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.

Disclaimer One ? I am trying to disprove the argument that a SM can take both a lascannon and a bolter as advanced by Ed in the WD article.<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

Disclaimer Two ? I fully realize the article in WD wasn?t specifically written to take on this example. It was just an example to demonstrate an approach to the game.

 

So. From the tactical squad, All models are armed with a bolter. One marine maybe armed with {heavy weapon}. One marine may be armed with {assault weapon}. The veteran sergeant may exchange his bolter for a bolt pistol and a ccw at no cost.

 

Arguments For:

1)                  No where does it say that the heavy weapon option replaces the bolter.

2)                  The armory rules are by strict definition of RAW applicable only to characters (I don?t necessarily disagree with this).

3)                  If you look through other codices and units the word ?replaces? or ?upgrades? is used when a weapon is lost.

 

At face value I can be persuaded that in fact Ed?s statement is correct. The trouble starts though when having accepted that you then face a CSM opponent.

 

Take the chaos codex entry for raptors: Weapons: bolt pistol and CCW. Upto three models in the unit may be armed with one of the following (assault weapon options}

 

Now, for anyone to be consistent with their interpretation that a SM can be armed with both a bolter and a lascannon, must they then agree that a raptor can carry a bolt pistol/ ccw and an assault weapon. How can you not? It doesn?t say replace, upgrade or instead of. It doesn?t say ?three models may only carry one of the following {choices}.So why can?t a Raptor carry a BP/ CCW and be one of the three models carrying a plasma gun? If I look at early codices for assult marines it says ?may exchange his BP and CCW for ??. The argument could be used that different wording was used in the CSM codex to allow three weapons to be carried. Unless of-course we say ?but it doesn?t say in addition to?. But we cannot use that argument ? it has been disallowed by accepting a SM can carry a lascannon and bolter, which doesn?t say ?in addition to? in the tactical squad entry. If we use or reject one logical argument, that use or rejection must be applied consistantly

Is the only way left to argue is to say it is a mistake? For me, arguing a mistake is same as arguing intent ? how do you know it is a mistake, maybe the designer intended for super strong super human chaos infected mutants to carry three weapons ? they are certainly strong enough. By trying to argue a mistake it so very easily goes hand in hand with background, which is the worst place to start or finish deciding rule arguments (we can at least agree on that?). So we revert to a pure RAW approach, but hang on, we have just agreed a SM maybe armed with both a lascannon/ bolter.

 

What do we do? For me, we revisit the lascannon/ bolter issue and change our mind. A SM is armed with either a bolter or a lascannon, he cannot take both. When I read the SM codex I take each sentence separately, almost as a declarative. So where all models are armed with a bolter means all models are armed with only a bolter. Where it says one model may be armed with a {heavy weapon} it doesn?t mean the same thing as one model maybe armed with a {heavy weapon} and a bolter, other wise it would have been written as such.

 

How did I come to my conclusion that it is a bolter or a lascannon, other than by shamelessly trying to lead you to it stage by stage with what I perceive to be a logical trail? I used other evidence from other codices and other units that told RAW was wrong for this example, and with some commonsense I tried my best to suppose what the designer was intending. What other option was there? The problem we immediately hit is what makes my interpretation better than yours? I have evidence to contradict yours and firmly belief I am right. No doubt you are the same. Why should I give way in a tournament? Why shouldn?t I knock you down for cheating because you don?t know the rules? Or, why should I take the least advantage when I am right ? how can that be ethical or even sportsmanlike not to use all rules to give my opponent the nest challenge. 

 

For me, this issue highlights perfectly the problem with a strict RAW approach and the tunnel it can lead you into, especially when ignoring all other evidence. I am going to take this one step further. Let?s re-look at the entry in both CSM and SM tactical squads. One maybe armed with a {heavy weapon at X points}. One maybe armed with a {assault weapon at X points}. Using, a strict RAW approach as an extension of the lascannon and bolter debate, it becomes possible to argue that why cannot one marine carry the heavy weapon, the assault weapon and the bolter. That way I have 4 bodies protecting my weapons trooper when min maxing - he can shoot the las at long distance and then swap to the plasma at close distance. Perfect.

