Switch Theme:

Ravenwing and Deathwing champion in ANY squad?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ie
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard





Ireland

Hello, rules why you cannot. Look at the intro to the army list section. Look at the red dot 2, what does it say under the heading?

This section will show the profile of any models that the unit can include.
Discuss!

It's not the size of the blade, it's how you use it.
2000+
1500+
2000+

For all YMDC arguements remember: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

My blog: http://dublin-spot-check.blogspot.ie/ 
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





 liturgies of blood wrote:
Hello, rules why you cannot. Look at the intro to the army list section. Look at the red dot 2, what does it say under the heading?

This section will show the profile of any models that the unit can include.
Discuss!


Hey, finally a solid argument against what I've been saying. Unfortunately, there's precedent that if a specific rule would countermand a general one then the specific rule is what takes effect. I'll reference the Black Templars codex (which is current) that states under unit options: "This lists the different weapons and equipment options for the unit and any additional points costs for taking these upgrades.: But under the Chaplain entry it states "A Standard Bearer within one Reclusiam Command Squad may carry a Holy Relic for +30 points." That's pulled from the FAQ so it's fully updated.

So just to recap: specific rules can, and often do, countermand general ones.
   
Made in ie
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard





Ireland

I have no idea what you mean with your quote. The faq introduced another option so that invalidates how you read the army list section?

Also this isn't a solid argument it's just reading comprehension I had to go look up the rules on how to read a codex for your side of the argument.

This isn't a specific rule, this is a misreading of one. One can mean any singular model but it doesn't in this case it just means one.
You are not using british english to read that sentence.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/24 00:24:08


It's not the size of the blade, it's how you use it.
2000+
1500+
2000+

For all YMDC arguements remember: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

My blog: http://dublin-spot-check.blogspot.ie/ 
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





 liturgies of blood wrote:
I have no idea what you mean with your quote. The faq introduced another option so that invalidates how you read the army list section?

Also this isn't a solid argument it's just reading comprehension I had to go look up the rules on how to read a codex for your side of the argument.


The point is that there are units in the current meta game that even though it states in the codex that the option section upgrades are for that unit only, it can still confer upgrades onto another unit so long as it has been purchased. So you citing that same general rule in DA codex doesn't rule out the possibility that a specific rule for a unit can affect another unit. That's the point of specific rules and part of what makes units valuable: their ability to countermand general rules.

So what I'm saying (again), is that even though the general rule states that upgrades are for that particular unit (which I understood at the beginning of this article because I have read codexes before), because the upgrade itself states that it can be used on a terminator "in the army" that would countermand the general rule that dictates it would only be only in the command squad that purchases it. That's RAW and also kind of the whole point of this post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
You are not using british english to read that sentence.


Now you're talking RAW vs RAI.

Also, I'm pretty sure Jeremy Vetock, who wrote the book, is American.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/01/24 00:53:06


 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

confoo22 wrote:
Nolzur has already presented the fact that Belial used to provide upgrades for any terminator in the army in a previous version of the DA codex. Also, Black Templar Chaplains allow you to gain a unique upgrade for their command squads when they're selected so there are similar rules to what I'm suggesting, it's not such a huge leap as you would make it out to be.

And have you noticed that both of those call out very specific units? And did you notice that both of those are Independent Characters? Yes, it is such a big leap.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





 Ghaz wrote:
confoo22 wrote:
Nolzur has already presented the fact that Belial used to provide upgrades for any terminator in the army in a previous version of the DA codex. Also, Black Templar Chaplains allow you to gain a unique upgrade for their command squads when they're selected so there are similar rules to what I'm suggesting, it's not such a huge leap as you would make it out to be.

And have you noticed that both of those call out very specific units? And did you notice that both of those are Independent Characters? Yes, it is such a big leap.


A Deathwing Command squad is also a pretty specific unit and the point is that it's an example of one unit allowing upgrades for another.

Regardless of how huge a leap you may consider it (which is only your opinion after all since you can't measure a "leap of logic") the RAW still leave the door open for interpretation.
   
Made in us
Focused Dark Angels Land Raider Pilot




Green Bay

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Two editions ago. just saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't have to provide rules for why you can't go outside the normal rules framework, you need to show explicitly why you can.
That is how a permissive ruleset works.


I have shown specifically, try reading it objectively instead of having your mind set before reading what others post.

2 editions ago, yes, meaning the codex that just got replaced a couple of weeks ago.
You do know that most of the codexes are still from that era, right? Are you saying that we should ignore the rules in all of the older codexes?

rigeld2 wrote:
Now go ahead and take that out of context to make me look like a fool.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Anacortes

Its one per army. he only one who has the option to take a halberd is the command squad cahmpion. If you remove him from the command group i will be an illegal size unit and there fore not allowed. They are simply reiterating its ONE PER ARMY.

In my codex the only one allowed to upgarde to the halberd is the command champion.

4th edition rules are irrelevant, just sayin. I think we are in 6th edition now.

In a dog eat dog be a cat. 
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





Lungpickle wrote:
Its one per army. he only one who has the option to take a halberd is the command squad cahmpion. If you remove him from the command group i will be an illegal size unit and there fore not allowed. They are simply reiterating its ONE PER ARMY.

