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 Index, the DE Haemonculus started with a Splinter Pistol and could exchange it for a Stinger Pistol, Hexrifle or Liquifier Gun.

In the codex, the Haemonculus now starts with a Stinger Pistol and can swap it for a Hexrifle or Liquifier Gun.

My question is, can you still take a Splinter Pistol via the Index?

(I ask because the Splinter Pistol wasn't an option - it was the default wargear for the Haemonculus.)

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
In the Index, the DE Haemonculus started with a Splinter Pistol and could exchange it for a Stinger Pistol, Hexrifle or Liquifier Gun.

In the codex, the Haemonculus now starts with a Stinger Pistol and can swap it for a Hexrifle or Liquifier Gun.

My question is, can you still take a Splinter Pistol via the Index?

(I ask because the Splinter Pistol wasn't an option - it was the default wargear for the Haemonculus.)

I would say No, you cannot. Because, like you said, it's not an option.

Basically the Haemonoculus now has an option (via The Flowchart) saying "Swap Splinter pistol for X", but you have no Splinter Pistol to swap, so you can't use the option. You can't use the starting loadout from the index because you must use the latest rules for your model, and the Designers Commentary Flowchart only allows for legacy wargear options, and nothing else.

The default option is still an option. I vote that Haemonculi can still use Splinter Pistols based on the Designer's Commentary flowchart.

 Burnage wrote:
The default option is still an option. I vote that Haemonculi can still use Splinter Pistols based on the Designer's Commentary flowchart.

No, it is not an option. Mandatory things are not options.

Furthermore, the line "ARE THERE WARGEAR OPTIONS FOR YOUR MODEL THAT ONLY APPEAR IN THE INDEX VERSION OF ITS DATASHEET?" refers to the section of the datasheet literally titled "Wargear Options". That's it, it doesn't apply to ANY other section of the datasheet.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Burnage wrote:
The default option is still an option. I vote that Haemonculi can still use Splinter Pistols based on the Designer's Commentary flowchart.

No, it is not an option. Mandatory things are not options.

Furthermore, the line "ARE THERE WARGEAR OPTIONS FOR YOUR MODEL THAT ONLY APPEAR IN THE INDEX VERSION OF ITS DATASHEET?" refers to the section of the datasheet literally titled "Wargear Options". That's it, it doesn't apply to ANY other section of the datasheet.

Is your second point stated explicitly anywhere? It would make more sense to me that wargear options on the flowchart refers to, well, all the possible wargear options that the model has. So when an Index Haemonculus could have a Splinter Pistol or a Stinger Pistol or a... I would consider that the Splinter Pistol was a wargear option for it.

 Burnage wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Burnage wrote:
The default option is still an option. I vote that Haemonculi can still use Splinter Pistols based on the Designer's Commentary flowchart.

No, it is not an option. Mandatory things are not options.

Furthermore, the line "ARE THERE WARGEAR OPTIONS FOR YOUR MODEL THAT ONLY APPEAR IN THE INDEX VERSION OF ITS DATASHEET?" refers to the section of the datasheet literally titled "Wargear Options". That's it, it doesn't apply to ANY other section of the datasheet.

Is your second point stated explicitly anywhere? It would make more sense to me that wargear options on the flowchart refers to, well, all the possible wargear options that the model has. So when an Index Haemonculus could have a Splinter Pistol or a Stinger Pistol or a... I would consider that the Splinter Pistol was a wargear option for it.

Is the term roll explicitly stated to mean "randomly determine a value on a die via physical action"? In that case I demand that you bake a cinnamon roll for every time you need to make a saving throw.

The game relies on the English Language to work, that's an unspoken axiom of the game (and any game really). The Flowchart refers to a section of the datasheet, because it uses the title of said section.

You can "consider" it an option all you want, that doesn't actually make it an option. Look at the examples the flowchart gives, it clearly states it refers to the Wargear Options part of the datasheet.

The term "OPTION" is never defined anywhere in the rules. As such, we really on the standard definition. The starting wargear is one option. The other wargear choices listed on the datasheet are other options. To 'lock out' the starting wargear, you'd need to point to text in the rules saying that the word OPTION is defined to ONLY mean the wargear listed under the WARGEAR OPTIONS header... which we'd normally understand as alternate options that can be taken in place of the default option. I don't believe the rules have such text.

