Dark Angels Assault Squads.....

[KGatch113]

The rules say Up to two marines may replace their bolt pistol with a: 
flamer.... 
plasma pistol. ....

Is it me, or is this worded in such a way as to seem like you can have 2 plasma pistols and 2 flamers? I glanced at other squads entries and they say "one of the following...." 

For example, under company vets it says ( now corrected in the faq) that up to 3 marines may replace...with one of the following: 

So under company vets, I read the entry as 3 marines only may exchange their bolter with one of the weapons on the list. 

But the wording on the assault weapons makes me think you can pick up to 2 marines to have flamers and up to 2 marines to have plasma pistols......

[Brother Landrain]

It is bad wording, and sloppy editing for consistency....

 

You can argue RAW that you can have 2 flamers and 2 PP's but it is not likely to have been intended that way.

It is strange that the Devs and Tact, RW and DW squads and scout squads, all say with one of the following, but the assault squad says "up to 2... with a"

 

I dont have my BA or SM codex to check for similar wordings..

[Bryan Blaire]

I don't think anyone is going to let you have that, but you could possibly make the argument until a FAQ. The wording is for 0-2 Marines to have either/or based on all similar Codex entries and similar 'Dexes. It's likely just a unit entry from a different writer that was overlooked.

[Skalver]

Two total per squad.

 

Sub-options are always read as if the word "or" was between the options while the options themselves make sense if read with the word "and" between them.

 

For example the first three options for the assault squad make sense as:

 

May include up to five additional marines

AND up to two marines may replace their bolt pistols with a flamer OR plasma pistol

AND may upgrade the space marine sergeant to a veteran sergeant

...

 

If they were intended to be two separate, non-exclusive options they would be listed as two top level options, not a single merged option.

[Interrogator Stobz]

I'd read somewhere that Gee Dub had hired a professional proof reader, kinda makes you wonder if that person is earning their pay.

 

:D

stobz

[Brother Landrain]

I'd read somewhere that Gee Dub had hired a professional proof reader, kinda makes you wonder if that person is earning their pay.

stobz

Thats one of the most frustrating things about GW products....

Consistency and Simple error proofing of their product. They spend so much time and effort in making outstanding plastic model kits, the fluff and background is so extensive and rich...

And then when it comes to actual rules, its seemingly done half-arsed...

I am sometimes surprised they dont have us using rubber bands to see if we hit models when shooting, and use small firecrackers to see what is affected by a blast weapon... lol rules we used to use in the sandbox with the old plastic army men...

I wish I could find an old Guns of Navarone Playset to bring as a fortification to a 40K game... lol to see the looks on other peoples faces when that monstrosity is set on the table...

[Interrogator Stobz]

Nail...head........Hit

 

Love this game and fluff and minis, constantly disappointed with small but important things.

 

Love the mental image of blowing my dudes away with firecrackers :tu:

 

S

[Kastor Krieg]

Shush, stop giving them IDEAS! They would realize they could sell more paint and primer, due to repairs from "realistic battle damage"! Oh, no... too late

[march10k]

LOL...I'm just thrilled to get access to the flamers in lieu of the PPs...I mean, two flame templates on the charge?  bye-bye boyz squad!

 

edit/

 

In other words...PPs made assault marines slightly less terrible against units they had no business charging in the first place...much better to reinforce their strength, which is high number of non-AP attacks!

[Brother Immolator]

I cant see any sloppy writting or need for a FAQ. Its crystal clear, up to two marines means 0-2. Perfectly clear. Whats the problem?

Also what other codexes have to do with it? We also dont get a combat shield on the sarge, surely its not a mistake as well.

 

For some reason they decided that DA squads should be equiped as such. Whats the fuss about?

[Bryan Blaire]

The only reason I brought up other 'Dexes is that most state the same type of thing "Up to Two" etc, but no one argues that the wording should allow for more than two. In a similar fashion, no one trying to argue that because it says "One of the following" that you can only pick a single option from the list and all the Marines swapping their weapons must be armed with only that one option.

