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.

Taoofss wrote: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.

While I agree it's legal, there's certainly no order or time element to when and how the upgrades are applied.

Yak's got the argument that caries. The guys with choppa and slugga replace them. The nob is not one of those guys and all is right in the world.

Taoofss wrote: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.

I think that interpretation will quite likely fail before yak's. Order of rule application has never stood.

For instance, in the chaos codex: "...if the squad numbers 10 models or less you can buy them a rhino." If I pay the points for 10 CSMs, buy them a rhino because my squad numbers 10 or less, then go ahead and add another few more to the squad, will this be allowed?

Of course not. You look at the end result and see if the rule has been met. So, justifying this rule means you'll probably have to get on yak's cart, sequential application of squad-building rules is not currently accepted practice.

mauleed wrote:
Yak's got the argument that caries. The guys with choppa and slugga replace them. The nob is not one of those guys and all is right in the world.

Yak's got the best argument for the YES camp, undoubtedly.

However, the rule is "The entire squad may exchange...."
Can you, after exchanging for everyone but your nob, say "The entire squad has exchanged..."

No, you cannot say that, because the entire squad has not exchanged.

-See my last post that also references designer intent. GW has written this sort of rule correctly before, so they obviously know how.

i belive the slugga/choppa to a piece of the price you pay to get the shootas. if you do not pay then you dont get shootas. it says that a ork can exchange a shoota or slugga for a big shoota for 5 pts. does that mean that a sluggaboy can exchange all his shootas and 5pts for it? no. pay and play or dont.

I vote no to PKs in shoota mobs. i sure hope GW will read some of these threads and understand their misstakes.

mauleed wrote:While I agree it's legal, there's certainly no order or time element to when and how the upgrades are applied.
Yak's got the argument that caries. The guys with choppa and slugga replace them. The nob is not one of those guys and all is right in the world.

The Nob is only not one of the guys with a choppa and slugga if his choppa is upgraded before the squad upgrades to shootas and since you say there is no order or time, the argument falls appart.

Imriel wrote:

mauleed wrote:While I agree it's legal, there's certainly no order or time element to when and how the upgrades are applied.
Yak's got the argument that caries. The guys with choppa and slugga replace them. The nob is not one of those guys and all is right in the world.

The Nob is only not one of the guys with a choppa and slugga if his choppa is upgraded before the squad upgrades to shootas and since you say there is no order or time, the argument falls appart.

Your missing the point, if there is no order or time then the exchange can be simultaneous.

Realy, from someone who has absolutly no skin in this game ( never played orks, never will ) the NO camp arguments truly seem to epidomize the worst spirit of hyper RAW rules lawyering that turns people off from the game.

It would never occur to me that the PK could not be taken from reading that rule. Just to see what a totally neutural person would think I asked my wife, who happens to be an actual attourney, to read it and she agreed, then looked at me like I was crazy when I explained the debate here.

In her eyes there was simply no question linguisitcally as to what the words meant.

Does not make her or me right, just an opinion from totally outside the argument looking in, for perspective.

skyth wrote:Actually, the 'yes' interpretation requires words not present in the argument, like 'that has them'.

Nope.

The "yes" interpretation is correct. "The entire mob ..." simply means if any model exchanges, all models must exchange so that you cannot have a mob containing a mixture of shoota boyz & sluggaboyz. It does not place any condition. "may" simply means it is an option to exchange. There is no other reasonable explanation.

The "no" interpretation is the one that actually requires a huge conditional clause for the exchange: "If (and only if) the entire mob is armed with slugga and choppa, then the entire mob may exchange...". And then it requires another huge conditiona clause for the Nob: "If the entire mob is armed with slugga and choppa, then the Nob may be armed...". Neither of these conditions are explicitly stated, yet such restrictions are present (e.g. if the numbers up to XX models, it may purchase a Transport). Therefore the omission of such restrictions are intentional.

If the Nob has a PK, he isn't armed with slugga & choppa, so he isn't affected because he doesn't have both a slugga and choppa to exchange for a shoota.

The only illegal combination is Nob with slugga & choppa leading sluggaboyz, because the Nob didn't exchange his weapons when he was required to.

____

edit: full disclosure - I don't have Orks, never will. Absolutely hate the entire army concept with a passion. But rules-wise, Orks can have PK Nob leading Shootas.

bigtmac68 wrote:

Imriel wrote:

mauleed wrote:While I agree it's legal, there's certainly no order or time element to when and how the upgrades are applied.
Yak's got the argument that caries. The guys with choppa and slugga replace them. The nob is not one of those guys and all is right in the world.

