N18 Goonhammer Necromunda article on Enforcer got me confused.

[Beebopalulla]

https://www.goonhammer.com/necromunday-gangs-of-the-underhive-palanite-enforcers/

Badzone Enforcers are cut off from the unique Brute, Hanger-On, vehicle and Exotic Beast options that Palanites enjoy

I know we had a debat about this. I still don't understand that logic. I m the only one who disagree with the opinion of Goonhammer. what do i miss? Why they can't have acces to to the lawbot for example?

I m not looking for another debate over interpretation but a page , a line where is it explicit. Goonhammer have such an influence on the hobby and yet i found their article of the last 6 months less than stellar.

 

[Hobo86]

https://www.goonhammer.com/necromunday-gangs-of-the-underhive-palanite-enforcers/



I know we had a debat about this. I still don't understand that logic. I m the only one who disagree with the opinion of Goonhammer. what do i miss? Why they can't have acces to to the lawbot for example?

I m not looking for another debate over interpretation but a page , a line where is it explicit. Goonhammer have such an influence on the hobby and yet i found their article of the last 6 months less than stellar.

In the rules the problem is just that depending on how you interpret the rules (or what frase overwrites the other)
you can come to a reading allowing the haunt & lawbot or one where you are barred from doing so.

specifically:
There is the rule stating badzone enforcers should be counted as a palanite gang when it comes to certain (unclarified) content

Next to that specific fighter entries in the BoL state some units to be:
1: for the palanite enforcer gangs alone: haunt, lawbot & venator
2: for all gangs: hive scum, hangers on, house agents, ogryn & ambot, imperial house alliance
3: or are part of unit descriptions falling under the palanite gang: rangers (drivers) / hardcase cyber mastiffs

implying they
definitively can take (2),
are explicitly barred from (3), meaning they also can't take the venator as you need rangers (drivers) to take venators (vehicle)

_______

Leaving the haunt & lawbot in a rule limbo:

does the framing imply badzone enforcers can't take them as they are not a palanite gang, but a gang 'counting as' a palanite gang
(after all they could've stated on the unit entry 'only for enforcer gangs')

or do you interpret the grammar more 'broadly' and do you allow the lawbot & haunts for the badzone enforcers under the premise that as badzone enforcers 'count as' palanite enforcers they have access to 'palanite enforcer only' gang assets.

either interpretation 'can' be right, but on account of it being unclear,
you'll likely need to 'pick one' interpretation in your gaming club.

 

[Beebopalulla]

I knew you will be the first to answer. That being said my question remain. Is there a page, a line in the book that says you can or you can't. The prefecture issue is clear they said badzone enforcer can't benefit from it. There is a page, there is a line.

 

[Hobo86]

i have been tinkering/converting them for quite a while ^^

I don't have the book with me but:
-it's the first page of the badzone enforcer section in bastions of law
&
-the individual unit entries for all the above fighters (line at the top of each unit)

 

[Beebopalulla]

Just read that page and there is no lines about them no using lawbot, tauros, hangers on or alliances. Pet change that's true on the individual fighter list.

 

[Hobo86]

I assumed you mentionned the badzone enforcer line about 'counting as' palanite enforcers?
there is no direct line stating that or the opposite... see the above.

the imperial alliance can be taken by (most) gangs, including the badzone enforcers.

 

[Beebopalulla]

I assume nothing. It's at this point for me no longer an interpretations or ules or gramar. It's about explicit statement page x line z that they can't or can have acces to. Not trying to be petty, having the last word or agressive but to be factual. Be factual is kinda important for me and here goonhammer is not factual.

 

[Hobo86]

'taking the entire book in account';
there is no factual ruling if they can or can't be included.

 

[Beebopalulla]

Thank you. That's my point. Just to be clear i do not pretend that i m right or wrong about the interpretations on the rulling. In fact i will have been ok with the Goonhammer article if they have said "it's our opinion for this and that reasons that they can't have access to... "

But i find it damaging for their reputation of serious analyse of the game that they presented it as a fact beased on a ligne. That and the fact that judging by the comments that date back to four years ago, it's clear they didn't bother leaving the old articles in an archive for player who don't have Bastion of Law. Instead they just replace their article by another one like they did a few months ago before the release of bastion of Law to include the new toys of the enforcer.

What the expression? It's sloppy? It lead the reader to the opinion that what they say is the truth and not a point of view.

 

[Hobo86]

as native English speakers they may assume a certain reading of the rules to be more likely ?*

but errors happen everywhere; necroraw had some, same for topsy, I found/reported one on secondbestguides, ...
it's always best to doublecheck and to not forget everybody is still human.

* If I'm correct they made a new article for the palanites
and they're planning to 'recycle' the old article into a Badzone enforcers article