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.

Zarius wrote:
Then why the flaming crap lords do you people keep harping on the bloody exact meaning of Unit Composition? If you're willing to fudge the rules as written to incorporate terms that AREN'T in the manual, why are you being so obtuse about at least admitting that a gun purchase ALSO qualifies as a bloody Model Upgrade, since that should be obvious in the fact that you attach it to a specific bloody model?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What I'm struggling with is your OCD adherence to PART of the RAW, but then other parts going with the RAI.

Everything we are arguing is by RAW.

col_impact wrote:

Creeperman wrote:
I'm following your argument so far. But let me ask this: When following that interpretation, what mechanism allows you to "replace" 5 bolter scouts with 5 sniper scouts and then "replace" those 5 sniper scouts with 5 camouflaged sniper scouts, that does not also also permit you to then "replace" those 5 camouflaged sniper scouts with 4 camouflaged sniper scouts and 1 camouflaged sniper WGPL?

The mechanism is the instructions in the Options section of the ALE which lists the unit upgrades that the unit may take.

So in other words, nothing at all. "Replacing" your 5 sniper scouts with 5 camouflaged sniper scouts is just as legal as "replacing" those 5 camouflaged sniper scouts with 4 camouflaged sniper scouts and 1 camouflaged sniper WGPL because both operations are explicitly permitted by the ALE options. I'm glad we finally straightened that out through rigorous reinterpretation and redefinition of the word "upgrade."

Creeperman wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Creeperman wrote:
I'm following your argument so far. But let me ask this: When following that interpretation, what mechanism allows you to "replace" 5 bolter scouts with 5 sniper scouts and then "replace" those 5 sniper scouts with 5 camouflaged sniper scouts, that does not also also permit you to then "replace" those 5 camouflaged sniper scouts with 4 camouflaged sniper scouts and 1 camouflaged sniper WGPL?

The mechanism is the instructions in the Options section of the ALE which lists the unit upgrades that the unit may take.

So in other words, nothing at all. "Replacing" your 5 sniper scouts with 5 camouflaged sniper scouts is just as legal as "replacing" those 5 camouflaged sniper scouts with 4 camouflaged sniper scouts and 1 camouflaged sniper WGPL because both operations are explicitly permitted by the ALE options. I'm glad we finally straightened that out through rigorous reinterpretation and redefinition of the word "upgrade."

Incorrect. You are not upgrading the model but upgrading the unit.



Upgrade means "to get something better than what you originally had"

When you start adhering to the rules then we will be in agreement.

So after reading this argument, I have come to the conclusion that you -can- have a WGPL with a sniper rifle, despite my initial disagreement.

If only because it sounds cooler than the alternative and it's existence depends on interpretations of a few words. If I am asked which interpretation is best, always go with the cooler one.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So after reading this argument, I have come to the conclusion that you -can- have a WGPL with a sniper rifle, despite my initial disagreement.

If only because it sounds cooler than the alternative and it's existence depends on interpretations of a few words. If I am asked which interpretation is best, always go with the cooler one.

You are certainly welcome to house rule it that way, but you are breaking the rules as written.

col_impact wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So after reading this argument, I have come to the conclusion that you -can- have a WGPL with a sniper rifle, despite my initial disagreement.

If only because it sounds cooler than the alternative and it's existence depends on interpretations of a few words. If I am asked which interpretation is best, always go with the cooler one.

You are certainly welcome to house rule it that way, but you are breaking the rules as written.

Spoiler:

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.

Dude, seriously? Your tactic of quoting the same rule over and over again isn't changing anybody's mind. Yes, the options all apply to the unit. Yes, some of the options also apply more specifically to certain models. If my unit starts as 5 Wolf Scouts and then I take the option to give those models Sniper Rifles, I'm just taking those same 5 models from the initial Unit Composition and giving them different Wargear. I'm not removing the Bolter Scouts from the Unit and replacing them with Sniper Rifle Scouts. I am instead allowing specific models to swap out one piece of Wargear for another. In that sense, the option is both a unit upgrade and a model upgrade.

Doggedly maintaining that the Options section lists upgrades you made add to the unit doesn't change the fact that some of the options upgrade the unit by upgrading the unit's component parts... i.e. the models.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So after reading this argument, I have come to the conclusion that you -can- have a WGPL with a sniper rifle, despite my initial disagreement.

