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.

the rules of Splinter rack state whilst a model is embarked upon a vehicle all splinter weapons are considered twin-linked. it does not state that only those embarked get that bonus.. so with that rationale would that then give my entire army Twin-Linked Splinter Weapons?

The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board the turn after you killed them either.

Warhammer 40,000 like most games has a permissive rules set and tells you what you can do instead of what you can not do. If the rules don't give you permission to twin-link the splinter weapons on models not embarked on a Raider with the Splinter Racks upgrade then you can not.

 Ghaz wrote:
The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board the turn after you killed them either.

Warhammer 40,000 like most games has a permissive rules set and tells you what you can do instead of what you can not do. If the rules don't give you permission to twin-link the splinter weapons on models not embarked on a Raider with the Splinter Racks upgrade then you can not.

my statement is that it states specifically "all splinter weapons"
so my thought is that i can have a model embarked and it'll give "ALL" splinter weapons twin linked.

thats my thoughts in regards to RAW

Your RAW doesn't work because you're disregarding the subject of the sentence and that is "... (a) model is embarked on a vehicle with splinter racks...".

 Ghaz wrote:
Your RAW doesn't work because you're disregarding the subject of the sentence and that is "... (a) model is embarked on a vehicle with splinter racks...".

Exactly. The sentence it say that "all splinter weapons" on "a model embarked on the Raider" are twin-linked.
We need to know who is getting the rule and since it doesn't say all splinter weapons "in your army", we do not have that permission. The sentence tells who does have permission,

-

As crazy as it may seem, it does seem RAW that it gives all splinter weapons twin linked. The entry reads

"whislt a model is embarked on a vehicle with splinter wracks, all splinter weapons have the twin linked special rule"

Though I do agree, and have/will only ever played it, as the embarked models that gain twin linked it has left itself open for interpretation by not restricting it to the embarked models. It really should read more

"whislt a model is embarked on a vehicle with splinter wracks, all splinter weapons *on the embarked models* have the twin linked special rule"

five cheese wrote:
As crazy as it may seem, it does seem RAW that it gives all splinter weapons twin linked. The entry reads

"whislt a model is embarked on a vehicle with splinter wracks, all splinter weapons become twin linked"

Though I do agree, and have/will only ever played it, as the embarked models that gain twin linked it has left itself open for interpretation. It really should read more

"whislt a model is embarked on a vehicle with splinter wracks, all splinter weapons on the embarked models become twin linked"

But again, whose splinter weapons are twin-linked? Models embarked.
There is no need to add the phrase in read. We have been given the subject (a model embarked) and what they gain (all splinter weapons twin-linked)

-

five cheese wrote:
As crazy as it may seem, it does seem RAW that it gives all splinter weapons twin linked. The entry reads

"whislt a model is embarked on a vehicle with splinter wracks, all splinter weapons become twin linked"

Though I do agree, and have/will only ever played it, as the embarked models that gain twin linked it has left itself open for interpretation. It really should read more

"whislt a model is embarked on a vehicle with splinter wracks, all splinter weapons on the embarked models become twin linked"

It already says that since "... all splinter weapons become twin linked..." doesn't tell you who, you refer back to the subject of the sentence. You've just added an unnecessary redundancy at the end of the sentence. As written, it doesn't support giving twin-linked splinter weapons to the entire army. In order to do so, it would require "... in the army..." between 'weapons' and 'become'. Without that, and ignoring the subject of the sentence it could literally apply to anyone (i.e., enemy models, models in the game on the next table over, etc.).

I would say he's right...

"whilst a model is embarked on a vehicle with splinter wracks, all splinter weapons have the twin linked special rule"

There is no wording that ties the second clause back to the first. It doesn't say "all ITS splinter weapons" or anything similar. It just says ALL spinter weapons. It's almost certainly poorly worded and almost certainly needs an Errata.

I do think that this is probably an unintended consequence of GW's inability to properly translate RAI into RAW using clear and concise wording.

I sort of imagine that GW rules writers are constantly frustrated that we can't read their minds and they constantly say things like "Oh, c'mon... you should know what that means."

