hisdudeness Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I'm not taking a hardline...it's literally the rule. by buying a chain sword and then exchanging it you are breaking the rules. No where in that small paragraph are we told to exchange a chain sword for a chainaxe. To do so is not following the rule. That part 100% clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infyrana Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Ok, so the rule has been bugging me even more. Scion, you might be interested to read this bit too Just been trying to read all the different legion rules for replacing their legion specific weaponry - they are all different - but it has helped me see the rule again from a fresh angle. The word that isn't fully explained is the "instead" of part. It makes me think that something has to be done first before you can do something else 'instead' of, e.g. that if it has access to chainswords, they can instead take a chainaxe for free, so one presumes (in the case of myself and Scion) that you have to take/purchase the option to have chainswords first. Not simply that you get the chainaxe 'in addition to' your existing wargear. But then the word that got me confused next was the 'access' bit. So then I wondered about your comment here and read too far into it... "Access to" means able to buy...not own. ...so, since the Legion Assault Squad already 'owns' the chainsword on their profile, and that I cannot see any 'access to' them in their wargear list, does this mean, reading so far into it as to chuckle, that the one squad who would be fluff intended for chainaxes, can't have them since they do not have 'access' to them? * shocked myself here!* If you look at it like that, it does cause a bit of a cringe worthy conundrum I'm definitely now far more inclined to go with the approach of - providing the war gear entry requirement is met for getting your chainsword in the first place (own, exchange, purchase), you can instead have a chainaxe for free. So for me, in the case of the Recon squad, the conditions in their gear entry require them to exchange their bolter for a chainsword for free, providing these conditions are met then they can be given a chainaxe instead, for free of course. Does that all make sense to anyone, or have my eyes gotten readers blindness? *NB: overuse of emotes is not endorsed, but I wanted to give a lighthearted feel to this thread to avoid overventing* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hisdudeness Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Caedere Weapon line is an example of where we are specifically told to exchange something for something else...as in you need to have the thing on the model to Be able to take the other. Something completely lacking in the entire freaking single sentence about Chainaxes. Instead. Instead of taking a chainsword you may INSTEAD "take a chainaxe for free". Do I really need to go over all meanings of "access"? And which meaning is used where? The short of it is, if a unit has chainsword anywheres in its entry, the model may take a chainaxe for free. "Chainaxe.....................free" is added to their unit entry. There are no other requirements. It doesn't say a chainsword needs to be equipped. It doesnt say it needs to be exchanged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladsimpaler Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Ok, so the rule has been bugging me even more. Scion, you might be interested to read this bit too Just been trying to read all the different legion rules for replacing their legion specific weaponry - they are all different - but it has helped me see the rule again from a fresh angle. The word that isn't fully explained is the "instead" of part. It makes me think that something has to be done first before you can do something else 'instead' of, e.g. that if it has access to chainswords, they can instead take a chainaxe for free, so one presumes (in the case of myself and Scion) that you have to take/purchase the option to have chainswords first. Not simply that you get the chainaxe 'in addition to' your existing wargear. No, this simply means that you look at their wargear like this: The Tactical squad may take: Chainswords.........X pts/model Chainaxes............Free But then the word that got me confused next was the 'access' bit. So then I wondered about your comment here and read too far into it... "Access to" means able to buy...not own. ...so, since the Legion Assault Squad already 'owns' the chainsword on their profile, and that I cannot see any 'access to' them in their wargear list, does this mean, reading so far into it as to chuckle, that the one squad who would be fluff intended for chainaxes, can't have them since they do not have 'access' to them? * shocked myself here!* You're right, they're not able to exchange it. If you look at it like that, it does cause a bit of a cringe worthy conundrum That's the way the rule is worded, so there you go! They can't take them. I'm definitely now far more inclined to go with the approach of - providing the war gear entry requirement is met for getting your chainsword in the first place (own, exchange, purchase), you can instead have a chainaxe for free.Ah, so now they can "exchange" them? So for me, in the case of the Recon squad, the conditions in their gear entry require them to exchange their bolter for a chainsword for free, providing these conditions are met then they can be given a chainaxe instead, for free of course. So in this case, their rule if they're World Eaters would look like this: Exchange bolter for a: chainsword....free chainaxe......free I think you're reading too much into it, and intent can be muddled. When I first got the Horus Heresy book, I looked over the World Eaters rules and I thought, "sweet! grey hunter tactical marines". The writers at Forgeworld are smart, RAW World Eaters tacs can have chainaxe, bolter, and boltpistol whereas RAI they would've said "Any model with the Legiones Astartes (World Eaters) rule can exchange their chainsword for a chainaxe for free". No convoluted wording Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fangbanger Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 I am by no means trying to stir the pot however came across this after reading this thread: despoilers- drop the bolt gun for the chainaxe. Still get to Fury with the pistols but get an extra attack in CC. Very fluffy and effective. For someone that is very bottom line about a rule it appears you haven't always been so? Edit: and just so I am clear this is no way intended as a personal dig or a way to cause an argument, more to illustrate that we can all read and interprete things in different ways. There is no "hardline" if there is clearly discussion about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hisdudeness Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 i play it as anyplace chainsword is mentioned, WE can replace the word "Chainsword" with "Chainaxe" and replace whatever cost is associated with the chainsword to 0. Effectively you add the chainsword entry under that same heading as a chainsword that can be bought or add replace an already equipped chainsword with the chainaxe. This way any unit that must exchange something for a chainsword may also do it for a chainaxe, but for free. Any