If only because it sounds cooler than the alternative and it's existence depends on interpretations of a few words. If I am asked which interpretation is best, always go with the cooler one.

LOL! OK, at least you admit that you're going with the cool factor here. It's honest.

As to you, Col, No you aren't going purely with RAW. Because there is no term of "legal unit composition." That's RAI, not RAW. If you want RAW, RAW is "one Wolf Scout may <thingy>." THAT points at ONE scout. Not at the whole unit, but ONE BLOODY SCOUT, because THAT'S WHAT THE BLOODY MANUAL SAYS. If it targets ONE SCOUT, then it's only upgrading THAT ONE SCOUT. The UNIT gets an upgrade only de facto because the Scout is part of the unit, BUT THE ACTUAL OPTION IS ONLY DIRECTED AT ONE SCOUT, making it a MODEL upgrade, because it's targeting the SINGLE SCOUT, not the WHOLE UNIT the way that the Cloak upgrade does. Subsequent rules override previous rules. This is RAW in the BRB, so when the rule for a SPECIFIC upgrade states that it affects a single model, it either ignores or augments (more precisely defines) the previous statement of being a Unit upgrade. You can keep saying that you're arguing RAW all you want, but you aren't, because you aren't modifying the rules as modifiers pop up, which is the RAW of the manual. Each upgrade is a special rule, with a point cost associated with it. All special rules either augment or replace previous rules, or add to the functionality of a given MODEL'S capabilities.

col_impact wrote:

Creeperman wrote:
So in other words, nothing at all. "Replacing" your 5 sniper scouts with 5 camouflaged sniper scouts is just as legal as "replacing" those 5 camouflaged sniper scouts with 4 camouflaged sniper scouts and 1 camouflaged sniper WGPL because both operations are explicitly permitted by the ALE options. I'm glad we finally straightened that out through rigorous reinterpretation and redefinition of the word "upgrade."

Incorrect. You are not upgrading the model but upgrading the unit.

Spoiler:

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.

Upgrade means "to get something better than what you originally had"

When you start adhering to the rules then we will be in agreement.

You keep repeating the same line over and over again, while once again reversing your meaning. I have demonstrated by your own definition of unit upgrade how to replace the entire squad with a new upgraded squad, following multiple interpretations of the ALE options. All you have done is serve up more waffles than a House of Pancakes while invoking an imaginary rules construct of "unit-based upgrade" like some kind of magic spell.

I have asked you over and over again to demonstrate, step by step, how to take upgrades. In that, I have been answered by silence, or meaningless one-liners, or by contextless dictionary definitions of the word "upgrade." I can only conclude that you have no relevant rebuttal. Either fully explain your proposed rulings, or mark your opinion as HYWPI.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So after reading this argument, I have come to the conclusion that you -can- have a WGPL with a sniper rifle, despite my initial disagreement.

If only because it sounds cooler than the alternative and it's existence depends on interpretations of a few words. If I am asked which interpretation is best, always go with the cooler one.

Somebody tell the entire community that they have been playing it wrong the whole time.

I guess we can have Terminator Bikers after all.

If you follow the promotion logic, the onlly restriction is for Terminator Armour wearers not being able to purchase Bikes. But if you buy a Bike first, you bypass the restriction.

Yea, I'd like to see that happen literally anywhere around the world. Reasoning? Because cool. Rofl.

Zarius wrote:
HappyJew actually, you're slightly wrong. The rule for Generic Melee is that ALL models are considered to have a generic CCW, which operates under the profile of Range - Str U AP -

I suppose that, TECHNICALLY, that means that ANY unit could use the Swap Melee Weapon for -blarf- rule, regardless. Assuming it's an allowed option.

The rule you are referring to (or at least I think you are referring to) only applies to models that do not have a specified Melee weapon. Pistols, are treated as (read are) melee weapons in the close combat. Therefore a model with a pistol does not get the free melee weapon..

col_impact wrote:

Creeperman wrote:
"Upgrade" in this case is very distinct from "exchange" or "replace." If the option entry read "May replace one Wolf Scout with a Wolf Guard Pack Leader" or "The unit may be joined by a Wolf Guard Pack Leader" we would not be having this debate, because it would be clear which state the WGPL model is in at the time he was added.