The only rules applying to the number of weapons that can be carried apply only to characters via the armory. The entry for the squad doesn?t say ?one different marine maybe armed with? it just says ?one marine? ? why cannot it be the same one? To be consistent, some-one who agrees with RAW and the las\ bolter argument again has to agree with this.

 

Look at the new BT codex. It says ?one initiate may be armed with {options}. One other initiate may be armed with {options}?. The wording is completely different, it expressly forbids one marine taking the two options. The SM Codex doesn?t expressly forbid so why can?t I do it? Why would GW use diffent wording if it didn't mean different things. [in actual fact we are 99.99% sure the answer to this is GW had not quite got down to the infinite monkey and still had not used up all its infinite time]

What are those who disagree with this going to use to evidence? Intent ? well the designers obviously only meant for two weapons, it?s throughout all the codices? Background ? all the stories have a maximum of two weapons? Common Sense ? only got two hands, come on who carries three weapons. We all know the neither intent, background or common sense are not admissable in a strict RAW approach.

 

Lets then look at the potential problems this line of thinking can cause with the veteran sergeant: may exchange his bolter for a bolt pistol and ccw. If given TH may select items from the armory. Where does it say replace. It says select. So does this mean I can take a bolter, a plasma pistol and a power sword. No, because armory rules for characters say you can only take two weapons. But is his bolter replaced? Being pedantic, one could argue no ? they used exchange early in the VS entry, why do they use select now?

Here would go the argument.

P1: If I go into a sweet shop and select a chocolate bar I want to eat I don?t give back one that is sat in my pocket. So by going to the armory the bolter isn?t replaced. If it was it would say ?exchange? just like it did 4 lines above.

P2: But what if I select a new car, it replaces the old one. I don?t have two cars.

P1: Ahhhh but  you are only replacing by choice. Infact you are exchanging ? just like the codex says 4 lines earlier. So no bolt pistol power weapon combo for you.

 

 

By taking such a literal line of reasoning with the bolter lascannon argument you open the game up to strange rule interpretations. The rule set just isn?t tight enough to do this.

 

I think my main conclusion is, after 4 editions of 40k it is totally inexcusable to have a rule set that doesn?t have definitions in it. I.e It should say somewhere when we use ?exchange? it means {explanation}. Every unit in every army must have the same writing structure, and must use the exact same wording for how, for example, and upgrade is taken by a unit.

 

My final just for fun point: Those of you how think GW rule writing is bad and causes arguments has never read the DBA rule set and seen two historical gamers go at it. The DBA rule set is so convolutedly written that there is actually a translation of it.

 

p.s I am really am sorry for going on for so long.

 

" I used other evidence from other codices and other units that told RAW was wrong for this example, and with some commonsense I tried my best to suppose what the designer was intending."


i think this is the problem you're going to have with your arguement.

not all suppositions are the same.and it's imposible to know their intent for sure, without them stating it.

well written and well, long.

I think a great big nail in the coffin of "bolter AND lascannon" vice "bolter OR lascannon" is actually found in the Black Templar Codex.

Page 30, under the Options section flat out says upgrade weapons replace vice supplement. Take that into account with some of those spanish FAQ's that are running around (in conjunction with some of the OTHER changes from the space marine codex to the BT codex) and you have a pretty good idea of where the winds are blowing for GW's intent.

Can't models only carry one 2 handed weapon at a time?

The one 2-handed weapon thing only applies to characters, not models.

As for the bolter/lascannon argument, I have gotten into a few debates over it at the local game club, and after examining the rules we can find no reason not to allow it.
Strictly as written in the codex, it is allowable under normal American English diction.
Logically, it also makes sense, the marine has the bolter on a sling/stapped to his lower back so that when the fighting gets close he can have a rapid firing weapon (and a metric ton 3 meter tall superhuman who can rip apart tanks can hold another 100kilo gun no prob).
Intent wise, besides the logical argument, I can see no reason why they wouldn't allow it. It offers almost no advantages, allows for some cool modelling and seemed in line with the new emphasis on movement and rapidfire of 4th ed.