In my codex the only one allowed to upgarde to the halberd is the command champion.

4th edition rules are irrelevant, just sayin. I think we are in 6th edition now.


The fact that it's one per army is not in question here, and you wouldn't upgrade the model and then move it, you would simply upgrade a model in a different unit which the rules as written seem to suggest you can. It's not as if you only get a four man command squad if you don't choose to upgrade a model within it to the champion or don't select an apothecary, so unit size is an irrelevant argument, nor am I suggesting you upgrade the champion and then transfer the halberd to another model elsewhere in the army.

And again, the point of citing the old rules is not that it's current, it's that it's not unheard of for a purchased unit to allow upgrades in a different unit that it's not a part of.
   
Made in gb
Excited Doom Diver





Okay, I have to admit that on first reading I parsed this as allowing any Deathwing Terminator in the army to be upgraded, so I can see why people feel it is that way.

It does seem to be a question of parsing - whether you read the sentence as "one terminator in the army may be upgraded..." or "one terminator (in the army) may be upgraded..."

The first reading does parse as allowing any Deathwing Terminator in the army, regardless of unit, to be upgraded. The second reading treats the "in the army" bit as clarification that it can only be done once.

I feel that as phrased, it's not clear one way or the other. RAW actually leans towards parsing "terminator in the army" as the subject of the sentence, and therefore I think that under the current phrasing it does allow any Deathwing Terminator to be upgraded. However, I also feel that this is definitely not RAI - after all, if this parsing was correct, it would mean that an army with two Deathwing Command squads would theoretically be allowed two Deathwing Champions, since there would be two lots of permission to upgrade one Deathwing Terminator...

I suspect that in the next FAQ, these may be errata'd again to say "One Deathwing Terminator may be upgraded... (One per army)" which I think we all agree would resolve the issue.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/30 21:42:39


 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

"one terminator (in the army) may be upgraded..." is the correct way to read the rule.

The option only applies to the unit it is purchased for, so only that unit may upgrade a terminator. This can only be done once per army.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in pl
Fresh-Faced New User




Im in for the option that this can be any unit. Why? Because of the word "in". For the long years im playing 40k such a limits are written "one PER army" which is normal upgrade just beeing limited to beeing unique, here we got "one IN army" word that leaves room to make it any termie in any squad.

Arguments about "one unit can't give upgrade to another" are simply invalid cause there are quite few of those but they exist , called Belial is first that comes to mind.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/01/31 11:23:04


-2300pts
-1750pts
-1350pts
-600pts
- 200pts 
   
Made in us
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver





Some Tomb World in some galaxy by that one thing in that one place (or Minnesota for nosy people)

the ork HQ mad dok can give cyborks to every unit in the army as another example

the context of the champion seems to say that any termi/black knight in the army not in the command squad otherwise it would say that one terminator/black knight in the unit (one per army) may be upgraded

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/01 02:31:37


"Put your 1st best against you opponents 2nd best, your 2nd best against their 3rd best, and your 3rd best against their 1st best"-Sun Tzu's Art of War

"If your not winning, try a bigger sword! Usually works..."

10k
2k
500 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 A GumyBear wrote:
the ork HQ mad dok can give cyborks to every unit in the army as another example

the context of the champion seems to say that any termi/black knight in the army not in the command squad otherwise it would say that one terminator/black knight in the unit (one per army) may be upgraded
So you would allow an option for one unit to not affect that unit?

Interesting idea, also incorrect.

Upgrades/Options purchased for any given unit are the sole property* of that unit.

*Dedicated transports excluded because they are a separate unit from what they are an option for.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





 DeathReaper wrote:
Upgrades/Options purchased for any given unit are the sole property* of that unit.


This argument goes back to the idea that specific rules trump general ones. Yes, for the most part when something is listed under a unit the upgrade is solely for that unit. But if the language would allow you to upgrade a different unit then that specific language would trump the general rules. By the statement made above you could never use one unit to upgrade another even if it says you can in the rules, and the listing for the DW champion leaves the door open for interpretation that you could upgrade any deathwing terminator in the army.

Also, you keep saying that the "correct way" to read the rule is with parenthesis around (in the army), but now you're getting into RAW vs. RAI and this also allows for interpretation. It's wholly up to the opinion of who's reading it as to how they read it, so what you're really saying is that the way you're reading it is such, not that that's the correct way. You didn't write the book nor do you work for GW as an editor so you don't really know what's correct.

I also wonder why GW used such vague language since, as pointed out by vitalis, they've always used the term one PER and the fact is that they simply could've placed an asterisk at the end of the listing to denote that it was one per army instead of changing the language that makes it into one in the army.
   
Made in ie
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard





Ireland

The use different writers and use different conventions depending on the writer.

It's not the size of the blade, it's how you use it.
2000+
1500+
2000+

For all YMDC arguements remember: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

My blog: http://dublin-spot-check.blogspot.ie/ 
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




 A GumyBear wrote:
the ork HQ mad dok can give cyborks to every unit in the army as another example

the context of the champion seems to say that any termi/black knight in the army not in the command squad otherwise it would say that one terminator/black knight in the unit (one per army) may be upgraded


Thats not a very good example as the Ork HQ (Mad Dok Grotsnik) is specific in that once he is included as part of your army you then have an additional option for all other units. This is a special rule that is listed in the profile as Da Big Dok and is not under unit options.

