Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Crimson wrote:
RAI is actually perfectly clear. When GW intends any model to have an upgrade, they write 'any model', when they they specify which model can take the upgrade, then it is meant for that model only. They do not hide upgrades in easter eggs for clever rules lawyers to find.

RaI may seem clear in this instance, but is, as always, utterly unknowable without speaking directly to the author.

And saying the hide upgrade in easter eggs is giving them too much credit. The sad reality is most likely that they simply lack the technical acumen to translate their intentions into effective, clear and concise rules.

Rules lawyer has the negative connotation of someone who is trying to exploit the rules for advantage and I don't think is fair to say. I don't consider myself a rule lawyer, but do genuinely enjoy a debate on how to interpret what was ACTUALLY written down. It's not a clever easter egg upgrade if it's printed in black and white. You need to divorce yourself from your beliefs and expectations and only read what GW has written. We all know that GW doesn't want Terminators to ride Bikes. By critically examining the rules, we can see that what GW ACTUALLY wrote allows us to field a Terminator Chapter Master riding a Bike. That's why we differentiate between RaW, RaI and HIWPI...

RaW - Biker Chapter Masters can take Terminator Armour.
RaI - GW most likely doesn't want Biker Chapter Masters to take Terminator Armour.
HIWPI - I wouldn't give a Biker Chapter Master a suit of Terminator Armour, but would allow an opponent to do so as it is current RaW.

 Kriswall wrote:
RaW - Biker Chapter Masters can take Terminator Armour.

Only if you believe in a strict 'top to bottom, one and done' method of determining legality instead of an 'end of operations' method. Can you show us which method is used for determining legality as written in the rules?

 Ghaz wrote:

morgoth wrote:
On the contrary, you have not shown that there even is a list legality check.

Which means that you can't know if it's RAW because you don't know how to check if it's legal.

There is no legality check. The rules tell you how to build an army. At a very high level, you choose a detachment or formation, then choose a unit to fill a spot and then choose options for that unit before moving to the next unit or detachment.

So long as you're following the rules on how to build an army, you should end up with an army. There is nothing in the rules about a "post list creation validation check", so talking about list legality check RaW is pointless.

I decide to take a Space Marine Combined Arms Detachment.
I decide to take a Space Marine Chapter Master to fulfill the Mandatory HQ slot.
I decide to take the Space Marine Bike option in the unit entry. (The Bike is being taken by a model equipped with Power Armour and is therefore a valid choice.)
I decide to take the Terminator Armour option in the unit entry. (Again, this is a valid selection for a Power Armoured model. There is no restriction regarding Bike riding Marines taking Terminator Armour... only one about the reverse situation.)
I decide to take no further options for my Space Marine Chapter Master and move on to my Mandatory Troops slot...
etc.

I've obeyed every rule and ended up with a Terminator on a Bike. The restriction we want to apply, and that makes a RaI sense to apply is that models wearing Terminator Armour are restricted from taking Bikes. The issue with this is that, as you can see in the above sequence, at the point during which the Chapter Master takes the Bike, he is wearing Power Armour. It's a legal list that likely breaks RaI, but is compliant with strict RaW.

At no point in the process am I asked by the rules to go back and validate that a unit is equipped with legal options. At no point in the rules is there a clause saying that I need to make sure no Terminator has somehow been mounted on a bike. There is no post unit selection validation.

There is a legality check, otherwise any model could take any upgrade even if the option is for a different type of model. So again, why are you claiming a 'top to bottom, one and done' legality check is RAW when the rules make no mention of it?

 Crimson wrote:
When GW intends any model to have an upgrade, they write 'any model', when they they specify which model can take the upgrade, then it is meant for that model only.

Expecting GW to use consistent wording across the board is the road to disappointment.

GW have a long history of mostly using consistent wording, and then throwing in the odd different one just for giggles.

They do not hide upgrades in easter eggs for clever rules lawyers to find.

Not intentionally, anyway.

The issue comes with trying to determine which options are easter eggs and which are intentional.

 Ghaz wrote:
There is a legality check, otherwise any model could take any upgrade even if the option is for a different type of model. So again, why are you claiming a 'top to bottom, one and done' legality check is RAW when the rules make no mention of it?

I'm not claiming any legality check at all past the "you're supposed to follow the rules and not intentionally break them" one. Presumably, you'd check to see if you're following the rules every time you take an action?

I give my Chapter Master a Bike. Did I break a rule? No.
I subsequently give my Chapter Master Terminator Armour. Did I break a rule? No.

Terminator Armoured Marines can't take Bikes. That never happened. A Power Armoured Marine took a Bike. A Power Armoured Marine riding a Bike took Terminator Armour. Strictly speaking, neither action is prohibited.

Well using common sense one would assume that a CM can't take the bike and then the Terminator armor, because he can't take the Terminator armor and then the bike.

 BrotherStynier wrote:
Well using common sense one would assume that a CM can't take the bike and then the Terminator armor, because he can't take the Terminator armor and then the bike.

