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.

Santic Halo got an interesting clause in the new FAQ

Change the first sentence to read ULTRAMARINE CAPTAIN or CHAPTER MASTER

To me RAW, 'or' reads as A or B and hence would work on a black Templar chapter master since they have the chapter master keyword.

RAI is obvious.

They have done that with a few things. The never repeat ULTRAMARINE (or whatever the keyword is) on the second entry even though the keyword applies to both.

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Warhammer_40000_Stepping_into_a_New_Edition_of_Warhammer_40000.pdf

Q: A Space Marine Apothecary’s Narthecium ability
says to select a ‘friendly <Chapter> Infantry or
Biker unit’. Does this mean ‘a friendly <Chapter>
Infantry or <Chapter> Biker unit’ or can it be used
to affect Biker units from other Chapters?
A: It means ‘<Chapter> Infantry or <Chapter>
Biker’ – you cannot select a Biker unit from a
different Chapter.

Make of that what you will. English allows for both to be correct so feel free to argue you position in whatever locale you are in.

It'd be "ULTRAMARINE CAPTAIN OR <CHAPTER> CHAPTER MASTER" if it was meant to work for any CM.

nekooni wrote:
It'd be "ULTRAMARINE CAPTAIN OR <CHAPTER> CHAPTER MASTER" if it was meant to work for any CM.

How does one get an Ultramarine's Chapter Master that can take it? I don't remember seeing a Chapter Master entry that wasn't Special.

Edit to Add: My eCodex doesn't mention Chapter Master at all - it says Ultramarine Captain only.

“RAI is obvious.”

Quite.

Breton wrote:

nekooni wrote:
It'd be "ULTRAMARINE CAPTAIN OR <CHAPTER> CHAPTER MASTER" if it was meant to work for any CM.

How does one get an Ultramarine's Chapter Master that can take it? I don't remember seeing a Chapter Master entry that wasn't Special.

Edit to Add: My eCodex doesn't mention Chapter Master at all - it says Ultramarine Captain only.

Its a 3CP stratagem, one captain gets promoted to chapter master.

Breton wrote:

nekooni wrote:
It'd be "ULTRAMARINE CAPTAIN OR <CHAPTER> CHAPTER MASTER" if it was meant to work for any CM.

How does one get an Ultramarine's Chapter Master that can take it? I don't remember seeing a Chapter Master entry that wasn't Special.

Edit to Add: My eCodex doesn't mention Chapter Master at all - it says Ultramarine Captain only.

A) Stratagem
B) FAQ/Errata

 JohnnyHell wrote:
“RAI is obvious.”

Quite.

Yeah, if RAI is 'obvious' then RAW is irrelevant. Basically the same situation as Assault Weapons etc.

 Stux wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
“RAI is obvious.”

Quite.

Yeah, if RAI is 'obvious' then RAW is irrelevant. Basically the same situation as Assault Weapons etc.

RaI it's obvious that my Tactical Marines are meant to have 60 wounds each. Prove me wrong.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
“RAI is obvious.”

Quite.

Yeah, if RAI is 'obvious' then RAW is irrelevant. Basically the same situation as Assault Weapons etc.

RaI it's obvious that my Tactical Marines are meant to have 60 wounds each. Prove me wrong.

You're wrong. So proven.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
“RAI is obvious.”

Quite.

Yeah, if RAI is 'obvious' then RAW is irrelevant. Basically the same situation as Assault Weapons etc.

RaI it's obvious that my Tactical Marines are meant to have 60 wounds each. Prove me wrong.

I don't need to, because everyone agrees you are wrong. There is consensus. You even know it's wrong, you've chosen the example for that reason. If I happened to be playing against you and you made such a claim I would simply stop the game and not play you again.

 Stux wrote:
I don't need to, because everyone agrees you are wrong. There is consensus. You even know it's wrong, you've chosen the example for that reason. If I happened to be playing against you and you made such a claim I would simply stop the game and not play you again.

So you're saying that if I decided to ignore a rule, you'd not play against me? But if you decide to ignore a rule, I am the bad guy for wanting to play by the rules?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I don't need to, because everyone agrees you are wrong. There is consensus. You even know it's wrong, you've chosen the example for that reason. If I happened to be playing against you and you made such a claim I would simply stop the game and not play you again.

So you're saying that if I decided to ignore a rule, you'd not play against me? But if you decide to ignore a rule, I am the bad guy for wanting to play by the rules?

No, you're still intentionally being obtuse. I'm saying that interpretation of how to play the game is more nuanced than the letter of the RAW. You must analyse context and apply common sense. It's not all either black or white, there are shades of grey.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To use an example you cite often, do you allow units to advance and shoot Assault weapons in games you play? If so, you are not blindly following RAW in all instances. You are looking at the context, applying common sense, and not exactly follow the RAW where it is lacking.

All I'm saying that there are other such instances, with varying degrees of certainly of how to interpret them. Assault weapons are on the end of the continuum where we can be pretty much certain how to apply it, but it still requires you to go against your 'RAW and only RAW' policy.

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I don't need to, because everyone agrees you are wrong. There is consensus. You even know it's wrong, you've chosen the example for that reason. If I happened to be playing against you and you made such a claim I would simply stop the game and not play you again.

So you're saying that if I decided to ignore a rule, you'd not play against me? But if you decide to ignore a rule, I am the bad guy for wanting to play by the rules?

No, you're still intentionally being obtuse. I'm saying that interpretation of how to play the game is more nuanced than the letter of the RAW. You must analyse context and apply common sense. It's not all either black or white, there are shades of grey.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To use an example you cite often, do you allow units to advance and shoot Assault weapons in games you play? If so, you are not blindly following RAW in all instances. You are looking at the context, applying common sense, and not exactly follow the RAW where it is lacking.

All I'm saying that there are other such instances, with varying degrees of certainly of how to interpret them. Assault weapons are on the end of the continuum where we can be pretty much certain how to apply it, but it still requires you to go against your 'RAW and only RAW' policy.

Everyone agrees on how assault weapons should work in game, even if it goes against RAW. Except BCB. He's said many times that he doesnt allow his opponent to use assault weapons because "Muh RAW". At this point every YMDC post gets turned into an argument about how "RAW is absolute vs RAI is more important. sadly, most of these arguments stem from the same user.

 Stux wrote:
To use an example you cite often, do you allow units to advance and shoot Assault weapons in games you play? If so, you are not blindly following RAW in all instances. You are looking at the context, applying common sense, and not exactly follow the RAW where it is lacking.

All I'm saying that there are other such instances, with varying degrees of certainly of how to interpret them. Assault weapons are on the end of the continuum where we can be pretty much certain how to apply it, but it still requires you to go against your 'RAW and only RAW' policy.

I don't allow units to do so unless they have a rule explicitly allowing them to fire after advancing, because that is what the rules say. I recently had a game where I gave my Coldstar Warlord Exemplar of the Mont'ka so he could advance and fire his Fusion Blasters. I used to be a bit more lax in the past but after CA18 I've taken a stronger stance against it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
“RAI is obvious.”

Quite.

Yeah, if RAI is 'obvious' then RAW is irrelevant. Basically the same situation as Assault Weapons etc.

RaI it's obvious that my Tactical Marines are meant to have 60 wounds each. Prove me wrong.

Battle reports with writers of the codex having Tactical Marines becoming casualties after suffering 1 wound.

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
“RAI is obvious.”

Quite.

Yeah, if RAI is 'obvious' then RAW is irrelevant. Basically the same situation as Assault Weapons etc.

RaI it's obvious that my Tactical Marines are meant to have 60 wounds each. Prove me wrong.

Battle reports with writers of the codex having Tactical Marines becoming casualties after suffering 1 wound.

He'll just say that isn't proof.

But this is my angle anyway. There's some things you can't prove. But that doesn't mean there's no EVIDENCE. When the evidence piles up to a sufficient degree to suggest the RAW is wrong, it is then totally reasonable - correct even - to disregard RAW.

But ONLY when such evidence exists. That's why BCB's example is invalid. Not because it controvenes RAW, but because there is no evidence for it to do so.

Conversely there is a huge amount of evidence for how Assault weapons should work. From official battle reports, to the fact the rule exists in the first place. The weight of evidence is such that it is clear the RAW is wrong, and in that specific case it is clear how it should work.

Do we need ANOTHER thread where BCB soapboxes about hating intent? Really? Someone lock this up it’s done.

 Stux wrote:
But ONLY when such evidence exists. That's why BCB's example is invalid. Not because it controvenes RAW, but because there is no evidence for it to do so.

There is also no evidence that you can fire Assault weapons after advancing. In fact, the opposite evidence exists, because the rules don't allow you to do so.

And we are done here.