I have just updated to the latest version of army builder. There now seems to be no way of equipping a space marine sergeant with both a bolt pistol and a power weapon. There are two columns. One for ranged weapons and one for melee weapons. But both are titled '-Replace Bolt Pistol with-'. Shouldn't one of the columns read '-Replace Melee Weapon with-' or '-Replace Boltgun with-' to give you the ability to equip a sergeant with a melee and a ranged weapon?
-
Please note: In an effort to ensure that all of our users feel welcome on our forums, we’ve updated our forum rules. You can review the updated rules here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=5528.
If a fellow Community member is not following the forum rules, please report the post by clicking the Report button (the red yield sign on the left) located on every post. This will notify the moderators directly. If you have any questions about these new rules, please contact support@wolflair.com.
- The Lone Wolf Development Team
Space marine sergeant weapon options
- Thread starter Infernus
- Start date
The rules require you to have either a Bolt Pistol or a Melee Weapon in exchange for an upgrade on either the Melee or Ranged weapons lists. The maintainers of the 40K data file believe that this prevents the Sergeant from getting two weapons as they only have one of the required items necessary for the exchange. However, some people feel that the option to replace the Bolter with a Chainsword unlocks this and thus allows what you are asking for. This is not the view of the maintainers. What we need in order for them to act is a FAQ from GW that clarifies this before the maintainers will make the change.
Rule? Where?
I have read the codex repeatedly have yet to find this rule. Could you direct me to it that specifies it?
I have read the codex repeatedly have yet to find this rule. Could you direct me to it that specifies it?
Lord Lorne Walkier
Member
I am having the same issue and i totally disagree with the reasoning for the limitation. I do understand the reasoning though. There is a image on page 135 of the codex labeled "Veteran Sergeant with power axe and storm bolter." How could this be if the maintainers are right?
Because where possible they go for rules as written as opposed to 'intended', because that's a bit of a slippery slope.
Imo, it's rather ridiculous to assume that you can't have a poweraxe with a bolt pistol, since you've been able to do that since 2nd edition etc, etc.
Imo, it's rather ridiculous to assume that you can't have a poweraxe with a bolt pistol, since you've been able to do that since 2nd edition etc, etc.
They are interpreting just one version of RAW, and when we all pointed this out we just got told to 'shut up and go away' in so many words. Despite that we pretty well proved the point successive times that it was not intended for a sergeant to lose out like this and they themselves have run biker sergeants differently. I'm sorry to say that AB themselves need to take a stance in this and point out that the maintainers need to be less 'stubborn' and (sorry to say it pompous) in their attitude otherwise people will drift away from AB. And that for my money would be a shame as the idea is a really good one. And it's the best builder out there currently.
InMedeasRage
New member
"
That's verbatim from the codex with nothing missing or added to that bullet point. Space marine sergeants can take any number of weapons. You can have a sergeant with one of each combi-weapon, as idiotic as that would be. You could equip a sergeant like Calgar, with two fists, a sword, a pistol, and a storm bolter. Stupidly expensive, doesn't really do anything that just a fist and a stormbolter wouldn't do, but possible. On top of this, the only reason the chainsword is listed is because the chainsword is not an option one can take from the armoury. Without the added option in each sergeant upgrade section, no one would be able to take chainswords... not that chainswords are any different from generic melee weapons unless there's been a FAQ where a model can take a heavy chainsword like power weapon users can take axes, staves, lances, or swords.
This is the only mistake I've encountered so far, its a very good initial C:SM build.
- The Space Marine Sergeant or Veteran Sergeant may take items from the Melee Weapons and/or Ranged Weapons lists."
That's verbatim from the codex with nothing missing or added to that bullet point. Space marine sergeants can take any number of weapons. You can have a sergeant with one of each combi-weapon, as idiotic as that would be. You could equip a sergeant like Calgar, with two fists, a sword, a pistol, and a storm bolter. Stupidly expensive, doesn't really do anything that just a fist and a stormbolter wouldn't do, but possible. On top of this, the only reason the chainsword is listed is because the chainsword is not an option one can take from the armoury. Without the added option in each sergeant upgrade section, no one would be able to take chainswords... not that chainswords are any different from generic melee weapons unless there's been a FAQ where a model can take a heavy chainsword like power weapon users can take axes, staves, lances, or swords.
This is the only mistake I've encountered so far, its a very good initial C:SM build.
If it were that simple, it would have been done already. The simple fact is that the files are not simple to manage or maintain, nor easy to alter without having repercussions.
While the community at one point expressed interest in creating a grassroots edit initiative, that was scrapped by those same individuals once they determined that anything they publicly post would become their responsibility to support ongoing and answer questions to. It was determined by them that the headache that would cause was not worth the time they would need to devote to that effort.
As such, you are better to wait for either the Author himself to decide to re-code that work on his own, or for GW to FAQ the information to help the Author determine that the approach taken was in error. At this time though, the Author is not in belief that their interpretation is in error based on rules as written.
While the community at one point expressed interest in creating a grassroots edit initiative, that was scrapped by those same individuals once they determined that anything they publicly post would become their responsibility to support ongoing and answer questions to. It was determined by them that the headache that would cause was not worth the time they would need to devote to that effort.
As such, you are better to wait for either the Author himself to decide to re-code that work on his own, or for GW to FAQ the information to help the Author determine that the approach taken was in error. At this time though, the Author is not in belief that their interpretation is in error based on rules as written.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.