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.

 Kriswall wrote:

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.

Only been playing a year now, but coming from other (better written) games, heres how i see it:

(Note: based on other loop-hole arguments, not a solid written rule)

When i buy a unit, I list the upgrades i want to purchase with it and they get applied all at once (unless it changes the unit size or type, then the upgrade must re-"check" the unit).

I find when there is something in the game that prevents you from doing something, IF you can do it out of order to ignore that fact, GW intends for you to consider all of those choices at once

I think it was said before, but if you're right, could you not take 10 boyz, up them w/ shootas, THEN add additional models to make a mixed slugga/shoota mob?

at the end of the day, I really think there's only two solid RAW interpretations: Waste a point if you want shootas and a big shoota, OR Big Shootas lock you out of upgrading slugga boys to shootas (and given how orks love the dakka, my money is on the first option

RedNoak wrote:

 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...

The difference between the term "model" and "unit" are a core part of the Warhammer 40k rules. pages 8 & 9 of the Rulebook, entitled "Models & Units" will explain all this to you.

In my example above, "all models with [type of weapon]" is very different to "the entire unit". The first one could say "all models with Plasmaguns", and in a Marine Squad of 10, that would be 1 marine. "the entire unit" in the same squad would be all 10, whatever they are equipped with.

 Kriswall wrote:
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.

As is said here:

sasquatchalex wrote:
I think it was said before, but if you're right, could you not take 10 boyz, up them w/ shootas, THEN add additional models to make a mixed slugga/shoota mob?

Where is your permission to choose the upgrades out of order?

The English language itself rules that you must work your way from top to bottom, so where is your permission to read the other way?
If you are telling me this is not valid, then i'll play with this rule:

"pt/model 1 - shootas with sluggas their replace may mob entire the"

Oh look, i can replace my shootas with sluggas for 1 pt.
If you think this is not valid, then i think reading from Bottom to top is exactly the same.

But i would guess that we are both quite adept at the rules of the language and that left to right and top to bottom should be obvious.

From the Marine codex:

Within these pages you will find (...), from their creation at the dawn(...). This book also contains rules(...). Finally, you will find.

Implying the standard English "top to bottom" read...

 BlackTalos wrote:

RedNoak wrote:

 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...

The difference between the term "model" and "unit" are a core part of the Warhammer 40k rules. pages 8 & 9 of the Rulebook, entitled "Models & Units" will explain all this to you.

In my example above, "all models with [type of weapon]" is very different to "the entire unit". The first one could say "all models with Plasmaguns", and in a Marine Squad of 10, that would be 1 marine. "the entire unit" in the same squad would be all 10, whatever they are equipped with.

 Kriswall wrote:
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.

As is said here:

sasquatchalex wrote:
I think it was said before, but if you're right, could you not take 10 boyz, up them w/ shootas, THEN add additional models to make a mixed slugga/shoota mob?

Where is your permission to choose the upgrades out of order?

The English language itself rules that you must work your way from top to bottom, so where is your permission to read the other way?
If you are telling me this is not valid, then i'll play with this rule:

"pt/model 1 - shootas with sluggas their replace may mob entire the"

Oh look, i can replace my shootas with sluggas for 1 pt.
If you think this is not valid, then i think reading from Bottom to top is exactly the same.

But i would guess that we are both quite adept at the rules of the language and that left to right and top to bottom should be obvious.

From the Marine codex:

Within these pages you will find (...), from their creation at the dawn(...). This book also contains rules(...). Finally, you will find.

Implying the standard English "top to bottom" read...

I never once recommended or implied that you don't READ top to bottom. Of course you read top to bottom. Otherwise, it would be impossible to understand the context of things like making an "other" model into a Boss Nob. Congratulations. You've successfully shown that reversing the order of most (you forgot to reverse pt/model to model/pt) of the words in a string of words makes it lose its meaning. I am willing to concede that as it's glaringly obvious.

However, nothing in the English language's rules of syntax requires me to select from a list of options in top to bottom format. Sure, I have to read them from top to bottom to understand them, but if the intent is that I pick them in order, that needs to be communicated to me. Nothing about the word options implies that I have to choose top to bottom. Nothing in GW's description of the section "Options" implies that I have to choose top to bottom. Of course I read top to bottom for comprehension. I learned that when I was a little kid. That's sort of a given. From my stance, I have to read the entire list from top to bottom to understand my options, but then at that point, they are just that - options. Nothing in how they are written or described forces me to pick them top to bottom anymore than anything on a restaurant's menu would require me to order from top to bottom.

If your stance is that I'm required to choose options from top to bottom based on how I read in my native language, do I also have to select units from front to back in the codex? If I go to a tournament and am presented with a list consisting of a Warboss, Gretchin and Boyz (in that order), can I cry foul? "Hey TO, it sure looks like this guy picked his Gretchin before his Boyz and as I'm sure you know, Boyz come first in the Ork Codex. It looks like he's selecting units out of order which is a clear violation of the implied rules of unit selection built in to the English language."

