• Power armour
• Bolt pistol
• Frag grenades
• Krak grenades
• Space Marine bike

.... Where is this going...

Creeperman wrote:

col_impact wrote:
There is no history or order of operations. There is no place you can sweep dependencies under the rug and pretend they are not there. Everything is a flat selection. If you now have a WPGL you cannot have a sniper rifle selected. Having the sniper rifle selected is dependent on you having a scout.

Leaving aside the fact that you can't substantiate that statement with rules, it's not even internally consistent. You have a scout. Five of them, in fact. They all took sniper rifles. Some of them also took other stuff. Sounds like we're in agreement that everything's kosher.

At least until you tell me I'm incorrect and move the goalposts yet again, anyway.

Everything's kosher if that's your final unit make-up.

Once again there is no history unless you can show in the rules where you get to keep a history.

If you take a WGPL you then legally have four sniper rifles for 4 scouts. A WGPL cannot select a sniper rifle. You don't get to hide that dependency in the past.

Come on, Honda, you can clearly at least read... What starting war gear does a biker get? Or Colonoscopy. Either one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Infact, given the last comment, COL should answer this.

Zarius wrote:
Come on, Honda, you can clearly at least read... What starting war gear does a biker get? Or Colonoscopy. Either one.

• Power armour
• Bolt pistol
• Frag grenades
• Krak grenades
• Space Marine bike

...

col_impact wrote:
Everything's kosher if that's your final unit make-up.

Once again there is no history unless you can show in the rules where you get to keep a history.

If you take a WGPL you then legally have four sniper rifles for 4 scouts. A WGPL cannot select a sniper rifle. You don't get to hide that dependency in the past.

You just said it yourself. The concept of a dependency implicitly requires a history, or else you have no frame of reference to evaluate it against.

OK, that works. SO, COL, since your cohort has done the preliminary work for you, HOW does a Space Marine Biker trade his Melee weapon for a Special weapon, given the starting war gear list?

Special Weapons
A model may replace its Melee weapon or boltgun with one of the following:

Bolt pistol > Special Weapon

Still not seeing the point in all this...

This is from the BRB:
Pistols as Close Combat Weapons
A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon.

Creeperman wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Everything's kosher if that's your final unit make-up.

Once again there is no history unless you can show in the rules where you get to keep a history.

If you take a WGPL you then legally have four sniper rifles for 4 scouts. A WGPL cannot select a sniper rifle. You don't get to hide that dependency in the past.

You just said it yourself. The concept of a dependency implicitly requires a history, or else you have no frame of reference to evaluate it against.

Nope no history required.

Flat dependency.

HondaDaBest wrote:
Special Weapons
A model may replace its Melee weapon or boltgun with one of the following:

Bolt pistol > Special Weapon

Still not seeing the point in all this...

This is from the BRB:
Pistols as Close Combat Weapons
A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon.

A pistol isn't ACTUALLY a close combat weapon. It doesn't make it a melee weapon just because it CAN be used as one. It has the same melee profile as "no designated CCW". It's LISTED under Ranged weapons, not Melee.

col_impact wrote:
Nope no history required.

Flat dependency.

There it is, the classic refutation followed by the restatement and reassertion of the very thing refuted. Are you being deliberately disingenuous here, or do you honestly not understand the meaning of the word "dependent?"

Zarius wrote:
A pistol isn't ACTUALLY a close combat weapon. It doesn't make it a melee weapon just because it CAN be used as one. It has the same melee profile as "no designated CCW". It's LISTED under Ranged weapons, not Melee.

It is things like this when I can't tell if you are serious or not.
There is an entry called Close Combat Weapons in the BRB. Please read it entirely...

It says that Close Combat Weapons are "type" Melee.
Then it says
"A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon."

HondaDaBest wrote:

Zarius wrote:
A pistol isn't ACTUALLY a close combat weapon. It doesn't make it a melee weapon just because it CAN be used as one. It has the same melee profile as "no designated CCW". It's LISTED under Ranged weapons, not Melee.

It is things like this when I can't tell if you are serious or not.
There is an entry called Close Combat Weapons in the BRB. Please read it entirely...

It says that Close Combat Weapons are "type" Melee.
Then it says
"A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon."

That's an ALTERNATE PROFILE. It says that a pistol can be USED as a CCW, and that when it does it takes on the Melee special rule. It is NOT, however, a melee weapon.

col_impact wrote:The rules make no mention of order of operations so there isn't any. Everything works fine as one flat selection where you take care of dependencies in the final flat submission. Simple.

You do know that actually IS an order of operations of a type, right?

col_impact wrote:Otherwise you get people trying to avoid dependencies by using a notion of sequencing or history which is nowhere in the rules.

That is a RAI observation, I thought you stuck by Written Rules?

Zarius wrote:Charistoph,

"Special Weapons
A model may replace his Melee weapon or boltgun with one of the following:"

"WARGEAR:
• Power armour
• Bolt pistol
• Frag grenades
• Krak grenades
• Space Marine bike"

"Any model may replace his bolt pistol with a chainsword…free"

"Up to two Space Marine Bikers may each take one item from the Special Weapons list."

I believe this is the list of things you refer to.

Pretty much. The 6th Edition Codex Marines book did not have that pistol replacement, and it had to be errata'd in. It has been included in every entry since, including the 7th Edition BA book.

HondaDaBest wrote:It says that Close Combat Weapons are "type" Melee.
Then it says
"A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon."

Now quote the line from the Pistol Type and note when it counts as a close combat weapon, and consider how it relates to when you are building an army list.

Charistoph wrote:
Now quote the line from the Pistol Type and note when it counts as a close combat weapon, and consider how it relates to when you are building an army list.

Zarius wrote:
That's an ALTERNATE PROFILE. It says that a pistol can be USED as a CCW, and that when it does it takes on the Melee special rule. It is NOT, however, a melee weapon.

Are you guys serious?

I didn't exactly type it out because I was in a rush but please read Special Weapons.

Special Weapons: A model may replace his Melee weapon or boltgun with one of the following:

BOLTGUN....

Bolt Pistol is literally listed under Boltgun

HondaDaBest wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Now quote the line from the Pistol Type and note when it counts as a close combat weapon, and consider how it relates to when you are building an army list.

Zarius wrote:
That's an ALTERNATE PROFILE. It says that a pistol can be USED as a CCW, and that when it does it takes on the Melee special rule. It is NOT, however, a melee weapon.

Are you guys serious?

I didn't exactly type it out because I was in a rush but please read Special Weapons.

Special Weapons: A model may replace his Melee weapon or boltgun with one of the following:

BOLTGUN....

Bolt Pistol is literally listed under Boltgun

Correct. Boltgun is both a category and a specific weapon in that category with the same name.

Gee, aren't 40k's rules so clear and polished?

HondaDaBest wrote:
Are you guys serious?

I didn't exactly type it out because I was in a rush but please read Special Weapons.

Special Weapons: A model may replace his Melee weapon or boltgun with one of the following:

BOLTGUN....

Bolt Pistol is literally listed under Boltgun

Not quite.
After thinking about it, I will have to lean towards it not meaning Bolt Pistol. (Technically, it is a Boltgun, but you have to go with what the Codex means by "Boltgun")
The Codex clearly differentiates bolt pistol, boltgun and melee weapons.
For Melee Weapons header for example, it says
"A model may replace its bolt pistol, boltgun and/or Melee weapon with one of the following:"

So we have to go with what the codex means by boltgun, when it says boltgun.
While there is no way you could say that it isn't a boltgun (since it is under the Boltgun header), we can assume that when the Codex says "boltgun", that it is referring to the actual weapon "Boltgun" and not the "Boltgun" type.
In the end, we have to use the definition of boltgun that the Codex uses it as.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would have to say, I had no idea that information like this existed. Given this new information, I would have to say that it leans toward there being a "sequence" when upgrading.
However, it doesn't change the argument all that much...

Like above, we have to go with what the Codex means by "upgrade" when it says upgrade. Does it mean "promote" or "replace"?
We found information it means "replace". We did not find any information that it means "promote". (Like now, maybe there is something that someone hasn't found yet.)
Given all the information we have to work with so far, we have to operate under the idea that when the Codex says "upgrade" it means "replace".

Lets take this information and assume there is a sequence.
Every upgrade you take in sequece, will still "replace".
>5 Wolf Scouts
Choose to upgrade 4 of them to Sniper Rifles
>5 Wolf Scouts, 4 with Sniper Rifles
Choose to upgrade 1 of them with Sniper Rifle to WGPL
>4 Wolf Scouts, 3 with Sniper, 1 WGPL

There is a carry-over of upgrades in terms of Wolf Scouts. We know the unit composition changes after every upgrade.
However, when upgrading a Wolf Scout to a WGPL, there is still no carry-over of information. Because this is a change of entry.
You have upgraded a Boltgun Wolf Scout, to a Sniper Rifle Wolf Scout. You have upgraded the Sniper Wolf Scout, to a WGPL.
Every upgrade, you "replace" the previous one. You have upgraded the chosen Wolf Scout with a WGPL, which comes with it's own starting gear, special rules, etc.
You have not done a model "promotion". You must use what the Codex used upgrade to mean. As we have done for "boltgun/bolt pistol".

HondaDaBest wrote:
Are you guys serious?

I didn't exactly type it out because I was in a rush but please read Special Weapons.

Special Weapons: A model may replace his Melee weapon or boltgun with one of the following:

BOLTGUN....

Bolt Pistol is literally listed under Boltgun

Cool, so a Marine in a Tactical Squad is armed with two Bolt pistols, a Boltgun, a Heavy Bolter, a Storm Bolter, and a Vulcan Mega-bolter. That definitely sounds more deadly, but a little ridiculous for 14 pts, wouldn't you say?

Keep in mind that usually when it is speaking of one of these groups, they usually apply "type" or "weapons" afterwards, like the Salamanders Chapter Trait. So, no, Bolt Pistol does not qualify as "boltgun" for the purposes of replacing in the Weapon list.

@Rasko
@Charistoph

I was wrong. My mistake. You have to go with what the Codex means by Boltgun when it says Boltgun.
Even if the Bolt Pistol is technically a Bolgun.

Rasko wrote:
However, it doesn't change the argument all that much...

Like above, we have to go with what the Codex means by "upgrade" when it says upgrade. Does it mean "promote" or "replace"?
We found information it means "replace". We did not find any information that it means "promote". (Like now, maybe there is something that someone hasn't found yet.)
Given all the information we have to work with so far, we have to operate under the idea that when the Codex says "upgrade" it means "replace".

Lets take this information and assume there is a sequence.
Every upgrade you take in sequece, will still "replace".
>5 Wolf Scouts
Choose to upgrade 4 of them to Sniper Rifles
>5 Wolf Scouts, 4 with Sniper Rifles
Choose to upgrade 1 of them with Sniper Rifle to WGPL
>4 Wolf Scouts, 3 with Sniper, 1 WGPL

There is a carry-over of upgrades in terms of Wolf Scouts. We know the unit composition changes after every upgrade.
However, when upgrading a Wolf Scout to a WGPL, there is still no carry-over of information. Because this is a change of entry.
You have upgraded a Boltgun Wolf Scout, to a Sniper Rifle Wolf Scout. You have upgraded the Sniper Wolf Scout, to a WGPL.
Every upgrade, you "replace" the previous one. You have upgraded the chosen Wolf Scout with a WGPL, which comes with it's own starting gear, special rules, etc.
You have not done a model "promotion". You must use what the Codex used upgrade to mean. As we have done for "boltgun/bolt pistol".

As stated before, I disagree that there is some kind of a conditional carry-over between upgrades that works on some options but not others, absent specific instructions to that effect. But I also thought of something else regarding "upgrade" = "replace" a page ago:

Creeperman wrote:
But something else occurred to me when re-reading your post. Let's back up a little bit and examine your definition of "upgrade." It is true that the BRB and Codices say "add to the unit," but where is your permission to "remove?" If you are equating "upgrade" with "replacement," a necessary precondition is the removal of the old entity (model, weapon, etc.). In the case of weapons, this is made explicit; you are told to "replace his [the model's] boltgun with" the sniper rifle/shotgun/CCW/whatever. In the case of camo cloaks, you are not told to remove or replace anything; it's a straight addition. When dealing with the wargear lists, you are again (explicitly) instructed to replace existing weapons. But in the case of the WGPL, you are told to "upgrade" a model, without being told to remove or replace it. This same wording is used in the Rune Priest's option to "be upgraded to Psyker (Mastery Level 2)," and again in the Dreadnought's "May be upgraded to be a Venerable Dreadnought" option.

It seems clear to me that "upgrade" is being assigned a specific meaning, namely "carry out the specified action on the specified target model," whether it be profile changes, special rules, or wargear changes, as explicitly stated by the option in question.

Creeperman wrote:

Rasko wrote:
However, it doesn't change the argument all that much...

Like above, we have to go with what the Codex means by "upgrade" when it says upgrade. Does it mean "promote" or "replace"?
We found information it means "replace". We did not find any information that it means "promote". (Like now, maybe there is something that someone hasn't found yet.)
Given all the information we have to work with so far, we have to operate under the idea that when the Codex says "upgrade" it means "replace".

Lets take this information and assume there is a sequence.
Every upgrade you take in sequece, will still "replace".
>5 Wolf Scouts
Choose to upgrade 4 of them to Sniper Rifles
>5 Wolf Scouts, 4 with Sniper Rifles
Choose to upgrade 1 of them with Sniper Rifle to WGPL
>4 Wolf Scouts, 3 with Sniper, 1 WGPL

There is a carry-over of upgrades in terms of Wolf Scouts. We know the unit composition changes after every upgrade.
However, when upgrading a Wolf Scout to a WGPL, there is still no carry-over of information. Because this is a change of entry.
You have upgraded a Boltgun Wolf Scout, to a Sniper Rifle Wolf Scout. You have upgraded the Sniper Wolf Scout, to a WGPL.
Every upgrade, you "replace" the previous one. You have upgraded the chosen Wolf Scout with a WGPL, which comes with it's own starting gear, special rules, etc.
You have not done a model "promotion". You must use what the Codex used upgrade to mean. As we have done for "boltgun/bolt pistol".

As stated before, I disagree that there is some kind of a conditional carry-over between upgrades that works on some options but not others, absent specific instructions to that effect. But I also thought of something else regarding "upgrade" = "replace" a page ago:

Creeperman wrote:
But something else occurred to me when re-reading your post. Let's back up a little bit and examine your definition of "upgrade." It is true that the BRB and Codices say "add to the unit," but where is your permission to "remove?" If you are equating "upgrade" with "replacement," a necessary precondition is the removal of the old entity (model, weapon, etc.). In the case of weapons, this is made explicit; you are told to "replace his [the model's] boltgun with" the sniper rifle/shotgun/CCW/whatever. In the case of camo cloaks, you are not told to remove or replace anything; it's a straight addition. When dealing with the wargear lists, you are again (explicitly) instructed to replace existing weapons. But in the case of the WGPL, you are told to "upgrade" a model, without being told to remove or replace it. This same wording is used in the Rune Priest's option to "be upgraded to Psyker (Mastery Level 2)," and again in the Dreadnought's "May be upgraded to be a Venerable Dreadnought" option.

It seems clear to me that "upgrade" is being assigned a specific meaning, namely "carry out the specified action on the specified target model," whether it be profile changes, special rules, or wargear changes, as explicitly stated by the option in question.