The context of the champion is quite clear as it is listed under unit options, that is options that you can take for that unit. You do not find options for a tactical squad in a devastor or assault squad. In all instances where the selection of one unit grants another unit in the army an additional option or ability it is specifically spelt out in the rule under the parent unit.

SM Biker captain makes bikes troops, Grotsnik makes other ork units cyborks etc. The previous DA Codex state if belial/sammael is present then one DW/RW squad may be upgraded... again a specific exception that grants a unit an additional option

The codex makes very clear that a units options are bought for that unit and no other....
Codex Dark Angels page 90 wrote:
7) 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.


To make your argument valid you need to provide a specific override to the above quote, one which states something similiar to "although this is bought as an upgrade for this unit you may choose to upgrade any unit in the army"

That the writer of the codex did not feel the need to state in each and every unit's options that these options are applicable to this unit only is because they have already stated this on page 90 the FAQ merely qualifies the fact that although you may have multiple command squads of the same type, only one unit in the army may upgrade one model to be a champion.

   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





ItsPug wrote:

Codex Dark Angels page 90 wrote:
7) 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.


To make your argument valid you need to provide a specific override to the above quote, one which states something similiar to "although this is bought as an upgrade for this unit you may choose to upgrade any unit in the army"

That the writer of the codex did not feel the need to state in each and every unit's options that these options are applicable to this unit only is because they have already stated this on page 90 the FAQ merely qualifies the fact that although you may have multiple command squads of the same type, only one unit in the army may upgrade one model to be a champion.



I feel that the wording could be seen as overriding that rule, that's the point of this post. You can't personally know what the writer was thinking, you can only speculate. And if you're seriously suggesting that every rule overriding another rule must be explicitly spelled out then I could probably post 5 new pages to this thread giving examples of vaguely worded rules that had to be clarified.

I'm sure everyone's familiar with the Night scythe issue that only recently got resolved. That's not a direct correlation, just an example that rules, even ones that you feel ought to be obvious, aren't always spelled out in a black and white manner.
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






Peoria IL

I'm not saying its the same, but the Sanguinor has a similar effect.

DO:70S++G++M+B++I+Pw40k93/f#++D++++A++++/eWD-R++++T(D)DM+
Note: Records since 2010, lists kept current (W-D-L) Blue DP Crusade 126-11-6 Biel-Tan Aspect Waves 2-0-2 Looted Green Horde smash your face in 32-7-8 Broadside/Shield Drone/Kroot blitz goodness 23-3-4 Grey Hunters galore 17-5-5 Khan Bikes Win 63-1-1 Tanith with Pardus Armor 11-0-0 Crimson Tide 59-4-0 Green/Raven/Deathwing 18-0-0 Jumping GK force with Inq. 4-0-0 BTemplars w LRs 7-1-2 IH Legion with Automata 8-0-0 RG Legion w Adepticon medal 6-0-0 Primaris and Little Buddies 7-0-0

QM Templates here, HH army builder app for both v1 and v2
One Page 40k Ruleset for Game Beginners 
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




confoo22 wrote:
ItsPug wrote:

Codex Dark Angels page 90 wrote:
7) 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.


To make your argument valid you need to provide a specific override to the above quote, one which states something similiar to "although this is bought as an upgrade for this unit you may choose to upgrade any unit in the army"

That the writer of the codex did not feel the need to state in each and every unit's options that these options are applicable to this unit only is because they have already stated this on page 90 the FAQ merely qualifies the fact that although you may have multiple command squads of the same type, only one unit in the army may upgrade one model to be a champion.



I feel that the wording could be seen as overriding that rule, that's the point of this post. You can't personally know what the writer was thinking, you can only speculate. And if you're seriously suggesting that every rule overriding another rule must be explicitly spelled out then I could probably post 5 new pages to this thread giving examples of vaguely worded rules that had to be clarified.

I'm sure everyone's familiar with the Night scythe issue that only recently got resolved. That's not a direct correlation, just an example that rules, even ones that you feel ought to be obvious, aren't always spelled out in a black and white manner.


The rule IS spelt out in black and white though, I even quoted it for you and told you where to find it in the DA codex. and 5 pages? Possibly, but in each case these vaguely worded rules would need to be clarified in order to work, while not clarified they do not. This is because GW themselves state that specific overrides general only when it is specifically stated, so until the rule is clarified, it does not work, or at least not as intended.

Take assault vehicles for example,they do not allow the occupants to assault on the turn it arrives from reserve as assault vehicle specifically overrides the restriction on disembarking and assaulting and does not specifically override the restriction on assaulting in the same turn you arrive from reserves. If GW "clarified" tomorrow that you can assault from an assault vehicle in the same turn you come on from reserves thaen that would be fine and you would be allowed to do that tomorrow, but not today.

And that would be a very good point except the night scythe had fluff stating the occupants escaped unharmed and a rule stating that they moved into reserve instead of disembarking, contrasting this we have the rule from the rulebook stated damage was resolved before the unit disembarked from the crashing flyer. so the rules were clear that the units took damage and then went into reserve, but this was against the fluff, before the FAQ the units, by RAW, took damage, now they do not.
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





ItsPug wrote:


The rule IS spelt out in black and white though, I even quoted it for you and told you where to find it in the DA codex. and 5 pages? Possibly, but in each case these vaguely worded rules would need to be clarified in order to work, while not clarified they do not. This is because GW themselves state that specific overrides general only when it is specifically stated, so until the rule is clarified, it does not work, or at least not as intended.

