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.

 Nem wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:

 Nem wrote:
You can only really argue an opinion of intent based on the word 'extra' either way its pretty hard to discuss that in any detail. RAW, MOTF does not have a base Servo arm.

What are you talking about? Who mentioned intent? And what book are you reading?

... C:SM. My confusion is over how does MOTF end up with 2 servo arms when none are listed.
I was responding to Truffle who was debating intent.

Same way a regular techmarine has 2 arms when he replaces his arm with a harness.

There is no such thing as a model with an arm and a harness in the 6th edition codex.

DA is the same way, upgrade his servo arm to a servo harness.

It does sadden me that so few people on these forums can just take a common sense approach and reasile the RAI is clearly that a MotF has the full servo get-up, with 2 Arms and all the weapons that come with it.

 stargasm wrote:
It does sadden me that so few people on these forums can just take a common sense approach and reasile the RAI is clearly that a MotF has the full servo get-up, with 2 Arms and all the weapons that come with it.

I think there is a big difference between HIWPI and RAW. Particularly in this argument. IIRC, here in YMDC the default is to read strict RAW when making arguments. And from that POV, it seems that the MotF is missing an arm. At least by my reading.

I also firmly believe that this is an oversight by GW due to poor writing. I will continue to personally play it as 2 servo arms, and will let any and all of my opponents do the same. If someone wants to call me on a strict RAW interpretation, I will agree, get one less attack, and then change from "causal fun mode" to "strict adherence to the rules" and cut them a lot less slack. Or just finish the game with a smile, shake their hand, and never play them again. Depends on my mood.

It's one thing to word-smith details here, as an exercise in learning all the niche cases and corners of the rules. Poking at the wobbly mess that are the GW rules helps to understand them and be a better player. But some of us restrain our rules lawyering to this forum, and play a lot looser on the table. And there are people and places who do play strict RAW. I would not want to be blindsided halfway though a game by some loophole that I had ignored, because the answer was obvious. Or would have been if tight writing and common sense were in order at GW. But this is the codex we have, and until the FAQ it, the RAW we play with.

I to will be continuing to play this as a double servo arm on a MOTF and Tech marine gunner. But my real question is if MOTF swaps Harness for a Beamer does he keep a servo arm as the harness which is taken off is only one servo arm?

Truffle i interpret the trade of the harnes to remove all servo arms for the conversion beamer.

In fact, this is the reason i believe they left off the original servo arm from his profile.

They certainly could have written it better though.