The Nob is only not one of the guys with a choppa and slugga if his choppa is upgraded before the squad upgrades to shootas and since you say there is no order or time, the argument falls appart.

Your missing the point, if there is no order or time then the exchange can be simultaneous.

You can't give up your choppa for a PK while simutaneously giving it up with the slugga to get a shoota, but my point was that Yak's arguement, which Mauleed supported, hinged on the idea that the Nob no long had the choppa when the mob was upgraded to shootas, which would require that the PK upgrade was done first. However, Mauleed argued that there was no time/order factor, which completly kills Yak's arguement.

3 points. Refute these 3 and I will gladly come over to the YES camp.

1. The option is "the entire mob may exchange..." After choosing this option, can you turn to your opponent and say "Look, the entire mob has exchanged their sluggas and choppas....?" No, you cannot say that, because the entire mob didn't exchange, the Nob didn't. Now the YES camp will argue the linguistics of it, but this seems to be the plain meaning reading of the words.

Entire mob means just that, entire mob. The YES camp is giving these words the strange meaning. "'Entire mob' is only guys who have a slugga and choppa..." Give me a break. The word is "entire." We all know what it means.

2. This type of rule exists elsewhere and wasn't questioned. From Chaos 3rd - "The entire squad may be armed with frag grenades..." Now, what would happen if someone from the squad is missing a frag grenade? Simple. No one gets the benefit of having frag grenades. Linguistically it's the same rule, and no one questioned what it meant before. Everybody will have frags when you exercise the option.

Now, you could say that this doesn't preclude a person from only buying frags for some of the squad, only that the squad won't benefit if you don't buy them for everyone. But that just seems silly. There was a commonly understood notion of what this rule meant. Everyone had to have them.

3. If GW's designers were in the YES camp, they would have written the rule differently. They've written this type of rule before and they've done it correctly. Example: "Any model in terminator armor may exchange...." Clearly, any number of models in terminator may do something, but they don't all have to. Maybe they all will exchange, maybe only one. Simple and clear. Why didn't they use these words in the Ork codex? Did GW forget how to write rules they've written before? (Ok, don't answer that).

Basically, my 3 points summarized:
1. There's a viable plain meaning reading of the words that supports the NO position.
2. This type of all-or-nothing rule exists elsewhere and hasn't been questioned.
3. Designer intent supports the NO camp.

Together, these 3 points make up a comprehensive interpretation.

Your entire third option is completely crazy.

There is nothing that can be inferred from Designer Intent on the way the rules are.

The rules there are a copy and paste from every other entry in the list where a Nob starts out being armed with slugga+choppa and can take a Power Klaw. The Designers aren't in a "Yes camp" or "No Camp" they're in the "Oh damn that Copy/Paste Function Camp".

As far as point #1 goes:

The entire mob did exchange their sluggas and choppas. The Nob at that point doesn't have a Slugga and Choppa, he has a Slugga and PK, so he couldn't exchange anything. So the statement "The entire mob has exchanged their sluggas and choppas for shootas" is perfectly valid.

Point #2

The previous wordings were all about equipping the entire unit with something. Nothing about an exchange for the whole unit.

By the RAW, every criteria for the statement "The entire mob swapped their sluggas and choppas for shootas" is true. The Nob simply didn't have a set to exchange and therefore did nothing.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Your entire third option is completely crazy.

There is nothing that can be inferred from Designer Intent on the way the rules are.

The rules there are a copy and paste from every other entry in the list where a Nob starts out being armed with slugga+choppa and can take a Power Klaw. The Designers aren't in a "Yes camp" or "No Camp" they're in the "Oh damn that Copy/Paste Function Camp".

As far as point #1 goes:

The entire mob did exchange their sluggas and choppas. The Nob at that point doesn't have a Slugga and Choppa, he has a Slugga and PK, so he couldn't exchange anything. So the statement "The entire mob has exchanged their sluggas and choppas for shootas" is perfectly valid.

Point #2

The previous wordings were all about equipping the entire unit with something. Nothing about an exchange for the whole unit.

By the RAW, every criteria for the statement "The entire mob swapped their sluggas and choppas for shootas" is true. The Nob simply didn't have a set to exchange and therefore did nothing.

In response....

Point #3: Ah yes, you're clearly saying that the designers intended to do something but didn't. However, if there is a RAW standard, then all we have to go on is what the designers actually do write. Therefore, if intent can be gauged at all, it must be gauged by comparing the actual words of one rule to the actual words of another, which is exaclty what I did.

GW has more clearly written rules that, without debate, allow for one or many or all models of a unit to exchange something. Yet they didn't do that here. Why not? If we assume GW writes what it intends (and we must if we play by RAW), then their intent was for this rule to function differently from the other rule.