When one's gaming argument relies on semantics, one is usually wrong.

 Kriswall wrote:
The term "OPTION" is never defined anywhere in the rules. As such, we really on the standard definition. The starting wargear is one option. The other wargear choices listed on the datasheet are other options. To 'lock out' the starting wargear, you'd need to point to text in the rules saying that the word OPTION is defined to ONLY mean the wargear listed under the WARGEAR OPTIONS header... which we'd normally understand as alternate options that can be taken in place of the default option. I don't believe the rules have such text.

When one's gaming argument relies on semantics, one is usually wrong.

So you agree that you're wrong.

The flowchart doesn't say "option" it says "wargear option".

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The term "OPTION" is never defined anywhere in the rules. As such, we really on the standard definition. The starting wargear is one option. The other wargear choices listed on the datasheet are other options. To 'lock out' the starting wargear, you'd need to point to text in the rules saying that the word OPTION is defined to ONLY mean the wargear listed under the WARGEAR OPTIONS header... which we'd normally understand as alternate options that can be taken in place of the default option. I don't believe the rules have such text.

When one's gaming argument relies on semantics, one is usually wrong.

So you agree that you're wrong.

The flowchart doesn't say "option" it says "wargear option".

"So you agree that you're wrong" is about the most annoying and condescending thing I read on these forums. It's a worthless comment and pretty much never accurate. I won't be debating you on this anymore. Just wanted to let you know that you're coming off as kind of a dick.

To the OP... I'd say that without a specific in game definition for the term "WARGEAR OPTIONS", you'd fall back on basic English and consider the default wargear to be an option. I'd also suggest that anyone who argues semantics and tells you that this isn't a legal build probably isn't going to be much fun to play against.

 Kriswall wrote:
To the OP... I'd say that without a specific in game definition for the term "WARGEAR OPTIONS", you'd fall back on basic English and consider the default wargear to be an option. I'd also suggest that anyone who argues semantics and tells you that this isn't a legal build probably isn't going to be much fun to play against.

It's tongue-in-cheek humour. I am sorry that the joke didn't connect.

There is an in-game definition for WARGEAR OPTIONS, it's the section of the datasheet that is literally called WARGEAR OPTIONS, as reinforced by the examples given.

By your logic it's also semantics that I pay the correct points value for all my models, so I'll instead have all my models cost 0 points, is that ok? If you disagree you're just arguing semantics after all.
If I take 0 point Big Choppas on all my Gretchin, is that just semantics too? After all, allowing a Gretchin to take an option they don't have is the same as allowing a Haemonculus to take an option he doesn't have.

If you allow one model to take options they don't have access too, then you allow ALL models to do so. There is no in-between.

straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

It's not a straw man. You're claiming a model may take a wargear option they are not permitted to by the rules. Thus, you have to allow ALL models to take wargear options not permitted by the rules, otherwise it's unfair.

The flowchart is explicitly clear, I don't understand why you think it isn't.

Furthermore, this forum isn't about discussing house rules (that's the Proposed Rules forum), this is for discussing what the rules actually do. You're free to house rule that he can take a Splinter Pistol, but don't expect anyone who plays by the rules to agree.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not a straw man. You're claiming a model may take a wargear option they are not permitted to by the rules. Thus, you have to allow ALL models to take wargear options not permitted by the rules, otherwise it's unfair.

The flowchart is explicitly clear, I don't understand why you think it isn't.

Furthermore, this forum isn't about discussing house rules (that's the Proposed Rules forum), this is for discussing what the rules actually do. You're free to house rule that he can take a Splinter Pistol, but don't expect anyone who plays by the rules to agree.

Please provide a rules citation defining the in sentence usage of "wargear options" to mean anything other than "the various options, including default options, that a model is allowed to take as a part of the army building process", i.e., the standard English definition. I acknowledge that there is a section of the datasheet referred to as "Wargear Options". I'm not interested in the header. I acknowledge that the header is there to help differentiate different parts of the datasheet. I'm interested only in the usage of the term "wargear options" in the middle of a sentence.

If you are correct, as I understand that you believe yourself to be, you should have no problem citing rules text defining "wargear options" as ONLY referring to those options listed under the "Wargear Options" header and NOT also referring to any default wargear options that a unit might have. In the absence of such rules text, I'm choosing to rely on standard English...

op·tion
ˈäpSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: option; plural noun: options

1.
a thing that is or may be chosen.
"choose the cheapest options for supplying energy"
synonyms: choice, alternative, recourse, course of action; More

Is the default wargear something that can be chosen? Absolutely. When building a unit, you have to make a wargear choice. Do I choose one of the configurations listed under the "Wargear Options" header, or do I choose to stick with the default configuration? I submit that I can choose to stick with the default wargear configuration, which would therefore make the default a "wargear option".

 Kriswall wrote:
Is the default wargear something that can be chosen?

No, it isn't. You are forced to take it, thus it is not an option, because it is not optional. Since you say the English Language is the fallback if there is no definition, thus the default wargear is not an option, thus you can't take it via the Flowchart.

I'd say it's the default selection the only "option" is whether to keep it or buy something else (defined by the wargear option table(s)).

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Is the default wargear something that can be chosen?

No, it isn't. You are forced to take it, thus it is not an option, because it is not optional. Since you say the English Language is the fallback if there is no definition, thus the default wargear is not an option, thus you can't take it via the Flowchart.

I'm confused. If I'm forced to take it, how do I take any of the things listed under the Wargear Options header? I'm just trying to understand your thought process. Do I keep the default AND take one of the other options? After, all, I'm being FORCED to take it and taking it isn't optional, according to your stance.

I'm happy to provide any number of legal unit builds where the builder has opted to NOT take the default wargear. I'm assuming these are all illegal builds under your understanding, what with the default being forced and non-optional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also... I know we're arguing semantics here, but I do genuinely think you're wrong and just being kind of a dick about this. We both know how GW tends to think and how they tend to write. Their technical writing is garbage and they approach the game from a very casual point of view. I'd bet a thousand dollars that GW would say "Oh yeah, the default wargear is totally an option and if you have a model equipped like that you should be able to use it."

Ignore our resident contrarian. A default weapon is an option as much as a chosen one - you have the option to keep it as much as the option to replace it with optional weapon options. Have I said option enough yet? It’s fine to take one via the Flowchart.

I know you're wrong, at least until when/if GW change the flowchart.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Ignore our resident contrarian. A default weapon is an option as much as a chosen one - you have the option to keep it as much as the option to replace it with optional weapon options. Have I said option enough yet? It’s fine to take one via the Flowchart.

Yeah... I skim the forums often enough to realize that BCB will argue literally any point. I'm just in sort of a bad mood today and he got under my skin. I don't like when people put words in my mouth and then claim victory. It's extremely combative and kind of juvenile.

I also realize that nobody else is really agreeing with him. I stand by my comment that you probably don't want to actually play with anyone who wouldn't allow default wargear based on some nitpicky semantic argument. They'll probably argue a ton of other nitpicky things.

 Kriswall wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Ignore our resident contrarian. A default weapon is an option as much as a chosen one - you have the option to keep it as much as the option to replace it with optional weapon options. Have I said option enough yet? It’s fine to take one via the Flowchart.

Yeah... I skim the forums often enough to realize that BCB will argue literally any point. I'm just in sort of a bad mood today and he got under my skin. I don't like when people put words in my mouth and then claim victory. It's extremely combative and kind of juvenile.

I also realize that nobody else is really agreeing with him. I stand by my comment that you probably don't want to actually play with anyone who wouldn't allow default wargear based on some nitpicky semantic argument. They'll probably argue a ton of other nitpicky things.

For sure. At least this is an Internet-only problem and unlikely to be a real-world one.

 Kriswall wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Ignore our resident contrarian. A default weapon is an option as much as a chosen one - you have the option to keep it as much as the option to replace it with optional weapon options. Have I said option enough yet? It’s fine to take one via the Flowchart.

Yeah... I skim the forums often enough to realize that BCB will argue literally any point. I'm just in sort of a bad mood today and he got under my skin. I don't like when people put words in my mouth and then claim victory. It's extremely combative and kind of juvenile.

I also realize that nobody else is really agreeing with him. I stand by my comment that you probably don't want to actually play with anyone who wouldn't allow default wargear based on some nitpicky semantic argument. They'll probably argue a ton of other nitpicky things.

