Posted By ShumaGorath on 11/04/2007 4:17 PM

Posted By puree on 11/04/2007 4:10 PM

Posted By ShumaGorath on 11/04/2007 4:00 PM

Posted By puree on 11/04/2007 3:56 PM

Posted By ShumaGorath on 11/04/2007 3:52 PM

I would argue the intent is cleary not, even the start of the unit description says the mobs are lead by nobs who epitomises that mobs skill, pure fluff, but sounds like it is meant be shoota mob led by shooty nob, hitty mob led by hitty nob.

Nobz dont epitomise the squads skill.

er - that is not what it says in the unit description.

Read the description for nobs.  They are there to boss around the boyz and lead by example by "plunging into the fighting and breaking heads left right and centre".  Not by shooting their little gun that all of the other boyz have too.  If they wanted to do that they would join a mob of flash gitz.

We aren't discussing units of nobs, read the description for the unit under discussion.

The discription of nobz is a blanket description for all nobz.  Thats why it references leading units of boyz into battle.  Since there is no upgrade for a pure nobz squad to turn it into a squad of boyz and since the nob in the shoota boyz squad gets no upgrade for his piddly little gun I am left only to believe that the nobs description is a blanket description that applies to all units of boyz led by nobz.

So did you actually read the description of the unit under discussion! The bit where it says what I said about 6 quotes back.

Posted By puree on 11/04/2007 4:21 PM

Posted By ShumaGorath on 11/04/2007 4:17 PM

Posted By puree on 11/04/2007 4:10 PM

Posted By ShumaGorath on 11/04/2007 4:00 PM

Posted By puree on 11/04/2007 3:56 PM

Posted By ShumaGorath on 11/04/2007 3:52 PM

I would argue the intent is cleary not, even the start of the unit description says the mobs are lead by nobs who epitomises that mobs skill, pure fluff, but sounds like it is meant be shoota mob led by shooty nob, hitty mob led by hitty nob.

Nobz dont epitomise the squads skill.

er - that is not what it says in the unit description.

Read the description for nobs.  They are there to boss around the boyz and lead by example by "plunging into the fighting and breaking heads left right and centre".  Not by shooting their little gun that all of the other boyz have too.  If they wanted to do that they would join a mob of flash gitz.

We aren't discussing units of nobs, read the description for the unit under discussion.

The discription of nobz is a blanket description for all nobz.  Thats why it references leading units of boyz into battle.  Since there is no upgrade for a pure nobz squad to turn it into a squad of boyz and since the nob in the shoota boyz squad gets no upgrade for his piddly little gun I am left only to believe that the nobs description is a blanket description that applies to all units of boyz led by nobz.

So did you actually read the description of the unit under discussion! The bit where it says what I said about 6 quotes back.

 

Yes I read it.  I especially love the part where it says "epitomises the mobs skill" then a few sentences later says that while the orks may love to fire their gun they are usually better at bashing peoples brains in with them.  Therego since the orkz are better at bashing with the gunz rather than firing them its no big logical leap to assume that the nob epitomises his mobs skill by being the best brain basher with a rifle among his smaller peers.  Ergo he shows his strength by bashing in skulls left right and middle.  And what is a good piece of wargear for the modern nob to go along with his gun-club?  A POWER KLAW!

Posted By Deadshane1 on 11/04/2007 1:28 PM

if he is upgraded BEFORE the squad, then the ENTIRE MOB cannot replace sluggas and choppas because the Nob no longer has a CHOPPA.  (as yak has pointed out this is only with the strictest and most anal interpretation.)

That is not the strictest interpretation. That is the loosest interpretation and is simply false.


When you have a group of people with items and you say the entire group is allowed to replace one item with another, there is nothing indicating that the exchange cannot occur if some of the group does not have the specified item, those without the needed item simply wouldn't exchange anything.

You keep saying that the mob cannot exchange their Sluggas and Choppas with Shootas if any model doesn't have a slugga and choppa. Why? Where is the basis for that claim? As long as every model in the unit that has a slugga and choppa exchanges it for a shoota all the criteria for following the rule has been met.

Posted By ShumaGorath on 11/04/2007 4:26 PM

Posted By puree on 11/04/2007 4:21 PM

Posted By ShumaGorath on 11/04/2007 4:17 PM

Posted By puree on 11/04/2007 4:10 PM

Posted By ShumaGorath on 11/04/2007 4:00 PM

Posted By puree on 11/04/2007 3:56 PM

Posted By ShumaGorath on 11/04/2007 3:52 PM

I would argue the intent is cleary not, even the start of the unit description says the mobs are lead by nobs who epitomises that mobs skill, pure fluff, but sounds like it is meant be shoota mob led by shooty nob, hitty mob led by hitty nob.

Nobz dont epitomise the squads skill.

er - that is not what it says in the unit description.

Read the description for nobs.  They are there to boss around the boyz and lead by example by "plunging into the fighting and breaking heads left right and centre".  Not by shooting their little gun that all of the other boyz have too.  If they wanted to do that they would join a mob of flash gitz.

We aren't discussing units of nobs, read the description for the unit under discussion.

The discription of nobz is a blanket description for all nobz.  Thats why it references leading units of boyz into battle.  Since there is no upgrade for a pure nobz squad to turn it into a squad of boyz and since the nob in the shoota boyz squad gets no upgrade for his piddly little gun I am left only to believe that the nobs description is a blanket description that applies to all units of boyz led by nobz.

So did you actually read the description of the unit under discussion! The bit where it says what I said about 6 quotes back.

 

Yes I read it.  I especially love the part where it says "epitomises the mobs skill"....

phew - at last!

Posted By puree on 11/04/2007 4:40 PM

Posted By ShumaGorath on 11/04/2007 4:26 PM

Posted By puree on 11/04/2007 4:21 PM

Posted By ShumaGorath on 11/04/2007 4:17 PM

Posted By puree on 11/04/2007 4:10 PM

Posted By ShumaGorath on 11/04/2007 4:00 PM

Posted By puree on 11/04/2007 3:56 PM

Posted By ShumaGorath on 11/04/2007 3:52 PM

I would argue the intent is cleary not, even the start of the unit description says the mobs are lead by nobs who epitomises that mobs skill, pure fluff, but sounds like it is meant be shoota mob led by shooty nob, hitty mob led by hitty nob.

Nobz dont epitomise the squads skill.

er - that is not what it says in the unit description.

Read the description for nobs.  They are there to boss around the boyz and lead by example by "plunging into the fighting and breaking heads left right and centre".  Not by shooting their little gun that all of the other boyz have too.  If they wanted to do that they would join a mob of flash gitz.

We aren't discussing units of nobs, read the description for the unit under discussion.

The discription of nobz is a blanket description for all nobz.  Thats why it references leading units of boyz into battle.  Since there is no upgrade for a pure nobz squad to turn it into a squad of boyz and since the nob in the shoota boyz squad gets no upgrade for his piddly little gun I am left only to believe that the nobs description is a blanket description that applies to all units of boyz led by nobz.

So did you actually read the description of the unit under discussion! The bit where it says what I said about 6 quotes back.

 

Yes I read it.  I especially love the part where it says "epitomises the mobs skill"....

phew - at last!

Ok, so we are in agreement then.  While it does in fact state that they epitomise the orks skill all orks are best at bashing heads.  So the nob leads his mob by bashing heads rather than firing the gun for which the mob is named.  Thus since he is a close combat specialist it is fluffy for him to have a power klaw befitting of his role and station.

 

Man, glad we cleared that one up.

c/p from other thread -

I was thinking on this...Say you have a special rule called 'Stasis' which prevents a single model from moving for any reason whatsoever (Including other special rules).

Say you have a unit that has a special rule that says that the entire unit may move exactly 12" in the same direction.

If you hit one model in that unit with Stasis, then would the rest of the unit be able to move using their special rule, leaving the one model behind, or would the whole unit be unable to use that rule?

Again, you have a completely different set of circumstances.

In this case the unit would be restricted to moving at the rate of the slowest member and therefore wouldn't be able to be moved.


But why are you making some sort of bizarre set of rules to make your point? Why not just present your actual argument?

Posted By yakface on 11/04/2007 4:34 PM

Posted By Deadshane1 on 11/04/2007 1:28 PM

if he is upgraded BEFORE the squad, then the ENTIRE MOB cannot replace sluggas and choppas because the Nob no longer has a CHOPPA.  (as yak has pointed out this is only with the strictest and most anal interpretation.)

That is not the strictest interpretation. That is the loosest interpretation and is simply false.


When you have a group of people with items and you say the entire group is allowed to replace one item with another, there is nothing indicating that the exchange cannot occur if some of the group does not have the specified item, those without the needed item simply wouldn't exchange anything.

You keep saying that the mob cannot exchange their Sluggas and Choppas with Shootas if any model doesn't have a slugga and choppa. Why? Where is the basis for that claim? As long as every model in the unit that has a slugga and choppa exchanges it for a shoota all the criteria for following the rule has been met.

Yak - you usually stick to a reasonablly logical argument.

Whats you view on the order of taking options.

As I've indicated before I've gone from assuming there was no inherent order of taking upgrades, to being persuaded that there was (a long time ago), following a debate around some IG units, which do seem to want you to take options in the order you read them otherwise a lot of the exclusions are nonsense (they are nearly all based on excluding models taking options listed before it, so you'd get round them if you ignored order). Within 40k as a whole order of options is just not something that causes an issue in the vast majority of cases so it hardly ever comes up, and there is no rule to say order applies or does not apply. But presumably whatever you go with applies to all codices, therefore based on the IG wordings, and the basic idea that one implements rules in the order that you read them, I'm going on the basis of ordered choices being the way.

I've seen the odd 'Where does it say ordering is used' type comment, though that appears to be a fallacy of negative proof (which it would equally be to say 'where does it say you don't'), and no one seems to be able to actually explain why. So can someone like yourself who will actually put some reasoning behind it give your view point.

Posted By ShumaGorath on 11/04/2007 4:44 PM

Ok, so we are in agreement then.  While it does in fact state that they epitomise the orks skill all orks are best at bashing heads.  So the nob leads his mob by bashing heads rather than firing the gun for which the mob is named.  Thus since he is a close combat specialist it is fluffy for him to have a power klaw befitting of his role and station.

 

Man, glad we cleared that one up.

No we don't agree. I'm just glad that you eventually found the bit I said was there and you didn't seem to accept.

I know it's also argument by analogy, but ignoring all other rules, would the statis rule prevent the unit from using the other movement rule since all of them have to move the exact distance in the same direction.

But the basic argument is that every member of the mob who has one exchanging is not the same as the entire mob exchanging. As this is a permissive rules set and you do only what the rules say and exactly what they say, and take the least advantageous interpretation if there is a possibility of two different interpretations...All that adds up to no PK nob in a shoota squad.

The biggest flaw in the 'No' argument, as has been started in other threads, is that there is nothing to indicate that you cannot give the squad shootas if every model in the unit does not have sluggas and choppas.
The word 'entire' simply does not create a situation that fails unless criteria are met. It is possible to trade out all the choppas and sluggas in the entire unit, and still meet the grammatical requirements for 'entire.'

The 'no' interpretation requires either words that are not present in the rules, like 'only' or 'unless,' or it requires an imaginary order to give upgrades.

Actually, the 'yes' interpretation requires words not present in the argument, like 'that has them'.

:S

Right, because 'may' and 'must' mean the same thing.

Yes, by invalidating the bit you said that I still don't accept. Fluff wise the nobs don't epitomise their squads specialty. That would go against all previous ork fluff. They are just bigger orks in the same squad. They aren't more trained, they aren't better shots, and they certainly don't know more than the shoota boyz they lead. They are just bigger. As per the ork "im the biggest so im the boss" culture.

Those of us in the 'No' department seem to think it does. Care to tell us WHY it wouldnt?

Posted By Deadshane1 on 11/04/2007 6:28 PM

The word 'entire' simply does not create a situation that fails unless criteria are met. It is possible to trade out all the choppas and sluggas in the entire unit, and still meet the grammatical requirements for 'entire.'

Those of us in the 'No' department seem to think it does.

I had a long and involved response typed up, but then I realized that out of all the online forums I frequent, only dakka seems to have anyone who reads it that way, and even then, a small minority.  At current count, only 5.  That is a clear sign to me.  And then I realized that no GT judge would ever rule it that way, and I'll never meet you for a pickup game, so it's all completely theoretical anyway.

The answer would be know if they had written 'the mob in its entirety' instead of 'the entire mob'.

If I say 'the entire city may sell their cars and take the bus' that certainly doesn't mean the same as 'the city in its entirety must sell their cars and take the bus', which is how it would have to be worded for no one in the city to have the option to drive.

