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.

 BlackTalos wrote:
"the entire mob may" is the same as "The entire unit may take the Bonding Knife Ritual". Same unit, Clear separation of rules, precedence, and point disproved.

excuse me but its not. you cannot simply take wording from another codex on an entire different matter, and ignore half of a sentence because it says "the entire mob"

but ok, then whats the difference between "all models with [type of weapon]" and "the entire mob replace their [type of weapon]"?

there is none.
the first part of the rules addresses all models in the unit(all models/entire mob), the second part specifically mentions a type of weapon that is affected (with rifles/their sluggas)

The order does matter. You cannot pick option 4 then option 3. You cannot exchange the weapon on a Nob if you haven't bought the Nob upgrade first.

no THE ORDER doesnt matter. you said it yourself. you cant choose option X without getting option Y first. so the order in which it is printed doesnt effect the availability at all.
the RULE MECHANICS dictate which update you can take and when.
I.E. if i dont have a nob, i cant take upgrade for him regardless of the printed order.

@ghaz

And again, it's one point per model, period. Not one point per model upgrading his slugga to a shoota.

So the mob upgrades any and all sluggas at the cost of one point per model in the mob.

And again, the earth is flat. period.

so pigs can fly and i'm dancing in my underwear.

saying random stuff without arguments to back it up, doesnt mean jack and isnt really helpful in a discussion.

And you can't accept the fact that the way that the Ork Boyz entry is written doesn't care what weapons the model has now, just the number of models in the mob. It is clear. GW wants you to pay one point per model in the mob, regardless of how many of those models have sluggas to exchange.

The way I do my boyz mobs is as follows;

-10 boyz, 60 points
-upgrade one with big shoota or rokkit launcher, 5 points
-upgrade one to nob, 10 points
-give nob a power klaw, 25 points
-give nob a twin linked shoota, 3 points
-upgrade remaining 8 boyz with shootas, 8 points

 edbradders wrote:
The way I do my boyz mobs is as follows;

-10 boyz, 60 points
-upgrade one with big shoota or rokkit launcher, 5 points
-upgrade one to nob, 10 points
-give nob a power klaw, 25 points
-give nob a twin linked shoota, 3 points
-upgrade remaining 8 boyz with shootas, 8 points

Except as has been stated, that is not what the rules say.

 Ghaz wrote:

 edbradders wrote:
The way I do my boyz mobs is as follows;

-10 boyz, 60 points
-upgrade one with big shoota or rokkit launcher, 5 points
-upgrade one to nob, 10 points
-give nob a power klaw, 25 points
-give nob a twin linked shoota, 3 points
-upgrade remaining 8 boyz with shootas, 8 points

Except as has been stated, that is not what the rules say.

Except as had been stated BY YOU.

I've stated the other way. I would agree that only 8 points would be needed to upgrade the 8 models as, PER THE RULES, we're PAYING the points on a PER MODEL basis. We're choosing the upgrade on a per mob basis, but PAYING on a per model basis. Nothing tells me to pay for models that aren't being upgraded. The entire mob upgraded their sluggas at a cost of 1 point per model. Time to pay. How many models upgraded their sluggas to shootas? 8 models. 8 points.

 Ghaz wrote:
And you can't accept the fact that the way that the Ork Boyz entry is written doesn't care what weapons the model has now, just the number of models in the mob. It is clear. GW wants you to pay one point per model in the mob, regardless of how many of those models have sluggas to exchange.

you still havent said WHY we should ignore the "replace slugga with shoota" part...

how can i replace something i dont have?

 Ghaz wrote:
And you can't accept the fact that the way that the Ork Boyz entry is written doesn't care what weapons the model has now, just the number of models in the mob. It is clear. GW wants you to pay one point per model in the mob, regardless of how many of those models have sluggas to exchange.

If it were clear, everyone would agree with you. It's not clear. I could just as easily say "It is clear. GW wants you to pay one point to upgrade a slugga to a shoota, regardless of how many models are in the mob."... but I don't. I don't do this because I don't know what GW wants. I'm not on the rules writing team and neither are you. We have to rely on what is actually written.