Not if upgrade means "to get something better than what you originally had"

The answer is simple. Rasko is correct, the BRB gives an AMBIGUOUS definition for "boltgun" by having it as both a category and a specific weapon, while reading the Codex gives specific context indicators as to what is meant. However, you didn't read my previous posts. I say this because one of my posts actually DOES give the answer. In the BA codex, there is an entry that states that the SM Biker may trade their Bolt Pistol for a Chain Sword, which actually DOES fall specifically into a specific category with no qualms over if they mean the category or the specific weapon.

I believe, Rasko, that this would establish a required history of upgrades, would it not?

col_impact wrote:
Not if upgrade means "to get something better than what you originally had"

We were discussing processes, not dictionary definitions, in case that wasn't obvious enough. But feel free to continue gracing us with your words of wisdom.

Creeperman wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Not if upgrade means "to get something better than what you originally had"

We were discussing processes, not dictionary definitions, in case that wasn't obvious enough. But feel free to continue gracing us with your words of wisdom.

Even if what we were discussing, and what it meant was that, it STILL wouldn't mean "replace" flat out.

Creeperman wrote:
As stated before, I disagree that there is some kind of a conditional carry-over between upgrades that works on some options but not others, absent specific instructions to that effect. But I also thought of something else regarding "upgrade" = "replace" a page ago:

It seems clear to me that "upgrade" is being assigned a specific meaning, namely "carry out the specified action on the specified target model," whether it be profile changes, special rules, or wargear changes, as explicitly stated by the option in question.

Creeperman wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Not if upgrade means "to get something better than what you originally had"

We were discussing processes, not dictionary definitions, in case that wasn't obvious enough. But feel free to continue gracing us with your words of wisdom.

My pearl of wisdom to you is that that definition of upgrade implicitly replaces.

Your welcome.

I mean, sure, to 'improve' the scout's gun, he has to replace his Bolter with either a shotgun or a sniper rifle, but to improve the SCOUT, you replace his GUN, or you ADD a cloak, not replace the whole unit.

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. You are upgrading the unit per the rules.

Spoiler:

Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points cost for each.

Also, upgrade means "to get something that is better than what you had originally". So I get a WPGL model that is better than the Scout model I originally had.

Not seeing anything in those rules that say replace. your argument can only be a HYWPI scenario since nothing there says replace. House rule it i=f you wish, but the RAW agrees with my posts with rules support.

An Upgrade to a WPGL is getting "something that is better than what you had originally" in the form of that model having a higher LD and a better A value...

You add this upgraded model to the unit, since that model did not have as high a LD and A characteristic.

Same model, the statline is added to that model and as per the options rules, to the unit (Though only the upgraded model benefits from the increased A value).

Zarius wrote:
I mean, sure, to 'improve' the scout's gun, he has to replace his Bolter with either a shotgun or a sniper rifle, but to improve the SCOUT, you replace his GUN, or you ADD a cloak, not replace the whole unit.

I have no idea what that even means.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not seeing anything in those rules that say replace. your argument can only be a HYWPI scenario since nothing there says replace. House rule it i=f you wish, but the RAW agrees with my posts with rules support.

An Upgrade to a WPGL is getting "something that is better than what you had originally" in the form of that model having a higher LD and a better A value...

You add this upgraded model to the unit, since that model did not have as high a LD and A characteristic.

Same model, the statline is added to that model and as per the options rules, to the unit (Though only the upgraded model benefits from the increased A value).

I absolutely love these kind of posts. Here let me try.

Not seeing anything in those rules that say promote. Your argument can only be a HYWPI scenario since nothing there says promote. House rule it if you wish, but the RAW agrees with my posts with rules support.

An upgrade to a WGPL is getting "something that is better than what you had originally" in the form of a new model that has higher LD and a better A value...

You add this upgraded model to the unit, since the model before did not have as high a LD and A characteristic.

Different model.

Rasko wrote:

Zarius wrote:
I mean, sure, to 'improve' the scout's gun, he has to replace his Bolter with either a shotgun or a sniper rifle, but to improve the SCOUT, you replace his GUN, or you ADD a cloak, not replace the whole unit.

I have no idea what that even means.

So, I want to make sure I understand this correctly: You don't understand that the act of replacing a Scout's Bolter with, say, a Plasma Pistol could be considered an upgrade? AP2, Str7 weapon, you see NO upgrade potential there? Or a meltagun? Sure, short-as-crap range, but AP 1 (there aren't even Armor 1 units that I'm aware of), Str 8. You wouldn't call that an upgrade for, say, a unit meant to go after light/medium tanks?

Are you serious?

I actually have a similar question but it is different enough to warrant asking, though it may be worth a new thread.

If you have a tank that can take a pintle mounted Multilaser and also can replace all of its Multilasers with Lascannons, can you end up with a pintle mounted lascannon?

Zarius wrote:
So, I want to make sure I understand this correctly: You don't understand that the act of replacing a Scout's Bolter with, say, a Plasma Pistol could be considered an upgrade? AP2, Str7 weapon, you see NO upgrade potential there? Or a meltagun? Sure, short-as-crap range, but AP 1 (there aren't even Armor 1 units that I'm aware of), Str 8. You wouldn't call that an upgrade for, say, a unit meant to go after light/medium tanks?

Are you serious?

I don't care what you consider an upgrade or not.
If the game lists it as an option, it is an upgrade.
It looks like you are still using IRL mechanics to determine things...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually have a similar question but it is different enough to warrant asking, though it may be worth a new thread.

If you have a tank that can take a pintle mounted Multilaser and also can replace all of its Multilasers with Lascannons, can you end up with a pintle mounted lascannon?

Is the pintle mount a seperate structure from the lascannon, or is it part of the lascannon?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rasko wrote:

Zarius wrote:
So, I want to make sure I understand this correctly: You don't understand that the act of replacing a Scout's Bolter with, say, a Plasma Pistol could be considered an upgrade? AP2, Str7 weapon, you see NO upgrade potential there? Or a meltagun? Sure, short-as-crap range, but AP 1 (there aren't even Armor 1 units that I'm aware of), Str 8. You wouldn't call that an upgrade for, say, a unit meant to go after light/medium tanks?

Are you serious?

I don't care what you consider an upgrade or not.
If the game lists it as an option, it is an upgrade.
It looks like you are still using IRL mechanics to determine things...

YOU said "you don't understand" when I was talking about upgrades. The rules expressly state that "A scout may replace boltgun for <other gun>" not to replace the scout with a scout having a <gun> instead of a bolt gun, so what the heck is there not to understand?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or, to put it another way, the MODEL is upgrading because he's swapping out gear, but the whole model is not being swapped out. Because the model is being upgraded, the unit as a whole is also upgraded, but only as a de-facto upgrade. The model is changing out gear, but not being swapped out completely.

Assume that I have 5 scouts in my Wolf Scout unit.
I decide that I want to put sniper rifles on all five of them.
By the rules, each of my five scouts replaces their bolt guns with a sniper rifle. That is a gear swap for the model, NOT a model swap.
I still have the same 5 scouts, in the same Wolf Scout unit, NOT a set of new scouts.
I then choose to take camo cloaks, which costs 10 points (5 scouts * 2pts per scout, comes out to 10 pts).
According to the rules, the scouts are TAKING the cloaks, NOT being replaced with scouts that already have the cloaks.
I now choose to add three more models to the unit (which directly adds to the cost of my pre-existing Camo cloak purchase, because the rule specifically states that all Wolf Scouts take it, not just the ones I choose).
I then choose to swap two of their bolters for Plasma guns.
Again, per the rules, I am replacing the individual scouts' boltguns with plasma pistols, NOT replacing those scouts with models that already have plasma pistols.
I then choose to swap the 3rd new guy's, or number 8's, boltgun with a Meltagun.
Once more, the rules state that the scout replaces the bolt gun with a Meltagun, NOT that the boltgun scout is replaced with a Meltagun scout.

The rules for how the units upgrade when taking new/replacement gear is clear. The scout stays put, and swaps one piece of gear for another.
What precedence is there for completely replacing a specific model when 'upgrading', rather than just replacing the gear - and thus changing the profile of an EXISTING model, rather than swapping the model for one that already has the desired profile? I ask it THIS way, because all precedence is to keep the model, but to swap out gear.

Zarius wrote:
The rules for how the units upgrade when taking new/replacement gear is clear. The scout stays put, and swaps one piece of gear for another.
What precedence is there for completely replacing a specific model when 'upgrading', rather than just replacing the gear - and thus changing the profile of an EXISTING model, rather than swapping the model for one that already has the desired profile? I ask it THIS way, because all precedence is to keep the model, but to swap out gear.

It really looks like you still have no clue what is going on...

Do you have a rules quote where it says when you upgrade profiles, you get to keep the model?

By your reasoning, when the Codex wants you to replace something, it explicitly says replace.
It doesn't say:
•May replace the profile of one Wolf Scout with the profile of a Wolf Guard Pack Leader

If it said that, we can logically assume that it gets to keep the model. It doesn't say that.
I guess a further argument could be made that since the Codex doesn't explicitly tell you to "replace the profile of one Wolf Scout with the profile of a Wolf Guard Pack Leader" (because when it wants you to replace something, it always explicitly tells you),
we can logically assume that when it says "upgrade one Wolf Scout to WGPL", it is talking about the entire model and not just the profile.
Maybe you are on to something here.

Rasko wrote:

Zarius wrote:
The rules for how the units upgrade when taking new/replacement gear is clear. The scout stays put, and swaps one piece of gear for another.
What precedence is there for completely replacing a specific model when 'upgrading', rather than just replacing the gear - and thus changing the profile of an EXISTING model, rather than swapping the model for one that already has the desired profile? I ask it THIS way, because all precedence is to keep the model, but to swap out gear.

It really looks like you still have no clue what is going on...

Do you have a rules quote where it says when you upgrade profiles, you get to keep the model?

By your reasoning, when the Codex wants you to replace something, it explicitly says replace.
It doesn't say:
•May replace the profile of one Wolf Scout with the profile of a Wolf Guard Pack Leader

If it said that, we can logically assume that it gets to keep the model. It doesn't say that.

Actually... If it said THAT, I'd assume that you were replacing the the whole model, because it said to REPLACE the profile not alter it.

And, sure, here:
• Up to two Wolf Scouts may replace their boltguns with a:
- Plasma pistol…15 pts/model
- Power weapon…15 pts/model

This is clear. You're replacing the model's BOLTGUN, not the model itself.

Another one:
• Any Wolf Scout may replace his boltgun with a:
- Space Marine shotgun or close combat weapon…free
- Sniper rifle…1 pt/model

Again, clear: replacing boltgun replacement, not model replacement.

• All Wolf Scouts in the unit may take camo cloaks…2 pts/model

Also clear, the scouts are TAKING the cloaks, not being replaced with cloak-wearing models.

Heavy Weapons
A model may replace his boltgun and/or bolt pistol with one of the following:

Also replacing gear, not whole model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rules expressly state when you are actually replacing something and, more importantly, WHAT you are replacing.

Sure. Agreed on all points. When the Codex wants you to replace something, they make it explicitly clear by actually saying replace and what to replace.
Ironically, I think you might be on to something here.

• May upgrade one Wolf Scout to Wolf Guard Pack Leader
When the Codex wants you to replace something, they make it exceedingly clear by saying the actual word replace and what to replace.
If the Codex wanted you to replace just the profile of the Wolf Scout, it would have said...
• May replace the profile of one Wolf Scout with the profile of a Wolf Guard Pack Leader
So logically, we can assume that when the Codex says "upgrade one Wolf Scout to WGPL", it is not talking about just the profile. It is talking about the whole model.

Rasko wrote:
Sure. Agreed on all points. When the Codex wants you to replace something, they make it explicitly clear by actually saying replace.
Ironically, I think you might be on to something here.

• May upgrade one Wolf Scout to Wolf Guard Pack Leader
When the Codex wants you to replace something, they make it exceedingly clear by saying the actual word replace.
If the Codex wanted you to replace just the profile of the Wolf Scout, it would have said...
• May replace the profile of one Wolf Scout with the profile of a Wolf Guard Pack Leader
So, we can assume when the Codex says "upgrade one Wolf Scout to WGPL", it is not talking about just the profile. It is talking about the whole model.

I'll agree on THIS part. They are talking about upgrading the model. However, as you have pointed out repeatedly, the word "upgrade" does not INHERENTLY mean replace. Even the third definition, which does actually contain the word "replaced" doesn't necessarily mean to replace the WHOLE object that is being upgraded. I mean, sure, you could replace the whole model. But replacing just the necessary components would also, as previously agreed, qualify as an upgrade.

JUST as an example of the word upgrade, as you have used it (and I'm using a real world because it's applicable, and I don't know the rules well enough to use an in game example), let's say that you need to upgrade your computer because it won't run the newest Call of Duty clone (i don't know, just bear with me). You have TWO choices. You can either A) buy a new computer, replacing the whole thing. That would, as long as you get sufficient specs, be an upgrade to the level you desire. Or B), you can upgrade JUST your RAM, processor, and graphics card. The former gives you extra options, such as a manufacturer's warranty, that the latter doesn't, but the latter is still an upgrade to the computer, replacing things, but *without replacing the whole computer*. You follow?

Zarius wrote:
JUST as an example of the word upgrade, as you have used it (and I'm using a real world because it's applicable, and I don't know the rules well enough to use an in game example), let's say that you need to upgrade your computer because it won't run the newest Call of Duty clone (i don't know, just bear with me). You have TWO choices. You can either A) buy a new computer, replacing the whole thing. That would, as long as you get sufficient specs, be an upgrade to the level you desire. Or B), you can upgrade JUST your RAM, processor, and graphics card. The former gives you extra options, such as a manufacturer's warranty, that the latter doesn't, but the latter is still an upgrade to the computer, replacing things, but *without replacing the whole computer*. You follow?

No I don't follow. What was the point of this?
You have literally just used upgrade in a couple sentences to show one meaning of upgrade.
It has multiple meanings. I have quoted you the multiple definitions of upgrade many times...
You follow?

Rasko wrote:

Zarius wrote:
JUST as an example of the word upgrade, as you have used it (and I'm using a real world because it's applicable, and I don't know the rules well enough to use an in game example), let's say that you need to upgrade your computer because it won't run the newest Call of Duty clone (i don't know, just bear with me). You have TWO choices. You can either A) buy a new computer, replacing the whole thing. That would, as long as you get sufficient specs, be an upgrade to the level you desire. Or B), you can upgrade JUST your RAM, processor, and graphics card. The former gives you extra options, such as a manufacturer's warranty, that the latter doesn't, but the latter is still an upgrade to the computer, replacing things, but *without replacing the whole computer*. You follow?

No I don't follow. What was the point of this?
You have literally just used upgrade in a couple sentences to show one meaning of upgrade.
It has multiple meanings. I have quoted you the multiple definitions of upgrade many times...
You follow?

Yes. I follow. And even the multiple meanings have multiple possible interpretations. Just because I replace a component of something (your third definition), doesn't mean that I inherently replace the whole thing. A hard drive is just a component of a computer, just like a suit of armor is just a component of an infantry model. You can upgrade the whole by replacing just a part, or several parts, of the whole. Upgrading does not inherently require replacement, and replacement for the purpose of upgrading does not inherently require replacing the WHOLE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And, as you agreed, the game's rules DO expressly tell you when to replace things, and what to replace.

It names Wolf Scouts may take it, but Pack Leaders don't have that option because it's not stated under THEIR upgrades.

Zarius wrote:
Yes. I follow. And even the multiple meanings have multiple possible interpretations. Just because I replace a component of something (your third definition), doesn't mean that I inherently replace the whole thing. A hard drive is just a component of a computer, just like a suit of armor is just a component of an infantry model. You can upgrade the whole by replacing just a part, or several parts, of the whole. Upgrading does not inherently require replacement, and replacement for the purpose of upgrading does not inherently require replacing the WHOLE.

