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.

Please tell me how this argument is any different from this thread. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/757194.page#9985508
People are reading one thread literally and this one not so literally.

While I may have gotten the nomenclature wrong the dictionary I have defines Option as both the ability to make a choice and a thing that can be chosen as 2 separate definitions. As such you are using those uses as the same when they are not.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Burnage wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Not if there are no other choices.

But... there were other choices? The Index Haemonculus wasn't forced to take a Splinter Pistol, it could be exchanged for another wargear option.

Yes, you can exchange the Splinter Pistol for another option.

However the Codex Haemonculus doesn't have a splinter pistol to swap, nor does it have the option in Wargear Options to take one.

"Yes, you can exchange the Splinter Pistol for ANOTHER option.", thus confirming that the Splinter Pistol is an option. I agree with you and thank you for finally admitting that the Splinter Pistol is an option. It takes a big man to admit that he's wrong. Congrats on growing as a person.

See how stupid it is to twist a person's words and then claim victory?

Another as in the Haemonculus has multiple options in the Wargear options section.

It's not my fault you misunderstood.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Please tell me how this argument is any different from this thread. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/757194.page#9985508
People are reading one thread literally and this one not so literally.

Entirely different situation? A model's name is a clearly defined game concept. Middle of sentence, lowercase 'wargear options' isn't a clearly defined game concept. If you disagree, provide page and paragraph defining the term. Otherwise, we stick to basic definitions, which would include the default wargear as one of several 'wargear options'.

 Kriswall wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Please tell me how this argument is any different from this thread. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/757194.page#9985508
People are reading one thread literally and this one not so literally.

Entirely different situation? A model's name is a clearly defined game concept. Middle of sentence, lowercase 'wargear options' isn't a clearly defined game concept. If you disagree, provide page and paragraph defining the term. Otherwise, we stick to basic definitions, which would include the default wargear as one of several 'wargear options'.

Actually, the definition of a Datasheet found in the rulebook says "6. Wargear This covers the basic weapons and equipment the models are armed with." Thus showing the default gear is not an option.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Another as in the Haemonculus has multiple options in the Wargear options section.

It's not my fault you misunderstood.

Go back and reread how 'another' works. Will help with future semantic arguments.

an·oth·er
əˈnəT͟Hər/
determiner & pronoun
determiner: another; pronoun: another

1.
used to refer to an additional person or thing of the same type as one already mentioned or known about; one more; a further.

You're using it wrong. Using 'another option' means you think the Splinter Pistol is an option... or "an additional... thing of the same type as one already mentioned".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Please tell me how this argument is any different from this thread. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/757194.page#9985508
People are reading one thread literally and this one not so literally.

Entirely different situation? A model's name is a clearly defined game concept. Middle of sentence, lowercase 'wargear options' isn't a clearly defined game concept. If you disagree, provide page and paragraph defining the term. Otherwise, we stick to basic definitions, which would include the default wargear as one of several 'wargear options'.

Actually, the definition of a Datasheet found in the rulebook says "6. Wargear This covers the basic weapons and equipment the models are armed with." Thus showing the default gear is not an option.

Didn't ask for 'wargear'. I asked for 'wargear options'. I acknowledge that 'wargear' is a clearly defined game concept.

So, if the data sheet has no choices other than the default then there are no wargear options? However, the moment the wargear option field becomes available then the default becomes an option? It must be the wargear option field that makes the difference and that field is what you can choose from. If you are trying to take a weapon from the default then you are trying to use an out of date datasheet (which most people would agree is against the rules).

The semantics of this argument are really going off the rails.

Was it possible to field a Haemonculus with Splinter Pistol in the Index? Yes.

So that was an option and you use the Designers Commentary to determine the rules and cost. End of story.

 alextroy wrote:
The semantics of this argument are really going off the rails.

Was it possible to field a Haemonculus with Splinter Pistol in the Index? Yes.

So that was an option and you use the Designers Commentary to determine the rules and cost. End of story.