At the end of the day, I (and many others) think that it costs 1 point to upgrade a slugga to a shoota. You don't. You (and many others) believe it costs a variable amount to upgrade a slugga to a shoota depending on how other models are in the mob. I am paying on a per model basis with the models determined by asking how many upgraded their sluggas to shootas (the upgrade in question). You are paying on a per model basis with the models determined by asking how many upgraded their sluggas to shootas AND how many didn't because they can't owing to not having a slugga. Your method creates a variable cost per slugga upgraded. Mine doesn't.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

RedNoak wrote:
saying random stuff without arguments to back it up, doesnt mean jack and isnt really helpful in a discussion.

RedNoak, this tend's to be Ghaz's modus operandi, at least based on the threads I've read. You have to say one thing though. S/he never gives up.

RedNoak wrote:
u still havent said WHY we should ignore the "replace slugga with shoota" part...

how can i replace something i dont have?

He's not saying you ignore that part. He's saying the upgrade affects the entire mob, because it says so. So you replace all the sluggas with shootas, and you pay a cost of one point per model in the mob to do so.

RedNoak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And you can't accept the fact that the way that the Ork Boyz entry is written doesn't care what weapons the model has now, just the number of models in the mob. It is clear. GW wants you to pay one point per model in the mob, regardless of how many of those models have sluggas to exchange.

you still havent said WHY we should ignore the "replace slugga with shoota" part...

how can i replace something i dont have?

Because it never says that the price is per model replacing the slugga, does it? No. The price is per model. Per model what? Per model in the entire mob. Once again, the price you pay has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the model has a slugga to replace or not. It is all dependent on how many models are in the mob, regardless of whether all of the models have sluggas or only one does. The 'replace slugga with shoota' has nothing to do with the price. Nothing.

Ok here's a question that will get me flamed I'm sure. In the previous Ork Codex I believe Shoota Boyz and Slugga Boyz were a separate entry correct? If so, was there a different upgrade cost to include the special weapons in either of those squads? If the weapons cost the same for both units, then I'd say the intention of the upgrade sluggas to shootas is that you pay for every single model in the mob whether you are upgrading them to a special weapon or not.

If the costs were different, then I'd say the intention was that you don't have to pay the cost for the shoota upgrade on special weapon upgrades, as they were compensating for the already higher point cost of the shoota boy (assuming the cost for the special weapon was lower in the shoota boy squad!).

As I haven't read either ork codex that closely, someone else would have to spot check this for accuracy. Hope this helps and doesn't cause more confusion.

Noc

Nocturus wrote:
Ok here's a question that will get me flamed I'm sure. In the previous Ork Codex I believe Shoota Boyz and Slugga Boyz were a separate entry correct? If so, was there a different upgrade cost to include the special weapons in either of those squads? If the weapons cost the same for both units, then I'd say the intention of the upgrade sluggas to shootas is that you pay for every single model in the mob whether you are upgrading them to a special weapon or not.

If the costs were different, then I'd say the intention was that you don't have to pay the cost for the shoota upgrade on special weapon upgrades, as they were compensating for the already higher point cost of the shoota boy (assuming the cost for the special weapon was lower in the shoota boy squad!).

As I haven't read either ork codex that closely, someone else would have to spot check this for accuracy. Hope this helps and doesn't cause more confusion.

Noc

Same entry, however the swap cost no points.

In 3rd edition they were separate entries, with slugga boyz costing 1 point more (upgrades cost the same between the two, except for Nobz).

 Happyjew wrote:
In 3rd edition they were separate entries, with slugga boyz costing 1 point more (upgrades cost the same between the two, except for Nobz).

Which is exactly what you get with the 7th edition codex in a single entry, with the shootas being a point more expensive instead of the sluggas.

RedNoak wrote:
but ok, then whats the difference between "all models with [type of weapon]" and "the entire mob replace their [type of weapon]"?

there is none.

You see no difference between the term "model" and the term "unit" ("entire mob") ? I'm not sure why we are still arguing rules....


ANY other Codex entry with the quoted words "entire unit" will be for every single model in the unit. Or please find an example that is not.

The Slugga to shoota where "some models don't get to pay" is wrong and has no precedent.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bludbaff wrote:
The kind of precedent tha would actually clear this up would be another case where a model must pay for an upgrade that it no longer possesses before it hits the table. My position is that you can't charge for something you don't have in the final list.

