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.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Rules as written you have to take a specific rifle to take the AGL. You cannot take the AGL with the SBR unless they changed that, which is possible. I have not kept up with Intercessor rules. So it is directly tied to a specific weapon, not a model.

Rules quote, please. And if you have to have the rifle to take the AGL please quote the rules where you trade the rifle for something else to indicate where you also trade away the AGL.

I did not make a positive claim, therefor I bear no burden of proof. Sorry, but the best proof is the AGL is literally an attachment to an existing bolt rifle part of a model.

I'm not sure you understand what proof is

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I did not make a positive claim, therefor I bear no burden of proof. Sorry, but the best proof is the AGL is literally an attachment to an existing bolt rifle part of a model.

You claimed you have to take a specific rifle to get an AGL. You claim that you can't have the AGL if you later trade the rifle for something else. You most certainly do have a burden of proof for your statements. Your "Best proof" has no relationship to the game, has already been refuted by BCB, and violates YMDC rules by trying to bring in real world examples. If you can't provide proof, then there's no validity to your claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
I'm not sure you understand what proof is

Didn't want to go with a Princess Bride quote here?

For every 5 models in this unit, 1 model equipped with a bolt rifle, auto bolt rifle or stalker bolt rifle can be equipped with 1 Astartes grenade launcher.

As the last bullet point, it was probably intended that you can't then swap out the rifle once you equip with the Astartes grenade launcher. However, as the options lacks a statement like "this model cannot then swap it's rifle", it is technically legal to swap out the rifle.

Feel free to convert away, but expect the model to be invalidated at some point.

AGLs in 40K dont always attach to the riffle, many on powerfist in the past. If someone made a plasma pistol or powerfist conversion with an agl I’d be happy to that.

How someone models or converts something has no significance to a question over whether it is a legal combination in the first place.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Rules as written you have to take a specific rifle to take the AGL. You cannot take the AGL with the SBR unless they changed that, which is possible. I have not kept up with Intercessor rules. So it is directly tied to a specific weapon, not a model.

The "problem" is that RAW you just need to have a rifle (including a SBR) in order to take an AGL. Unfortunately the rules then allow you to swap that rifle out for a pistol because you apply the bullet points in any order.

I strongly suspect this isn't GW's intention but they seem to have got themselves in a bit of a mess with their new way of writing weapon options (for further proof go and try to parse the Death Company Intercessor weapon options!) If they want to require you to only be allowed to have an AGL if you actually have a rifle they'd need to reword the rule, either to create some new rifle/AGL weapon hybrid or simply to disallow the swapping of the rifle if that specific option is selected.

U02dah4 wrote:
How someone models or converts something has no significance to a question over whether it is a legal combination in the first place.

Never said it did. Just highlighting some in setting justification for the rule being as it is.

If your answer has no significance to the question at hand don't bring it to a rules thread it is irrelevant and just clouds the issue

This is a forum for the rules - in setting justification is not part of the rules and so is against the tenets of YMDC.

Removed - Rule #1 please

Ah for fek's sake; haven't been on dakka in a little while; crazy life gal.

Quotes: SM Codex page 140, third bulletin, important bits: If the Intercessor Sgt is not equipped with an Astartes Chainsword, a power sword, a power fist, or a thunder hammer, it bolt rifle, auto bolt rifle or stalker bolt riflecan be replaced with one of the following;(pistols)"

You can only swap if you are not equipped with the melee weapons. If you try to take the melee weapon after you have swapped, you are equipped with the melee weapon; and thus cannot have swapped.

The verbiage is clear: If your model is equipped with X, it cannot have Y.

Same goes for special Pistol and AGL; Once you have swapped out the rifle, you do not have that model equipped with the rifle required for the AGL.

AGL Quote: "For every 5 models in this unit, 1 model equipped with a (one of the 3 rifle variants) can be Equipped with 1 (AGL)."

As has already been shown noone has provided any evidence you have to continually meet the rule or it has to be valid at all times

You apply each point only once and in any order thats the raw as established by quotes earlier in the thread

As to verbiage if it actually said If your model is equipped with X, it cannot have Y. There would be no problem because that is crystal clear.

