Rules Clarifications and Resources

[Legendary]

This thread is designed for forums and rules I have perused relating to questions.  I believe we can all agree that FFG didn't have a large enough beta testing pool, nor enough statisticians (if any) or engineers/mathematicians on staff.  Also, they seem to have a huge problem with follow through and feedback.  Regardless:

Combat Action Types
This link includes (at post 138 by 'Charmander') an explanation of how combat actions are interpreted.  This would, I believe, apply to how you have interpreted servo-arm being limited to a single attack a turn, period.  
-Pistols specifically state they can only attack once a turn, as errata'd specifically in regards to multiple attack options.  However, if an assault marine requisitioned a servo-arm, why would he be prevented from multiple attacks?  
-It states under multiple actions that talents would permit you to ignore the normal 'no more than one standard action of any one type' rule.  No where does it implicitly state any melee weapon can make more than one melee attack given the specific talents.  Therefore, but specifying action type but not restrictions, this is a rule of inclusion.

Rules that were never FAQ'd
This includes specific references to rules never corrected in the FAQ that known beta testers and forum members had answers to questions or that FFG member specifically posted.  They are summarized, and referenced in links below.  I also believe the house rules presented on this site are quite masterful.

Techmarine as per forum clarification
Just a bunch of guys interpreting stuff.  Use as you will.

[GoldenThrone]

I haven't been through all of them yet, however, your first point is ridiculous. The Servo-Arm rules in wargear specifically identify the combat actions it can perform. A servo arm may only make either a single reaction attack or a "Standard Attack during his turn (as long as the servo-arm only makes one attack per round)." (core rules, pg 177).

Also note that servo harness allows Multiple Attack actions. Therefore, the servo arm was not missed by the rule of inclusion; in addition no other melee weapon says it is specifically restricted to a single melee attack, anywhere.

In addition, Swift Attack is a Full Action (pg 127), which the servo arm is expressly unable to perform, the same with Multiple Attacks. (pg 241)

So no, the servo arm can't swing more than one time in a fight, regardless of the talents you have. You need full servo harness for that kind of awesome.

[GoldenThrone]

I should clarify - with the first point I find no issue with the argument, only its application to servo arms, because servo arms are very clearly defined as to what they can do.

I have no issue with the content of the other two links, except that in the middle link, under the techmarines clarifications bit, they reference that bionics may only be taken to replaced lost limbs, etc. For a techmarine, particularly and Iron Hand, I have no issue with bionics being taken normally, since for Iron Hands the flesh really is weak.

[Legendary]

I think we should leave judgement words like 'ridiculous' out of the equation.  Especially when it tends to do things like have me bring real life examples of laws, religion and other vague concepts where a person can state something specifically in one place, mention something similar in another, and the jump is made to have them be the same.  I will respect any ruling you make, however I ask that you seriously consider the argument which I'll re-present here.  In addition I have emailed a set of questions (5 regarding attack actions and cybernetics) directly to FFG, and should they get back to me I'll post their rulings in here.

The Facts
1. The core rule book states that servo-arms can perform one of two attacks in combat.  Reaction attack or one standard attack during my turn so long as it makes only one attack per round.  Also noted interestingly enough is that an exceptional version of the servo-arm adds to the grapple check. Pg 177
2. The core rule book states that a servo-harness can perform multiple attack actions as long as they have the talents to perform such. Pg 177
3. The core rule book table states that multiple attack actions may only be performed using the swift attack talent. Pg 237
4. The core rule book states under multiple attack actions that a character may make more than one attack in a turn provided he has the lightning attack or swift attack talents, OR is wielding a weapon in his secondary hand. Pg 241
5. Standard attacks are considered a half action and are labelled as melee or ranged, 1 attack.  Also noted is that an unarmed attack may be a grapple. Pg 242
6. Grappling must be used as part of a standard attack action or charge action. It is again noted that the character must be unarmed.  Pg 246
7. Two weapon fighting specifies the use of hands. It also specifies 2 hands specifically and their application in melee combat and ranged combat. Pg 246
8. The two-weapon wielder talent is REQUIRED according to both the description in 7 along with the talent to actually make 2 attacks using a both hands as a full action. Pg 128.