Point #2: Equipping vs. Exhanging? That's seriously your gripe, that it's a different verb? That the word "entire" has changed its meaning because the verb "equip" is different than "exchange?" Interesting....

Point #1: You've just re-iterated what I wrote intially. The YES camp basically claims that the word "entire" is limited to those models who have a slugga and choppa in the first place. I'm saying the word "entire" means just what everyone knows it means, entire. Plain meaning.

Ok, so sum up, on point #1 we're clearly divided. I'm sorry, but your attack on point #2 is meritless. On point #3 you've quibbled with my use of the word "intent," but haven't rebuffed the simple fact that GW has written rules before that would clearly communicate the stand you wish to make. Yet they didn't do that here.

Ok, I have been struggling with the apparent intent of GW in stating that only a choppa may be exchanged for a PK.

I do not believe that there is any firmly established order to follow in selecting upgrades.

If purchasing the Nob first, the operative sentence is:

The entire mob may exchange their sluggas and choppas for shootas.

Now, despite what some have suggested, it is clear that the use of the word MAY does not allow the unit to be composed piecemeal of sluggas and shootas.

The subject of the sentence is "the entire mob". MAY describes an action which can be taken by "the entire squad". If they had used the word "must" rather than "may" then all boys must be shootas. What a silly result that would be.

I see where the people who are arguing textually that shootas cannot have pk nobs are coming from. They believe that if one of the boys doesn't have a slugga and choppa that then "The Entire Mob" cannot perform the ascribed action, and so that action cannot take place. This, I believe, is reading words into the sentence which are not there.

Here is how I would write out the action described in the critical phrase: "exchange their sluggas and choppas for shootas."

"If a boy has a slugga and a choppa, then he exchanges it for a shoota." This is not adding words, but merely spelling out the literal meaning of the words as written. I think it is an error to read into this phrase a conditional statement that if any boy does not have both a slugga and a choppa to exchange, than none of them can exchange their sluggas and choppas for shootas. It is an If-Then statement.

Then I had originally decided that only an intent to not allow shoota mobs to have PK would lead to such a wording. I now see the error of my Ways.
If you exchange a shoota for a PK, then you already must have given up both Choppa and Slugga.

This means that a PK who substitutes his shoota for a PK would have no slugga and would be gimped relative to a nob who had exchanged just his slugga. They didn't use the terms "exchange slugga or shoota for a PK" because it would have drastically different game stats in that one nob would have an extra attack!!!!

Further, I believe that if they really intended shoota boys to not be abe to get PK nobs they would have kept it two entries!

The reason why they can only exchange choppas for PK's is to that they can keep their slugga!!!!!

deadlygopher wrote:3 points. Refute these 3 and I will gladly come over to the YES camp.

1. The option is "the entire mob may exchange..."

2. This type of rule exists elsewhere and wasn't questioned. From Chaos 3rd - "The entire squad may be armed with frag grenades..."

3. If GW's designers were in the YES camp, they would have written the rule differently.

Together, these 3 points make up a comprehensive interpretation.

Nope. You're wrong.

1A. "entire" means if any (valid) model excercises the option, all (valid) models must exercise. Not some models ("Any model may exchange...").
1B "may" means it is an option, rather than a requirement ("must exchange...").

2. This is the same. If any (valid) model buys Frag, all (valid) models must buy Frag.

3. If GW's designers were in the NO camp, they would have written this rule *and* the Nob rules differently.

Well, does everyone at least agree that the reason they may have stipulated that only choppas may be exchanged for power klaws was to make sure that some rules lawyer doesn't argue that a nob w/ pk in a shoota squad doesn't have 2 ccw because he already exchanged BOTH for the Shoota.

This way all nobs w/ pk have to have the klaw and a slugga.

If the rule said "A nob may exchange his choppa or shoota for a pk" then there would be a very strong argument that shoota boyz nobs would not get the extra cc attack for having 2 ccw, as getting a shoota involves giving up choppa AND slugga!!!!

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nope. You're wrong.

1A. "entire" means if any (valid) model excercises the option, all (valid) models must exercise. Not some models ("Any model may exchange...").
1B "may" means it is an option, rather than a requirement ("must exchange...").

2. This is the same. If any (valid) model buys Frag, all (valid) models must buy Frag.

3. If GW's designers were in the NO camp, they would have written this rule *and* the Nob rules differently.

You're emphasis on 'valid' is good, and perhaps I glossed over it too much in my earlier post. Perhaps this will clear up your confusion.

