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.

Just for the sake of clarity I'll post the entirity of the Options text on page 30 of Codex: Black Templar.

"This lists the different weapon and equipment options for the unit and any additional points cost for taking these options. If a squad is allowed to have models with upgrades, then these must be given to ordinary unit members, not to a character in the unit. Any model who takes an upgrade weapon loses the weapon he was originally armed with unless otherwise stated."

(emphasis added, mine)


And you REALLY don't think that little snippet isn't germane to the discussion?  Really?!?!

As for how that correlates with the armory... it serves to reinforce that the rank and file guys don't get to carry around more than what a character can carry.  So the assumption that it ONLY applies to characters is weakened.

Are you even reading the same thread you're replying to?


Yes, the BT 'Options' section is relevant to whether or not a model can have a bolter and an upgrade. It has nothing whatsoever, however, to do with your claim that the armoury rules governing the number of weapons a model can carry applies to anyone without armoury access.

THAT is what I was replying to. I specifically agreed (twice now) that the Options section is a hint at intent regarding upgrades. I'm not questioning that, and have no idea what the heck you are reading, since it seems to bear little resemblance to the actual thread.

Ok... let's try again.


In C:BT, the options makes it an open and shut case that bolters get replaced. This serves to reinforce that rank and file can't carry around more weapons than characters, who have a listed limit on how many weapons (and of what kind) they can carry. All of this is within C:BT. This is the reasoning "going up" if you will.

Now, as the verbage is very similar (if not identical) in C:SM for characters as in C:BT. Now take the reasoning "back down" as GW didn't put the Options section into C:SM.

I also have a feeling that when Codex: DA gets released (late this year?), the verbage is going to be exactly the same as in C:BT, and will probably close up any more loopholes still present in C:BT.

So, what you guys are saying is that my Chaos Space Marine squad's Lascannon can be armed with a CCW+Bolt pistol in assault?

Can the material in the codex for Army X be considered binding on Army Y which has its own, separate codex? If yes, surely the reverse would also be true?

Which creates a contradiction...

The BT codex makes precedent that future codexes may follow, but it is only precedent, it is not rule or fact. There is no such general rule that applies to the current C:SM at this time (although it is a logical thing to put in place as a house rule).

Another point that I think is at least worth bringing up is that there is at least one unit that is allowed to carry 3 weapons per model. C:SM terminators may also have Cyclone missile launchers in addition to their Stormbolter and PFist. Yes, this is explicitly allowed by the inclusion of the word "also", therefore making it a possible abberation from the norm, but it does provide precedence for the absence of a universal 3 weapon ban. (Or, perhaps it is the exception that proves the rule?) Either way, I thought it important to bring the point up.

___

@KiMonarrez
I must disagree that it is an assumption that the Armoury restriction does not apply to models without access to the armoury. It is stated in plain text that those restrictions apply to models with access to the armoury. To attempt to apply that restriction to anything else outside of its literal wording is the assumption.

___

In the end, it is simply poor wording on the part of GW. They have the language already in place to restrict, allow or replace multiple weapons, yet they did not use any of these. By choice or simple error, we will probably never know what the original intent was.

Posted By blue loki on 07/10/2006 7:53 AM
The BT codex makes precedent that future codexes may follow, but it is only precedent, it is not rule or fact. There is no such general rule that applies to the current C:SM at this time (although it is a logical thing to put in place as a house rule).

In the end, it is simply poor wording on the part of GW. They have the language already in place to restrict, allow or replace multiple weapons, yet they did not use any of these. By choice or simple error, we will probably never know what the original intent was.

I have to respectfully disagree with point 1 above. It is totally illogical to apply two different outcomes to the same language because they are in different codices. You have to remain consistant in your interpretion because it is the same game system. It just makes no sense to me. It results in twisting yours self in logical knots. If you are going to take a RAW approach they must be some conistancy to it to avoid illogical results.

I think this is the fundamental disagreement between many people upon which neither of us will be persuaded about the validity of the others argument. With out this "foundation" to agree on, many of the other arguments cannot be agreed upon.

Point 2 above we can most definitely agree on, especially the intent. If two people have opposite views of intent, then, as with no proof they carry equal weight, they cancel each other out.

The funniest thing for me, is the use of the word codex - which is part of codify etc, which with the totally inconsitant language use is the exact opposite of codify.

Posted By fullheadofhair on 07/10/2006 10:06 AM

I have to respectfully disagree with point 1 above. It is totally illogical to apply two different outcomes to the same language because they are in different codices. You have to remain consistant in your interpretion because it is the same game system. It just makes no sense to me. It results in twisting yours self in logical knots. If you are going to take a RAW approach they must be some conistancy to it to avoid illogical results.