Take assault vehicles for example,they do not allow the occupants to assault on the turn it arrives from reserve as assault vehicle specifically overrides the restriction on disembarking and assaulting and does not specifically override the restriction on assaulting in the same turn you arrive from reserves. If GW "clarified" tomorrow that you can assault from an assault vehicle in the same turn you come on from reserves thaen that would be fine and you would be allowed to do that tomorrow, but not today.

And that would be a very good point except the night scythe had fluff stating the occupants escaped unharmed and a rule stating that they moved into reserve instead of disembarking, contrasting this we have the rule from the rulebook stated damage was resolved before the unit disembarked from the crashing flyer. so the rules were clear that the units took damage and then went into reserve, but this was against the fluff, before the FAQ the units, by RAW, took damage, now they do not.


The general rule is spelled out, yes, I didn't counter that. But the upgrade language under the champion could just as easily be seen as meaning that before you can purchase that upgrade for one deathwing terminator in your army you must purchase the hq unit. By having vague language it can go either way and GW simply doesn't have a good track record of specifically spelling out every rule.

As for your hypothetical situation concerning assault vehicles, the general FAQ actually had to make a ruling on it because as written it actually could have allowed the disembarking unit to attack the turn it arrived from reserves. Were they to clarify the Champion situation I'm describing here then that would be fine. But they didn't clarify it so it could be read as meaning what I'm suggesting.

And with the night scythe I'm pretty sure the rules were anything but clear. The interpretation was usually left to individual TOs in local areas who would decide how the rule worked for their specific event. If the rule had been clear there would've been no need for clarification in the FAQ. You also could have argued that the language of "moved to reserves" vs "disembark" opened up interpretation that they would not be damaged even though the RAW would suggest otherwise.
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




confoo22 wrote:

The general rule is spelled out, yes, I didn't counter that. But the upgrade language under the champion could just as easily be seen as meaning that before you can purchase that upgrade for one deathwing terminator in your army you must purchase the hq unit. By having vague language it can go either way and GW simply doesn't have a good track record of specifically spelling out every rule.


So you agree that the rule stating options listed under unit options are options for that unit unit is clear, but then state that you think an option listed under unit options may not be for the unit, and could be for another unit? come again? to avail of a rule it has to be specific, so if you want to override the part of page 90 that says the options are for that unit only, it needs to spedify that explicitly. if it doesn't then you can't do it, permissive ruleset and all.

confoo22 wrote:

As for your hypothetical situation concerning assault vehicles, the general FAQ actually had to make a ruling on it because as written it actually could have allowed the disembarking unit to attack the turn it arrived from reserves. Were they to clarify the Champion situation I'm describing here then that would be fine. But they didn't clarify it so it could be read as meaning what I'm suggesting.


I refer you to page 125 the bold bit where it says that unless specified otherwise a unit cannot charge on the turn it enters from reserve. Assault vehicle only overrides the limitation on disembarking from a vehicle and assaulting in the same turn and makes no mention of being able to assault on the turn the unit arrives from reserve. so no dice.. It was 100% clear, but it needed to be FAQ'd to be 110% clear to stop the easter egg hunts.

confoo22 wrote:

And with the night scythe I'm pretty sure the rules were anything but clear. The interpretation was usually left to individual TOs in local areas who would decide how the rule worked for their specific event. If the rule had been clear there would've been no need for clarification in the FAQ. You also could have argued that the language of "moved to reserves" vs "disembark" opened up interpretation that they would not be damaged even though the RAW would suggest otherwise.


The rules were clear, but people argued that due to the fluff that this was 'obviously' not what was intended and wished to play the fluff rather than the rules, but the rules themselves (the order of operations) were clear, flyer is destroyed, unit takes damage, then disembarks, and it is when disembarking that the unit goes back in to reserve, after damage has been done. The FAQ (actually more of an errata in my opinion) changed this.
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





ItsPug, I'm not going to requote everything since it's getting too long:

Your first paragraph: I feel like you stopped reading after my first sentence. I do agree that that is the general rule and that a specific rule must override it. I do not agree that the rule must be explicitly spelled out to everyone's satisfaction in order for it to be interpreted that way. If that were the case then any vague rule would be subject to democratic rule until it's FAQed. The language of the upgrade suggests that it is possible to upgrade "One Deathwing terminator / black knight IN YOUR ARMY" to a champion. This wording makes it open to interpretation, your opinion is that it's only for that unit, mine is that it's for any model that fits that description. I've presented several examples to show that this would not be unique in the ruleset, you've only presented the rule that I'm arguing has been countermanded.

Your second paragraph: You should really stop trafficking in blanket statements to describe your opinion. It was NOT 100% clear. If something is open to alternate interpretation, regardless of how much you agree or disagree with that interpretation, it's not 100% clear. The need to have it clarified in a FAQ is proof that it was not 100% clear.