This would bring us back to "order of options". If you run for top to bottom, you will never find that precedent. Nor will this situation be a precedent, as you pay for the swap before they pick the extra weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And another example of "order of option" if you still do not agree:

Astra Militarum Codex:
Militarum Tempestus Platoon

- Up to four Tempestus Scions that have not been upgraded with one of the options above may (...)

How can you pick this point first and then do your other options later?

Requiring options be taken from top to bottom isn't a RaW thing.

Here is the specific quote from the Army Entries section of the Ork Codex describing the options...

"11. Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points cost for each. Where an option states that you may exchange one weapon ‘and/or’ another, you may replace either or both, provided you pay the points cost for each. The abbreviation ‘pts’ stands for ‘points’ and ‘pts/model’ stands for ‘points per model’. Where applicable, this section also refers to any Transports the unit may take. These have their own datasheets. Dedicated Transports do not use up any slots on a Force Organisation Chart, but otherwise function as separate units. The Detachments section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules explains how Dedicated Transports work."

You'll notice a lack of any wording telling you to take options from top to bottom. We can quit discussing order of operations unless you can provide an actual rule dictating order of operations.

Ultimately, the wording is ambiguous, but the math is not.

If you have a 10 man mob and 1 model takes the big shoota upgrade before any other upgrades, you will have 9 sluggas. If you then choose the slugga to shoota option and we go with your interpretation, you pay 10 points. Now, we have a break occurring because you're paying 1.11 points per swapped slugga. The entire mob may swap their sluggas for shootas ...1pt/model. But your'e not swapping the sluggas for shootas at 1pt/model. You're swapping sluggas for shootas at the rate of 1.11 pts/model. You're overpaying. The rules dictate that the mob swaps sluggas for shootas at the rate of 1 point per model. You're arguing specifically that you swap at the rate of 1.11 points per model. The ACTUAL SWAP is occurring at 1.11 points per model and SWAP is the key verb/action that is taking place.

Your just looking at it the wrong way kriswall.

What your effectively doing with the swap is actually just paying for a Shoota unit instead of a Slugga unit.

They could have made them seperate entries but decided to instead consolidate them to save space in the book.

Shoota boys cost 1 point more than slugga boys, thus you need to pay the 1 point more per guy that is in the unit.


This is how you have to look at it for it to make sense.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Your just looking at it the wrong way kriswall.

What your effectively doing with the swap is actually just paying for a Shoota unit instead of a Slugga unit.

They could have made them seperate entries but decided to instead consolidate them to save space in the book.

Shoota boys cost 1 point more than slugga boys, thus you need to pay the 1 point more per guy that is in the unit.


This is how you have to look at it for it to make sense.

My codex only has a Boyz unit. I don't have a Shoota unit or a Slugga unit. I only have Boyz who come with sluggas and have an option to replace them for shootas.

I agree that "Shoota Boyz" cost 1 point more than "Slugga Boyz". The unit in question has 10 Slugga Boyz when one of them spends 5 points to become a Rokkit Boy. I now have 9 Slugga Boyz and a Rokkit Boy. I spend 9 more points to make the Slugga Boyz into Shoota Boyz.

What im saying is that the reason they worded it the way they did is because you are effectively paying for a shoota boyz unit when you pay the 1 point per model.


And yes, that is the RAI.

 Icculus wrote:
It's not ambiguous.

1 point per model means....1 point per model.

1 point per model with a slugga would mean 1 point per model with a slugga.
I think you are trying to superimpose language at the end of the requirement.

the reason they changing price/unit is for simplicity and mathematical smoothness. 15 guys in the squad? want it to be a shoota buys squad? add another 15 points. Ok now go add in the special weapons.

I appreciate that you feel the rules should have been worded a certain way, and I understand the frustrations of wishing the book clarified more. But the fact is, it says 1 pt per model.

And they have used this pricing before. Most grenades use this pricing format, although in that instance each and every model gets the grenade.

But the idea is that a big shoota in a unit of shootas is more effective than a big shoota in a unit of choppas.

Also, did I mention it's easier to calculate the totals by doing it this way?

QFT. There is a lot of confusion in the rules and yes, it is not clear, but this makes the most sense RAI.