By that logic, when you upgrade a Wolf Scout to a WGPL, you "lose" 3 special rules (Infiltrate, Move, Scout).
Every single upgrade in the Codex either is a "take" or "replace" to something existing.
The WGPL strictly just "loses" 3 special rules. How can you justify that it was "upgraded"?
If you get to pick and choose, how do you get to weigh what is considered an upgrade or not? The game breaks.

Zarius wrote:
And, as you agreed, the game's rules DO expressly tell you when to replace things, and what to replace.

Exactly. The game expressly tells you when to replace things, and what to replace.
The Codex does not say...
• May replace the profile of one Wolf Scout with the profile of a Wolf Guard Pack Leader
So why are you doing exactly that?

Rasko wrote:

Zarius wrote:
Yes. I follow. And even the multiple meanings have multiple possible interpretations. Just because I replace a component of something (your third definition), doesn't mean that I inherently replace the whole thing. A hard drive is just a component of a computer, just like a suit of armor is just a component of an infantry model. You can upgrade the whole by replacing just a part, or several parts, of the whole. Upgrading does not inherently require replacement, and replacement for the purpose of upgrading does not inherently require replacing the WHOLE.

By that logic, when you upgrade a Wolf Scout to a WGPL, you "lose" 3 special rules (Infiltrate, Move, Scout).
Every single upgrade in the Codex either is a "take" or "replace" to something existing.
The WGPL strictly just "loses" 3 special rules. How can you justify that it was "upgraded"? The game breaks.

Zarius wrote:
And, as you agreed, the game's rules DO expressly tell you when to replace things, and what to replace.

Exactly. The game expressly tells you when to replace things, and what to replace.
The Codex does not say...
• May replace the profile of one Wolf Scout with the profile of a Wolf Guard Pack Leader
So why are you doing exactly that?

To start with, all three of those rules apply to the whole group if anyone in the group has the abilities, not just the model that has them, so unless all 4-9 of your scouts die before your WGPL, you aren't actually loosing them. You also REPLACE the armor (Scout is for scouts only, and power is for WGPL only, thus this clearly states that the WGPL would loose the scout, but gain the power armor), and gains access to several weapon selections previously not selectable. The WGPL also gains an attack, better leadership, and better armour saves.

Second, even if you lost them flat out, depending on the purpose you wanted the WGPL for, it would still be an upgrade. For example, if you want a tank hunting unit, you gain access to an extra plasma pistol AND meltabombs by upgrading. If, however, you want a ranged support for picking off trash mobs (weaker targets), then obviously taking the WGPL might not be nearly so useful. Whether it's an upgrade or not isn't based *purely* on the unit's special rules, but on what you want that unit to do, and what the model will gain by doing it. Whether YOU consider it an upgrade or not is a personal choice. The manuals clearly mean an upgrade to be simply an alteration in functionality (from current or from base, depending on your outlook), and thus an improvement towards a specific potential goal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I'm NOT talking about replacing the profile of one model* with another model*. I'm talking about making only the most basic necessary alterations to bring the model into line with the profile.

But when a unit changes name, it's profile becomes different.

A Captain/Chapter Master in (Yet again) Terminator Armour cannot perform Sweeping Advances (Unless you're Calgar) and gain the Bulky, Deepstrike and Relentless Special Rules and then also loses the Grenades.. They are reffered to in the codices as either "A (model's original mame) in Terminator Armour may take items from the Special Issue Wargear, Terminator Weapons List, Chapter Relics... etc. (These lists vary from model to model).

At no point has anyone taken a Terminator on a bike, and at no point have they taken a Boltgun or Grenades, because they can't, their name changes, and the upgrades associated with that also change. You do not keep the same weapons carried over, they start again with the Wargear listed on their unit entry and then you go through the specific Terminator Upgrades given, which is why no Termie ever has wielded a boltgun or bolt pistol, or rode in on a bike, or gets grenades. You apply the same principle to this.

The IRL definition of upgrade means bugger all, in general, you lose out with Terminators, but they are still an upgrade in the eyes of the game. In 30k, Power Daggers lower your strength but you keep AP3, it is debatable as to that being an upgrade if it lowers stats or puts you at a disadvantage. The dictionary definition of terms presented by the game do not mean gak. The rulebook, codices and relevant supplements used are your dictionary. I WILL ONLY SAY THIS ONCE.

If anything, a WGPL is an even more radical change than the Terminator Captain, because his not only does his name change, he loses Special Rules and has his own set of SR's and wargear given in the unit entry.

By the logic being presented, I'll go and kitbash a Terminator Captain on a Space Marine Bike with a bolt pistol, chainsword, that has grenades on top of his Power Sword and Storm Bolter, because - hot damn - I can do that if I can give a Pack Leader a Camo Cloak and a Sniper Rifle!

 TheCrusadeSmurf wrote:
b]The dictionary definition of terms presented by the game do not mean gak. The rulebook, codices and relevant supplements used are your dictionary. I WILL ONLY SAY THIS ONCE.[/b][/i]

First off, mellow your mellons, UltraSmurf. Panties. Untwist.

Second, if the dictionary definition of a word is not going to be use, then you need to show the game's definition. Can you quote where the BRB or codices expressly define what is meant by the word "upgrade" in the same format that they define special rules? Of not, then you really DON'T need to repeat yourself, because your argument is invalid on basis of removing a word with no replacement for it. Without the definition that the game means, the only definition(s) that we have to go with are from the dictionary. As nobody has yet to actually provide a definitive, flat out definition as provided by Gibbering Weasels (GW), we only HAVE the dictionary's definition to use.

Zarius wrote:
Whether it's an upgrade or not isn't based *purely* on the unit's special rules, but on what you want that unit to do, and what the model will gain by doing it. Whether YOU consider it an upgrade or not is a personal choice. The manuals clearly mean an upgrade to be simply an alteration in functionality (from current or from base, depending on your outlook), and thus an improvement towards a specific potential goal.

Do you not see how you are equating what you want the unit to do with what an upgrade is?
The game does not care what you consider an upgrade, and then you immediately say that an upgrade is what you want the unit to do.
The two contradicting sentences are literally right beside each.

Zarius wrote:
And I'm NOT talking about replacing the profile of one model* with another model*. I'm talking about making only the most basic necessary alterations to bring the model into line with the profile.

You misunderstand me again.
Your whole argument that was you take an existing model, give it a Sniper Rifle, and then upgrade to a WGPL.
Wolf Scout model > Wolf Scout model with Sniper Rifle > WGPL model with Sniper Rifle

You are choosing what the game considers an upgrade by changing the stats, replacing the armour, replacing the special rules.
You made a personal choice that that is what this upgrade means. Exactly just this, and nothing else.
However, if the game wanted you to *just* replace these things, it would have said...
• May replace the profile, armour, and special rules of one Wolf Scout with the profile, armour, and special rules of a Wolf Guard Pack Leader
Do you not see how you have personally picked that upgrade means stats, armour, and special rules?
That was a personal choice. The game doesn't care about your personal choices.

It says this...
• May upgrade one Wolf Scout to Wolf Guard Pack Leader
We can make a logical assumption that if it meant just the stats, armour, and special rules, it would have said so specifically.
Like it has done so far, for every other upgrade in the Codex.

Zarius wrote:

 TheCrusadeSmurf wrote:
b]The dictionary definition of terms presented by the game do not mean gak. The rulebook, codices and relevant supplements used are your dictionary. I WILL ONLY SAY THIS ONCE.[/b][/i]

First off, mellow your mellons, UltraSmurf. Panties. Untwist.

Second, if the dictionary definition of a word is not going to be use, then you need to show the game's definition. Can you quote where the BRB or codices expressly define what is meant by the word "upgrade" in the same format that they define special rules? Of not, then you really DON'T need to repeat yourself, because your argument is invalid on basis of removing a word with no replacement for it. Without the definition that the game means, the only definition(s) that we have to go with are from the dictionary. As nobody has yet to actually provide a definitive, flat out definition as provided by Gibbering Weasels (GW), we only HAVE the dictionary's definition to use.

Can you point me to GW's rules address? I understand that they may not be the best but I have seen no effort being made for contact there.
I understand that there is no rulebook definition, but it really just comes down to the points I made about Terminators, you can't carry over bikes, boltguns etc. So why do it here?

I think this page can shed some light on GW official policy on this matter


https://itunes.apple.com/book/codex-space-wolves-wulfen/id1081612940?ls=1&mt=1110lqaZ

Nvm found the address. Email sent.

So, Rasko, if I may be so pedonistic as to quote myself,

"The manuals clearly means an upgrade to be simply an alteration in functionality"

I clearly stated what GW intends by what they consider an upgrade. YOU are the one that said,

"By that logic, when you upgrade a Wolf Scout to a WGPL, you "lose" 3 special rules (Infiltrate, Move, Scout).
Every single upgrade in the Codex either is a "take" or "replace" to something existing.
The WGPL strictly just "loses" 3 special rules. How can you justify that it was "upgraded"? The game breaks."

I'm not justifying calling it an upgrade. I'm pointing out the difference between what YOU consider an upgrade and what GW considers an upgrade. the only point we're arguing at this point in time is HOW that upgrade is applied, MOSTLY for entertainment (on my part, at least.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, blue is a bad color for this background, I can't read that at all.

Zarius wrote:
I'm not justifying calling it an upgrade. I'm pointing out the difference between what YOU consider an upgrade and what GW considers an upgrade. the only point we're arguing at this point in time is HOW that upgrade is applied, MOSTLY for entertainment (on my part, at least.)

No... You are saying that an upgrade is literally just replacing the profile, armour, and special rules.
That is a personal decision that you made. You decided that to you, upgrade means these things.
If the Codex wanted upgrade to mean that, it would have said...
• May replace the profile, armour, and special rules of one Wolf Scout with the profile, armour, and special rules of a Wolf Guard Pack Leader

The fact that you are arguing for entertainment clearly shows.

Zarius wrote:
Also, blue is a bad color for this background, I can't read that at all.

My bad. I forgot that people actually prefer the black background.
(In case you didn't know, you can change it to a white background in the top left-hand corner with "switch theme". It's easier on the eyes)

Rasko wrote:

Zarius wrote:
I'm not justifying calling it an upgrade. I'm pointing out the difference between what YOU consider an upgrade and what GW considers an upgrade. the only point we're arguing at this point in time is HOW that upgrade is applied, MOSTLY for entertainment (on my part, at least.)

No... You are saying that an upgrade is literally just replacing the profile, armour, and special rules.
That is a personal decision that you made. You decided that to you, upgrade means these things.
If the Codex wanted upgrade to mean that, it would have said...
• May replace the profile, armour, and special rules of one Wolf Scout with the profile, armour, and special rules of a Wolf Guard Pack Leader

The fact that you are arguing for entertainment clearly shows.

Zarius wrote:
Also, blue is a bad color for this background, I can't read that at all.

My bad. I forgot that people actually prefer the black background.
(In case you didn't know, you can change it to a white background in the top left-hand corner with "switch theme". It's easier on the eyes)

I actually do prefer the black background, not overly fond of bright colors, but it's good to know that I can change it

And it's not so much that I'm JUST arguing for entertainment, I more mean that I'm enjoying the conversation because the people involved aren't all gibbering buffoons. You make SEVERAL valid points, and I even agree with some of them, but I do firmly believe that, based on OTHER upgrade rules, the more logical path is to only replace/alter the minimum of equipment and stats to achieve the goal rather than to completely replace a whole unit.

BUT, StabbySmurf is apparently emailing GW, so let's see what (if) they answer to him.

So far nada, they say within 24 hours, so It should be there by six GMT tomorrow.

I'l keep you posted.

Thanks, Smurfy. I didn't even think to even look for an email that would be for rules clarification. I appreciate it.

If someone has an iPad version of the Space Wolves codex the issue can be definitively settled.

https://itunes.apple.com/book/codex-space-wolves-wulfen/id1081612940?ls=1&mt=1110lqaZ

col_impact wrote:
If someone has an iPad version of the Space Wolves codex the issue can be definitively settled.

https://itunes.apple.com/book/codex-space-wolves-wulfen/id1081612940?ls=1&mt=1110lqaZ

I have it on PDF, if that counts? Hard copy isn't with me.

Zarius wrote:
I have it on PDF, if that counts? Hard copy isn't with me.

You misunderstand him... He is saying that the list building software in the iPad version will let us know what the WGPL starts with.
If you have a PDF, you do not have the list building software..

Every single army list building tool will give a new model.
Whether it is Battlescribe or Army Builder, when you add the WGPL option, it does so with strictly it's own starting gear, etc, on a new model. There is no carry-over.

Everyone I've ever met played with information not carrying over. That's why there isn't anyone trying to run Terminator Armour Bikers. Or Sniper Rifle WGPL's.

HondaDaBest wrote:

Zarius wrote:
I have it on PDF, if that counts? Hard copy isn't with me.

You misunderstand him... He is saying that the list building software in the iPad version will let us know what the WGPL starts with.
If you have a PDF, you do not have the list building software..

Every single army list building tool will give a new model.
Whether it is Battlescribe or Army Builder, when you add the WGPL option, it does so with strictly it's own starting gear, etc, on a new model. There is no carry-over.

Everyone I've ever met played with information not carrying over. That's why there isn't anyone trying to run Terminator Armour Bikers. Or Sniper Rifle WGPL's.

Are either of these programs build by GW? Because we have someone currently asking GW, unless I missed something.

Zarius wrote:
Are either of these programs build by GW? Because we have someone currently asking GW, unless I missed something.

The iPad version is the one released by GW. That doesn't mean the programmers know what the rules writers had in mind when they wrote the software and its conditions, or even if they ran the results by the paper developers before releasing them.

Charistoph wrote:

Zarius wrote:
Are either of these programs build by GW? Because we have someone currently asking GW, unless I missed something.

The iPad version is the one released by GW. That doesn't mean the programmers know what the rules writers had in mind when they wrote the software and its conditions, or even if they ran the results by the paper developers before releasing them.

This is an excellent point.

Charistoph wrote:
The iPad version is the one released by GW. That doesn't mean the programmers know what the rules writers had in mind when they wrote the software and its conditions, or even if they ran the results by the paper developers before releasing them.

If that is the way to interpret things officially released by GW...

Can't you apply that logic to literally every single thing in the game?
The Codex writers don't know exactly....
The BRB writers don't know exactly....
The WD people don't know exactly...
etc, etc, etc,

How can we ever do anything with that way of thinking?

HondaDaBest wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
The iPad version is the one released by GW. That doesn't mean the programmers know what the rules writers had in mind when they wrote the software and its conditions, or even if they ran the results by the paper developers before releasing them.

If that is the way to interpret things officially released by GW...

Can't you apply that logic to literally every single thing in the game?
The Codex writers don't know exactly....
The BRB writers don't know exactly....
The WD people don't know exactly...
etc, etc, etc,

How can we ever do anything with that way of thinking?

His response was specifically with reference to MY comment about the fact that Smurf has sent an email to the GW folks asking for clarification, and subsequent question about the army builders. So, stop taking things out of context. And, frequently, the coders DON'T know what the writers intended, or have access to them to ask.

Zarius wrote:
His response was specifically with reference to MY comment about the fact that Smurf has sent an email to the GW folks asking for clarification, and subsequent question about the army builders. So, stop taking things out of context.

What? He was talking about the list building softwares...
How did I take that out of context?...
Do you even know what context means...