Posted By DarkHellion on 07/09/2006 7:36 AM
The one 2-handed weapon thing only applies to characters, not models.

That's just an assumption.

I understand your reasoning that the Raptor looks like he can have both an assault weapon and his BP & CCW. That does appear to be the case based off your quotes. But your leap to disallowing the SM's arming doesn't follow.

It looks like you're expecting your audience to think the Raptor having both is unreasonable, and then, because of the undesireability of that outcome, to make a "common sense" decision both against the Raptor and the SM getting the dual weapon kits. But that's switching your argument midstream. The text of the rule doesn't back up your conclusion. You're just saying "Hey, if you read the rule that way it creates this other consequence over here", which certainly does not prove in any way that the SM can't have the bolter and lascannon. You appear to be just trying to say "Don't you find this outcome unattractive? Well, if you do, then agree with me to pretend the rule doesn't read that way."

Posted By DarkHellion on 07/09/2006 7:36 AM
The one 2-handed weapon thing only applies to characters, not models.

As for the bolter/lascannon argument, I have gotten into a few debates over it at the local game club, and after examining the rules we can find no reason not to allow it.
Strictly as written in the codex, it is allowable under normal American English diction.
Logically, it also makes sense, the marine has the bolter on a sling/stapped to his lower back so that when the fighting gets close he can have a rapid firing weapon (and a metric ton 3 meter tall superhuman who can rip apart tanks can hold another 100kilo gun no prob).
Intent wise, besides the logical argument, I can see no reason why they wouldn't allow it. It offers almost no advantages, allows for some cool modelling and seemed in line with the new emphasis on movement and rapidfire of 4th ed.

You cannot use intent on its own. My version of pure intent could be different to yours - they carry equal weight as no evidence to truely support it so cancel each other out. You can use intent by comparing the same wording in another codex to see what the effect of that wording is - unless you believe in codex isolation.

You certainly cannot use background.

As for logic, I would then argue back at you that the back pack for the lascannon takes upto much room.

Posted By Mannahnin on 07/09/2006 7:57 AM
I understand your reasoning that the Raptor looks like he can have both an assault weapon and his BP & CCW. That does appear to be the case based off your quotes. But your leap to disallowing the SM's arming doesn't follow.

It looks like you're expecting your audience to think the Raptor having both is unreasonable, and then, because of the undesireability of that outcome, to make a "common sense" decision both against the Raptor and the SM getting the dual weapon kits. But that's switching your argument midstream. The text of the rule doesn't back up your conclusion. You're just saying "Hey, if you read the rule that way it creates this other consequence over here", which certainly does not prove in any way that the SM can't have the bolter and lascannon. You appear to be just trying to say "Don't you find this outcome unattractive? Well, if you do, then agree with me to pretend the rule doesn't read that way."

But that is the whole point isn't it? If you interperate language one way for a given situtaion you then have to be consistant when that language or language style is used in another codex. Not being consistant in your interpretation leads to he raptor.

Or are you saying a raptor can take three weapons?

Also, if you choose to take "maybe armed with" as a declarative sentence, an argument that holds equal water is it doesn't say "and a bolter".

Interesting situation.

This reminds me of a quote from WarSeer:

"As a rule of thumb, the designers do not hide "easter eggs" in the rules. If clever reading is required to unlock some sort of hidden option, then it is most likely just a result of wishful thinking."

On interpretation:

GW do not use a standard layout for all codexes, so each codex should perhaps be considered as a stand-alone situation.

Different codexes were written for different editions, by different people, and laid out by different designers. It may be wrong to assume that a form of words in one codex means the same as the same form of words in another.

For example, the Nids 2x T No Instant Kill rule compared with the Necrons 2x T No WBB nockdown rules -- in their respective codexes they are worded exactly the same but lead to different and illogical conclusions if interpreted the same way.