But since I never got an answer the last time I asked this, I will try asking again. By strict adherence to the logic of "backwards legality," can anyone demonstrate how we take the Pack Leader upgrade?

The option to upgrade is specific to Wolf Scouts, and the moment a model takes the upgrade, that model is no longer a Scout, and is thus ineligible to select the Pack Leader upgrade he just selected. How do you resolve this conundrum?

Backwards legality is a great house rule. But it won't help in a RAW argument unless you find that somewhere in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Rasko wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
If so, is a generic CCW better than the pistol that certain marines come with, and can be replaced?

I don't quite follow in how a CCW being better than a pistol will change anything...

From what I understand, one of the arguments is that the rules are using the definition of upgrade to be "to get something better than what you had originally." If so, then the option to upgrade a unit with pistols to have generic CCWs means that the generic CCWs are better than pistols.

Do you have a quote?

No, which is why I asked you if my assumption was correct.

What is the relevance if you are making up a scenario?

What scenario am I making up? For example, a Tac Sergeant (BA at elast) can exchange his Bolt Pistol for a Chainsword.

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So after reading this argument, I have come to the conclusion that you -can- have a WGPL with a sniper rifle, despite my initial disagreement.

If only because it sounds cooler than the alternative and it's existence depends on interpretations of a few words. If I am asked which interpretation is best, always go with the cooler one.

You are certainly welcome to house rule it that way, but you are breaking the rules as written.

Spoiler:

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.

Dude, seriously? Your tactic of quoting the same rule over and over again isn't changing anybody's mind. Yes, the options all apply to the unit. Yes, some of the options also apply more specifically to certain models. If my unit starts as 5 Wolf Scouts and then I take the option to give those models Sniper Rifles, I'm just taking those same 5 models from the initial Unit Composition and giving them different Wargear. I'm not removing the Bolter Scouts from the Unit and replacing them with Sniper Rifle Scouts. I am instead allowing specific models to swap out one piece of Wargear for another. In that sense, the option is both a unit upgrade and a model upgrade.

Doggedly maintaining that the Options section lists upgrades you made add to the unit doesn't change the fact that some of the options upgrade the unit by upgrading the unit's component parts... i.e. the models.

Our arguments might seem repetitive, but that's just because you are repeatedly ignoring plainly stated rules.

They are all unit upgrades. Everything must fit into the specifics laid out and allowed for the unit. And as you note, the models are components of the unit. So the unit is the only thing that is being upgraded, per the rules. Any modifications to weapons or models are all unit upgrades.

It's the reason why you can't have 2 WGPL in a unit of scouts.

Zarius wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So after reading this argument, I have come to the conclusion that you -can- have a WGPL with a sniper rifle, despite my initial disagreement.

If only because it sounds cooler than the alternative and it's existence depends on interpretations of a few words. If I am asked which interpretation is best, always go with the cooler one.

LOL! OK, at least you admit that you're going with the cool factor here. It's honest.

As to you, Col, No you aren't going purely with RAW. Because there is no term of "legal unit composition." That's RAI, not RAW. If you want RAW, RAW is "one Wolf Scout may <thingy>." THAT points at ONE scout. Not at the whole unit, but ONE BLOODY SCOUT, because THAT'S WHAT THE BLOODY MANUAL SAYS. If it targets ONE SCOUT, then it's only upgrading THAT ONE SCOUT. The UNIT gets an upgrade only de facto because the Scout is part of the unit, BUT THE ACTUAL OPTION IS ONLY DIRECTED AT ONE SCOUT, making it a MODEL upgrade, because it's targeting the SINGLE SCOUT, not the WHOLE UNIT the way that the Cloak upgrade does. Subsequent rules override previous rules. This is RAW in the BRB, so when the rule for a SPECIFIC upgrade states that it affects a single model, it either ignores or augments (more precisely defines) the previous statement of being a Unit upgrade. You can keep saying that you're arguing RAW all you want, but you aren't, because you aren't modifying the rules as modifiers pop up, which is the RAW of the manual. Each upgrade is a special rule, with a point cost associated with it. All special rules either augment or replace previous rules, or add to the functionality of a given MODEL'S capabilities.

Breathe, brother. Online forums aren't worth getting upset about. The upgrade is very obviously an upgrade for one specific model. The most reasonable reading says that the unit is upgraded by upgrading its component parts. In other words, If you upgrade one model to have a different piece of wargear, the overall unit has, by extension, been upgraded as well. In that sense, of course all Options are unit upgrades. Some of them just happen to also be model upgrades. We don't need a separate rule telling us this because we have the option text itself... "A [model name] may [do something]".

