diabloelmo Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Right, as we know, the new codex can be a little... unclear on a few things. One of those things is the cap on Blastmasters in a unit of noise marines. Until we get a official ruling from GW, which of the following interpretations do people think is the correct one? 1) If the unit is AT LEAST 10 models strong, one Noise Marine may take a Blastmaster. If it is 20 strong, up to two may be taken. 2) If the unit is 10 models or less strong, it may have up to one Blastmaster. If it is between 11 and 20, it may take two. Honestly, I can get both interpretations from reading it, so I'm wondering what everyone else thinks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khestra the Unbeheld Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Says 1 per 10 models. That means for every 10 models, you get 1 Blastmaster. 11-19 won't cut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excessus Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Says 1 per 10 models. That means for every 10 models, you get 1 Blastmaster. 11-19 won't cut it. Indeed, I don't really know where people think that the codex is soooo unclear comes from. There are a small number of things that are unclear, but as a whole, I think our new codex actually is very well written and easily comprehensable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rune Priest Ridcully Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 It think it's people being more hopefull and trying to find a way to use their blastmaster without having to have to take 10 men.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FallenOne Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 This question keeps cropping up for one simple reason..... The wording is not clear. Internet No it alls, cheaters, rules breakers and rules lawyers aside... You guys can claim it's clear until the end of the world gets here in December, it doesn't change the facts. This wording is NOT clear. It is different than the way it is worded in EVERY codex before it. The wording is different from two entries in THIS codex. It's weird the way they worded it, and the sheer number of people all asking the same question back up the fact that the wording is not clear. OP, it will probably be FAQ'd or errated to say 1 blastmaster per full squad of 10. I know that this is stupid, and changes the set up dating back to 1989, but oh well, times are changing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excessus Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 One per ten models, how is that not clear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khestra the Unbeheld Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 This question keeps cropping up for one simple reason..... The wording is not clear. Internet No it alls, cheaters, rules breakers and rules lawyers aside... You guys can claim it's clear until the end of the world gets here in December, it doesn't change the facts. This wording is NOT clear. It is different than the way it is worded in EVERY codex before it. The wording is different from two entries in THIS codex. It's weird the way they worded it, and the sheer number of people all asking the same question back up the fact that the wording is not clear. The operative preposition is 'per', which is 'for each/for every'. This is not subject to vagueness or misconstrual. That people cannot grasp this basic concept is the fault of their education, not the wording relevant to this entry. There are scandalous amounts of nebulous entries in this Codex, but the Blastmaster is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I should be the last person to do this considering my level of english . But sometimes the problem is translation . Something like a per may not exist . damn it is even hard to explain technicly there is a "per" but its always used with finite . for example in translation it sounds like "and if you take 10 and only 10 nm , you can take 1 blast master". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Sage Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 This question keeps cropping up for one simple reason..... The wording is not clear. Internet No it alls, cheaters, rules breakers and rules lawyers aside... You guys can claim it's clear until the end of the world gets here in December, it doesn't change the facts. This wording is NOT clear. It is different than the way it is worded in EVERY codex before it. The wording is different from two entries in THIS codex. It's weird the way they worded it, and the sheer number of people all asking the same question back up the fact that the wording is not clear. OP, it will probably be FAQ'd or errated to say 1 blastmaster per full squad of 10. I know that this is stupid, and changes the set up dating back to 1989, but oh well, times are changing! Eh, but it is clear. When a Codex is launched, a lot of people end up reading some stuff wrong, but thats life and normal. In this case, people will learn to read the codex eventually, as its quite, quite clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctus Cornix Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 This is the simplest wording in the codex.... 'one noise marine per ten models may replace his boltgun with a blastermaster......... Xpts/model' This means that for every 10 models you have in your squad, you may upgrade one marine to have a blaster master. If you have a 20 man squad, you can have 2 blaster masters in the same squad. Any kid with a 4th grade education can tell you this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamwulf Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Yeah, let me add my name to the chorus of "it's very clear!" 