Your third paragraph: I saw this argument play out a few times and the people who argued about fluff trumping rules were usually laughed out of the room. The language itself (moved vs disembark) is what was usually the sticking point concerning this particular argument. And, as I said, it was usually left up to local TOs to determine how they wanted the rule to work in their events.
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




confoo22 wrote:

Your first paragraph: I feel like you stopped reading after my first sentence. I do agree that that is the general rule and that a specific rule must override it. I do not agree that the rule must be explicitly spelled out to everyone's satisfaction in order for it to be interpreted that way. If that were the case then any vague rule would be subject to democratic rule until it's FAQed. The language of the upgrade suggests that it is possible to upgrade "One Deathwing terminator / black knight IN YOUR ARMY" to a champion. This wording makes it open to interpretation, your opinion is that it's only for that unit, mine is that it's for any model that fits that description. I've presented several examples to show that this would not be unique in the ruleset, you've only presented the rule that I'm arguing has been countermanded.


No I actually read everything, but I dont see where in anything you've written, something that would convince anybody that a unit option for a specific unit would allow you to take that option in an entirely different unit. What you have is words that you are twisting the context of in order to create a tiny bit of ambiguity and claiming that it needs to be FAQ'd, this is commonly referred to as easter egg hunting. GW do not drop easter eggs into the rules (the fluff yes, but thats entirely different)

In a permissive ruleset you must be given permission to do something, that is specific, explicit permission, to break an pre-existing rule. As I have already pointed out the rule that states a units options are options for that unit, you need to provide specific language which states that this option is available to another unit. The limitation "one per army" means precisely that, you can never have 2 of the same type of company champion in the army. It does not state that units which do not have the option to upgrade a member of the squad to a champion now suddently do.

If they wanted you to be able to select a champion in a normal DW squad they would have to errata the option into the squads options in the same way that they corrected the Company Veterans options. For example, because they only erratad the options for a DW Command Squad to take one company champion per army and did not errata in an option for a DW squad to take a champion, they cannot.

confoo22 wrote:

Your second paragraph: You should really stop trafficking in blanket statements to describe your opinion. It was NOT 100% clear. If something is open to alternate interpretation, regardless of how much you agree or disagree with that interpretation, it's not 100% clear. The need to have it clarified in a FAQ is proof that it was not 100% clear.


1+1=2, that is 100% clear, just because someone disagrees with it does not make it unclear. case in point...BRB page 35 under Feel no Pain. Note that feel no pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved Wounds that inflict instant Death

FAQ states...Q: Can Feel No Pain rolls be made against unsaved Wounds inflicted by weapons that have the Instant Death special rule? (p35) A: No.

So they FAQ'd it even though it was 100% clear. or do you disagree and think this rule was also in some way unclear?

confoo22 wrote:

Your third paragraph: I saw this argument play out a few times and the people who argued about fluff trumping rules were usually laughed out of the room. The language itself (moved vs disembark) is what was usually the sticking point concerning this particular argument. And, as I said, it was usually left up to local TOs to determine how they wanted the rule to work in their events.


And still they carried on arguing that the rules should work the same way as the fluff with no actual RAW support. much like this thread. I have no idea what you mean by "moved vs disembark" as neither rule (crash and burn or the night scythe rule) mentions moving. only disembarking and being placed. Could you elaborate?

Also a TO can make whatever call they want in their event, they could still choose to go against the FAQ and state they still take the hits, or that space marines painted in ultramarine colours re-roll failed saves. HIWPI and how a TO calls it are different to the RAW
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





ItsPug wrote:

No I actually read everything, but I dont see where in anything you've written, something that would convince anybody that a unit option for a specific unit would allow you to take that option in an entirely different unit. What you have is words that you are twisting the context of in order to create a tiny bit of ambiguity and claiming that it needs to be FAQ'd, this is commonly referred to as easter egg hunting. GW do not drop easter eggs into the rules (the fluff yes, but thats entirely different)

In a permissive ruleset you must be given permission to do something, that is specific, explicit permission, to break an pre-existing rule. As I have already pointed out the rule that states a units options are options for that unit, you need to provide specific language which states that this option is available to another unit. The limitation "one per army" means precisely that, you can never have 2 of the same type of company champion in the army. It does not state that units which do not have the option to upgrade a member of the squad to a champion now suddently do.

If they wanted you to be able to select a champion in a normal DW squad they would have to errata the option into the squads options in the same way that they corrected the Company Veterans options. For example, because they only erratad the options for a DW Command Squad to take one company champion per army and did not errata in an option for a DW squad to take a champion, they cannot.

1+1=2, that is 100% clear, just because someone disagrees with it does not make it unclear. case in point...BRB page 35 under Feel no Pain. Note that feel no pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved Wounds that inflict instant Death

FAQ states...Q: Can Feel No Pain rolls be made against unsaved Wounds inflicted by weapons that have the Instant Death special rule? (p35) A: No.

So they FAQ'd it even though it was 100% clear. or do you disagree and think this rule was also in some way unclear?

And still they carried on arguing that the rules should work the same way as the fluff with no actual RAW support. much like this thread. I have no idea what you mean by "moved vs disembark" as neither rule (crash and burn or the night scythe rule) mentions moving. only disembarking and being placed. Could you elaborate?