Problems Drawn
1. A servo-arm is not unarmed. Nor does it specifically state you may use the option to grapple. Why then am I permitted to do so? Because it states a bonus to grappling? This is a case of where it has not been explicitly stated in either grappling nor the servo-arm that I may grapple.
2. No talents are naturally given to the techmarine (the only marine type to reasonably obtain a servo-harness) in terms of additional attacks or reducing fighting penalties. Nor does it specify that the servo-arms are treated as arms (and have a dominant hand or are treated as ambidextrous). Nor does it specify for 'more than 2 handed fighting', since I should theorhetically be able to use my 2 servo-arms and a pistol in combat assuming I can only use the servo harness and not my regular limbs simultaneously. It doesn't specify my only using 2 of the limbs anywhere either.
3. At no point does it note if one may or may not use a servo-arm as an 'off-hand' for two weapon wielding.
4. Why mention anywhere that someone MAY multiple attack and then never give them the mechanism to do so, except as an afterthought? (Elite advances)

Innate contradictions in the rulebook
1. All marines are considered ambidextrous.  However, on page 246 it notes make sure you know which hand is your primary hand for battle brothers.
2. No where is limb use comparatively with a servo-arm handled, and how it is treated for function in the same turn as another item.
3. No where is it handled if somehow a techmarine has TWW(M) and TWW(R) if they can in fact use the 3 weapons in combat.

Now, based on this information presented, I'll abide by any rulings you make. If you rule the way I think you are (which is in line with the decision you've already made) I will change my elite advance choice to TWW(melee) and purchase immediately.
Rulings Required
1. May I use TWW(M) with my servo-arm acting as an off hand?
2. Based on the evidence presented, have I built a case to prove that even when things are explicitly worded by FFG, they contradict themselves and then leave things out?
3. Will you accept any rulings handed down by the FFG team, assuming they ever email me back?

[GoldenThrone]

I am sorry for describing the argument as ridiculous. It seems to me that your argument really lacks a leg to stand on though, since servo-arms are spelled out very clearly. So clearly, in fact, that I confess to having difficulty actually understanding your argument. It seems pretty cut and dried to me.

I will attempt to restate your key points, to make certain I understand what you are trying to say, and hopefully when I make a ruling it will make clear sense to all involved.

So, your point is that there are so many contradictions/problems in the existing rule set that there are intentions behind the written/unwritten rules that ought to enable actions that aren't enabled?

There was a long post here in which I endeavored to answer all of your problems and concerns, and then I realized that I don't need to, and in fact it was probably terribly condescending and not at all helpful. If you want me to address any of the little bits I will, but for now I will leave them alone. I have answers for most of them.

Rulings given-
1) No. Here is my reasoning- the Servo Arm is explicitly restricted to both of the following, each being mutually exclusive in a given round- a Standard Attack or a reaction attack. Neither option provides the capacity to 1) dual wield, as any form of multiple attack including dual wielding/two weapon wielder requires the Multiple Attack action; 2) multi strike as with swift/lightning attack; 3) use a full round attack action (like All Out Attack); or 4) parry an incoming blow. Each of these actions falls outside the purview of a single servo arm because of the action restriction is is under.
2) I already knew that about FFG; so far as games go they make shoddy ones. However, even in the instance of a contradiction/omission, I will follow Occams Razor - the simplest explanation is the most likely. In any case where a rule is written out clearly, if it is then contradicted by omission or by lack of clarity, the RAW rule will be used. I reversed my ruling on the Machine trait for that reason. In this instance, I opt for the simple Servo Arm is limited to what it says it can do. As servo harness is much less clear, I ought to start preparing for it now. Errata sources of course over write the core rules.
3) I doubt FFG will contribute a ruling, as they have not actually supported Deathwatch for a number of years. However, I will accept an FFG ruling on the following conditions-
1) The ruling does not contradict RAW, because this only adds to the confusion.
2) The ruling makes sense. As in something like having a combat shield allows you to parry an orbital strike. This does not make sense.
So basically if they come down and say servo arms make multiple attacks I will throw it out. Adds to the confusion, makes the game less intelligible. However, their rulings may provide light on the servo harness, and as such I will welcome them.

[Sponsored content]