1A. Ok, so what's a "valid" model? You're saying a Nob w/ a PK is not a valid model because he already exchanged for a PK. But, he did start with a slugga and choppa so he COULD have exchanged for a shoota if he wanted to. You're essentially saying that because you've applied the squad creation rules in a certain order (PK first, shootas later), that that's makes certain models invalid for the exchange. If you want to have a debate about whether or not it's legal to apply squad creation rules one at a time or all at once, that's fine with me, but otherwise the nob IS a valid model, or at least he is at the beginning.

1B. I completely agree. "May" means an option. The entire mob may.... as in, the entire mob has the ability to do something. So the debate really comes down to whether "entire mob" means every model independently has the option to do something, which would allow for mixed mobs, or does it mean that the whole group must as one or not at all do something. See my previous posts for my opinion as to the word "entire."

But I agree with you as to the valid element. If there were members of the mob who never had shootas or sluggas to exchange, of course there'd be no problem if they didn't exchange. But Nobs do start out with the ability to exchange. Your leg to stand on is that you can apply an order of rules application. (See a bit farther above for problems with this approach - ie the rhino purchase problem)

2. See 1A as to what valid means. Otherwise you're exactly correct.

3. No, if the designers were in the YES camp they would have written the Nob rules separately so that we all would know they could be excluded from 'the entire mob' for certain creation purposes. The fact their rules are not separate means they are not distinct from 'the entire mob.'

deadlygopher wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nope. You're wrong.

1A. "entire" means if any (valid) model excercises the option, all (valid) models must exercise. Not some models ("Any model may exchange...").
1B "may" means it is an option, rather than a requirement ("must exchange...").

2. This is the same. If any (valid) model buys Frag, all (valid) models must buy Frag.

3. If GW's designers were in the NO camp, they would have written this rule *and* the Nob rules differently.

You're emphasis on 'valid' is good, and perhaps I glossed over it too much in my earlier post. Perhaps this will clear up your confusion.

1A. Ok, so what's a "valid" model? You're saying a Nob w/ a PK is not a valid model because he already exchanged for a PK. But, he did start with a slugga and choppa so he COULD have exchanged for a shoota if he wanted to. You're essentially saying that because you've applied the squad creation rules in a certain order (PK first, shootas later), that that's makes certain models invalid for the exchange. If you want to have a debate about whether or not it's legal to apply squad creation rules one at a time or all at once, that's fine with me, but otherwise the nob IS a valid model, or at least he is at the beginning.

1B. I completely agree. "May" means an option. The entire mob may.... as in, the entire mob has the ability to do something. So the debate really comes down to whether "entire mob" means every model independently has the option to do something, which would allow for mixed mobs, or does it mean that the whole group must as one or not at all do something.

But I agree with you as to the valid element. If there were members of the mob who never had shootas or sluggas to exchange, of course there'd be no problem if they didn't exchange. But Nobs do start out with the ability to exchange. Your leg to stand on is that you can apply an order of rules application. (See a bit farther above for problems with this approach - ie the rhino purchase problem)

2. See 1A as to what valid means. Otherwise you're exactly correct.

3. No, if the designers were in the YES camp they would have written the Nob rules separately so that we all would know they could be excluded from 'the entire mob' for certain creation purposes. The fact their rules are not separate means they are not distinct from 'the entire mob.'

1A. Correct. A Nob with PK doesn't have a Choppa to exhange and remains armed with PK.

1A'. As for order / sequence, why can't the player choose the order? There never have been such restrictions before, so there shouldn't be any now. If he doesn't upgrade his Choppa, I agree that the Nob would be a valid model. This is why I say the only clearly illegal option is Choppa Nob leading Shootaboyz.

1A". Note that sequencing is implied (and required) as part of player's discretion if he wants to upgrade any Shoota Boyz to Rokkits. If All Boyz are armed with S&C and no Boyz start out armed with Shootas, how do any of them upgrade their Shootas to Rokkits? If sequencing is an implied part of the rules, then the player can choose to upgrade to Shootas, and then upgrade some Rokkits. If there is no sequencing, then are Rokkit models illegal in the same way? In other words, can you create an argument that allows (presumably intended) Rokkits that cannot be carried over to the Nob by direct analogy?

1B. For this answer, you need to look at how GW handles other cases. When GW allows mixed units, GW writes "ANY model may exchange...". When GW requires an option to be applied across all (valid) models when exercised, GW writes "the entire unit may ..." to produce an unmixed unit.

3. As I've repeatedly explained, and ALL of you "YES" people consistently ignore:

3A. If GW wanted separate Nob weapon rules, they would have had to add TWO exception clauses: "If all models are armed with S&C, then the entire mob..." plus "If the mob is not armed with Shootas, then the Nob may ...". How come you guys are ALL afraid to address this point?