This can (and will) go on for several more pages, but it's clearly a non-issue and just some wishful thinking on one individual's part.

The real debate is can just some of the mob replace their choppa/slugga with a shoota? Per the exact wording, looks pretty clear to me that they can.

would you want to mix sluggas and shootaz? In a squad of 30, would you take 10 shootaz, and pull them as causalties first?

Posted By mauleed on 11/04/2007 6:53 PM

 but it's clearly a non-issue and just some wishful thinking on one individual's part.

Wrong.

...as I've stated multiple times now, I actually hope that you guys are right, as that is exactly the sort of mobs I was planning to base the army around.  In posting here I found that the issue is not clear on the matter.  Hence the number of posts in discussion on this subject.

 

Posted By Doctor Thunder on 11/04/2007 6:47 PM

Posted By Deadshane1 on 11/04/2007 6:28 PM

The word 'entire' simply does not create a situation that fails unless criteria are met. It is possible to trade out all the choppas and sluggas in the entire unit, and still meet the grammatical requirements for 'entire.'

Those of us in the 'No' department seem to think it does.

I had a long and involved response typed up, but then I realized that out of all the online forums I frequent, only dakka seems to have anyone who reads it that way, and even then, a small minority.  At current count, only 5.  That is a clear sign to me.  And then I realized that no GT judge would ever rule it that way, and I'll never meet you for a pickup game, so it's all completely theoretical anyway.

While I personally believe the answer is yes, I have to say; so? Just because it's a small minority doesn't mean they're wrong. Someone here once said something to the effect of, "..you are clearly in the minority here. Please respect that." And I thought that was one of the stupidest arguments I'd ever heard. I still think that.

And I wouldn't be so quick to say a judge wouldn't rule that way. They're fallible humans being forced to make snap decisions. It wouldn't be the first time.

Posted By Phausi on 11/04/2007 7:07 PM
Someone here once said something to the effect of, "..you are clearly in the minority here. Please respect that." And I thought that was one of the stupidest arguments I'd ever heard. I still think that.

It actually makes a lot of sense when you consider that, in the real world, there is no real difference between being right except that everyone else disagrees and plays it differently and being wrong and everyone else disagrees and plays it differently.

Either way, you'll just get over-ridden in tournaments and ignored in pickup games.

I think that is what he was referring to.

The point I was making was not to dismiss someone's interpretation simply because they're in the minority. There have been plenty of arguments here with just a couple die-hards holding out, and then one of them puts it in a different light, and suddenly everyone agrees with them.

does anyone else find it a little odd how strangely gleeful the OP is about this?

anyway, let's keep in mind that this is a very old pdf that we're arguing about... one with more than a few mistakes that need to be errata-ed

there was also a pdf of the new fantasy daemonbook floating around that had more than a few mistakes. not too long ago a second version got leaked with many of those mistakes corrected. even if deadshane's skewed, (and quite frankly, illogical) interpretation turns out to be the RAW, I'll be it won't even need to be FAQed. or do terminators no longer have terminator armor, etc etc?

I didn't read anything, it's too many big words but thankfully it's a poll.

From the Chaos book for Chosen.
"Any model may take Meltabombs at ...."
for Terminators
"Any models may replace their power weapon with ...."
"Any models may replace their twin-linked bolters with ...."
for Noise Marines
"Any model may replace his bolter with a sonic blaster for ...."

From the Ork book
"The entire mob may take Stikkbombs." (presumably equivalent RAI and RAW to Codex Marines taking Frag Grenades)
"The entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas."

So I would have to say NO, despite the fact that I'm a know-it-all proponent of RAI. If they intend for Nobs in shoota squads to take PK it's a clear FAQ issue. This would also mean that you can't mix shoota and sluggas. At least that's my vote.

I'm reminded of back on the earliest version of dakka, when someone (maybe it was Drew) tried to argue that ATSKNF didn't remove the restriction on needing to be at least 6" away from an enemy unit in order to regroup. He was roundly castigated for that POV...only to be vindicated a few months later in a WD article when GW actually realized what they'd written.

here's some questions:

if nobs *can't* take powerklaws in shootamobs, then:

1) do sluggamobs become more viable again?

2) does this seriously weaken the new book?

3) is there any point to taking a nob in a unit of shootaboys (the're the bosspole, I suppose...)

Who cares, because he can take a powerklaw.

Seeing the way the argument went, there seem to be two approaches to permitting Klaws in shooty mobs,

1. Opting for one (or more) orks simply not to take the shoota-upgrade since the entire mob may change choppas etc.

2. Choosing the Klaw for the nob in a point of time before using the shoota-option, as I'd like to call it (w/o intent): 'in reverse order'

Given the consense in former issues along that road there seems to be a lack only in reference to those issues to cut off the first approach (mauleed): The word may in cunjunction with 'the entire unit' aka mob was never to be taken as a 'may aswell as may not' kind of choice.
Remember 3rd ed. Chaos Dex? 'Chaos Space Marines [...] with the Mark of Khorne may upgrade their close combat weapons to Khornate chainaxes [...]' meant that in tournament the whole squad had to do so afaik, though taking only half as many axes qould have preserved a bunch of points.
Likewise with Codex: Eye of Terror, LaTD army list, mutant entry: 'The Squad can replace their close combat weapons with firearms for free [...]' led to the mutant boss not to ever having 3+1 attacks when given a powerfist in every single time I tried ;-)

So as far as 'opting not to take (part of) the unit upgrade' goes, I'd say that's a rather clear no and so no more mixed mobs for sure... as for the second approach in justification of the Klaw I for one have no clear idea wether or not order does not matter when taking upgrades, so unless clarified by anybody more blessed with 'intent-insight' (tm) than me I'll abstain from voting.

They don't say "ork boys may", as in your example though. They say "the entire mob may". The may applies to the entire mob. If they said anything else, there'd be wiggle room, but there isn't. Yakface and other's argument that the nob is not part of the entire mob that swaps if he has already swapped his choppa out doesn't convince me that this wasn't what the designers intended, so I will be holding off on a shoota horde until this gets FAQ'd sometime in 2020.

I'm still not seeing how 'the entire X may" means that all members of X must either do or do not.

If I say the entire class may now go to the bathroom, is anyone here saying that means either everyone goes to the lavatory or no one does?

People are clearly picking the wording that is most supportive to their stance and ignoring all others. But when taken literally, 'the entire mob may' doesn't mean 'the mob as a whole'.

Hmmm. But then why didn't they use the wording that previously was the standard in these situations?
By the way, I'd love to be able to kit out my shoota nobs with power claws, and think that removing that option makes the new and improved shootas pointless. But I'm not convinced that it's legal to do it any other way than the way I'm reading it.
I'll play with sluggas until they clear up the wording. I probably wouldn't stop an opponent playing it the other way though.

I'll be honest with you, having insisted and having given a little speech about RAW and RAI and whatnot if my opponent showed up with a PK Nob in a Shoota squad I would be fine with it, and I would figure he would be fine with it from my end as well, and if he wasn't well I would presumably know him well enough to know he would feel that way anyway.  At least before a FAQ came out, and given the contentious nature of the debate.

A tournament, and a poll on Dakka is another story.

Bad wording taken one further.

As the entire squad may replace their choppas and sluggas with shottas, that means that every boy gets a choota for each slugga and choppa.

So basic boys each get two shootas!. Luckily they can only fire one at a time but I expect to see every boy with a second shoota strapped to his back since it is an upgrade and not nades.

The Nob would be able to replace his choppa with the klaw and the slugga with the shoota, so he will lose an attack but still meet the requirements. 

 

Or you could just see that they wrote "may" and realize that it is flexible enough to allow you to pick and choose by model. Do note the IG's roughriders which do force an upgrade to be taken by all squad members with a clear wording.  Sometime in 2009 they will FAQ wether it is a model by model basis for shootas, but until then I expect tournaments to allow mixed squads, or at the very least a PK in a shoota mob.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_JsKZ1YCU6Z4/Ry3PY5Q8JcI/AAAAAAAAAYw/9ClrJWbo5oc/s1600-h/ork_1.JPG

you tell me.

Posted By whitedragon on 11/04/2007 7:01 PM
would you want to mix sluggas and shootaz? In a squad of 30, would you take 10 shootaz, and pull them as causalties first?

20 shoota boyz and 10 sluggas would make for a potent all around mob.  Stick the 3 base attack orks up toward the front, screened by 5 or so shootas, get some ranged damage out of the squad, then charge in with  a very respectable amount of attacks with a few shootas left to help mop up.  But this is why I expect the final product to be worded something like "the entire mob must be armed with sluggas and choppas or shootas, one model may be upgraded to a nob, he may choose any weapons from the list below."  But if there intent was to have mobs be only slugga boyz or only shoota boyz, why change the lists in 3rd ed to just ork boyz?  Why not leave them as 2 seperate units of troops?  If it turns out they can be mixed, it would be very very nasty for our enemies.

Wonderful. I initially had misgivings when I saw this thread had reached five pages, but those fears were groundless. I feel that were making real progress on the issue this time, rather than endlessly parroting the same armchair syntax microanalysis from positions so deeply entrenched not even the South Africans will mine them, you know, like we have every other time this subject has be raised.


Shoota Boy PKs is the new Furioso Drop Pods.

Posted By Da Boss on 11/06/2007 8:15 AM
Hmmm. But then why didn't they use the wording that previously was the standard in these situations?
By the way, I'd love to be able to kit out my shoota nobs with power claws, and think that removing that option makes the new and improved shootas pointless. But I'm not convinced that it's legal to do it any other way than the way I'm reading it.
I'll play with sluggas until they clear up the wording. I probably wouldn't stop an opponent playing it the other way though.

Really?

Look at the results of the poll. Already over 70% of the people think that Shoota mobs can take a Powerklaw. The codex may even have different wording by the time it comes out, but once people see the illustrations in the book showing shoota Mobs with slugga/choppa armed Nobs and the WD battle reports come out showing the same thing no tournament is going to rule against it. No way.

The fact is, one way or another, PK Nobs are going to be found in Shoota mobs in new Ork armies, so I wouldn't personally worry about building an army that way.

 

 

 

This would be my arguement:

You have say.....10 boys with slugga's and choppas. Upgrade them all to have shootas. Then buy another boy with a slugga and choppa brining your total to 11. Then upgrade him to a nob and give in a power claw. Problem solved, adios amigos.

I think it has also become abundantly clear that the Shoota Nob can also be equipped with a Rusty Spoon.

Yikes.

There appear to be two arguments in the YES camp:
1. Based on Mauleed’s example:

mauleed wrote:

If I say the entire class may now go to the bathroom, is anyone here saying that means either everyone goes to the lavatory or no one does?

People are clearly picking the wording that is most supportive to their stance and ignoring all others. But when taken literally, 'the entire mob may' doesn't mean 'the mob as a whole'.

Untrue - "entire mob" does equal "mob as a whole" (Maybe not conversationally, but literally, yes)

Colloquially, we all know that “the entire class may go to the bathroom” isn’t an all-or-nothing offer. However, it’s necessary to remember that’s different from saying “anyone in the entire class may go to the bathroom,” or in the case at hand, “anyone in the mob may replace…” Strictly speaking, “the entire mob may” IS an all-or-nothing option. “May” denotes the optional nature of the exchange of sluggas and choppas for shootas, and “entire mob” denotes who exercises the option. “Entire mob” is different from “anyone in the entire mob.”

If some but not all of the mob exchange their sluggas and choppas, then the “entire mob” has not done so, and you’ve broken the rule.

Claims that this is “word-picky” simply fail. On the contrary, it’s less reasonable to invoke a conversational interpretation when the standard is strict RAW.

2. Most people seem to want the answer to be YES.
-Useless argument. Majority desire has no bearing if the standard is a RAW approach. Majority interpretation is also useless because the majority might be wrong.

deadlygopher wrote:
Untrue - "entire mob" does equal "mob as a whole" (Maybe not conversationally, but literally, yes)

Colloquially, we all know that “the entire class may go to the bathroom” isn’t an all-or-nothing offer. However, it’s necessary to remember that’s different from saying “anyone in the entire class may go to the bathroom,” or in the case at hand, “anyone in the mob may replace…” Strictly speaking, “the entire mob may” IS an all-or-nothing option. “May” denotes the optional nature of the exchange of sluggas and choppas for shootas, and “entire mob” denotes who exercises the option. “Entire mob” is different from “anyone in the entire mob.”

If some but not all of the mob exchange their sluggas and choppas, then the “entire mob” has not done so, and you’ve broken the rule.