However it does not say that -that is just your interpretation of their intention and intention is not relevant when the RAW is clear. (Which it is because noone advocating your point has provided a RAW quote showing that the rules are continuously in effect while RAW quotes are provided showing you can only activate each bullet point "once" and in "any order")

Which is why I asked before modeling my SGT although I may have to proxy some of them who just have a sword and pistol combo. I wish they would just rifles without hands attatched or arms....

RAW is not clear, that is the problem. You keep saying that everyone else is "interpreting" it and making it RAI, but to be fair, both sides are.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
RAW is not clear, that is the problem. You keep saying that everyone else is "interpreting" it and making it RAI, but to be fair, both sides are.

If that's the case can you provide a quote from the rules that shows you must continually meet the requirements to be given a piece of equipment rather than only being required to meet them at the time you select the equipment? The RAW seems pretty clear here, even if it doesn't seem entirely intuitive/intentional.

It comes back to what RAW is and what its not and people miss using the term as many people do on these threads that causes no end of arguments

Raw is clear in this instance - RAW - it means rules as written - In practical terms it means what you can prove with a quote and only what you can prove with a quote. (Which also includes noone can look at that quote and interpret that quote as meaning something else or quote conflicting rules as this would require interpretation)

In this instance we can quote a rule giving you permission to pick points in any order.

We can also quote a rule restricting you to apply points only once (we don't want guard Sgt's with infinite chainswords)

No one has provided any other relevant quotes

It is therefore RAW as noone has provided a quote countering or disproving these points that you can select points in any order and use them only once. This is the only RAW argument in this thread.


Anything requiring interpretation that you cannot completely prove with a quote is not RAW. That brings us to RAI rules as intended this is about interpretation. Now where people get confused is that a good RAI argument is oftem supported by evidence however this does not make it RAW. (A pointlessly bad RAI argument is usually x works that way without support)

There are three RAI arguments in this thread 1) that it was intended that you can do what the RAW argument says (supported by the RAW) this is RAI because while we can say that bit is RAW we can't know what was intended 2) that it is unclear as to what GW intented (while true does not help resolve the situation and is not written in the rules (RAI)) 3) that GW intended that the selections be more restrictive supported by the convoluted wording of the points and the implication that the points need to be continuously valid (however for this point to be RAW it would require a quote and no quote has been forthcoming so the core part of the argument can't be proven so its RAI not RAW)

Then we come to HIWPI how I would play it- now in some situations where there is no raw or the rules are conflicting we come down to how to practically resolve it (I always think of superheavy robot giuilliman in 7th that existed and could not exist at the same time (so the RAW didn't work and it clearly wasn't intended) these arguments are weak and so usually a last resort.

Now to make things more complicated in some situations tome of malcador being an example we have a situation where part of an argument is RAW and part is not it is RAW to say you can take another psychic power from the same disipline however the rules are in conflict over whether you can take it from a different disipline (there's a thread that got stopped but essentially the argument is the limitation on the librarian must be fulfilled and that means the librarian can only take from one tree vs the text of the tome that implies you can take from any disipline (but taking from an alternate disipline breaks the librarians restriction)

So we then come to convention if the RAW isn't broken (which means it functions in a legal sense not we think it does what it should) we follow RAW and only what the RAW says - so in this instance the two RAW points are clear their are no others so we follow them. If the RAW was unclear we go to RAI but as this instance shows RAI is always problematic because while one person can say it wasn't intended another can say its clear. (Then if the RAI doesn't help we go to HIWPI E.G. don't use super heavy robot giulliman in 7th it breaks the game)

N.B. point to be aware of there cannot be two RAW answers if their are two equally proven answers this only occurs when rules are in conflict in which case its an argument about intention (eg tome of malcador) not a RAW argument

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
RAW is not clear, that is the problem. You keep saying that everyone else is "interpreting" it and making it RAI, but to be fair, both sides are.

If that's the case can you provide a quote from the rules that shows you must continually meet the requirements to be given a piece of equipment rather than only being required to meet them at the time you select the equipment? The RAW seems pretty clear here, even if it doesn't seem entirely intuitive/intentional.

So no both sides are not interpreting the question of what is RAW is about what can be quoted and only two relevant points have been its clear

Most people on the side of RAW are therefore making a RAW argument that that is what the rules say they are not arguing that that was what was intended (although that might well be the case) because that would be a RAI argument (although they can make both)

The argument that you need to continually meet requirements is RAI not RAW because no rules quote has been provided showing that that is a requirement it is therefore an interpretation based on the notion that it was intended that you had to meet that requirement.