And yes, as written you could apply the options differently to get a mixed wargear mob of Boyz. Any Boyz you include additionally AFTER upgrading to 'eavy armour and shootas wouldn't have them. I think this is probably not GW's intent, but it's impossible to know their intent without an FAQ. I do however think most people who frequent these forums would quickly allow that GW isn't great at communicating their intent in all instances... but we aren't here to debate Rules as Intended. We're here to debate Rules as Written.

Here's another question... if it's a matter of which order we take the upgrades, can't I upgrade a boy to a nob then upgrade that nob to have a big shoots or rokkit launcher? Or rather, upgrade a boy to have a rokkit then upgrade that boy to a nob? either way... right?

The major point here isn't the order the options are taken in. Blacktalos said it best, the major issue is the difference between "unit" (or mob) and "model". The unit gets the upgrade, not individual models. So the points that must be paid depends on how many models are in the unit, not how many models are getting the upgrade.

I don't think this one NEEDS an FAQ as it's an old old old issue... not that we have had to pay for shootas in the past, but the idea of how we can upgrade. Which is why I mentioned the nob upgrade shenanigans. There is nothing that says the Nob can't get a rokkit launcha (or did that get FAQed?), but the options a nob gets are clear, and rokkit isn't one of them. (ok, kombi-rokkit, but that's not what I'm talking about )

 Kriswall wrote:
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.

No, claiming you have friends who have advanced degrees to support your argument as opposed to actual evidence is "nanny nanny boo boo". It is the intellectual equivalent of "my dad can beat up your dad". And yes, it is the example we're talking about, but switching nouns doesn't work, because its not an example in the rulebook. Use evidence from the book to justify your argument, you can't just switch nouns.

Lastly, I would be completely in favor of FAQs and better wording. I think there are tons of things in 40k that need to be FAQed.

Actually, if you read the entry, you'll see that a Nob can't be given a big shoota or rokkit launcha. One Boy in 10 models is given those upgrades and a different Boy can be upgraded to a Boss Nob, as shown by the word "other" in the entry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
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.

No, claiming you have friends who have advanced degrees to support your argument as opposed to actual evidence is "nanny nanny boo boo". It is the intellectual equivalent of "my dad can beat up your dad". And yes, it is the example we're talking about, but switching nouns doesn't work, because its not an example in the rulebook. Use evidence from the book to justify your argument, you can't just switch nouns.

Lastly, I would be completely in favor of FAQs and better wording. I think there are tons of things in 40k that need to be FAQed.

It's really more the equivalent of "Neither of us are experts here, so I went and got my dad who is a trained expert and can give an informed opinion on the matter. If your dad is also a trained expert, by all means, invite him to the party." But please, reduce my arguments to grade school level garbage.

 Kriswall wrote:
Actually, if you read the entry, you'll see that a Nob can't be given a big shoota or rokkit launcha. One Boy in 10 models is given those upgrades and a different Boy can be upgraded to a Boss Nob, as shown by the word "other" in the entry.

Well, you got me there. It does say "one other"... just like it says "entire mob". Let me ask you this, can I upgrade some of my boyz with 'davy armor, or do I have to spend the opts for every model in the unit? If you say no, then the same goes for the slugga/shoota upgrade.

As an aside, does anyone else think this thread is getting a little heated? I hope it's just me thinking that. This would be a silly thing to get up-in-arms about... unless the 1pt per 10 boyz is game changing for a game you are playing right this second.

All of the models who can take 'eavy Armour (all of them) must do so just like all of the models who have sluggas (some of them) must replace them with shootas when you choose an option.

So no, you can no more upgrade some of your Armour than you can replace some of your sluggas when you choose an option.

My contention is simply that models without sluggas can't pay one point to replace a slugga with a shoota. We are activating the option on a per mob basis, but paying on a per model basis.

 Kriswall wrote:
All of the models who can take 'eavy Armour (all of them) must do so just like all of the models who have sluggas (some of them) must replace them with shootas when you choose an option.

So no, you can no more upgrade some of your Armour than you can replace some of your sluggas when you choose an option.

My contention is simply that models without sluggas can't pay one point to replace a slugga with a shoota. We are activating the option on a per mob basis, but paying on a per model basis.

You have yet to address what a few of us have said about the abuse of taking options out of order.

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

It doesn't say "all models with sluggas" it says the "entire mob". The rule isn't discussing single exchanges of dakka for dakka. It's discussing the mobs dakka. It doesn't matter how many sluggas you have in the mob, only how many models are in the mob, as it states clearly "entire mob".

