rough rider options - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

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!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Mr Commisar to you Commisarlestat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Reading, UK
    Age
    31
    Posts
    2,885
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    332 (x8)

    rough rider options

    This is a thread i started in the guard section but to be honest the way it has gone i though it better suited this area, right onto th actual point.

    The options for rough riders in the codex are slightly confusing when it comes to weapon combination, GW hasnt helped with unclear wording and while this is an issue that would rarely rise due to the way people play i thought id clear it up now.
    (i am going to quote a lot of the option wording but leave out specific points etc but if any of this is too much then can a mod either edit/post or PM me to change it thanks!)

    the issue is over whether a rough riders quad can take other options aswell as its hunting lances...

    "The squadron may replace their laspistols or close combat weapons for hunting lances at..."
    now this seems simple enough its like grenades but with a twist whole squad can have them so it implies that they all should have them although it quote sthe price per model. This could simply be because its a variable squad size unit however when combined with the other options this gets a little tricky,

    "Any number of models without hunting lances may substitute their laspistol for a lasrifle or shotgun at..."
    now there are two interesting things here. A model in a unit that doesnt have lances can change his weapon which is fine. however many argue that the squad has to take lances altogether so no other options. this would be fine except nowhere does it say i have to take lances on the whole squad it is merely implied by the statement above. secondly there is a clause saying a model without a hunting lance this is because you can have a laspistol and hunting lance. ould this then be merely to stop people taking shotguns and hunting lances?

    " Up to X troopers, without hunting lances, may be armed with one of the following special weapons:"
    Again same as above although we have more of an issue many squads can take special weapons aswell as their other upgrades. noone would say that cos you have shotguns in this unit you cant take the special weapons.

    now everyone know s the grenades line whcih is written nearly exactly the same as the lances line however there is another point to this. If lances are an upgrade like grenades then why cant they be taken in the same way. they could therefore be taken second eg. i take three shotguns and a special weapon in my rough riders now il upgrade to lances oo look some of the models cant have lances. its a matter of what is chosen first.
    To nack up my points with other precedent the hardened veterans option can also be looked at:
    " up to three vets not acting as heavy weapons crew may be equipped with..."
    now this is exclusion it says you cant have one weapon because you have another, we also have something else here.
    It says the vets may be equipped with either a lasgun or a shotgun etc.
    within that phrase it makes a statement of individuality saying each model.

    Now one final thing. When it says a unit can have grenades it says can or when there is another option that aplies to everyone it alwasy sasy can throughout the codex however when it is an option available as part of a unit say a vet sarge or sequence of vets in the command it says may. It also says may when refering to hunting lances.

    now what i would like to know is that in any other codex (preferably those published after the guard codex) is their similar wording for units or does one option for a unit that they can or may all have exempt the use of special weapons?

    can somebody help me sort this!

    A
    PS sorry for the length of the post!


  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    44
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    6 (x1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Commisarlestat View Post

    "The squadron may replace their laspistols or close combat weapons for hunting lances at..."
    now this seems simple enough its like grenades but with a twist whole squad can have them so it implies that they all should have them although it quote sthe price per model. This could simply be because its a variable squad size unit however when combined with the other options this gets a little tricky,
    Heh, I find this after I get done posting in the IG forum. The issue here is all rapped up in this segment. From here, you proceed with the assumption that the wording is ambiguous and somehow casts doubts how to interpret it. Let's look at the rule one more time:

    "The squadron...". The squadron itself is what has the option to take this upgrade. Let's look at the Space Marine codex, Scout Squad entry: "The squad may be equipped with frag grenades at +X pt per model and/or krak grenades at +Y pts per model." The only difference between the Scout entry and the Rough Rider entry is what is being purchased for those extra X pts. Honestly, if you rule that Rough Riders can purchase Hunting Lances individually, then you must also admit that grenades can be purchased individually as well.

  4. #3
    Mr Commisar to you Commisarlestat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Reading, UK
    Age
    31
    Posts
    2,885
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    332 (x8)

    That is something which i have thought.
    The only thing with it is that every time the grenade phrase is used it uses the word can and when the lances phrase is used they say may, may is the word used for all other options where weapons may be mixed.
    As you probably read in the guard area i am playing devils advocate as there isnt really any tactical advantage to this. The one thing that gets me about it is other squads can upgrade weapons yet arent told no special weapons and here as long as they arent equipped with a lance aswell they can take a special weapon. for example the sarge can be made into a vet he then has a lance yet he can take options from the armoury can he then not drop his lance for other options?. if that is the case then all officers in guard armies cant use the armoury aswell as others in other armies.
    I agree the intention is probably the whole squadron having lances or a mix of other weapons but it just shows how when they word one bit badly it calls everything else into question.

    The other point about grenades is they dont preclude the use of other weapons so their case isnt actually a case in point. I would still love to see if there are other interpretations where this happens in other codices.

    A

  5. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    44
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    6 (x1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Commisarlestat View Post
    That is something which i have thought.
    The only thing with it is that every time the grenade phrase is used it uses the word can and when the lances phrase is used they say may, may is the word used for all other options where weapons may be mixed.
    Actually, if you'll check my quote up above, the grenade entry in the Space Marine codex uses the word 'may', just like the Rough Rider entry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commisarlestat View Post
    The other point about grenades is they dont preclude the use of other weapons so their case isnt actually a case in point. I would still love to see if there are other interpretations where this happens in other codices.
    This is actually a valid concern with all of 4th Edition. I played 3rd Ed, but never owned a copy of the BGB so I can't check this, but I believe that in 3rd Ed it specifically stated that purchasing a weapon option replaced your current weapon. As far as I can tell, 4th Edition does not have this stipulation. So while the Rough Rider entry says you can "replace their laspistols or close combat weapons with hunting lances.", the Space Marine codex does not use the word replace when refering to, say, adding a Lascannon to a Tactical squad.

  6. #5
    Mr Commisar to you Commisarlestat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Reading, UK
    Age
    31
    Posts
    2,885
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    332 (x8)

    Thanx for the replies. Wish GW would write errata for their books, proof reading isnt exactly difficult.

    neway thanx again

    A

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts