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.

With Elbows here. Seriously folks, who cares? Is anyone going to make this kind of mistake? No.

 skchsan wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This has to be one of the cheesiest rules questions I've ever seen.

Is the question you're trying to pose - "I get all my weapon options for free if the profile is on my datasheet"? Obviously this is wrong.

Obviously RAI its not supposed to mean as per the OP - but the loophole DOES exist at a basic linguistic level.

No it does not, unless you pervert the meaning of "Has"

Simple call out to "wargear" section or even the usage of the word "equipped" would make the rules tight.

The "Has" already does that.

Instead, the rulebook chooses to go with "the weapons that a model has are listed on the datasheet." The "Weapons" profile chart is a weapons that are "listed on the datasheet" just as much as the verbal list in the "Wargear" section is also list of weapons hat are listed on the datasheet.

Yes, the datasheet tells you what weapons the model has...

If you replace a bolt pistol and gain a plasma pistol, the model no longer "Has" the bolt pistol and can not use it.

Not sure why some of us here get so bent out of shape over this.

If you're so offended by it, don't reply and let it die out.

I suppose it's not so much YMDC as it doesn't really pertain to trying to figure out how to interpret it.

Can we move this over to General so I can ramble on without offending so many people please MODs?

 skchsan wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This has to be one of the cheesiest rules questions I've ever seen.

Is the question you're trying to pose - "I get all my weapon options for free if the profile is on my datasheet"? Obviously this is wrong.

Obviously RAI its not supposed to mean as per the OP - but the loophole DOES exist at a basic linguistic level. Simple call out to "wargear" section or even the usage of the word "equipped" would make the rules tight. Instead, the rulebook chooses to go with "the weapons that a model has are listed on the datasheet." The "Weapons" profile chart is a weapons that are "listed on the datasheet" just as much as the verbal list in the "Wargear" section is also list of weapons hat are listed on the datasheet.

It only would be a loophole if there was nothing else on the datasheet to provide restrictions, either literally or representationally.

Look at the Datasheet where it says, "Wargear". This section covers "the basic weapons and equipment the models are armed with". The section of the Datasheet then states things like, "An Astartes is armed withe a Bolt Pistol and Boltgun."

Down below that is the Weapons section which is, "The weapons that a unit comes equipped with... described using a set of characteristics..." How does the unit become equipped with these weapons? In the Wargear section, with the Options section allowing for changes to what a model can take.

It is these directions which limit what a model can use by virtue of limiting what the model has. The direction in the rule allows for a model to shoot the weapons the model has, not every weapon listed on its datasheet.

So only if you are willing to ignore a lot of information and directions provided in the documentation itself would you be capable of making such a gross error in interpretation.

Ah, the classic “attribute anger/emotion to deride the other side” approach from the OP. No-one’s upset; they’re just questioning the rules ‘interpretation’, motive for posting, and the strange approach of asking a question then attacking/deriding people who post an answer you don’t like... all that good stuff.

I mean, in that sense this thread is pure YMDC!

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Ah, the classic “attribute anger/emotion to deride the other side” approach from the OP. No-one’s upset; they’re just questioning the rules ‘interpretation’, motive for posting, and the strange approach of asking a question then attacking/deriding people who post an answer you don’t like... all that good stuff.

I mean, in that sense this thread is pure YMDC!

I read the title, and almost fell over to see it had reached two pages.

No, a model does not "have" all the weapon options on it's datasheet by merit of them simply being on it's datasheet. A simply ludicrous interpretation.

In this thread: OP deliberately sets out to be an edgelord and gets shot down; accuses everyone else of being offended and asks if he can drop nuts to General.

+1 obvious nope

This is perhaps one of the most ridiculous RAW interpretations I've come across. It's so ludicrous even BCB is against you. Let it go dude, threads like this are just a "I'm such an edgelord as I can interpret the rules like this because GW writes in English and not in code" and waste everyone's time.

 skchsan wrote:
Not sure why some of us here get so bent out of shape over this.

As a rule, people get cranky with deliberate misreading of a rule. It serves no purpose, and certainly doesn't warrant multiple pages of discussion.

Moving on.