I am on your side about the ambiguous nature or GW's writing, but this ain't one of those cases that need a lot of attention. The rule says "ENTIRE MOB".

We'll have to agree to disagree until GW FAQs this, which is to say... Most likely forever.

Cheers gentleman.

Hey, as long as the folks you game with agree with you, right? have fun Kriswall.

Kris - your error is in not linking "their" to the subject, which is the entire mob. So the entire mob replaces thei sluggas with shootas, at a cost of one point per model. This is not linked to the number making the replacement, as you have no ability to determine that value within this rule; instead the "per model" again relates to the subject, which is the entire mob. So this is the cost - one point per model in the mob.

You committed an appeal to authority fallacy. The problem with your claim,s unlike those in real peer reviews, is that your claims cannot be verified; I can as easily claim 42 PhDs have reviewed this text and they all agree with me. You cannot disprove this, as you have no means to do so.

It's why on,y codexes, brb, FAQS are accepted here. And here the codex is clear - it is the mob replacing their sluggas , not the models.

I'm linking "their" to "entire mob" and I'm linking "per/model" to "replace".

"Their" is giving me the population of upgrades occurring. "Per/model" is giving me the population of payments occurring.

The issue is that we're linking the payment part to different populations. My side is linking it to the population of models replacing their sluggas with shootas. The other side is linking it to the population of models replacing sluggas with shootas plus those not replacing sluggas with shootas. Since we're paying on a per model basis and not a per mob basis, this seemed to make the most sense to me.

And I'll give you the appeal to authority. I was just looking for an educated third party. Debating with anonymous people on the internet rarely gets you a useful answer.

Except you are changing the subject, when no second subject exists. The subject is always the entire mob, you are never told you can link the number of sluggas replaced to the cost.

Per model can only relate to the mob, as their is no other unit to relate to that you are told you can relate to.

One last question, Kris. Has anyone on Dakka agreed with you on this point? Or have we all bee saying the same few things to counter your argument? I haven't read the entire thread, just the posts I thought I needed to read.

Some people have agreed. One actually reconsidered his position. To be honest, I think the vast majority of people post a single comment and move on. I normally don't stay engaged in one thread this long, but my wife was out of town for the weekend and I was super bored!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except you are changing the subject, when no second subject exists. The subject is always the entire mob, you are never told you can link the number of sluggas replaced to the cost.

Per model can only relate to the mob, as their is no other unit to relate to that you are told you can relate to.

I would actually argue that you can only do something per model. You can't noun something per model. It doesn't make sense. The word "their" requires us to ask the questions "Whose?" with the answer being "the entire mob". What are we doing per model? We're paying 1 point. What are we paying 1 point for? The act of a model replacing a slugga with a shoota. Which models are we talking about? The entire mob's worth of models who are replacing their sluggas with shootas. How many models is that? It's 9 models (in this ongoing example). So, at 1 point per model and with 9 models in scope for the optional replacement, I should pay 9 points.

The answer to which models are we talking about is the breakdown point. I don't believe you can pay for an upgrade for a model (we're instructed to pay per model) that you aren't receiving.

You're paying to upgrade the unit from having sluggas to shootas, at the cost of one point per model in the unit

You need the rule to say 1pt/model with a sluggas. It doesn't.

You're actually not paying to upgrade the unit from having sluggas to shootas. You're upgrading per model to have models in the unit upgrade from having sluggas to shootas.

You're selecting the option on a per unit basis, but paying on a per model basis.

If it were something like the Grey Knights option to take psyammo (and I don't have the 'dex in front of me) where it says something like "The entire squad may take psyammo ..20pts", then I'd agree that the option was selected and paid for on a per unit basis. In the Ork example, it's selected on a per unit basis and paid for on a per model basis.

If I'm not allowed to say "1 pt/model replacing a slugga with a shoota", then you're not allowed to say "1 pt/model in the unit" because the actual text simply says "1 pt/model". We're both adding modifiers to the word model to argue our case.

 Kriswall wrote:
You're actually not paying to upgrade the unit from having sluggas to shootas. You're upgrading per model to have models in the unit upgrade from having sluggas to shootas.

The codex says otherwise.

You have to pay the point. It's a 1 point charge for every model in the unit.

"The entire mob may replace their sluggas with shootas... 1 -pt/model". The key words here are ENTIRE and PER MODEL. If you want one model to have a shoota you must pay 1 point per model and you then upgrade one to be a big shoota or rokkit launcha. If you're running slugga boyz you bypass the shoota option and simply pay the 5 points for a special weapon.

If you buy your special weapons before upgrading the sluggas to shootas you create an impassable barrier as once a model is given a big shoota he no longer has a slugga to swap for a shoota - which prevents anyone from making the swap.

It's not ambiguous at all. The wording and the intention is pretty clear.