unit that can buy a chainsword can buy a chainaxe instead, but for free. I feel this meets all requirements of the rule and doesn't sneak any other requirements/costs. It's not straight RAW, but I believe is a balance and what was intended. Edit: we posted at the same time, Fangbanger. See above for why I made that statement years ago. This is a rules forum, where we attempt to determine RAW. Many times RAW doesn't work or leaves holes, so we have How We Play It. I hold my HIWP until later in the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesh Kadesh Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 It implies nothing, or else it would be stating that exactly. A model doesn't have access to something it doesn't have. You don't have access to the Lamborghini's in the garage down the road, because they are not owned by yourself. I don't have access to all of the worlds money, simply because I have access to the internet, and can theoretically hack every back ever. I don't have access to anywhere I want to go, simply because I can theoretically walk through that door. Just because I have a computer at home doesn't mean I have access to a computer when I'm on the bus. You're going to need to thank the English language for that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hisdudeness Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 You are still not understanding "access". Ownership is not a requirement to have access to something. Although ownership can lead to access, it is not a requirement. Real world example, 3 minors and a 21 yo buddy have a keg in the bed of a truck and the tap in the cab. Keg was bought by the legal aged buddy and owned by him. Driver runs a red light and get pulled over. Cop IDs everyone in the truck. Seeing there are minors and alcohol in the truck (and the legal buddy is not a guardian of the others), the minors are given minor in Possiesion charges because they have access to said keg and tap. The legal buddy is issued a charge of contributing to a minor for allowing this access. (For reference, I was one of the minors). Using your Lambo example, if the door to the garage open/unlocked you certainly do have access to the Lambo. Not legal access, but access. The rest are all the same, you certain have access in each of those...it may not be legal or current access, but it's still access. Do/did you raise your hand in school when a teacher asked if someone didn't have access to a computer for some assignment, even though you had one at home or access to one in the library? In most colleges there are computer labs setup with special programs installed. This is to allow access to those programs...the students don't own the computer or program, but they certainly do have access to it. Any more examples you need me to prove incorrect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infyrana Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 i play it as anyplace chainsword is mentioned, WE can replace the word "Chainsword" with "Chainaxe" and replace whatever cost is associated with the chainsword to 0. Effectively you add the chainsword entry under that same heading as a chainsword that can be bought or add replace an already equipped chainsword with the chainaxe. This way any unit that must exchange something for a chainsword may also do it for a chainaxe, but for free. Any unit that can buy a chainsword can buy a chainaxe instead, but for free. I feel this meets all requirements of the rule and doesn't sneak any other requirements/costs. It's not straight RAW, but I believe is a balance and what was intended. Kinda reads as exactly what we've been saying .... :) ...words, making environments unique all over the world ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hisdudeness Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 As Scion said - for tacticals you must pay for the Chainsword in the first place and only then can you exchange it. The exchange itself is free, but you can only do so if you have the Chainsword which you must pay for. So it's the price of the tactical, plus the chainsword, then you can chance the chainsword to the chainaxe.Are you sure that's what you've been saying all along? Seems like you've been saying you need to buy the chainsword then exchange for the axe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khornestar Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Wow... of all the things to argue over, this rule is crystal clear. Free chainaxes. No chainsword purchases required. Anything past that is players adding additional requirements that don't exist. Of course Forge World email person is incompetent, big surprise there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladsimpaler Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Wow... of all the things to argue over, this rule is crystal clear. Free chainaxes. No chainsword purchases required. Anything past that is players adding additional requirements that don't exist.The big problem is that non-World Eaters players have been (through misreading and assuming) unintentionally nerfing World Eaters players' armies. I saw this way back when I posted my first list and people told me I did it wrong. I know what I read and like you said, it's crystal clear. What makes it even more clear is the fact that you are required to "represent it on the model" if this option was chosen. Wouldn't that be clear anyway? WYSIWYG is a basic idea, but there would have to be some way for players to show that they did utilize this option otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fangbanger Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 So we are talking about taking an EXTRA chain axe or saying we can swap a bolter for one for free? Basically, do we get true grit for free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slips Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 According to RAW, WE get True Grit for free and, tbh, of all the Legions, this one makes the most sense so I don't object to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladsimpaler Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 So we are talking about taking an EXTRA chain axe or saying we can swap a bolter for one for free? Basically, do we get true grit for free? According to RAW, WE get True Grit for free and, tbh, of all the Legions, this one makes the most sense so I don't object to it. We get True Grit for free in the sense that it's the World Eaters legion rules that gives it to them, in the same way that Imperial Fists get +1 BS to Bolter weapons for free. But yes, both RAW and RAI (imo) we have True Grit as part of our Legion abilities. Pretty neat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flint13 Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 ++ Guys, girls, cool it a bit and take a little break. We're getting way too snippy over this. Even FW has apparently given us their boiler plate response for "beats us, chat it over with your buddies." That being said, I'm glad you guys opened this topic and started debating over it, since up until now the thought that I had to pay those two extra points for a chainsword first before I got a chainaxe had never crossed my mind. Good job opening up the channels for new ways of thinking ^_^ ++ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.