Also a TO can make whatever call they want in their event, they could still choose to go against the FAQ and state they still take the hits, or that space marines painted in ultramarine colours re-roll failed saves. HIWPI and how a TO calls it are different to the RAW


Alright, again, for the umpteenth time, the rule states "One [model name] in your army may be upgraded..." The wording "in your army", when used as a descriptor, suggests that it can be applied to a model that is in your army and not just one that is in your command squad. This does countermand a general rule, but there are examples of that rule being countermanded by other units, several of which have been mentioned in this thread. If it said "One [model name] per army may be upgraded..." that would be clear. I'm not "creating ambiguity," the language in the RAW is suggesting the possibility of something that's not part of the usual rules, but not something that's wholly unheard of.

As for the other argument, I don't have the BRB in front of me so I don't know what the wording of the original statement is. The way your putting it, yes, I would say that it's clear and didn't really need to be FAQed. But I can see why the assault vehicle rule needed to be cleared up because the assaulting rule suggested a possibility of countermanding the reserves rule. So this idea that ANY questioning of a rule that's not explicit is "Easter Egg hunting" seems more like an attempt to shame anyone who doesn't accept your interpretation than a real argument.

Finally, I'm not going to rehash the Night Scythe argument with you nor am I going to argue TO prerogatives. The point is that the argument did go beyond "well the fluff says I can." Arguing that fluff trumps rules is both silly and not relevant to this rules discussion (I know that's not what you're doing here, just making that statement on that particular situation).
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




confoo22 wrote:

Alright, again, for the umpteenth time, the rule states "One [model name] in your army may be upgraded..." The wording "in your army", when used as a descriptor, suggests that it can be applied to a model that is in your army and not just one that is in your command squad. This does countermand a general rule, but there are examples of that rule being countermanded by other units, several of which have been mentioned in this thread. If it said "One [model name] per army may be upgraded..." that would be clear. I'm not "creating ambiguity," the language in the RAW is suggesting the possibility of something that's not part of the usual rules, but not something that's wholly unheard of.


And for the upteenth time someone is pointing out to you that you are taking it out of context, with the eratta applied the codex entry should read as

Deathwing Command Squad
Unit Composition: 5 Deathwing Terminators
Unit Options: One Deathwing Terminator in the army may be upgraded to the Deathwing Champion, replacing all their weapons with the Halberd of Caliban...............................................................................5 pts

So in context its clear that you are talking about a squad you can take multiple times, and that when selecting a unit as per page 90 you are selecting an option from a list of options for this unit, with the additonal restriction that this upgrade may only be taken once per army, no matter how many Deathwing Command Squads you take.

The fact that it is an option to upgrade a model in a specific unit would, to most people, seem to imply that it was, you know, and option to upgrade a model in a specific unit, and not any unit in the army. Its only slightly ambiguous if you ignore the fact that both the codex and the FAQ state that upgrading a Deathwing Terminator to a Deathwing Champion is an option for a Deathwing Command Squad

The other units that you say already break this rule do not.
  • In the 4th edition DA codex Belial specifically allowed one selected unit to take additional upgrades. this was written as "one deathwing squad in the army may be upgraded" specifically stating that it was an option for a different squad.

  • With the BT chaplains I assume you are talking either about cenobyte servitors or the holy relic? cenobyte servitors are specifically mentioned as an upgrade for the chaplain, they're wargear basically, and the speciall effects apply to the chaplain and any unit he leads, joins or is attached to. They are not an upgrade to the command squad. The recluisam command squad rule states that if the chaplain leads the squad that one of the members may take a holy relic. Again as with Belials rule, this specifically states which unit in your army may take a specific upgrade.

  • I also brought up Grotsnik, whose special rule specifically states it applies to other units.


  • In all cases, where a model or unit grants a unit an additonal option, it specifies whether another unit may avail of it, belial specifies a deathwing squad, the chaplain the accompanying command squad, and Grotsnik any other unit in the army, The Deathwing Command Squad does not state that another Deathwing Squad may upgrade a Deathwing Terminator to a Champion.

    confoo22 wrote:

    As for the other argument, I don't have the BRB in front of me so I don't know what the wording of the original statement is. The way your putting it, yes, I would say that it's clear and didn't really need to be FAQed. But I can see why the assault vehicle rule needed to be cleared up because the assaulting rule suggested a possibility of countermanding the reserves rule. So this idea that ANY questioning of a rule that's not explicit is "Easter Egg hunting" seems more like an attempt to shame anyone who doesn't accept your interpretation than a real argument.


    If you enter from reserves in an assault vehicle, disembark and then wish to charge you are stopped by two rules. 1) That you may not charge in the same turn that you disembarked from a vehicle and 2) that you may not charge on the turn you enter from reserve. Assault vehicle overrides only one of these restrictions so you would still be restricted from charging. to anyone who understands the way rules work it was clear, but because people argued that they had permission to charge they FAQ'd to be clear to even the most dense of players that yes page 7 is applicable and that assault vehicle only overrides the rules that it says it does.

    confoo22 wrote:

    Finally, I'm not going to rehash the Night Scythe argument with you nor am I going to argue TO prerogatives. The point is that the argument did go beyond "well the fluff says I can." Arguing that fluff trumps rules is both silly and not relevant to this rules discussion (I know that's not what you're doing here, just making that statement on that particular situation).