Re: Easter Eggs...

The thing is what counts as "clever reading?" Remember the Tau Sniper Drone Controller argument? A bit of "clever reading" was needed to show that the sniper team leader's drone controller is not according to RAW used for controlling the sniper drones. But in fact, the rules are quite clear and it was just that everyone assumed that the drone controller worked the same way as a Crisis suit's controller. It still lead to the usual anger and accusations of cheating.

The Spanish FAQ has clarified this point but decides against the actual RAW in this case. (As did the old Tau FAQ v4 on cover saves for hits guided in by markerlights.)

First of all, I think everyone should get out their codices for whatever army they play and read them as the "Bolter and Lascannon" standard..... just joking.

I like the whole raptor idea, since one of my armies is CSM.

I have read rules' debates on the forums and I have been in numerous rules' debates during games. I have read Ed's editorial in WD. I suck at remembering things so I have my codex and rulebook on hand. Most of the time, unless it is so outlandish or unreasonable, I will back off from debating with my opponent, because:
1) Its a waste of time.
2) It becomes tiresome and pointless.
3) It can become unsportsman-like, and I care about my reputation.
4) I do not want to have ill-feelings or hatred to my friends, over something as trivial as a game we play a few times a week.

Well, I have been looking at other miniature games, like Confrontation and Warmachine, so GW has to be enjoying losing hundreds of dollars a month I used to use to buy Warhammer 40k stuff. They may get me back if their Eldar codex is good, plus I've enjoyed this hobby - the models, the painting, the customization.

Maybe GW should forget about writing rules... they should use stat cards. For example,
Tactical Marine (Standard):
Equipment: Bolter

Tactical Marine (Heavy):
Equipment : Lascannon

Tactical Marine (Assault):
Equipment: Plasma Gun

Tactical Marine (Sergeant):
Equipment: CC weapon and Bolt pistol

Tactical Marine (Vet. Sergeant):
Equipment: Power weapon and bolt pistol

As you can imagine, add some pretty pictures, stats and flavor text. No flexibility, no customization, whatever is modeled on your marine doesn't matter, because what is on the stat. card is what you get. Maybe GW should get rid of the models and just sell their Sabertooth CCG. Because the less words there are, the less words for people who enjoy scrutinizing everything will have for debate. Well, finally, GW must learn to use consistantly clear, concise wording. And maybe gamers should stop reading the rules as a sacred text needed for interpretation, because it might hold some hidden secrets about the future or eternity. This balance is necessary for fun game play with an understanding of the rules free from endless debate, because no matter how perfect GW writes the rules there will always be grey areas and imperfections. It's how we as gamers with good sportsmanship handle these imperfections is what determines fair game play and enjoyment.

I didn't read your whole argument, because I've heard many and they all boil down to "Nothing says you can't".

Unit Upgrades are characters. They are upgraded from a regular trooper.

No model has been released with both options.

If non-character units are able to be equipped with 2 2h weapons, and the model doesn't loose his original weapon, then all unit weapon upgrade models, should have been released with their original equipment.

The Character restriction rule (2h/1h etc.), the official models from GW, and the fact that no 'eavy metal model I have seen in any WD has been kitted this way, is enough for me. This is one of those cheezy "Lets find everything that the designers missed" loopholes. Yes it doesn't say that non character models can't have two 2h weapons, but does that matter? Common sense should tell you, that they can't, and the intent was weapon upgrades replace the weapons they come with.

It would be great for me, if my boyz with Rokkits and Big shootas had choppas, but they don't.

Your anti-cheeze voice should be screaming that this is so wrong.

PArt of the problem is the "may be armed with a lascannon part"
fullheadofhair stated that this means he isnt armed with a bolter. Meaning the phrase means either or.
The actual meaning of the phrase is just what it says, he has a lascannon. I have a right arm. It doesnt mean I dont have a left arm, just means i have a right one.
All marines have a bolter. This one just has a lascannon. English would say that he has both.

