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.

In the codex the wording was his weapons so only his weapons were swapped allowing for later additions. It now states ALL weapons which means ALL weapons.

 FlingitNow wrote:
It clearly says all. The ork faq states you can do stuff before an all clause but not after. prove with any rules or example that you can make changes to an ALL Clause after it has been activated.

No, the Ork FAQ states that order matters.

Again, prove that the clause is "activated" and REMAINS active. You have yet to do so

I swap all weapons - rule satisfied, rule is finished with
I move on
I add a weapon - nothing stopping me.

All rules satisfied.

So, Again: PROVE with actual rules that the "exchange all weapons for:" ruel *remains active indefinitely*.

You cannot do so, because the language of the rule is rather specific in being point in time (exchange all weapons as opposed to must keep exchanging, for a trivial example to help your understanding) and not continuing, but give it a go anyway. An actual rule, please

Prove that it doesn't remain active. There is one other example were this wording is used and that was faq'd that all means ALL. Prove so show an example where all does not mean all.

So you cannot prove it? Then the actual language used, which is point in time, is the rule.

Once you have swapped all weapons, you have satisfied the rule. if you later gain weapons, you have no permission to reactivate the rule. so you dont.

Your argument is done.

So you can't prove the rule stops being active. You must replace all weapons. You haven't satisfied that rule by having a Cml. You can't illustrate any precedence that you can end an all clause and choose to ignore the clear precedent set.

So yes if you ignore the rules and faqs then you can have a th/ss and Cml and only then.

See Ork nobz with power klaws in shoota boy mobs /thread.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So you can't prove the rule stops being active. You must replace all weapons. You haven't satisfied that rule by having a Cml. You can't illustrate any precedence that you can end an all clause and choose to ignore the clear precedent set.

So yes if you ignore the rules and faqs then you can have a th/ss and Cml and only then.

PLease actually read the post youre responding to, where I proved that it DOES end, as the language used in the "all" statement is point in time. Thus, it ends

As I said, your argument has been refuted for the nth time. Please provide a rule showing it REMAINS active, which would require you to make rules up, or concede. Any other response I will accept as your concession, as by this point the argument has devolved to you just ignoring the rules and arguments posted.

 FlingitNow wrote:
have you read the blood Angels codex? the furioso upgrades make no mention of a furioso dread. your strawman argument is flawed.

th/ss requires you replacing ALL your weapons. not just the weapons you have when you make the upgrades but all. the only precedent we have for this language is the furioso. guess what the faq said. it rather unsurprisingly ruled that all means all. prove that all doesn't mean all or that the Cml is not part of the set of all weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The upgrades for the furioso make no mention of a furioso being able to take them. That is why that strawman was ignored. The wording of replaces all only occurs in one other place and gw faq'd that to mean that all meant ALL. please give a citation that all does not mean all.

back to the Furioso again...sigh. Can a space marine Sargent take squad options like a heavy or special weapon? No. Why do you think an upgraded model could? You are comparing apples to oranges with this Furioso argument not apples to apples.

It has been well established for a very long time that you buy options in order, your denial of this is perplexing.

Sigh so tgf still talking about sergeants. Have you read the blood angels codex? Do you have a clue about the rules and why a sergeant can't take special weapons. Explain how that applies to the furioso libby

The Sanguinary Priest or Apothecary in other Marine squads can't buy options. I don't know the wording in the DA codex, but it would make sense for this theme to continue.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Sigh so tgf still talking about sergeants. Have you read the blood angels codex? Do you have a clue about the rules and why a sergeant can't take special weapons. Explain how that applies to the furioso libby

How about this, if you are so sure you are right, and have such a great understanding of the rules, if an FAQ comes out and says CML is allowed you change your forum name to douchebag for a year. If an FAQ comes out and rules its not allowed. I will change mine.

Yeah sure.

The way it is written, no you can not take a CML if you take TH/SS.

If you use precedence set by FAQ's you're both allowed to and forbidden to, depending on what FAQ you read, to do this.