Claims that this is “word-picky” simply fail. On the contrary, it’s less reasonable to invoke a conversational interpretation when the standard is strict RAW.

2. Most people seem to want the answer to be YES.
-Useless argument. Majority desire has no bearing if the standard is a RAW approach. Majority interpretation is also useless because the majority might be wrong.

I see you've ignored my argument. What rule has been broken if everyone in the mob with a slugga and choppa have replaced them with a shoota except for those who did not have a slugga and choppa?

The entire mob has still excercised their option and all models that meet the criteria for the exchange have indeed participated. The Nob, however has already exchanged his choppa for a Powerklaw and therefore does not have a slugga and choppa to exchange.

This is the way i interpret the rules. You have a squad of 20 boys. First you give them all shootas. Now you got a mob of 20 boys with shootas. Next you upgrade one boy into a nob. The basic equipment of a nob is choppa and slugga. you replace the choppa with a pk. and all is fine.

yakface wrote:
I see you've ignored my argument. What rule has been broken if everyone in the mob with a slugga and choppa have replaced them with a shoota except for those who did not have a slugga and choppa?

The entire mob has still excercised their option and all models that meet the criteria for the exchange have indeed participated. The Nob, however has already exchanged his choppa for a Powerklaw and therefore does not have a slugga and choppa to exchange.

I thought I implicitly addressed your argument but perhaps not.

"May" denotes the ability to exercise the option. X "may" exchange their sluggas and choppas... But who is X?
X is the entire mob. "The entire mob may..."
If the entire mob doesn't exchange, then X has not followed the rule, because X is the entire mob.
As long as one ork in the mob doesn't exchange his choppa and slugga for a shoota, you cannot say "My entire mob has exchanged their sluggas and choppas for shootas, as per the rule."

A supporting argument is based on designer intent. It's written elsewhere and in multiple codexes that "Any model may..." which is the correct way to write a rule so that some models can do something but not all are required to. Ex: "Any model in terminator armor may replace his power weapon for...."

However, I like your argument. I think it's well thought out and may very likely be adopted in many tournaments, I just don't think it can be justified on a strictly RAW basis.

Taoofss wrote:This is the way i interpret the rules. You have a squad of 20 boys. First you give them all shootas. Now you got a mob of 20 boys with shootas. Next you upgrade one boy into a nob. The basic equipment of a nob is choppa and slugga. you replace the choppa with a pk. and all is fine.

While I agree it's legal, there's certainly no order or time element to when and how the upgrades are applied.

Yak's got the argument that caries. The guys with choppa and slugga replace them. The nob is not one of those guys and all is right in the world.

Taoofss wrote:This is the way i interpret the rules. You have a squad of 20 boys. First you give them all shootas. Now you got a mob of 20 boys with shootas. Next you upgrade one boy into a nob. The basic equipment of a nob is choppa and slugga. you replace the choppa with a pk. and all is fine.

I think that interpretation will quite likely fail before yak's. Order of rule application has never stood.

For instance, in the chaos codex: "...if the squad numbers 10 models or less you can buy them a rhino." If I pay the points for 10 CSMs, buy them a rhino because my squad numbers 10 or less, then go ahead and add another few more to the squad, will this be allowed?

Of course not. You look at the end result and see if the rule has been met. So, justifying this rule means you'll probably have to get on yak's cart, sequential application of squad-building rules is not currently accepted practice.

mauleed wrote:
Yak's got the argument that caries. The guys with choppa and slugga replace them. The nob is not one of those guys and all is right in the world.

Yak's got the best argument for the YES camp, undoubtedly.

However, the rule is "The entire squad may exchange...."
Can you, after exchanging for everyone but your nob, say "The entire squad has exchanged..."

No, you cannot say that, because the entire squad has not exchanged.

-See my last post that also references designer intent. GW has written this sort of rule correctly before, so they obviously know how.

i belive the slugga/choppa to a piece of the price you pay to get the shootas. if you do not pay then you dont get shootas. it says that a ork can exchange a shoota or slugga for a big shoota for 5 pts. does that mean that a sluggaboy can exchange all his shootas and 5pts for it? no. pay and play or dont.

I vote no to PKs in shoota mobs. i sure hope GW will read some of these threads and understand their misstakes.

mauleed wrote:While I agree it's legal, there's certainly no order or time element to when and how the upgrades are applied.
Yak's got the argument that caries. The guys with choppa and slugga replace them. The nob is not one of those guys and all is right in the world.

The Nob is only not one of the guys with a choppa and slugga if his choppa is upgraded before the squad upgrades to shootas and since you say there is no order or time, the argument falls appart.

Imriel wrote:

mauleed wrote:While I agree it's legal, there's certainly no order or time element to when and how the upgrades are applied.
Yak's got the argument that caries. The guys with choppa and slugga replace them. The nob is not one of those guys and all is right in the world.

The Nob is only not one of the guys with a choppa and slugga if his choppa is upgraded before the squad upgrades to shootas and since you say there is no order or time, the argument falls appart.

Your missing the point, if there is no order or time then the exchange can be simultaneous.

Realy, from someone who has absolutly no skin in this game ( never played orks, never will ) the NO camp arguments truly seem to epidomize the worst spirit of hyper RAW rules lawyering that turns people off from the game.

It would never occur to me that the PK could not be taken from reading that rule. Just to see what a totally neutural person would think I asked my wife, who happens to be an actual attourney, to read it and she agreed, then looked at me like I was crazy when I explained the debate here.

In her eyes there was simply no question linguisitcally as to what the words meant.

Does not make her or me right, just an opinion from totally outside the argument looking in, for perspective.

skyth wrote:Actually, the 'yes' interpretation requires words not present in the argument, like 'that has them'.

Nope.

The "yes" interpretation is correct. "The entire mob ..." simply means if any model exchanges, all models must exchange so that you cannot have a mob containing a mixture of shoota boyz & sluggaboyz. It does not place any condition. "may" simply means it is an option to exchange. There is no other reasonable explanation.

The "no" interpretation is the one that actually requires a huge conditional clause for the exchange: "If (and only if) the entire mob is armed with slugga and choppa, then the entire mob may exchange...". And then it requires another huge conditiona clause for the Nob: "If the entire mob is armed with slugga and choppa, then the Nob may be armed...". Neither of these conditions are explicitly stated, yet such restrictions are present (e.g. if the numbers up to XX models, it may purchase a Transport). Therefore the omission of such restrictions are intentional.

If the Nob has a PK, he isn't armed with slugga & choppa, so he isn't affected because he doesn't have both a slugga and choppa to exchange for a shoota.

The only illegal combination is Nob with slugga & choppa leading sluggaboyz, because the Nob didn't exchange his weapons when he was required to.

____

edit: full disclosure - I don't have Orks, never will. Absolutely hate the entire army concept with a passion. But rules-wise, Orks can have PK Nob leading Shootas.

bigtmac68 wrote:

Imriel wrote:

mauleed wrote:While I agree it's legal, there's certainly no order or time element to when and how the upgrades are applied.
Yak's got the argument that caries. The guys with choppa and slugga replace them. The nob is not one of those guys and all is right in the world.

The Nob is only not one of the guys with a choppa and slugga if his choppa is upgraded before the squad upgrades to shootas and since you say there is no order or time, the argument falls appart.

Your missing the point, if there is no order or time then the exchange can be simultaneous.

You can't give up your choppa for a PK while simutaneously giving it up with the slugga to get a shoota, but my point was that Yak's arguement, which Mauleed supported, hinged on the idea that the Nob no long had the choppa when the mob was upgraded to shootas, which would require that the PK upgrade was done first. However, Mauleed argued that there was no time/order factor, which completly kills Yak's arguement.

3 points. Refute these 3 and I will gladly come over to the YES camp.

1. The option is "the entire mob may exchange..." After choosing this option, can you turn to your opponent and say "Look, the entire mob has exchanged their sluggas and choppas....?" No, you cannot say that, because the entire mob didn't exchange, the Nob didn't. Now the YES camp will argue the linguistics of it, but this seems to be the plain meaning reading of the words.

Entire mob means just that, entire mob. The YES camp is giving these words the strange meaning. "'Entire mob' is only guys who have a slugga and choppa..." Give me a break. The word is "entire." We all know what it means.

2. This type of rule exists elsewhere and wasn't questioned. From Chaos 3rd - "The entire squad may be armed with frag grenades..." Now, what would happen if someone from the squad is missing a frag grenade? Simple. No one gets the benefit of having frag grenades. Linguistically it's the same rule, and no one questioned what it meant before. Everybody will have frags when you exercise the option.

Now, you could say that this doesn't preclude a person from only buying frags for some of the squad, only that the squad won't benefit if you don't buy them for everyone. But that just seems silly. There was a commonly understood notion of what this rule meant. Everyone had to have them.

3. If GW's designers were in the YES camp, they would have written the rule differently. They've written this type of rule before and they've done it correctly. Example: "Any model in terminator armor may exchange...." Clearly, any number of models in terminator may do something, but they don't all have to. Maybe they all will exchange, maybe only one. Simple and clear. Why didn't they use these words in the Ork codex? Did GW forget how to write rules they've written before? (Ok, don't answer that).

Basically, my 3 points summarized:
1. There's a viable plain meaning reading of the words that supports the NO position.
2. This type of all-or-nothing rule exists elsewhere and hasn't been questioned.
3. Designer intent supports the NO camp.

Together, these 3 points make up a comprehensive interpretation.

Your entire third option is completely crazy.

There is nothing that can be inferred from Designer Intent on the way the rules are.

The rules there are a copy and paste from every other entry in the list where a Nob starts out being armed with slugga+choppa and can take a Power Klaw. The Designers aren't in a "Yes camp" or "No Camp" they're in the "Oh damn that Copy/Paste Function Camp".

As far as point #1 goes:

The entire mob did exchange their sluggas and choppas. The Nob at that point doesn't have a Slugga and Choppa, he has a Slugga and PK, so he couldn't exchange anything. So the statement "The entire mob has exchanged their sluggas and choppas for shootas" is perfectly valid.

Point #2

The previous wordings were all about equipping the entire unit with something. Nothing about an exchange for the whole unit.

By the RAW, every criteria for the statement "The entire mob swapped their sluggas and choppas for shootas" is true. The Nob simply didn't have a set to exchange and therefore did nothing.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Your entire third option is completely crazy.

There is nothing that can be inferred from Designer Intent on the way the rules are.

The rules there are a copy and paste from every other entry in the list where a Nob starts out being armed with slugga+choppa and can take a Power Klaw. The Designers aren't in a "Yes camp" or "No Camp" they're in the "Oh damn that Copy/Paste Function Camp".

As far as point #1 goes:

The entire mob did exchange their sluggas and choppas. The Nob at that point doesn't have a Slugga and Choppa, he has a Slugga and PK, so he couldn't exchange anything. So the statement "The entire mob has exchanged their sluggas and choppas for shootas" is perfectly valid.

Point #2

The previous wordings were all about equipping the entire unit with something. Nothing about an exchange for the whole unit.

By the RAW, every criteria for the statement "The entire mob swapped their sluggas and choppas for shootas" is true. The Nob simply didn't have a set to exchange and therefore did nothing.

In response....

Point #3: Ah yes, you're clearly saying that the designers intended to do something but didn't. However, if there is a RAW standard, then all we have to go on is what the designers actually do write. Therefore, if intent can be gauged at all, it must be gauged by comparing the actual words of one rule to the actual words of another, which is exaclty what I did.

GW has more clearly written rules that, without debate, allow for one or many or all models of a unit to exchange something. Yet they didn't do that here. Why not? If we assume GW writes what it intends (and we must if we play by RAW), then their intent was for this rule to function differently from the other rule.

Point #2: Equipping vs. Exhanging? That's seriously your gripe, that it's a different verb? That the word "entire" has changed its meaning because the verb "equip" is different than "exchange?" Interesting....

Point #1: You've just re-iterated what I wrote intially. The YES camp basically claims that the word "entire" is limited to those models who have a slugga and choppa in the first place. I'm saying the word "entire" means just what everyone knows it means, entire. Plain meaning.

Ok, so sum up, on point #1 we're clearly divided. I'm sorry, but your attack on point #2 is meritless. On point #3 you've quibbled with my use of the word "intent," but haven't rebuffed the simple fact that GW has written rules before that would clearly communicate the stand you wish to make. Yet they didn't do that here.

Ok, I have been struggling with the apparent intent of GW in stating that only a choppa may be exchanged for a PK.

I do not believe that there is any firmly established order to follow in selecting upgrades.

If purchasing the Nob first, the operative sentence is:

The entire mob may exchange their sluggas and choppas for shootas.

