Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A Company Champion armed with dual grav pistols for one. You can upgrade a Veteran to dual grav pistols, but you can't then upgrade to Company Champion as the Veteran no longer has the wargear named to be swapped out as part of the upgrade.

I've never run across such a situation and I use the app almost daily.

Try making a command squad with the Company Champion upgrade AND ten grav pistols.

In the unit entry, the Company Champion upgrade requires the Veteran swap out his chainsword. He can't do so if he's purchased two grav pistols.

The Force Requisition thing allows it even though the unit entry provides no method by which it can occur.

 Quanar wrote:
If they had wanted any model to be able to take a special weapon, they would have used the phrase "Any model may...", like they have in other parts of the Codex. But they didn't, which makes me think that Apothecarys with special weapons was not GW's intent.

Yeah, that's the logic. If it doesn't say 'any model' then it just meant for the specific models mentioned. This has been pretty consistent in GW codices and army books for decades. I can see some wiggle room to argue RAW, but to me RAI is clear: no banner-carrying Apotecharies with gravguns.

- edited -

 Happyjew wrote:
Creeperman, Ghaz is not saying that if a selection is illegal at some point, it is illegal.

He is saying the end result must be legal.

For example, only if a Chapter Master takes Terminator Armour can he take a Chainfist (not 100% sure if that is true away from books at the moment).

If the end result is a Chapter Master wielding a Chainfist without Terminator Armour, then something is wrong.

Since Apothecaries do not have access to Ranged/Melee weapons, if you end up with an Apothecary with an upgraded Ranged/Melee weapon, then something is wrong.


It's not the order (though in some situations, there is an order), it's the end result.

Right, but look at the requirements for taking Terminator armour. "A Chapter Master may replace his power armour, bolt pistol, chainsword and frag and
krak grenades with Terminator armour, storm bolter and power sword." How is ending up with a chainfist legal? A chainfist is not a chainsword, and it's not a power sword. The only way you can parse that instruction without breaking the game is to accept that legality is not retroactive to the beginning of the process. The end process by definition must be legal if all the steps leading up to it were legal.

I will also note that the options for Veterans lacks the exclusionary wording found in the Chapter Master's entry "A Chapter Master in Terminator armour may only take items from..." (emphasis mine). It also lacks the qualifier "other Veteran" you would find in the Astra Militarum codex under Company or Platoon Command Squads, which explicitly disallow such multiple upgrades, although admittedly as an example from a different source this is possibly less relevant to this situation.

So you're trying to say that because you can take two options that make the second option legal that you can take two options when the first option makes the second option illegal.

A takes B, which allows C. Legal

A takes B, which means A is no longer A at all. C is only permitted with A. Not legal.

Sorry, but they're totally separate situations.


EDIT: More time for a more in-depth reply.

You’re trying to make legality a compartmentalized process. That’s not true. It’s not compartmentalized, but an ongoing process. You’re trying to make it work like this:

A+B; B+C with no regards to A; C+D with no regards to A or B; etc.

That is not how it works. It is an ongoing process like this:

A+B; A and B+C; A, B and C+D; A, B, C and D+E; etc.

Legality is done in layers. For an option to be legal, it must not conflict with the combinations of options already taken. That is where you example of the Chapter Master falls apart, because the option of the chainfist does not conflict with the combination of options already taken whereas giving an Apothecary a grav gun does conflict with the combination of options given to a veteran that means he’s no longer a veteran.

Totally identical situations, you mean. Nowhere does it say that upgrading to an Apothecary invalidates previous legal choices or requires you to exchange wargear. Compare that with the Champion upgrade, which does contain such a restriction. Similarly, upgrading an HQ character to Terminator armour requires them to exchange their default wargear, implicitly prohibiting them from carrying forward upgrades, and explicitly limiting future choices (ie, "...may only take items from..." phrasing).

You're reading a restriction into the option that simply does not exist, and which would hopelessly break the upgrade process if it did.

Incorrect. Read my edit as to why your logic is wrong.

 Ghaz wrote:
You’re trying to make legality a compartmentalized process. That’s not true. It’s not compartmentalized, but an ongoing process. You’re trying to make it work like this:

A+B; B+C with no regards to A; C+D with no regards to A or B; etc.

That is not how it works. It is an ongoing process like this:

A+B; A and B+C; A, B and C+D; A, B, C and D+E; etc.

Legality is done in layers. For an option to be legal, it must not conflict with the combinations of options already taken. That is where you example of the Chapter Master falls apart, because the option of the chainfist does not conflict with the combination of options already taken whereas giving an Apothecary a grav gun does conflict with the combination of options given to a veteran that means he’s no longer a veteran.

Legality must be compartmentalized like that. Look at the Bikers example again. How do they take special weapons? A) You buy a unit of stock Bikers; B) They swap pistols for chainswords; C) They swap Melee weapons for special weapons. A+B works, and B+C works, but A->C does not work without B, because taking special weapons is prohibited without swapping a Melee weapon or boltgun, which the bikers do not have.

And again, where is the restriction on the Apothecary option that prohibits him from keeping wargear previously purchased? Where does it say he must exchange other wargear or may not take other upgrades?

Apotechary has his own gear listed on p.88. It is completely different thing than a Veteran.

 Crimson wrote:
Apotechary has his own gear listed on p.88. It is completely different thing than a Veteran.

Which would be decisive if you were told to replace a Veteran with an Apothecary, but this is not the case. You're told to upgrade the Veteran, and given rules on how to do so ("One Veteran may be upgraded to an Apothecary, taking a narthecium..."), which does not include resetting his existing wargear.