3B. If GW wanted separate Mob types, they would have had Slugga Boyz (with PK & BC Slugga Nobs) separate from Shoota Boys (non-upgradeable Shoota Nob). GW combined the entry with a single Nob option for both types of Boyz. The fact that their rules are not separate, means that the Nob (with upgrades are still valid, regardless of how the rest of the mob is armed).

JohnHwang wrote:1A. Correct. A Nob with PK doesn't have a Choppa to exhange and remains armed with PK.

1A'. As for order / sequence, why can't the player choose the order? There never have been such restrictions before, so there shouldn't be any now. If he doesn't upgrade his Choppa, I agree that the Nob would be a valid model. This is why I say the only clearly illegal option is Choppa Nob leading Shootaboyz.

1A". Note that sequencing is implied (and required) as part of player's discretion if he wants to upgrade any Shoota Boyz to Rokkits. If All Boyz are armed with S&C and no Boyz start out armed with Shootas, how do any of them upgrade their Shootas to Rokkits? If sequencing is an implied part of the rules, then the player can choose to upgrade to Shootas, and then upgrade some Rokkits. If there is no sequencing, then are Rokkit models illegal in the same way? In other words, can you create an argument that allows (presumably intended) Rokkits that cannot be carried over to the Nob by direct analogy?

1B. For this answer, you need to look at how GW handles other cases. When GW allows mixed units, GW writes "ANY model may exchange...". When GW requires an option to be applied across all (valid) models when exercised, GW writes "the entire unit may ..." to produce an unmixed unit.

3. As I've repeatedly explained, and ALL of you "YES" people consistently ignore:

3A. If GW wanted separate Nob weapon rules, they would have had to add TWO exception clauses: "If all models are armed with S&C, then the entire mob..." plus "If the mob is not armed with Shootas, then the Nob may ...". How come you guys are ALL afraid to address this point?

3B. If GW wanted separate Mob types, they would have had Slugga Boyz (with PK & BC Slugga Nobs) separate from Shoota Boys (non-upgradeable Shoota Nob). GW combined the entry with a single Nob option for both types of Boyz. The fact that their rules are not separate, means that the Nob (with upgrades are still valid, regardless of how the rest of the mob is armed).

1A. The big flaw you've made is that the rules say "...one Ork may exchange his slugga OR SHOOTA [for a rokkit / big shoota]..." So clearly, you do NOT need to imply an order of rules application, since the exchange is legal in the end result.

Let me give you an example. I'm building a squad of chaos marines. I buy 10 marines and add a rhino. Perfectly legal. Then I add a few more marines because I've chosen to apply the creation rules in a specific order. Why is this a problem? Everything was legal in the order I did it. Of course this argument will not work. The squad needs to be legal in the end result assuming all the creation rules were applied simultaneously. If you want to debate that I'm happy to do so, but I don't think anyone will.

As it applies to our case, the Nob begins with a slugga and choppa so WOULD BE ELIGIBLE to exchange for a shoota. To say he doesn't have to exchange means you're applying rules in a certain order which I think is pretty safe you cannot do. It doesn't matter with rokkits and big shootas because the rules will specifically allow an exchange of either weapon. So if you want to argue this point you really have to work on the definition of the word "entire." [See my previous posts as to how I feel about this word]

1B. I completely agree with you, after we correct your reasoning, of course. A Nob is a valid model if we're applying creation rules simultaneously, so if you want to press your argument you must realize you are in fact arguing for mixed mobs, see?

3A-B. The Nob is just one of the mob, and so is subject to the creation rules of the mob. There's no logical problem with this. If GW wanted the nob to work differently, so that he could always have a PK, then they could've done that, but they didn't. I'm happy to hear you further on this, but you'll need to give more reasoning than merely asserting "that's how it should work." Are you thinking of any other units where the squad leader could be armed so as to break squad creation rules?

deadlygopher wrote:So if you want to argue this point you really have to work on the definition of the word "entire." [See my previous posts as to how I feel about this word]

I had a big response queued up, and deleted the entire thing, because I'm just sick of the entire argument.

YOU need to understand how GW uses the word "entire", because you're getting it completely wrong.

Good luck, tho.