1 model per 10 can take a Blastmaster. 9 models? 0 Blastmaster. 12 models? 1 Blastmaster. 19 models? 1 Blastmaster. 20 models? 2 Blastmasters. Let me sum it up: 1-9 Noise Marines- ZERO Blastmasters 10-19 Noise Marines- ONE Blastmaster 20 Noise Marines- TWO Blastmasters What FAQ/errata do people want? Right now, you have a unit that can take two heavy weapons (a very good heavy weapon!) in a 20 man squad. That's pretty good in my book! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctus Cornix Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I think they want an FAQ with pictures and a coloring book in the back. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I think they want an FAQ with pictures and a coloring book in the back. :P Yes. I would like this very much. Maybe have a tic-tac-board as well and some 40k slapstick comedy. But, it does seem rather clear and it does make sense if you think about it. The smaller, more mobile squads get flamer templates. The bigger, more static squads can be turned into gunlines with heavy weapons. There were somethings(to a rather small degree, still are somethings) that did need addressing and a good portion were addressed. The leftovers are more Frequently asked questions rather than errata although one of the errata was a result of a FAQ. But this is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinsanity Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 This wording is NOT clear. It is different than the way it is worded in EVERY codex before it. The wording is different from two entries in THIS codex. It's weird the way they worded it, and the sheer number of people all asking the same question back up the fact that the wording is not clear. As others have said, on my end I don't see any ambiguity here... 'One per 10' usually does not equate 'One per 10 or part thereof'... There are, overall, four units which offer varying options depending on the number of models in the unit : CSM, Cultists, Termies and NM. CSM : One [CSM] may... and then "if 10 or more a second one may" (paraphrased) Cultists : For every ten models in the unit... Termies : For every five models in the unit... NM : One Noise Marine per ten models... Of the four units, two use similar wording, and two others use distinct wording. It is poor editorial work? Does the NM wording imply a different mechanic? Why do players who want to insist the wording means "one per 10 or part thereof" don't also mention other so called vague wording : Is the limit 1 per 10 in the unit, or 1 per 10 in the army? And since the rule simply says 1 per 10 models, are we limited to counting only NMs? If my army includes 70 models total, can I have 7 NMs equipped with BMs? Usually, if you want to avoid arguments with your opponent, try to follow the simplest logic. Take one per full 10 squad members and you won't face anyone accusing you of cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FallenOne Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 And, I will say it one last time also.... Just because you guys think something is so, doesn't make it so. You all think it is clear, plenty of people do not think it is clear. It doesn't make anyone dumb, or less educated, or anything else. It just means that GW writes a certain rule one way, every time, and this one time, they wrote it different. that is why it is not clear. The dictionary meaning of words aside, the amount someone went to college, IQ levels, etc, has nothing to do with it, keep your sad, sad, interenet message board warrior insults, and stop insulting people who don't agree with you. You all seem to have missed the point of why this is unclear, so let me TL;DR it for you. GW writes rule A as X. In this one instant, they wrote rule A as Y. X =/= Y, therefore the intent is unclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctus Cornix Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I'm sorry but this isn't about What we think. This is about what's written in the book that everyone can plainly see and you, for some strange reason, fail to. Its funny how you attempt to act like we're being petty or insulting and then throw a backhanded insult that we're unable to comprehend the very obvious question. It doesn't matter if the rule was ever so slightly worded differently, if it was for nothing more than to break up the monotony or whatever reason GW had. English still remains to be English and the rule is very clear on what is intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master of fact Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I take it as one per ten models. You have ten models, one can upgrade. Its fairly easy to read to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FallenOne Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I'm sorry but this isn't about What we think. This is about what's written in the book that everyone can plainly see and you, for some strange reason, fail to. Its funny how you attempt to act like we're being petty or insulting and then throw a backhanded insult that we're unable to comprehend the very obvious question. It doesn't matter if the rule was ever so slightly worded differently, if it was for nothing more than to break up the monotony or whatever reason GW had. English still remains to be English and the rule is very clear on what is intended. Oh, no, I am not the OP. I have stated that I think it will be one in full 10, go back and look at my RAW vs RAI thread. I didn't throw any back hand insult at all. I stated a case for why people are confusing the issue, the folks who spoke about adding coloring books and talking about people's educations, that was insulting. The OP had a question, that countless people across countless message