Zarius wrote:
And, frequently, the coders DON'T know what the writers intended, or have access to them to ask.

It's an official GW release...
Can you point me to how you found out that information...

HondaDaBest wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
The iPad version is the one released by GW. That doesn't mean the programmers know what the rules writers had in mind when they wrote the software and its conditions, or even if they ran the results by the paper developers before releasing them.

If that is the way to interpret things officially released by GW...

Can't you apply that logic to literally every single thing in the game?
The Codex writers don't know exactly....
The BRB writers don't know exactly....
The WD people don't know exactly...
etc, etc, etc,

How can we ever do anything with that way of thinking?

Ummm... Way to take it out of context.

Still, most of those rules writers sure don't seem to know what they are writing half the time.

As for WD... They would have a better rep if they didn't make a host of rules mistakes like not Snap Firing a Heavy Weapon carried by an Infantry model that had just disembarked...

Charistoph wrote:
Ummm... Way to take it out of context.

Still, most of those rules writers sure don't seem to know what they are writing half the time.

As for WD... They would have a better rep if they didn't make a host of rules mistakes like not Snap Firing a Heavy Weapon carried by an Infantry model that had just disembarked...

Wait what? I'm confused now... You weren't talking about the list building software by GW?

In that case, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you.

Charistoph wrote:
The iPad version is the one released by GW. That doesn't mean the programmers know what the rules writers had in mind when they wrote the software and its conditions, or even if they ran the results by the paper developers before releasing them.

If the iPad version is an official GW release, I think we have to assume that they are half-way competent and ran it by the paper developers.
But who even knows with this game anymore.

HondaDaBest wrote:

Wait what? I'm confused now... You weren't talking about the list building software by GW?

In that case, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you.

I was talking about the list building software provided by GW, yes. I am just saying we don't have much information on the development process. If you could provide a link on it or some other reference to actually define it, that would be great.

But considering GW's track record in communicating intents and purposes between even White Dwarf and the Citadel developers, I do not have high confidence that the software developers were any more fully in the loop.

Charistoph wrote:
I was talking about the list building software provided by GW, yes. I am just saying we don't have much information on the development process. If you could provide a link on it or some other reference to actually define it, that would be great.

But considering GW's track record in communicating intents and purposes between even White Dwarf and the Citadel developers, I do not have high confidence that the software developers were any more fully in the loop.

If it's an official GW release, shouldn't the default opinion be that they did some internal communication?
I don't have a link that defines the process. It is just a logical step that you can take because it was released by GW...
You can logically assume that if a company has released a product, it has gone through internal testing.
If you wish to say otherwise, like you said, wouldn't we need a link?

Rasko wrote:
If the iPad version is an official GW release, I think we have to assume that they are half-way competent and ran it by the paper developers.
But who even knows with this game anymore.

Exactly. If it's an official release, we have to assume that they did some kind of internal communication absent any information.
That is a basic, logical step that someone can make. If anyone has a link that says otherwise, I would love to see it...

HondaDaBest wrote:
If it's an official GW release, shouldn't the default opinion be that they are did some internal communication?
I don't have a link that defines the process. It is just a logical step that you can take because it was released by GW...
You can logically assume that if a company has released a product, it has gone through internal testing.
If you wish to say otherwise, like you said, wouldn't we need a link?

As I said, the track record for GW doing so has been poor. How many White Dwarf battle reports are riddled with very common mistakes? How often is Forgeworld left hanging with changes in the system as if they didn't know was coming?

I'm not saying that the iPad army builder actually is incorrect or inaccurate. I'm just trying to help people remember that GW has little reason to incur absolute faith in this product like the printed or eCodices.

Charistoph wrote:

HondaDaBest wrote:

Wait what? I'm confused now... You weren't talking about the list building software by GW?

In that case, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you.

I was talking about the list building software provided by GW, yes. I am just saying we don't have much information on the development process. If you could provide a link on it or some other reference to actually define it, that would be great.

But considering GW's track record in communicating intents and purposes between even White Dwarf and the Citadel developers, I do not have high confidence that the software developers were any more fully in the loop.

All you need to know is if it's copyrighted or officially endorsed by GW. If it's their official list building software, it's their official list building software. It can settle how GW officially builds lists.

HondaDaBest wrote:

Zarius wrote:
His response was specifically with reference to MY comment about the fact that Smurf has sent an email to the GW folks asking for clarification, and subsequent question about the army builders. So, stop taking things out of context.

What? He was talking about the list building softwares...
How did I take that out of context?...
Do you even know what context means...

Zarius wrote:
And, frequently, the coders DON'T know what the writers intended, or have access to them to ask.

It's an official GW release...
Can you point me to how you found out that information...

You took it out of context because you didn't factor in the original question.

And I know that because I've DONE programming. And network design. And building design. And as much as it handicaps the designer, sometimes all you have to go off of is what a third party says. or "here's a manual, write a program that does <barfity snarf mcpoodle crap>. All you have is the manual, because the guys that wrote it are on vacation for the next two months. It's due in three weeks. Have fun!"

The fact that it was written by a GW employee doesn't mean that the employee that wrote it has any clue what the person that wrote it originally was thinking when they wrote it. They COULD have meant for gear to carry over, except as specifically notated. They COULD have meant to replace the model completely. They could have meant to shove it in your hind quarters and them barf if out, and you get what ever comes back out. The fact of the matter is that we don't KNOW. Unless you can show me an author tag on the program that shows that it was actually written by the same authors that wrote the manuals, we can't assume that they had access to the writers of the manuals.

And, Col, that logic works well until you consider other instances of someone writing something based off of what someone else wrote, and misinterpreting it. Most of the time, the marketing/development department doesn't bother checking it. And, for all we know, nobody even thought to ASK the question when they were writing it. As has been pointed out, BOTH sides of the discussion are currently HYWPI, with no definitive written backing. No matter what anyone wants to say, the word "upgrade" does NOT inherently require a replacement. And even where the word upgrade does require replacing something, it doesn't require a whole object replacement at any point in time. So, even if it seems to be the most logical course, it isn't necessarily accurate. These are, after all, the guys that tend to build their model selection list more geared towards the collectors than the players, even though the players spend more money. Logic isn't exactly their strong suit.

No. A space wolf scout upgraded to a wolf guard pack leader cannot have a sniper rifle. If you could do that, then you could put a jump pack on a captain then give him terminator armour.

Apparently, I sent it to the wrong fething email.

I'll copypasta the stock email.

Greetings mortal subject of the Emperor!

Due to the vast complexities of commands issued by our Ministorum Regularis operatives (the Rules Team) mere troopers such as ourselves are not permitted to respond to queries such as this, as detailed in 'Rules, Regulations, Conduct Proper, Codes, Practices, and Laws of the Great and Magnificent Astra Militarum of Humanity'

Any queries regarding your commands and regulations should be forwarded to the proper authorities for review and correction where necessary. Communiques should be forwarded to the below address:
gamefaqs@gwplc.com
Note:Battlefield conditions can often cause communications to become disrupted. Should this occur, DO NOT PANIC, continue as normal until normal communication resumes.

Emperor Protects!

Regards

So I have to send it to a different email that I don't think was listed.

Bastards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At least I think it may have been stock, if it wasn't then bloody hell good for you

EDIT: I made CERTAIN I referenced that it was the wulfen edition

Zarius wrote:

HondaDaBest wrote:

Zarius wrote:
His response was specifically with reference to MY comment about the fact that Smurf has sent an email to the GW folks asking for clarification, and subsequent question about the army builders. So, stop taking things out of context.

What? He was talking about the list building softwares...
How did I take that out of context?...
Do you even know what context means...

Zarius wrote:
And, frequently, the coders DON'T know what the writers intended, or have access to them to ask.

It's an official GW release...
Can you point me to how you found out that information...

You took it out of context because you didn't factor in the original question.

And I know that because I've DONE programming. And network design. And building design. And as much as it handicaps the designer, sometimes all you have to go off of is what a third party says. or "here's a manual, write a program that does <barfity snarf mcpoodle crap>. All you have is the manual, because the guys that wrote it are on vacation for the next two months. It's due in three weeks. Have fun!"

The fact that it was written by a GW employee doesn't mean that the employee that wrote it has any clue what the person that wrote it originally was thinking when they wrote it. They COULD have meant for gear to carry over, except as specifically notated. They COULD have meant to replace the model completely. They could have meant to shove it in your hind quarters and them barf if out, and you get what ever comes back out. The fact of the matter is that we don't KNOW. Unless you can show me an author tag on the program that shows that it was actually written by the same authors that wrote the manuals, we can't assume that they had access to the writers of the manuals.

And, Col, that logic works well until you consider other instances of someone writing something based off of what someone else wrote, and misinterpreting it. Most of the time, the marketing/development department doesn't bother checking it. And, for all we know, nobody even thought to ASK the question when they were writing it. As has been pointed out, BOTH sides of the discussion are currently HYWPI, with no definitive written backing. No matter what anyone wants to say, the word "upgrade" does NOT inherently require a replacement. And even where the word upgrade does require replacing something, it doesn't require a whole object replacement at any point in time. So, even if it seems to be the most logical course, it isn't necessarily accurate. These are, after all, the guys that tend to build their model selection list more geared towards the collectors than the players, even though the players spend more money. Logic isn't exactly their strong suit.

If GW copyrights or officially endorses it, the army building program that is integrated into the iPad manual is an official source of GW information on that particular product. GW literally empowered the program to show how lists are built with the SW codex.

What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

col_impact wrote:

Zarius wrote:

HondaDaBest wrote:

Zarius wrote:
His response was specifically with reference to MY comment about the fact that Smurf has sent an email to the GW folks asking for clarification, and subsequent question about the army builders. So, stop taking things out of context.

What? He was talking about the list building softwares...
How did I take that out of context?...
Do you even know what context means...

Zarius wrote:
And, frequently, the coders DON'T know what the writers intended, or have access to them to ask.

It's an official GW release...
Can you point me to how you found out that information...

You took it out of context because you didn't factor in the original question.

And I know that because I've DONE programming. And network design. And building design. And as much as it handicaps the designer, sometimes all you have to go off of is what a third party says. or "here's a manual, write a program that does <barfity snarf mcpoodle crap>. All you have is the manual, because the guys that wrote it are on vacation for the next two months. It's due in three weeks. Have fun!"

The fact that it was written by a GW employee doesn't mean that the employee that wrote it has any clue what the person that wrote it originally was thinking when they wrote it. They COULD have meant for gear to carry over, except as specifically notated. They COULD have meant to replace the model completely. They could have meant to shove it in your hind quarters and them barf if out, and you get what ever comes back out. The fact of the matter is that we don't KNOW. Unless you can show me an author tag on the program that shows that it was actually written by the same authors that wrote the manuals, we can't assume that they had access to the writers of the manuals.

And, Col, that logic works well until you consider other instances of someone writing something based off of what someone else wrote, and misinterpreting it. Most of the time, the marketing/development department doesn't bother checking it. And, for all we know, nobody even thought to ASK the question when they were writing it. As has been pointed out, BOTH sides of the discussion are currently HYWPI, with no definitive written backing. No matter what anyone wants to say, the word "upgrade" does NOT inherently require a replacement. And even where the word upgrade does require replacing something, it doesn't require a whole object replacement at any point in time. So, even if it seems to be the most logical course, it isn't necessarily accurate. These are, after all, the guys that tend to build their model selection list more geared towards the collectors than the players, even though the players spend more money. Logic isn't exactly their strong suit.

If GW copyrights or officially endorses it, the army building program that is integrated into the iPad manual is an official source of GW information on that particular product. GW literally empowered the program to show how lists are built with the SW codex.

What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

I second Zarius. I've done both programming and design work and there tends to be a lot of guessing and vague interpretation with the end result hopefully being acceptable to whoever is paying the bills.

Also, this is sort of like in the academic world. There is a key difference between primary and secondary sources. The written Codex text is a primary source. The little army building widget is a secondary source as it's based off the primary source. Secondary sources are rarely 100% reliable as they almost always include an element of human interpretation.

Thinking that any secondary source is 100% reliable comes off as a little naive. Not necessarily in a bad way, but naive nonetheless.

 Kriswall wrote:


I second Zarius. I've done both programming and design work and there tends to be a lot of guessing and vague interpretation with the end result hopefully being acceptable to whoever is paying the bills.

Also, this is sort of like in the academic world. There is a key difference between primary and secondary sources. The written Codex text is a primary source. The little army building widget is a secondary source as it's based off the primary source. Secondary sources are rarely 100% reliable as they almost always include an element of human interpretation.

Thinking that any secondary source is 100% reliable comes off as a little naive. Not necessarily in a bad way, but naive nonetheless.

Your personal experience is not relevant. If the program is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product.

So unless you can show me how your personal experience has been copyrighted by GW, I will take the official list builder program over your personal experience.



What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


I second Zarius. I've done both programming and design work and there tends to be a lot of guessing and vague interpretation with the end result hopefully being acceptable to whoever is paying the bills.

Also, this is sort of like in the academic world. There is a key difference between primary and secondary sources. The written Codex text is a primary source. The little army building widget is a secondary source as it's based off the primary source. Secondary sources are rarely 100% reliable as they almost always include an element of human interpretation.

Thinking that any secondary source is 100% reliable comes off as a little naive. Not necessarily in a bad way, but naive nonetheless.

Your personal experience is not relevant. If the program is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product.

So unless you can show me how your personal experience has been copyrighted by GW, I will take the official list builder program over your personal experience.



What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

Yeah, you take the unwavering belief that the programmers got everything right and have fun. I'll take my 30 years of experience and take a more pragmatic approach. I'll trust what the authors wrote and not some random programmer who interpreted what the authors wrote.

I'm not actually worried about anything. I have no real attachment to anything that happens in 99.9% of these threads. Mostly just bored at work. I was really just pointing out that there is a frequent "loss in translation" when a programmer takes something and builds a tool.

Kind of got a kick out of your asking if GW has copyrighted my personal experience. I worked for GW for a time and was trained specifically on how to play Warhammer 40k and arbitrate rules issues when they arose. They copyrighted the training materials, so in a way, yeah... they did copyright my personal experience as relates to playing this game and resolving rules conflicts.

Has GW copyrighted yours?

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


I second Zarius. I've done both programming and design work and there tends to be a lot of guessing and vague interpretation with the end result hopefully being acceptable to whoever is paying the bills.

Also, this is sort of like in the academic world. There is a key difference between primary and secondary sources. The written Codex text is a primary source. The little army building widget is a secondary source as it's based off the primary source. Secondary sources are rarely 100% reliable as they almost always include an element of human interpretation.

Thinking that any secondary source is 100% reliable comes off as a little naive. Not necessarily in a bad way, but naive nonetheless.

Your personal experience is not relevant. If the program is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product.

So unless you can show me how your personal experience has been copyrighted by GW, I will take the official list builder program over your personal experience.



What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

Yeah, you take the unwavering belief that the programmers got everything right and have fun. I'll take my 30 years of experience and take a more pragmatic approach. I'll trust what the authors wrote and not some random programmer who interpreted what the authors wrote.

I'm not actually worried about anything. I have no real attachment to anything that happens in 99.9% of these threads. Mostly just bored at work. I was really just pointing out that there is a frequent "loss in translation" when a programmer takes something and builds a tool.

Kind of got a kick out of your asking if GW has copyrighted my personal experience. I worked for GW for a time and was trained specifically on how to play Warhammer 40k and arbitrate rules issues when they arose. They copyrighted the training materials, so in a way, yeah... they did copyright my personal experience as relates to playing this game and resolving rules conflicts.

