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.

In the Space Wolf Codex, the entry under Wolf Scouts reads as follows.

"The entire squad may be equiped with frag grenades at an additional cost of +1 pt per model and meltabombs at an additional cost of +4 pts."

The lack of per model after the cost of 4 points for meltabombs inplys that meltabombs cost a flat 4 points for the entire unit.

This codex has been around for nearly a decade, it has not been FAQ's or Errata'd for clarification, and I am sure I am not the first person to notice this.

RAI would say that its +4 points per model, but RAW its +4 points for the unit.

Also, GW does not have a problem with fixing this exact same issue, as evident in the WHFB Vampire Counts army book, Grave Guard are listed as being able to equip Greatswords for +1 point, but it has been Errata'd to 1 point per model as per
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1610175_Vampire_Counts_FAQ_2008-05_Edition.pdf

I have been fielding my Scouts like this for some time now, and recently some arguement has arisien from it.

What do you all think?

No, the Per Model is Implied, but it is still per model.

Try and play it at 4 points for the unit will result in no-one playing you, as it is neither RaW or RaI

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:No, the Per Model is Implied, but it is still per model.

Try and play it at 4 points for the unit will result in no-one playing you, as it is neither RaW or RaI

I have gone to tournaments and when questioned about the point cost, i simply show the tourney organizers and it has been allowed every time.

also, the only arguement i ever get from it is from online forums when i bring it up.

not many people cry and whine and stop playing over 12 points, and if a tourney does not allow it, all i need to do is remove a powerfist from a bloodclaw.

Sounds like you had your answer long before you posted this.

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:Sounds like you had your answer long before you posted this.

I have MY answer, but I want to hear a valid arguement against what I have proposed.

If I can find a solid arguement other than RAI then I'll change my army list. I'm not trying to start fights, I just want my list to be in top-shape for tournaments.

Well like you already said, there's no FAQ and it's incredibly old as is... I don't think there really is a valid argument against this. At least not per the rules.

Would the counter argument "I'm sorry, it appears that your codex is out of print and appears to no longer be supported by Games Workshop. Isn't it lucky that you have a copy of the Space Marine codex to use?" carry any weight?

solkan wrote:Would the counter argument "I'm sorry, it appears that your codex is out of print and appears to no longer be supported by Games Workshop. Isn't it lucky that you have a copy of the Space Marine codex to use?" carry any weight?

It is supported by GW. They Still Sell Space Wolf Models. The reason you cant get the Codex is because the new one is coming in a few months.

solkan wrote:Would the counter argument "I'm sorry, it appears that your codex is out of print and appears to no longer be supported by Games Workshop. Isn't it lucky that you have a copy of the Space Marine codex to use?" carry any weight?

No, it does not.

Well, this is really just another argument for RAI, but as far as I'm aware melta bombs are always more expensive than krak grenades. But, if you're going to play RAW instead of RAI, nothing I say here is going to stop you.

I'm sure most people wouldn't make a huge fuss about this. As with any ambiguity - especially one you are clearly exploiting, you should ask your opponent or TO at the start. If someone sprang that on me I don't think I would have much of a problem, but I'd probably look more closely at his list and what kind of sportsman the player was before considering another match.

Dracos wrote:I'm sure most people wouldn't make a huge fuss about this. As with any ambiguity - especially one you are clearly exploiting, you should ask your opponent or TO at the start. If someone sprang that on me I don't think I would have much of a problem, but I'd probably look more closely at his list and what kind of sportsman the player was before considering another match.

QFT.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I imagine you know what RAI was with this one, so play it that way.

To be honest, the RAW is not as clear as the OP is trying to make it out to be, and the RAI is very clear. In the face of ambiguous RAW coupled with obvious RAI, I can only conclude that you're trying to gain an unfair advantage by interpreting the semantics of a rule written by GW.

This is what is known as "rules lawyering" and is generally frowned upon.

Honestly...if my opponent suggested this against me, I'd insist his Blood Claws can't start the game in that Land Raider.

It's the same sort of thing. RAW is ambiguous and could be read either way, but RAI is very clear. Play it how you want, though.

Yeah it is rules lawyering to the nth degree. Very uncool.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Yeah it is rules lawyering to the nth degree. Very uncool.

G

Shocking to hear you say that.

why do you say that? I think only a tool would try to say the whole squad gets meltabombs for less than the costs of krak grenades.

G

Demogerg wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Yeah it is rules lawyering to the nth degree. Very uncool.

G

Shocking to hear you say that.

RAWR!!! GO GO GADGET FLAME-WAR!

Go back to your codex, and see if you can find a similar entry for the same peice of kit. I think you'll find it's a simple writing error and should have been "per model".

Wait.. Ah, yes. Space Wolf codex, Page 10 : Blood Claws Pack;

"The entire squad may be equipped with krak grenades at +2 points per model, or meltabombs at +4 points per model."

In fact, looking throught the codex, almost every entry of that nature is worded similarly, except the Scouts, further implying that it is a writing error.

In short, you are exploiting a minor mis-print to your advantage. That's fine if you disclose this fact to your opponent and they are willing to still play, but just how badly do you need those extra points worth of weapons to win ?

A clear example of everything that is wrong with the gaming aspect of the hobby.

I never noticed the absence of 'per model'. Which version of the 'dex do you have because it did get reprinted... If what you say is true then its similar to a watered down version of the feeder tendrils for stealers (1 point for a single model that then lets EVERY SINGLE MODEL IN 12" reroll to hit...1 point...1 fething point)

What douchery.

* shakes head *

Not only is it rules lawyering, it's bad English.

Consider the following sentence:

"Today the apples are $1 each, and the peaches are $2."

Anyone here want to load up a basket of peaches and head to the counter with $2?

The "each" is implied as a modifier at the beginning of a list of items. If the speaker says:

"Today the apples are $1 each, and the peaches are $2 each also."

then they probably learned to speak English as a second language. Both sentences are fine, one has some unnecessary words.

Sorry but the word additional modifies the prior cost stated, pt/model, so the new +4 points is also a +4pt/model.

Corum wrote:Not only is it rules lawyering, it's bad English.

Consider the following sentence:

"Today the apples are $1 each, and the peaches are $2."

Anyone here want to load up a basket of peaches and head to the counter with $2?

The "each" is implied as a modifier at the beginning of a list of items. If the speaker says:

"Today the apples are $1 each, and the peaches are $2 each also."

then they probably learned to speak English as a second language. Both sentences are fine, one has some unnecessary words.

Your argument is flawed because of "the entire squad"

if it said "Each space wolf scout may be equiped with..."
or even "Space wolf scouts may be equipped with..."

then it would be a different story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:why do you say that? I think only a tool would try to say the whole squad gets meltabombs for less than the costs of krak grenades.

G

regardless of what i have said here, i have played against you in person and you cheated multiple times blatently, throught the whole game.

Che-Vito wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Yeah it is rules lawyering to the nth degree. Very uncool.

G

Shocking to hear you say that.

RAWR!!! GO GO GADGET FLAME-WAR!

Modquisition on:
I am closing this thread as its degenerating into some sort fo flame war. It can be re-posted if the articipants remain polite and remember rule #1.