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.

This is a good result.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
This is a good result.

It really is. Now my Sergeants can keep shooting grenades regardless of Codex I want to play.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
This is a good result.

Reivers being able to use Grenade Launchers would have been a good result, Marines need all the help they can get. Better than the jacked up rules-as-written though.

When the Intercessor combat squad box removes a Marine carrying a grenade launcher, I'll consider this "Sergeant Don't Count" nonsense worth debating.

He's an Intercessor Sergeant. By logic, an Intercessor.

A Blackshield is not a Deathwatch Veteran. He's not a Blackshield Deathwatch Veteran, he's just a Blackshield. And even still, I'm convinced that only became a thing because people were crying when they saw one with a Heavy Thunder Hammer.

Answer is right here. https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/warhammer_40000_deathwatch_en.pdf

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
When the Intercessor combat squad box removes a Marine carrying a grenade launcher, I'll consider this "Sergeant Don't Count" nonsense worth debating.

He's an Intercessor Sergeant. By logic, an Intercessor.

A Blackshield is not a Deathwatch Veteran. He's not a Blackshield Deathwatch Veteran, he's just a Blackshield. And even still, I'm convinced that only became a thing because people were crying when they saw one with a Heavy Thunder Hammer.

Answer is right here. https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/warhammer_40000_deathwatch_en.pdf

It's not nonsense, it's literally how the rules work. Just because you don't like it, doesn't change reality. The errata literally proves you wrong.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
When the Intercessor combat squad box removes a Marine carrying a grenade launcher, I'll consider this "Sergeant Don't Count" nonsense worth debating.

He's an Intercessor Sergeant. By logic, an Intercessor.

A Blackshield is not a Deathwatch Veteran. He's not a Blackshield Deathwatch Veteran, he's just a Blackshield. And even still, I'm convinced that only became a thing because people were crying when they saw one with a Heavy Thunder Hammer.

Answer is right here. https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/warhammer_40000_deathwatch_en.pdf

It's not nonsense, it's literally how the rules work. Just because you don't like it, doesn't change reality. The errata literally proves you wrong.

Only if you don't see GW reading the debates and questions sent about it, rolling their eyes and saying "god save us from these rules lawyering idiots" and clarifying something they didn't think was nesscary.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
When the Intercessor combat squad box removes a Marine carrying a grenade launcher, I'll consider this "Sergeant Don't Count" nonsense worth debating.

He's an Intercessor Sergeant. By logic, an Intercessor.

A Blackshield is not a Deathwatch Veteran. He's not a Blackshield Deathwatch Veteran, he's just a Blackshield. And even still, I'm convinced that only became a thing because people were crying when they saw one with a Heavy Thunder Hammer.

Answer is right here. https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/warhammer_40000_deathwatch_en.pdf

It's not nonsense, it's literally how the rules work. Just because you don't like it, doesn't change reality. The errata literally proves you wrong.

I'm not seeing it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not nonsense, it's literally how the rules work. Just because you don't like it, doesn't change reality. The errata literally proves you wrong.

Page 73
– Intercessors, Wargear Options
Change the second bullet point to read:
‘• For every five Intercessors and/or Intercessor
Sergeants, one may take an auxiliary
grenade launcher.’

That's word for word, exactly the rules proving me the opposite of 'wrong', which I believe is called 'correct', 'right', 'on point', or something like that.

I mean, come on- it's right there, clearly.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not nonsense, it's literally how the rules work. Just because you don't like it, doesn't change reality. The errata literally proves you wrong.

Page 73
– Intercessors, Wargear Options
Change the second bullet point to read:
‘• For every five Intercessors and/or Intercessor
Sergeants, one may take an auxiliary
grenade launcher.’

That's word for word, exactly the rules proving me the opposite of 'wrong', which I believe is called 'correct', 'right', 'on point', or something like that.

I mean, come on- it's right there, clearly.

If you were right they would've answered it as an FAQ. Something along the lines or "Qo intercessor sergeants counts as intercessors when determining how many auxilary grenade launchers you can take? A: Yes." Instead they issued errata changing the wording. So no, you are not correct.

 IronBrand wrote:
If you were right they would've answered it as an FAQ. Something along the lines or "Qo intercessor sergeants counts as intercessors when determining how many auxilary grenade launchers you can take? A: Yes." Instead they issued errata changing the wording. So no, you are not correct.

Oh, it's absolutely not worded specifically like that. You're absolutely right, they didn't word it just like I said, how silly of me.

See, I'll even say I'm wrong based on these vague and quirky standards for 'right' you have. If it makes you feel better.

But oh, yeah, I'm right. They just didn't deliberately word it that way. Sorry, I think you'll have to live with that.

Go make a cup of tea and have a smoke, man. It's not worth getting upset over.

And people wonder why Warhammer TV's comments are locked.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:
If you were right they would've answered it as an FAQ. Something along the lines or "Qo intercessor sergeants counts as intercessors when determining how many auxilary grenade launchers you can take? A: Yes." Instead they issued errata changing the wording. So no, you are not correct.