Also, does anyone else read col_impact as impacted colon? I always read it and giggle a little because all I can think is 'get that man a doctor'! Good to know that no matter how much I mature, poo jokes will remain funny.

Zarius wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So after reading this argument, I have come to the conclusion that you -can- have a WGPL with a sniper rifle, despite my initial disagreement.

If only because it sounds cooler than the alternative and it's existence depends on interpretations of a few words. If I am asked which interpretation is best, always go with the cooler one.

LOL! OK, at least you admit that you're going with the cool factor here. It's honest.

As to you, Col, No you aren't going purely with RAW. Because there is no term of "legal unit composition." That's RAI, not RAW. If you want RAW, RAW is "one Wolf Scout may <thingy>." THAT points at ONE scout. Not at the whole unit, but ONE BLOODY SCOUT, because THAT'S WHAT THE BLOODY MANUAL SAYS. If it targets ONE SCOUT, then it's only upgrading THAT ONE SCOUT. The UNIT gets an upgrade only de facto because the Scout is part of the unit, BUT THE ACTUAL OPTION IS ONLY DIRECTED AT ONE SCOUT, making it a MODEL upgrade, because it's targeting the SINGLE SCOUT, not the WHOLE UNIT the way that the Cloak upgrade does. Subsequent rules override previous rules. This is RAW in the BRB, so when the rule for a SPECIFIC upgrade states that it affects a single model, it either ignores or augments (more precisely defines) the previous statement of being a Unit upgrade. You can keep saying that you're arguing RAW all you want, but you aren't, because you aren't modifying the rules as modifiers pop up, which is the RAW of the manual. Each upgrade is a special rule, with a point cost associated with it. All special rules either augment or replace previous rules, or add to the functionality of a given MODEL'S capabilities.

The rule points at a component of a unit in a section that allows unit upgrades.

HondaDaBest wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So after reading this argument, I have come to the conclusion that you -can- have a WGPL with a sniper rifle, despite my initial disagreement.

If only because it sounds cooler than the alternative and it's existence depends on interpretations of a few words. If I am asked which interpretation is best, always go with the cooler one.

Somebody tell the entire community that they have been playing it wrong the whole time.

I guess we can have Terminator Bikers after all.

If you follow the promotion logic, the onlly restriction is for Terminator Armour wearers not being able to purchase Bikes. But if you buy a Bike first, you bypass the restriction.

Yea, I'd like to see that happen literally anywhere around the world.

The difference is that the bike has a SPECIFIC rule prohibiting terminator gear. THIS is an argument is about the RAW about a given, specific set of rules.

HondaDaBest wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So after reading this argument, I have come to the conclusion that you -can- have a WGPL with a sniper rifle, despite my initial disagreement.

If only because it sounds cooler than the alternative and it's existence depends on interpretations of a few words. If I am asked which interpretation is best, always go with the cooler one.

Somebody tell the entire community that they have been playing it wrong the whole time.

I guess we can have Terminator Bikers after all.

If you follow the promotion logic, the onlly restriction is for Terminator Armour wearers not being able to purchase Bikes. But if you buy a Bike first, you bypass the restriction.

Yea, I'd like to see that happen literally anywhere around the world.

This is incorrect. Codex: Space Marines actually states that Terminator Armour and Space Marine Bikes are "mutually exclusive". This means that they can't be taken together no matter in which order you try to do so. I see this argument a lot. You say that the only restriction is for Terminator Armour wearers not being able to purchase Bikes. In reality, Bike riding Marines are also prevented from purchasing Terminator Armour due to the whole mutually exclusive thing. This might have been tightened up since a previous edition, but it's definitely not OK in the current one.

 Kriswall wrote:

HondaDaBest wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So after reading this argument, I have come to the conclusion that you -can- have a WGPL with a sniper rifle, despite my initial disagreement.

If only because it sounds cooler than the alternative and it's existence depends on interpretations of a few words. If I am asked which interpretation is best, always go with the cooler one.

Somebody tell the entire community that they have been playing it wrong the whole time.

I guess we can have Terminator Bikers after all.