Yeah. There's the rub. The wording and intention aren't clear. The wording is vague. I think the intention is that it costs 1 point to upgrade a slugga to a shoota.

And there is nothing about 1 model not having a slugga preventing me from choosing the option "the entire mob may replace their sluggas with shootas". This doesn't create an impassable barrier. If 9 out of 10 models has a slugga and those models replace slugga with shoota, they've fulfilled the requirement that the entire mob replace their sluggas with shootas.

It's one point per model, for the entire mob. Not one point per model in the mob with a slugga. The latter cannot be inferred from the rules

It can be inferred, as I'm inferring it. You might want to consider not using absolutes when talking about how things can be interpreted. It comes off as close-minded and bullying, which I'm certain is not your intent.

And again, if I'm not allowed to qualify "per model", then neither are you. You added "for the entire mob". This isn't in the codex. The codex just says 1 point per model. The codex says that the entire mob may replace, but leaves it up to us to determine the population of models paying since we pay on a per model basis and not a per unit basis.

If I am paying 1 point per model, I have to ask the question "how many models am I paying for?"

I can answer with "the entire mob", but that's not useful because it's not a number. I can also answer 9 because having 9 models replace their sluggas with shootas fulfills the requirement that the entire mob is replacing their sluggas. The last guy shouldn't have to pay because he isn't fulfilling the requirement of replacing his slugga since he doesn't have one and we're paying on a per model basis.

The population is the mob, as that is the unit of measure we have been given. At no point are you told the population is the entire mob that have sluggas.

 The Good Green wrote:
One last question, Kris. Has anyone on Dakka agreed with you on this point? Or have we all bee saying the same few things to counter your argument? I haven't read the entire thread, just the posts I thought I needed to read.

Yes, there are people who agree with his interpretation. I am one of them. The reason I'm not in here arguing is 1. I think the codex is unclear enough that both interpretations are valid and 2. I don't have the patience to argue with people who just assert over and over without ever analyzing. Oh hey, speaking of,

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
You're actually not paying to upgrade the unit from having sluggas to shootas. You're upgrading per model to have models in the unit upgrade from having sluggas to shootas.

The codex says otherwise.

It does? Awesome! Where is this? I assume you're not just talking about the unit entry, since it's been explained multiple times that there are valid reasons to interpret it both ways, and simply saying "Nuh-uh" again adds nothing whatsoever to the discourse. Where is this other source, which is worded so plainly that merely reading it lays to rest all arguments?

Read the post by Nos right above yours. There's your answer that the codex says otherwise.

Kris - to add, the entire mob is a variable, but most definite IS a number.

 Kriswall wrote:
Some people have agreed. One actually reconsidered his position. To be honest, I think the vast majority of people post a single comment and move on. I normally don't stay engaged in one thread this long, but my wife was out of town for the weekend and I was super bored!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except you are changing the subject, when no second subject exists. The subject is always the entire mob, you are never told you can link the number of sluggas replaced to the cost.

Per model can only relate to the mob, as their is no other unit to relate to that you are told you can relate to.

I would actually argue that you can only do something per model. You can't noun something per model. It doesn't make sense. The word "their" requires us to ask the questions "Whose?" with the answer being "the entire mob". What are we doing per model? We're paying 1 point. What are we paying 1 point for? The act of a model replacing a slugga with a shoota. Which models are we talking about? The entire mob's worth of models who are replacing their sluggas with shootas. How many models is that? It's 9 models (in this ongoing example). So, at 1 point per model and with 9 models in scope for the optional replacement, I should pay 9 points.

The answer to which models are we talking about is the breakdown point. I don't believe you can pay for an upgrade for a model (we're instructed to pay per model) that you aren't receiving.

I think the vast majority of people in this thread would agree that this information is a twist of the RAW since the english language is able to be manipulated as such since words can vary in meaning according to syntax.

No one would disagree, even you, that the words themselves are unclear at best.

This being said, HIWPI is to have a ruling by third party members of the game or tournament before the list was written, or in most cases house rule it for the FLGS.

RAW there is a clear arguement for the payment of the one point per model, weapon or not.

I would even go as far as to argue that if you did not pay the point that I would assume you are power gaming for ONE point and I certainly wouldn't want to play against you.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
You're actually not paying to upgrade the unit from having sluggas to shootas.

Actually, you are.

And "the entire mob" is in fact a representation of the number of models in "the entire mob."

------------------------------------
------------------------------------

Devils Advocate

Both sides of this argument are super imposing words onto the end of the sentence.

One side is "points per models that have taken place in the upgrade from slugga to shoota."

The other is "points per model in the entire mob that has taken place in an upgrade from sluggas to shootas."

My personal opinion in favor of the latter of the two.

------------------------------------
------------------------------------

The rule is only slightly different from the old codex, in so far as there is no mention of Choppas in the new rule. Is there an old FAQ that answers this problem?