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.

 skoffs wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
It is blatantly obvious the thing is only meant to be able to bring back Warriors.
People who think being able to re-add 150 points worth of ResOrb/Phase Shifter/Warscythe/Mindshackle Scarab/Sempiternal Weave carrying Lord is what the Repair Barge function of the Ghost Ark is meant to be used for are not playing RAI. They are trying to find a RAW loophole they can exploit.

Cite evidence. Because I'm not even a Necron player and I think it should bring back RC members.

Unfortunately, that's not possible, as the rule as written simply says "model"... that's it. Completely ambiguous.
Looking at the physical model of the Ghost Ark itself, we can see it's full of broken Warriors. A RAI player would see this and go, "oh, ok, so it means it can replace fallen Warriors. That makes sense." Somebody looking to abuse RAW, on the other hand, would look at the codex entry and go, "oh, 'model', eh? Well Imotekh is a 'model'. A Destroyer Lord is a 'model'. All of these expensive Combat Lords are 'models'. That means as long as I have functioning Ghost Arks near the unit of Warriors that I initially attached all these HQ to, I can bring them back every turn, no matter how many times they die!"
This ambiguity is but one of many examples of poorly written rules to come out of that mess of a codex. I don't know how many FAQs we've had, and they STILL haven't addressed all of them yet.

So you have no evidence that what you're saying is what's intended, but anyone who plays otherwise is just a loophole abuser.
Yeah, that's sane.

(no doubt the same people who thought it was perfectly acceptable to Scarab Conga Line into a turn 1 assault back before they FAQ'd that out)

It's almost like you have no basis for that claim - oh, right.. you don't. You're making things up. Because this is absolutely false.

What is it you think I'm making up? The Scarab conga line bullish*t was something people actually tried to pull back when the codex first came out. It was one of the worst cases of blatant RAW abuse WAAC power gaming, ie. breaking the game (there are plenty of old YMDC entries from back then chronicling all that crap if you need reference.)
If you mean my claim that people who try to abuse the ambiguity of the Repair Barge rule to bring HQ back are akin to those Scarab Conga players, in that they are both trying to break the game via RAW lawyering, well, what else would you call someone who has found a method to 100% guarantee never give up Slay The Warlord points?

You made up the fact that people who are okay with Lords coming back were the same people who were okay with the conga line.
I think Lords/Crypteks returning is intended but the Conga line isn't/wasn't.

Speaking in absolutes is rarely a good idea.

rigeld2 wrote:
So you have no evidence that what you're saying is what's intended, but anyone who plays otherwise is just a loophole abuser.

Oh come on, anyone with decent common sense would highly doubt the rules intended for a 115 point vehicle to be able to bring 170 point models back from the dead, every turn, for as long as that vehicle survives. (I know Ward is known for writing some pretty broken stuff, but that kind of return on investment is just straight up ridiculous).
Quite simply, it is yet another example of a loophole that can be abused because of shoddy writing.

You made up the fact that people who are okay with Lords coming back were the same people who were okay with the conga line.

Common sense is your personal view on what is intended. Others see being able to bring back a unit sarge, which a RC member operates as, as a sensible limitation of the unbound phrase "model"

IDK, the rule says add models to a Warrior unit. What models can be in a Warrior unit? Does the ability to add models override the rules about a warrior unit composition being comprised of... Warriors?

IMO Warriors models can be added to a warrior unit, no other models have permission to join the unit- IC's join a unit by moving into coherency in the Movement phase - and other than unsual cases where specified, these are the only examples of permissions where models not part of the unit can join or be a part of the unit.

Rules already tell you what models are in a warrior unit, just like being 'behind' a ADL or 'In' ruins doesn't automatically qualify you for cover saves, you have to consult the governing rules for cover save to tell you how to get that save, to me this is nit picking over the word 'Model' and ignoring the rules which tell you what models are in a Warrior unit.

The crux of the problem: the word "model" is too vague (can mean anything from "single Warrior model", to "any single model that was initially attached to the unit", to "any model in the game").
Needs to be clarified, but highly unlikely that'll be happening any time soon, thanks to GW's sudden slackening in the FAQ supply department.

Nem - added != joined

A unit of warriors can also have, joined with no way to leave, an RC member. Warriors is also the unit name, whcih is not the same as the model composition necessarily - a unit of tactical marines can also include a veteran sargeant, for example.

 skoffs wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you have no evidence that what you're saying is what's intended, but anyone who plays otherwise is just a loophole abuser.