    Well to be honest I'm not going to rehash the argument either, but the only rules I saw coming from the no damage side were arguments about the order of operation despite the crash and burn rules stating that the unit takes the hits then disembarks and the night scythe saying that instead of disembarking the unit goes back into reserve, they believed that the squad went into reserve straight away as soon as the vehicle was destroyed instead of when told to disembark after having taken damage.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/01 20:12:30


     
       
    Made in us
    Implacable Black Templar Initiate





    ItsPug wrote:
    confoo22 wrote:

    Alright, again, for the umpteenth time, the rule states "One [model name] in your army may be upgraded..." The wording "in your army", when used as a descriptor, suggests that it can be applied to a model that is in your army and not just one that is in your command squad. This does countermand a general rule, but there are examples of that rule being countermanded by other units, several of which have been mentioned in this thread. If it said "One [model name] per army may be upgraded..." that would be clear. I'm not "creating ambiguity," the language in the RAW is suggesting the possibility of something that's not part of the usual rules, but not something that's wholly unheard of.


    And for the upteenth time someone is pointing out to you that you are taking it out of context, with the eratta applied the codex entry should read as

    Deathwing Command Squad
    Unit Composition: 5 Deathwing Terminators
    Unit Options: One Deathwing Terminator in the army may be upgraded to the Deathwing Champion, replacing all their weapons with the Halberd of Caliban...............................................................................5 pts

    So in context its clear that you are talking about a squad you can take multiple times, and that when selecting a unit as per page 90 you are selecting an option from a list of options for this unit, with the additonal restriction that this upgrade may only be taken once per army, no matter how many Deathwing Command Squads you take.

    The fact that it is an option to upgrade a model in a specific unit would, to most people, seem to imply that it was, you know, and option to upgrade a model in a specific unit, and not any unit in the army. Its only slightly ambiguous if you ignore the fact that both the codex and the FAQ state that upgrading a Deathwing Terminator to a Deathwing Champion is an option for a Deathwing Command Squad

    The other units that you say already break this rule do not.
  • In the 4th edition DA codex Belial specifically allowed one selected unit to take additional upgrades. this was written as "one deathwing squad in the army may be upgraded" specifically stating that it was an option for a different squad.

  • With the BT chaplains I assume you are talking either about cenobyte servitors or the holy relic? cenobyte servitors are specifically mentioned as an upgrade for the chaplain, they're wargear basically, and the speciall effects apply to the chaplain and any unit he leads, joins or is attached to. They are not an upgrade to the command squad. The recluisam command squad rule states that if the chaplain leads the squad that one of the members may take a holy relic. Again as with Belials rule, this specifically states which unit in your army may take a specific upgrade.

  • I also brought up Grotsnik, whose special rule specifically states it applies to other units.


  • In all cases, where a model or unit grants a unit an additonal option, it specifies whether another unit may avail of it, belial specifies a deathwing squad, the chaplain the accompanying command squad, and Grotsnik any other unit in the army, The Deathwing Command Squad does not state that another Deathwing Squad may upgrade a Deathwing Terminator to a Champion.

    confoo22 wrote:

    As for the other argument, I don't have the BRB in front of me so I don't know what the wording of the original statement is. The way your putting it, yes, I would say that it's clear and didn't really need to be FAQed. But I can see why the assault vehicle rule needed to be cleared up because the assaulting rule suggested a possibility of countermanding the reserves rule. So this idea that ANY questioning of a rule that's not explicit is "Easter Egg hunting" seems more like an attempt to shame anyone who doesn't accept your interpretation than a real argument.


    If you enter from reserves in an assault vehicle, disembark and then wish to charge you are stopped by two rules. 1) That you may not charge in the same turn that you disembarked from a vehicle and 2) that you may not charge on the turn you enter from reserve. Assault vehicle overrides only one of these restrictions so you would still be restricted from charging. to anyone who understands the way rules work it was clear, but because people argued that they had permission to charge they FAQ'd to be clear to even the most dense of players that yes page 7 is applicable and that assault vehicle only overrides the rules that it says it does.

    confoo22 wrote:

    Finally, I'm not going to rehash the Night Scythe argument with you nor am I going to argue TO prerogatives. The point is that the argument did go beyond "well the fluff says I can." Arguing that fluff trumps rules is both silly and not relevant to this rules discussion (I know that's not what you're doing here, just making that statement on that particular situation).


    Well to be honest I'm not going to rehash the argument either, but the only rules I saw coming from the no damage side were arguments about the order of operation despite the crash and burn rules stating that the unit takes the hits then disembarks and the night scythe saying that instead of disembarking the unit goes back into reserve, they believed that the squad went into reserve straight away as soon as the vehicle was destroyed instead of when told to disembark after having taken damage.


    Alright, I'm not going to go back and forth on this since we're both going in circles, so let me just sum it up:

    I believe that the wording suggests that you can supersede the stated rule on page 90 in order to allow a Deathwing Terminator or Ravenwing Black Knight in the army to be upgraded to the champion, regardless of what unit it is in. This is in spite of the context, which I am completely aware of, as I believe that the placement of the upgrade listing means you must purchase the command squad in order to take the upgrade. You believe that the pg 90 rule trumps the wording and therefore only the command squad unit can be upgraded with the Champion.

