the request to change the files to allow swapping the Bolter for something other than just a Chainsword. Although not "rules" more evidence that this should be allowed is White Fwarf magazine. In the Battle Reports and articles you see Sergeants with Bolt Pistols and Power Swords, Combi-Bolters without Bolters, or Plasma Pistols and Power Fists. None of these are possible with the current Army Builder files but GW must intend for them to be possible or they wouldn't be in the magazine.

On White Dwarf: show me one since the revision of Codex: Space Marines. I've been looking and have not found one.

Homer

[PitFriend]

I'm at work right now so I don't have access to my White Dwarfs, but on the GW site under armies the picture of the new Tactical Squad models shows the sergeant holding a Combi-Gravgun and does not also have a Bolter. If you scroll through the picture bar there is one of three sergeants. One has a Bolt Pistol and Powerfist and another has a Bolt Pistol and Power Sword. None of these are possible in the current AB files but if they were illegal I don't think GW would put them on the website as examples.

[PitFriend]

Okay, besides the photos on the GW site in the September White Dwarf (the one announcing the new Space Marines) I found a few photos and even text. In the article about Tactical Squads theres a picture on pages 10 and 12 showing a sergeant with a Grav Pistol and Power Fist. The text for the photo on 12 even says "there are a number of different ways to arm the squad Sergeant, including this power fist and grav pistol...". Page 14 and 15 have a picture of a Sternguard Sergeant with a Plasma Pistol and Power Sword. On page 59 of the battle report there are 2 sergeants with Bolt Pistol and Power Fists, though they are Black Templars. Page 95 has a sergeant with a Bolt Pistol and Power Sword. Pages 104 and 105 have a sergeant with a Combi-Grav and Power Axe. Page 107 has one with a Power Fist and Plasma Pistol. Page 104 has one with a Power Fist and Grav Pistol. Page 141 has one with a Power Fist and Plasma Pistol.

Those are all the ones I found in just that issue. I can look in the next 3 as well but I think I made my point.

[gungagreg]

On White Dwarf: show me one since the revision of Codex: Space Marines. I've been looking and have not found one.

Homer

There hasn't been any material from GW since the release that shows things either way, but that's not the point. AB40K is taking a stance counter to the rest of the community including your own community. What is up with that? Why are you guys so adamant that you can't be flexible here? Have you EVER had this much push back on a single rules issue? Doesn't that tell you something here???? I'm already using Battle Scribe because it's awkward to go into a random game or tournament and have to explain that I've edited my AB file...is that what you guys want? Why is listening to your community and being a little flexible so hard?

Or, alternatively, can you tell us how to make the change and we'll propagate the procedures for others?

[gungagreg]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/61336520@N08/11227655196/

Sorry, couldn't imbed an image, but the above URL (minus the space after the http:) shows the GW answer - I've built a sgt from a tac squad and given him both a power weapon AND a lightning claw. The company allows it, how come AB won't? AB is such a superior tool, it's a shame to leave it behind because of this when my primary army can't function under it.