Revisit for Talos rules...

Saw I saw this here:
http://www.thedarkcity.net/t5234-weapon-option-clarifications

I feel this is outdated? Even though it is from 2013...

Can the Talos take a TL Liquifier gun and Chain flails?

Doesn't the Talos come standard with TWO CCW?

In the codex, the wargear says "Two Close Combat weapons". No where does it mention having to purchase the second.

I know it says we can replace one of the CCW with a Flail or TWLG... so can I take both? Afterall... the model in the codex is modeled that way... If they did it, why can't we?

hewster wrote:

Saw I saw this here:
http://www.thedarkcity.net/t5234-weapon-option-clarifications

I feel this is outdated? Even though it is from 2013...

It is outdated, because the new codex was 2014.

Well.. do you have a response about the ruling on this???

As per the codex, you may replace ONE cc weapon with ONE of the options. You can't take both.

The Talos comes with two CCs. ONE of those CCs may be replaced by Chain-Flails, Ichor Injector OR a twin Liquifier. So you can NOT have both a Liquifier AND Chain-Flails.
Its fairly clear on that.
Theres a couple of models pictured in the Codex who are armed illegally. Thats just GW quality.

Squidmaster wrote:

The Talos comes with two CCs. ONE of those CCs may be replaced by Chain-Flails, Ichor Injector OR a twin Liquifier. So you can NOT have both a Liquifier AND Chain-Flails.
Its fairly clear on that.
Theres a couple of models pictured in the Codex who are armed illegally. Thats just GW quality.

If it was fairly clear, I would not have asked. While lurking various boards I have noticed that seems to be the standard answer by many people when in fact things are not clear. That is why questions are asked.

I get it, I am new and not used to the way the rules are written as some 40k lifers may be, but the grammar of "may replace one CCW with xyz" can easily be argued it means both. It does not say ONLY one. The way it reads says that you can do a one for one swap. You may try to argue it does not use the word "both" but then this would be incorrect as well. That would mean that you would have to swap out both ccw for the same upgrade in both hand, ie 2 chain flails or 2 ichor injectors etc.


The "illegally" modeled model further enhances this.

I'm afraid the argument for many doesn;t hold up though.
As much as GW sometimes get wrong, they are usually extremely consistant in the terms they use. Where an entry says one, it always means one and only one.
The Ravager for example doesn't say you can replace one Disintegrator with a Dark lance, meaning you can do all. It says you may replace ANY Disintegrator.
If "One Kabalite Warrior can be ungraded to a Sybarite" that doesn't mean that one model can be upgraded, and the another, and then another. One means ONE.
So where the Talos says ONE of its close combat weapons, its means only one.

I honestly don't see how it can be argued any other way.
If the argument were that one only means each, then the argument would have to mean that EVERY Warrior can be a Sybarite.
If you think there's a good argument elsewhere, please do link me to it, but I can guarantee it won't stand up.

As I stated, I am not used to GW's standard grammar. What you say makes sense, and I am not saying it is wrong. I stated how it could easily be misconstrued and that there is no need for someone to either act like an elitest or belittle someone with "ZOMG ITS CLEARLY IN ZE RULEZ".

Saying "one with one" can sound and read much different than talking about a group of things and saying "one can be xyz". As I stated, again, the model in the image confirms what some, including myself, question with the rules.If I looked up and saw chain flails and a CCW, I would not have second guessed what the general consensus is.

Really what it boils down to is: GW sucks at making rule books and needs to be consistent and follow their own rules.

GW is the best company of the world. GW if love. GW is life.

(Now please, GW, fix the wyches! )

Bahaha. Yes, GW is all that is good in the world

I am not trying to be "elitist" or belittle you or anyone.
All I'm saying is that I do not understand your position. When I read the roles, "one for one" is exactly what is dsounds like, and CAN'T sound any other way. To me, in my opinion, it IS clear. All I asked you to do was clarify how it can be any other way.

Exactly one for one. Which allows for one for one on both hands, but I accepted it as so, since battlescribe does not allow me to do it and it is the general consensus.

I am over it