I don't actually care if people "agree" with me. I am following the rules and am in the right. The rules are not a democracy.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Ignore our resident contrarian. A default weapon is an option as much as a chosen one - you have the option to keep it as much as the option to replace it with optional weapon options. Have I said option enough yet? It’s fine to take one via the Flowchart.

Yeah... I skim the forums often enough to realize that BCB will argue literally any point. I'm just in sort of a bad mood today and he got under my skin. I don't like when people put words in my mouth and then claim victory. It's extremely combative and kind of juvenile.

I also realize that nobody else is really agreeing with him. I stand by my comment that you probably don't want to actually play with anyone who wouldn't allow default wargear based on some nitpicky semantic argument. They'll probably argue a ton of other nitpicky things.

I don't actually care if people "agree" with me. I am following the rules and am in the right. The rules are not a democracy.

I'm not even sure what that means. Do the wargear options not get a vote to determine which unit they belong to? How does GW assign wargear, if not through a rigorous democratic process?

I assume you meant to say that the rules should be clear and require no interpretation (I agree that they should. I disagree that they are.), but that when they do, your interpretation is correct because you have... what... the divine right? Did Saint Celestine bless you with unerring accuracy? Your humility truly is a virtue to be emulated.

Just trying to understand where you're coming from and why you think your interpretation is always the only possibility.

 Kriswall wrote:
Just trying to understand where you're coming from and why you think your interpretation is always the only possibility.

Because my interpretation is the only one following the rules.

Just call me "nobody" then. I agree with BCB in this instance. The default weapon(s) that come with a model are only an "option" in that you can substitute them for something else. There are data sheets where there is no section labelled "weapon options" does this mean that you can still opt not to take the default ? Obviously not.
To me this is akin to the Intercessor Sergent not being an Intercessor for purposes of (oddly enough) weapon options. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/757194.page#9985508 . GW used specific wording to isolate one aspect of the datasheet. I think that this case is exactly the same. The designers document uses the term weapon options. There is a specific part of the datasheet with that exact title. Ergo, that is the part of the datasheet is used when using the designers document.

The default option is still an option.

Not if there are no other choices. If there are choices that's what makes an option. So, in order to have weapon options there must be choices to be had. That is the wargear option part of the datasheet. If that section isn't there then you don't have any options. That makes the alternate selections the options and does not include the default configuration.
It also seems that you are using 2 definitions of "option" interchangeably when you are claiming your stance. One is the ability to choose (a verb) the other is the ability to be chosen (a noun). The designer's flow chart is referring to the later (noun) aspect of option and not the verb form.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Just trying to understand where you're coming from and why you think your interpretation is always the only possibility.

Because my interpretation is the only one following the rules.

Hilarious. 'My interpretation is the only possibility because it's the only possibility.'

Good times. Enjoy your pig headed superiority. Not gonna lie. It must be nice to simply be right all the time, just because you're right all the time. Would make my life easier to never have to justify my assumptions or preconceived notions and simply be secure in the fact that I'm always right.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Not if there are no other choices.

But... there were other choices? The Index Haemonculus wasn't forced to take a Splinter Pistol, it could be exchanged for another wargear option.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Not if there are no other choices. If there are choices that's what makes an option. So, in order to have weapon options there must be choices to be had. That is the wargear option part of the datasheet. If that section isn't there then you don't have any options. That makes the alternate selections the options and does not include the default configuration.
It also seems that you are using 2 definitions of "option" interchangeably when you are claiming your stance. One is the ability to choose (a verb) the other is the ability to be chosen (a noun). The designer's flow chart is referring to the later (noun) aspect of option and not the verb form.

Option only has a verb meaning in the finance industry. Do you mean 'opt'? Option pretty clearly is a noun outside the finance industry. If you're going with a semantic argument, at least get your terms straight.

 Burnage wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Not if there are no other choices.

But... there were other choices? The Index Haemonculus wasn't forced to take a Splinter Pistol, it could be exchanged for another wargear option.

Yes, you can exchange the Splinter Pistol for another option.

However the Codex Haemonculus doesn't have a splinter pistol to swap, nor does it have the option in Wargear Options to take one.