RAW = ALL splinter weapons get twin-linked.
RAI? = Splinter weapons of embarked models get twin-linked.
HIWPI = RAI

 Kriswall wrote:
There is no wording that ties the second clause back to the first.

Except for, ya know, the fact that both clauses form a single sentence.

 Kriswall wrote:
I would say he's right...

"whilst a model is embarked on a vehicle with splinter wracks, all splinter weapons have the twin linked special rule"

There is no wording that ties the second clause back to the first. It doesn't say "all ITS splinter weapons" or anything similar. It just says ALL spinter weapons. It's almost certainly poorly worded and almost certainly needs an Errata.

I do think that this is probably an unintended consequence of GW's inability to properly translate RAI into RAW using clear and concise wording.

I sort of imagine that GW rules writers are constantly frustrated that we can't read their minds and they constantly say things like "Oh, c'mon... you should know what that means."

RAW = ALL splinter weapons get twin-linked.
RAI? = Splinter weapons of embarked models get twin-linked.
HIWPI = RAI

Except the basis for Special Rules is only the model which has the rule gets to benefit from it. It can be then referred to a different target as directed by the rule. (See the Special Rules Introduction, including "What Special Rules Do I Have?" for more information.)

The term "army" is not mentioned in this special rule, but "a model embarked" is.

Therefore the rule only affects "a model embarked" and not the "army".

Always keep in mind the target of the Special Rule. It is very important when making the consideration as to whom is affected.

I can see how this would be confusing. The "all splinter weapons..." would seem to inidicate thy army. However the entire statement has the initial qualifying of "a model" and since it lacks the additional of "army" - the rule is obviously intended to Apply only to the model on the transport.

And also basic logic would indicate that if GW wanted to have an upgrade apply to the whole army, it would be under either army special rules, a command benefit or possibly arcane wargear purchased by a character. Certainly not a 15pt upgrade on a transport.

Caedes wrote:
And also basic logic would indicate that if GW wanted to have an upgrade apply to the whole army, it would be under either army special rules, a command benefit or possibly arcane wargear purchased by a character. Certainly not a 15pt upgrade on a transport.

Bingo

 Galef wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
There is no wording that ties the second clause back to the first.

Except for, ya know, the fact that both clauses form a single sentence.

Yeah... that's not really how possession works across multiple clauses in a sentence, but whatever floats your goat.

RAW = Hotly debated over 100's of posts, as per normal.
RAI = Almost certainly that only models inside the Transport will benefit.
HIWPI = Only models inside the Transport will benefit.

This reminds me of the good ol' tyranid nukes called pyrovores. Their rules never stated a range or limit to their explosion on death, and also stated "all models" so every model of the board took damage from the explosion.

This DE splinter rack stuff is some beardy bullsh*t tho.

Th is is why I no longer play this game.

so have we come to a conclusion that

RAW= whole army gets the twin-linked rule
RAI=only the embarked models
and i should play RAI? or do i get the choice to play as RAW?

 asdrubeal vect124 wrote:
so have we come to a conclusion that

RAW= whole army gets the twin-linked rule
RAI=only the embarked models
and i should play RAI? or do i get the choice to play as RAW?

No. The RAW does not support that the whole army gets the rule.

 asdrubeal vect124 wrote:
so have we come to a conclusion that

RAW= whole army gets the twin-linked rule
RAI=only the embarked models
and i should play RAI? or do i get the choice to play as RAW?

No, we have not come to that conclusion at all. As Ghaz said, there isn't RAW support for saying the whole army getting the rule. You should play it only the embarked models.

 asdrubeal vect124 wrote:
so have we come to a conclusion that

RAW= whole army gets the twin-linked rule
RAI=only the embarked models
and i should play RAI? or do i get the choice to play as RAW?

In order for it to be RAW that the whole army gets the twin-linked rule, "the army" must be referenced in the rule. This is going by the standards which are stated in the "What Special Rules do I have?" in the introduction of the Special Rules.

The only thing referenced by the rule is the "model...embarked on a vehicle with splinter racks".

