Talos Weapons

Ok, I'm a bit confused by the weapon options for the Talos. It comes with a close combat weapon. Then the options say 'replace one of its CCWs with...'. But it only has one CCW to begin with.

So, does this mean I need to purchase the additional CCW (+15 pts) before I can convert one CCW to (say) a twin-linked liquifier? Or can I just buy the liquifier, even though it then has no CCW? And, if the latter, then would buying the additional CCW weapon still give an extra attack or would it do nothing because it would in fact be its only CCW?

I understand the one CCW bit to apply for attacks only, a limiting factor so that you don't get two attacks for simply having two arms. One of them is the close combat weapon, the other is free to be the second CCW/Liquifier.

That would be nice, but if that's the case they could have just said comes with 1 CCW and may take t/l liquifier, etc. But that's not what it says; it clearly says that the liquifier replaces a CCW.

Indeed it does, but the full wording is "replace one of its close combat weapons with one of the following", followed by "take additional close combat weapon" as something completely separate. It's quite messy one way or the other.

I know that the additional CCW is separate, and doesn't replace the original CCW, but that doesn't answer any of the questions in the original post as far as I can see.

If I replace the original CCW with a t/l liquifier, does the Talos still get to attack normally though it has no CCW? And can I then buy the 'additional' CCW and therefore claim +1A, even though it then only has one CCW?

Not sure on question 1. But question 2 is a solid no. You would only have one CCW and therefore would not get the +1 for duel wielding.

If that's the case though (which it may well be, hence why I'm asking) then the 15 point additional CCW upgrade does nothing, unless either i) it's either necessary in order to be allowed the liquifier upgrade or ii) there is some penalty for lacking a CCW.

I don't have the FAQ to hand to check whether this is covered there, but if not I might email GW for a future FAQ. It does seem an odd entry so I'm surprised I've not found others asking this question.

from my understanding is as follows.

you buy say... TL liquifier, replacing the first CCW.

In combat, you have no CCW, but you still fight normally because you are "given" one, but only for combat.

buying the ECCW now gives you the option to replace it, with say... chainflails.


So yes, to have a Talos w/ Chainflails and TL Liquifier, you would have to buy both the upgrades, as well as the ECCW

Ah, ok. That makes sense I guess. The 15 points is, in effect, a premium for taking more than one of the 'replaces CCW' options. It does mean that something like chainflails and t/l liquifier is rather expensive.

or its for just +1 attack for 15 points... overpriced for what it does, but still an option

I think that it is really overpriced, but the paragraph says one, not any CCW, so I don't think it's possible to have a TL-Liquifier and a chainflail.

TL liquifier and chainflail, no

If you have chainflails and extra ccw you get 2d6(take the highest)+1 attacks (minimum 3 attacks on the charge)

If you have a extra ccw, and nothing else you get 1d6+1 attacks (minimum 3 on the charge)

if you have extra ccw and tl liquifier (or other) you get 1d6 attacks (minimum 2 on the charge)

if you have tl liquifier (or other) you get 1d6 attacks (minimum 2 on the charge)

if you have chainflails you get 2d6(take the highest) attacks (minimum 2 on the charge)

if you take nothing you get 1d6 attacks (minimum 2 on the charge)

Tiri Rana wrote:

I think that it is really overpriced, but the paragraph says one, not any CCW, so I don't think it's possible to have a TL-Liquifier and a chainflail.

This is a good point, but I think what's written is ambiguous.

i) One interpretation certainly is that only one CCW-replacing upgrade is allowed, no matter how many CCWs one has (two being the maximum anyway in this case).

ii) But I think the sentence could equally be read as simply saying that one CCW is replaced by one t/l liquifier, without implying that one can't also replace the other CCW (assuming additional taken) with chain-flails.

I'm trying to think how those two possible meanings could have been most (or, at least, more) clearly expressed. Probably something like:

i) The Talos may take one of ... in place of a CCW.

ii) The Talos may replace any CCW with any one of ...

I may lean towards the first interpretation, but so far as I can see what's actually written could mean either. If it is the first then there certainly seems little reason for anyone to take the additional CCW.

By the way I now checked the FAQ and it's not covered. I would write to GW and ask, but can't find an email address or contact form (only contact for orders and so forth). Does anyone know how to submit a Q for FAQs? Is telephone the only way?

Taking the first is the same as giving ANY unit an extra CCW

And it's not overpriced, its 15 points for a S7 (2d6 armor pen) attack that ignores armor... how is that overpriced?

Ben_S wrote:

[i) One interpretation certainly is that only one CCW-replacing upgrade is allowed, no matter how many CCWs one has (two being the maximum anyway in this case).

This is my reading. It is a single entry in the army list, stating simply "Replace one of its close combat weapons with one of the following"

Arguably, if the Talos could make two substitutions, it would read "Replace a close combat weapon with one of the following"

But I agree that this needs an official ruling, because GW is notorious for poorly-thought-out wordings on rules.

Ben_S wrote:

This is a good point, but I think what's written is ambiguous.

