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.

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.