Technically, "all splinter weapons" would apply to any splinter weapon in play, not just the splinter weapons in your army.

So if you happen to be playing against someone who has splinter weapons they get the bonus too.

Why not "all the splinter weapons" that "a model embarked on the vehicle" has. So if a DE has a splinter rifle and pistol both are twin linked if embarked on said vehicle?

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Why not "all the splinter weapons" that "a model embarked on the vehicle" has. So if a DE has a splinter rifle and pistol both are twin linked if embarked on said vehicle?

Do these two statements mean exactly the same?

A) "whilst a model is embarked on a vehicle with splinter wracks, all splinter weapons have the twin linked special rule"

B) "whilst a model is embarked on a vehicle with splinter wracks, all of the model's splinter weapons have the twin linked special rule"

No.

A gives twin linked to all splinter weapons if there is some model embarked on a vehicle with splinter wracks

B gives twin linked to all splinter weapons on a model that is embarked on a vehicle with splinter wracks

6th edition read:

"all models embarked upon a ship that is equipped with Splinter Racks may re-roll to hits with splinter weapons"
correct me if i'm wrong. so why not simply keep the rules written as they were?

Because they probably never expected someone to jump to this super cheese conclusion.

If you tried to pull that on me in a game I would straight pack my stuff up.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Because they probably never expected someone to jump to this super cheese conclusion.

If you tried to pull that on me in a game I would straight pack my stuff up.

Why are you defending GW? They wrote the rule poorly. If you read the rule carefully it does say "all splinter weapons". Any good copyeditor would have caught the problem.

I'm not defending GW, they have a long history of bad rules writing and poorly thought out wording.

Why are you defending obvious cheese mongering?

Any good copyeditor would have caught the problem.

Clearly people earlier in the thread have pointed out that the embarked unit is the subject of the sentence and therefore are the beneficiaries of the special rules. There is no need to interpret this rule in any other way except to completely try to game the system.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I'm not defending GW, they have a long history of bad rules writing and poorly thought out wording.

Why are you defending obvious cheese mongering?

Any good copyeditor would have caught the problem.

Clearly people earlier in the thread have pointed out that the embarked unit is the subject of the sentence and therefore are the beneficiaries of the special rules. There is no need to interpret this rule in any other way except to completely try to game the system.

Damn dude, what crawled up your butt? LMFAO obvious cheese mongering? For my army (which has pretty much only two squads with any splinter weapons) to be twin-linked? RIIIIIGHT

if you want cheese mongering look at any player, who swaps over to any other army simply because their rules are better.
ESPECIALLY those who swap to Tau.



and AGAIN I ask why they needed to rewrite the ENTIRE sentence? and this long without it being brought up in an Errata kind of means they meant for it to be spelled this way.

They could have easily left it as it was in 6th edition

What is the purpose of trying to interpret the rule this way if not to gain obvious advantage where there clearly should be none?

How am I supposed to know how many units with splinter weapons you have taken in an army?

Just because you play an underpowered army doesn't mean you aren't trying to look for loop holes in game design.

and AGAIN I ask why they needed to rewrite the ENTIRE sentence? and this long without it being brought up in an Errata kind of means they meant for it to be spelled this way.

They could have easily left it as it was in 6th edition

The DE codex is the worst, most abysmal piece of gak codex ever written by GW. It doesn't surprise me in the least to see that they have poorly written rules in it. Yes, they could have copied the 6th ed codex.

My response was simply the reaction that I think most players with any amount of common sense would have to a question as to whether or not a single 15 point upgrade to a raider would somehow cause your entire army to have twin linked splinter weaponry. I would not allow it.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:


The DE codex is the worst, most abysmal piece of gak codex ever written by GW.

Not true, there are other armies that are way worse.

Going back to the original topic, yes, the rule is poorly written: "Whilst a model is embarked on a vehicle with splinter racks, all splinter weapons have the Twin-linked special rule" litterarly means that if a single model is inside that raider all splinter weapons become TL. But honestly no one would argue about that, the concept of having the entire army with TL splinter weapons with just a single raider with splinter racks and one or more models inside is extremely silly.