Space Marine Sergeants and Bikers need consistancy

[jlong05]

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.

Where does it show the base equipment? What weapon is replaced when you selected the claw? Which was replaced when you selected the power weapon? 

I dont see anything about base equipment on your image, and while their tool is allowing it, the rules are not clear how it would work. As it is the tool woudl require you to first replace with the chainsword then opening other options, but its not clear if that is the case. Does the tool enforce this or does it simply omit that step since it doesn't follow the logic the app needs?

This is the main issue with the rules, gw tool and discussion at large. The rules say to do one thing, and the community is interpreting that as another thing, and the gw army tool is yet doing even a third thing it appears. GW needs to FIX the rule so it is clear for all cases.

[gungagreg]

...the GW tool is doing what the community says, it's not some "third" way - by putting it that way you're trying to obfuscate the discussion which is unfair.

To your point, the GW tool doesn't have the AB functionality to SHOW the items being replaced nor does it show basic war gear like bolters, bolt pistols, etc (one of MANY reasons AB is a better list builder). It DOES prevent you from going over the limits that the lists have with regards to replacing things. It further follows the current community view that the Sergeant is able to replace both his wargear standard weapons (pistol AND bolter) with melee/ranged weapons as that is the ONLY way to get two of them on the same model.

Again, what is going on that there's such resistance to something as simple as allowing the more flexible interpretation here? There's nothing in the rules that prohibits swaping the free chainsword for something in the melee/ranged lists AND it's something that has always been allowed for the sergeant AND it's what the AB community AND the greater 40K community is allowing. What gives??? You're just making AB a harder tool for people to use OR causing them to stop using it. At least I can SHOW you that someone allows it AND that someone is GW. What can you show that says it can't be done given there's at least one official source that allows it??? Show me one Tournament FAQ that won't allow it! Show something, please!

[gungagreg]

This is the main issue with the rules, gw tool and discussion at large. The rules say to do one thing, and the community is interpreting that as another thing, and the gw army tool is yet doing even a third thing it appears. GW needs to FIX the rule so it is clear for all cases.

And on that note, being unclear - how come AB is ok with allowing the Bikers to get special weapons (which require either a melee weapon or a Bolter - neither of which they have) and not the Sergeants??? I've made that point before - GW FAQ'd the darn Bikers to allow their Bolter to swap for a Chainsword (which is the requisite melee weapon that unlocks special weapons). You follow that double swap logic for the Bikers, what is the big deal with the Sergeants who ALREADY can get the Chainsword??? It's because of the way that GW FAQ'd the Bikers (and the response from the community when it happened - i.e., all the mocking of the biker entry stopped) that you're NOT likely to see a FAQ of the Sergeants...they clearly have shown that the chainsword swapping is legal for unlocking the lists....


Or...if you're so set on this, why not be consistent and remove the ability for the Bikers to get special weapons...you currently don't deduct ANYTHING when AB allows you to buy them when clearly RAW there's a swap required.

Everyone wants the flexibility for the Sergeants - and you clearly allow it for the Bikers....why be so stuck on this? It's starting to seem like pure stubbornness rather than any real logic behind the decision.

[fenrick]

This is the main issue with the rules, gw tool and discussion at large. The rules say to do one thing, and the community is interpreting that as another thing, and the gw army tool is yet doing even a third thing it appears. GW needs to FIX the rule so it is clear for all cases.

And on that note, being unclear - how come AB is ok with allowing the Bikers to get special weapons (which require either a melee weapon or a Bolter - neither of which they have) and not the Sergeants??? I've made that point before - GW FAQ'd the darn Bikers to allow their Bolter to swap for a Chainsword (which is the requisite melee weapon that unlocks special weapons). You follow that double swap logic for the Bikers, what is the big deal with the Sergeants who ALREADY can get the Chainsword??? It's because of the way that GW FAQ'd the Bikers (and the response from the community when it happened - i.e., all the mocking of the biker entry stopped) that you're NOT likely to see a FAQ of the Sergeants...they clearly have shown that the chainsword swapping is legal for unlocking the lists....


Or...if you're so set on this, why not be consistent and remove the ability for the Bikers to get special weapons...you currently don't deduct ANYTHING when AB allows you to buy them when clearly RAW there's a swap required.

Everyone wants the flexibility for the Sergeants - and you clearly allow it for the Bikers....why be so stuck on this? It's starting to seem like pure stubbornness rather than any real logic behind the decision.

This.