If you follow the promotion logic, the onlly restriction is for Terminator Armour wearers not being able to purchase Bikes. But if you buy a Bike first, you bypass the restriction.

Yea, I'd like to see that happen literally anywhere around the world.

This is incorrect. Codex: Space Marines actually states that Terminator Armour and Space Marine Bikes are "mutually exclusive". This means that they can't be taken together no matter in which order you try to do so. I see this argument a lot. You say that the only restriction is for Terminator Armour wearers not being able to purchase Bikes. In reality, Bike riding Marines are also prevented from purchasing Terminator Armour due to the whole mutually exclusive thing. This might have been tightened up since a previous edition, but it's definitely not OK in the current one.

Codex SM maybe, but not Codex BA. Not sure on the wording for DA.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

HondaDaBest wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So after reading this argument, I have come to the conclusion that you -can- have a WGPL with a sniper rifle, despite my initial disagreement.

If only because it sounds cooler than the alternative and it's existence depends on interpretations of a few words. If I am asked which interpretation is best, always go with the cooler one.

Somebody tell the entire community that they have been playing it wrong the whole time.

I guess we can have Terminator Bikers after all.

If you follow the promotion logic, the onlly restriction is for Terminator Armour wearers not being able to purchase Bikes. But if you buy a Bike first, you bypass the restriction.

Yea, I'd like to see that happen literally anywhere around the world.

This is incorrect. Codex: Space Marines actually states that Terminator Armour and Space Marine Bikes are "mutually exclusive". This means that they can't be taken together no matter in which order you try to do so. I see this argument a lot. You say that the only restriction is for Terminator Armour wearers not being able to purchase Bikes. In reality, Bike riding Marines are also prevented from purchasing Terminator Armour due to the whole mutually exclusive thing. This might have been tightened up since a previous edition, but it's definitely not OK in the current one.

Codex SM maybe, but not Codex BA. Not sure on the wording for DA.

I don't have a copy of the Blood Angels 'Dex, but I would expect that it will be upgraded to the current wording whenever the book gets an update. Given that GW changed the wording in Codex: Space Marines between editions, it's apparent that they saw an issue and corrected it with a more explicit wording.

 Kriswall wrote:

Zarius wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So after reading this argument, I have come to the conclusion that you -can- have a WGPL with a sniper rifle, despite my initial disagreement.

If only because it sounds cooler than the alternative and it's existence depends on interpretations of a few words. If I am asked which interpretation is best, always go with the cooler one.

LOL! OK, at least you admit that you're going with the cool factor here. It's honest.

As to you, Col, No you aren't going purely with RAW. Because there is no term of "legal unit composition." That's RAI, not RAW. If you want RAW, RAW is "one Wolf Scout may <thingy>." THAT points at ONE scout. Not at the whole unit, but ONE BLOODY SCOUT, because THAT'S WHAT THE BLOODY MANUAL SAYS. If it targets ONE SCOUT, then it's only upgrading THAT ONE SCOUT. The UNIT gets an upgrade only de facto because the Scout is part of the unit, BUT THE ACTUAL OPTION IS ONLY DIRECTED AT ONE SCOUT, making it a MODEL upgrade, because it's targeting the SINGLE SCOUT, not the WHOLE UNIT the way that the Cloak upgrade does. Subsequent rules override previous rules. This is RAW in the BRB, so when the rule for a SPECIFIC upgrade states that it affects a single model, it either ignores or augments (more precisely defines) the previous statement of being a Unit upgrade. You can keep saying that you're arguing RAW all you want, but you aren't, because you aren't modifying the rules as modifiers pop up, which is the RAW of the manual. Each upgrade is a special rule, with a point cost associated with it. All special rules either augment or replace previous rules, or add to the functionality of a given MODEL'S capabilities.

Breathe, brother. Online forums aren't worth getting upset about. The upgrade is very obviously an upgrade for one specific model. The most reasonable reading says that the unit is upgraded by upgrading its component parts. In other words, If you upgrade one model to have a different piece of wargear, the overall unit has, by extension, been upgraded as well. In that sense, of course all Options are unit upgrades. Some of them just happen to also be model upgrades. We don't need a separate rule telling us this because we have the option text itself... "A [model name] may [do something]".

Also, does anyone else read col_impact as impacted colon? I always read it and giggle a little because all I can think is 'get that man a doctor'! Good to know that no matter how much I mature, poo jokes will remain funny.