Hahaa. Ok guy. There's no point for this thread to continue if we're down to the "no YOU'RE wrong" stage. Next it will be "I'm rubber and you're glue, right?" Let's be done with it, then. A final recap:

"The entire mob may exchange..." It seems plain to say that anyone who could exchange must exchange if the option is applied. So who could exchange? Well, a nob could exchange because he starts with a slugga and choppa. The other side says because we've already exchanged his slugga and choppa for a PK, he's not eligible for the shoota exchange, and so that's the end of it. The problem I have with that argument is that it implies that users can apply squad creation rules in any order that benefits them. For instance, if I'm buying a squad of chaos marines, I might start by buying 10 marines and a rhino, which is perfectly legal. Then I add a few more marines to the squad. Is this a problem? All the rules were legal in the order I chose to apply them. Yet, no one would argue I can do this. The squad must be legal in the end result, regardless of the order creation rules were applied. In this case, the nob could have a shoota, if the exchange were done first. Logically then, if squad creation rules cannot be applied in whatever order suits the player, a nob in a shoota squad cannot have a PK.

This restriction does not affect rokkits/big shootas, since explicitly it says either the slugga/choppa or shoota could be exchanged for the rokkit/big shoota. This sheds further light on GW's intent. Here, the designers have explicitly allowed shoota squads to have these weapons because either the slugga/choppa or shoota could be exchanged. Yet, the option to exchange either was not replicated just six lines down. Obviously, then, the nob's equipment is restricted when the squad has shootas.

This type of rule exists elsewhere and wasn't questioned. From Chaos 3rd - "The entire squad may be armed with frag grenades..." Now, what would happen if someone from the squad is missing a frag grenade? Simple. No one gets the benefit of having frag grenades. Linguistically it's the same rule, and no one questioned what it meant before. Everybody will have frags when you exercise the option.

If GW's designers were in the YES camp, they would have written the rule differently. They've written this type of rule before and they've done it correctly. Example: "Any model in terminator armor may exchange...." Clearly, any number of models in terminator may do something, but they don't all have to. Maybe they all will exchange, maybe only one. Simple and clear. Why didn't they use these words in the Ork codex? Easy – the intention wasn’t to allow mixed mobs. Now, some may say that mixed mobs aren't allowed, just that the nob may be armed differently. This argument has no merit. The nob is a member of the mob and nowhere does it say he doesn’t follow the squad creation rules.

At this point I’m convinced that any reasonable argument contrary to this point will need to explore the following ideas. I’ll happily give full consideration to any of these.
1. Show that the nob is not a member of the mob. That will allow him to equipped differently despite the squad creation rules.
2. Show that squad creation rules can be applied in whatever order suits the player, but please be prepared to address at least my rhino example.
3. Show that the word “entire” doesn’t mean everybody in the mob.

deadlygopher wrote:This type of rule exists elsewhere and wasn't questioned. From Chaos 3rd - "The entire squad may be armed with frag grenades..." Now, what would happen if someone from the squad is missing a frag grenade? Simple. No one gets the benefit of having frag grenades. Linguistically it's the same rule, and no one questioned what it meant before. Everybody will have frags when you exercise the option.

I've got to disagree with both of these premises. First, adding something to an entire unit is not semantically equivalent to swapping an entire unit's specific piece of equipment for something else. Second, Frag Grenades work on a per-model basis; if you attach a character with or without Frag to a unit with or without them, it doesn't nullify the frags. They just only work for the models which have them (see p39).

As for the larger argument... I personally think it's ambiguous. I don't play Orks, but I'm not going to object if an opponent fields a Shoota mob with a Klaw Nob.

Yes, Nobz may take power klaws whether their mob goes with choppas and sluggas, or exchanges them for shootas.

Nurglitch wrote:Yes, Nobz may take power klaws whether their mob goes with choppas and sluggas, or exchanges them for shootas.

And you're getting this from where? Simply stating one of the choices with nothing to back up why it is so adds nothing to the discussion.

Actually it adds plenty to the discussion. There's no point in me slapping down a proof of my conclusion unless we've agree on what constitutes a valid method of proof. Otherwise at best we'll be talking past each other, and at worst we'll be arguing in rhetorical circles without reaching an objective conclusion.

But since you asked, I'll assume that we're using classical predicate logic as fixing the use of terms like 'true' and 'valid', the logical connectives and so on.

The codex entry in question is quite fortunately the key to the general entry structure of units in the codex in question. The "Options" heading subsumes the "Character" heading, as specified in the "Options" blurb for example. These options are ordered, as evidenced by logical structure of the entry: Where an Option entry requires another entry to have been chosen first, i.e.: is conditional upon it either by positing some restriction or referencing some constant or bounded variable, it follows that other entry. Where a entry does not require another entry to have been chosen first, their order is interchangeable. The option saying that all of the models in the mob, "the entire mob", may exchange their sluggas and choppas for shootas specify tht a model is required to have a slugga and a choppa to trade for a shoota (a classic example of modus ponens). If a Boy upgraded to a Nob upgrades its choppa to a power klaw, then it no longer has a slugga and a choppa and does not trade them in for a shoota.