Oh come on, anyone with decent common sense would highly doubt the rules intended for a 115 point vehicle to be able to bring 170 point models back from the dead, every turn, for as long as that vehicle survives. (I know Ward is known for writing some pretty broken stuff, but that kind of return on investment is just straight up ridiculous).
Quite simply, it is yet another example of a loophole that can be abused because of shoddy writing.

Yeah, keep stating an opinion as if its fact. That's a cool story bro.

You made up the fact that people who are okay with Lords coming back were the same people who were okay with the conga line.

... "fact"?
You took the phrase "no doubt some who would do A is the same kind of person who would do B" as fact?
It's an inference, man... you seem to have some sort of preoccupation with absolutes (hence the staunch RAW defense, amirite?)

"no doubt" means you take it as without doubt, as in a fact. See, words mean things.
And this time, your words were demonstrably false and demeaning.

... but that's what RAI is: "This rule is unclear as written, so I interpret it this way, based on my opinion of what I think the writer meant when writing this rule."
RAW is the fact based adherence to the strict letter of the law: "It is written this way, therefore it must be played this way."
Normally for clear cut rules RAW is fine. It's only when met with ambiguity, as we have in this case, that RAI needs to be considered, lest game breaking loopholes be exploited.
You can go on as much as you want about the lack of facts for a RAI interpretation that would see the Repair Barge function restricted to just Warriors, but the fact of the matter is, no interpretation can claim to be the most factual, as the words "add D3 models to the unit" are just far too vauge on what exact models are allowed to be added.

TL;DR- rule as written insufficient, FAQ required.

 skoffs wrote:
... but that's what RAI is: "This rule is unclear as written, so I interpret it this way, based on my opinion of what I think the writer meant when writing this rule."

Sure. And as long as you frame it like that I have no objections. It's when you claim that someone who has a different opinion than you must be a loophole abuser (implying cheating).

RAW is the fact based adherence to the strict letter of the law: "It is written this way, therefore it must be played this way."

I underlined where you're incorrect - really all that RAW means is that's the way the rules are written. I can't tell you how you should play the game; you can house rule anything.

Normally for clear cut rules RAW is fine. It's only when met with ambiguity, as we have in this case, that RAI needs to be considered, lest game breaking loopholes be exploited.

What ambiguity? It says models. As written, there's no limitation. You may not like that fact, but that doesn't mean it's ambiguous.
It's like me saying the number of shots a HYMP fires is ambiguous.

You can go on as much as you want about the lack of facts for a RAI interpretation that would see the Repair Barge function restricted to just Warriors, but the fact of the matter is, no interpretation can claim to be the most factual, as the words "add D3 models to the unit" are just far too vauge on what exact models are allowed to be added.

So you just decide to completely ignore the fact that you essentially insulted anyone who disagreed with you on your first post, and when I called you out it's just, like, your opinion man.

Whatever.
Anyone who plays that it can only add warriors to a unit is a bad player and needs to learn how to play the game.
... See what I did there?

Thought this was going to be a simple matter, I had no idea it was going to turn into all of this.

Crazy Jay wrote:
Thought this was going to be a simple matter, I had no idea it was going to turn into all of this.

Welcome to the YMDC sub-forum!

Back on topic, I fully agree that the RAW is completely stupid and honestly think the word "Warrior" should be in front of the word "models" in that rule, but that is just my opinion.

Edit: Or even better, add "Necron Warrior" in front of models, lest there exist other "Warrior" models in the game, i.e. Nids.

 skoffs wrote:
It is blatantly obvious the thing is only meant to be able to bring back Warriors.
People who think being able to re-add 150 points worth of ResOrb/Phase Shifter/Warscythe/Mindshackle Scarab/Sempiternal Weave carrying Lord is what the Repair Barge function of the Ghost Ark is meant to be used for are not playing RAI. They are trying to find a RAW loophole they can exploit.
(no doubt the same people who thought it was perfectly acceptable to Scarab Conga Line into a turn 1 assault back before they FAQ'd that out)

You can add crypteks and lords (that were in the unit before they died) back to the unit of warriors simply because they were part of the unit.

You can't add Ghost Arks, Annihilation Barges, Monoliths or whatever else to the unit, simply because it can never be nor was part of the unit in the first place.