 Ghaz wrote:

Because it never says that the price is per model replacing the slugga, does it?

yes it does...

The entire mob may replace their sluggas with shootas…1 pt/model

every model in the unit with a slugga replaces it with a shoota for 1pt

 BlackTalos wrote:

RedNoak wrote:
but ok, then whats the difference between "all models with [type of weapon]" and "the entire mob replace their [type of weapon]"?
there is none.

You see no difference between the term "model" and the term "unit" ("entire mob") ? I'm not sure why we are still arguing rules....

yes i fail to see the difference between the terms: all models and the entire mob

please enlighten me. where exactly is this difference found? those arent the same words or letters, ill give you that. but from my understanding of the english language: all models is the same as the entire unit...

 insaniak wrote:
He's not saying you ignore that part. He's saying the upgrade affects the entire mob, because it says so. So you replace all the sluggas with shootas, and you pay a cost of one point per model in the mob to do so.

but what if the model doesnt have a slugga? the way i see it, only models with a determined qualifier (i.e. a slugga) have to pay the fee. but the entire mob is affected by this swap. so EVERYONE in the entire mob can replace their slugga with a shoota for 1pt/model

RedNoak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Because it never says that the price is per model replacing the slugga, does it?

yes it does...

The entire mob may replace their sluggas with shootas…1 pt/model

every model in the unit with a slugga replaces it with a shoota for 1pt

Again, you've added with a slugga that's not in the actual rule. The entire mob, at the cost of one point per model replaces all sluggas in the mob for shootas. Ten orks in the mob means you pay ten points because that is the number of models in "the entire mob".

Ghaz, please answer this specific question... how many points for the below upgrade?

Assume a unit of 10 models, 9 Boyz and a Boss Nob.

Assume this option...

"The entire mob may replace their Boss Nobz with Painboyz ...10pts/model"

How many points does it take to replace the single Boss Nob with a Painboy?

RedNoak wrote:
but what if the model doesnt have a slugga?

Then he doesn't get a shoota. He is still a model in the unit, though.

Kriswall 6080531 5938b049ebccd3de45ff20192e69acfc.jpg wrote:Ghaz, please answer this specific question... how many points for the below upgrade?

Assume a unit of 10 models, 9 Boyz and a Boss Nob.

Assume this option...

"The entire mob may replace their Boss Nobz with Painboyz ...10pts/model"

How many points does it take to replace the single Boss Nob with a Painboy?

This rules debate is for replacing wargear not models. Your point is moot and confusing for anyone.

If the entire mob does not have sufficient wargear to replace for Shootas, ie the entire mob does not have sluggas, then you may not take the option.

It would be like "The entire unit may replace its x for y."

Just like a codex where you take a terminator with claws then cant have the unit power fists replace power fists with hammers. They can't replace the fists he doesnt have. Doesn't mean you skip him.

It means since the entire mob doesn't have sluggas so the entire mob is not eligible. Because the entire mob does not qualify.

Also, the book says replace x for y by paying per model in the mob.

The book does not state "replace x for y and pay per number of upgrades"

Without inserting words, our side of the arguement RAW and RAI makes clearer sense.

Edit**

If you took upgrades out of order it would be possible to take a unit of 20 boys with ten shootas

 Kriswall wrote:
Assume this option...

"The entire mob may replace their Boss Nobz with Painboyz ...10pts/model"

How many points does it take to replace the single Boss Nob with a Painboy?

Is there a particular reason that you would expect changing the specific things being replaced while keeping the wording otherwise the same to change the answer?


If the entry were written like that (which it wouldn't be, because it makes no sense that way) it would cost one point per model in the unit to upgrade the Boss to a Painboy.

 Kriswall wrote:
Ghaz, please answer this specific question... how many points for the below upgrade?

Assume a unit of 10 models, 9 Boyz and a Boss Nob.

Assume this option...

"The entire mob may replace their Boss Nobz with Painboyz ...10pts/model"

How many points does it take to replace the single Boss Nob with a Painboy?

I don't see this in the codex, or is it something you just made up trying to prove that you're right?

It's obviously not in the codex. You'll note my use of the word assume.

I can only assume from your answer avoidance that you don't feel as strongly when the nouns are changed.