[jlong05]

This is the main issue with the rules, gw tool and discussion at large. The rules say to do one thing, and the community is interpreting that as another thing, and the gw army tool is yet doing even a third thing it appears. GW needs to FIX the rule so it is clear for all cases.

And on that note, being unclear - how come AB is ok with allowing the Bikers to get special weapons (which require either a melee weapon or a Bolter - neither of which they have) and not the Sergeants??? I've made that point before - GW FAQ'd the darn Bikers to allow their Bolter to swap for a Chainsword (which is the requisite melee weapon that unlocks special weapons). You follow that double swap logic for the Bikers, what is the big deal with the Sergeants who ALREADY can get the Chainsword??? It's because of the way that GW FAQ'd the Bikers (and the response from the community when it happened - i.e., all the mocking of the biker entry stopped) that you're NOT likely to see a FAQ of the Sergeants...they clearly have shown that the chainsword swapping is legal for unlocking the lists....


Or...if you're so set on this, why not be consistent and remove the ability for the Bikers to get special weapons...you currently don't deduct ANYTHING when AB allows you to buy them when clearly RAW there's a swap required.

Everyone wants the flexibility for the Sergeants - and you clearly allow it for the Bikers....why be so stuck on this? It's starting to seem like pure stubbornness rather than any real logic behind the decision.

I am not the file maintainer for marines or their ilk, however as you stated the functionality doesn't match. I will recommend that one direction or the other is chosen and the files updated as such. Thank you for pointing out this discrepancy.

[gungagreg]

Thank you! I hope the decision is to side on both units (bikers AND sergeants) being more flexible as it's clear they intend the bikers to be allowed special weapons and it would be silly to start "punishing" the bikers the same as the Sergeants just because GW is unclear...because when are they totally clear???

Regardless, I appreciate your sticking with this thread - I'm passionate on this as others are because we love our Space Marines AND we love Army Builder and the work you guys do. We want to support it by finding things like this and helping identify areas where changes, improvements and other things can be put in place because we lack the skills, experience and training to do it ourselves.

[jboweruk]

As has been said so many times though, RAW could in theory go either way, why the AB40k team have been so stubborn over this is beyond me, under the Sergeant entry it clearly states and/or had it just stated 'or' I could have understood their position over it. GW made their intent quite clear in that one line of that one entry and again by the fact that nowhere in any FAQ or the BRB or the codex does it forbid you from double swapping a weapon (especially a freebee).

[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.

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

Homer

For some reason my posts aren't appearing. There are photos of Sergeants on the GW website in the new Tactical Squad and ten photos in the September issue of White Dwarf showing weapon combinations not allowed by the AB files. I can find them all again if my other posts vanished into the warp.

[PitFriend]

Okay here are two places showing Sergeants with weapon combinations not allowed by the current AB files. This is from memory of my two vanished posts so I can do a more detailed one later if you want.

The first is on the GW website in the Tactical Squad listing under Armies. There is a picture on the scroll bar of three Sergeants, one with a Bolt Pistol and Power Sword and one with a Power Fist and Bolt Pistol.

The other is in the September issue of White Dwarf, the one introducing the new Space Marines. There are multiple pictures in it but on pages 10 and 11 in the article on the new Tactical Squad the Sergeant has a Power Fist and a pistol, which is not allowed in the current AB files. And the back cover shows one with a Plasma Pistol and Power Sword, also not allowed.

As these weapon combinations are okay with GW to put in their publications it should be allowed by the AB files. I really appreciate all the work you guys do on these so I'm not trying to start a fight I just want to help keep the program as useful as it's been in the past.

[Homer_S]

Okay here are two places showing Sergeants with weapon combinations not allowed by the current AB files. This is from memory of my two vanished posts so I can do a more detailed one later if you want.

The first is on the GW website in the Tactical Squad listing under Armies. There is a picture on the scroll bar of three Sergeants, one with a Bolt Pistol and Power Sword and one with a Power Fist and Bolt Pistol.

The other is in the September issue of White Dwarf, the one introducing the new Space Marines. There are multiple pictures in it but on pages 10 and 11 in the article on the new Tactical Squad the Sergeant has a Power Fist and a pistol, which is not allowed in the current AB files. And the back cover shows one with a Plasma Pistol and Power Sword, also not allowed.

As these weapon combinations are okay with GW to put in their publications it should be allowed by the AB files. I really appreciate all the work you guys do on these so I'm not trying to start a fight I just want to help keep the program as useful as it's been in the past.