I think that, concerning language, you're right, but concerning the rules, it's not as easy. The sentence on its own can be ambiguous, but the same phrasing is used over and over again throughout the different codices.

Ben_S wrote:

i) One interpretation certainly is that only one CCW-replacing upgrade is allowed, no matter how many CCWs one has (two being the maximum anyway in this case).

That is the way the word 'one' is used in all instances. (Or at least I weren't able to find contradictory examples in the codices I own, maybe I missed something)

Ben_S wrote:

ii) But I think the sentence could equally be read as simply saying that one CCW is replaced by one t/l liquifier, without implying that one can't also replace the other CCW (assuming additional taken) with chain-flails.

Every time that's meant the word 'any' is used instead of 'one'. For an example look at the ravager entry saying "may replace any of its dark lances", or the Space Marine tactical squad entry the allows to exchange one bolter for something and another bolter for something and uses two different paragraphs to do so.
On top of this, if it were possible to take one upgrade for each 'one' CCW, then it would also be possible to to take 2 Scourges with HWBs and 2 with Blasters, which we all are sure we can't. (At least I hope we are sure, that's impossible)

Ben_S wrote:

I'm trying to think how those two possible meanings could have been most (or, at least, more) clearly expressed. Probably something like:

i) The Talos may take one of ... in place of a CCW.

But wouldn't that be open to interpretation, too? If you allow the word 'one' to be interpreted to not mean the maximum number of exchanges, but the number of exchanged items, you will always have the problem, that it might be possible, to buy the same upgrade over and over again.

Ben_S wrote:

ii) The Talos may replace any CCW with any one of ...

That's actually pretty close to the wording, that GW uses.

Ben_S wrote:

I may lean towards the first interpretation, but so far as I can see what's actually written could mean either. If it is the first then there certainly seems little reason for anyone to take the additional CCW.

I must dissent. As I said before, I think it is overpriced at 15pts, but if used in conjunction with an ichor injector or chain-flails, it grants 1 bous attack.
Chain-flails cost 2/3rd of the points and in 57% of all rolls don't even give a bonus. In 14% of all rolls they give one bonus attack, in 11% it's two, in 8% it's 3, in 5% it's 4 and in only 2% of all rolls it's 5 bonus attacks.
So, while I think a steady +1Attack isn't worth half as much again as chain-flails, it's in no way useless.

Ben_S wrote:

By the way I now checked the FAQ and it's not covered. I would write to GW and ask, but can't find an email address or contact form (only contact for orders and so forth). Does anyone know how to submit a Q for FAQs? Is telephone the only way?

GW doesn't answer questions, they publish errata. AFAIK the only way to contact GW is via the sales department and they aren't too capable of answering rules questions.

P.S.: Of course, it's always possible to argue, that GW is known for inconsistent wording and that this might be a typo, but if it's possible to interpret the rules as either consistent with each other or as not, I'd always prefer the first option.

Tiri Rana wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

This is a good point, but I think what's written is ambiguous.

I think that, concerning language, you're right, but concerning the rules, it's not as easy. The sentence on its own can be ambiguous, but the same phrasing is used over and over again throughout the different codices.

And, as I go on to say, I think this is what it does mean. All I said, which you seemed to agree with, is that it could have been written more clearly, to make plain that this is the meaning and the other interpretation excluded.

Tiri Rana wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

I'm trying to think how those two possible meanings could have been most (or, at least, more) clearly expressed. Probably something like:

i) The Talos may take one of ... in place of a CCW.

But wouldn't that be open to interpretation, too? If you allow the word 'one' to be interpreted to not mean the maximum number of exchanges, but the number of exchanged items, you will always have the problem, that it might be possible, to buy the same upgrade over and over again.

No, this wording clearly tells you that you may only take one of the upgrades. Well, actually I suppose it would have been even clearer if it said ONLY one; but the one there cannot be read as referring to the number of exchanged items. Anyway, it's an improvement on GW's wording I think.

Tiri Rana wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

I may lean towards the first interpretation, but so far as I can see what's actually written could mean either. If it is the first then there certainly seems little reason for anyone to take the additional CCW.

I must dissent. As I said before, I think it is overpriced at 15pts, but if used in conjunction with an ichor injector or chain-flails, it grants 1 bous attack.

Ah, that's true. Focusing on the t/l liquifier means the additional CCW would do literally nothing, but it can of course be combined with either of the special CCWs.

Tiri Rana wrote:

Chain-flails cost 2/3rd of the points and in 57% of all rolls don't even give a bonus. In 14% of all rolls they give one bonus attack, in 11% it's two, in 8% it's 3, in 5% it's 4 and in only 2% of all rolls it's 5 bonus attacks.
So, while I think a steady +1Attack isn't worth half as much again as chain-flails, it's in no way useless.

Thanks for doing the maths there, I'd been meaning to do that myself.

Tiri Rana wrote:

GW doesn't answer questions, they publish errata. .

Not true of the UK site at least. They publish Errata and FAQ and even have a statement making clear the difference between the two.