Space marine sergeant weapon options

[Kloud13]

sorry

[Kloud13]

Well....Do you think we could talk the Authors into making the change that we seek, but flag the choice as invalid if we do swap a second weapon?

[Arijharn]

The problem imo is that the rule is actually pretty clear, errata'ing what is essentially something that should be basic reading comprehension isn't going to be in the purview of GW, nor should it honestly.

Having said that, they did draw attention in fantasy that characters mounted on something change troop types too (which was always the case) which would pull them out of things like Killing Blow, so perhaps there is hope after all.

[jboweruk]

I'd still like to know where the belief comes from that you can't swap the chainsword once you've taken it, there's nothing there in the BRB or Errata/FAQ to substantiate his claim that it's RAW. It's not RAW at all so he needs to re-do it correctly RAW.

[jlong05]

Originally Posted by jboweruk

I'd still like to know where the belief comes from that you can't swap the chainsword once you've taken it, there's nothing there in the BRB or Errata/FAQ to substantiate his claim that it's RAW. It's not RAW at all so he needs to re-do it correctly RAW.

Or you can.

[Kloud13]

Originally Posted by jlong05

Or you can.

I'm sorry dude. I am grateful for the work you and the other authors do, but that is just harsh.

If I could, I would. But you know we all lack the knowledge to do so.

Yes, we could learn, and maybe after a couple of months, but probably over a year some of us may have knowledge to do so. But you know that changing the program ourselves is, and always will be way beyond most of us.

We do not feel it is right that you hold your superior knowledge of the Army Builder program over us.

I know it is not fair that you write the files for free, and I wish there was a way for you the Data File Authors to receive your proper due for your work. After all, the Army Builder program is one of the most valuable resources to mine and many others hobby.

Clearly there is a debate of the RAW in this case. Many of the AB users and the AB writers seem to be at odds with each other. This should have never have been made personnel, and I fear it has become just that.

I would humbly request that everybody take a step back, and we have a calm discussion of the issue, and at least try to find a compromise.

Please.

[jboweruk]

We could, but the authors have just brought both bikes and sergeants into line, by nerfing the bike sergeants. That's pretty well the last straw for me, there are other programmes out there to do the same job. If AB40k authors won't listen to the community and just tell us to shut up and go away then I'm sorry, I'll take my money elsewhere. They are just being stubborn mules now and are just doing this out of spite. No more or less. They know we can't do it ourselves, so its' over to Battlescribe for me. Especially when it's been pointed out that the battle report, codex and Ipad version of said codex agree with the rest of the community. Yes it's got heated because it's rendered AB unusable if you're a space marine player. That is worth getting pretty miffed about.

[jlong05]

Sigh. I wasn't aware that was the decision made.

[jboweruk]

Originally Posted by jlong05

Sigh. I wasn't aware that was the decision made.

Check it out in 1.34.... Bikes are now in line with other sergeants.

[jlong05]

While I understand the issue. I will point out that several people said it should work the same way as the other unit and while I may not fully agree with the final decision, I respect the authors decision on interpretation. I wish there was more I could do, but given all this strife, I am officially stepping down from maintainer for 40k. I wish the community and the remaining authors well, but I just don't play the game and so have no wish to continue these fights.