This is therefore a RAW vs RAI argument

I could provide you the written rule, however, others seem to literally read it completely differently than I, and others, do. So I ask again, what good is the point of claiming RAW when it's literally a inherently subjective argument?

Then provide the written rule if it says what you say it does you have a RAW answer but be carefull it must say exactly and explicitly what it does and only what it does

If you say others interpret it different perhaps it is not explicit and so RAI at best

Also if your going to quote the bullet points their not relevant to the argument as noone is arguing the bullet points arn't valid the argument is over whether they need to be continuously valid or are only valid at the point you apply them. Both sides agree on their wording. None of the them specify either way.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I could provide you the written rule, however, others seem to literally read it completely differently than I, and others, do. So I ask again, what good is the point of claiming RAW when it's literally a inherently subjective argument?

So provide the rule. It's actually one of the rules of the forum to back up your positions through direct rules quotes where possible. Without you providing the rule we can't judge your claim that the RAW argument is inherently subjective.

Slipspace wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I could provide you the written rule, however, others seem to literally read it completely differently than I, and others, do. So I ask again, what good is the point of claiming RAW when it's literally a inherently subjective argument?

So provide the rule. It's actually one of the rules of the forum to back up your positions through direct rules quotes where possible. Without you providing the rule we can't judge your claim that the RAW argument is inherently subjective.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, rules as SHOWN, RAS - It's clearly a specific model.

1) Your datasheet is out of date and so is no longer valid and has no impact on the rules

2) even if it was valid the datasheet provides no statement with respect to how those bullet points should be applied. It has no impact on the RAW.

3) it has no impact on interpretation because if you follow the raw and apply each point once and only once in any order you will come to a valid conclusion and if you interpret this as having to be continuously true you will come to a different conclusion based on your interpretation. It has no impact on the validity of either

4) its not a quote as In your not saying this sentence proves my point - it is collection of rules mostly irrelevant to the issue a quote of the relevant sentence should suffice if you cannot find such a quote you do not have a point



As to the RAS that is not the models rules and provides no impact on the ruling about what is legal. Also if it did we would have to go to RAI because according to that their is no option to take a hand flamer or plasma pistol which their is in the datasheet so the RAW would be in conflict


So in conclusion both pictures are irrelevant to the argument. Im trying to help you see why but it should be clear.

U02dah4 wrote:
1) Your datasheet is out of date and so is no longer valid and has no impact on the rules

2) even if it was valid the datasheet provides no statement with respect to how those bullet points should be applied. It has no impact on the RAW.

3) it has no impact on interpretation because if you follow the raw and apply each point once and only once in any order you will come to a valid conclusion and if you interpret this as having to be continuously true you will come to a different conclusion based on your interpretation. It has no impact on the validity of either

4) its not a quote as In your not saying this sentence proves my point - it is collection of rules mostly irrelevant to the issue a quote of the relevant sentence should suffice if you cannot find such a quote you do not have a point



As to the RAS that is not the models rules and provides no impact on the ruling about what is legal. Also if it did we would have to go to RAI because according to that their is no option to take a hand flamer or plasma pistol which their is in the datasheet so the RAW would be in conflict


So in conclusion both pictures are irrelevant to the argument. Im trying to help you see why but it should be clear.

I love that you go on to talk about the importance of RAW and back up your argument about the definition of RAW (which isn’t defined by the rules) by giving your interpretation of the term, as an argument for why interpretation is invalid. That sums up this whole section of dakka. All language is open to interpretation. That’s why contracts are such a pain to read because they try and remove interpretation. The rules don’t need to become a legal style document.

Play toy soldiers however you want to man, I can't tell you how to play, no one here can. I just doubt very much GW will ever make a definitive ruling on it, because it's such a non issue. We have yet to see anyone try this in a major or an event, is that correct?

Andykp wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
1) Your datasheet is out of date and so is no longer valid and has no impact on the rules

2) even if it was valid the datasheet provides no statement with respect to how those bullet points should be applied. It has no impact on the RAW.