Now, despite what some have suggested, it is clear that the use of the word MAY does not allow the unit to be composed piecemeal of sluggas and shootas.

The subject of the sentence is "the entire mob". MAY describes an action which can be taken by "the entire squad". If they had used the word "must" rather than "may" then all boys must be shootas. What a silly result that would be.

I see where the people who are arguing textually that shootas cannot have pk nobs are coming from. They believe that if one of the boys doesn't have a slugga and choppa that then "The Entire Mob" cannot perform the ascribed action, and so that action cannot take place. This, I believe, is reading words into the sentence which are not there.

Here is how I would write out the action described in the critical phrase: "exchange their sluggas and choppas for shootas."

"If a boy has a slugga and a choppa, then he exchanges it for a shoota." This is not adding words, but merely spelling out the literal meaning of the words as written. I think it is an error to read into this phrase a conditional statement that if any boy does not have both a slugga and a choppa to exchange, than none of them can exchange their sluggas and choppas for shootas. It is an If-Then statement.

Then I had originally decided that only an intent to not allow shoota mobs to have PK would lead to such a wording. I now see the error of my Ways.
If you exchange a shoota for a PK, then you already must have given up both Choppa and Slugga.

This means that a PK who substitutes his shoota for a PK would have no slugga and would be gimped relative to a nob who had exchanged just his slugga. They didn't use the terms "exchange slugga or shoota for a PK" because it would have drastically different game stats in that one nob would have an extra attack!!!!

Further, I believe that if they really intended shoota boys to not be abe to get PK nobs they would have kept it two entries!

The reason why they can only exchange choppas for PK's is to that they can keep their slugga!!!!!

deadlygopher wrote:3 points. Refute these 3 and I will gladly come over to the YES camp.

1. The option is "the entire mob may exchange..."

2. This type of rule exists elsewhere and wasn't questioned. From Chaos 3rd - "The entire squad may be armed with frag grenades..."

3. If GW's designers were in the YES camp, they would have written the rule differently.

Together, these 3 points make up a comprehensive interpretation.

Nope. You're wrong.

1A. "entire" means if any (valid) model excercises the option, all (valid) models must exercise. Not some models ("Any model may exchange...").
1B "may" means it is an option, rather than a requirement ("must exchange...").

2. This is the same. If any (valid) model buys Frag, all (valid) models must buy Frag.

3. If GW's designers were in the NO camp, they would have written this rule *and* the Nob rules differently.

Well, does everyone at least agree that the reason they may have stipulated that only choppas may be exchanged for power klaws was to make sure that some rules lawyer doesn't argue that a nob w/ pk in a shoota squad doesn't have 2 ccw because he already exchanged BOTH for the Shoota.

This way all nobs w/ pk have to have the klaw and a slugga.

If the rule said "A nob may exchange his choppa or shoota for a pk" then there would be a very strong argument that shoota boyz nobs would not get the extra cc attack for having 2 ccw, as getting a shoota involves giving up choppa AND slugga!!!!

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nope. You're wrong.

1A. "entire" means if any (valid) model excercises the option, all (valid) models must exercise. Not some models ("Any model may exchange...").
1B "may" means it is an option, rather than a requirement ("must exchange...").

2. This is the same. If any (valid) model buys Frag, all (valid) models must buy Frag.

3. If GW's designers were in the NO camp, they would have written this rule *and* the Nob rules differently.

You're emphasis on 'valid' is good, and perhaps I glossed over it too much in my earlier post. Perhaps this will clear up your confusion.

1A. Ok, so what's a "valid" model? You're saying a Nob w/ a PK is not a valid model because he already exchanged for a PK. But, he did start with a slugga and choppa so he COULD have exchanged for a shoota if he wanted to. You're essentially saying that because you've applied the squad creation rules in a certain order (PK first, shootas later), that that's makes certain models invalid for the exchange. If you want to have a debate about whether or not it's legal to apply squad creation rules one at a time or all at once, that's fine with me, but otherwise the nob IS a valid model, or at least he is at the beginning.

1B. I completely agree. "May" means an option. The entire mob may.... as in, the entire mob has the ability to do something. So the debate really comes down to whether "entire mob" means every model independently has the option to do something, which would allow for mixed mobs, or does it mean that the whole group must as one or not at all do something. See my previous posts for my opinion as to the word "entire."

But I agree with you as to the valid element. If there were members of the mob who never had shootas or sluggas to exchange, of course there'd be no problem if they didn't exchange. But Nobs do start out with the ability to exchange. Your leg to stand on is that you can apply an order of rules application. (See a bit farther above for problems with this approach - ie the rhino purchase problem)

2. See 1A as to what valid means. Otherwise you're exactly correct.

3. No, if the designers were in the YES camp they would have written the Nob rules separately so that we all would know they could be excluded from 'the entire mob' for certain creation purposes. The fact their rules are not separate means they are not distinct from 'the entire mob.'

deadlygopher wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nope. You're wrong.

1A. "entire" means if any (valid) model excercises the option, all (valid) models must exercise. Not some models ("Any model may exchange...").
1B "may" means it is an option, rather than a requirement ("must exchange...").

2. This is the same. If any (valid) model buys Frag, all (valid) models must buy Frag.

3. If GW's designers were in the NO camp, they would have written this rule *and* the Nob rules differently.

You're emphasis on 'valid' is good, and perhaps I glossed over it too much in my earlier post. Perhaps this will clear up your confusion.

1A. Ok, so what's a "valid" model? You're saying a Nob w/ a PK is not a valid model because he already exchanged for a PK. But, he did start with a slugga and choppa so he COULD have exchanged for a shoota if he wanted to. You're essentially saying that because you've applied the squad creation rules in a certain order (PK first, shootas later), that that's makes certain models invalid for the exchange. If you want to have a debate about whether or not it's legal to apply squad creation rules one at a time or all at once, that's fine with me, but otherwise the nob IS a valid model, or at least he is at the beginning.

1B. I completely agree. "May" means an option. The entire mob may.... as in, the entire mob has the ability to do something. So the debate really comes down to whether "entire mob" means every model independently has the option to do something, which would allow for mixed mobs, or does it mean that the whole group must as one or not at all do something.

But I agree with you as to the valid element. If there were members of the mob who never had shootas or sluggas to exchange, of course there'd be no problem if they didn't exchange. But Nobs do start out with the ability to exchange. Your leg to stand on is that you can apply an order of rules application. (See a bit farther above for problems with this approach - ie the rhino purchase problem)

2. See 1A as to what valid means. Otherwise you're exactly correct.

3. No, if the designers were in the YES camp they would have written the Nob rules separately so that we all would know they could be excluded from 'the entire mob' for certain creation purposes. The fact their rules are not separate means they are not distinct from 'the entire mob.'

1A. Correct. A Nob with PK doesn't have a Choppa to exhange and remains armed with PK.

1A'. As for order / sequence, why can't the player choose the order? There never have been such restrictions before, so there shouldn't be any now. If he doesn't upgrade his Choppa, I agree that the Nob would be a valid model. This is why I say the only clearly illegal option is Choppa Nob leading Shootaboyz.

1A". Note that sequencing is implied (and required) as part of player's discretion if he wants to upgrade any Shoota Boyz to Rokkits. If All Boyz are armed with S&C and no Boyz start out armed with Shootas, how do any of them upgrade their Shootas to Rokkits? If sequencing is an implied part of the rules, then the player can choose to upgrade to Shootas, and then upgrade some Rokkits. If there is no sequencing, then are Rokkit models illegal in the same way? In other words, can you create an argument that allows (presumably intended) Rokkits that cannot be carried over to the Nob by direct analogy?

1B. For this answer, you need to look at how GW handles other cases. When GW allows mixed units, GW writes "ANY model may exchange...". When GW requires an option to be applied across all (valid) models when exercised, GW writes "the entire unit may ..." to produce an unmixed unit.

3. As I've repeatedly explained, and ALL of you "YES" people consistently ignore:

3A. If GW wanted separate Nob weapon rules, they would have had to add TWO exception clauses: "If all models are armed with S&C, then the entire mob..." plus "If the mob is not armed with Shootas, then the Nob may ...". How come you guys are ALL afraid to address this point?

3B. If GW wanted separate Mob types, they would have had Slugga Boyz (with PK & BC Slugga Nobs) separate from Shoota Boys (non-upgradeable Shoota Nob). GW combined the entry with a single Nob option for both types of Boyz. The fact that their rules are not separate, means that the Nob (with upgrades are still valid, regardless of how the rest of the mob is armed).

JohnHwang wrote:1A. Correct. A Nob with PK doesn't have a Choppa to exhange and remains armed with PK.

1A'. As for order / sequence, why can't the player choose the order? There never have been such restrictions before, so there shouldn't be any now. If he doesn't upgrade his Choppa, I agree that the Nob would be a valid model. This is why I say the only clearly illegal option is Choppa Nob leading Shootaboyz.

1A". Note that sequencing is implied (and required) as part of player's discretion if he wants to upgrade any Shoota Boyz to Rokkits. If All Boyz are armed with S&C and no Boyz start out armed with Shootas, how do any of them upgrade their Shootas to Rokkits? If sequencing is an implied part of the rules, then the player can choose to upgrade to Shootas, and then upgrade some Rokkits. If there is no sequencing, then are Rokkit models illegal in the same way? In other words, can you create an argument that allows (presumably intended) Rokkits that cannot be carried over to the Nob by direct analogy?

1B. For this answer, you need to look at how GW handles other cases. When GW allows mixed units, GW writes "ANY model may exchange...". When GW requires an option to be applied across all (valid) models when exercised, GW writes "the entire unit may ..." to produce an unmixed unit.

3. As I've repeatedly explained, and ALL of you "YES" people consistently ignore:

3A. If GW wanted separate Nob weapon rules, they would have had to add TWO exception clauses: "If all models are armed with S&C, then the entire mob..." plus "If the mob is not armed with Shootas, then the Nob may ...". How come you guys are ALL afraid to address this point?

3B. If GW wanted separate Mob types, they would have had Slugga Boyz (with PK & BC Slugga Nobs) separate from Shoota Boys (non-upgradeable Shoota Nob). GW combined the entry with a single Nob option for both types of Boyz. The fact that their rules are not separate, means that the Nob (with upgrades are still valid, regardless of how the rest of the mob is armed).

1A. The big flaw you've made is that the rules say "...one Ork may exchange his slugga OR SHOOTA [for a rokkit / big shoota]..." So clearly, you do NOT need to imply an order of rules application, since the exchange is legal in the end result.

Let me give you an example. I'm building a squad of chaos marines. I buy 10 marines and add a rhino. Perfectly legal. Then I add a few more marines because I've chosen to apply the creation rules in a specific order. Why is this a problem? Everything was legal in the order I did it. Of course this argument will not work. The squad needs to be legal in the end result assuming all the creation rules were applied simultaneously. If you want to debate that I'm happy to do so, but I don't think anyone will.

As it applies to our case, the Nob begins with a slugga and choppa so WOULD BE ELIGIBLE to exchange for a shoota. To say he doesn't have to exchange means you're applying rules in a certain order which I think is pretty safe you cannot do. It doesn't matter with rokkits and big shootas because the rules will specifically allow an exchange of either weapon. So if you want to argue this point you really have to work on the definition of the word "entire." [See my previous posts as to how I feel about this word]

1B. I completely agree with you, after we correct your reasoning, of course. A Nob is a valid model if we're applying creation rules simultaneously, so if you want to press your argument you must realize you are in fact arguing for mixed mobs, see?

3A-B. The Nob is just one of the mob, and so is subject to the creation rules of the mob. There's no logical problem with this. If GW wanted the nob to work differently, so that he could always have a PK, then they could've done that, but they didn't. I'm happy to hear you further on this, but you'll need to give more reasoning than merely asserting "that's how it should work." Are you thinking of any other units where the squad leader could be armed so as to break squad creation rules?

deadlygopher wrote:So if you want to argue this point you really have to work on the definition of the word "entire." [See my previous posts as to how I feel about this word]

I had a big response queued up, and deleted the entire thing, because I'm just sick of the entire argument.

YOU need to understand how GW uses the word "entire", because you're getting it completely wrong.

Good luck, tho.

