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.

 Ghaz wrote:

Lord Ruby34 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Lord Ruby34 wrote:
Technically, with the rules as written a Coldstar Commander can take signature systems.

No. As written he can not take signature systems as he can only take the Coldstar instead of choosing from the first three options.

I have no doubt that that was the intention. However, nothing about the coldstar description disallows signature systems except by implication.

The wording is quite clear. You take the Coldstar instead of the first three options. No 'implication' as that is what it clearly says.

The exact wording of the Coldstar suit "A Commander may instead replace its Crisis Battlesuit with an XV86 Coldstar Battlesuit, equipped with a high output burst cannon and missile pod." The next line "A commander in an XV86 Coldstar Battlesuit may take up to two items from the support systems list and two drones from the drones list."

With the text as written the only thing the CSS replaces is the Crisis Suit. No where in the text does it make any mention of being disallowed to take signature systems. I don't think this was the intent of the ruling. I'm almost 100% sure that a CSS was intened to replace the first three options. The rule is simply poorly worded.

Guys, what page are the pics of the tidal defense wall on (if any?).

Lord Ruby34 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Lord Ruby34 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Lord Ruby34 wrote:
Technically, with the rules as written a Coldstar Commander can take signature systems.

No. As written he can not take signature systems as he can only take the Coldstar instead of choosing from the first three options.

I have no doubt that that was the intention. However, nothing about the coldstar description disallows signature systems except by implication.

The wording is quite clear. You take the Coldstar instead of the first three options. No 'implication' as that is what it clearly says.

The exact wording of the Coldstar suit "A Commander may instead replace its Crisis Battlesuit with an XV86 Coldstar Battlesuit, equipped with a high output burst cannon and missile pod." The next line "A commander in an XV86 Coldstar Battlesuit may take up to two items from the support systems list and two drones from the drones list."

With the text as written the only thing the CSS replaces is the Crisis Suit. No where in the text does it make any mention of being disallowed to take signature systems. I don't think this was the intent of the ruling. I'm almost 100% sure that a CSS was intened to replace the first three options. The rule is simply poorly worded.

Dude. What do you think, what "instead" is referring to in the "A Commander instead replace its Crisis Battlesuit with an XV86 Coldstar Battlesuit"?

Lord Ruby34 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Lord Ruby34 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Lord Ruby34 wrote:
Technically, with the rules as written a Coldstar Commander can take signature systems.

No. As written he can not take signature systems as he can only take the Coldstar instead of choosing from the first three options.

I have no doubt that that was the intention. However, nothing about the coldstar description disallows signature systems except by implication.

The wording is quite clear. You take the Coldstar instead of the first three options. No 'implication' as that is what it clearly says.

The exact wording of the Coldstar suit "A Commander may instead replace its Crisis Battlesuit with an XV86 Coldstar Battlesuit, equipped with a high output burst cannon and missile pod." The next line "A commander in an XV86 Coldstar Battlesuit may take up to two items from the support systems list and two drones from the drones list."

With the text as written the only thing the CSS replaces is the Crisis Suit. No where in the text does it make any mention of being disallowed to take signature systems. I don't think this was the intent of the ruling. I'm almost 100% sure that a CSS was intened to replace the first three options. The rule is simply poorly worded.

There is already a precedent for this with Terminator Armor in the SM codex. If the HQ takes Termie Armor, he doesn't get the previous options. Full stop.

Lord Ruby34 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Lord Ruby34 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Lord Ruby34 wrote:
Technically, with the rules as written a Coldstar Commander can take signature systems.

No. As written he can not take signature systems as he can only take the Coldstar instead of choosing from the first three options.

I have no doubt that that was the intention. However, nothing about the coldstar description disallows signature systems except by implication.

The wording is quite clear. You take the Coldstar instead of the first three options. No 'implication' as that is what it clearly says.

The exact wording of the Coldstar suit "A Commander may instead replace its Crisis Battlesuit with an XV86 Coldstar Battlesuit, equipped with a high output burst cannon and missile pod." The next line "A commander in an XV86 Coldstar Battlesuit may take up to two items from the support systems list and two drones from the drones list."

With the text as written the only thing the CSS replaces is the Crisis Suit. No where in the text does it make any mention of being disallowed to take signature systems. I don't think this was the intent of the ruling. I'm almost 100% sure that a CSS was intened to replace the first three options. The rule is simply poorly worded.

Yes it does, and you quoted it yourself. Here it is again:

A Commander may instead replace its Crisis Battlesuit with an XV86 Coldstar Battlesuit...

So instead of taking the first three options, the Commander may instead replace his Crisis Battlesuit with an XV86 Coldstar Battlesuit. You're scenario doesn't work because you have him taking all of the options including the Coldstar when the rule clearly says he takes it instead of the other options.

I can't believe people can fail this badly in reading comprehension. It's pretty obvious that the Coldstar can't take the signature systems.

Quite nice presentation of the new stuff on the GW website:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-NZ/Home

Why don't we all stop this pointless conversation and look at the pretty pictures instead:

Holy gak that FW kit has double everything (thats new), 20 heads, 20 shoulder pads, 20 backpacks. That explains the price hike .

We don't even know the next set of signature systems yet. So can both sides stop with their obtuse arguing.

Wow, that tidal wall thing is impressive.
That preview is not up on the Irish site however (yet):

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-IE/Home?mobile=false&_requestid=6319468

Only on the NZ site because GW doesn't know how the Internet works.

