Dread Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Wow guys thanks for pointing this out. I had no idea about the SB/PS only on the srg. So I guess it really does kinda changes things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 In the instance of the DW sarge RAW is good enough. Who is anyone to say what the RAI was - unless it was indeed the rule we ended up with <_< ? And yes, where RAW obviously doesn't work - dice off to decide what to do. Now that is RAW ;) Cheers I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ordo Machinum Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 RAD = Read As Diced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 What a RADical idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 where RAW obviously doesn't work ...doesn't work according to whom? Obvious to whom? Aye, there's the rub! I'm just playing devil's advocate, of course. It's a game, the future of the free world doesn't depend on any of this. 99% of the time, either two players can amicably agree, or a tournament organizer has decided the issue in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Raven Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 I have the latest version of the digital codex and it allows any terminator to swap all weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJD Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Thats interesting to know Dark Raven. Does that mean there is an update only available to the digital codex. Are the digital updates dated and if so when was the last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Raven Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 acording to itunes it was updated 24/4, looks like there is a difference between the digital updates and the pdf ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
il-Fieres Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Dark Angels Codex v1.7 - 24th April 2013 "Deathwing Terminator Squad... Options... Any model can replace all of his weapons with: -Pair of lighting claws..........free -Thunder hammer and storm shield ........5pts /model" Problem is that GW FAQ (pdf) is dated 23rd April (File...Properties) so technically the iPad codex the "latest" version. But this could go either way....so it proves nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Irrelevant. The messed up language is in the FAQ, which trumps the codex (even the digital one). They have to fix the FAQ or write a new codex to correct the error. Besides that, IIRC, the "all weapons" language (which would disallow a CML paired with thunderhammer or claws!) is the screwup that the FAQ was intended to fix in the first place! /edit/ So even if the "all weapons" language were determined to override the FAQ, it would be a step backwards, going back to the original problem, not a fix to the new problem that the first fix introduced! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marvmoogy Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Depends, March... I take my SB/PF marine. I swap 'all weapons' for a TH&SS I do this to the whole squad I then take my CML! If you follow the digital codex update, then the above is legal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 @marvmoogy : there's no established order for getting options. You're in the situation where you and your opponent can be right or wrong. Unfortunately we don't have the CML/LC termi like in v4 codex gallery to prove this is the good reading. The only CML we have has been mounted with a SB and a PF (not even a CF that would help too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Ah, sweet nostalgia! Marvmoogy, yours is precisely the argument that was being made before the FAQ, because the wording in the digital codex that you're citing is precisely the same wording that exists in the paper codex, only to be overridden by the FAQ. An equally valid interpretation of "all weapons" is that no other weapons are allowed. And that interpretation is the one that GW agreed with, or else why issue an FAQ to replace the wording with wording that makes it crystal clear that CML Thundernators are legal? In any case, the order of precedence for 40k rules is that FAQ trumps Codex trumps BGB. There is no caveat anywhere that says "a digital codex with a timestamp that is more recent than the current FAQ overrides the FAQ." So all of this is academic, the language in the digital codex is the same v1.0 that's in the paper codex, it's not a v3.0 that would supersede the v2.0 in the FAQ. /edit/ @avoghai: The existence of a photograph of a model, even in a current codex, is weak evidence of legalilty. For such a photograph to have any persuasive power, GW would have to be far more careful in its codex editing process!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marvmoogy Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 ahhhh balls! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 @avoghai: The existence of a photograph of a model, even in a current codex, is weak evidence of legalilty. For such a photograph to have any persuasive power, GW would have to be far more careful in its codex editing processI have to temper that. We must make a difference between photographs and artwork. Artworks are known to let the artist's imagination free hence you may find strange weapons combination that are not official. (In chaos v3.5 codex you used to see a DG marine with HB and a TS marine with plasma guns). Photos, and more particularly official armies photos, are here to show what an army should be in GW's mind. They are here to give ideas to a noob on mounting models and squad buildings. It may occur that GW shows "unofficial" army (often the personal army of a guy of the studio) and that unofficial models with an illegal set up. In this cas GW always makes a note Either " mr X does use this model as a count as for A type legal unit" Or " Those are models that mr X uses with personal rules of his own creation, if his opponent agrees to." So yeah, if I see an official photos of a model with a particular set up, I consider this set up is legal (as long as it's the latest version of the codex of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 even if it contains models that, by WYSIWYG, contain illegal or nonexistent kit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 even if it contains models that, by WYSIWYG, contain illegal or nonexistent kit? Is there any codex (the current playable version) where you can find a photo in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 We're a long way away from Deathwing sergeants here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMek83 Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 All we can conclude is: Someone in GW need's to have foot print on their arse... I've magneted most my Terminator sargeants, except that one which I already assembled prior FAQ after reading my codex. Its so well put together that I will most liekly mess the model than can pry off hammer and shield for magnetization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[TA]Typher Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 If a DW Sgt is hamstrung with just a power sword.. shouldn't he be 10pts cheaper than a power fist Term? A base DWT with a powerfist is 44pts. 5 x 44 = 220. We are paying the same price for a PS as we are for a PF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SvenONE Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 If a DW Sgt is hamstrung with just a power sword.. shouldn't he be 10pts cheaper than a power fist Term? A base DWT with a powerfist is 44pts. 5 x 44 = 220. We are paying the same price for a PS as we are for a PF. That's actually one of the issues I have with it. The RWAS sarge is right after that. He screws up so many lists, I always have 4 points I can't spend on anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 If a DW Sgt is hamstrung with just a power sword.. shouldn't he be 10pts cheaper than a power fist Term? A base DWT with a powerfist is 44pts. 5 x 44 = 220. We are paying the same price for a PS as we are for a PF. Ten points? ROFL....maybe...if you want to pay ten points for the squad to be able to mix heavy weapons and assault kit? DW get DWA, split fire, mixed squads, and scoring...all massive plusses. And you want a points discount for the one minor minus?!? Is there any codex (the current playable version) where you can find a photo in this case? I have no idea...but I do recall a thread about such an issue back in 4th. Let me ask you a question. What reason do you have to equate a gallery photo with a rule? I certainly don't recall reading anywhere that if you see it in a photo, it's legal even if no mention is made of it in the rules... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Blaire Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 I think we've pretty much beaten this horse to death. If you want to go by the rules as they are written for equipping your DW Sgt, reference the Errata from April 23. If you and your opponent agree to something else, then you can abide by that. Honestly, at this point, considering tourneys are now house-ruling things, etc, I would think people would realize that they can in fact play this game the way they want with friends or anyone else, whether that be by slavishly following poorly edited rules or reworking them so that everyone has fun. As Isiah said, when you and your opponent can't agree, GW rules say bust out the dice and roll off for who gets their way this game. Even the BGB acknowledges other methods than using the rules straight from the codexes for armies: The Army List - With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army lists or use their own system as they wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Cool...so longfangs with five lascannons, tank hunters, and a prescience/pfg librarian it is, then! I trust you don't mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Blaire Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Cool...so longfangs with five lascannons, tank hunters, and a prescience/pfg librarian it is, then! I trust you don't mind?If your friends are cool with it, why not? I trust that you'd allow them something similar. Seems like quite a difference between that suggestion and allowing a sergeant to have LCs or TH/SS, but that's just me. As far as games with me, I'd want to look at the explanation and story reasons, etc, as well as how you are costing them out, but that particular squad/HQ combination is not really the point of thread... My point was that the question has been answered, and if you don't like the official rules answer, then the official rules give you a way to suggest otherwise to your gaming group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.