New Succubus mini illegally equiped?

The new Succubus model currently up for preorder comes with an Archite Glaive and an Agoniser for opposite hands.

The Succubus rules wise comes with a splinter pistol and close combat weapon. To take the Archite glaive, you have to swap for it with a close combat weapon for it, and it's the same to take things from the melee list which the Agoniser is a part of.

So, unless you can swap that close combat weapon twice, or you count the splinter pistol as a close combat weapon that shoots, it can't be equipped that way.

The whip isnt actually an ago iser as they are however the most common usageit can just be a ccw

She can also have a pistol in a holster or somewhere on her body

"This 10-piece plastic kit makes one Succubus equipped with an agoniser and archite glaive."

By GW's own words, it has both.

i was thinking about the same thing today.

funnily, the "force requisition" feature in the ipad version of the codex (very poor variant of battlescribe really), also lets you eqiup her with both the glaive and the agoniser.

the feature functions somewhat like this: you tick the gear you want your unit to have, and it automatically greys out the items you then cannot pick anymore (greys out splinter pistol if you tick blast pistol, e.g.)

it greys out the guns when you tick the agoniser, but doesn't when you tick the glaive, which makes me think you can take both but lose the option to shoot somethin (other than the grenades you are carrying).

Normally i would be with you on this, going with the "great" feature that's in the digital codex, i think that "melee weapon" includes pistols, while "close combat weapon" is the regular CCW.

Strange whichever way you look at it though, and i also don't think i got my point across very well D:

correct - you cant actually arm the succubus as per the model - how silly!

I love that gif!!!

You're right. Archite Glave says "replace close combat weapon," and under Melee Weapons on page 69 it says, "replace its Melee weapon with one of the following."

They really don't know how their game works.
I can't even.

Calyptra wrote:

You're right. Archite Glave says "replace close combat weapon," and under Melee Weapons on page 69 it says, "replace its Melee weapon with one of the following."

They really don't know how their game works.
I can't even.

I thought living in the dark city would make you all be accustomed to riddles.
Let me enlighten you, is my pleasure ;-)
First replace the CCW with the archite glaive, then take the djin blade from the artefacts of cruelty list and replace your splinter pistol with it. Now take the Agoniser from the melee weapons list and replace it with your melee weapon. E viola ;-)

Maybe they do count the pistol as a CCW? It is sorta technically a CCW that shoots. Only during the assault phase but it still is sometimes.

I've wondered this one too. Doesn't make much sense to me, seems an illegal equip.

Archite Glaive replaces CCW (as per Succubus entry on P72)
Succubus may take Melee Weapons (also P72)
'A model may replace it's Melee weapon with one of the following: Agonised, 25pts' (Wargear list, P69)

Thw Succubus' CCW has already been replaced with the Archite Glaive, so therefore Succubus has Glaive and Splinter Pistol. It doesn't seem possible by my reading of the rules to have her equipped with both.

I thought about the pistol too, but pistols only count as close combat weapons in the assault phase, which is not when you're writing your army list.

Pistol isn't CCW, because that's a specific thing with a profile and everything. But it is a melee weapon, which just means "anything you can hit someone in the face with." So the wording is fine.

Mostly I agree with ESE, though, and he didn't even say anything. Achievement unlocked.

This is a simple matter of two authors. It happens all the time in GW books. One author wrote the page for the succubus, and a different author wrote the wargear list. Neither did a good job of referencing the other, and the editor missed the conflict. The conflict being this:

The succubus page says that she may TAKE items from the melee weapons list, as if she didn't have to replace anything. It also says she can replace her ccw with an archite glaive. I believe this is how the author of the succubus page intended it, but didn't realize that the wargear page contradicted this and made it impossible.

FYI, we'll NEVER get clarification on this. It's one of those issues GW tends to leave out of FAQs.

Did people think I was joking? If you follow the steps I described it actually does work. Even though I guess it was not intended.

Another fun fact: exchange the splinter pistol and the close combat weapon with the two hydra gauntlets. Now you have two melee weapons instead of one melee and one ranged. Now you can replace one of your hydra gauntlets with an agonised. Why you ask? That is not the point ;-)

And the best thing about that is, it seems to be intended, as both hydra gauntlets and razorflails are specialist weapons. Why else would they be that ;-)

I am seriously thinking about how to combine these XD

Hey guys

real noob question, Can I put my Succubus into a unit of Grotesques?
(from a fantasy background, so this is possible but almost never done in that 'other game')

additionally I was looking at the Archite Glaive as a potential weapon. Is the reason it isnt considered often the fact it is missing poison?

Thanks for the help

You can put her with Grotesques.

I think the archite glaive is a really good choice. When she gets Furious Charge (which can happen on turn 2 with a Haemonculus and a lucky Animus Vitae shot) she'll be S 5 when she charges. With a lucky drug roll that could be S 6.

Yes, that's two lucky things, but even before Furious Charge and with different drugs she can slice up Marines just as effectively as if she had an agonizer, for less points, at AP 2.

Crazy_Irish wrote:

Did people think I was joking? If you follow the steps I described it actually does work. Even though I guess it was not intended.