Hahaa. Ok guy. There's no point for this thread to continue if we're down to the "no YOU'RE wrong" stage. Next it will be "I'm rubber and you're glue, right?" Let's be done with it, then. A final recap:

"The entire mob may exchange..." It seems plain to say that anyone who could exchange must exchange if the option is applied. So who could exchange? Well, a nob could exchange because he starts with a slugga and choppa. The other side says because we've already exchanged his slugga and choppa for a PK, he's not eligible for the shoota exchange, and so that's the end of it. The problem I have with that argument is that it implies that users can apply squad creation rules in any order that benefits them. For instance, if I'm buying a squad of chaos marines, I might start by buying 10 marines and a rhino, which is perfectly legal. Then I add a few more marines to the squad. Is this a problem? All the rules were legal in the order I chose to apply them. Yet, no one would argue I can do this. The squad must be legal in the end result, regardless of the order creation rules were applied. In this case, the nob could have a shoota, if the exchange were done first. Logically then, if squad creation rules cannot be applied in whatever order suits the player, a nob in a shoota squad cannot have a PK.

This restriction does not affect rokkits/big shootas, since explicitly it says either the slugga/choppa or shoota could be exchanged for the rokkit/big shoota. This sheds further light on GW's intent. Here, the designers have explicitly allowed shoota squads to have these weapons because either the slugga/choppa or shoota could be exchanged. Yet, the option to exchange either was not replicated just six lines down. Obviously, then, the nob's equipment is restricted when the squad has shootas.

This type of rule exists elsewhere and wasn't questioned. From Chaos 3rd - "The entire squad may be armed with frag grenades..." Now, what would happen if someone from the squad is missing a frag grenade? Simple. No one gets the benefit of having frag grenades. Linguistically it's the same rule, and no one questioned what it meant before. Everybody will have frags when you exercise the option.

If GW's designers were in the YES camp, they would have written the rule differently. They've written this type of rule before and they've done it correctly. Example: "Any model in terminator armor may exchange...." Clearly, any number of models in terminator may do something, but they don't all have to. Maybe they all will exchange, maybe only one. Simple and clear. Why didn't they use these words in the Ork codex? Easy – the intention wasn’t to allow mixed mobs. Now, some may say that mixed mobs aren't allowed, just that the nob may be armed differently. This argument has no merit. The nob is a member of the mob and nowhere does it say he doesn’t follow the squad creation rules.

At this point I’m convinced that any reasonable argument contrary to this point will need to explore the following ideas. I’ll happily give full consideration to any of these.
1. Show that the nob is not a member of the mob. That will allow him to equipped differently despite the squad creation rules.
2. Show that squad creation rules can be applied in whatever order suits the player, but please be prepared to address at least my rhino example.
3. Show that the word “entire” doesn’t mean everybody in the mob.

deadlygopher wrote:This type of rule exists elsewhere and wasn't questioned. From Chaos 3rd - "The entire squad may be armed with frag grenades..." Now, what would happen if someone from the squad is missing a frag grenade? Simple. No one gets the benefit of having frag grenades. Linguistically it's the same rule, and no one questioned what it meant before. Everybody will have frags when you exercise the option.

I've got to disagree with both of these premises. First, adding something to an entire unit is not semantically equivalent to swapping an entire unit's specific piece of equipment for something else. Second, Frag Grenades work on a per-model basis; if you attach a character with or without Frag to a unit with or without them, it doesn't nullify the frags. They just only work for the models which have them (see p39).

As for the larger argument... I personally think it's ambiguous. I don't play Orks, but I'm not going to object if an opponent fields a Shoota mob with a Klaw Nob.

Yes, Nobz may take power klaws whether their mob goes with choppas and sluggas, or exchanges them for shootas.

Nurglitch wrote:Yes, Nobz may take power klaws whether their mob goes with choppas and sluggas, or exchanges them for shootas.

And you're getting this from where? Simply stating one of the choices with nothing to back up why it is so adds nothing to the discussion.

Actually it adds plenty to the discussion. There's no point in me slapping down a proof of my conclusion unless we've agree on what constitutes a valid method of proof. Otherwise at best we'll be talking past each other, and at worst we'll be arguing in rhetorical circles without reaching an objective conclusion.

But since you asked, I'll assume that we're using classical predicate logic as fixing the use of terms like 'true' and 'valid', the logical connectives and so on.

The codex entry in question is quite fortunately the key to the general entry structure of units in the codex in question. The "Options" heading subsumes the "Character" heading, as specified in the "Options" blurb for example. These options are ordered, as evidenced by logical structure of the entry: Where an Option entry requires another entry to have been chosen first, i.e.: is conditional upon it either by positing some restriction or referencing some constant or bounded variable, it follows that other entry. Where a entry does not require another entry to have been chosen first, their order is interchangeable. The option saying that all of the models in the mob, "the entire mob", may exchange their sluggas and choppas for shootas specify tht a model is required to have a slugga and a choppa to trade for a shoota (a classic example of modus ponens). If a Boy upgraded to a Nob upgrades its choppa to a power klaw, then it no longer has a slugga and a choppa and does not trade them in for a shoota.

In creating a mob of Ork Boyz then, a player follows these steps:
1. Select Composition (number of models)
2. Select Transport (limited by composition, thus conditional upon it)
3. Select Options
3a. Specific Character Upgrade
3b. Specific Character Wargear Upgrades
3c. General Mob Wargear Upgrades

Nurglitch wrote:Actually it adds plenty to the discussion. There's no point in me slapping down a proof of my conclusion unless we've agree on what constitutes a valid method of proof. Otherwise at best we'll be talking past each other, and at worst we'll be arguing in rhetorical circles without reaching an objective conclusion.

But since you asked, I'll assume that we're using classical predicate logic as fixing the use of terms like 'true' and 'valid', the logical connectives and so on.

The codex entry in question is quite fortunately the key to the general entry structure of units in the codex in question. The "Options" heading subsumes the "Character" heading, as specified in the "Options" blurb for example. These options are ordered, as evidenced by logical structure of the entry: Where an Option entry requires another entry to have been chosen first, i.e.: is conditional upon it either by positing some restriction or referencing some constant or bounded variable, it follows that other entry. Where a entry does not require another entry to have been chosen first, their order is interchangeable. The option saying that all of the models in the mob, "the entire mob", may exchange their sluggas and choppas for shootas specify tht a model is required to have a slugga and a choppa to trade for a shoota (a classic example of modus ponens). If a Boy upgraded to a Nob upgrades its choppa to a power klaw, then it no longer has a slugga and a choppa and does not trade them in for a shoota.

In creating a mob of Ork Boyz then, a player follows these steps:
1. Select Composition (number of models)
2. Select Transport (limited by composition, thus conditional upon it)
3. Select Options
3a. Specific Character Upgrade
3b. Specific Character Wargear Upgrades
3c. General Mob Wargear Upgrades

While I'm glad you were awake in logic, your fallacy is that you require us to presume a unit's layout is in itself meaningful, and not just a convenient way to organize the unit's rules. GW has never articulated to users that we should adopt this approach in unit creation, nor do I believe it's common sense. I mean no offense, but this sounds like an artificial rationale that's meant to sound smart enough to keep most people from replying.

Why do I assert the unit's organization is nothing more than convenient? Because I don’t need to. The rules are clear when viewed together. Big shootas / rokkits can still be used because they may come from an exchange of either sluggas/choppas or shootas. Yet the nob doesn’t have this luxury. And yes, while you might classify the former and the shoota exchange as a set of interchangable rules, there’s no reason they need to be, and again, because your approach is neither intuitive nor identified by GW, nor required to get a valid interpretation, I see no reason to adopt it nor abandon the very common sense and workable presumption that unit creation rules ought to be simultaneous.

Do you have other examples from other codexes, something that would corroborate the necessity of your argument? It’s a new approach so I like where you’re going, but I just don’t see why it’s the necessary approach.

Phausi wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Yes, Nobz may take power klaws whether their mob goes with choppas and sluggas, or exchanges them for shootas.

And you're getting this from where? Simply stating one of the choices with nothing to back up why it is so adds nothing to the discussion.

He's just saving himself a lot of effort and everybody a lot of time. When (certain) people have demonstrated that they can't even properly parse a simple option like "the entire mob may exchange..." within the context of GW rules-writing, why should anybody be burdened to bother with detailed explanation?

deadlygopher wrote:Why do I assert the unit's organization is nothing more than convenient?

Do you have other examples from other codexes, something that would corroborate the necessity of your argument?

Did you NOT just give the example from C:CSM?

This is why I got sick of the arugment.

Ah, John. I can only imagine what fun you are with your local gaming club, and what fits you must throw when you lose. Hurry along, it must be your bed time soon.

Nonetheless, I'll try to address you as I've given the same consideration to everyone else. First, I am interested in the proposition that organization of the entry implies the rules creation order that must be applied. But I'm not convinced of it because I haven't heard of it before nor does there appear to be an explicit need to adopt it. I've invited further evidence and discussion.

Now, you appear to be a big baby who wants his bottle. All the better that you're tired of this debate. You would, however, do yourself a favor by not cluttering the thread with childish ranting that does nothing but reduce your own credibility.

deadlygopher wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Point #3: Ah yes, you're clearly saying that the designers intended to do something but didn't. However, if there is a RAW standard, then all we have to go on is what the designers actually do write. Therefore, if intent can be gauged at all, it must be gauged by comparing the actual words of one rule to the actual words of another, which is exaclty what I did.

I don’t think you understand the concepts of RaW and RaI. RaW takes the rules at their most literal meaning and does not consider anything else (game balance, background or designer intent). RaI considers what the designers intended but didn’t explicitly spell out (because they didn’t anticipate certain circumstances, or the pedantry of players or they simply worded something poorly). They are mutually exclusive methods of reading the rules.

There is one single argument that basically nails the RaI argument in favour of the Yes camp; if the designers had decided to limit the effectiveness of shoota boyz by excluding the nob from carrying a powerklaw, they would have said that in plain English. It wouldn’t have been included by way of an inference that can only be seen by a careful reading of the rules… the rule for the nobz option would have read ‘the nob can exchange his choppa for a power klaw, unless the mob has exchanged their choppas for shootas, in which case he cannot.’

In terms of RaW, then the absolute, most literal definition probably agrees with the No camp. But then by the RaW BA rhinos have no access points... why people insist on RaW only is beyond me.

This question is worthless. Its revolves around ridicuRAW on a par with terminators not having terminator armour and how to get a T4(6) space marine. All it says is that you cannot mix 'sluggaboyz' and 'shootaboyz' in the same mob and in true Gw fashion does so badly. Its not exactly unclear, but Codex Loophole is itself part of the cultre of 40K. If the same wording was used in a Warmachine unit write up noone would claim to have a problem working out what it means.

So I voted NO. Ya cant have a power klaw nob because all the other nods have taken da power klaws. Someone has to get the big choppa so it has to be the shootanob, coz he doesnt get stuck in with the rest of the ladz. I dont care if the weapon stat isnt good enough, having one ork conversion with a two handed cleaver from the Ironguts boxset is mandatory.

Nurglitch wrote:
The Ork Nobz, Kommandos, Boyz, Stormboyz, and Flashgitz entries all have character upgrades upon which some unit upgrades are conditional. The unit upgrade for cyborks in the Nobz entry, for example, depends on whether a Nob has the Painboy character upgrade. As the Codex says, these unit upgrades are additional to the ordinary unit upgrades, as well as being conditional upon the character upgrade taken.

Sure, that’s a valid point, although not quite analogous. The examples you provide (I’ll focus on the nob’z painboy – cybork body rules) illustrate only a set of options that must be taken in tandem, not in conflict with each other. If we adopt a theory of concurrent application, there isn’t necessarily a problem. One might say the cybork body option isn’t a “squad” option, but because it’s subsumed by the character options, it’s a character option that applies to the squad. Then if we adopt a top-down, left-right theory of order, in which case the nob gets upgraded after the squad, there’s also no problem because no rules we applied to the squad will be in conflict with what we want to do with the character. And the options the character makes available to the squad don’t stand in conflict with anything that’s already been done. But I admit, I’m postulating without precedent.

Nurglitch wrote:
That is incorrect. The shoota unit upgrade says: "The entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas...free". The sentence contains an explicit modal operator: "may", signifying logical possibility or contingency. This means that if some condition is in place, then some consequence obtains . The condition is having both a slugga and a choppa. Thus if any Orks in the mob have a slugga and a choppa, then they exchange those two weapons for a single shoota. If a Nob does not have a slugga and a choppa, then it does not meet the conditions to upgrade to a shoota. So although an Ork in the mob, the Nob, does not exchange its choppa and slugga for a shoota that does not contradict the quantifier "entire" whose scope is "the...mob". The entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas, if they have that combination of weapons to replace!

True…. if the nob can do his exchange first.

To cite Rob’s point, I agree it would be inevitable that someone would argue a nob who exchanged his shoota for a PK would have done so after having given up his choppa. Of course, what you’re arguing for now is the same argument you’d have to make then – that the nob’s exchange can happen before the squad’s exchange. Haha!