Has GW copyrighted yours?

Cool. Good to know we can consider you a resource for settling 2nd edition disputes.

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


I second Zarius. I've done both programming and design work and there tends to be a lot of guessing and vague interpretation with the end result hopefully being acceptable to whoever is paying the bills.

Also, this is sort of like in the academic world. There is a key difference between primary and secondary sources. The written Codex text is a primary source. The little army building widget is a secondary source as it's based off the primary source. Secondary sources are rarely 100% reliable as they almost always include an element of human interpretation.

Thinking that any secondary source is 100% reliable comes off as a little naive. Not necessarily in a bad way, but naive nonetheless.

Your personal experience is not relevant. If the program is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product.

So unless you can show me how your personal experience has been copyrighted by GW, I will take the official list builder program over your personal experience.



What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

Yeah, you take the unwavering belief that the programmers got everything right and have fun. I'll take my 30 years of experience and take a more pragmatic approach. I'll trust what the authors wrote and not some random programmer who interpreted what the authors wrote.

I'm not actually worried about anything. I have no real attachment to anything that happens in 99.9% of these threads. Mostly just bored at work. I was really just pointing out that there is a frequent "loss in translation" when a programmer takes something and builds a tool.

Kind of got a kick out of your asking if GW has copyrighted my personal experience. I worked for GW for a time and was trained specifically on how to play Warhammer 40k and arbitrate rules issues when they arose. They copyrighted the training materials, so in a way, yeah... they did copyright my personal experience as relates to playing this game and resolving rules conflicts.

Has GW copyrighted yours?

Cool. Good to know we can consider you a resource for settling 2nd edition disputes.

Looks like someone doesn't understand the concept of humor. I'd post the dictionary definition, but you'd probably just tell me to ignore the dictionary and use only the BRB to communicate with you.

You want to know what the official training would have to say on something like this debate? I'll tell you. The correct answer is whichever one makes the two people playing want to play another game after the one they're playing now. That goes for tournaments, too. There is a reason ITC is making flat out rules changes right now. They want people to keep playing. Ultimately, it makes little to no difference whether or not you can get some random dude on the internet to admit that your interpretation peen is longer than his. If allowing a Wolf Guard Pack Leader to have a Sniper Rifle means that both players are more likely to play a second game than not allowing it, it's the correct decision.

YMDC used to be noobies asking relatively easy beginner questions and veterans trying to figure out how a rule works for their next competitive event. Now that both the causal players and the tournament players are making flat out rules changes to keep people playing, the actual RaW makes little to no difference. HIWPI is so much more important to RaW because it's the only thing that matters in the real world.

So again, enjoy your bickering. I said a couple of posts into this thread that there wouldn't be a consensus. The rules are written too poorly. There is inherent ambiguity all over the place, including here.

col_impact wrote:
Your personal experience is not relevant. If the program is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product.

So unless you can show me how your personal experience has been copyrighted by GW, I will take the official list builder program over your personal experience.

What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

White Dwarf is copyrighted and officially endorsed by Games Workshop. Should we use some of those Battle Reports as the rules standards to settle disputes then?

Personal experience with GW products is quite relevant in this case, as is adding the context provided by other experience in the same field of operations.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Your personal experience is not relevant. If the program is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product.

So unless you can show me how your personal experience has been copyrighted by GW, I will take the official list builder program over your personal experience.

What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

White Dwarf is copyrighted and officially endorsed by Games Workshop. Should we use some of those Battle Reports as the rules standards to settle disputes then?

Personal experience with GW products is quite relevant in this case, as is adding the context provided by other experience in the same field of operations.

So are you saying I can't use Formations published in and exclusive to WD?

So the Mephrit Dynasty Resurgence Decurion is not legal to use in 40k?

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Your personal experience is not relevant. If the program is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product.

So unless you can show me how your personal experience has been copyrighted by GW, I will take the official list builder program over your personal experience.

What are you worried about anyway? If you are so sure and it's so obvious then they obviously built the program to follow your read of the rule.

White Dwarf is copyrighted and officially endorsed by Games Workshop. Should we use some of those Battle Reports as the rules standards to settle disputes then?

Personal experience with GW products is quite relevant in this case, as is adding the context provided by other experience in the same field of operations.

So are you saying I can't use Formations published in and exclusive to WD?

So the Mephrit Dynasty Resurgence Decurion is not legal to use in 40k?

That is not in context at all with what I am saying. I did not state anything regarding the datasheets on the icodex was untrustworthy, just their interpretations of the datasheets are questionable due to historical factors. There is a difference.

Much like the difference between questioning a quote and questioning the interpretation of a quote. I am not questioning that it states, "One Wolf Scout may be upgraded to a Wolf Guard Pack Leader". I am questioning how they interpret how that upgrade operates, i.e. ignoring all other additions and replacements made before upgrading from one model to another. (just an example, not representing my view on the discussion one way or another).

Charistoph wrote:

That is not in context at all with what I am saying. I did not state anything regarding the datasheets on the icodex was untrustworthy, just their interpretations of the datasheets are questionable due to historical factors. There is a difference.

Much like the difference between questioning a quote and questioning the interpretation of a quote. I am not questioning that it states, "One Wolf Scout may be upgraded to a Wolf Guard Pack Leader". I am questioning how they interpret how that upgrade operates, i.e. ignoring all other additions and replacements made before upgrading from one model to another. (just an example, not representing my view on the discussion one way or another).

If the program is officially endorsed as a list builder, it's officially endorsed as a list builder. Real straightforward.

col_impact wrote:
If the program is officially endorsed as a list builder, it's officially endorsed as a list builder. Real straightforward.

So we can use the Battle Reports on White Dwarf as official rules interpretations, correct?

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If the program is officially endorsed as a list builder, it's officially endorsed as a list builder. Real straightforward.

So we can use the Battle Reports on White Dwarf as official rules interpretations, correct?

Are Battle Reports officially endorsed as rule sources? Feel free to cite the endorsement for Battle Reports.

HEY HEY HEY! You remember all of those times you guys literally mocked me and insulted me for using real world examples and logic in a game? Well, apparently you guys actually need to read the manual better. Context: I was looking up the rules in the BRB for vehicular manslauger... erm... combat. Reference point is when the manual is referring to units firing at opposing vehicles, and how all models in the unit have to fire on the same enemy unit (vehicle in this particular reference), but the LoS or shooting distance might prevent all members of the squad from doing so.

"As the whole unit must fire at the same target, this often means that some of their weapons can’t damage the target vehicle, so we assume that the other members of the squad are providing covering fire, bringing forward ammunition for heavy weapons or simply keeping their heads down."

So, my question here is why can THEY use RL examples and logic, but I can't? I mean, I realize it's a game, yes, and the rules are meant to simplify things, but RL logic is RL logic, and the BRB gives precedence for using it.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If the program is officially endorsed as a list builder, it's officially endorsed as a list builder. Real straightforward.

So we can use the Battle Reports on White Dwarf as official rules interpretations, correct?

Are Battle Reports officially endorsed as rule sources? Feel free to cite the endorsement for Battle Reports.

If the Battle Reports are officially endorsed as Battle Reports, it's officially endorsed as Battle Reports (With all the rules that go with it). Real straightforward.

If the White Dwarf is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product...

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If the program is officially endorsed as a list builder, it's officially endorsed as a list builder. Real straightforward.

So we can use the Battle Reports on White Dwarf as official rules interpretations, correct?

Are Battle Reports officially endorsed as rule sources? Feel free to cite the endorsement for Battle Reports.

Citation: Your assumption that two different things created by two different people, BOTH endorsed by the same group, are both carte blanche correct every single time. That's like assuming that every single statement in the bible is individually true.

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If the program is officially endorsed as a list builder, it's officially endorsed as a list builder. Real straightforward.

So we can use the Battle Reports on White Dwarf as official rules interpretations, correct?

Are Battle Reports officially endorsed as rule sources? Feel free to cite the endorsement for Battle Reports.

If the Battle Reports are officially endorsed as Battle Reports, it's officially endorsed as Battle Reports (With all the rules that go with it). Real straightforward.

If the White Dwarf is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product...

Exactly. Battle Reports include rules interpretations. They have to as they are playing the game using the same rules we discuss here.

And White Dwarf is as fully copyrighted and endorsed by GW as the icodex's army builder.

This is called being consistent with your standards, col_impact.

Guess that means you think Pathfinders disembarking from their Devilfish can fire their Markerlights without any further ramifications like Snap Fire. (Yes, this actually happened in a WD Battle Report).

Still, all in all, I would put a little more faith in icodex army builders than THE Army Builder or Battle Scribe, GW just has given me no reason to trust it any more than their White Dwarf.

Code gets put in incorrectly, rules get interpreted differently (I can cite you 12 pages of examples), etc. And English isn't a precise language, open for LOTS of interpretations.

Charistoph wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If the program is officially endorsed as a list builder, it's officially endorsed as a list builder. Real straightforward.

So we can use the Battle Reports on White Dwarf as official rules interpretations, correct?

Are Battle Reports officially endorsed as rule sources? Feel free to cite the endorsement for Battle Reports.

If the Battle Reports are officially endorsed as Battle Reports, it's officially endorsed as Battle Reports (With all the rules that go with it). Real straightforward.

If the White Dwarf is copyright GW or officially endorsed then it's an officially sanctioned source of information on the product...

Exactly. Battle Reports include rules interpretations. They have to as they are playing the game using the same rules we discuss here.

And White Dwarf is as fully copyrighted and endorsed by GW as the icodex's army builder.

This is called being consistent with your standards, col_impact.

Guess that means you think Pathfinders disembarking from their Devilfish can fire their Markerlights without any further ramifications like Snap Fire. (Yes, this actually happened in a WD Battle Report).

Still, all in all, I would put a little more faith in icodex army builders than THE Army Builder or Battle Scribe, GW just has given me no reason to trust it any more than their White Dwarf.

The WD is express about its permission when you can include an exclusive WD Formation or Cities of Death tactical cards into your game of 40k.

If the WD said you could include the Battle Report in your game of 40k as a rule source or some other fashion then that would be fine. No problem with me if if actually permitted it.

However, there is no such permission.

col_impact wrote:

The WD is express about its permission when you can include an exclusive WD Formation or Cities of Death tactical cards into your game of 40k.

If the WD said you could include the Battle Report in your game of 40k as a rule source or some other fashion then that would be fine. No problem with me if if actually permitted it.

However, there is no such permission.

Then I guess you're good with me saying that a device created by the SAME copyright holders for CONVENIENCE isn't a reliable source, either, since ALL of the builders say to double check the manual.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which means that we're back to the BRB and codex. And since the BRB actually DOES use RL logic and examples to explain why things happen, guess what? I get to start using them again, JUST to annoy you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just as a side note, the English major that sits next to me at work gives a "mostly confirmation." She doesn't play, but I should think that someone that went to school for a degree in English qualifies.

col_impact wrote:
[The WD is express about its permission when you can include an exclusive WD Formation or Cities of Death tactical cards into your game of 40k.

If the WD said you could include the Battle Report in your game of 40k as a rule source or some other fashion then that would be fine. No problem with me if if actually permitted it.

However, there is no such permission.

And that demonstrates how much you do not understand regarding what I am saying. Read it again and take a moment to actually process it more than than you use for a Facebook meme.

Ahem! If we could all stop bickering, I believe you all missed my post a few pages back. Giving a wolf guard pack leader a sniper rifle before he becomes a wolf guard pack leader is the same as giving a wolf lord a jump pack before he has terminator armour. And we all know that is not on. Case closed.

 Kavish wrote:
Ahem! If we could all stop bickering, I believe you all missed my post a few pages back. Giving a wolf guard pack leader a sniper rifle before he becomes a wolf guard pack leader is the same as giving a wolf lord a jump pack before he has terminator armour. And we all know that is not on. Case closed.

No it is not. There is an actual rule that says a model may not have terminator armor and a jump pack...

"May not be taken by models wearing Terminator armour or models who have a Thunderwolf mount"

If you have Terminator armor you can not have a jump pack.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
Ahem! If we could all stop bickering, I believe you all missed my post a few pages back. Giving a wolf guard pack leader a sniper rifle before he becomes a wolf guard pack leader is the same as giving a wolf lord a jump pack before he has terminator armour. And we all know that is not on. Case closed.

No it is not. There is an actual rule that says a model may not have terminator armor and a jump pack...

"May not be taken by models wearing Terminator armour or models who have a Thunderwolf mount"

If you have Terminator armor you can not have a jump pack.

Ah, but at the time the model was given a jump pack (sniper rifle) it was not wearing Terminator Armor (upgraded to WGPL).

So there is a internal timeline of upgrade events when we write our army list?

that's cool.. that's fantastic..
...wait!...
thats BS!

eigther we give a scout the upgrades that are aviablle for a scout. or we upgrade a scout to a WGPL and then we may give this model upgrades that belong to a WGPL... that's it

 _ghost_ wrote:
So there is a internal timeline of upgrade events when we write our army list?

that's cool.. that's fantastic..
...wait!...
thats BS!

eigther we give a scout the upgrades that are aviablle for a scout. or we upgrade a scout to a WGPL and then we may give this model upgrades that belong to a WGPL... that's it

As has been mentioned many times, there must be a sequence in choosing options as some options aren't available until after a previous option has been chosen and applied. The classic example is Space Marine Bikers who come with a Bolt Pistol and must first exchange it for a Chainsword before being able to exchange a Melee weapon for a Special Weapon. The Special Weapon option isn't available to any model in the unit unless a model has first chosen and applied the Chainsword option.

I honestly think the order of operations thing is a red herring of sorts. I think we're better off discussing whether or not upgrading a specific model to a new profile resets that model's wargear to the "starting wargear" of the new profile. There is an ambiguity as we're never told to do so, but I don't think it's unreasonable to at least argue that if you turn a model from a Dude to a Tough Guy that you'd then look at the Army List Entry and see how a Tough Guy is equipped, effectively "resetting" the Wargear. This is actually how my gaming group tends to play things, but could easily be considered a house rule.

 _ghost_ wrote:
So there is a internal timeline of upgrade events when we write our army list?

that's cool.. that's fantastic..
...wait!...
thats BS!

eigther we give a scout the upgrades that are aviablle for a scout. or we upgrade a scout to a WGPL and then we may give this model upgrades that belong to a WGPL... that's it

Then tell me how a standard Space Marine Biker (not in the SW manual, read the BA manual or the SM manual) takes a Special weapon. You do that for me, and you'll see that there HAS to be an internal timeline. I'll give you two hints: 1) Bolt Pistol doesn't count as a CCW, and 2) the codex establishes that when the codex says "boltgun", it's talking about the specific weapon, not the category of firearms. And, as has been pointed out, there's noting actually PREVENTING a WGPL from having a sniper, there just isn't anything that specifically allows it under normal circumstances. The jump pack specifically says it's not compatible with either terminator armor or a Thunderwolf Mount.

 Ghaz wrote:
"I want to shoot my heavy bolter. It had a 'Weapon Destroyed' result last turn. That was a previous turn, so I can ignore the 'Weapon Destroyed' result and shoot a weapon I can't legally shoot."

"I want to upgrade my Wolf Scout to a Wolf Scout Pack Leader. He has a sniper rifle that a Wolf Scout Pack Leader can't take. That was a previous step in building my army list, so I can ignore the fact that the Wolf Scout Pack Leader would have a weapon he can't legally have."