>

Welcome to Games Workshop's rules writing. They themselves do not remain consistant within their own rules set, therefore making it almost illogical to apply the same outcome to two different Codeces. The USRs were written because so many versions of each rule were in seperate codeces, and there was not way to really enforve the newest of that rule from one codex to another. However, there are still several things that they keep encountering this problem with(such as this) that would be solved with a simple FAQ(such as one stating that unless otherwise specified, all options replace the standard). However, GW now has an ignorant hatred of FAQs and we're SOL.

Hell, they can't even be bothered with putting an official answer after the damn article saying what the correct interpretation is. They'd rather be too lazy to type in a single sentence like "In this case the correct answer is..."

GW needs to get their heads out of their collective butts. Twice they had a thing about how their vague rules could be interpretted any old way and an opportunity to state what the correct intent was. Twice they just ignored it.

In C:BT, the options makes it an open and shut case that bolters get replaced. This serves to reinforce that rank and file can't carry around more weapons than characters, who have a listed limit on how many weapons (and of what kind) they can carry. All of this is within C:BT. This is the reasoning "going up" if you will.

Now, as the verbage is very similar (if not identical) in C:SM for characters as in C:BT. Now take the reasoning "back down" as GW didn't put the Options section into C:SM.

The armoury restrictions are still completely irrelevant to this point. The Options section has nothing whatsoever to do with the armoury, or with how many weapons a model can carry. You're making an intuitive leap that is simply not backed up by the rules in any way.

Simply stating that the Options section is the problem, and should have included the same line about upgrades replacing basic weapons just like almost every other codex, would have been a far simpler and more readily accepted argument. Bringing the armoury into it just needlessly complicates the issue and leaves people wondering what the hell you're talking about.

Of course it's RAW. The RAW, specifically the rules entry for Terminator Armour, use the terms interchangably. Terminators are models wearing Terminator Armour.

I think this is very borderline. Nowhere does it say, explicitly, that Terminators are models wearing Terminator Armor. It does use the terms in the same paragraph, and you might assume they're being used interchangeably, which then allows you to infer that they're the same. That's not the same as stating that Terminators wear Terminator Armor.

In fact, if I wanted to be ridiculous about it, I could suggest that when the words are both used in the Terminator Armor section they're actually talking about different things. I.e. ICs who purchase Terminator armor are capable of moving and firing heavy weapons, while normal Elites Terminators are not able to Sweeping Advance.

If I wanted to be even more ridiculous, I could point out that the Number/squad entry for a Terminator Squad is "Sergeant and 4-9 Terminators." So, that being the case, even if I accept your argument of interchangeability of terms, nowhere does it use "Sergeant" interchangeably with "Terminator," and thus the squad's Sergeant would have a 2+ save, but no Invulnerable save. He's a Sergeant, not a Terminator. Even if he's a "Terminator Sergeant," he's not a "Terminator." No more ridiculous than the time Ed insisted that a "Furioso Dreadnought" couldn't use Drop Pods, cause they're available only to "Dreadnoughts."

Obviously all of this is ridiculous, but I present it to demonstrate the number of assumptions that even the staunchest RAW advocates make, even as they insist that everything they do is clearly spelled out in the rules.

As I've said countless times already, I don't think that GW's ruleset stands up well to a strictly RAW approach. I know how sniffy you guys all get around words like "intent" and "common sense," but I think that's more of a weakness than a strength. When the rules are consistently ambiguous and contradictory, then relying heavily on literal interpretation is flawed at best.

Your approach should match the makeup of the rules. Put it this way: When confronted with ambiguous rules, we're forced to fall back on "intent" and "common sense." That's literally the only option. If the rules are 90% clear, and 10% ambiguous, then you should be using "intent" and "common sense" about 10% of the time. Despite that, people here are immediately dismissive of the notion.

This is why I keep saying that YMDC needs to have a checkbox for 'ambiguous.' People are too prone to arguing one side or another of an ambiguity. We need to be more prepared to say "this is not adequately ruled" and move on. We need to be more willing to admit when the RAW is failing us.

Obviously all of this is ridiculous, but I present it to demonstrate the number of assumptions that even the staunchest RAW advocates make, even as they insist that everything they do is clearly spelled out in the rules.

I think you're getting a little confused with how people play, and how they discuss the rules. And making a few unfounded generalisations about posters here...