In creating a mob of Ork Boyz then, a player follows these steps:
1. Select Composition (number of models)
2. Select Transport (limited by composition, thus conditional upon it)
3. Select Options
3a. Specific Character Upgrade
3b. Specific Character Wargear Upgrades
3c. General Mob Wargear Upgrades

Nurglitch wrote:Actually it adds plenty to the discussion. There's no point in me slapping down a proof of my conclusion unless we've agree on what constitutes a valid method of proof. Otherwise at best we'll be talking past each other, and at worst we'll be arguing in rhetorical circles without reaching an objective conclusion.

But since you asked, I'll assume that we're using classical predicate logic as fixing the use of terms like 'true' and 'valid', the logical connectives and so on.

The codex entry in question is quite fortunately the key to the general entry structure of units in the codex in question. The "Options" heading subsumes the "Character" heading, as specified in the "Options" blurb for example. These options are ordered, as evidenced by logical structure of the entry: Where an Option entry requires another entry to have been chosen first, i.e.: is conditional upon it either by positing some restriction or referencing some constant or bounded variable, it follows that other entry. Where a entry does not require another entry to have been chosen first, their order is interchangeable. The option saying that all of the models in the mob, "the entire mob", may exchange their sluggas and choppas for shootas specify tht a model is required to have a slugga and a choppa to trade for a shoota (a classic example of modus ponens). If a Boy upgraded to a Nob upgrades its choppa to a power klaw, then it no longer has a slugga and a choppa and does not trade them in for a shoota.

In creating a mob of Ork Boyz then, a player follows these steps:
1. Select Composition (number of models)
2. Select Transport (limited by composition, thus conditional upon it)
3. Select Options
3a. Specific Character Upgrade
3b. Specific Character Wargear Upgrades
3c. General Mob Wargear Upgrades

While I'm glad you were awake in logic, your fallacy is that you require us to presume a unit's layout is in itself meaningful, and not just a convenient way to organize the unit's rules. GW has never articulated to users that we should adopt this approach in unit creation, nor do I believe it's common sense. I mean no offense, but this sounds like an artificial rationale that's meant to sound smart enough to keep most people from replying.

Why do I assert the unit's organization is nothing more than convenient? Because I don’t need to. The rules are clear when viewed together. Big shootas / rokkits can still be used because they may come from an exchange of either sluggas/choppas or shootas. Yet the nob doesn’t have this luxury. And yes, while you might classify the former and the shoota exchange as a set of interchangable rules, there’s no reason they need to be, and again, because your approach is neither intuitive nor identified by GW, nor required to get a valid interpretation, I see no reason to adopt it nor abandon the very common sense and workable presumption that unit creation rules ought to be simultaneous.

Do you have other examples from other codexes, something that would corroborate the necessity of your argument? It’s a new approach so I like where you’re going, but I just don’t see why it’s the necessary approach.

Phausi wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Yes, Nobz may take power klaws whether their mob goes with choppas and sluggas, or exchanges them for shootas.

And you're getting this from where? Simply stating one of the choices with nothing to back up why it is so adds nothing to the discussion.

He's just saving himself a lot of effort and everybody a lot of time. When (certain) people have demonstrated that they can't even properly parse a simple option like "the entire mob may exchange..." within the context of GW rules-writing, why should anybody be burdened to bother with detailed explanation?

deadlygopher wrote:Why do I assert the unit's organization is nothing more than convenient?

Do you have other examples from other codexes, something that would corroborate the necessity of your argument?

Did you NOT just give the example from C:CSM?

This is why I got sick of the arugment.

Ah, John. I can only imagine what fun you are with your local gaming club, and what fits you must throw when you lose. Hurry along, it must be your bed time soon.

Nonetheless, I'll try to address you as I've given the same consideration to everyone else. First, I am interested in the proposition that organization of the entry implies the rules creation order that must be applied. But I'm not convinced of it because I haven't heard of it before nor does there appear to be an explicit need to adopt it. I've invited further evidence and discussion.

Now, you appear to be a big baby who wants his bottle. All the better that you're tired of this debate. You would, however, do yourself a favor by not cluttering the thread with childish ranting that does nothing but reduce your own credibility.

deadlygopher wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Point #3: Ah yes, you're clearly saying that the designers intended to do something but didn't. However, if there is a RAW standard, then all we have to go on is what the designers actually do write. Therefore, if intent can be gauged at all, it must be gauged by comparing the actual words of one rule to the actual words of another, which is exaclty what I did.