In any case, there appears to be more reasonable precedent to support a theory that characters get upgrades first rather than everything happening concurrently. And on that I’m willing to allow PK nobz in shoota mobs. To keep the discussion going there would need to be an accepted example where the squad’s options affect what the character can take, showing that either the squad is built first, or at least, concurrently.

deadlygopher wrote:But I admit, I’m postulating without precedent.

And without access to the actual text in question, if I've read your posts correctly. It might help if you actually read the text. It's unambiguous.

deadlygopher wrote:True…. if the nob can do his exchange first.

Yes, that is what the Codex says.

deadlygopher wrote:To cite Rob’s point, I agree it would be inevitable that someone would argue a nob who exchanged his shoota for a PK would have done so after having given up his choppa. Of course, what you’re arguing for now is the same argument you’d have to make then – that the nob’s exchange can happen before the squad’s exchange. Haha!

Except that a Nob doesn't exhange his shoota for a powerklaw. He exchanges his choppa for a powerklaw. He could, as part of the entire mob, exchange his slugga and choppa for a shoota if he did not upgrade his weapons. A Nob cannot exchange a shoota for a powerklaw. So it's not a problem.

And while such an argument might be inevitable it is not a problem with the rules, it is a problem with the unrequiting pigged-headed stupidity of humanity.

deadlygopher wrote:In any case, there appears to be more reasonable precedent to support a theory that characters get upgrades first rather than everything happening concurrently. And on that I’m willing to allow PK nobz in shoota mobs. To keep the discussion going there would need to be an accepted example where the squad’s options affect what the character can take, showing that either the squad is built first, or at least, concurrently.

No, if the text indicates that one thing is conditional upon another and the modal operators are fixed to allow for varying conditions, then that is the order to be followed. If a unit upgrade is conditional upon a character upgrade, then that character must be upgraded before the unit may be upgraded. Whether some other unit entry followed a different format is irrelevant to the format specified in the Ork Codex and the ordering explicitly cited for that format.

Nurglitch wrote:

deadlygopher wrote:But I admit, I’m postulating without precedent.

And without access to the actual text in question, if I've read your posts correctly. It might help if you actually read the text. It's unambiguous.

No, I have the ork codex, that's not what I said. Perhaps you should read my posts. And as to whether character upgrades happen before or are allowed to happen before squad upgrades is far from unambiguous, despite your assertions to the contrary.

Nurglitch wrote:

deadlygopher wrote:To cite Rob’s point, I agree it would be inevitable that someone would argue a nob who exchanged his shoota for a PK would have done so after having given up his choppa. Of course, what you’re arguing for now is the same argument you’d have to make then – that the nob’s exchange can happen before the squad’s exchange. Haha!

Except that a Nob doesn't exhange his shoota for a powerklaw. He exchanges his choppa for a powerklaw. He could, as part of the entire mob, exchange his slugga and choppa for a shoota if he did not upgrade his weapons. A Nob cannot exchange a shoota for a powerklaw. So it's not a problem.

And while such an argument might be inevitable it is not a problem with the rules, it is a problem with the unrequiting pigged-headed stupidity of humanity.

Read the post. We were talking about what might have been if the rule had been written differently.

More importantly, I take issue that you feel a rules question is “unrequiting pig-headed stupidity of humanity.” If a rules question comes up, it shouldn’t be so beneath you to address it, this is a rules forum after all. In a game situation, call a judge or dice it. What kind of teacher adopts such an attitude?

Futhermore, even allowing your analysis, it’s not necessarily appropriate to infer a line of reasoning simply because its logical. People aren’t mathematicians. They pick up a codex and follow common sense reasoning, which is what we should apply when discussing rules. It’s perfectly reasonable to say there’s a top-down/left-to-right approach, because that’s how our eyes trace it. It’s also reasonable to explore the notion that there is no order, that it’s just a bunch of rules that in the end result must all be valid. That’s why I emphasized precedent. If people did things in an accepted way before they’re likely to approach similar problems in the same way. So that’s why I tried to drive the discussion towards finding the necessary order of rules application, of which I accept your method as viable, and why I asked for the examples I asked for. You strode into this thread with a theory that so rigid so as to reject out of hand anything that was contrary to it. That works in bullying, and perhaps in certain types of classrooms, but not everywhere. In fact, it smacks at some of that pig-headedness you’re willing to impute to those who would ask a question.

deadlygopher wrote:No, I have the ork codex, that's not what I said. Perhaps you should read my posts. And as to whether character upgrades happen before or are allowed to happen before squad upgrades is far from unambiguous, despite your assertions to the contrary.

So I read your posts incorrectly. But speaking of reading correctly, I haven't asserted anything to the contrary that the ordering of upgrades in the Ork Boyz unit entry is ambiguous. I've pointed out that the Codex says otherwise and cited it.

deadlygopher wrote:Read the post. We were talking about what might have been if the rule had been written differently.

I had read the post. The rule would be the same no matter how it was expressed. From the way some people have been talking about it on this thread it would seem that they were talking about what might have been the case if the rule had been written the way they wanted, or the way they read things (quite different from how they should read things, but people always confuse the descriptive with the normative), or the way other texts are written. A discussion of what might have been the case if some rule had been written differently should be very short, consisting of the question and one answer: "The same rule, written differently."

Sometimes people try to write things differently to explore the content of the text itself. Certainly that's one basic procedure, called "conceptual analysis", where one expresses a statement various ways to check text for implicit logical structures. But there's better, quicker, methods available since conceptual analysis is typically limited by incongruities between the grammars of natural language and the structures of logic and occasionally devolves into a vicious circle of inter-definitional synonymy (a fancy way to say the exhaustive list of possible permutations does not obtain a well-formed logical structure) by way of amphiboly (single terms having two or more ambiguous extensions). So you get discussions on the Internet where even defined terms fail the interlocators because they are not well-defined. A better way of doing it is by layered decomposition, where the terms, grammar, and semantics of the terms are gradually stripped away and laid out (rather like an exploded diagram) so that the parts and their relations can be well-defined and thus clearly understood, and matched to a semantic model.

deadlygopher wrote:More importantly, I take issue that you feel a rules question is “unrequiting pig-headed stupidity of humanity.” If a rules question comes up, it shouldn’t be so beneath you to address it, this is a rules forum after all. In a game situation, call a judge or dice it. What kind of teacher adopts such an attitude?

You should take issue with that concept. However I pointed out that where the rule is clear and unambiguous it was a problem with the readers, not the text. If a rues question comes up it should never be beneath us to address it. However if someone is either unable or unwilling to accept the correct answer to such a question due to their own deficiencies it is hardly unfair for their interlocators to point out that deficiency, whatever its source. A good teacher adopts the attitude that if they've explained the method used to obtain the correct answer, and check that it is so, then the deficiency lies with the student and marks them accordingly. But I'm not a teacher here. I'm just another interlocator whose only duty is to identify the correct method and check the answer obtained.

deadlygopher wrote:Futhermore, even allowing your analysis, it’s not necessarily appropriate to infer a line of reasoning simply because its logical.

Quite true. You cannot judge the appropriateness of a line of reasoning syntactically (though interestingly one can judge relevance on the grounds of pure logic. See: Relevance Logic). One must have a semantic model as well.

deadlygopher wrote:People aren’t mathematicians.

I'd like to apologize for picking your post apart sentence by sentence like this, and I shouldn't, but this is important and needs to be addressed in its own module. I agree that people aren't mathematicians. That's why the practice of mathematics and logic has been adopted, so that objective and well-defined solutions can be found for problems. Where we apply the practices of mathematics and logic to a discussion with care and precision (and a hearty helping of humility everyone on the Internet finds lacking in each other...) we can find solutions without the discussion devolving into nasty bickering, which is not to say that the history of mathematics and logic isn't replete with such unfortunate occurrences, just that advances occur and objective results are obtained when they are absent.

deadlygopher wrote:They pick up a codex and follow common sense reasoning, which is what we should apply when discussing rules. It’s perfectly reasonable to say there’s a top-down/left-to-right approach, because that’s how our eyes trace it.

That's how English readers do it, sure. Other people go bottom-up or right-to-left, or simply switch directions as indicated. To simply assume this without a well-defined reason for doing so opens us up to unresolvable error unless we can step back and evaluate our assumptions and our reasons for positing them. Unfortunately most people only get the barest mathematical training (let alone learning) so they do not casually employ universally effective methods, but merely locally effective methods that may or may not be universalizable to the problems at hand. Indeed, whenever we say something is "perfectly reasonable" we should also provide (if it hasn't already been provided) what schema of reason we are making our judgment of reasonableness by. Some logicians (Tarski most prominently) would suggest this leads to an infinite regress of assumptions and meta-assumptions, but other (perhaps wiser) logicians have shown that this can be avoided by a rigorous account of self-reference. Nonetheless even where we allow for self-reference in regard to putative values of reasonable-ness, we need an explicit account so that when intractable problem cases inevitably arise we can go back armed with important information needed to change our assumptions.

deadlygopher wrote:It’s also reasonable to explore the notion that there is no order, that it’s just a bunch of rules that in the end result must all be valid. That’s why I emphasized precedent. If people did things in an accepted way before they’re likely to approach similar problems in the same way. So that’s why I tried to drive the discussion towards finding the necessary order of rules application, of which I accept your method as viable, and why I asked for the examples I asked for.

It would be reasonable to explore the notion that there is no order if in fact there was no order-schema (there is) or that order-schema failed in certain cases. The question at hand is the latter, being whether it fails in the case of the Ork Boyz entry, which naturally must address what counts as failure, what information is available to support the purportive order-schema, and the relation between them. What seems to count as failure, for some, is the restricted combinatoriality of the Ork Boyz entry. But as I think has been mentioned our expectations about the rules are irrelevant to what the rules actually say and by that stricture no such restricted combinatoriality could count as failure; 'the rules are the rules', one might say.

But with regard to precedent, precedence in these cases is subject to considerations of relevance. What is relevant to the order of upgrades in the Ork Boyz entry is the ordering schema provided in the book itself, and the examples of it also given in the book. What is relevant to our method of deciding what we do with that schema and its examples is a wider matter, the precedents for which are the methods of inquiry used in such a subject, the subject of semantics (not the pejorative talking-past-each-other "Oh, that's just semantics" semantics, but the formal study thereof). Fortunately the basics, which is all we need to decide the question at hand, are available for free on the Internet (which frankly irritates me because the textbooks were damned expensive back in the day). While trying to come up with a specific theory of Warhammer semantics without regard to the established edifice of knowledge is admirable I don't think we have the decades to retrace the steps leading to what is now established logical practice. If only for considerations of convenience we should accept the precedence of knowledge we have available to us, rather than heroically fail in trying to do things in 'back-of the-envelope' way. At worst the unlearned will learn something handy, and at best the problem will be solved and we can devote our time to solving other rule problems.

deadlygopher wrote:You strode into this thread with a theory that so rigid so as to reject out of hand anything that was contrary to it. That works in bullying, and perhaps in certain types of classrooms, but not everywhere. In fact, it smacks at some of that pig-headedness you’re willing to impute to those who would ask a question.

This comment brings me back to my first class in introductory logic, when I didn't understand that it was up to me to pick up the tools and use them rather than simply watch the professor and expect to learn via some magical osmosis. This isn't a classroom, as mentioned, but the problem of attitude is. At least in the classroom there's the assumption that if somebody starts talking about stuff you're not immediately familiar with you either try to find out if it is familiar or try to learn something new, rather than assume they're simply doing it to sound clever (the bane of professors everywhere because there's always one student that tries) or to bully people.

It's interesting that my logic professors back in the day would warn against one trying to use the practices of formal logic "as a club to bludgeon people". They recognized that to people without mathematical training that's exactly what those people, used to the competitive artsy world of 'debate' rather than the co-operative scientific world of analysis (yeah, it happens with people in the empirical sciences too, but virtually unheard of in the formal sciences). What they actually do (as opposed to say to their students), to follow this club analogy, is they bludgeon people anyways after giving them the decent opportunity to select their own club and learn how to use it. I prefer to think of it as providing not only the club, but suggesting that instead of engaging in some sort of silly rhetorical and logical combat to work together in bashing the problem into the shape of an answer. One reason I would suggest this is because I would hardly call the methods of mathematical logic "rigid", although the basic methods of formal semantics are certainly static for the time being. They are flexible, surprisingly user-friendly (one of the main driving forces in their development, there's a reason nobody uses Newton's notation for calculus these days!), and useful for those who are willing to use them rather than assume the worst.

wasn't this the source of much discussion on another thread.