Pictures OK, battle reports would be more promising, but they chose dopey units to use in that issue. With all of the discussion, you would think GW would FAQ it and then there would be no discussion.

Homer

[PitFriend]

Okay here are two places showing Sergeants with weapon combinations not allowed by the current AB files. This is from memory of my two vanished posts so I can do a more detailed one later if you want.

The first is on the GW website in the Tactical Squad listing under Armies. There is a picture on the scroll bar of three Sergeants, one with a Bolt Pistol and Power Sword and one with a Power Fist and Bolt Pistol.

The other is in the September issue of White Dwarf, the one introducing the new Space Marines. There are multiple pictures in it but on pages 10 and 11 in the article on the new Tactical Squad the Sergeant has a Power Fist and a pistol, which is not allowed in the current AB files. And the back cover shows one with a Plasma Pistol and Power Sword, also not allowed.

As these weapon combinations are okay with GW to put in their publications it should be allowed by the AB files. I really appreciate all the work you guys do on these so I'm not trying to start a fight I just want to help keep the program as useful as it's been in the past.

Pictures OK, battle reports would be more promising, but they chose dopey units to use in that issue. With all of the discussion, you would think GW would FAQ it and then there would be no discussion.

Homer

Yes, but the fact that GW put all these in their official publications as examples of what you can build to play are pretty good indicators that GW feels they are rules legal. Or do you think they're just there as samples of cool things you can build with the models but never actually game with?

Quite honestly GW is never going to put out a FAQ on this as to them it's a non-issue. This is the only place that I've even seen any debate over what equipment the models can take. Bell of Lost Souls and Dakkadakka have had not a peep about it and Googling came up empty as well. I honestly cannot understand where the controversy is.

[gungagreg]

While I agree with the sentiment, the pictures argument is not a solid one IMHO, better to use a logic based argument focused on how GW FAQed the bikers. They were not even allowed to use thei special weapon option in the book as written as they had no bolster or me lee weapon as required by the special weapon list. GW did not FAQ to change the wording, they FAQed them to allow a chain sword swap which gave the requisit me lee weapon to allow them to buy a special weapon upgrade.

By this logic they (GW) don't see any controversy with the regular squads as their sgts already had the ability to swap out their bolster for a sword and thus gain access to the two lists. With the FAQ you can see how with these two model types GW intends the upgrades to function, I.e. With a double swap.

If you don't agree still then the logical course is to prevent both the sgts AND the bikes as they both need a double swap to activate their upgrades. The frustating thing is AB maintainers see no problem with allowing the bikes to upgrade, in that case without even losing a wargear choice as required, but have such an issue with the sgts...

[PitFriend]

Well, arguing about what the rules say didn't seem to be working. I figured that some clear evidence of what GW's intention for the rule would work better. Since no one from GW is on here and they will not answer emails about what they mean photos from their website and White Dwarf will have to do.

And to me the photos of Sergeants from the new Tactical Squad kit armed with weapon combinations like a Power Fist and a Grav Pistol is a clear indication that GW intends for them to be able to swap out both their Bolter and Bolt Pistol for other weapons from the list. It just makes no sense at all to me for it to be otherwise. Why show models with "illegal" weapon options in your magazine or on your website?

[fenrick]

Well, arguing about what the rules say didn't seem to be working. I figured that some clear evidence of what GW's intention for the rule would work better. Since no one from GW is on here and they will not answer emails about what they mean photos from their website and White Dwarf will have to do.

And to me the photos of Sergeants from the new Tactical Squad kit armed with weapon combinations like a Power Fist and a Grav Pistol is a clear indication that GW intends for them to be able to swap out both their Bolter and Bolt Pistol for other weapons from the list. It just makes no sense at all to me for it to be otherwise. Why show models with "illegal" weapon options in your magazine or on your website?

I was told early on that pictures do not represent RAW. I also mentioned the battle report in the September 2013 issue of White Dwarf where they clearly have a crusader squad battle brother (aka Sgt) with a power fist and a combi-grav. But, I was told that battle reports are riddled with errors as well. I also find it hard to believe that GW would publish images and battle reports that do not reflect the rules of the game, but I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinions. And, the opinions of the ones holding the strings seem to matter most.

Edit: spelling error. My bad.

[Magpie]

Point is the RAW/RAI or whatever doesn't matter, what we are talking about is a desired functionality for our beloved Army Builder, that has some very compelling reasons for inclusion.