Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
So, here's an interesting observation I've made:
In certain instances in the Space Marine codex, it is stated that a model may replace some weapon or weapons with another weapon or weapons. This is the case for the Space Marine sergeant, who can replace his bolter with a bolt pistol and close combat weapon. However, in other instances it merely says that a model (which has been stated to be armed with some weapon or weapons) can be armed with another weapon. This is the case for such models as Assault Marines who arm themselves with plasma pistols and Tactical Marines who arm themselves with assault weapons and heavy weapons.
Now, there's nothing in any book that states that your average models are restricted to any given number of weapons (though it does make some such statement about models taking things from the argument). Now, it seems to me that, since a distinction is made between 'replace' and 'arm', there's nothing at all which indicates that a tactical marine armed with a missile launcher, say, is not also armed with a bolter. Now, clearly the marine can't shoot both weapons in one turn (there are rules against this kind of thing) but it does mean that bringing a missle launcher doesn't cut down your volume of fire on those turns when you do move.
Has anyone else noticed this feature of the rules or come to a similar conclusion?
Is there any good indication that I'm not, in fact, correct?
Ummm, I'm not sure if it says this aout normal troops, but in the SM 'dex it says a model may be equiped with either two 1-handed weapons, one 1-handed weapon and one 2-handed weapon, or one 2-handed weapon. So no model may be equpied with two 2-handed weapons, like a ML and bolter.
The only line I have been able to find to that regard in the Space Marine codex is this
"Models with access to the Armoury may select up to two weapons of which only one can be a two handed weapon." (page 22)
As you can see, this statement clearly fails to include models such as the ones that would be carrying missile launchers.
If there is another such line, I would appreciate your kindness in referencing it a little more specifically.
I believe there is a rule (although I can't really say where it is) that any model may only have 2 weapons, only 1 of which may be 2-handed (so either 1 2-handed weapon and 1 1-handed weapon, or 2 1-handed weapons).
Only Veteran Sergeants, Terminator Sergeants, Command Squad Specialists, and independent characters may select equipment from the Armory. Last I checked, weapons a Tactical Marine could choose to carry weren't on the list, and an ordinary Tactical Marine, Scout, or Devastator Marine didn't have access to the armory. Before you counter that a Veteran Squad could have access to the Armory, the codex entry specifically stats that only the Veteran Sergeant of the squad (if there is one) may select additional equipment from the Armory.
The changes Bean suggests are actually upgrades. The Marine simply carries another weapon (e.g., a meltagun) instead of the standard bolter. Despite being superhuman, a Space Marine literally has no room to carry a bolter, a meltagun, and the spare ammunition for both.
I agree with the first part, but it doesn't really matter.Originally Posted by Archetype
the only reason I brought up the armoury is that the only stated restriction on the number of weapons a model can carry only refers to models taking stuff from the armoury.
Since regular tactical marines don't have access to the armoury, this restriction --the only one that I have found--doesn't apply to them, and thus doesn't serve as an argument against my point.
My point is that nowhere does it state that a tactical marine who is given a Missile Launcher ever loses the Bolter he already has.
The only argument you're really making here is based on fluff, and thus, as I'm sure you're aware, is not valid.
The codex does not state that you add the weapon to the Marine's standard bolter either. Besides, would you rapid-fire a tank you can only glance from the rear with a bolter, even if the meltagun you were carrying would be far more likely to damage it? No, because you want the best possible chance of killing that tank. Switching weapons afterward? It's not a tactically sound option outside of first-person shooters. Even in modern warfare, infantry are equipped with only one weapon and the ammo for it. Just think of the other stuff he'd have to carry, like emergency equipment and combat rations. Any gun except for a pistol would be too heavy to be carted around the battlefield.
I'd agree that your fluff argument seems reasonable for people such as Imperial Guardsmen or Eldar, Tau, or whatnot. Space Marines though? I feel confident that a Marine can haul around that rocket launcher, a few extra rockets, and a bolter with a couple extra clips. He's an eight-foot-tall super-human killing-machine in powered armour--come on.
However, that sort of argument doesn't, in the end, mean anything.
If someone said to you, "here, you can have this." Then, later you were told, "here you can have this." Would it be your natural assumption to say, "oh, then you want the first this back?"
To treat the question rhetorically, the answer ought to be no. The marine is armed with a bolter. Then the marine is armed with a missile launcher. There's no reason at all to assume that the word 'armed' is not being used in an inclusive manner.
I asked for people to tell me if I was wrong, and they have done so. However, what has not yet happened is for anyone to tell me a good reason as to why I'm wrong.
If there was a rule somewhere stating that a model can't carry two two-handed weapons, that would be a good response. If there was something that implied that the word 'armed' meant 'armed instead' or 'have its weapon replaced', that would be a good argument.
Neither of these, however, have been posited or supported in a logical manner. On the contrary, there is reason to assume that the word 'armed' does not imply a replacemet, since the word 'replace' is used in other circumstances.
If one wishes to make an argument regarding rules, one must first base one's argument in the text of the rules. You should take this to heart, as so far you have avoided this principle.
Last edited by Bean; April 26th, 2005 at 06:54. Reason: to remove an inappropriate negative
You know, the folks who wrote the codex likely had a lapse of grammar and wrote something that gave you that mixed message. Besides, if a Marine could take a missle launcher in addition to his bolter, then Eldar players would be demanding that their Dark Reapers be allowed to carry shuriken catapults in addition to their Reaper launchers, Tau would want to have both pulse rifles and pulse carbines, and a massive codex overhaul would be in order for every other race simply because the basic Marine can carry two weapons and no one else has that option. Ordinary Marines can only carrly one two-handed weapon in game because having to would upset the balance of the game.Originally Posted by Bean
Getting back on-topic, the codex stats that the Marine "can be armed with," not "may add a <insert weapon> to their existing weaponry." The former implies that the Marine had no weapon to begin with, and I think you already know what the latter means.
To demonstrate why you should not think your interpretation of the phrase 'can be armed with' is correct.
Look at the entry for Assault Marines. It states that 'Up to two Space Marines can be armed with a weapon from the following list: a flamer at +6 points or plasma pistol at +5 points."
Now, do you assume that the Assault Marine with the plasma pistol doesn't have the close combat weapon he was granted by the original 'Weapon' entry of the Assault Marine description? I personally consider my Assault Marines with plasma pistols to have two attacks (for a pistol and a close combat weapon) but under your interpretation, they wouldn't, because they would lose the bolt pistol and close combat weapon for the plasma pistol.