They are all unit upgrades. Any modifications to any component of the unit must be legally allowable per the ALE and the Options section. You do not field models directly nor make modifications to them except through allowable unit upgrade Options. The game is played with units. Even single models are units and require ALE and adhere to the Options section for legally allowable unit upgrades.

 Kriswall wrote:
This is incorrect. Codex: Space Marines actually states that Terminator Armour and Space Marine Bikes are "mutually exclusive". This means that they can't be taken together no matter in which order you try to do so. I see this argument a lot. You say that the only restriction is for Terminator Armour wearers not being able to purchase Bikes. In reality, Bike riding Marines are also prevented from purchasing Terminator Armour due to the whole mutually exclusive thing. This might have been tightened up since a previous edition, but it's definitely not OK in the current one.

Wrong. You take things out of context to make that claim.

•1 May not be taken by models wearing Terminator armour. Note that these pieces of wargear are mutually exclusive. For example, a Librarian riding a Space Marine bike may not also take a jump pack.
It says that gear that is marked with the 1, can't be taken by Terminator Armour
It says that gear that is marked with the 1, are mutually exclusive.

You take that one sentence and take it out of context to make it say whatever you want. Therefore, by promotion, you can have Terminator Armour Bikers if you take the Bike first.
It even provides an example that states that it is talking about the 1.

HondaDaBest wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
This is incorrect. Codex: Space Marines actually states that Terminator Armour and Space Marine Bikes are "mutually exclusive". This means that they can't be taken together no matter in which order you try to do so. I see this argument a lot. You say that the only restriction is for Terminator Armour wearers not being able to purchase Bikes. In reality, Bike riding Marines are also prevented from purchasing Terminator Armour due to the whole mutually exclusive thing. This might have been tightened up since a previous edition, but it's definitely not OK in the current one.

Wrong. You take things out of context to make that claim.

•1 May not be taken by models wearing Terminator armour. Note that these pieces of wargear are mutually exclusive. For example, a Librarian riding a Space Marine bike may not also take a jump pack.
It says that gear that is marked with the 1, can't be taken by Terminator Armour
It says that gear that is marked with the 1, that is mutually exclusive.

You take that one sentence and take it out of context to make it say whatever you want. Therefore, by promotion, you can have Terminator Armour Bikers if you take the Bike first.

Ah, I don't think you know what mutually exclusive means. It means, paraphrased, that the presence of one of the two things makes the other thing impossible and vice versa. If Terminator Armour and Bikes are mutually exclusive, which they are per the above quote you were good enough to provide, the presence of a Bike makes the presence of Terminator Armour impossible, just as the presence of Terminator Armour makes the presence of a Bike impossible.

This is the same reason that you can't have a Jump Pack wearing Terminator or a Biker equipped with a Jump Pack. Mutual exclusivity prevents these configurations.

EDIT:
Oh wait, I think I'm including Terminator Armour in "these pieces of wargear" and you're not. I will admit that there is an ambiguity there. In this instance, I would use what I assume is the intention - a model can't have both a Bike and Terminator Armour - and err on the side of including Terminator Armour in the list of mutually exclusive pieces of wargear.

Hahaha. Gotta love that out of context reading. It is clearly talking about the 1 and not the Terminator Armour rofl.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It even provides an example that shows it's talking about the 1. Be consistant at least.

HondaDaBest wrote:
Hahaha. Gotta love that out of context reading. It is clearly talking about the 1 and not the Terminator Armour rofl.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It even provides an example that shows it's talking about the 1. Be consistant at least.

It's not out of context. It's ambiguous. Also, I don't really appreciate your gloating laughter. I admitted the ambiguity and said that I'm erring on the side of not allowing something that is an obvious oversight. The Sniper Rifle/Wolf Guard Pack Leader is not as clear.

We are explicitly told that Terminators can't take Bikes, so we can safely assume that Bikers can't take Terminator Armour as that would result in a situation where a Terminator has a Bike.
We are NOT explicitly (or even ambiguously) told that Wolf Guard Pack Leaders can never be equipped with Sniper Rifles, so it's not safe to assume that a Wolf Scout who is upgraded to a Wolf Guard Pack Leader loses his Wargear when upgraded. The only piece of Wargear we're told that a Wolf Guard Pack Leader can't have is the Scout Armour.