Why aren't devistators armed with Bolters then?

What about Ork assult weapons? Why don't they come with sluggas choppas, or shootas? Where does it say I have the option to drop either the slugga or choppa?

If you guys were right, then its not an option. They HAVE to have their original equipment. You guys aren't the first ones to have this epiphany. Many new ranges have come out since this was brought up. Why aren't the new minis equipped with their original equipment?

Posted By OGGleep on 07/09/2006 3:45 PM
I didn't read your whole argument, because I've heard many and they all boil down to "Nothing says you can't".


Your anti-cheeze voice should be screaming that this is so wrong.

I know it was long, and not being funny or anything, but if you are going to post you do need to read it. I don't agree with it - that was the point of my post.

Ah see, I read the Arguments for thing, and like I said, I've seen 30 or so of these threads. And as a clarification, my response was based off the title - Argument for - and the replies.

What, devastators get bolters and heavy weapons as well. Why is this a problem? It makes no sense to assume that it isn't true because of some mystical magical CHEESE argument. There is nothing in the rules, when read under American English (which is why the british shouldn't write rules because they don't understand the F-ing language anymore, but thats another argument) nothing disallows it, and in fact, you are forced to, as the rules do not allow you to simply drop a weapon you have, and the SM is forced by the codex entry to have both.
More importantly why does this matter. How many times are you going to shoot that bolter over the lascannon per game? Any? It doesn't give any game advantage that I can see, and is delightful for modeling (all of my BA are going to have the bolter strapped on them like a bunch of swat members).
And my argument isn't intent, yours is. My argument is that as written you are forced to do so, and no ruling currently exists that doesn't allow it.

Posted By DarkHellion on 07/09/2006 4:43 PM
What, devastators get bolters and heavy weapons as well. Why is this a problem? .

Because if memory serves me correctly, the codex sees "replace" or "exchange" - cannot remember which.

Posted By KiMonarrez on 07/09/2006 7:39 AM

Posted By DarkHellion on 07/09/2006 7:36 AM
The one 2-handed weapon thing only applies to characters, not models.

That's just an assumption.

Actually, the codex states that it the restriction applies to characters that can select from the armory. I however disagree for a few non-rule reasons: Some codexes say replace, some say armed and some say equipped when models purchase special weapons. I believe that this is intended to all be consistent unless it specifies "in addition to" the basic weapon. The last edition said all weapons upgrades replace the standard weapons, this just seems to have been overlooked, again by personal opinion. The blister for a lascannon marine does not come with a bolter as standard equipment. If this was included standard for the model it should be there or you don't have a properly fieldable model. But no the rules don't say the restriction applies to basic models, but I consider anyone who tries to push it a rules lawyer.

You are correct sir, in that the codex states the restriction applies to characters with access to the armory... however it's STILL an assumption that that is the only thing it applies to.

It is just as reasonable to assume that it also applies to the rank and file as to assume it applies ONLY to the characters.  That is the result of GW not being explicit with their wording.



And that is the reed the whole fricken argument is balanced upon.


And it's a pretty weak reed if you look at the very next 4th edition codex to deal with marines (Codex: Black Templars). 

You are correct sir, in that the codex states the restriction applies to characters with access to the armory... however it's STILL an assumption that that is the only thing it applies to.

Uh... not it's not.

The ability to fire one shot at full range, or 2 shots at 12" is listed as applying to Rapid Fire weapons. Can we assume, since the rulebook doesn't say otherwise, that this ability may also apply to other weapons...?

No, obviously we can not.

The restriction is only placed on models with armoury access. Therefore, the restriction only applies to models with armoury access.

Anything else is not an 'assumption'... it's a made-up rule.

Oh? Just like the made up rule that terminators actually have terminator armor?  In 2 separate 4th edition marine codex, I don't see it stated anywhere that they do.



And what of the correlation of the 4th edition C:SM to the 4th edition C:BT, where a whole SLEW of these little 'loopholes" get closed.