Its the exact same situation requiring you to ignorie a previous result or choice that would lead to an illegal situation. So again, please provide a rule to supports allowing the sniper rifle on the Wolf Scout Pack Leader but not firing the heavy bolter the turn after it had a 'Weapon Destroyed' result.

Frankly, I want to stay out of this because I believe one thing and don't care what others on the internet I'll never meet want to say, but what you're saying, objectively speaking, doesn't sound similar. Taking the ordinary meaning of the word "Destroyed" to mean "KABOOM!!!" then Weapon Destroyed obviously means the weapon is gone, with other rules interact to let you repair it. It's gone. Its a negative rules change that removes a permitted ability.

With the WS to WGPL, you have a model being upgraded. Positive change. There's no wording to suggest its illegal at all. In fact, there isn't even anything to say a WGPL can't take a Sniper Rifle, as it completely omits any correlation between the two. BUT, there is permission to give a WS a rifle, and there is permission to upgrade any WS to a WGPL, and there's nothing to suggest that you can't make it the same model. That's like saying a model can't exchange his bolt pistol for a plasma pistol because he already exchanged his bolter for a power weapon and you can't upgrade the same character twice. See, it's just a gak show of throwing around alternative interpretations of a complex language.


Quite frankly, OP, one side says black and the other says white, so do it if you want and argue your case. There's no arbitrator in this game if you're playing a friendly, and its entirely down to the TO at any tournament so do it if you want and roll with it.

Zarius wrote:
....And, as has been pointed out, there's noting actually PREVENTING a WGPL from having a sniper, there just isn't anything that specifically allows it under normal circumstances. The jump pack specifically says it's not compatible with either terminator armor or a Thunderwolf Mount.

So we have a permisive ruleset... there is the allowment for scouts to take sniper rifles. but there is nothing that allows a WGPL to take a sniper rifle... so maybe just maybe it is this way because a WGPL is not allowd to take a sniper rifle.

When a unit has multiple models types in it, GW has been pretty consistent in how it describes which upgrades are meant for which model and what gear each model type starts with.

When they want all models in the unit to have access to something, it says "Any Model may take/replace/upgrade XXXX".

If they only one one of the models types to take something, they implicitly call out the model name in the rule "Model X may take/replace/upgrade YYYY"

Any semantic gymnastics to try and create a loophole where Model Y can take something that is listed for Model X is just that a loophole.

With this unit you have a choice. Do you want a WGPL or another WS with a sniper rifle in the unit. Only you can answer this question as you have to determine if the benefits of the WGPL outweighs the benefit of another sniper rifle in the unit based on how you use it.

 _ghost_ wrote:

Zarius wrote:
....And, as has been pointed out, there's noting actually PREVENTING a WGPL from having a sniper, there just isn't anything that specifically allows it under normal circumstances. The jump pack specifically says it's not compatible with either terminator armor or a Thunderwolf Mount.

So we have a permisive ruleset... there is the allowment for scouts to take sniper rifles. but there is nothing that allows a WGPL to take a sniper rifle... so maybe just maybe it is this way because a WGPL is not allowd to take a sniper rifle.

Source or quote the rule that expressly prohibits the combination of a WGPL and a Sniper rifle. There's express prohibition of terminator armor combined with bikes, mounts, and jet packs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll be lenient. Source me ANY rule from ANY SM manual or the BRB that expressly prohibits standard troops or troops in Power Armor from having a sniper rifle.

Zarius:

its the other way. Show me any source that literaly allows a WGPL to take a Sniper rifle. just a straight forward line or sentence that tells you this. not any jumpy loolphole argumentation. You need this to be able to take a sniper rifle. This is how a permissive ruleset works.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
Ahem! If we could all stop bickering, I believe you all missed my post a few pages back. Giving a wolf guard pack leader a sniper rifle before he becomes a wolf guard pack leader is the same as giving a wolf lord a jump pack before he has terminator armour. And we all know that is not on. Case closed.

No it is not. There is an actual rule that says a model may not have terminator armor and a jump pack...

"May not be taken by models wearing Terminator armour or models who have a Thunderwolf mount"

If you have Terminator armor you can not have a jump pack.

Ah, but at the time the model was given a jump pack (sniper rifle) it was not wearing Terminator Armor (upgraded to WGPL).

There is no restriction for a upgraded to WGPL and the sniper rifle though. Like there is with the jump pack and Terminator Armor.

There is a specific rule against the Terminator Armor and jump pack model...

The WGPL is not illegal at the end of the build where the Terminator Armor model is.

So that is not the same situation at all.

 _ghost_ wrote:
Zarius:

its the other way. Show me any source that literaly[sic] allows a WGPL to take a Sniper rifle. just a straight forward line or sentence that tells you this. not any jumpy loolphole[sic] argumentation. You need this to be able to take a sniper rifle. This is how a permissive ruleset works.

A Scout can, and the model is a scout that gets upgraded to a WGPL, and since there is nothing saying that he can not have a Sniper rifle, he retains his gear.

Or are you saying all of the scout gear goes away when we upgrade him to a WGPL?

So is the scout rifle a upgrade for Scouts or the gear of a "nude" scout? it its the first. then sorry. no scout rifle for a WPGL if is the second then we can talk again about this.

 _ghost_ wrote:
So is the scout rifle a upgrade for Scouts or the gear of a "nude" scout? it its the first. then sorry. no scout rifle for a WPGL if is the second then we can talk again about this.

It is gear that is an upgrade, but where does it say that the model loses its gear when it gets upgraded to a WGPL?

 _ghost_ wrote:
So is the scout rifle a upgrade for Scouts or the gear of a "nude" scout? it its the first. then sorry. no scout rifle for a WPGL if is the second then we can talk again about this.

As previously mentioned, it's a permissive rules set, not a declination set. That means that once something has something, as long as the rules for your upgrade don't expressly prohibit it, it should have it. Just because I give my scout a promotion doesn't mean he forgets how to shoot a sniper rifle.

YES, I'm using promotion theory. YES, I'm basing it off of real world examples, and a certain amount of RL logic (that being the question of "why the heck would I put a new guy into a scout unit to command them when I can just promote the most effective of them?"). If GW can use RL examples and logic to explain things in the manual, then so the heck can I. Don't be pissing and moaning about it.

The moment a scout is upgraded to a WGPL it is no longer a scout it is a WPGL ... as the WGPL can'ot take a sniper rifle.. its no longer a legal build. You are not allowed to field such a Unit build. No matter if you say its gone.. or if you say you take it away.. or what else.. You have no permission to field a WPGL with a scout rifle. period.

 _ghost_ wrote:
The moment a scout is upgraded to a WGPL it is no longer a scout it is a WPGL ... as the WGPL can'ot take a sniper rifle.. its no longer a legal build. You are not allowed to field such a Unit build. No matter if you say its gone.. or if you say you take it away.. or what else.. You have no permission to field a WPGL with a scout rifle. period.

Why cant the WGPL have a Sniper rifle?

What rule prohibits this?

 _ghost_ wrote:
The moment a scout is upgraded to a WGPL it is no longer a scout it is a WPGL ... as the WGPL can'ot take a sniper rifle.. its no longer a legal build. You are not allowed to field such a Unit build. No matter if you say its gone.. or if you say you take it away.. or what else.. You have no permission to field a WPGL with a scout rifle. period.

Source this rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because the rulebook I read says "UPGRADE" scout, not "replace scout with." That inherently says that you're gaining, but not loosing unless specifically specified, such as with the armor.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
Ahem! If we could all stop bickering, I believe you all missed my post a few pages back. Giving a wolf guard pack leader a sniper rifle before he becomes a wolf guard pack leader is the same as giving a wolf lord a jump pack before he has terminator armour. And we all know that is not on. Case closed.

No it is not. There is an actual rule that says a model may not have terminator armor and a jump pack...

"May not be taken by models wearing Terminator armour or models who have a Thunderwolf mount"

If you have Terminator armor you can not have a jump pack.

Ah, but at the time the model was given a jump pack (sniper rifle) it was not wearing Terminator Armor (upgraded to WGPL).

There is no restriction for a upgraded to WGPL and the sniper rifle though. Like there is with the jump pack and Terminator Armor.

There is a specific rule against the Terminator Armor and jump pack model...

The WGPL is not illegal at the end of the build where the Terminator Armor model is.

So that is not the same situation at all.

There is no restriction on a model with a Jump pack from taking terminator armour,

 DeathReaper wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
The moment a scout is upgraded to a WGPL it is no longer a scout it is a WPGL ... as the WGPL can'ot take a sniper rifle.. its no longer a legal build. You are not allowed to field such a Unit build. No matter if you say its gone.. or if you say you take it away.. or what else.. You have no permission to field a WPGL with a scout rifle. period.

Why cant the WGPL have a Sniper rifle?

What rule prohibits this?

Only by lack of permission to take one as a WGPL.

The unprovable case is if the WGPL can acquire Wargear before his upgrade and retain it through the upgrade. No specific directions are provided on this in any direction. All we know is what the base Wargear of the WGPL is, that is all. Any such ruling will be purely a House Rule.

However, with such a lack of precedence and direction, it would be the more cheesy move to add and replace Wargear before the upgrade and have that Wargear retained through the process. Some groups welcome the extremes that this can take the game, and they are welcome to it. Personally, I prefer to not threaten my playtime with such an action, I get so little of it as it is. Oddly enough, this is one reason I left my Templars behind and went to Necrons. Their upgrades are on a much simpler path.

The Options panel lists unit upgrades.



Upgrade means "to get something better than what you had originally"

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
Ahem! If we could all stop bickering, I believe you all missed my post a few pages back. Giving a wolf guard pack leader a sniper rifle before he becomes a wolf guard pack leader is the same as giving a wolf lord a jump pack before he has terminator armour. And we all know that is not on. Case closed.

No it is not. There is an actual rule that says a model may not have terminator armor and a jump pack...

"May not be taken by models wearing Terminator armour or models who have a Thunderwolf mount"

If you have Terminator armor you can not have a jump pack.

Ah, but at the time the model was given a jump pack (sniper rifle) it was not wearing Terminator Armor (upgraded to WGPL).

There is no restriction for a upgraded to WGPL and the sniper rifle though. Like there is with the jump pack and Terminator Armor.

There is a specific rule against the Terminator Armor and jump pack model...

The WGPL is not illegal at the end of the build where the Terminator Armor model is.

So that is not the same situation at all.

There is no restriction on a model with a Jump pack from taking terminator armour,

Except that there IS a specific restriction on a unit in terminator armor from using a Jump pack. Logically, yes, you COULD do that. But again, my point about the fact that the jump pack wouldn't be able to physically lift the terminator armor stands. You want to shove a JP on your termi, go for it. It still won't give him jump speed, because he's still too fat for it.

A WPGL that was, previous to upgrade, a sniper would still have the ability to use a sniper rifle. Nothing says that gear choices reset when a unit is upgraded, or that a sniper rifle is specifically incompatible with ANY unit in power armor. It's just that the scouts are the only ones given the ability to TAKE snipers in the first place..



Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
The Options panel lists unit upgrades.

Spoiler:

Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points cost for each.

Upgrade means "to get something better than what you had originally"

Yeah, and? You still have yet to show evidence that this means that you replace the whole model and not just the required gear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You keep harping on that, Col, but never actually providing anything resembling evidence to your point. Pony up, or stop talking about it.

Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
Ahem! If we could all stop bickering, I believe you all missed my post a few pages back. Giving a wolf guard pack leader a sniper rifle before he becomes a wolf guard pack leader is the same as giving a wolf lord a jump pack before he has terminator armour. And we all know that is not on. Case closed.

No it is not. There is an actual rule that says a model may not have terminator armor and a jump pack...

"May not be taken by models wearing Terminator armour or models who have a Thunderwolf mount"

If you have Terminator armor you can not have a jump pack.

Ah, but at the time the model was given a jump pack (sniper rifle) it was not wearing Terminator Armor (upgraded to WGPL).

There is no restriction for a upgraded to WGPL and the sniper rifle though. Like there is with the jump pack and Terminator Armor.

There is a specific rule against the Terminator Armor and jump pack model...

The WGPL is not illegal at the end of the build where the Terminator Armor model is.

So that is not the same situation at all.

There is no restriction on a model with a Jump pack from taking terminator armour,

Yeah there is, there is the little note that says "cannot be selected by models wearing Terminator Armour." Without the Chaos book, I'm using the SM Captain entry for example. In this case, the first half of the options states "May replace CCW with Relic Blade," then "may select options from Melee, Ranged, Special Issue Wargear, and Relics." Then it says "may replace [all wargear] with Terminator Armour, Power Sword, Iron Halo and Stormbolter." It then restates that a TDA captain can replace his Power Sword with a relic blade, as he no longer has a CCW to replace, but that does not remove his permission to buy one, he just doesn't have a CCW is all. Its like going into a shop with no money, you are still allowed to buy something, just don't have the means. You then have the "may take from the Terminator, Special Gear and Relics" options. Permission to take from the melee and ranged weapons has not actually been revoked, as he is still.a Captain. He just doesn't have weapons for trading. Now, the special gear kicks in. See he still has options for Special Issue Wargear such as Auspex for example, but now that he has terminator armour, he is specifically prohibited from selecting a Jump Pack. But he can still take an Auspex.
Do it in reverse, if you take the Jump Pack, you can then not take Terminator Armour as the two are expressly not compatible.

Charistoph wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
The moment a scout is upgraded to a WGPL it is no longer a scout it is a WPGL ... as the WGPL can'ot take a sniper rifle.. its no longer a legal build. You are not allowed to field such a Unit build. No matter if you say its gone.. or if you say you take it away.. or what else.. You have no permission to field a WPGL with a scout rifle. period.

Why cant the WGPL have a Sniper rifle?

What rule prohibits this?

Only by lack of permission to take one as a WGPL.

The unprovable case is if the WGPL can acquire Wargear before his upgrade and retain it through the upgrade. No specific directions are provided on this in any direction. All we know is what the base Wargear of the WGPL is, that is all. Any such ruling will be purely a House Rule.

However, with such a lack of precedence and direction, it would be the more cheesy move to add and replace Wargear before the upgrade and have that Wargear retained through the process. Some groups welcome the extremes that this can take the game, and they are welcome to it. Personally, I prefer to not threaten my playtime with such an action, I get so little of it as it is. Oddly enough, this is one reason I left my Templars behind and went to Necrons. Their upgrades are on a much simpler path.

A lack of express permission is not implicit denial of that permission. GW is completely silent on the matter, therefore there is no official ruling either way and you're free to play it as you want and can argue.

Then i can roll a d6 and claim to win on a result of 1+

GW never stated that this is not a legal way to win a game. therefore there is no official ruling and i am free to play as i want .

40k is a permissive ruleset. so i need permission to do stuff. not the other way around

col_impact wrote:
The Options panel lists unit upgrades.

Spoiler:

Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points cost for each.

Upgrade means "to get something better than what you had originally"

Yes, that's ONE meaning. It can also mean to take something and enhance it to make it better... leaving you with the original thing... only improved. This is why one of the tenants of this forum is to NOT use dictionary definitions. Words can have multiple meanings.

In other words, try a different argument. Yours isn't good and also happens to violate the tenants.

 Deadshot wrote:
A lack of express permission is not implicit denial of that permission. GW is completely silent on the matter, therefore there is no official ruling either way and you're free to play it as you want and can argue.

Indeed. In this case we're looking at two angles of instructions and permissions that we do not have.

 Deadshot wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
Ahem! If we could all stop bickering, I believe you all missed my post a few pages back. Giving a wolf guard pack leader a sniper rifle before he becomes a wolf guard pack leader is the same as giving a wolf lord a jump pack before he has terminator armour. And we all know that is not on. Case closed.