Someone arguing strictly by RAW would indeed agree that the Terminator entry has problems. However, when it came time to put minis on the table, very few players would stick quite so closely to RAW.

I know how sniffy you guys all get around words like "intent" and "common sense,"

See, that's one of those generalisations I mentioned. I'm more than happy to discuss possible intent and common sense... just not in a discussion about RAW.

What the rules actually say, and how it is generally played, are not always the same thing.

Posted By insaniak on 07/10/2006 5:13 PM

I know how sniffy you guys all get around words like "intent" and "common sense,"

See, that's one of those generalisations I mentioned. I'm more than happy to discuss possible intent and common sense... just not in a discussion about RAW.

What the rules actually say, and how it is generally played, are not always the same thing.

Again I must disagree on this point. Half these arguments are exactly because the way the rules are written is how the game is played. Most of these arguments start because of one line ... "I was playing a game and my opponent ......"

The whole point of my original post ref lascannon/ bolter was because it is obviously a situation that has faced people in the past.

Take the raptor with 3 weapons. How long do you think it is going to take before some one tries to pull it on a table using the lascannon + bolter idea.

We still have arguments about infiltrating terminators and other strangeness.

The pure RAW argument doesn't stand up. Like I have said twice now, it is totally illogical to apply different interpretations to similar wording just because it is in a different codex. It just doesn't make sense. Some how we have to meet in the middle.

Most of these arguments start because of one line ... "I was playing a game and my opponent ......"

I'd say possibly half, at most. The rest start from someone saying 'Hey, I was flicking through my codex, and noticed...'

Which doesn't change the way YMDC works. However the question originally arises, what we tend to discuss here is what the rules actually say. How we would actually play it is often altogether different... and is up to the individual player.

We focus on the RAW, because anything else is purely subjective. I can say 'Yeah, I don't like the actual Rapid Fire rules, so I play that they can always shoot 3 times instead of 2'... and have 75 people agree on the forum that this would be a good way to play... but when I find myself standing in front of a table, I still have to get my actual opponent to agree to it.

Like I have said twice now, it is totally illogical to apply different interpretations to similar wording just because it is in a different codex.

Who was saying otherwise...?

Posted By insaniak on 07/10/2006 5:40 PM

Which doesn't change the way YMDC works. However the question originally arises, what we tend to discuss here is what the rules actually say.

=== How can it be RAW. You are also using inference. The rules don't say he is armed with a lascannon and bolter. It says he is armed with a lascannon.

=== By extension of this line of thinking the raptor with 2 ccw + an assault weapon, + the tactical marine with a HW/ assault weapon and bolter become arguable. Has anyone said that isn't possible now?

We focus on the RAW, because anything else is purely subjective.

=== By and large I do agree with this, except when there is obvious amibiguity. You cannot use a pure RAW approach to settle an arguement if you cannot agree with the actual wording of the rule which forms the foundation of the discusion. Like lawyers look to other documents to disprove a law they don't agree with. Nothing works in isolation.

I can say 'Yeah, I don't like the actual Rapid Fire rules, so I play that they can always shoot 3 times instead of 2'... and have 75 people agree on the forum that this would be a good way to play... but when I find myself standing in front of a table, I still have to get my actual opponent to agree to it.

==== Not quite sure what that is saying but that is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum of what we are discussing here. This argument holds on the wording of phrase "maybe armed with..." - not making a rule up because I don't like it

Like I have said twice now, it is totally illogical to apply different interpretations to similar wording just because it is in a different codex.

Who was saying otherwise...?

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood. I thought some-one had argued you cannot look at similar wording in another codex even if can produce something you don't like.

I think you're getting a little confused with how people play, and how they discuss the rules.

I'm not really bothering to make the distinction, since I don't think it matters. People are making arguments and I'm addressing them. I don't care if they make the arguments online, at the table, in their shrink's office, whatever. I'm simply engaging the argument on its merits. I guess I didn't present good enough counter-arguments for you to take notice.

I'll try again...

First, the RAW advocates would have everyone believe that they are going strictly by the word of the rules, making no assumptions, not falling back on "intent" or "common sense." It's just not true. The example I use is the Terminator armor, because you're clearly beginning with the assumption that Terminators wear Terminator armor, and then trying to make the rules say that. You're not just taking them as they're written. If you did do that, you'd get to the second point...

Second, the rules are actually ambiguous on numerous occasions, and yet nobody is ever willing to reach this conclusion. Instead, it's yelling and screaming. It's not really worth pontificating as to why, but it's worth noting.

Ultimately this just comes down to me pointing out what I perceive as failures of the RAW crowd to live up to the lofty perception of objectivism and logic. I attempt to do this on their own terms.