Common sense is applicable for HIWPI. It has no place in a RaW discussion!

 Kriswall wrote:

 BrotherStynier wrote:
Well using common sense one would assume that a CM can't take the bike and then the Terminator armor, because he can't take the Terminator armor and then the bike.

Common sense is applicable for HIWPI. It has no place in a RaW discussion!

Fair enough!

 BrotherStynier wrote:
Well using common sense one would assume that a CM can't take the bike and then the Terminator armor, because he can't take the Terminator armor and then the bike.

Which, as I said before, is sufficient to suggest that it's probably an error. We'd know for sure if GW still believed in supporting their game.

It doesn't do much, however, to tell us how to apply the options in a completely different unit entry.

 insaniak wrote:

 BrotherStynier wrote:
Well using common sense one would assume that a CM can't take the bike and then the Terminator armor, because he can't take the Terminator armor and then the bike.

Which, as I said before, is sufficient to suggest that it's probably an error. We'd know for sure if GW still believed in supporting their game.

It doesn't do much, however, to tell us how to apply the options in a completely different unit entry.

Yes it does, it is exactly the same situation.

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm not claiming any legality check at all past the "you're supposed to follow the rules and not intentionally break them" one. Presumably, you'd check to see if you're following the rules every time you take an action?

Except you are intentionally breaking the rules by claiming you can do so by ignoring any upgrades you've already taken when determining if something is legal. What leads you to believe that you ignore any other actions when determining if its legal?

 insaniak wrote:

 BrotherStynier wrote:
Well using common sense one would assume that a CM can't take the bike and then the Terminator armor, because he can't take the Terminator armor and then the bike.

Which, as I said before, is sufficient to suggest that it's probably an error. We'd know for sure if GW still believed in supporting their game.

It doesn't do much, however, to tell us how to apply the options in a completely different unit entry.

Then I put forth that if someone wants to use Apothecaries with options they should play either a Red Scorpions army, or a HH Army. At least for the time being.

 Crimson wrote:
Yes it does, it is exactly the same situation.

So?

We can assume the Chapter Master entry is a mistake because it leads to a silly conclusion. The Apothecary issue doesn't. It just leads to Apothecaries potentially having something other than a bolt pistol in their hand.

So we have no way to know for sure if they're both errors, or if just the CM entry is in error. You can guess that they both are wrong, but a guess is all it can be.

 insaniak wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yes it does, it is exactly the same situation.

So?

We can assume the Chapter Master entry is a mistake because it leads to a silly conclusion. The Apothecary issue doesn't. It just leads to Apothecaries potentially having something other than a bolt pistol in their hand.

So we have no way to know for sure if they're both errors, or if just the CM entry is in error. You can guess that they both are wrong, but a guess is all it can be.

There is no error in either. There merely is an universal unstated assumption that the end result must be legal, no matter the order you choose stuff; terminators cannot have bikes and apotecharies cannot have veteran weapons. You could argue that this is not RAW but I'm 100% certain it is the RAI.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm not claiming any legality check at all past the "you're supposed to follow the rules and not intentionally break them" one. Presumably, you'd check to see if you're following the rules every time you take an action?

Except you are intentionally breaking the rules by claiming you can do so by ignoring any upgrades you've already taken when determining if something is legal. What leads you to believe that you ignore any other actions when determining if its legal?

I'm not ignoring past upgrades. I'm ignoring FUTURE upgrades as they haven't happened yet.

When I take the Bike, it's a legal choice.
Subsequently, when I take the Terminator Armour, it's a legal choice.

Show me the rule saying a Chapter Master on a Bike can't take Terminator Armour.

While doing so, keep in mind that I don't care about the fact that a Chapter Master in Terminator Armour can't take a Bike. My Chapter Master is in Power Armour when he selects the Bike. This is a critical distinction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yes it does, it is exactly the same situation.

So?

We can assume the Chapter Master entry is a mistake because it leads to a silly conclusion. The Apothecary issue doesn't. It just leads to Apothecaries potentially having something other than a bolt pistol in their hand.

So we have no way to know for sure if they're both errors, or if just the CM entry is in error. You can guess that they both are wrong, but a guess is all it can be.

There is no error in either. There merely is an universal unstated assumption that the end result must be legal, no matter the order you choose stuff; terminators cannot have bikes and apotecharies cannot have veteran weapons. You could argue that this is not RAW but I'm 100% certain it is the RAI.

I'm also fairly certain it's RaI. Thankfully, we aren't arguing RaI. We're arguing RaW. What is your opinion on RaW?

 Kriswall wrote:

I'm also fairly certain it's RaI. Thankfully, we aren't arguing RaI. We're arguing RaW. What is your opinion on RaW?

That as long as we agree on RAI, I don't care and arguing over it is pointless.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

I'm also fairly certain it's RaI. Thankfully, we aren't arguing RaI. We're arguing RaW. What is your opinion on RaW?

That as long as we agree on RAI, I don't care and arguing over it is pointless.

Then why are you posting on YMDC? This board is about RaW.