Oh? Just like the made up rule that terminators actually have terminator armor?

Uh, no. You can make the 'assumption' that Terminators have Terminator Armour based on the fact that the two terms are used interchangably in the Terminator Armour rules entry.

There is NO similar entry in the Codex that suggests that the rules for armoury access apply in any other situation. The two issues aren't even remotely similar.

And what of the correlation of the 4th edition C:SM to the 4th edition C:BT, where a whole SLEW of these little 'loopholes" get closed.

What about it? The BT Armoury has exactly the same wording as the Marine one... it only restricts weapons on those models with armoury access.

You can make the 'assumption' that Terminators have Terminator Armour based on the fact that the two terms are used interchangably in the Terminator Armour rules entry.

Sure, but that's not the RAW. The RAW don't say that Terminators get a 5+ Invulnerable save. They're listed as having a 2+ save, that's it. Terminator armor is also called "Tactical Dreadnought armor." Can we make the assumption that Terminators have AV12 front armor, like the Dreadnoughts that they're named interchangeably with?

The reason why the Terminator armor issue is important to remember, is because it demonstrates that even the RAW adherants have a point at which their "common sense" flags go up, and they ignore the RAW. Really, let's not pretend that it says anywhere in the rules that Terminators get a 5+ Invulnerable save. It doesn't. So there's a point at which pretty much everyone is willing to dispense with the RAW.

If somebody tells me that their Lascannon Marines are also going to shoot Bolters when moving, that's just fine. But if they try to take an Invulnerable save with any of their non-IC Terminators, they'll need to either come up with a convincing RAW argument I have yet to hear, or they'll need to pick up that model.

Sure, but that's not the RAW

Of course it's RAW. The RAW, specifically the rules entry for Terminator Armour, use the terms interchangably. Terminators are models wearing Terminator Armour.

Terminator armor is also called "Tactical Dreadnought armor." Can we make the assumption that Terminators have AV12 front armor, like the Dreadnoughts that they're named interchangeably with?

Sure. Just as soon as you find the phrase 'Tactical Dreadnought Armour' anywhere in the the Dreadnought rules entry.

All of which is completely beside the point.

For what it's worth, I agree that they probably didn't intend to have HW marines with bolters. However, this is backed up by the 'Options' entry in the BT codex, NOT, as KiMonarrez is claiming, by anything listed in the Armoury rules in either codex.

You know, it would have been a fine article for them to put in the white dwarf if they had put a single line at the end of it...

"The actual way it works is ..."
But no, they put an article that talks about intent and RAW and DON'T even clarify it. I could be a little more mad at that article, but it would require a lot more work.

Posted By insaniak on 07/09/2006 9:53 PM

Oh? Just like the made up rule that terminators actually have terminator armor?

Uh, no. You can make the 'assumption' that Terminators have Terminator Armour based on the fact that the two terms are used interchangably in the Terminator Armour rules entry.

There is NO similar entry in the Codex that suggests that the rules for armoury access apply in any other situation. The two issues aren't even remotely similar.

And what of the correlation of the 4th edition C:SM to the 4th edition C:BT, where a whole SLEW of these little 'loopholes" get="" closed="" [/quote="">

What about it? The BT Armoury has exactly the same wording as the Marine one... it only restricts weapons on those models with armoury access.

Why not crack open that codex before posting.  Page 30 under " options[/b="" in="" the="" lower="" right="" corner="">

stupid HTML editor.....

Why not crack open that codex before posting.

Why not read what you posted before posting...?
Specifically:

You are correct sir, in that the codex states the restriction applies to characters with access to the armory... however it's STILL an assumption that that is the only thing it applies to

So, what does that have to do with the 'Options' section, which is referring to the army list, not the armoury?

If reading what you posted yourself is too hard, you could try reading my post, in which I said:

For what it's worth, I agree that they probably didn't intend to have HW marines with bolters. However, this is backed up by the 'Options' entry in the BT codex, NOT, as KiMonarrez is claiming, by anything listed in the Armoury rules in either codex.