3) it has no impact on interpretation because if you follow the raw and apply each point once and only once in any order you will come to a valid conclusion and if you interpret this as having to be continuously true you will come to a different conclusion based on your interpretation. It has no impact on the validity of either

4) its not a quote as In your not saying this sentence proves my point - it is collection of rules mostly irrelevant to the issue a quote of the relevant sentence should suffice if you cannot find such a quote you do not have a point



As to the RAS that is not the models rules and provides no impact on the ruling about what is legal. Also if it did we would have to go to RAI because according to that their is no option to take a hand flamer or plasma pistol which their is in the datasheet so the RAW would be in conflict


So in conclusion both pictures are irrelevant to the argument. Im trying to help you see why but it should be clear.

I love that you go on to talk about the importance of RAW and back up your argument about the definition of RAW (which isn’t defined by the rules) by giving your interpretation of the term, as an argument for why interpretation is invalid. That sums up this whole section of dakka. All language is open to interpretation. That’s why contracts are such a pain to read because they try and remove interpretation. The rules don’t need to become a legal style document.

I define it for someone because from their answers they clearly do not understand what RAW and RAI mean and if that person does not understand what RAW and RAI mean you cannot expect them to come to a shared understanding of why we have come to these conclusions. It is better to teach them and they can hopefully meaningfully contribute to future discussions.

The term may not be in the rules it is in the tenets of the forum and is in common parlance within the ymdc thread

As to my claims i notice you didn't dispute the specifics of them

While claiming all language is open to interpretation may be a point it has no bearing on the validity of specific rules interpretation and doesn't move any argument forward


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Play toy soldiers however you want to man, I can't tell you how to play, no one here can. I just doubt very much GW will ever make a definitive ruling on it, because it's such a non issue. We have yet to see anyone try this in a major or an event, is that correct?

GW might if the RAW ruling was not their intention they faq a lot these days

Yes and no

in this specific context no the combinations are terrible

Have datasheets been applied on a singuler use of each bullet point in any order basis on other datasheets absolutely.

I feel the "Weapon lists" rule i.e. "May take from X list" is a major factor in these sort of problems. I remember having very little clue as to what I could legally load onto my GK paladins. GW is very bad at listing possible alternatives.

The raw is usually clear they just write it in needlessly complex way when they try to limit choices to only prescribed combinations that they sell its a terrible decision for hobbiest and gamer alike. While being needless complicated and them being terrible at technical writing means intention gets blurry.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Also, rules as SHOWN, RAS - It's clearly a specific model.

Spoiler:

You know that is not at all rules right?

How things are modeled have no bearing in the rules, that pic has nothing to do with the RAW.

U02dah4 wrote:
The raw is usually clear they just write it in needlessly complex way when they try to limit choices to only prescribed combinations that they sell its a terrible decision for hobbiest and gamer alike. While being needless complicated and them being terrible at technical writing means intention gets blurry.

I don’t argue against the specifics because as I said pages ago I agree with you on the rule as written in this case. I just disagree with how you are presenting it and speaking to people. The fact that you have to spell out your “interpretation” of RAW and are claiming that language isn’t open to interpretation kind of undermines many of yours and others arguments on here. Again RAW isn’t defined, it’s in common usage and open to interpretation as you are doing to the term. On this point I agree, the rules are clear but still think you could be nicer to people and make this area of the forum more friendly to those who come for advice. That is all.

The forum should be a place people go to quickly find the answers to their questions. Lots of questions recently end up degenerating from a simple clear RAW answer to multipages of confusion because people falsely present interpretation of intention as rules fact. This thread is a perfect example. RAW means only one thing but because people deliberately missuse the term to enhance there argument newer contributors get confused and then you get comments like the RAW is confused, when in this instance its crystal clear. You cannot then have a meaningful discussion until they understand what these terms mean and why its clear, so its about educating them which is being nice. The alternative is just dismissing their argument for being as foolish as it is which doesn't help them to understand and leaves the thread looking inconclusive when its clear. Doing so does not undermine any arguments because it has no bearing on the argument at hand it just helps people understand how we judge the validity of them. RAW is not open to interpretation that is the point of RAW.



As to those misrepresenting who know the terms thats different and they just make things harder for people trying to honestly find the right answer and its entirely appropriate to point out every flaw in their argument. Its why I treat commisarkel's answers very differently to Fezzik who clearly doesn't understand and is worth educating