Wasn't what? What is the "this" intended to refer to? Rather hard to answer otherwise.

What irritates me lately about this discussion is how the "NO" camp blissfully and willfully ignores the ability of fighty S&C Boyz to take shooty Rokkit-type upgrades in their argument that shooty Boyz shouldn't have a fighty Nob with PK.

If the designers had somehow intended that shooty shouldn't mix with fighty, why is that expressly allowed for the Boyz?

Again, if the intent were for monolithic bloc Boyz with narrow options, it would have been very easy to separate the units into Shoota Boyz with Rokkits, and S&C Boyz with PK Nobz. But that isn't what the rules have.

In the mean time, I'm going to stop talking about the technical discussion about "entire", because it's pointless to discuss with someone who doesn't have basic English language comprehension skills.

@Nurglitch, I'm really impressed with your patience here. I just can't talk to a wall like you can.

Well, it helps to assume you're talking to a person and not a wall.

JohnHwangDD wrote:What irritates me lately about this discussion is how the "NO" camp blissfully and willfully ignores the ability of fighty S&C Boyz to take shooty Rokkit-type upgrades in their argument that shooty Boyz shouldn't have a fighty Nob with PK.

If the designers had somehow intended that shooty shouldn't mix with fighty, why is that expressly allowed for the Boyz?

Again, if the intent were for monolithic bloc Boyz with narrow options, it would have been very easy to separate the units into Shoota Boyz with Rokkits, and S&C Boyz with PK Nobz. But that isn't what the rules have.

In the mean time, I'm going to stop talking about the technical discussion about "entire", because it's pointless to discuss with someone who doesn't have basic English language comprehension skills.

@Nurglitch, I'm really impressed with your patience here. I just can't talk to a wall like you can.

The argument I had been supporting expressly accounted for why slugga or shoota boyz could have rokkits. Man, seriously, go back and read the posts.

Slightly left by mr Nurglitches very detailed analysis, Shameful really considering i studied computer science at uni, however i'v managed to follow it through in part.

Going back to the 'human' factor, meant in the average joe GW games designer, Its pretty acceptable to assume said average joes are not on par with some of the exceptional logical reasoning displayed above (hense the RAW debates) or apply such rules in the formation of a codex.

Maybe its because I have a 'somewhat' technical background that i read the boyz entry immidately that there was no sequential order to upgrade the character.
It seemed obvious to me without thinking about it that taking a nob swapping the choppa for a PK auto excluded him from the s+c to s swap.

I just think the whole thing isnt really written to any real well formed elegant structure and is infact a mish mash of cut'n'pastes from other entries and just pure bad writing.

For example:

As i remember reading there are references to 'mob' in the options. However what is a mob? I can give my mob of orks a rokkit in exchange for something. However currently I dont know what a mob is. It is obvious using the most basic of common sense that the mob is the unit of boyz as a whole, but from what i can remember this is never defined.

What is an Ork? It says Orks in the mob can be upgraded. The unit entry mentions Boy and Nob, Later it mentions 'Ork Boyz' but is that the same as an Ork in the reference used the 'options' section and in that vain why do i remember seeing that the option for a Nob upgrade in infact from a 'boy' to a 'nob'. Should this not be from Ork to Nob like the options above?

The Battlewagon says you can "Take 'any' of the following:"
Killcannon.
etc...

The use of the word any is a bit odd here, does that mean i can take 400kill cannons on my battle wagon? Even later options make it explicit that you can only take a certain number of them e.g. 4 big shootas etcc. Of course it 'means' take any as in any combination of one upgrade e.g. one killcannon, one boarding plank etc... but there is room for debate.

I know its anal and silly the above, but its just an example of how in depth reading of GW products can cause mental stress. For example if the space marine codex had such bad model naming conventions space marine sergeants could take plasmaguns.

Just to mirky the waters even more, if you look at the new Ork Spearhead box, it clearly shows a squad of Boyz with Shootas and a PK Nob.

http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.us?do=List_Models&code=301952&orignav=9&ParentID=259754&GameNav=301466

Latro_ wrote:It seemed obvious to me without thinking about it that taking a nob swapping the choppa for a PK auto excluded him from the s+c to s swap.

That's the problem with the obvious. It tends to make one overlook the evidence. Yes, that is a quote from Grissom on CSI: Las Vegas...

ubermosher: How does that muddy the waters? It appears to be consistent with close-reading of the Ork Boyz unit entry.

I saw in the latest White Dwarf that Phil Kelly fielded a squad of Shoota Boyz with a nob sporting a power klaw.

- G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I saw in the latest White Dwarf that Phil Kelly fielded a squad of Shoota Boyz with a nob sporting a power klaw.

- G

It dosent matter how much evidence you show, some people just will not let it go. Frankly I think they have nightmares at night of losing badly in grand tourneys to hundreds of power klaw armed orks.

LOL! Well I will say that Phil did write the new codex... maybe that is something. ; )

- G

Plenty of people seem to have avoided registering dissent.

I think that it's a typo of sorts. A Nob should be able to replace whatever he is carrying for upgraded equipment. I've taken my shoota squads and "DenNobbed" them since this debate has started just in case, but I'm really pretty certain it'll come out that you can.

I'm looking forward to the FAQ, but also dreading it. I'm really worried they'll take something we're all happy with and make it bathroom material again when people who've had cheese on their crackers for the last seven years start whining.............I'm already hearing it in some of the games I've played.



wOOkie

just played a game at a local GW.. nobody had an issue with the klaw nob in my shoota boyz everyone was cool with it

NaZ

sugarwookie wrote:
I'm looking forward to the FAQ, but also dreading it. I'm really worried they'll take something we're all happy with and make it bathroom material again when people who've had cheese on their crackers for the last seven years start whining.............I'm already hearing it in some of the games I've played.

Given the fact that they haven't released a FAQ for the Eldar, DA or Chaos codex, there is a chance we'll never see an Ork FAQ and if we do who knows how long it will be?

There isn't a need for an FAQ. The codex is pretty self explanatory. GW even included a map to the army list entries so people could understand the scheme they were using.

I really think that this can go to rest now, having seen the latest White Dwarf.

The guy that WROTE the codex, Phil Kelly, included a power klaw and slugga armed Nob in a mob of shoota boyz. HE WROTE THE CODEX. If it was something that is not allowed, would he do it, and who would be best to know?

That's right.

Let's just let it go.

What about the guy that had Chaos not be entangled from a destroyed Rhino in White Dwarf?

I would think that is a main rulebook rule, and I doubt that he alone wrote the main rulebook. I could see something like that being missed - i would forget that part since I played more games back before Entanglement than with it being part of the ruleset.

I would find it hard to understand how the guy that wrote the codex was writing up his army list and got to that point where he's choosing how to arm a nob and just said "I can cheat out this little part here".

If he did it, then he meant it to work a certain way. I'll use that as my argument any day, and if I have to carry that White Dwarf around with me to slap down this argument should it come up when I play, then so be it.

Grimteef: It's not unknown for designers to misuse their own designers. After all the finished product is only one of a number of designers that the designer considered and still clutters up their head!

That said the rules published in the codex agree with the army composition in the White Dwarf battle report. The entire unit may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas. If a Nob has replaced its slugga or its choppa the Nob no longer has a slugga and choppa to trade in.

Nurglitch wrote:

That said the rules published in the codex agree with the army composition in the White Dwarf battle report.

Er, i don't understand...I just don't see why they agree. I mean, the codex says the shoota-nob can't have a claw, the battle report-nob has one...
Please explain to me why it agrees, i just do't see it :S

Nurglitch wrote:

The entire unit may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas. If a Nob has replaced its slugga or its choppa the Nob no longer has a slugga and choppa to trade in.

Yes, but that just happened in the report, why do you state that here?

Please don't feel offrended, i just feel confused

I am with Grimteef. It's very simple really.

- G

FuzzyOrb wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:

That said the rules published in the codex agree with the army composition in the White Dwarf battle report.

Er, i don't understand...I just don't see why they agree.

I mean, the codex says the shoota-nob can't have a claw, the battle report-nob has one...
Please explain to me why it agrees, i just do't see it :S

The reason they agree is because the Codex allows a Shoota Nob to have a Klaw, as in the battle report. If you don't understand, read the thread completely, focusing on my comments and Nurglitch's comments.

I doubt anybody has any interest in explaining the thing again, when it should be clear to a reader of standard English.

Well, i read the thread (again) and i understand all of your arguments.
I agree (and am happy with the fact) that the E-Klaw on the shoota nob is possible,
ASSUMING that the usage of the term "Valid" is right here.

But that leads us to another question:
How is the Nob with S&C (and nothing more) possible in a shoota mob? (<--As seen in the codex)
When the mob exchanges its S&Cs to shootas, the nob is "valid" (having S&C).
So why doesn't he exchange his weaponary?

I hope some of you still have fun with discussing after all this thread .
Thanks for all suggestions!

Ork players have a common bond of brotherhood in wackyness. If one of our boyz was disqualified at a GT for an illegal list citing the shotty wording on the klaw rules, a mighty waagh would summon all of the boyz in da room, until the judge overturned his ruling else be washed away in the angry green tide!

Seriously though in a friendly game it shouldnt matter, and at any tournament where more than a win loss streak is on the line, I cant ever see that being a DQ. At my lfgs and the slightly longer drive GW store, they agree the wording is bad, but nobs being able to have klaws in shoota boy mobs is clearly intended. Knowing ahead of time I wont be penalized because someone tries to slick talk the organizer is good enough for me.

Thats not the point of the discussion at this time Orock I beleive everyone is willing to play with 'agreed on' terms. Such as the flamer issue. Such as the 'multi wounds issues' and other less RAW and more RAI issues. This discussion is certainly just trying to come to a complete concensus on RAW for the sake of RAW alone.

Modus Ponens:

A1. If A then B
A2. A
C. Therefore B (1 & 2, MP)

Conjunction:

A1. A
A2. B
C. Therefore A & B (1 & 2, Conj)

The Ork Codex:

Rule: Exchange Slugga and Choppa for a Shoota:
A1. If (A & B) then C

Condition: Boyz have Slugga and Choppa:
A2. A & B

Consequence: Boyz have Shootas
C. Therefore C

Nob
Rule: Exchange Slugga and Choppa for a Shoota:
A1. If (A & B) then C

Condition 1: Nob has Slugga and Power Klaw
A2. A & D

Consequence: Nob does not upgrade Slugga and Power Klaw for a Shoota
C. Therefore not C.

Ok, i got this one.
As i said, i totally agree.

but once again, how is the Nob with S&C in a shoota-mob possible?
It seems to me that it is against your logic.

How does it seem against my logic?

Technically, I think it's not possible for Nob to have S&C when the Boyz exchange for Shootas.

The entire Mob is supposed to exchange S&C for Shootas, and the Nob is part of the Mob armed with S&C. So he should be obliged to swap for Shoota as well.

The only way around this is if a Nob isn't part of the Mob, or if the exchange rule were to say "all Boyz may exchange".

Nob
Rule: Exchange Slugga and Choppa for a Shoota:
A1. If (A & B) then C

Condition: Nob does not upgrade Choppa for Power Klaw, so Nob has Slugga and Choppa:
A2. A & B

Consequence: Nob has Shoota
C. Therefore C

I am thinking of a veteran sergeant in a Space Marine squad that can take options as an analogy.


- G

I love the people still arguing against the point when the designer himself has left clues all through the codex and White Dwarf of the intended structure of the rule.

Some people don't give up. I guess it denotes a level of perseverence...but if your not careful where you push you might end up falling off a cliff.

I don't know, I wouldn't bring "pictures in the book" as
evidence of much. I do prefer the RAW attempts to untangle
the codex as pictures can be deceiving.

At least that's what I'm reading when you say that they
left "clues." A rulebook shouldn't have clues. It should have
rules.

I was going to say that exactly. I wish it had been worded less ambigously.

That is all fine and dandy...and when they get the rules nice and crisp then we will have those...

But until then we use what we have. I'm of the camp that follows the rules they way they are implemented, and every implementation of them so far has been for the PK Nob in Shoota squad. Until there is a crisp rule saying otherwise we don't have much to go on.

Either way you look at it, people are streching "intent" to match their opinion.

I'll follow the footsteps of the designer, as he gives examples in 2 places. I guess you can blame it on my major in History. You can only use what evidence exists. When there is nothing but small bits of information to use as a basis for opinions you don't have much of a choice. Even with a small base of information you cannot form definitives. There is no such thing as a "fact" in history. Anything can be argued. That is the point we are at right now. We have extremely limited knowledge, from which, some very serious opinions must be formed.