Another fun fact: exchange the splinter pistol and the close combat weapon with the two hydra gauntlets. Now you have two melee weapons instead of one melee and one ranged. Now you can replace one of your hydra gauntlets with an agonised. Why you ask? That is not the point ;-)

There is a difference between a close combat weapon and a melee weapon.
Most importantly - only one of them is allowed to be exchanged for a Glaive.

It would be possible to get, for instance, a hydra gauntlet and an agoniser on a single Succubus model.
But the Glaive/Aggie combo is still impossible as far as I can see - nothing you've suggested circumvents the restriction thus far.

BRB Core Rules, weapons, pistols as close combat weapons. When reading this paragraph, after scouring the rulebook for anything pistol-related (digital version ahoy) and after double checking the force requisition feature in the (again digital) codex (plus not really believing GW would advertise the succubus with ONLY this loadout, it's not like you could assamble her any other way without having spare parts lying around), i'm rather convinced she's good to take the glaive and the agoniser

Page 42 - 'A pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the assault phase'

There is no other time that a pistol counts as a close combat weapon and also *never* a time it counts as a melee weapon.

There are lists of melee and ranged weapons in most of the books. A splinter pistol is listed as a ranged weapon, not a melee weapon.

The Succubus may exchange a melee weapon for an Agoniser. Not a weapon that counts as a close combat weapon in the assault phase, but a melee weapon. There is a clear list of what is or is not a melee weapon. A close combat weapon *is* a melee weapon, but unless it is the assault phase a pistol does not count as one, it counts as a ranged weapon. You are not in the assault phase during equipment purchases - you are in the army selection part of the game.

I have total faith in GW to create things that don't work

i'm quite hesitant to quote the rulebook on the interwebs, but since referencing the paragraph didn't help, here goes:

"A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon. If this is done, use the profile given above [the one of a regular CCW] - the Strength, AP and special rules of the pistol's shooting profile are ignored."

in this paragraph, "assault phase" is not mentioned in any way. don't get me wrong, i totally understand what you are trying to say, but i believe there is enough leeway here to justify taking both the glaive and the agoniser here.
perhaps i should organise a picture of the built-in "battlescribe" of the digital codex some time to better showcase where i was going with my previous statements about the "force requisition" feature.
a picture says more than a thousand words and english is not my native language, so there's definitely some room for misinterpretation

Yes, a pistol can be used as a CCW.
Per the rules for pistols, which, as I said are on page 42.

Also on Page 41, which is what you're noting, it specifically references the pistol rules on pg. 42 - which are what I'm talking about and which allow you to use it as a CCW.

None of that matters, because in neither place does it allow you to use it as a CCW for switching out equipment.
Also, though it can be "used as" a CCW it is not a CCW, it is a Pistol which can be used as a CCW.
The Glaive is taken by replacing a close combat weapon.
Not something that can be used as a close combat weapon - but specifically a close combat weapon, which is a type of weapon, and which a splinter pistol is not.

Make sense?

Yes and no, really.
the problem isn't that the pistol "counts as" a CCW or "can be used as" a CCW.
the wording of the rule referenced is "counts as a close combat weapon in the assault phase", but does this make it not a CCW when it's not the assault phase? probably.

then again, assuming i'd only go from what my edition of the codex tells me is "legal" or not, assuming i'm not looking around the internet for these kinds of debates, and _also_ assuming i'd always get rid of my surplus plastic parts from other kits i couldn't tack onto my models (silly regarding the pricetag on these bitz, but who knows):

My Succubus can take (using the baked-into-the-codex-tool, not battlescribe, because that's really also just subject to somebodies interpretation of what might or might not be correct):

"archite glaive" option excludes "two hydra gauntlets", "two razorflails" and "shardnet & impaler"

"blast pistol" option excludes "two hydra gauntlets", "two razorflails" and "shardnet & impaler"

"power sword" option excludes "agoniser", "two hydra gauntlets", "two razorflails" and "shardnet & impaler"

"agoniser" option excludes "power sword", "two hydra gauntlets", "two razorflails" and "shardnet & impaler"

taking either of the wych weapons cancels every other option of weaponry - the glaive, the pistols, agoniser, power sword.

HWG, WWP, Armour of Misery, Animus Vitae, Archangel of Pain, Helm of Spite and Djin Blade are all extra, The Parasite's Kiss is not available _AT ALL_ to my codex-information-only succubus.

A little lenghty, but the point being: realistically, everything that states otherwise regarding possible or impossible equipment is interpretation from outside, isn't it? So the immediate need to provide proof would lie with somebody who would try to tell me i couldn't run my succubus with the glaive and an agoniser, no?

Either way, since (i believe?) nobody here or otherwise more or less readily available was part of the rules-writing, codex-writing or anything in-between, one would have to wait for an FAQ or errata to have this solved - but what until then?

*sigh*

Well, a FAQ might allow it. But, as currently stands, it is not allowed. That's generally the point.

so for the time being, it's "a dozen people from the internet" against the digitally released codex (and the model itself).

i'm still not convinced she's illegal :/