No it is not. There is an actual rule that says a model may not have terminator armor and a jump pack...

"May not be taken by models wearing Terminator armour or models who have a Thunderwolf mount"

If you have Terminator armor you can not have a jump pack.

Ah, but at the time the model was given a jump pack (sniper rifle) it was not wearing Terminator Armor (upgraded to WGPL).

There is no restriction for a upgraded to WGPL and the sniper rifle though. Like there is with the jump pack and Terminator Armor.

There is a specific rule against the Terminator Armor and jump pack model...

The WGPL is not illegal at the end of the build where the Terminator Armor model is.

So that is not the same situation at all.

There is no restriction on a model with a Jump pack from taking terminator armour,

Yeah there is, there is the little note that says "cannot be selected by models wearing Terminator Armour." Without the Chaos book, I'm using the SM Captain entry for example. In this case, the first half of the options states "May replace CCW with Relic Blade," then "may select options from Melee, Ranged, Special Issue Wargear, and Relics." Then it says "may replace [all wargear] with Terminator Armour, Power Sword, Iron Halo and Stormbolter." It then restates that a TDA captain can replace his Power Sword with a relic blade, as he no longer has a CCW to replace, but that does not remove his permission to buy one, he just doesn't have a CCW is all. Its like going into a shop with no money, you are still allowed to buy something, just don't have the means. You then have the "may take from the Terminator, Special Gear and Relics" options. Permission to take from the melee and ranged weapons has not actually been revoked, as he is still.a Captain. He just doesn't have weapons for trading. Now, the special gear kicks in. See he still has options for Special Issue Wargear such as Auspex for example, but now that he has terminator armour, he is specifically prohibited from selecting a Jump Pack. But he can still take an Auspex.
Do it in reverse, if you take the Jump Pack, you can then not take Terminator Armour as the two are expressly not compatible..

In that case you might want to recheck your codex.
1. There is no restriction on a model that has a jump pack from taking terminator armour. There is a restriction on a model in terminator armour from taking a jump pack.
2. The Captain entry specifically calls out what gear is traded for Terminator armor. Specifically "bolt pistol, chainsword, frag and krak grenades" Unlike say the BA codex where the Captain also trades in his power armor.

Zarius wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
The Options panel lists unit upgrades.

Spoiler:

Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points cost for each.

Upgrade means "to get something better than what you had originally"

Yeah, and? You still have yet to show evidence that this means that you replace the whole model and not just the required gear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You keep harping on that, Col, but never actually providing anything resembling evidence to your point. Pony up, or stop talking about it.

So you upgrade the unit and you get a model that is better than the model you originally had. That is implicitly replacing. And that is the rules supported way.

They gave me a stock response.

fething hell they can't be up to their eyeballs in work to the point they can't pop down to the codex department and put their heads through the door and say "Yo, can a WGPL take a Sniper?" which gives them an answer and takes them all of five minutes.

Customer service my ass.

col_impact wrote:

Zarius wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
The Options panel lists unit upgrades.

Spoiler:

Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points cost for each.

Upgrade means "to get something better than what you had originally"

Yeah, and? You still have yet to show evidence that this means that you replace the whole model and not just the required gear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You keep harping on that, Col, but never actually providing anything resembling evidence to your point. Pony up, or stop talking about it.

So you upgrade the unit and you get a model that is better than the model you originally had. That is implicitly replacing. And that is the rules supported way.

Where does it imply replacing? HOW does it imply replacing? Why would getting a better model inherently require REPLACING the model? Who considers that a more efficient method than upgrading the model, which is STILL a unit upgrade?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 _ghost_ wrote:
Then i can roll a d6 and claim to win on a result of 1+

GW never stated that this is not a legal way to win a game. therefore there is no official ruling and i am free to play as i want .

40k is a permissive ruleset. so i need permission to do stuff. not the other way around

Actually there is. Stating expressly that a 2+ (or 3+ or 4+) is a hit/wound DOES inherently say that a 1 is an automatic failure on to-hit and to-wound rolls. Hell, you roll a to-hit of 1 with a plasma weapon, and you injure YOURSELF.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And the model had permission to take the sniper rifle when it was assigned. NOTHING says he has to relinquish it on upgrade.

Zarius wrote:


Where does it imply replacing? HOW does it imply replacing? Why would getting a better model inherently require REPLACING the model? Who considers that a more efficient method than upgrading the model, which is STILL a unit upgrade?

This is simple English usage of "upgrade".

If I upgrade the tires on my car to racing tires then it involves swapping out the old for the new.

If I get a room upgrade at a hotel then it involves a wholly new and better room.

8th Edition SM Codex: Jump Terminators!!!!

Actually there is. Stating expressly that a 2+ (or 3+ or 4+) is a hit/wound DOES inherently say that a 1 is an automatic failure on to-hit and to-wound rolls. Hell, you roll a to-hit of 1 with a plasma weapon, and you injure YOURSELF.

Wow, that went right over your head. He did not say his roll was for to hit or to wound. He said to win the game he will roll a single D6 and with a 1+ he wins. Since the rules don't say he can't do that.


Let me ask some questions though.

Why would a WGPL need a set of Starting gear if his gear is always built off the WS?

If the WGPL could take a sniper rifle why doesn't the upgrade rule say "Any model can take a sniper rifle" instead of singling out the Wolf Scout? Any Model can take has common usage in all codexes.

 Happyjew wrote:
There is no restriction on a model with a Jump pack from taking terminator armour,

Yes there is, I quoted it.

"May not be taken by models wearing Terminator armour or models who have a Thunderwolf mount"

col_impact wrote:

Zarius wrote:


Where does it imply replacing? HOW does it imply replacing? Why would getting a better model inherently require REPLACING the model? Who considers that a more efficient method than upgrading the model, which is STILL a unit upgrade?

This is simple English usage of "upgrade".

If I upgrade the tires on my car to racing tires then it involves swapping out the old for the new.

If I get a room upgrade at a hotel then it involves a wholly new and better room.

So you are saying that it looses all of its gear, because the WGPL is not listed with any gear other than Power armor.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
There is no restriction on a model with a Jump pack from taking terminator armour,

Yes there is, I quoted it.

"May not be taken by models wearing Terminator armour or models who have a Thunderwolf mount"

Again, that quote says a model with Terminator armour cannot take a Jump Pack. It does not say model with a Jump Pack cannot take Terminator armour.

col_impact wrote:

Zarius wrote:


Where does it imply replacing? HOW does it imply replacing? Why would getting a better model inherently require REPLACING the model? Who considers that a more efficient method than upgrading the model, which is STILL a unit upgrade?

This is simple English usage of "upgrade".

If I upgrade the tires on my car to racing tires then it involves swapping out the old for the new.

If I get a room upgrade at a hotel then it involves a wholly new and better room.

Yes, hotel rooms don't have the option to magically make a room bigger, so you CAN'T upgrade just part of a hotel room.

As to the race car, you're replacing the TIRES, not your whole race car. That singular race car is a single model on a TEAM or race cars, not necessarily the whole team in itself. Most racing teams have more than one car. If you have a non-stock steering wheel, you don't magically loose the steering wheel when you change the tires. So THIS example actually is directly in line with what we've been saying: The act of upgrading a model does NOT inherently require replacing the model.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
There is no restriction on a model with a Jump pack from taking terminator armour,

Yes there is, I quoted it.

"May not be taken by models wearing Terminator armour or models who have a Thunderwolf mount"

Again, that quote says a model with Terminator armour cannot take a Jump Pack. It does not say model with a Jump Pack cannot take Terminator armour.

Not seeing your point.

Bottom line for this is if you have terminator armor you are not allowed to take a Jump pack. at the end of the build the model has a jump pack and terminator armor then it is an illegal build because of the rule I quoted.

Charistoph wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
The moment a scout is upgraded to a WGPL it is no longer a scout it is a WPGL ... as the WGPL can'ot take a sniper rifle.. its no longer a legal build. You are not allowed to field such a Unit build. No matter if you say its gone.. or if you say you take it away.. or what else.. You have no permission to field a WPGL with a scout rifle. period.

Why cant the WGPL have a Sniper rifle?

What rule prohibits this?

Only by lack of permission to take one as a WGPL.

Except they already have one...

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
There is no restriction on a model with a Jump pack from taking terminator armour,

Yes there is, I quoted it.

"May not be taken by models wearing Terminator armour or models who have a Thunderwolf mount"

Again, that quote says a model with Terminator armour cannot take a Jump Pack. It does not say model with a Jump Pack cannot take Terminator armour.

No, there is not. Feel free to do it. But there IS rules against a terminator unit from using a jump pack, so even if you take it, you can't use it.

col_impact wrote:

Zarius wrote:


Where does it imply replacing? HOW does it imply replacing? Why would getting a better model inherently require REPLACING the model? Who considers that a more efficient method than upgrading the model, which is STILL a unit upgrade?

This is simple English usage of "upgrade".

If I upgrade the tires on my car to racing tires then it involves swapping out the old for the new.

If I get a room upgrade at a hotel then it involves a wholly new and better room.

I guess you're ok with real world examples now? Zarius will be pleased that you've changed your mind.

If I use an extra chevron to upgrade my Corporal to a Sergeant, I haven't replaced the Corporal. I've simply made him better via an upgrade. Upgrade has more than one meaning. You need to let go of the idea that upgrade necessarily requires a replacement process.

Besides, if I upgrade my car's stock tires to snow tires, I could either be flat out replacing them OR I could be installing chains, thus making them better. Both processes are upgrades, but only one involves replacement.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
The moment a scout is upgraded to a WGPL it is no longer a scout it is a WPGL ... as the WGPL can'ot take a sniper rifle.. its no longer a legal build. You are not allowed to field such a Unit build. No matter if you say its gone.. or if you say you take it away.. or what else.. You have no permission to field a WPGL with a scout rifle. period.

Why cant the WGPL have a Sniper rifle?

What rule prohibits this?

Only by lack of permission to take one as a WGPL.

Except they already have one...

Maybe, maybe not. We do not have permission or instructions to keep any Wargear acquired by the initial model in the Unit Composition when it is transitioned to the new model profile. Of course, we don't have instructions to drop it and revert to the default equipment under the Wargear list, either.

The lack of an order of operations or any other set of instructions does hinder this.

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Zarius wrote:


Where does it imply replacing? HOW does it imply replacing? Why would getting a better model inherently require REPLACING the model? Who considers that a more efficient method than upgrading the model, which is STILL a unit upgrade?

This is simple English usage of "upgrade".

If I upgrade the tires on my car to racing tires then it involves swapping out the old for the new.

If I get a room upgrade at a hotel then it involves a wholly new and better room.

I guess you're ok with real world examples now? Zarius will be pleased that you've changed your mind.

If I use an extra chevron to upgrade my Corporal to a Sergeant, I haven't replaced the Corporal. I've simply made him better via an upgrade. Upgrade has more than one meaning. You need to let go of the idea that upgrade necessarily requires a replacement process.

Besides, if I upgrade my car's stock tires to snow tires, I could either be flat out replacing them OR I could be installing chains, thus making them better. Both processes are upgrades, but only one involves replacement.

I pointed out that they could suck potatoes on that topic because the BRB uses real world examples.

Also, excellent point on that tire reference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. We do not have permission or instructions to keep any Wargear acquired by the initial model in the Unit Composition when it is transitioned to the new model profile. Of course, we don't have instructions to drop it and revert to the default equipment under the Wargear list, either.

The lack of an order of operations or any other set of instructions does hinder this.

I get the feeling you're arguing both sides just because you want to keep the fire fueled, sir (or ma'am).

Charistoph wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. We do not have permission or instructions to keep any Wargear acquired by the initial model in the Unit Composition when it is transitioned to the new model profile. Of course, we don't have instructions to drop it and revert to the default equipment under the Wargear list, either.

The lack of an order of operations or any other set of instructions does hinder this.

Here is what it comes down to.

If at the start of the game, you have not broken any rules in your list then everything you have taken is legal.

However if you try to have a Terminator model with a jet pack, well there is a rule against that and that is not legal.

The rules say that a scout can take a Sniper rifle. The rules also say that you can upgrade a scout to a WGPL.

Then there is no rule saying a WGPL can not have a sniper rifle. So if he already has one when you upgrade then you do not have an illegal choice.

Zarius wrote:I get the feeling you're arguing both sides just because you want to keep the fire fueled, sir (or ma'am).

Sir, actually.

But, no, people are arguing things that do not exist as actual rules. I am just reminding people of that. Not my fault that people do not keep that in mind.

DeathReaper wrote:The rules say that a scout can take a Sniper rifle. The rules also say that you can upgrade a scout to a WGPL.

Then there is no rule saying a WGPL can not have a sniper rifle. So if he already has one when you upgrade then you do not have an illegal choice.

Two problems:
1) No order of operations means there is no way you can prove he acquired the sniper rifle before the upgrade. Saying that he did is only a house rule.

2) Can you demonstrate that the Wargear is not reset to the WGPL's default when the upgrade occurs?

Doesn't this topic come down to a few simple things?

A) There is no order of operations specified, so there is none.
B) You have to build a legal list. Every component of that list has to be legal.
C) If a Scout may take a Sniper Rifle, and a Sarge may not, that's pretty clear.
D) If you turn a Scout into a Sarge, you may not have a Sniper Rifle - since there is no permission for the Sarge to have said Sniper Rifle.

Example:
You're allowed to build an Iron Fist CAD.
You're allowed to build an Ultramarine CAD.
You're perfectly fine to take Tigurius in a UM CAD.

But you can't build an Ultramarine CAD, add Tigurius and then change the Chapter Tactics to Iron Fists.
You'll have to remove Tigurius from that list.

If you build an Ultramarine CAD, added a regular Librarian and then changed the Chapter Tactics to Iron Fists, your list would still be legal though.

nekooni wrote:
Doesn't this topic come down to a few simple things?

A) There is no order of operations specified, so there is none.
B) You have to build a legal list. Every component of that list has to be legal.
C) If a Scout may take a Sniper Rifle, and a Sarge may not, that's pretty clear.
D) If you turn a Scout into a Sarge, you may not have a Sniper Rifle - since there is no permission for the Sarge to have said Sniper Rifle.

Example:
You're allowed to build an Iron Fist CAD.
You're allowed to build an Ultramarine CAD.
You're perfectly fine to take Tigurius in a UM CAD.

But you can't build an Ultramarine CAD, add Tigurius and then change the Chapter Tactics to Iron Fists.
You'll have to remove Tigurius from that list.

If you build an Ultramarine CAD, added a regular Librarian and then changed the Chapter Tactics to Iron Fists, your list would still be legal though.

All of this is perfectly valid, but I'll direct you to something that breaks your entire argument at point A. Look up, in the SM manual, the Space Marine Biker. Look at the gear list. Then look at what is required for a space marine biker to take a special weapon. Then notate that the pistol neither counts as a CCW nor, based on context, a boltgun (it falls under the boltgun category, but the other swap section make it evident that when the Special Weapons area says boltgun, they actually mean the specific gun, not the general category).

SO, the SM Biker has no CCW, and no boltgun. The ONLY way for a SM biker to take a special weapon (per the options allowance) is to trade his bolt pistol for a chain sword, which then GIVES him a melee weapon. Now, while the swap from bolt pistol to chainsword is free, it DOES establish a required order of operations, period.