boards have had. It DOES matter if it was worded differently. GW sets precedents, and follows them. This one breaks it, and it makes people wonder what the Rule As Intended was. Notice the people calling people names, are people like you, and Iron Sage, and that's because you all see it one way, and can't see how people can see it any other way. Let people have an opinion with out the insults. The internet tough act is tired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinsanity Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 It just means that GW writes a certain rule one way, every time, and this one time, they wrote it different. that is why it is not clear. While I agree that Games Workshop has almost always written such rules this way, there are instances where the "one per X" format has been used. One such example is the Dark Eldar Reaver squads : For every three models in the squad, one Reaver may replace...and then One model per three Reaver may take either... I don't know what is usually agreed between Dark Eldar players, however it was not unclear enough to warrant a FAQ in 2 years now. I guess most players DO find such wording clear enough, even if you don't. Once again, you might wish it was written otherwise, but the rule as it is written pretty clearly says that if the unit includes at least 10 models then you can give one a blastmaster. In the end, yes, education does have an impact on your interpretation of the rules. If I were to give you a french copy of the codex, would you be able to understand what it says? If I asked a five years old, or someone who's illiterate, to interpret the rules, do you really think he'd be able to? keep your sad, sad, interenet message board warrior insults, and stop insulting people who don't agree with you. And just because others disagree with you doesn't mean they are flinging insults your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Like someone said, the only misunderstanding pretty much comes from "lost in translation". I believe it was Jeske. The exact wording in English is "One Noise Marine per ten models may replace his boltgun with a blastmaster." As Jeske said, some languages don't have the word "per", but as he also pointed out the definition of the word still exists. I should be the last person to do this considering my level of english . But sometimes the problem is translation . Something like a per may not exist . damn it is even hard to explain technicly there is a "per" but its always used with finite . for example in translation it sounds like "and if you take 10 and only 10 nm , you can take 1 blast master". It means the same thing in English. We just made a smaller word for the big definition. If translation is the only problem, then well, here's the sentence that includes the definition of "per" in it as used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excessus Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 GW writes rule A as X. In this one instant, they wrote rule A as Y. X =/= Y, therefore the intent is unclear. I will ignore your try to make an insult and focus on the math, because in this case, X = Y... To make things clearer, here is a graph: http://www.gcse.com/maths/graphs/y=x.gif Just because you think something is so, doesn't make it so. :) "and if you take 10 and only 10 nm , you can take 1 blast master". A more accurate translation would be "for every 10 models in the unit you can upgrade one to carry a blastmaster by exchanging his boltgun for it"...or something like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctus Cornix Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Internet tough act?.... First of all, don't bring random people like Iron Sage into a conversation he has nothing to do with, it just makes you look like an :). The OP asked a very reasonable question and everyone has given him a very clear answer. There was no harm or foul. I haven't insulted the OP or anyone else who has asked this question. Just you and your double standards. You have gone on multiple times about how we should 'Let people have an opinion with out the insults.' and yet in your first post you decide to basically smack everyone who believes the rules are clear with 'You guys can claim it's clear until the end of the world gets here in December, it doesn't change the facts. This wording is NOT clear.' There is nothing factual about this. This is your opinion yet you mock us for thinking otherwise. No one has called anyone names except this little 'internet tough act' thing of yours. Where did that even come to begin with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Wait, the world ends in December? Is there scientific evidence of this? But but but but but but but but but but but there's so much to do! Like finish school and say goodbye to Orlando and move to Nostramo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excessus Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Wait, the world ends in December? Is there scientific evidence of this? But but but but but but but but but but but there's so much to do! Like finish school and say goodbye to Orlando and move to Nostramo! http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yEHMSVLi-v8/TxYE9TED8PI/AAAAAAAAAEs/ImRBAYQXzkE/s1600/calendar+bizarro.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinsanity Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Wait, the world ends in December? Is there scientific evidence of this? But but but but but but but but but but but there's so much to do! Like finish school and say goodbye to Orlando and move to Nostramo! Actually, it's all a big misunderstanding; it's Nostramo which blows up on Dec 21, 32012... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.