    As examples I've brought up past units that affect other units in order to point out that an upgrade for other units can be placed in a listing not their own, these are not direct correlations and the wording is more specific, therefore you believe that those examples are not good enough. (BTW, yes, I was specifically talking about the holy relic for command squads, not the servitors). I've also noted that GW has a past of vaguely worded rules that occasionally need clarification via FAQs or Errata. You believe that any rule countermanding any other rule must be explicit or else it obviously doesn't work and that everyone should accept that or else they're dense or Easter egg hunting.

    I think that sums it up, if you have anything to add then add, but let's not waste time writing more and more in depth descriptions of the same arguments that are obviously not going to sway the other.
       
    Made in gb
    Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




    confoo22 wrote:

    Alright, I'm not going to go back and forth on this since we're both going in circles, so let me just sum it up:

    I believe that the wording suggests that you can supersede the stated rule on page 90 in order to allow a Deathwing Terminator or Ravenwing Black Knight in the army to be upgraded to the champion, regardless of what unit it is in. This is in spite of the context, which I am completely aware of, as I believe that the placement of the upgrade listing means you must purchase the command squad in order to take the upgrade. You believe that the pg 90 rule trumps the wording and therefore only the command squad unit can be upgraded with the Champion.


    Not quite, I believe that pg 90 is the rule governing what options a unit can take, and the wording of the FAQ limits the Dark Angel player to one Deathwing Champion per army (which must be in the Deathwing Command Squad) no matter how many Deathwing Command Squads are taken. Page 90 does not in any way override this 'rule' that you state allows you to take an upgrade listed for one squad and apply it to another, as there is no such rule.

    As an example, if I were to take a BT Crusader squad and a BT Assault squad, could I swap the Crusader's bolt pistols for storm shields at xpts per model as per the assault squad options? It says under the BT assault squad list that any model can replace their bolt pistol with a storm shield, it doesn't say specifically that this only applies to the assault squad in their entry on page 39. Crusaders have bolt pistols, they are models, so why not? The answer is because a units options only apply to that unit. I can't explain it any clearer than that.

    confoo22 wrote:

    As examples I've brought up past units that affect other units in order to point out that an upgrade for other units can be placed in a listing not their own, these are not direct correlations and the wording is more specific, therefore you believe that those examples are not good enough. (BTW, yes, I was specifically talking about the holy relic for command squads, not the servitors). I've also noted that GW has a past of vaguely worded rules that occasionally need clarification via FAQs or Errata. You believe that any rule countermanding any other rule must be explicit or else it obviously doesn't work and that everyone should accept that or else they're dense or Easter egg hunting.


    Again not quite, I believe that a more specific rule overrides a general rule only when there is a conflict, because this is what GW tells us on page 7, if a rules does not specifically override a general rule the general rule still applies. Again I believe that people should accept this as GW tells us in their rulebook that this is the way their rules work, if someone cannot understand this, and it is after all a fairly simple rule to follow, then they are either dense, or being obtuse.

    confoo22 wrote:

    I think that sums it up, if you have anything to add then add, but let's not waste time writing more and more in depth descriptions of the same arguments that are obviously not going to sway the other.


    I may not sway you. but I'm making the argument so that others who may view this thread will not mistakenly believe that they can apply one units options to another unit.
       
    Made in us
    Implacable Black Templar Initiate





    ItsPug wrote:
    confoo22 wrote:


    As an example, if I were to take a BT Crusader squad and a BT Assault squad, could I swap the Crusader's bolt pistols for storm shields at xpts per model as per the assault squad options? It says under the BT assault squad list that any model can replace their bolt pistol with a storm shield, it doesn't say specifically that this only applies to the assault squad in their entry on page 39. Crusaders have bolt pistols, they are models, so why not? The answer is because a units options only apply to that unit. I can't explain it any clearer than that.


    Nobody has suggested this as a possibility. That listing does not use the term "in the army" therefore there is no reason to believe that the upgrade would be in any other unit other than the one it was listed under.

    Again, the phrasing "in the army" is what I believe allows it to go against the rule. Not that just any upgrade can be passed to any unit. I've explained this several times in this thread.

    Your opinion is that this is not explicit enough, that's what you've said several times in several different ways, in order to override the pg 90 rule. I understand why you think that way and I don't fault you for it, but I disagree with that assessment. This isn't a matter of understanding the rules, I understand them just fine, it's a matter of whether or not the rule as written countermands the established rules. I believe it does, you believe it doesn't. That doesn't mean that I'm dense or obtuse, it means that I have a different opinion.
       
    Made in us
    Captain of the Forlorn Hope





    Chicago, IL

    confoo22 wrote:
    Yes, for the most part when something is listed under a unit the upgrade is solely for that unit. But if the language would allow you to upgrade a different unit then that specific language would trump the general rules.


    Every option for every unit out there, sans dedicated transports, are upgrades to that particular unit, not different units.

    All that line is saying is if you upgrade one terminator champion in that Ravenwing Command Squad, you may not purchase that upgrade for any other Ravenwing Command Squad as you may only purchase the option once per army.

    "Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

    I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

    We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
     
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
    Go to: