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.

Codex Adeptus Astartes Space Marines Mark 2: Electric Boogaloo, Page 109 wrote:Combat Doctrines
[...]
Unless specified otherwise, this bonus is not cumulative with any other rules that improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of a weapon (e.g. the Storm of Fire Warlord Trait).

Codex Supplement: Ultramarines, Page 77 wrote:Tactical Expertise
Use this Stratagem at the start of your Movement phase if the Tactical Doctrine is active. Until the start of the next battle round, when resolving an attack made with a Rapid Fire or Assault weapon by an ULTRAMARINES model from your army, on an unmodified wound roll of 6 the Armour Penetration characteristic of that weapon is improved by an additional 1 for that attack. You can only use this Stratagem once per battle.

The stratagem does not "specify otherwise", thus the bonus is not cumulative.

Am I reading this right?

yep, was picked up in a few codex reviews on youtube.

obv a faq 'change the paragraph to read...' blah candidate

Could be made clearer, but I think the requirement of having the tactical doctrine active and adding an "additional" ap should be enough for now. It it's not literally saying that it's cumulative, that's all.

Yeah, hopefully gets an FAQ but regardless it is extremely obvious what it is supposed to do.

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, hopefully gets an FAQ but regardless it is extremely obvious what it is supposed to do.

Agreed. If a rule has two possible interpretations where one does nothing and the other does something, it's safe to assume you should use the one that actually does something. Should be corrected in the FAQ but until then I think we know what the rule means.

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, hopefully gets an FAQ but regardless it is extremely obvious what it is supposed to do.

I still wouldn’t allow it until a FAQ.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, hopefully gets an FAQ but regardless it is extremely obvious what it is supposed to do.

I still wouldn’t allow it until a FAQ.

Well, good thing I don't have to play against you then.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, hopefully gets an FAQ but regardless it is extremely obvious what it is supposed to do.

I still wouldn’t allow it until a FAQ.

Harsh.
It isn't like the outcome wasn't clearly abundantly intended to work that way.

I personally am still happy that BCB has found it, and probably also sent to GW allready, hopefully.

But at this stage it's just sad that GW has serious issues with proofreading their rules.

To me the key is the 'additional' part of ' the Armour Penetration characteristic of that weapon is improved by an additional 1'.

For it to be 'improved by an additional..' then something else must already be improving it. So what is that something else that improving AP?

It could however be made far clearer that this addition is cumulative with improvement provided by the doctorine,

Cornishman wrote:
To me the key is the 'additional' part of ' the Armour Penetration characteristic of that weapon is improved by an additional 1'.

For it to be 'improved by an additional..' then something else must already be improving it. So what is that something else that improving AP?

It could however be made far clearer that this addition is cumulative with improvement provided by the doctorine,

. The key should also be unless specified otherwise... I’m pretty sure we’re all RAI’ing it right, but RAW is a headslapper.

GW should hire BCB

 slave.entity wrote:
GW should hire BCB

no.
Someone who's unable to differentiate between Assault weapons being useful and 60 wound marines should not be hired for anything.

I suppose it's possible - What else gives bonus AP? Is there a way to use Tactical Expertise to stack with something OTHER than Tactical Doctrine? i.e. if you give up the AP from Tactical Doctrine, but stay in Tactical Doctrine, use Expertise to replace the AP lost from Doctrine, and then stack a third, fourth, or more'th AP mod... ? I still haven't read anything yet, but it occured to me there might be something out there.

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, hopefully gets an FAQ but regardless it is extremely obvious what it is supposed to do.

I still wouldn’t allow it until a FAQ.

Well, good thing I don't have to play against you then.

I mean we can only hope whatever tournament you attend also doesn’t allow it until a FAQ. It’s raw as of right now

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, hopefully gets an FAQ but regardless it is extremely obvious what it is supposed to do.

I still wouldn’t allow it until a FAQ.

Well, good thing I don't have to play against you then.

I mean we can only hope whatever tournament you attend also doesn’t allow it until a FAQ. It’s raw as of right now

Just like Assault weapons not working when advancing. pretty weak argument if you ask me. And by the way - there are people that don't go to tournaments at all. Why would you even bring that up?

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, hopefully gets an FAQ but regardless it is extremely obvious what it is supposed to do.

I still wouldn’t allow it until a FAQ.

Well, good thing I don't have to play against you then.

I mean we can only hope whatever tournament you attend also doesn’t allow it until a FAQ. It’s raw as of right now

RAW is irrelevant when the intent is obvious.

 Stux wrote:
RAW is irrelevant when the intent is obvious.

And who gets to decide what the intent is?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
RAW is irrelevant when the intent is obvious.

And who gets to decide what the intent is?

Could ask the same question for a lot of RAW. Someone has to.

The community in general decides. You, your group, the people you interact with. It sorts itself out, if you get out there and talk to people.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
RAW is irrelevant when the intent is obvious.

And who gets to decide what the intent is?

Tournament organizers. People you play the game with as you discuss it before the game.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
RAW is irrelevant when the intent is obvious.

And who gets to decide what the intent is?

Your local group, TOs, the gaming community as a whole. All games are only possible due to the consent of the players involved, that means that the rules are, effectively, whatever an individual group decides. If that group is 99% of the gaming population as a whole, then those are the de facto rules, not the ones written in the rulebook.

Slipspace wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
RAW is irrelevant when the intent is obvious.

And who gets to decide what the intent is?

Your local group, TOs, the gaming community as a whole. All games are only possible due to the consent of the players involved, that means that the rules are, effectively, whatever an individual group decides. If that group is 99% of the gaming population as a whole, then those are the de facto rules, not the ones written in the rulebook.

That's not how any of this works. Lots of people breaking the rules doesn't change what the rules are. Most people jaywalk, doesn't mean jaywalking isn't illegal (in those parts of the US where it is illegal).

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
RAW is irrelevant when the intent is obvious.

And who gets to decide what the intent is?

Your local group, TOs, the gaming community as a whole. All games are only possible due to the consent of the players involved, that means that the rules are, effectively, whatever an individual group decides. If that group is 99% of the gaming population as a whole, then those are the de facto rules, not the ones written in the rulebook.

That's not how any of this works. Lots of people breaking the rules doesn't change what the rules are. Most people jaywalk, doesn't mean jaywalking isn't illegal (in those parts of the US where it is illegal).

That's irrelevant to your last question. You asked about determining intent, and now you're back on intent vs raw. If people decide to play it by house rule in order to play by what's determined to be intent then that's perfectly fine.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
RAW is irrelevant when the intent is obvious.

And who gets to decide what the intent is?

Your local group, TOs, the gaming community as a whole. All games are only possible due to the consent of the players involved, that means that the rules are, effectively, whatever an individual group decides. If that group is 99% of the gaming population as a whole, then those are the de facto rules, not the ones written in the rulebook.

That's not how any of this works. Lots of people breaking the rules doesn't change what the rules are. Most people jaywalk, doesn't mean jaywalking isn't illegal (in those parts of the US where it is illegal).

You literally asked who determines intent. I gave you the answer. The fact you don't like it or seem incapable of comprehending the very basic principle that we can infer intent in situations where rules may literally not work is irrelevant.

You can complain and shake your fists, roll your eyes, do whatever you want to indicate your distaste for people deciding to allow assault weapons to be fired after Advancing but it doesn't change the fact that you're quite possibly the only person in the world who would try to enforce that ruling. If everyone else plays the game using the rule as it was clearly intended then that's effectively what the rule is.

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, hopefully gets an FAQ but regardless it is extremely obvious what it is supposed to do.

I still wouldn’t allow it until a FAQ.

Well, good thing I don't have to play against you then.

I mean we can only hope whatever tournament you attend also doesn’t allow it until a FAQ. It’s raw as of right now

RAW is irrelevant when the intent is obvious.

Other way around.

 Stux wrote:


RAW is irrelevant when the intent is obvious.

I'm no longer sure the intent IS obvious. Nobody else has answered my question. What, if any, other AP mods are there? Doctrine says only stacks with express permission. The "intent" could be allowing you to pay through the nose for one super duper AP turn. The reason we all believe GW screwed up is because.. well GW has a long history of screwing up. But without that history, the intent is not obvious.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
RAW is irrelevant when the intent is obvious.

And who gets to decide what the intent is?

Your local group, TOs, the gaming community as a whole. All games are only possible due to the consent of the players involved, that means that the rules are, effectively, whatever an individual group decides. If that group is 99% of the gaming population as a whole, then those are the de facto rules, not the ones written in the rulebook.

That's not how any of this works. Lots of people breaking the rules doesn't change what the rules are. Most people jaywalk, doesn't mean jaywalking isn't illegal (in those parts of the US where it is illegal).

Disagree. The rules of a game are what people generally play. RAW doesn't change that.

We can decide what RAW is if you like, but that doesn't necessarily tell people how to play the game.

Your adherence to RAW is an extreme position, and so not really relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

 Stux wrote:


RAW is irrelevant when the intent is obvious.

Other way around.

No, intent and how people play is all that matter. RAW is just a tool to help us understand that. Sometimes.

Given the cost and flavor description, I would assume GW meant it to stack and will FAQ it so.

However, it's *possible* that the strat exists to cover the few cases of marine players who souped codex chapters and have a doctrine, but not a full chapter doctrine running and want to pay 2cp to buff the UM portion of their list...

bort wrote:
Given the cost and flavor description, I would assume GW meant it to stack and will FAQ it so.

However, it's *possible* that the strat exists to cover the few cases of marine players who souped codex chapters and have a doctrine, but not a full chapter doctrine running and want to pay 2cp to buff the UM portion of their list...

Yes, clearly that was the intention. You can't disagree otherwise you're a rules lawyer.

Seems like we are done here? Until it gets FAQd best to clear this with your opponent or TO.