Honda, logic would dictate that if there is a SPECIFIC rule stating that a unit in terminator gear can't take a bike, then a unit on a bike can't take terminator gear. The only reason the Terminator gear isn't marked with a 1 is because the terminator gear isn't listed there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, this is using the RAW to determine the RAI. Given the actual purpose of a bike, and the purpose of terminator armor, the two are at cross purposes... One for shattering speed, the other for staggering defense. BOTH qualify as being Very Bulky, and as such use both together would make the thing larger than Extremely Bulky.

Zarius wrote:
Honda, logic would dictate that if there is a SPECIFIC rule stating that a unit in terminator gear can't take a bike, then a unit on a bike can't take terminator gear. The only reason the Terminator gear isn't marked with a 1 is because the terminator gear isn't listed there.

No, I actually think he might be technically correct. It appears that there is nothing preventing a Biker Captain from upgrading to have Terminator Armour. I mean, nothing other than reasonable interpretation of a poorly worded rule. The obvious intent is that you can't have both pieces of Wargear, but GW isn't always great at translating obvious intent into ironclad rules. I think this is one of those situations where we all say "yeah, no model should have both a Bike and Terminator Armour. G-dubs needs to Errata this."

The Sniper Rifle/WGPL is obviously not as clear cut and intent is murky. I'm readily willing to admit that the intent might be a No. I think the rules allow for a Yes. I also don't think we're ever likely to see an FAQ or Errata. GW doesn't care so long as you're buying models.

 Kriswall wrote:
It's not out of context. It's ambiguous. Also, I don't really appreciate your gloating laughter. I admitted the ambiguity and said that I'm erring on the side of not allowing something that is an obvious oversight. The Sniper Rifle/Wolf Guard Pack Leader is not as clear.

We are explicitly told that Terminators can't take Bikes, so we can safely assume that Bikers can't take Terminator Armour as that would result in a situation where a Terminator has a Bike.
We are NOT explicitly (or even ambiguously) told that Wolf Guard Pack Leaders can never be equipped with Sniper Rifles, so it's not safe to assume that a Wolf Scout who is upgraded to a Wolf Guard Pack Leader loses his Wargear when upgraded. The only piece of Wargear we're told that a Wolf Guard Pack Leader can't have is the Scout Armour.

You are talking about manners? Really? Would you like me to read to you exactly what you wrote?

 Kriswall wrote:
Ah, I don't think you know what mutually exclusive means. It means, paraphrased, that the presence of one of the two things makes the other thing impossible and vice versa.

Where, exactly, in my post did I give you the idea that I didn't know what mutually exclusive meant? Good manners there.

 Kriswall wrote:
If Terminator Armour and Bikes are mutually exclusive, which they are per the above quote you were good enough to provide, the presence of a Bike makes the presence of Terminator Armour impossible, just as the presence of Terminator Armour makes the presence of a Bike impossible.

Then you completely disregard my entire post and say that when the Codex says "mutually exclusive" that it is unequivocally referring to Terminator Armour.
Great manners there.

It is only in this post now. That you admit that it might not be the case. Where was this indecision a second ago?

 Kriswall wrote:

Zarius wrote:
Honda, logic would dictate that if there is a SPECIFIC rule stating that a unit in terminator gear can't take a bike, then a unit on a bike can't take terminator gear. The only reason the Terminator gear isn't marked with a 1 is because the terminator gear isn't listed there.

No, I actually think he might be technically correct. It appears that there is nothing preventing a Biker Captain from upgrading to have Terminator Armour. I mean, nothing other than reasonable interpretation of a poorly worded rule. The obvious intent is that you can't have both pieces of Wargear, but GW isn't always great at translating obvious intent into ironclad rules. I think this is one of those situations where we all say "yeah, no model should have both a Bike and Terminator Armour. G-dubs needs to Errata this."

The Sniper Rifle/WGPL is obviously not as clear cut and intent is murky. I'm readily willing to admit that the intent might be a No. I think the rules allow for a Yes. I also don't think we're ever likely to see an FAQ or Errata. GW doesn't care so long as you're buying models.

TECHNICALLY, that's true. But part of the problem here is that the bike wouldn't PHYSICALLY be able to run with a terminator on it.




There is an enormous difference between derisive laughter and not knowing the meaning of terms. He simply assumed you lacked knowledge and corrected that. You, on the other paw, were a jerk.