 Crimson wrote:
There is no error in either. There merely is an universal unstated assumption that the end result must be legal, no matter the order you choose stuff; terminators cannot have bikes and apotecharies cannot have veteran weapons. You could argue that this is not RAW but I'm 100% certain it is the RAI.

You can be as certain as you like, but a rule that requires an unwritten assumption in order to function as intended is an error. Because not everyone is going to make that same assumption... as evidenced by the Apothecary argument.

 Kriswall wrote:

Then why are you posting on YMDC? This board is about RaW.

No it is not, it is about rules, and often attempting to decipher the intent behind the rule is quite important (at least if the intent is to actually play the game instead of engaging sophistry.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
There is no error in either. There merely is an universal unstated assumption that the end result must be legal, no matter the order you choose stuff; terminators cannot have bikes and apotecharies cannot have veteran weapons. You could argue that this is not RAW but I'm 100% certain it is the RAI.

You can be as certain as you like, but a rule that requires an unwritten assumption in order to function as intended is an error. Because not everyone is going to make that same assumption... as evidenced by the Apothecary argument.

I'd call that 'imprecision' rather than 'error', but indeed it would be nice if that was actually clearly stated.

If a veteran just got a narthecium, I would be fine with him taking war gear, as he is still a veteran.

But, since he becomes a different model, with it's own name, with it's own stat line in the codex, I am going to say that it cannot take or retain any upgrades that specify it is used by a veteran. Same deal with the company champion, sergeants, chapter champion...

For for quick reference,

How many people think;

- Apothecaries do get access to the options

- Apothecaries do not get access to the options

Just on that basic level, not using the Chapter Master buying the Bike and then the TDA argument.

I will add a poll

 BrotherStynier wrote:
For for quick reference,

How many people think;

- Apothecaries do get access to the options

- Apothecaries do not get access to the options

Just on that basic level, not using the Chapter Master buying the Bike and then the TDA argument.

Apothecaries don't have access to options. I don't think anyone is saying they do. Veterans do. The real question is whether or not Veterans are allowed to use the Veteran options before becoming Apothecaries.

The poll - is it HYWPI, or what you think RAW is?

For example, I don't think it is legal, yet it would not stop me from playing against someone who does it.

Then I think, and I know this goes against YMDC logic, but we go with common sense and say, No veterans are not allowed to use the Veteran Options before becoming an Apothecary because Apothecaries are not allowed to have them.

How would you phrase the poll then?

 Happyjew wrote:
The poll - is it HYWPI, or what you think RAW is?

For example, I don't think it is legal, yet it would not stop me from playing against someone who does it.

RaW.

HYWPI, I would just go off the slightly outdated FW ruling for Tac Sgts becoming Apothecaries via Chapter Tactics.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Then why are you posting on YMDC? This board is about RaW.

No it is not, it is about rules, and often attempting to decipher the intent behind the rule is quite important (at least if the intent is to actually play the game instead of engaging sophistry.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
There is no error in either. There merely is an universal unstated assumption that the end result must be legal, no matter the order you choose stuff; terminators cannot have bikes and apotecharies cannot have veteran weapons. You could argue that this is not RAW but I'm 100% certain it is the RAI.

You can be as certain as you like, but a rule that requires an unwritten assumption in order to function as intended is an error. Because not everyone is going to make that same assumption... as evidenced by the Apothecary argument.

I'd call that 'imprecision' rather than 'error', but indeed it would be nice if that was actually clearly stated.

I don't appreciate the implication that I'm using false arguments in an effort to deceive.

Any attempt to decipher intent is doomed to failure in the sense that we can never, ever know intent without a further clarifying comment by the authors. Deciding whether or not the rules as written on the page allow something to happen is another story entirely. That's what I'm trying to do here. I could care less about authorial intent as it's not relevant to the actual words on the page.

The question is whether or not what is actually written on the page allows you to field an Apothecary wielding a Special Weapon. The intended answer is likely no. What do the rules actually say?

The further question is whether or not what is actually written on the page allows you to field a Chapter Master in Terminator Armour riding a Bike. The intended answer is likely no. What do the rules actually say?

I am unable to find anything in the actual written rules preventing either of these scenarios. I have yet to see anyone post any actual written rules preventing either of these scenarios.

Let's just agree that RaI is probably a no and decide whether or not the rules can provide a consensus and what that consensus is.

Ideally, at the end of the debate, we could go to GW and say "We suspect you didn't want to allow A and B to occur, but the rules you wrote allow them to occur. Do we need an errata?".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Poll choices are awful. Apothecaries aren't Veterans. They used to be Veterans. Sigh.

 Kriswall wrote:

Any attempt to decipher intent is doomed to failure in the sense that we can never, ever know intent without a further clarifying comment by the authors.

Really? And yet somehow you managed to conclude that:

The intended answer is likely no.

My point was that arguing over what the RAW is is pointless, if you're not going to play that way anyway. For editions by RAW models without eyes couldn't shoot, yet that fact was completely irrelevant, as everyone played by obvious RAI.