No, they figure, NZlanders are so loaded $315 is a steal

 Therion wrote:
I can't believe people can fail this badly in reading comprehension. It's pretty obvious that the Coldstar can't take the signature systems.

Access (unlimited!) to Signature Systems (which may well make or break this model, given its point costs) is at stake, and you can't believe people aren't testing the outer boundaries of rule interpretation?

My take:

You start with the (rebuttable) presumption that all words (or as many as possible) function and have meaning within the rule.

That is to say, unless you have something meaningful to show otherwise, a rule's words should mean something.

Now at BEST, there are two interpretations to what "instead" can refer to: A) the three previous options listed, or B) the Crisis Suit wargear.

Looking at the actual words, compare the following:
"May replace its Crisis Suit with a Coldstar suit."
"May instead replace its Crisis Suit with a Coldstar suit."

What function does instead perform under interpretation A? It negates the previously listed options, providing an alternative option: taking a coldstar suited commander.
What function does instead perform under interpretation B? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. "May replace" and "May instead replace" are entirely indistinguishable from each other, because referring to the battlesuit through "instead" doesn't matter due to the replacement of the battlesuit by the Coldstar REGARDLESS.

Between the two interpretations, then, only the "replaces all previous options" interpretation allows "Instead" to function and have meaning within the rule provided. Thus, there is a presumption that "replaces all previous options" is the most appropriate interpretation.

For anyone wanting to argue otherwise, the ball is now in your court: Why would we favor your interpretation DESPITE it making a word meaningless within the rule? Appealing to GW being bad at rule-making isn't going to go far, unless you believe they're SO bad at making rules that the presumption should be for nonfunctional over functional words in the rules. Good luck with that.


Edit: Ooooooooooooh. Preeeeeeeeeetty.

I really hope that Shadow Force Solaq does not have a "set" requirement of stuff for you to field.

Fancy stuff

Yeah, in all seriousness, pretty impressed with the Tau release tbh.
Crons got a new Dex, nothing really new minitaure-wise.
Eldar got a new dex - a few new bikes.
KDK - Thirster and a few proxies if you buy the AoS stuff.
DAs - nothing new really.

But Tau seemed to have defintely got some love. Its almost like GW did some sort of analysis and realised that Xenos factions could sell damn well if done right.....

*cough* Nids/Chaos please? *cough*

 Ratius wrote:
Yeah, in all seriousness, pretty impressed with the Tau release tbh.
Crons got a new Dex, nothing really new minitaure-wise.
Eldar got a new dex - a few new bikes.
KDK - Thirster and a few proxies if you buy the AoS stuff.
DAs - nothing new really.

But Tau seemed to have defintely got some love. Its almost like GW did some sort of analysis and realised that Xenos factions could sell damn well if done right.....

*cough* Nids/Chaos please? *cough*

To be honest though, the Tau line was extremely limited. We had like 3-4 models that served any function you'd want them to. It was great for the pocketbook because with magnets your Crisis Suits, Broadsides, and Riptide could be reused in a host of different roles. It just wasn't very interesting and reduced the number of purchases.

Granted but you could say that of:

Nids
Chaos
DAs (prior to recent release and still probably now)
Orks (if you want to be competitive)

List kind of goes on. Im not saying the new releases will set the world alight play-wise (dont play Tau so cant really comment) but the new kits do look damn good and add a lot of variety, from supermegarobots to new FWs to the defense line.

Either that or they will be pretty and sit on the shelf..... :(

That drone dock is looking pretty sweet.

lol at the 360 of the marine being painted Ultramarines. RG don't even get respect in their own sets.

The tau terrain is fantastic... the raven guard captain is terrible.

Any prices on those kit bundles? Any savings therein?

So, it appears that breaches and strikers are seperate kits, not a dual kit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooh, and it looks like they have inculded bits to make marker drones in the striker's box.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, scratch that, their are options to build either two shield, gun, or maker drones. I'm actually impressed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK, this is wierd, tow sperte store entires (one for strikers, and one for breachers), but the boxes and spruses are completely identical. Sort of odd, but whatever.

The Fire Warrior kit is really great now.

I'm actually looking forward to using those breacher shoulderpads as they look a lot better/more practical than the existing pads.

What do the Breacher backpacks do? They're not some kind of drop troop are they?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

OK, this is wierd, tow sperte store entires (one for strikers, and one for breachers), but the boxes and spruses are completely identical. Sort of odd, but whatever.

Yeah, that weirded me out too

Same kit. You can see the breachers guns on the third sprue.

Judging from the 360, the weird 3rd barrel on the shotgun is actually another lens. Ok, then.

 Bulldogging wrote:
lol at the 360 of the marine being painted Ultramarines. RG don't even get respect in their own sets.

Yeah, that is pretty annoying. The White Dwarf blurb about the boxed set made a mention of the fact that there is no Raven Guard specific iconography so you could "use the Captain with whatever Space Marine army you have"...which is kind of disappointing, considering the iconography that went into Karlaen and Krom.

Still. He's gonna be a great start to a Lias Issodon for my Raptors.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
OK, this is wierd, tow sperte store entires (one for strikers, and one for breachers), but the boxes and spruses are completely identical. Sort of odd, but whatever.

I'm assuming you're saying that it's weird that there are two separate online store entries (Breachers and Strike Team) for a single kit. It's actually standard practice for GW. For example, there are separate entries for Deathmarks and Immortals yet they're both the same kit. Same is true for Lychguard and Triarch Praetorians.