Lightning Claws in C:Chaos Space Marine

[thade]

The brb also specifies that missile launchers get flakk but it doesn't override the codex.

I'll just assume you missed that massive thread where this assertion was exhaustively proven to be in error. The summary is this: the BRB explains what Flakk is, says some armies have the option to purchase it as an upgrade, and no more. Nobody has the option to purchase them. Yet.

 

Your reading to much into ignores armour, vehicles never get an armour save so it doesn't ignore what isn't there, armour still means armour saves

It doesn't say "Ignores armor Saves" nor is the term "Armor" anywhere defined to mean "Armor Saves". Armor is armor. It is a term that means both body armor and armored vehicles in common vernacular.

 

If it says see the main rule book, then see the main rule book, otherwise Chaos gets a fun little perk over loyalists for at least a while longer.

You are assuming a lot here. You are assuming that armor means Infantry Armor Save. You are assuming that you're free to ignore the Chaos SM FAQ where it tells us some weapons are "written out longhand" but still "functionally the same as those in the BRB." You're assuming that - in spite of all of that - the vague wording in the C:CSM is sufficient to override what's in the BRB.

 

The fact is that it "ignores armor". Well, what kind of armor? Why doesn't it have an AP value? Oh, it DOES have an AP value. It's AP3, per the BRB.

 

Lightning Claws in the CSM are "functionally the same" as Lightning Claws in the BRB, per the CSM FAQ.

[Morollan]

You're not going to get a situation where two players are using the same wargear in different armies and using different rules.

I hate to bring this up, but...this is not true. Let's not forget Daemonhunter Force Weapons and all other Force Weapons throughout 5th Ed, prior to the C:GK drop.

 

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm well aware that we have in the past had situations where different armies have the same item with different rules. Stormshields were only FAQ'd fairly recently to be the same for DA and BT as they were for everyone else. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if GW leaves boneswords as is because nobody else has them so they will all be the same. This is not true for Lightning Claws because there are versions of these in half a dozen different codexes and it looks as though GW are attempting to make sure that each codex is using the same version (other than SW of course, but they've always been GW's special little boy)

[King Willy]

No I was there for that fun little romp, and the point against still stands, no one gets flak cause noone gets the upgrade in there codex, yet the codex says it ignores armour and the same points state about codex over brb doesn't apply. You have to admit thats what it sounds like your saying.

 

Heres the entry as it is in the codex

 

Lightning Claws

FLUFF!!! for a whopping 4 and a half sentences then the rules...

The whole two claws thing

then ... Lightning claws ignore armour saves and re-roll any to wound dice that fail to cause a wound.

 

That specifically says armour saves, no vagueness there, no interpretation it ignores armour saves, not the armour specifically just the save it confers.

 

I don't wanna sound like a douche, but don't argue against a rule without knowing it's wording. Yes we say it ignores armour, because thats the way you would say it, it's how we have said it through the whole of 5th.

[thade]

No I was there for that fun little romp, and the point against still stands, no one gets flak cause noone gets the upgrade in there codex, yet the codex says it ignores armour and the same points state about codex over brb doesn't apply. You have to admit thats what it sounds like your saying.

Possibly there is loss in translation here? I apologize, but I really have no idea what you're trying to say to me. There are two entirely separate subjects in what appears to be a sentence.

 

Nobody gets flakk as an upgrade option yet. Full stop.

 

If you prefer terms of "codex over BRB" then you need to take that at full volume. FAQ > Codex > BRB, in general. Specifically in this case, the FAQ says "See the BRB" and the Codex is not specific at all (so isn't really overriding the BRB anyway). That's two points in the corner of "All LCs are AP3."

 

Heres the entry as it is in the codex

 

That specifically says armour saves

What armor saves? Power weapons have AP ratings now, per the BRB. The CSM FAQ tells us that while the LC entry is written out in longhand (which it is, by your own admission there) it is "functionally the same" as the LC in the BRB...which is AP3.

 

I don't wanna sound like a douche, but don't argue against a rule without knowing it's wording.

You should probably go read the CSM FAQ, then get back to me.

[pingo]

That specifically says armour saves

What armor saves?

If you're going to be so strict on precise wording, the Rulebook allows no armour saves in the USA, as the spelling there is 'armor' rather than 'armour' :P

 

Seriously now: I think you're taking it too far, thade. It's just loose wording, which GW are traditionally bad at. A bit better now in 6th, but not perfect. Doesn't help us crazies in the OR forum though, but at least it gives us something to argue about ;)

[thade]

Seriously now: I think you're taking it too far, thade.

I found this funny. <3

 

If that bit of pressing on my part is the only bit of contention you all have with my recent arguments, you may safely eschew it when considering my posts. The take-away still stands: LCs are AP3, per the FAQ. "Ignore armor" in the codex used to relate to "Disallows armor saves" in 5th Ed. Now "Ignore armor" in the codex relates to "Specific AP classes" in 6th Ed. Nothing is over-riding anything. CSM introduces the weapon and the BRB clarifies how it works.