 

"Up to two Marines may replace their bolt pistol with a:" means that no more than two Marines in a squad may exchange their bolt pistol for a single choice from the list below. The "a" indicates a singular choice and nothing indicates that the limit of two Marines repeats, etc, for a single squad. I totally agree with Skalver, the "or" is always implied in between a list of sub-options when a choice is involved in Codexes, an exception would likely be written out.

 

I do think things like this do show that they really only care about the rules so we will buy new models...

[KGatch113]

Two total per squad.

 

Sub-options are always read as if the word "or" was between the options while the options themselves make sense if read with the word "and" between them.

 

For example the first three options for the assault squad make sense as:

 

May include up to five additional marines

AND up to two marines may replace their bolt pistols with a flamer OR plasma pistol

AND may upgrade the space marine sergeant to a veteran sergeant

...

 

If they were intended to be two separate, non-exclusive options they would be listed as two top level options, not a single merged option.

Except they did not use the word or. You can easily read it as..Upto 2 marines....replace with a flamer, and then reread the sentence as upto 2 marines...replace with a plasma pistol. Since there is no "one of the following" or an "or" qualifier, the sentence reads that you can have a squad with 0, 1, or 2 flamers and a squad with 0,1, and 2 plasma pistols.

 

Look at the language used and don't interpret the intentions. GW writes permissive rules sets. 

 

And they usually cut and paste entries like this, which is why this one is unusual. 

[Skalver]

 

Two total per squad.

 

Sub-options are always read as if the word "or" was between the options while the options themselves make sense if read with the word "and" between them.

 

For example the first three options for the assault squad make sense as:

 

May include up to five additional marines

AND up to two marines may replace their bolt pistols with a flamer OR plasma pistol

AND may upgrade the space marine sergeant to a veteran sergeant

...

 

If they were intended to be two separate, non-exclusive options they would be listed as two top level options, not a single merged option.

Except they did not use the word or. You can easily read it as..Upto 2 marines....replace with a flamer, and then reread the sentence as upto 2 marines...replace with a plasma pistol. Since there is no "one of the following" or an "or" qualifier, the sentence reads that you can have a squad with 0, 1, or 2 flamers and a squad with 0,1, and 2 plasma pistols.

 

Look at the language used and don't interpret the intentions. GW writes permissive rules sets. 

 

And they usually cut and paste entries like this, which is why this one is unusual. 

 

How many marines can replace their bolt pistols? Two.

 

Is this ambiguous? No.

 

Look it this way, two marines can replace their bolt pistols, that is pretty specific. Since each marine only has one bolt pistol to replace any further wording is unneeded, it is not possible for either marine to take more than one option.

[KGatch113]

 

 

Two total per squad.

 

Sub-options are always read as if the word "or" was between the options while the options themselves make sense if read with the word "and" between them.

 

For example the first three options for the assault squad make sense as:

 

May include up to five additional marines

AND up to two marines may replace their bolt pistols with a flamer OR plasma pistol

AND may upgrade the space marine sergeant to a veteran sergeant

...

 

If they were intended to be two separate, non-exclusive options they would be listed as two top level options, not a single merged option.

Except they did not use the word or. You can easily read it as..Upto 2 marines....replace with a flamer, and then reread the sentence as upto 2 marines...replace with a plasma pistol. Since there is no "one of the following" or an "or" qualifier, the sentence reads that you can have a squad with 0, 1, or 2 flamers and a squad with 0,1, and 2 plasma pistols.

 

Look at the language used and don't interpret the intentions. GW writes permissive rules sets. 

 

And they usually cut and paste entries like this, which is why this one is unusual. 

 

How many marines can replace their bolt pistols? Two.

 

Is this ambiguous? No.

 

Look it this way, two marines can replace their bolt pistols, that is pretty specific. Since each marine only has one bolt pistol to replace any further wording is unneeded, it is not possible for either marine to take more than one option.

 

Reread the entry. Without the use of the "or" or "one of the following", the entry implies you can pick both weapons, but only up to two of each. It would be crystal clear if they used or. They don't. So you read the first line and it applies to flamer. With no or, or one of the following qualifiers, you can then reread the line as applying the first line again to plasma pistols.