To debate the point of this thread, if you intend on doing it seriously, you cannot discard the images in the codex and White Dwarf. If you do so you lose all credibility for your argument. You don't have to agree with what you see...but you cannot disregard it. Ignoring it would be like blaming the American Civil War on slavery and slavery alone. You are forgetting the struggle for resources, the different social structures of the north and south and the conflict that caused, and many other factors. They are all evidence of what was to come. You cannot disregard one factor of the problem simply because it does not agree with your point of view.

I am by no means saying that the PK Nob in a Shoota squad is a definitive fact. I just choose to form my opinion from the illustraded intent of the designer. It is all the solid evidence we have at this moment in time.<shrug>

Edited: Looked like monkeys had beaten my keyboard in an attempt to convey a message. Had to make it readable

The people who say the nob cannot take a power klaw have been playing with semantics throughout this thread.

- G

JohnHwangDD wrote:Technically, I think it's not possible for Nob to have S&C when the Boyz exchange for Shootas.

The entire Mob is supposed to exchange S&C for Shootas, and the Nob is part of the Mob armed with S&C. So he should be obliged to swap for Shoota as well.

The only way around this is if a Nob isn't part of the Mob, or if the exchange rule were to say "all Boyz may exchange".

So suppose there was a unit that contained undefined numbers of grogs and gribs. Gribs start with levers, while grogs start with nuts and bolts. Now, if this unit had an option for the entire unit to exchange their nuts and bolts for eggs, then it wouldn't be a problem for the gribs because, although part of the unit, the entire unit, and nothing but the unit, they do not meet the necessary and sufficient condition for that transaction. That transaction requires that a model be a part of the unit and that the model has the things being exchanged.

Similarly if a player upgrades their Nob's Choppa to a Power Klaw, then when it comes time to upgrade the entire unit to shootas the Nob lacks a necessary condition to being upgraded to having a Shoota, having a Choppa.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Nob
Rule: Exchange Slugga and Choppa for a Shoota:
A1. If (A & B) then C

Condition: Nob does not upgrade Choppa for Power Klaw, so Nob has Slugga and Choppa:
A2. A & B

Consequence: Nob has Shoota
C. Therefore C

Here I'm going to have to point out that yes, if the Nob has a Slugga and a Choppa, and the entire unit exchanges Slugga and Choppa for a Shoota, then the Nob makes the exchange and now has a Slugga. However, as you will notice it does not contradict the original schema showing how a Nob that has exchanged its Choppa for a Power Klaw does not have a Slugga and Choppa and thus does not exhange his Slugga and Choppa for a Shoota when the Shoota upgrade is applied.

Rule: The Nob may exchange Choppa for Power Klaw
A1. If B then D

Rule: All models with a Slugga and Choppa may exchange Slugga and Choppa for a Shoota:
A2. If (A & B) then C

Condition: All models in the unit, Boyz and Nobz, initially have a Slugga and Choppa
A3. A & B

Condition: The Nob has a Choppa since all models in the unit have one.
4. B (3. Simplification)

Consequence: The Nob has a Slugga and Power Klaw
5. D (1 & 4, Modus Ponens)

Consequence: The Boyz have Shootas
6. C (2 & 3, Modus Ponens)

If you really want to be rigorous about it then you need to add in the modal operators to cover "may" (<> for 'it is possible that', [] for 'it is actually the case that') and the quantifiers to cover the difference between the entire mob (U for univeral or entire) and one model in the mob (the Nob, E for existential or not entire).

A1. <>(Ex)(Nm & Bx) → [](Ex)(Nb & Dx)
A2. <>(Ux)(Uy)(My & (Ax & Bx)) → [](Ex)(Ey)(My & Cx)
A3. [](Ux)(Uy)(My & (Ax & Bx))
4a. [](Ux)(Uy)(My & (Ax & Bx)) (3, Commutation)
4b. [](Ux)(Uy)((My & Bx) & Ax) (4a, Association)
4c. [](Ux)((Nm & Bx) & Ax) (4b, Universal Instantiation)
4d. [](Ux)(Nm & Bx) (4c, Simplification)
4e. [](Ex)(Nm & Bx) (4d, Universal Weakening)
4f. <>(Ex)(Nm & Bx) (4e, Modal Weakening)
5. [](Ex)(Nb & Dx) (1 & 4, Modus Ponens)
6a. <>(Ux)(Uy)(My & (Ax & Bx)) (3, Modal Weakening)
6b. [](Ex)(Uy)(My & Cx) (2 & 3, Modus Ponens)
6c. [](Ex)(Bm & Cx) (6b, Universal Instantiation)

Since we know that Nobz are not Boyz we know that:

Boyz models are not Nobz models
A7. Bm ≠ Nm

And that if a Nob has a Power Klaw then it is not a Boy and does not have a Shoota
8. [](Ex)(Nb & Dx) → ~[](Ex)(Bm & Cx)

Astute readers will notice that how this argument works is a classic feature of linear logics, the consumption of material. Since the upgrade to the Nob happens first, the Nob is not upgraded when the entire mob is upgraded. Conversely had we applied the upgrade to the entire mob first, then the Nob would have been upgraded to a Shoota instead of a Power Klaw (or Big Choppa). Since the order to upgrades is Characters first (since "...additional options depending on whether an associated character is taken" applies to the associated character, the Nob, taken) and upgrades may only be given to models that have it available (the upgrades apply to the model and not exclusive of each other like Mega-Armour and Bikes) where the Nob is upgraded first it does not meet the conditions for upgrading to a Shoota when the entire mob does.

Alright, we have finally reached the point where we all say the same in our individual words. :-)
Can a discussion turn out any better?^^
Really, the thread it a nice example of people arguing and finally forming a consense.
Sad that it can't always be like this

Nurglitch wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Technically, I think it's not possible for Nob to have S&C when the Boyz exchange for Shootas.

Similarly if a player upgrades their Nob's Choppa to a Power Klaw, then when it comes time to upgrade the entire unit to shootas the Nob lacks a necessary condition to being upgraded to having a Shoota, having a Choppa.

Here I'm going to have to point out that yes, if the Nob has a Slugga and a Choppa, and the entire unit exchanges Slugga and Choppa for a Shoota, then the Nob makes the exchange and now has a Slugga.

However, as you will notice it does not contradict the original schema showing how a Nob that has exchanged its Choppa for a Power Klaw does not have a Slugga and Choppa and thus does not exhange his Slugga and Choppa for a Shoota when the Shoota upgrade is applied.

Thanks for confirming things in long form. And I'm aware there is no contradiction - it's how you give a Nob a Shoota.

I think you were just a little incomplete earlier for not covering the base case Nob, which is why I jumped in earlier.

If you were aware that there was no contradiction, then why would you say "Technically, I think it's not possible for Nob to have S&C when the Boyz exchange for Shootas"?

Because of this exchange:

FuzzyOrb wrote:how is the Nob with S&C in a shoota-mob possible?
It seems to me that it is against your logic.

Nurglitch wrote:How does it seem against my logic?

You never answered the original question, so I answered it.

I did answer the original question, I asked how the Nob with a Slugga and a Choppa in a mob otherwise armed with Shootas was against my logic. Asking that someone specific a claim they're making is the only useful answer one can give to such questions. Sometimes a question is an answer.

Had my question been answered, or my interlocators explained themselves more fully, I might have clued in sooner that discussion had moved from discussing Nobz armed with Sluggas and Power Klaws to Sluggas and Choppas. But then I wouldn't have finally gritted my teeth and illustrated the operation of the rule.

Still, I would have appreciated someone taking the time to say: "Oh, we were talking about Sluggas and Choppas here, you got mixed up!"

got news...

few hour ago, when i was in a (german) GW store, the redshirts recieved an e-mail with an official Ork-FAQ.
It stated clearly that the PK is not possible in a shoota mob.
Same is true for S&C on a shoota-nob.

well, that was unexpected...

A Slugga and a Choppa on a Nob in a mob armed with Shootas is not permitted by the rules in the Codex. So no surprise there. A Nob with a Power Klaw is permitted by the rules in the Codex, but considering jaffes like the Kustom Force Field it's not unexpected that GW mispoke itself yet again.

http://download.games-workshop.biz/118#

Er, the link you posted leads to an FAQ of the old codex. Is this intended?

Huh. Guess I should have read it more carefully before I posted.

Anyone know what this german word is?

Energiekrallä

It's the PK, written in the typical orken (wrong ) way.

Energy Claw! The Tankbusta translation is the best: Panzaknackaz!

It's the PK, written in the typical orken (wrong ) way.

Except they have Energieklaua also in the same paragraph. Which is what made me think it was something else.

Wonder why the Germans are the only ones getting the much needed FAQ.

GW Germany is more methodical and precise?

I wish this was true.
The (latest) german faq only tried to whipe out translation errors (wich it did not, in fact ).
But then they wrote that PK-entry and even more questions came up .
As i said, the link above refers to an year-old FAQ...

RAW... no

If faced with an ork army with a power claw armed shoota boyz nob would I allow it... yes

Reviving a dead thread here..Just noticed something that might shed a little light on this discussion.

In the codex, on page 82, there is an Ork Horde army list. "unit 7" shows the Nob armed with a Choppa and Slugga, while all the boys have shootas.

I suppose it isn't anything really concrete, but while the rest of the models were put together meticulously to represent their equipment, it seems mildly unlikely that, IF the rule was intended to prevent the PK nob, that they would overlook it in this instance.

The real point is little more clear: If you take the upgrades in order, The boyz trade choppas and sluggas for shootas, and then they upgrade to a Nob, the Nob would have basic equipment (listed in the Codex as a Choppa and Slugga) allowing the powerclaw.

RAW: no.
RAI: I dont know.
Personally yes.

Naturally I think a nob should be allowed to take a power klaw even if joined into a shoota mob, the big problem is RAW.

I hope GW will release an ork codex FAQ soon (have they already?).

According to warseer ( http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131436 ) there's a new german ork FAQ out that says:

"on p. 100, change the text as following:
The boss may exchange all of his weapons for Slugga and big choppa for x points or Slugga and PK for y points"

I know this doesn't mean much for the naysayers, but it could be an indication of the direction of any future GW FAQ.

82% to 18% with 136 votes smells like consensus to me.

The GT rulings say you cant take pk to your ork nob.

Well, the GT rulings haven't always been the most accurate or well-thought-out things; at times, they've essentially been a couple employees' bias on the rules.

Wait for the FAQ, or come to some consensus with your regular gaming group.

Kallbrand wrote:The GT rulings say you cant take pk to your ork nob.

I'll take official errata over a poorly done FAQ that's specific to a tournament any day. Then again, considering the overall quality (or lack thereof) of the GT FAQ, I'm quite convinced that I'd get more accurate game rulings from a lobotomized platypus on crystal meth.

I asked Phil Kelly this question at adepticon. He said that you can indeed have a PK in a shootaboy unit. I'm sure you hardcore folks will still insist you can't unitl it's officially in a GW fAQ though.

I don't know German, but from the couple words I learned in this thread that does indeed say "power claw and something" for that points cost [and that's pretty standard powerfist price across most S4 models now].

And that's listed as 2008, so I'd say it's not talking about the old ork codex.

Phil Kelly told several people (including me) at Adepticon that he meant for Shoota mobs to be able to take Powerklaw Nobs and that when the FAQs roll out along with 5th edition that the Ork FAQ will in fact support this idea.

So if anyone is 'on the fence' wondering if they should go ahead and buy and assemble shootas I think you can feel fairly confident that this is a 'safe' thing to do.


Phil's comments also put a pretty large hole in the argument that the UKGT house rules are somehow influenced by the design studio.

GW is a many headed hydra.

There's a reason 2 man companies have taken away large portions of the mini market.

Oh and I swear I said this after the LVGT. Same guy and everything.

Stelek wrote:GW is a many headed hydra.

There's a reason 2 man companies have taken away large portions of the mini market.

Oh and I swear I said this after the LVGT. Same guy and everything.

I know you said it, but the more people who can confirm having heard something, the less likely others will believe its just something we're making up.

But we ARE making it up.

Same thing with the DE book.

Oops, was that my out loud voice?

Naughty, cynical Stelek.

Stop typing what others are thinking.......

Hi guys

i always seem to lurk on Dakka but post on warseer! odd..

Anyway, a week or so ago I wrote Phil Kelly a snail mail letter about this and he replied via Email today:

http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139358

The intention always was they can, and it'll be in the next FAQ, which rumour has will be in july for the 5th ed release.

Considering it's what the book says, this comes as no surprise whatsoever. Thanks Latro_