We focus on the RAW, because anything else is purely subjective.

Right, this is a solid starting point. What I find issue with is when people don't just focus on the RAW, they use the RAW as a club, and expect every rules question to be solvable with sufficient reading/yelling.

First, the RAW advocates would have everyone believe that they are going strictly by the word of the rules, making no assumptions, not falling back on "intent" or "common sense." It's just not true. The example I use is the Terminator armor, because you're clearly beginning with the assumption that Terminators wear Terminator armor, and then trying to make the rules say that. You're not just taking them as they're written. If you did do that, you'd get to the second point...

None of which has anything to do with the actualtopic of this thread.

You seem to be presenting one example of unclear rules as proof that it is impossible to ever take the rules as written. This is clearly false.

Second, the rules are actually ambiguous on numerous occasions, and yet nobody is ever willing to reach this conclusion.

I think you need to just spend a little more time on the forums before making sweeping judgments like that. Many of the posters here are quite happy to admit that something is ambiguous when it actually is.

The 'yelling and screaming' comes about when someone thinks that something is clear, and someone else thinks it's ambiguous. Or when both people think that it 'clearly' says something different.

As often as not, those arguments are due to someone's poor comprehension of written english, or unclear reading/memory of the rules, rather than any actual ambiguity in the rules.

Posted By OGGleep on 07/09/2006 3:45 PM

No model has been released with both options.

As I have seen... no current battlewagon model from GW has been released. So if a marine model hasnt been released with a bolter and lascannon, and you say that it means they dont want your marines to have bolters and lascannons (as no model has been released with both options), then I guess they dont want orks to use battlewagons (as no model has been released, period). I dont want to sound like Im taking this out of context, but this is what Im seeing right now.

Take from this post what you will, but I have a little anecdote that I like to bring up when I see this debate.

After a long abscence from the game I picked up the V3 book and a ton of the new cadian models along with their new codex. I re-familiarized myself with the game and with the Guard. I remember when they switched to 2-man heavy weapon teams, but in the new dex it was written in such a way that made the "gunner" and "loader" interchangeable. It also appeared to allow both models to retain their base lasguns as well. So, I modelled all of my heavy weapon teams with their lasguns strapped to their backs or on the ground next to them. I wasn't until I started playing other people that I realized no one else playes that way. Most other players just assume the "gunner" loses his weapon leaving the team with one heavy weapon and one lasgun.

The point is that RAW for the most part is unplayable, but it is all that a first time reader has to go on. That's why first time players (who actually bought the book, and didn't learn from a friend) have a better grasp of the rules than the rest of us. We are too bogged down in the way it used to be and our own feelings of "well, it's always been like that!"

None of which has anything to do with the actualtopic of this thread.

I think you're mistaken. This thread is about Ed's editorial in White Dwarf, the basic argument of which is that we should follow the RAW whenever possible. I'm pointing out weaknesses in that notion, and inconsistencies in the arguments mades by its proponents.

You seem to want to ignore my actual points, and make this a meta debate about how I'm generalizing people's playing styles, or not on topic.

You seem to be presenting one example of unclear rules as proof that it is impossible to ever take the rules as written.

No, I don't. I'm not saying that, I don't even "seem" to be saying that. I am questioning the credibility of the RAW-mongers on their own terms, and from a couple angles. You refuse to engage the actual points I make.

I was very clear, the RAW are a good starting point. I just think it's disingenuous for people to act like they're using pure logic, devoid of assumption or appeals to common sense, when they clearly aren't.

I am all for taking the RAW as far as they go. What I find issue with is when people become dogmatic or start treating the RAW approach like a sacred cow. The fact is, a RAW approach provides faulty results when applied to Terminators. That's fine... The problem is when people like you insist that it's clearly RAW that Terminators wear Terminator armor, rather than let the image of RAW-mongery be sullied. Then it becomes something of a political debate, and not a rules discussion. People end up making arguments that defend the RAW approach, rather than resolving the actual rules question.

I think you need to just spend a little more time on the forums before making sweeping judgments like that. Many of the posters here are quite happy to admit that something is ambiguous when it actually is.

Great, now you're gonna pull rank on me. Meta arguments, ignoring my points, now you're gonna go to post counts.

Actually I am waiting for a RAW advocate to:

Argue why a SM tactical member can carry a bolter and lascannon

If they can so argue that point, to argue for or against:

1) A raptor carrying three weapons and 2) an SM carrying a HW, assault weapon and bolter.