I've also spoken to three friends out of a sheer sense of curiosity. Two have advanced degrees (one Master and one Doctorate) in English. The third is a technical writer and copy editor by trade. All three agree that at best the wording is ambiguous. None of the three know anything about this game and all three agreed with my interpretation. To avoid bias, I didn't voice my opinion until after they did.

I think I'm going to go with my interpretation as it not only gives a consistent one point per model for the act of the model replacing a slugga with a shoota, but has also been agreed to by three separate, specifically educated third party observers.

I think the thing you are missing is in the fluff... or rather, in the ambiguity of how Orks divide their gear. Da oyz make a made dash for the big shoota. One in ten get it, the rest go for the pile of sluggas or shoot as that are left.

The entire mob can exchange. It doesn't matter how many boyz are in the mob, they all pay for the mobs upgrade. They all want that shot at the Rokkit, but they don't have the choice to save teef on a slugga if the rest of the mob is getting shootaz.

I agree, there is some ambiguity in the wording. That can be said for most of GW's rules... right? But this rule still says "entire mob" and "1pt/model". The mob exchanges, not just the boyz with sluggas.

 Kriswall wrote:
It's obviously not in the codex. You'll note my use of the word assume.

I can only assume from your answer avoidance that you don't feel as strongly when the nouns are changed.

I've also spoken to three friends out of a sheer sense of curiosity. Two have advanced degrees (one Master and one Doctorate) in English. The third is a technical writer and copy editor by trade. All three agree that at best the wording is ambiguous. None of the three know anything about this game and all three agreed with my interpretation. To avoid bias, I didn't voice my opinion until after they did.

I think I'm going to go with my interpretation as it not only gives a consistent one point per model for the act of the model replacing a slugga with a shoota, but has also been agreed to by three separate, specifically educated third party observers.

So, you're using an example NOT IN THE CODEX to justify your interpretation? Okay. Also, I will absolutely give you that the wording is ambiguous, but saying "I think I'm going to go with my interpretation as it not only gives a consistent one point per model for the act of the model replacing a slugga with a shoota, but has also been agreed to by three separate, specifically educated third party observers." is more or less a "nanny nanny boo boo" to everyone who disagrees with you. Not sure what it adds to the discussion other than trying to demean others.

i guess i never thought about it to take the big shoota before upgrading to shoota boys. but i don't see any reason why it would negate you from being able to upgrade to shootas and save a few points, with all the crap the gets pulled by some of the guys i play with i will definitely be saving a few points from now on.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
It's obviously not in the codex. You'll note my use of the word assume.

I can only assume from your answer avoidance that you don't feel as strongly when the nouns are changed.

I've also spoken to three friends out of a sheer sense of curiosity. Two have advanced degrees (one Master and one Doctorate) in English. The third is a technical writer and copy editor by trade. All three agree that at best the wording is ambiguous. None of the three know anything about this game and all three agreed with my interpretation. To avoid bias, I didn't voice my opinion until after they did.

I think I'm going to go with my interpretation as it not only gives a consistent one point per model for the act of the model replacing a slugga with a shoota, but has also been agreed to by three separate, specifically educated third party observers.

So, you're using an example NOT IN THE CODEX to justify your interpretation? Okay. Also, I will absolutely give you that the wording is ambiguous, but saying "I think I'm going to go with my interpretation as it not only gives a consistent one point per model for the act of the model replacing a slugga with a shoota, but has also been agreed to by three separate, specifically educated third party observers." is more or less a "nanny nanny boo boo" to everyone who disagrees with you. Not sure what it adds to the discussion other than trying to demean others.

Having the situation reviewed by qualified third party specialists counts as a demeaning "nanny nanny boo boo"? My good sir, I'd recommend you stay away from academia. I'm not sure you'd react well to a full blown peer review process. Getting multiple impartial subject matter experts to opine on a situation is very commonplace in real world dispute arbitrations.

Also, I used the specific example we are talking about, but with different nouns to illustrate my point.

Lastly, thank you for agreeing that the wording is ambiguous. That the wording is ambiguous means this requires an FAQ at the very least.

The FAQ that we really need is "Can I choose options out of order, or must they be chosen from top to bottom?". An answer to that questions resolves this issue, as well as other issues such as the viability of a Power Fist wielding Space Marine Apothecary.