It was an "option" to use my Commissar with the old Summary Execution rule too. Do I get to use that as well? What the Commentary says and what you think it says aren't the same.

GW has already stated through multiple decisions that they're a RAI style company.

RAI: The Haemonculus previously had access to a splinter pistol - that's good enough to allow it as a "choice"/wargear option.

Pay all points as per codex, use updated rules where appropriate, etc.

Arguing semantics of "when wargear becomes a "wargear option"" is silly. I love pointless discussions like that, but the rules are simple regarding this option - if your model could previously be equipped with it (Index), you can still use that model and it's datasheet - just use updated points and rules where appropriate.

The flowchart asks "Are there wargear options for your model that only appear in the index version of its datasheet?"

The question we have here is does "wargear options" include the default weapon given or only those weapons listed under the section titled "Wargear Options"?

Based on the consensus that a Intercessor Sergeant is not an intercessor for option purposes (a literal reading) the same standard should be held here. The literal reading of wargear options should only include those weapons that are listed under the wargear option section of the datasheet.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
The flowchart asks "Are there wargear options for your model that only appear in the index version of its datasheet?"

The question we have here is does "wargear options" include the default weapon given or only those weapons listed under the section titled "Wargear Options"?

Based on the consensus that a Intercessor Sergeant is not an intercessor for option purposes (a literal reading) the same standard should be held here. The literal reading of wargear options should only include those weapons that are listed under the wargear option section of the datasheet.

Can the Splinter Pistol be replaced?

Yes.

Therefore it's an OPTION whether you keep it or not. It's even listed under the wargear options subheader.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
The semantics of this argument are really going off the rails.

Was it possible to field a Haemonculus with Splinter Pistol in the Index? Yes.

So that was an option and you use the Designers Commentary to determine the rules and cost. End of story.

It was an "option" to use my Commissar with the old Summary Execution rule too. Do I get to use that as well? What the Commentary says and what you think it says aren't the same.

No because it specifically says to use the 'Rules' from the Codex, (which have subsequently been errata'd) not rules from the index.

If the default wargear can be changed for anything else - then it is an 'option'; thus you can use the Index entry for wargear options only.

 Kcalehc wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
The semantics of this argument are really going off the rails.

Was it possible to field a Haemonculus with Splinter Pistol in the Index? Yes.

So that was an option and you use the Designers Commentary to determine the rules and cost. End of story.

It was an "option" to use my Commissar with the old Summary Execution rule too. Do I get to use that as well? What the Commentary says and what you think it says aren't the same.

No because it specifically says to use the 'Rules' from the Codex, (which have subsequently been errata'd) not rules from the index.

If the default wargear can be changed for anything else - then it is an 'option'; thus you can use the Index entry for wargear options only.

Which includes default wargear.

The Haemonculus has the option to replace a Splinter Pistol, but it doesn't have the Splinter pistol to replace.

I just checked the index and there is no option to replace the splinter pistol with another weapon or any form of wargear. The model must have a splinter pistol (he has no choice). Therefore I'd say that the splinter pistol isn't an option using the Xenos Index 1 datasheet as written. There are no FAQ adjustments to the datasheet either (just for completeness' sake).

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I just checked the index and there is no option to replace the splinter pistol with another weapon or any form of wargear. The model must have a splinter pistol (he has no choice). Therefore I'd say that the splinter pistol isn't an option using the Xenos Index 1 datasheet as written. There are no FAQ adjustments to the datasheet either (just for completeness' sake).

Ah, good point. The OP said he could swap the Splinter pistol, but he actually can't in the index.

This was all a moot point based off a faulty OP. Typical DakkaDakka fashion if I do say so my self

My own fault for not double checking the book first.

Yay for GW logic. The replacement is on the list, not the datasheet.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I just checked the index and there is no option to replace the splinter pistol with another weapon or any form of wargear. The model must have a splinter pistol (he has no choice). Therefore I'd say that the splinter pistol isn't an option using the Xenos Index 1 datasheet as written. There are no FAQ adjustments to the datasheet either (just for completeness' sake).

Taking a weapon from the Tools of Torment list replaces the Splinter Pistol.

Sorry, I didn't see that. I will still maintain that while the splinter pistol is optional in the Index it isn't an option for purposes of the flow chart which specifically references the wargear option part of the datasheet.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not a straw man. You're claiming a model may take a wargear option they are not permitted to by the rules. Thus, you have to allow ALL models to take wargear options not permitted by the rules, otherwise it's unfair.

Okay, so any unit with a listing in the index gets access to default weapons as well as what is listed under wargear options. That's not unfair. What's unfair is pretending that any model can take any weapon option. That IS a straw man argument. Unless you're not actually suggesting that the only way for his position to be fair is for each of my Craftworld Guardians can take a Battle Cannon or a Pulse Driver Cannon. Your argument is absurd and not at all representative of what he is saying.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Is the default wargear something that can be chosen?

No, it isn't. You are forced to take it, thus it is not an option, because it is not optional. Since you say the English Language is the fallback if there is no definition, thus the default wargear is not an option, thus you can't take it via the Flowchart.

If you don't choose to replace it, then you choose to take it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Another as in the Haemonculus has multiple options in the Wargear options section.

It's not my fault you misunderstood.

No, it's another option as in an option other than the splinter pistol. Otherwise, they would say "replace with a weapon from the Wargear Options list" or something along those lines. He didn't misunderstand at all.

You don't choose to take it, you choose to not use one of the other choices in the wargear options list.

And that line of arguing is disingenuous anyway because the DC only allows for Wargear Options (the section on the dataslate) to be grandfathered in, not default wargear.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You don't choose to take it, you choose to not use one of the other choices in the wargear options list.

And that line of arguing is disingenuous anyway because the DC only allows for Wargear Options (the section on the dataslate) to be grandfathered in, not default wargear.

Which means one of your options is to take the default wargear. If you don't take the option of the original wargear, you go with another wargear option, emphasis on another.

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You don't choose to take it, you choose to not use one of the other choices in the wargear options list.

And that line of arguing is disingenuous anyway because the DC only allows for Wargear Options (the section on the dataslate) to be grandfathered in, not default wargear.

Which means one of your options is to take the default wargear. If you don't take the option of the original wargear, you go with another wargear option, emphasis on another.

Which doesn't matter because that isn't what the flowchart is talking about.

Just because one of your options is to take the default wargear with the index entry, doesn't mean you can with the codex. You have to take the codex entry, plus the WARGEAR OPTIONS part of the Index entry. If the flowchart said "Options", you'd have an argument, but it doesn't, so you don't.

Default is an option https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/default per the very definition of default.

Designer's Commentary asks "ARE THERE WARGEAR OPTIONS FOR YOUR MODEL THAT ONLY APPEAR IN THE INDEX VERSION OF ITS DATASHEET?"

So you therefore may take the Index Default wargear if the new version of the Datasheet doesn't allow it.

 alextroy wrote:
Default is an option https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/default per the very definition of default.

Designer's Commentary asks "ARE THERE WARGEAR OPTIONS FOR YOUR MODEL THAT ONLY APPEAR IN THE INDEX VERSION OF ITS DATASHEET?"

So you therefore may take the Index Default wargear if the new version of the Datasheet doesn't allow it.

No, you may not, because it is not in the Wargear Options section of the datasheet. If it said "ARE THERE OPTIONS FOR YOUR MODEL THAT ONLY APPEAR IN THE INDEX VERSION OF ITS DATASHEET" or "IS THERE WARGEAR FOR YOUR MODEL THAT ONLY APPEARS IN THE INDEX VERSION OF ITS DATASHEET" then you'd have a leg to stand on, but it doesn't, so you don't.

Thanks for all the responses, guys . . . I think. Wasn't expecting this to get so heated.