[pingo]

Seriously now: I think you're taking it too far, thade.

I found this funny. <3

 

If that bit of pressing on my part is the only bit of contention you all have with my recent arguments, you may safely eschew it when considering my posts. The take-away still stands: LCs are AP3, per the FAQ. "Ignore armor" in the codex used to relate to "Disallows armor saves" in 5th Ed. Now "Ignore armor" in the codex relates to "Specific AP classes" in 6th Ed. Nothing is over-riding anything. CSM introduces the weapon and the BRB clarifies how it works.

:)

 

I have no idea if RAW supports that view, but I don't care, your interpretation is the very model of reasonableness.

 

Sometimes, though, I almost feel that the reasonable interpretation of the rules is actually off-topic in the OR forum :)

[thade]

Sometimes, though, I almost feel that the reasonable interpretation of the rules is actually off-topic in the OR forum :P

We had an entire thread about this last year; I wish I could find it.

 

The summary was this: RAI is not out of place here because people come to the OR for one of two reasons: they want to know what the literal RAW means (for WAAC tournament-style game-play, whether or not they love that game-play is irrelevant) and they want to know how they can best make things work in a reasonable way when the rules really fall down. If we come out and say "Grey Area" that's not very helpful because, as we all know, when we encounter the conflict in practice ourselves, we in our respective gaming groups have solutions that don't always involve "dice it off every time." Those solutions are very often reasonable RAI interpretations.

 

So, it's not off topic. This is the Official Rules board, not the RAW board. There's an important distinction here. Yes, we discuss the Official Rules, but that does not preclude reasonable RAI. It means "give it both to us, because where one fails to produce a reasonable answer, the other will avail us." Notice here that I make no assertions as to weight, i.e. which one should override the other. The reason for this is simple: sometimes RAI is obviously needless because RAW is simple, clear, and sensible. At times when RAW is full of holes and/or RAW seems to each of us the most stupidest thing imaginable for a given take, not all of us are content to lay down and take it. In fact, the rules themselves encourage us to work around issues like this (see: The Most Important Rule and The Spirit of the Game) and thus we do. <3

[pingo]

Interesting.

 

Too often RAW is set against RAI in an adversarial way. As you say, they are just different and complementing tools.

 

Anyway: that is (and was!) a whole other debate.

[dswanick]

Too often RAW is set against RAI in an adversarial way. As you say, they are just different and complementing tools.

I've seen this most often occurs when a clearly written rule doesn't produce a result that is deemed "correct" when compared to fluff. RAI can be used to make sense of a nonsensical RAW, but it can also be exactly counter to a clearly written RAW. In this case, which wins? The clear RAW, or the contrary RAI?

[pingo]

Surely RAI would equal RAW when RAW is clear. As there's nothing requiring interpretation.

 

Both matters deal with a rule and are divorced from fluff.

[dswanick]

Surely RAI would equal RAW when RAW is clear. As there's nothing requiring interpretation.

 

Both matters deal with a rule and are divorced from fluff.

You'd think - but it isn't always.

[Grey Mage]

Id say from reading it that its quite arguable that its "longhand" and could use the BRB.

 

That being said, I have no problem with chaos termies ignoring armor all together.

[pingo]

Id say from reading it that its quite arguable that its "longhand" and could use the BRB.

I don't know what you mean by that?

[Grey Mage]

Id say from reading it that its quite arguable that its "longhand" and could use the BRB.

I don't know what you mean by that?

Its mentioned, in the BRB, that a number of weapons included in peoples army books are 'written out longhand' and should instead use the wording in the brb. This could very well be considered such an occasion, as it doesnt get much more longhand than the C:CSM lightning claw.

[pingo]

Id say from reading it that its quite arguable that its "longhand" and could use the BRB.

I don't know what you mean by that?

Its mentioned, in the BRB, that a number of weapons included in peoples army books are 'written out longhand' and should instead use the wording in the brb. This could very well be considered such an occasion, as it doesnt get much more longhand than the C:CSM lightning claw.

I see.

 

Actually, I think this is a common misinterpretation. I'm not sure where it says in the BRB, but the FAQs talk about the 'weapon profile format' in the new rulebook being 'functionally equivalent' to profiles written in longhand in older codexes.

 

This is not talking about the profile itself (i.e. the profile data), but is specifically referring to the format that information is presented in: i.e. the little tables that every weapon now uses, even melee ones.

 

The key point here is in the FAQs this is not granting you permission to use the profile data in the rulebook (especially if it is different!), rather all it is saying is don't worry if your codex writes out the profile longhand rather than having it in a table. The data is the same in these cases, the difference is just the format they are presented in – hence, the two formats are functionally equivalent.

 

Now, I don't know if this is just sloppy wording from GW, but it seems conspicuous in the specificity of it's wording.

 

Saying all that, I totally agree with you that for CSM and DA we should use the rulebook profiles. My point is that I don't think you can justify it for the reason you stated.