Zarius wrote:
TECHNICALLY, that's true. But part of the problem here is that the bike wouldn't PHYSICALLY be able to run with a terminator on it.

Holy Face Palm....
We need to put a stop to this right now.
Please, someone explain to this man that this is not IRL. It does not follow IRL physics because it is not IRL.
He keeps using IRL mechanics as a counter-argument. Kriswall, I know that you do not believe this. We might be arguing but I know that we both know this... It seems he might listen to you.
Please tell this person that it is not how it works.

HondaDaBest wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
It's not out of context. It's ambiguous. Also, I don't really appreciate your gloating laughter. I admitted the ambiguity and said that I'm erring on the side of not allowing something that is an obvious oversight. The Sniper Rifle/Wolf Guard Pack Leader is not as clear.

We are explicitly told that Terminators can't take Bikes, so we can safely assume that Bikers can't take Terminator Armour as that would result in a situation where a Terminator has a Bike.
We are NOT explicitly (or even ambiguously) told that Wolf Guard Pack Leaders can never be equipped with Sniper Rifles, so it's not safe to assume that a Wolf Scout who is upgraded to a Wolf Guard Pack Leader loses his Wargear when upgraded. The only piece of Wargear we're told that a Wolf Guard Pack Leader can't have is the Scout Armour.

You are talking about manners? Really? Would you like me to read to you exactly what you wrote?

 Kriswall wrote:
Ah, I don't think you know what mutually exclusive means. It means, paraphrased, that the presence of one of the two things makes the other thing impossible and vice versa.

Where, exactly, in my post did I give you the idea that I didn't know what mutually exclusive meant? Good manners there.

 Kriswall wrote:
If Terminator Armour and Bikes are mutually exclusive, which they are per the above quote you were good enough to provide, the presence of a Bike makes the presence of Terminator Armour impossible, just as the presence of Terminator Armour makes the presence of a Bike impossible.

Then you completely disregard my entire post and say that when the Codex says "mutually exclusive" that it is unequivocally referring to Terminator Armour.
Great manners there.

It is only in this post now. That you admit that it might not be the case. Where was this indecision a second ago?

You do realize that in rational debate that sometimes a person can be convinced to change their mind, right? You made a statement, I responded and then thought a little more and decided you might be right. I'm willing to admit when there is an ambiguity. None of us are experts. What I didn't do is question your character or laugh at your comments. Again, let's keep this about the debate and not make implied personal attacks. I literally admitted I might be wrong in the same post. Relax, dude. You'll live longer.

Also, being a jack(&^ when someone is actually being swayed by your arguments is stupid, and a great way to loose that support.

Zarius wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Zarius wrote:
Honda, logic would dictate that if there is a SPECIFIC rule stating that a unit in terminator gear can't take a bike, then a unit on a bike can't take terminator gear. The only reason the Terminator gear isn't marked with a 1 is because the terminator gear isn't listed there.

No, I actually think he might be technically correct. It appears that there is nothing preventing a Biker Captain from upgrading to have Terminator Armour. I mean, nothing other than reasonable interpretation of a poorly worded rule. The obvious intent is that you can't have both pieces of Wargear, but GW isn't always great at translating obvious intent into ironclad rules. I think this is one of those situations where we all say "yeah, no model should have both a Bike and Terminator Armour. G-dubs needs to Errata this."

The Sniper Rifle/WGPL is obviously not as clear cut and intent is murky. I'm readily willing to admit that the intent might be a No. I think the rules allow for a Yes. I also don't think we're ever likely to see an FAQ or Errata. GW doesn't care so long as you're buying models.

TECHNICALLY, that's true. But part of the problem here is that the bike wouldn't PHYSICALLY be able to run with a terminator on it.




There is an enormous difference between derisive laughter and not knowing the meaning of terms. He simply assumed you lacked knowledge and corrected that. You, on the other paw, were a jerk.

Yeah... Forge that Narrative, man. Drop Pods would probably pulp anybody inside. They're basically hitting a planet with the force of a meteor, yet somehow you can put an unarmored human inside one (allied IC with Sv -) and it walks out without so much as a scratch. The rules don't care what's "physically possible". This is a game. If the game says something can happen, it can happen. The rules technically allow many things that seem like they wouldn't work in a real world combat scenario.