Coldstar load out....4 or 5 slots..... its gotta be faq'd?

[Guest Triszin]

So the way its written can be intrepreted as "5" slots, with the 5th being filled by a HOB or MP

 

1. This model may replace its "high output burst cannnon" and / or "missle pod" with two items from the " Ranged Weapons and/Or support systems lists.

 

2. This model may take two additional items from the Ranged weapons and /or support systems.

 

 

 

so if im reading this right  these are legal?

Option 1:
 

1. Coldstar  ( keeping both HoB and Missile pod )  2 support/ranged weapon options

---1x "HoB"

---1x "missile pod"

---2x "support systems"

 

Option 2:    ( Shedding either HoB or Missle pod ) 4 support/ranged weapon options + 1 Hob or MP

2. Coldstar

--- 1x " HoB"

--- 2x " Burst cannons"

--- 1x " ATS"

--- 1x " SHeild generator"

 

3. Coldstar

--- 1x " HoB"

--- 3x " Burst cannons"

--- 1x " ATS"

 

4. Coldstar

--- 1x "HoB"

--- 2x " Fusion blasters" (for fusion blades

--- 1x shield Gen

--- 1x  "ATS"

 

Option 3: ( SHedding HoB and MP) still only grants 4 support/ranged weapon options.

-- Thusly loosing 1 free weapon?

 

 

5. Coldstar

--- 2x " Fusion blasters" (for fusion blades

--- 1x shield Gen

--- 1x  "ATS"

Edited March 20, 2018 by Triszin

[Panzer]

Yeah I thought the same but decided to go with the RAI and take only 4 weapons/systems. No way GW is going to give us a Coldstar with 20 S5 AP-1 shots. Edited March 20, 2018 by sfPanzer

[Guest Triszin]

ya, the wording is weird, Im gonna build with 4 slots in mind, if hey faq it and say hey you can get a 5th slot cool

[Halandaar]

It clearly means that if replacing both the High Output Burst Cannon AND the Missile Pod, you may take two choices to replace them with.

 

It clearly does not mean "you can replace one of the standard items with two of your choosing"

[Guest Triszin]

I understand, but the wording allows for exploitation until it is Faq'ed.

[Panzer]

There's nothing “clearly“ there. It's just the most likely intended way to read it.

[Waking Dreamer]

It clearly means that if replacing both the High Output Burst Cannon AND the Missile Pod, you may take two choices to replace them with.

 

It clearly does not mean "you can replace one of the standard items with two of your choosing"

 

I agree, objectively its "reasonably" straight forward.

 

But from a perspective of someone trying to game the system there is room to question it.

 

However, imo if say you put a gun to a players head and tell them to chose the option you believe that GWs intended....no one who values their life would chose the latter, hence "objectively" straight forward. lol

[Halandaar]

Fine, but apply the same wording and logic to something else;

 

This car has a front left wheel, and a front right wheel. You may replace the front left wheel and/or front right wheel with two wheels chosen from the "fancy wheels" list.

 

You may take an additional two wheels from the "fancy wheels" list.

 

 

Now, explain to me how you intend to fit five wheels to the car?

 

Sorry guys, but reading it as allowing five weapons/support systems is just intentionally interpreting a sentence in a way that makes no logical sense in order to glean an unintended benefit. "Semantics lol" is not a valid reason to do so.

[Marshlands]

May as well interpret it as 6 slots, swap each default weapon for 2 extra + the 2 extra options.

 

Even if there's a legitimate argument for more than 4 total, I won't be attempting it anyway unless it is specifically Faq'd.

[Panzer]

Fine, but apply the same wording and logic to something else;

 

 

This car has a front left wheel, and a front right wheel. You may replace the front left wheel and/or front right wheel with two wheels chosen from the "fancy wheels" list.

 

You may take an additional two wheels from the "fancy wheels" list.

 

 

Now, explain to me how you intend to fit five wheels to the car?

 

Sorry guys, but reading it as allowing five weapons/support systems is just intentionally interpreting a sentence in a way that makes no logical sense in order to glean an unintended benefit. "Semantics lol" is not a valid reason to do so.

Dude we never said that it makes sense logically. One could indeef argue that your car could have five wheels no matter how stupid that is. Replacing the object but keeping the structure of the sentence obviously doesn't change anything.

 

It would be extremely easy to word it in a clear way without room to argue and we will most likely see it done sooner than later. For now tho, the wording allows for more than 4 weapons/systems.

 

We know that it's stupid, but that's not the point here so your example misses the point.

[MithrilForge]

As a Logical and intelligent player i know they intended the suit to have 4 slots... and i understand the wording mix up.. 

But Mr Cheese Mc CheeseFace of  parmesan street in Cheddarville, Havarti'a   will read it and go oooooh yeah 5 slots at least,maybe 6   ....this is even better than my 150 conscript unit or my blue horror spam ....

 

i will make the HoBC, 2x BC and the ATS and be very happy with that   

 

Mithril 

[Halandaar]

 

Dude we never said that it makes sense logically. One could indeef argue that your car could have five wheels no matter how stupid that is. Replacing the object but keeping the structure of the sentence obviously doesn't change anything.

 

It would be extremely easy to word it in a clear way without room to argue and we will most likely see it done sooner than later. For now tho, the wording allows for more than 4 weapons/systems.

 

We know that it's stupid, but that's not the point here so your example misses the point.

 

Apologies, I should have clarified that I wasn't necessarily pointing the finger at you guys in the thread, but mithril's hypothetical "Mr Cheese McCheeseface". 

 

I agree that it could be worded more clearly, but I still think it take a certain type of player to abuse the way a sentence is structured in order to gain advantage where none is intended AND that intention is clear.

[OnboardG1]

 

 

Dude we never said that it makes sense logically. One could indeef argue that your car could have five wheels no matter how stupid that is. Replacing the object but keeping the structure of the sentence obviously doesn't change anything.

 

It would be extremely easy to word it in a clear way without room to argue and we will most likely see it done sooner than later. For now tho, the wording allows for more than 4 weapons/systems.

 

We know that it's stupid, but that's not the point here so your example misses the point.

 

Apologies, I should have clarified that I wasn't necessarily pointing the finger at you guys in the thread, but mithril's hypothetical "Mr Cheese McCheeseface". 

 

I agree that it could be worded more clearly, but I still think it take a certain type of player to abuse the way a sentence is structured in order to gain advantage where none is intended AND that intention is clear.

 

 

You have met 40k players right?

[Emicus]

Be sneaky and whine when getting caught. GW purposefully misled you to force you to buy new models after they invalidated yours.

 

Amright?

[Panzer]

Be sneaky and whine when getting caught. GW purposefully misled you to force you to buy new models after they invalidated yours.

Amright?

Just no.