Lords and crypteks are just the same as what sergeants/champions are for Space Marines/Chaos Space Marines.

The fact that they can take great gear like res orbs/phase shifter/warscythe/MSS etc... is validated by their higher point cost and also because you can't just take them like you take sergeants/champions. You have to first take a HQ (which normally costs around 200 points on itself) before you are allowed to use them. Also you are limited (for the crypteks at least) with the availabilty of gear you can give them as you can only take one of each (Solar Pulse, Nightmare Shroud, etc...)

These are all restrictions Space Marines/Chaos SM do not have.

But I want to bring back 3 Transcendent C-tans

Way too funny.

As much fun as text walls that amount to nothing more than "cool story bro" are, I'm just going to cut to the heart of the matter-

rigeld2 wrote:
What ambiguity? It says models. As written, there's no limitation.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
There's no limitation.
"Model" is about as vague and ambiguous a term in this game as possible. The only way it could have been worse is if they used the word "things" instead.

You may not like that fact, but that doesn't mean it's ambiguous.

If there's no limitations, THAT IS AMBIGUOUS, because there is no way to know with 100% certainty what those models are. Hence the issue OP initially posted about.
Every interpretation of the rule everyone is this thread has posted, myself included, has been nothing more than their opinion based interpretation of what this could mean. Some people have taken the conservative side of the interpretation (Necron Warriors only), some people have taken an extreme side (anything counts as a model, so no limitations or restrictions). The fact is, no one is right, because the rule ambiguously uses the word "model" when it needed precise clarification on exactly what models it is referring to.
Simply put: this needs to be errata'd.

If it helps end this tedious argument, I hereby retract all other previous statements in place of the above.

Except it's not ambiguous.
You're allowed to place d3 models. That's unambiguous. If it's a model, you can place it - that's what's written. You're literally saying "I don't like what that means, so it's ambiguous."

Any limitations you want to put on that are your interpretation and are house rules.

It is entirely ambiguous!
To what "model" is the rule referring?
"Model" can mean literally anything that is considered a model!
In a game consisting of nothing but models, that is a pretty important distinction that needs to be made!

... Wait... do you and I have different definitions of the word "ambiguity" or something?
Is that where this disconnect has its root?
Because I'm going off of the dictionary definition of the word, here ("uncertainty of meaning").
I am not contesting that D3 models can't be added to the unit.
I am saying that the word "model" is too vauge.
The very problem tha the OP raised in the first place, was that his opponent decided "model" meant another vehicle. Well, by pure RAW understanding he's not wrong. A Ghost Ark is a model, therefore in the strictest sense, should be allowed. Now obviously we know that is not what the writer meant when he wrote the rule, but unfortunately for everyone, he decided to use the incredibly ambiguous word "model" without specifying exactly what model was meant.

There is no uncertainty. If it is a model you know, with certainty, that it can added to the unit.

It is only ambiguous if you try to get it to mean something it does not,which the rai arguments are attempting. That does not make the sentence ambiguous, just very wide ranging in scope.

 skoffs wrote:
It is entirely ambiguous!
To what "model" is the rule referring?

Is it a model? The rule refers to it.
How is that ambiguous?

... Wait... do you and I have different definitions of the word "ambiguity" or something?
Is that where this disconnect has its root?
Because I'm going off of the dictionary definition of the word, here ("uncertainty of meaning").
I am not contesting that D3 models can't be added to the unit.
I am saying that the word "model" is too vauge.
The very problem tha the OP raised in the first place, was that his opponent decided "model" meant another vehicle. Well, by pure RAW understanding he's not wrong. A Ghost Ark is a model, therefore in the strictest sense, should be allowed. Now obviously we know that is not what the writer meant when he wrote the rule, but unfortunately for everyone, he decided to use the incredibly ambiguous word "model" without specifying exactly what model was meant.

It's absolutely clear what he said. It's not clear what he meant.
That distinction only matters when discussing intent. As written the rule isn't ambiguous at all. What you're failing to understand is that RAW and RAI are not always the same. The fact that you believe that what's written and what's intended are different doesn't mean the rule is ambiguous - it means you don't believe the author wrote what he intended to write.

A + B = C. Is that an ambiguous equation? Have I left room for doubt? Not at all. You're welcome to question what I *meant* with those letters, but that doesn't mean what I wrote is ambiguous.