Oh, it's absolutely not worded specifically like that. You're absolutely right, they didn't word it just like I said, how silly of me.

See, I'll even say I'm wrong based on these vague and quirky standards for 'right' you have. If it makes you feel better.

But oh, yeah, I'm right. They just didn't deliberately word it that way. Sorry, I think you'll have to live with that.

Go make a cup of tea and have a smoke, man. It's not worth getting upset over.

And people wonder why Warhammer TV's comments are locked.

Except you're saying the change to the rule means you were correct about how it worked in the first place. You weren't, you were correct about what they intended but not how the original ruling worked. I'm also not the one getting upset.

 IronBrand wrote:
Except you're saying the change to the rule means you were correct about how it worked in the first place. You weren't, you were correct about what they intended but not how the original ruling worked. I'm also not the one getting upset.

Yeah, no- I'm saying that appeared to be the common sense interpretation, and they clarified it to equate to such.

You're seriously sitting here and saying that I'm lying because I said I was gonna get a soda and came home with a Monster Energy drink.

The degree to which you're arguing semantics is getting pretty petty.

If being right is that important to you, then I'll say 'sure, whatever, have at it'.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:
Except you're saying the change to the rule means you were correct about how it worked in the first place. You weren't, you were correct about what they intended but not how the original ruling worked. I'm also not the one getting upset.

Yeah, no- I'm saying that appeared to be the common sense interpretation, and they clarified it to equate to such.

You're seriously sitting here and saying that I'm lying because I said I was gonna get a soda and came home with a Monster Energy drink.

The degree to which you're arguing semantics is getting pretty petty.

If being right is that important to you, then I'll say 'sure, whatever, have at it'.

What's important to me is that rules are clear. I don't care which way GW would've ruled here just that the ruling was clarified. RAI is only a legitimate argument if you're the person who wrote the rule. To know how a rule works people should just have to read a rule, not interpret it.

 IronBrand wrote:
What's important to me is that rules are clear. I don't care which way GW would've ruled here just that the ruling was clarified. RAI is only a legitimate argument if you're the person who wrote the rule. To know how a rule works people should just have to read a rule, not interpret it.

Well, very few people had trouble with it, especially considering it's not hard to see that in the book itself there's no shortage of minimum squads running around with grenade launchers.

And the rule's been clarified, as you can see.

So, I'm not sure what your grief is here. Have some tea or something.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:
What's important to me is that rules are clear. I don't care which way GW would've ruled here just that the ruling was clarified. RAI is only a legitimate argument if you're the person who wrote the rule. To know how a rule works people should just have to read a rule, not interpret it.

Well, very few people had trouble with it, especially considering it's not hard to see that in the book itself there's no shortage of minimum squads running around with grenade launchers.

And the rule's been clarified, as you can see.

So, I'm not sure what your grief is here. Have some tea or something.

The rule was not clarified, it was CHANGED. If you were right, they wouldn't need to change the rule, and would have made an FAQ to clarify it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The rule was not clarified, it was CHANGED. If you were right, they wouldn't need to change the rule, and would have made an FAQ to clarify it.

...no, it looks like a clarification to me. Poor wording.

You uh, might want to join that other guy for some tea. Who knows, you might find someone with your particular... passion.

Seriously, that signature... how much time do you spend playing? Like, actually playing, dude?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The rule was not clarified, it was CHANGED. If you were right, they wouldn't need to change the rule, and would have made an FAQ to clarify it.

...no, it looks like a clarification to me. Poor wording.

You uh, might want to join that other guy for some tea. Who knows, you might find someone with your particular... passion.

Seriously, that signature... how much time do you spend playing? Like, actually playing, dude?

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

An errata is, by definition, not a clarification.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

An errata is, by definition, not a clarification.

I believe, in fact, it means that their wording was corrected to reflect the intent.

I also think you and your little friend are a bit too obsessed with the extremely specific wording that literally no human being so far has had much difficulty interpreting.

You two must be a blast to play with.

Common sense applied to anything works wonders. Especially if the goal is to have fun and enjoy the game.

You're familiar with the concept, I hope.

Seriously, I'm questioning a lot of things right now. A lot of them. Just...

Wow.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I believe, in fact, it means that their wording was corrected to reflect the intent.

And I believe that a two-headed hermaphroditic unicorn-octopus hybrid lives under every four-leaf clover. Doesn't make me right.

They changed the rule, what their "intent" was is both meaningless and unknowable. It was not a clarification.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They changed the rule, what their "intent" was is both meaningless and unknowable. It was not a clarification.

If I say, "Sure, you're right, I'm wrong"... will you actually have something to do later, or will you just keep going on and on? I can't promise you I'll mean it, but I'll say it if it'll take you down from whatever setting you're on and get you to something more reasonable and rational.

Curious, you see.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Seriously, that signature... how much time do you spend playing? Like, actually playing, dude?

None. He keeps claiming 100% RAW. Since you cannot play game through 100% RAW he is eternally frozen in game that cannot progress until GW changes rules enough for 100% RAW to work.

We're done here