Creeperman wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
You’re trying to make legality a compartmentalized process. That’s not true. It’s not compartmentalized, but an ongoing process. You’re trying to make it work like this:

A+B; B+C with no regards to A; C+D with no regards to A or B; etc.

That is not how it works. It is an ongoing process like this:

A+B; A and B+C; A, B and C+D; A, B, C and D+E; etc.

Legality is done in layers. For an option to be legal, it must not conflict with the combinations of options already taken. That is where you example of the Chapter Master falls apart, because the option of the chainfist does not conflict with the combination of options already taken whereas giving an Apothecary a grav gun does conflict with the combination of options given to a veteran that means he’s no longer a veteran.

Legality must be compartmentalized like that. Look at the Bikers example again. How do they take special weapons? A) You buy a unit of stock Bikers; B) They swap pistols for chainswords; C) They swap Melee weapons for special weapons. A+B works, and B+C works, but A->C does not work without B, because taking special weapons is prohibited without swapping a Melee weapon or boltgun, which the bikers do not have.

And again, where is the restriction on the Apothecary option that prohibits him from keeping wargear previously purchased? Where does it say he must exchange other wargear or may not take other upgrades?

Your example completely destroys your argument because you biker example is compartmentalization. You're trying to compartmentalize A and C and totally disregard B Again, you can't disregard any of the steps.

If an upgrade takes A and transforms it into B, then A is no longer relevant when the next option is selected.

Bikers may exchange bolt pistol for chainsword. Does my Biker have a bolt pistol? Yes. Awesome. Complete. I now have a new state of being in which my Biker has a chainsword. I can now disregard the previous state of being.

Bikers may exchange a melee weapon for a special weapon. Does my Biker have a melee weapon? Yes. Awesome. Complete. I now have a new state of being in which my Biker has a special weapon. I can now disregard the previous state of being.

I feel like this is the same for the Apothecary issue.

One Veteran may take a Company Standard. Is the model in question a Veteran? Yes. Awesome. Complete. I now have a Veteran holding a Company Standard.

One Veteran may be upgraded to an Apothecary, gaining a Narthecium. Is the model in question a Veteran? Yes. Awesome. Complete. I now have an Apothecary holding a Company Standard and a Narthecium. I am not instructed to exchange or remove wargear during this upgrade process as I would be in the Company Champion upgrade process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the upgrade said "One other Veteran may be upgraded to an Apothecary..." I would agree. We see this wording in other codexes. The Ork Boyz Boss Nob being upgraded from a Boy other than one who took a Big Shoota/Rokkit Launcha comes to mind.

 Kriswall wrote:
If an upgrade takes A and transforms it into B, then A is no longer relevant when the next option is selected.

Bikers may exchange bolt pistol for chainsword. Does my Biker have a bolt pistol? Yes. Awesome. Complete. I now have a new state of being in which my Biker has a chainsword. I can now disregard the previous state of being.

Bikers may exchange a melee weapon for a special weapon. Does my Biker have a melee weapon? Yes. Awesome. Complete. I now have a new state of being in which my Biker has a special weapon. I can now disregard the previous state of being.

I don't want to get involved with the apothecary debate, but is switching pistols for melee weapons, then melee weapons for something else legal?

Has to be, as there is no other way for that particular Unit Kriswall is referencing to gain access to that Option.
Trust Game Workshop to release a Unit that doesn't start with the basic Wargear needed to swap for it's Special Weapons via it's own Options.

lycio wrote:
I don't want to get involved with the apothecary debate, but is switching pistols for melee weapons, then melee weapons for something else legal?

Do you have a specific unit in mind in regards to this question?

Well think of it this way. You buy the upgrades for a vet he then becomes a apoth and drops all his current gear to get the gear a APOTH has.

So if you buy him what ever weapon then upgrade him to a apoth he will lose all that gear and pick up his apth gear like the rules are written.
Come on this is common sense guys, trying to change how you get the upgrades doesn't matter it all comes down to if you choose this they will get the gear of said class.

 Ghaz wrote:

lycio wrote:
I don't want to get involved with the apothecary debate, but is switching pistols for melee weapons, then melee weapons for something else legal?

Do you have a specific unit in mind in regards to this question?

In general mostly but I suppose in particular a Tactical Squad Sergeant switching out his boltgun for a chainsword, and then said chainsword for a power weapon (this way leaving him with his bolt pistol for +1 attack in close combat).

OgreChubbs wrote:
Well think of it this way. You buy the upgrades for a vet he then becomes a apoth and drops all his current gear to get the gear a APOTH has.

So if you buy him what ever weapon then upgrade him to a apoth he will lose all that gear and pick up his apth gear like the rules are written.
Come on this is common sense guys, trying to change how you get the upgrades doesn't matter it all comes down to if you choose this they will get the gear of said class.

Rules citation, please. You are told to "upgrade" (not "replace") the Veteran, and to take a narthecium. In the case of the Champion, you are again told to "upgrade" (not "replace") the Veteran, and specifically to exchange his chainsword for a power weapon and combat shield. Nowhere are you ever told to drop or exchange any other wargear. Again, compare the phrasing with characters taking Terminator armour, who are specifically told what wargear to exchange. Does a Chaplain lose his Crozius Arcanum or Rosarius when upgrading to Terminator armour? How about his bolt pistol? Why or why not?

lycio wrote:
In general mostly but I suppose in particular a Tactical Squad Sergeant switching out his boltgun for a chainsword, and then said chainsword for a power weapon (this way leaving him with his bolt pistol for +1 attack in close combat).

This is perfectly legal.