I think that while discussion on hot topics is all well and good everyone needs to let this thread die a quiet death and patiently wait for the full FAQ to be released where GW will say " Yeah it's cool, Bro. Take your CML and TH/SS." until then there will be NO definitive answer for this and people should discuss with their opponents or the TO of the event they are attending if it is acceptable.

My 2 ¢

FlingitNow wrote:Why is the 4th ed faq relevant? There was no use of the word all. Or is belial only 130 points because he was in 4th. Can the apothecary still have a power fist like in 4th...

The codex has changed. Cml and th/ss is no longer allowed. Deal with it.

Belial isn't 130 points now because it explicitly states he is 190. An apothecary cannot have a power fist anymore because it explicitly states "Replace power fist with a narthecium".

4th edition Deathwing taking a CML had to "Replace its weapons" (meaning all). Where does the 4th edition codex say "replace storm bolter & power fist" in order to take a CML? It doesn't, yet TH/SS/CML was explicitly allowed in the FAQ. How can that be?

 FlingitNow wrote:
have you read the blood Angels codex? the furioso upgrades make no mention of a furioso dread. your strawman argument is flawed.

th/ss requires you replacing ALL your weapons. not just the weapons you have when you make the upgrades but all. the only precedent we have for this language is the furioso. guess what the faq said. it rather unsurprisingly ruled that all means all. prove that all doesn't mean all or that the Cml is not part of the set of all weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The upgrades for the furioso make no mention of a furioso being able to take them. That is why that strawman was ignored. The wording of replaces all only occurs in one other place and gw faq'd that to mean that all meant ALL. please give a citation that all does not mean all.

Have you read the BA codex? First, the entry does not say the Librarian replaces its weapons. It says exchange all wargear. Second, The FAQ did not rule that "all means all". The FAQ simply states "No." There is no further explanation, you are now in the realm of completely fabricating facts. Furioso Dreadnought specifically says "Upgrade to a Furioso Librarian", meaning it is no longer a Furioso Dreadnought.

Ork boyz have a choppa and slugga. You are given these options in order:
"The entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas", followed by "One Boy may be upgraded to Nob", and finally "He may replace his choppa with one of the following:"

Now, if you just exchanged all your weapons (sluggas and choppas) for shootas, how can you then take one of those shoota boyz and make him a Nob and replace his choppa with a power klaw, since he no longer has a choppa to replace? Miraculously, it is allowed. Please explain why it is allowed for us.

"Entire mob may replace" (Orks), "Replace its weapons" (4th DA), and "Replace all weapons" (6th DA) are all stating the exact same thing. The 3-letter word "all" and the Blood Angels codex are not some unique situation that is unprecedented in the entire history of 40k, please stop suggesting otherwise.

Not sure if any mods are following this thread but can we get a mod to enforce the terms of FlingitNow and my agreement? Arguments are more fun when there are meaningful consequences.

tgf wrote:
Not sure if any mods are following this thread but can we get a mod to enforce the terms of FlingitNow and my agreement? Arguments are more fun when there are meaningful consequences.

A. I don't think that word is a term the mods would like a user to have in the first place.
B. If you're so invested in a rules debate that you need to fling name-calling into it, go outside and talk to some one. Step away from the computer/codex.
C. Just because an FAQ rules in one way on a rules debate does not mean that was the "right" way. FAQs have ignored the written rule of a codex before and they will do so again and again.

tgf wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Sigh so tgf still talking about sergeants. Have you read the blood angels codex? Do you have a clue about the rules and why a sergeant can't take special weapons. Explain how that applies to the furioso libby

How about this, if you are so sure you are right, and have such a great understanding of the rules, if an FAQ comes out and says CML is allowed you change your forum name to douchebag for a year. If an FAQ comes out and rules its not allowed. I will change mine.

I love this post soooo much.

I read the entry last night, and I can't decide either way. I'm willing to let someone play with their CML on a TH/SS dude if they have one modeled until I see an FAQ on it that says otherwise, though.