Jump to content

5 things you learned so far 40k 8th


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, VonVilkee said:

Fyi you are the one doing mental gymnastics... my opinion is you need to quit mixing systems... pay for the model them recalculate its cost with new equipment... I write list pay points for what they have not what they had but no longer have...no subtraction, points gives model sans gear pay those points,  then find gear model has pay points for that not gear it replaced plus gear it has,  just gear it has all of it...

 

Final verdict? Vonvilkee never travel to Lord ran events impasse... course I always felt the ambassador ever while a cool concept was clique like wanted to go but found it overwhelming to apply to go so never did... now this aggressive you are doing it wrong and will be kicked out of my events stance, while ignoring my page references and debating with others instead. 

This isnt mixing systems.  You cant replace what you don't have.  If it was, it would say "instead of a Rokkit Launcha, you may take...

Also:  getting personal doesn't help but whatevs.  Your choice on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord Hanaur said:

This isnt mixing systems.  You cant replace what you don't have.  If it was, it would say "instead of a Rokkit Launcha, you may take...

 But you don't pay points for what you had only what you have... so if you replaced it don't worry about it when posting points easier and follows what is written.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord Hanaur said:

This isnt mixing systems.  You cant replace what you don't have.  If it was, it would say "instead of a Rokkit Launcha, you may take...

you are correct. 1. get the item 2.replace it then as by the rule posted count up the points in your army. not count up items no longer in your army.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, VonVilkee said:

 But you don't pay points for what you had only what you have... so if you replaced it don't worry about it when posting points easier and follows what is written.

The rules say you DO have (affirmatively ) the rokkit launcha...which you may then replace at X points for a tankhamer.  You affirmatively already HAVE the rokkit launcha before this happens.  I dont understand how that part of it is being ignored.

Anywho, this is a circle now.  Time to eject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Hanaur said:

Anywho, this is a circle now.  Time to eject.

So, wrapping this up:

- Go to LH's events: Pay for both the wargear you take and the wargear you replace.

- Go to literally any other event anywhere in the country: Just pay for the wargear you take.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Yarbicus said:

I guess the question is actually about when you add up points. During the process (LH's opinion) or after the unit is kitted out (everyone else).

Yes that is the question.  The rules as i read them do not indicate "instead".

I am going to look at the INdex example lists and see if they shed light on this.  I am not opposed to being wrong.  I am opposed to the reasons people have offered so far.  From an English standpoint, there is no question that you cannot replace something that wasnt there to begin with.  There is no question that it says in two different places that the unit entry shows the gear they ARE carrying.  So the question is whether they just used bad english to express this or not.  It is possible that you're all right.  But I am looking for someone to tell me WHY and no one has yet explained this disconnect and has gotten QUITE snarky in the process, which does not help anyone.  

anyways the example lists in the Index's might clarify this for me.  Ill look when I get home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Hanaur said:

Yes that is the question.  The rules as i read them do not indicate "instead".

I am going to look at the INdex example lists and see if they shed light on this.  I am not opposed to being wrong.  I am opposed to the reasons people have offered so far.  From an English standpoint, there is no question that you cannot replace something that wasnt there to begin with.  There is no question that it says in two different places that the unit entry shows the gear they ARE carrying.  So the question is whether they just used bad english to express this or not.  It is possible that you're all right.  But I am looking for someone to tell me WHY and no one has yet explained this disconnect and has gotten QUITE snarky in the process, which does not help anyone.  

anyways the example lists in the Index's might clarify this for me.  Ill look when I get home.

I quoted pg 130 codex xenos with the orcs and all headings for the points section and forces... I got snarky cuz you never acknowledged that and went all Imma do it my way. When I felt I offered a very valid separate reading based on a single page related to what I was actually doing instead of combining two pages. On top of this my simpler interpretation was accused of being mental gymnastics...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that with the given quoted rules, there is little reason that the different interpretations need be incongruous.

So say that we must first buy base gear to replace it. Fair enough, I equip the base gear. Then, so equipped, I am allowed to replace my gear to my liking. However, according to the definition of the English word 'replace', my new gear 'takes the place of' my old gear. Thus, when calculating my list as with the quoted rules page above, I am no longer equipped with the base gear, and thus do not pay for it.

Therefore I have fulfilled the requirement of replacing my gear, but do not have to pay for the gear I have lost in the process.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scipiano said:

I think that with the given quoted rules, there is little reason that the different interpretations need be incongruous.

So say that we must first buy base gear to replace it. Fair enough, I equip the base gear. Then, so equipped, I am allowed to replace my gear to my liking. However, according to the definition of the English word 'replace', my new gear 'takes the place of' my old gear. Thus, when calculating my list as with the quoted rules page above, I am no longer equipped with the base gear, and thus do not pay for it.

Therefore I have fulfilled the requirement of replacing my gear, but do not have to pay for the gear I have lost in the process.

Yes my interpretation as well! Better said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scipiano said:

I think that with the given quoted rules, there is little reason that the different interpretations need be incongruous.

So say that we must first buy base gear to replace it. Fair enough, I equip the base gear. Then, so equipped, I am allowed to replace my gear to my liking. However, according to the definition of the English word 'replace', my new gear 'takes the place of' my old gear. Thus, when calculating my list as with the quoted rules page above, I am no longer equipped with the base gear, and thus do not pay for it.

Therefore I have fulfilled the requirement of replacing my gear, but do not have to pay for the gear I have lost in the process.

You paid for it TO equip it.  So that chain is still there.

Again, its bad english if you're right.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please show me where it states to pay for gear the model is no longer equipped with. The rules are crystal clear. You add up the points for the models in your list, and then you add up the points for the wargear they are equipped with. That is it. Nothing else. No buying gear that is standard and then you have to swap it out nonsense. That is no where in the rules. Both rules location even use the word "simply" because why? Because it is simple. You pay for what is in the list. End of story, end of discussion. It is pure ego for you to continue this argument. You constantly say "rules I have read" and yet have never produced said rules. Are they with the Comey tapes?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...