And while they are there to explain the difference between "select" from the armory as opposed to "replace".

No-one has yet put up a RAW argument for or against.

Posted By Shadow_Strike on 07/11/2006 12:55 PM

Posted By OGGleep on 07/09/2006 3:45 PM

No model has been released with both options.

As I have seen... no current battlewagon model from GW has been released. So if a marine model hasnt been released with a bolter and lascannon, and you say that it means they dont want your marines to have bolters and lascannons (as no model has been released with both options), then I guess they dont want orks to use battlewagons (as no model has been released, period). I dont want to sound like Im taking this out of context, but this is what Im seeing right now.

Bad comparison, as making a model a specific way is not the same as not releasing a model at all. If the Space Marine with Lascannon blister doesn't have a bolter bit it probably doesn't have a bolter. If GW makes for for but does not provide a kit for a battlewagon then they just don't have a standard way to field the battle wagon. Your comparison is apples to an orange peeler.

DOOD! You can get an orange peeler as a CCW? Does it count as a power weapon? Add +1 to your strength? SWEEEEEEEEET!

d <------ off to model orange peelers on all my figs.

Great, now you're gonna pull rank on me.

Um... what...?

Suggesting that you spend a little more time on the board before making sweeping generalisations about what goes om here is in no way 'pulling rank'... it's simply suggesting that you gather a bit more data before reaching conclusions.

If you're going to purposely misunderstand everything I say, then there's really not much point continuing the discussion.

Actually I am waiting for a RAW advocate to:

Argue why a SM tactical member can carry a bolter and lascannon

What, again...?

If they can so argue that point, to argue for or against:

1) A raptor carrying three weapons and 2) an SM carrying a HW, assault weapon and bolter.

The rules would apply the same no matter who they are for. If the codex does not specify that upgrades replace the original weapons, then they don't.

And while they are there to explain the difference between "select" from the armory as opposed to "replace".

Pardon...?

Posted By fullheadofhair on 07/11/2006 2:46 PM

Actually I am waiting for a RAW advocate to:

Argue why a SM tactical member can carry a bolter and lascannon

This was covered in Mauleed's article. Does it need repeating?

If they can so argue that point, to argue for or against:

1) A raptor carrying three weapons and 2) an SM carrying a HW, assault weapon and bolter.

I don't have any chaos codexes so I won't tackle this.

And while they are there to explain the difference between "select" from the armory as opposed to "replace".

Surely that's obvious if you think about "selecting" up to 100 points of wargear as opposed to "replacing"... It's basic English comprehension. Does it need a RAW explanation?

Posted By happypants on 07/11/2006 2:59 PM
DOOD! You can get an orange peeler as a CCW? Does it count as a power weapon? Add +1 to your strength? SWEEEEEEEEET!

d <------ off to model orange peelers on all my figs.

Pfftt...obviously, orange peelers only count as power weapons against models that are painted orange in colour.  It's just basic English comprehension - may I suggest that you purchase a dictionary, Happypants?

Anyone who argues that orange peelers should remove any other colour of armour is obviously relying on designer intent, and should be banned from this forum.

Terminators like their oranges RAW!

Suggesting that you spend a little more time on the board before making sweeping generalisations about what goes om here is in no way 'pulling rank'...

Jesus... So, despite the fact I already addressed your spurious "sweeping generalization" accusations, you're just going to repeat it again, and still pretend I'm not making any other points.

If you're going to purposely misunderstand everything I say, then there's really not much point continuing the discussion.

No, I understand clearly what you're communicating. It's "I don't want to actually respond to what you're saying, so I'm going to have a pointless meta argument with straw-you." That about right?

'If I'm going to purposely misunderstand everything you say...' That's just precious.

Jesus... So, despite the fact I already addressed your spurious "sweeping generalization" accusations, you're just going to repeat it again, and still pretend I'm not making any other points.

Uh, no... that was a response to your 'pulling rank' claim. Nothing more.


If you make any points that are actually relevant to the topic, which was about marines with lascannons and bolters, I'll happily reply to them. The whole discussion about the application of RAW or not belings in an entirely different thread. As does the discussion about whether or not Terminators have Terminator Armour.

No, I understand clearly what you're communicating. It's "I don't want to actually respond to what you're saying, so I'm going to have a pointless meta argument with straw-you." That about right?

No, that's not about right. Have another read of the thread.

Insaniak :"I think you're getting a little confused with how people play, and how they discuss the rules."


Phryxis :"I'm not really bothering to make the distinction, since I don't think it matters"

And therein lies the problem.

And therein lies the problem.

And the problem is?