I don’t think you understand the concepts of RaW and RaI. RaW takes the rules at their most literal meaning and does not consider anything else (game balance, background or designer intent). RaI considers what the designers intended but didn’t explicitly spell out (because they didn’t anticipate certain circumstances, or the pedantry of players or they simply worded something poorly). They are mutually exclusive methods of reading the rules.

There is one single argument that basically nails the RaI argument in favour of the Yes camp; if the designers had decided to limit the effectiveness of shoota boyz by excluding the nob from carrying a powerklaw, they would have said that in plain English. It wouldn’t have been included by way of an inference that can only be seen by a careful reading of the rules… the rule for the nobz option would have read ‘the nob can exchange his choppa for a power klaw, unless the mob has exchanged their choppas for shootas, in which case he cannot.’

In terms of RaW, then the absolute, most literal definition probably agrees with the No camp. But then by the RaW BA rhinos have no access points... why people insist on RaW only is beyond me.

sebster wrote:

deadlygopher wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Point #3: Ah yes, you're clearly saying that the designers intended to do something but didn't. However, if there is a RAW standard, then all we have to go on is what the designers actually do write. Therefore, if intent can be gauged at all, it must be gauged by comparing the actual words of one rule to the actual words of another, which is exaclty what I did.

I don’t think you understand the concepts of RaW and RaI. RaW takes the rules at their most literal meaning and does not consider anything else (game balance, background or designer intent). RaI considers what the designers intended but didn’t explicitly spell out (because they didn’t anticipate certain circumstances, or the pedantry of players or they simply worded something poorly). They are mutually exclusive methods of reading the rules.

There is one single argument that basically nails the RaI argument in favour of the Yes camp; if the designers had decided to limit the effectiveness of shoota boyz by excluding the nob from carrying a powerklaw, they would have said that in plain English. It wouldn’t have been included by way of an inference that can only be seen by a careful reading of the rules… the rule for the nobz option would have read ‘the nob can exchange his choppa for a power klaw, unless the mob has exchanged their choppas for shootas, in which case he cannot.’

In terms of RaW, then the absolute, most literal definition probably agrees with the No camp. But then by the RaW BA rhinos have no access points... why people insist on RaW only is beyond me.

I agree with you. A perfect RAW standard is unwieldy and leads to intuitively illogical results, such as terminators not wearing terminator armor. I'd be the first to argue the standard should be fairly-strict RAW with an infused element of common sense so we can get around rhinos without access points and terminators who go out on the field without that definitive piece of wargear. In "common sense" cases where RAW has obviously failed us, we should step beyond it to get a reasonable understanding of how the game is supposed to work. But has RAW failed to produce a logical result in this case? I don't think it has.

What I tried to emphasize with my "intent" argument is not the subjective desire of the designers, but what the rule should mean when compared to other rules GW has written. Why did GW write the rule the way they did, and what does it mean by the fact they didn't adopt wordings they've used before? They didn't write it well to allow for mixed mobs, as you must have read in my posts. Furthermore, in the same unit description, boyz are allowed to exchange either a slugga or shoota for rokkit/big shoota (so obviously these weapons are allowed regardless of how the squad is equipped), yet the nob may only exchange his choppa. Why didn't GW allow him to exchange his shoota for a PK? Why not copy the wording from just six lines up? Robg54 had a good comment on why this is the case, but it requires the designers' intention be assumed. Moreover, there's still the problem of "entire mob," and the fact that the nob COULD exchange his slugga/choppa for shoota, so why shouldn't he be forced to?

Why does RAI favor the YES camp? It's certainly reasonable to assume GW intended the squad to be either hitty or shooty. Look at eldar guardians - when they swap to have pistols and close combat weapons they lose their weapons platform. This is by no means a definitive argument, but it shows that a squad, without having a different entry in the codex, can have a definite shoot/assault purpose, and options can appear or disappear based on which road the player goes down.

One additional point I'd like to bring up (for pete's sake, don't attack this one. This isn't an argument but just something to think about) is that shoota mobz with PK nobz would be great. So great that they might become the "definitive/power gamer's" de facto troop selection. (And maybe trukk boyz too, although I've heard bad things because of mob size limits). In any case, GW's intent may very well have been to avoid having one "great" troop selection to make gretchin/foot slogging slugga boyz more viable.

Now, seriously, there's no need to comment on how much more or not more effective the shoota boyz with PK nob would be compared to the other troop selections. I'm putting it out there as something to think about as the last two posts had a little to do with intent, and I'm basically questioning why we must assume GW even wanted shoota mobz to have pk nobz. I'm even hesitant to post this because it detracts from my main RAW arguments, but there you go.