The thing is, I do get what BCB is saying. If 'wargear options' refers specifically to the 'wargear options' section of the datasheet (which would be the logical conclusion), then you'd only have access to wargear in that section - not the default wargear if it differs from what you have now.

However, let's look at this another way. Firstly, let's attempt to follow the Flowchart GW helpfully(?) provided:

1) Does your model have a datasheet in a codex?

I think we can at least agree that the Haemonculus has a datasheet in the DE codex.

---> 2) Are there wargear options for your model that only appear in the index version of its datasheet?

Yes (regardless of whether we count the default wargear, the Crucible of Malediction only appears in the Index.)

---> Use the codex version of your model's datasheet, but you can choose to use the Index option for its wargear options.

Okay, so I have a Haemonculus with a Stinger Pistol and Haemonculus Tools, but I can choose to use the Index wargear options.

Now, I would take this to mean that I have access to everything in the 'Wargear Options' section.

But let's assume for now that I also 'have access' to the default Splinter Pistol. Okay. So what does that mean? How exactly do I go about taking that Splinter Pistol? The Index gives me an option to exchange my Splinter Pistol for a Stinger Pistol, but there's no option to do the reverse. Do I take it in addition to my default wargear? In that case, am I allowed to take more than one? They cost 0pts, so can I just walk around with 400 of them? Do I have to swap my default wargear for it? It's strange if I do because the Flowchart instructed me specifically to use the Codex datasheet - and that comes with a Stinger Pistol - not a Splinter Pistol - as the default wargear. If I have to swap out my wargear, do I get to choose what wargear gets swapped out? Can I choose to exchange my Haemonculus Tools for one and have a gunslinger Haemonculus?

You might think these sound silly, but there are no rules for taking a Splinter Pistol on an Index Haemonculus, and the Flowchart makes no mention of how differing default wargear should be resolved/exchanged.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Default is an option https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/default per the very definition of default.

Designer's Commentary asks "ARE THERE WARGEAR OPTIONS FOR YOUR MODEL THAT ONLY APPEAR IN THE INDEX VERSION OF ITS DATASHEET?"

So you therefore may take the Index Default wargear if the new version of the Datasheet doesn't allow it.

No, you may not, because it is not in the Wargear Options section of the datasheet. If it said "ARE THERE OPTIONS FOR YOUR MODEL THAT ONLY APPEAR IN THE INDEX VERSION OF ITS DATASHEET" or "IS THERE WARGEAR FOR YOUR MODEL THAT ONLY APPEARS IN THE INDEX VERSION OF ITS DATASHEET" then you'd have a leg to stand on, but it doesn't, so you don't.

Conversely, it doesn't say "IS THERE WARGEAR FOR YOUR MODEL THAT ONLY APPEAR IN THE WARGEAR OPTIONS SECTION IN THE INDEX VERSION OF ITS DATASHEET?"

The whole point of that flowchart is to allow you to play models you modelled for the index version of your model. But I guess it also works great for a really special discussion about the word "option". BCB never disappoints.

 doctortom wrote:
Conversely, it doesn't say "IS THERE WARGEAR FOR YOUR MODEL THAT ONLY APPEAR IN THE WARGEAR OPTIONS SECTION IN THE INDEX VERSION OF ITS DATASHEET?"

It also doesn't say what a dice is in the rulebook. We can go all the way down the rabbit hole. At some point the rules of English have to apply, and "Wargear Options" is refering to the section of the dataslate called Wargear options, as proven by the examples given.

Really? It says “WARGEAR OPTIONS” in all caps. We don’t know if it really means “wargear options”, which encompasses all options available including default, or “Wargear Options”, which would indicate only that section of the Index Datasheet.

 alextroy wrote:
Really? It says “WARGEAR OPTIONS” in all caps. We don’t know if it really means “wargear options”, which encompasses all options available including default, or “Wargear Options”, which would indicate only that section of the Index Datasheet.

Because of the examples shown, which indicate it means the Wargear Options section of the Datasheet.

I'll never understand why some people get so angry when the rules don't work the way they want them to.