 

You are imposing what you think should be the rule and not looking at the actual language and how it is presented. 

[The Shadow Guard]

I'd read somewhere that Gee Dub had hired a professional proof reader, kinda makes you wonder if that person is earning their pay.

stobz

Thats one of the most frustrating things about GW products....

Consistency and Simple error proofing of their product. They spend so much time and effort in making outstanding plastic model kits, the fluff and background is so extensive and rich...

And then when it comes to actual rules, its seemingly done half-arsed...

I am sometimes surprised they dont have us using rubber bands to see if we hit models when shooting, and use small firecrackers to see what is affected by a blast weapon... lol rules we used to use in the sandbox with the old plastic army men...

I wish I could find an old Guns of Navarone Playset to bring as a fortification to a 40K game... lol to see the looks on other peoples faces when that monstrosity is set on the table...

There was a Guns of Navarone Playset? Oh, do tell!!!!

SG

[Bryan Blaire]

By that same reasoning, KGatch113, a Scout Sergeant in the Blood Angels codex can have a combi-weapon AND a plasma pistol or power weapon AND a power fist, all for replacing a single shotgun and/or bolt pistol, because not only do they not use the qualifier "a" indicating a singular choice from the options (which is what is used in the DA codex) or "one of the following" or an "or" between each option. However, everyone knows that this is not the case. As a matter of fact, MOST of the options in the Blood Angels codex are written with this language, no use of the singular "a" indicator or "one of the following" and yet no one argues that you can take ALL of the options included.

 

The "up to two may" limits the number of selections per squad to two Marines. No more.

[Brother Immolator]

I feel like forestgump right now. I knew I shouldnt have paid all those money in english classes. I should have simply read discussions about GWs Codices instead. That makes me believe GW has the right to subevert the modeling hobby and change it into the GW hobby. GW hobby been: Use english grammar to subvert, misinterpent and otherwise argue about the rules for no apparent reason...

[Skalver]

 

 Reread the entry. Without the use of the "or" or "one of the following", the entry implies you can pick both weapons, but only up to two of each. It would be crystal clear if they used or. They don't. So you read the first line and it applies to flamer. With no or, or one of the following qualifiers, you can then reread the line as applying the first line again to plasma pistols.

You are imposing what you think should be the rule and not looking at the actual language and how it is presented. 

 

 

 

It is a rule, it has to have an interpretation. My interpretation is that when they say two marines, they mean two marines and not four marines. It seems pretty clear :).

[Brother Landrain]

Reread the entry. Without the use of the "or" or "one of the following", the entry implies you can pick both weapons, but only up to two of each. It would be crystal clear if they used or. They don't. So you read the first line and it applies to flamer. With no or, or one of the following qualifiers, you can then reread the line as applying the first line again to plasma pistols.

You are imposing what you think should be the rule and not looking at the actual language and how it is presented.

It is a rule, it has to have an interpretation. My interpretation is that when they say two marines, they mean two marines and not four marines. It seems pretty clear .

The problem is this...

In 5 other entries it is specified in a very specific way and there is ZERO question as to the intent of the rule or meaning...

In a SINGLE entry, it is different, when the exact same wording as the other units, would be the perfect wording...

So the question is... Is it worded differently because there is a different meaning? or is it just SLOPPY Editing...

Rules are like Laws... everyone may KNOW what they meant, but if they say it the wrong way, it leaves loopholes..

[MadDoc]

Oh, for crying out loud...

The real problem is that certain players seem bound and determined to finagle any "advantage" they can from even the slightest perceived misstep within the wording of a given rule or option.

The only reasonable interpretation (and obvious intent) of the option entry in question is quite clear - it allows for two Marines to be upgraded total (each armed with one of the weapons listed) not four (two armed with each weapon).

Based on the replies to this thread, the majority of players (still) seem to have no problem getting that.

I weep for the DA player base that there appear to be so many players (more and more every day it seems) choosing to jump to ill-founded, and quite frankly abusive, conclusions/interpretations by default.

Edit - If a given interpretation requires somebody to rely on a "loophole" that should tell them how valid that interpretation is. Unfortunately the "since its not strictly prohibited I can get away with it" mentality seems to be on the rise in the forums of late, around here we calll that beardy/cheesy play (theres another term we use for players that do that but it'd trigger the swear filter so I won't bother typing it).

[MithrilForge]

if someone tried that on me in our gaming group they would get an up close look at the writing on the rule book..... lets pretend this red brick wall is the rule book

and there we go....common sense and your gut says 2 marines!! we all know GW are not wordsmiths so we need to be nice people about this most times.....

2 marines with flamers in an assault squad against guard,orks or nids sounds fun

Mithril

[FlamingDeth]

What would the point even be of having two flamers AND two plasma pistols? You'd just have a really expensive squad where you start losing your upgraded models after a couple casualties. Fast attack choices thrive on specialization, over-upgrading just leaves you with an easily killed points sink, and the headache of trying to argue that you can even field that squad to begin with.

[Brother Landrain]

You all confuse good sportsmanship with good game design...

 

No one has actually said they believe you can do 4 upgrades...

 

We are saying its poor game design and EXTREMELY poor editing...

 

I am sorry I have spent $90 on a limited edition codex, and another $90 on two reg edition codex...

 

I expect a little bit better editing and proof reading than I would get in a grade school primer..

[Jehoel]

You all confuse good sportsmanship with good game design...

 

No one has actually said they believe you can do 4 upgrades...

 

We are saying its poor game design and EXTREMELY poor editing...

 

I am sorry I have spent $90 on a limited edition codex, and another $90 on two reg edition codex...

 

I expect a little bit better editing and proof reading than I would get in a grade school primer..

 

The main problem here is (sorry Brother Landrain, your post is just the one that triggered my posting this) that a large number of people seem to think it Games Workshop is a gaming company that cares about a tournament level game.  Games Workshop is a "modeling company", as per their own statement, that makes a game that helps sell their models.  People need to stop over analyzing the "just for fun" game rules as if they were tournament ready rules.

 

if you think the Games Workshop cares about their game rules that much, then you really need to look into how a gaming company that does care about tournaments does their rules.  As an example, look at the way Wizards of the Coast (makers of Magic: the Gathering CCG) does their rules.  Way more precise and the rules come first, not any models that can be used with one of their games.  That difference in mindset is what you're seeing, not just sloppy editing and proofreading.

 

While I agree the Games Workshop could do better with the editing and proofreading, the issue addressed in the original post is not the case of sloppy editing.  It is a case of assuming that people are going to understand the rules without over analyzing them.  I do also agree with MadDoc that there seems to be a rise in the amount of posts that are focused on breaking the rules, whether to showcase how "bad" they are or to take advantage of frankly abusive interpretations of the rules.

 

Now I admit, by posting this I'm probably missing someone off, but it is not my intention.  I just had to get it out of my system.

[pueriexdeus]

Oh, for crying out loud...

The real problem is that certain players seem bound and determined to finagle any "advantage" they can from even the slightest perceived misstep within the wording of a given rule or option.

The only reasonable interpretation (and obvious intent) of the option entry in question is quite clear - it allows for two Marines to be upgraded total (each armed with one of the weapons listed) not four (two armed with each weapon).

Based on the replies to this thread, the majority of players (still) seem to have no problem getting that.

I weep for the DA player base that there appear to be so many players (more and more every day it seems) choosing to jump to ill-founded, and quite frankly abusive, conclusions/interpretations by default.

Edit - If a given interpretation requires somebody to rely on a "loophole" that should tell them how valid that interpretation is. Unfortunately the "since its not strictly prohibited I can get away with it" mentality seems to be on the rise in the forums of late, around here we calll that beardy/cheesy play (theres another term we use for players that do that but it'd trigger the swear filter so I won't bother typing it).

Look on the bright side, these are our future lawyers/politicians in training. ;)