Otherwise, with no order of ops, a WGPL taking a meltabomb fails, because both the upgrade to WGPL and the meltabomb occur at the exact same time. Until he completes the upgrade to WPGL, he's still a Scout, and Scouts DON'T have the option to take meltabombs. Order of ops. Either there IS one, which is why you take a meltabomb AFTER a WGPL upgrade, or your scouts have to be able to take one, which isn't true.

Charistoph wrote:
Two problems:
1) No order of operations means there is no way you can prove he acquired the sniper rifle before the upgrade. Saying that he did is only a house rule.

Yes there is, ask the guy that built the list.

2) Can you demonstrate that the Wargear is not reset to the WGPL's default when the upgrade occurs?

Do not have to, because nothing says that he loses his gear when the upgrade occurs.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Two problems:
1) No order of operations means there is no way you can prove he acquired the sniper rifle before the upgrade. Saying that he did is only a house rule.

Yes there is, ask the guy that built the list.

Ah yes, and where is that in the rules?

THAT is the problem.

 DeathReaper wrote:

2) Can you demonstrate that the Wargear is not reset to the WGPL's default when the upgrade occurs?

Do not have to, because nothing says that he loses his gear when the upgrade occurs.

It coincides with the earlier point. But again, nothing says he keeps it, either.

Zarius wrote:
All of this is perfectly valid, but I'll direct you to something that breaks your entire argument at point A. Look up, in the SM manual, the Space Marine Biker. Look at the gear list. Then look at what is required for a space marine biker to take a special weapon. Then notate that the pistol neither counts as a CCW nor, based on context, a boltgun (it falls under the boltgun category, but the other swap section make it evident that when the Special Weapons area says boltgun, they actually mean the specific gun, not the general category).

SO, the SM Biker has no CCW, and no boltgun. The ONLY way for a SM biker to take a special weapon (per the options allowance) is to trade his bolt pistol for a chain sword, which then GIVES him a melee weapon. Now, while the swap from bolt pistol to chainsword is free, it DOES establish a required order of operations, period.

Otherwise, with no order of ops, a WGPL taking a meltabomb fails, because both the upgrade to WGPL and the meltabomb occur at the exact same time. Until he completes the upgrade to WPGL, he's still a Scout, and Scouts DON'T have the option to take meltabombs. Order of ops. Either there IS one, which is why you take a meltabomb AFTER a WGPL upgrade, or your scouts have to be able to take one, which isn't true.

Or there is no order of operations and all you have to do is build a legal list. It's kinda like how Ordnance works - you can't cheat your way around the Ordnance side-effects by shooting all other weapons first, but you're not required to shoot the Ordnance first either. How you shoot your weapons still has to be legal after all is said and done.

The Biker is allowed to swap the weapons, and he is allowed to swap them again, too. The end result works as the Biker is allowed to own a meltagun - he had the option to do so right from the start.
A Veteran is allowed to swap himself to become an Apothecary but an Apothecary doesn't have permission to buy a Power Weapon. The end result doesn't work, since he doesn't have permission to actually own a Power Weapon

Otherwise, how exactly are you going to stop me from bringing Tigurius in a Smurf-gone-IF CAD?

nekooni wrote:

Zarius wrote:
All of this is perfectly valid, but I'll direct you to something that breaks your entire argument at point A. Look up, in the SM manual, the Space Marine Biker. Look at the gear list. Then look at what is required for a space marine biker to take a special weapon. Then notate that the pistol neither counts as a CCW nor, based on context, a boltgun (it falls under the boltgun category, but the other swap section make it evident that when the Special Weapons area says boltgun, they actually mean the specific gun, not the general category).

SO, the SM Biker has no CCW, and no boltgun. The ONLY way for a SM biker to take a special weapon (per the options allowance) is to trade his bolt pistol for a chain sword, which then GIVES him a melee weapon. Now, while the swap from bolt pistol to chainsword is free, it DOES establish a required order of operations, period.

Otherwise, with no order of ops, a WGPL taking a meltabomb fails, because both the upgrade to WGPL and the meltabomb occur at the exact same time. Until he completes the upgrade to WPGL, he's still a Scout, and Scouts DON'T have the option to take meltabombs. Order of ops. Either there IS one, which is why you take a meltabomb AFTER a WGPL upgrade, or your scouts have to be able to take one, which isn't true.

Or there is no order of operations and all you have to do is build a legal list. It's kinda like how Ordnance works - you can't cheat your way around the Ordnance side-effects by shooting all other weapons first, but you're not required to shoot the Ordnance first either. How you shoot your weapons still has to be legal after all is said and done.

The Biker is allowed to swap the weapons, and he is allowed to swap them again, too. The end result works as the Biker is allowed to own a meltagun - he had the option to do so right from the start.
A Veteran is allowed to swap himself to become an Apothecary but an Apothecary doesn't have permission to buy a Power Weapon. The end result doesn't work, since he doesn't have permission to actually own a Power Weapon

Otherwise, how exactly are you going to stop me from bringing Tigurius in a Smurf-gone-IF CAD?

The biker did NOT have the option to take the meltagun from the start, because the gear that he had to swap out for it. It wasn't a possibility, because the gear was lacking. And you just described, by saying "The Biker is allowed to swap the weapons, and he is allowed to swap them again, too" an order of operations... or the procedure for achieving a specific goal. To swap out for the meltagun, the SM biker has to first swap his pistol for a chainsword. He has to do one and THEN the other. An ORDER of OPERATIONS, similar to doing multiplication and division before addition and subtraction.

And I don't know, is there a SPECIFIC rule that states that Tigurius can't be in an Iron Fist rules set army, smurfs or otherwise?

Zarius wrote:
And I don't know, is there a SPECIFIC rule that states that Tigurius can't be in an Iron Fist rules set army, smurfs or otherwise?

Army? No. Detachments? Yes. All part of the Chapter Tactics Rules. Chapter Tactics are assigned by detachment, and only one per detachment may be selected.

Tigurius comes with only Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines), not just Chapter Tactics like the Librarian, so only may be included in detachments operating under the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics.

Charistoph wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

2) Can you demonstrate that the Wargear is not reset to the WGPL's default when the upgrade occurs?

Do not have to, because nothing says that he loses his gear when the upgrade occurs.

It coincides with the earlier point. But again, nothing says he keeps it, either.

And this being a permissive ruleset, if it is allowed and nothing restricts it, you do not take it away...

 DeathReaper wrote:
And this being a permissive ruleset, if it is allowed and nothing restricts it, you do not take it away...

Well, here's the thing, we haven't established that it actually IS allowed, and that is part of the problem.

 Charistoph wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
And this being a permissive ruleset, if it is allowed and nothing restricts it, you do not take it away...

Well, here's the thing, we haven't established that it actually IS allowed, and that is part of the problem.

Yes we have. you can upgrade a scout to have a sniper rifle, then you can upgrade that same scout to be a WGPL.

Now show where the Sniper rifle is lost when the upgrade to WGPL happens.

Bottom line: it is allowed and nothing restricts it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
And this being a permissive ruleset, if it is allowed and nothing restricts it, you do not take it away...

Well, here's the thing, we haven't established that it actually IS allowed, and that is part of the problem.

Yes we have. you can upgrade a scout to have a sniper rifle, then you can upgrade that same scout to be a WGPL.

Now show where the Sniper rifle is lost when the upgrade to WGPL happens.

Bottom line: it is allowed and nothing restricts it.

But upgrade means "to get something better than what you originally had" so you replace the scout model with the WPGL model when you upgrade the unit.

col_impact wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
And this being a permissive ruleset, if it is allowed and nothing restricts it, you do not take it away...

Well, here's the thing, we haven't established that it actually IS allowed, and that is part of the problem.

Yes we have. you can upgrade a scout to have a sniper rifle, then you can upgrade that same scout to be a WGPL.

Now show where the Sniper rifle is lost when the upgrade to WGPL happens.

Bottom line: it is allowed and nothing restricts it.

But upgrade means "to get something better than what you originally had" so you replace the scout model with the WPGL model when you upgrade the unit.

Clearly you aren't understanding. FIRST of all, that is NOT the definition of the word. Secondly, even USING that as the definition, there is no inherent requirement to REPLACE The model to "get something better." You can replace just the armor, and you have something better than what you had, and the MODEL hasn't been replaced. Your idiotic adherence to a definition that ISN'T actually the definition is actually pretty annoying.

Zarius wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
And this being a permissive ruleset, if it is allowed and nothing restricts it, you do not take it away...

Well, here's the thing, we haven't established that it actually IS allowed, and that is part of the problem.

Yes we have. you can upgrade a scout to have a sniper rifle, then you can upgrade that same scout to be a WGPL.

Now show where the Sniper rifle is lost when the upgrade to WGPL happens.

Bottom line: it is allowed and nothing restricts it.

But upgrade means "to get something better than what you originally had" so you replace the scout model with the WPGL model when you upgrade the unit.

Clearly you aren't understanding. FIRST of all, that is NOT the definition of the word. Secondly, even USING that as the definition, there is no inherent requirement to REPLACE The model to "get something better." You can replace just the armor, and you have something better than what you had, and the MODEL hasn't been replaced. Your idiotic adherence to a definition that ISN'T actually the definition is actually pretty annoying.

First, it is the definition of the word.

Second, the WGPL is a different model than the scout model.

Third, we are upgrading the unit per the rules.

No, it's not the definition, by ANY dictionary. Second, WHAT bloody rule says to replace it?

Merriam-Webster: upgrade = an occurrence in which one thing is replaced by something better, newer, more valuable, etc."

The WGPL is physically a different model in the game than a Wolf Scout.

No sniper rifle for WGPL. Permissive rule set. He does not have permission to have one. List not legal at end. Upgrading is replacing so he is no longer a wolf scout (ie: does not have the option for a sniper rifle).

I dare someone to find me another instance where the logic of WGPL with snipers applies.

if I get no responses, we know who is right.

col_impact wrote:
Merriam-Webster: upgrade = an occurrence in which one thing is replaced by something better, newer, more valuable, etc."

The WGPL is physically a different model in the game than a Wolf Scout.

OK, I'll conceed that Marriam-Webster is slowed, because by that logic, by adding snow chains to my tires, my car should magically become a new car. Which is bullcrap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCrusadeSmurf wrote:
I dare someone to find me another instance where the logic of WGPL with snipers applies.

if I get no responses, we know who is right.

What logic do you mean?

col_impact wrote:
But upgrade means "to get something better than what you originally had" so you replace the scout model with the WPGL model when you upgrade the unit.

Upgrade has many different definitions, not all of them mean replace.

it does not say to replace the scout, just Upgrade him, so you do not replace him.

 TheCrusadeSmurf wrote:
I dare someone to find me another instance where the logic of WGPL with snipers applies.

if I get no responses, we know who is right.

Grey hunters Squads.

Blood Claw squads

Swiftclaw squads

Skyclaw squads...

 Kavish wrote:
No sniper rifle for WGPL. Permissive rule set. He does not have permission to have one. List not legal at end. Upgrading is replacing so he is no longer a wolf scout (ie: does not have the option for a sniper rifle).

This is incorrect...

Upgrading is not replacing.

col_impact wrote:
Second, the WGPL is a different model than the scout model.

I would ask you to prove it, but you can't

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
But upgrade means "to get something better than what you originally had" so you replace the scout model with the WPGL model when you upgrade the unit.

Upgrade has many different definitions, not all of them mean replace.

it does not say to replace the scout, just Upgrade him, so you do not replace him.

Are you using a definition of upgrade from the BRB?

col_impact wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
But upgrade means "to get something better than what you originally had" so you replace the scout model with the WPGL model when you upgrade the unit.

Upgrade has many different definitions, not all of them mean replace.

it does not say to replace the scout, just Upgrade him, so you do not replace him.

Are you using a definition of upgrade from the BRB?

THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF UPGRADE IN THE BRB, WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS REPEATEDLY

Zarius wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
But upgrade means "to get something better than what you originally had" so you replace the scout model with the WPGL model when you upgrade the unit.

Upgrade has many different definitions, not all of them mean replace.

it does not say to replace the scout, just Upgrade him, so you do not replace him.

Are you using a definition of upgrade from the BRB?

THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF UPGRADE IN THE BRB, WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS REPEATEDLY

Ok. So no rule in the BRB justifies what you are doing. Got it.

Also, per the Oxford dictionary, Raise (something) to a higher standard, in particular improve (equipment or machinery) by adding or replacing components:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

Zarius wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
But upgrade means "to get something better than what you originally had" so you replace the scout model with the WPGL model when you upgrade the unit.

Upgrade has many different definitions, not all of them mean replace.

it does not say to replace the scout, just Upgrade him, so you do not replace him.

Are you using a definition of upgrade from the BRB?

THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF UPGRADE IN THE BRB, WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS REPEATEDLY

Ok. So no rule in the BRB justifies what you are doing. Got it.

No rule in the BRB forbids it, and the chain of logic workd.

Zarius wrote:
Also, per the Oxford dictionary, Raise (something) to a higher standard, in particular improve (equipment or machinery) by adding or replacing components:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

Zarius wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
But upgrade means "to get something better than what you originally had" so you replace the scout model with the WPGL model when you upgrade the unit.

Upgrade has many different definitions, not all of them mean replace.

it does not say to replace the scout, just Upgrade him, so you do not replace him.

Are you using a definition of upgrade from the BRB?

THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF UPGRADE IN THE BRB, WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS REPEATEDLY

Ok. So no rule in the BRB justifies what you are doing. Got it.

No rule in the BRB forbids it, and the chain of logic workd.

You don't have permission until you can prove that upgrade means "promote" and not "replace".

col_impact wrote:
You don't have permission until you can prove that upgrade means "promote" and not "replace".

Not true at all...

It does not say Replace. so we have no permission to replace the Scout, just to upgrade him.

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You don't have permission until you can prove that upgrade means "promote" and not "replace".

Not true at all...

It does not say Replace. so we have no permission to replace the Scout, just to upgrade him.

Cool. Upgrade means replace.

col_impact wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You don't have permission until you can prove that upgrade means "promote" and not "replace".

Not true at all...

It does not say Replace. so we have no permission to replace the Scout, just to upgrade him.

Cool. Upgrade means replace.

Prove it

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You don't have permission until you can prove that upgrade means "promote" and not "replace".

Not true at all...

It does not say Replace. so we have no permission to replace the Scout, just to upgrade him.

Cool. Upgrade means replace.

Prove it

I don't have to. I am not trying to give a WGPL a sniper rifle.

col_impact wrote:
I don't have to. I am not trying to give a WGPL a sniper rifle.

you do have to prove it. because Upgrade does not necessarily mean replace...

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I don't have to. I am not trying to give a WGPL a sniper rifle.

you do have to prove it. because Upgrade does not necessarily mean replace...

No sniper rifle on your WGPL until you can prove it can be on there. The burden of proof is on you.

Zarius wrote:
No rule in the BRB forbids it, and the chain of logic workd.

Nor is applying blunt force to your WPGL Sniper and calling it a legal Destroyer Weapon Orbital Attack forbidden. Permissive ruleset, remember?

DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
And this being a permissive ruleset, if it is allowed and nothing restricts it, you do not take it away...

Well, here's the thing, we haven't established that it actually IS allowed, and that is part of the problem.

Yes we have. you can upgrade a scout to have a sniper rifle, then you can upgrade that same scout to be a WGPL.

Now show where the Sniper rifle is lost when the upgrade to WGPL happens.

Bottom line: it is allowed and nothing restricts it.

Apologies, I was not specific and detailed enough.

It has not been properly established that you can replace the Wolf Scout's boltgun to a Sniper Rifle before upgrading it to a Wolf Guard Pack Leader. This point is operating on an assumption that you can.

col_impact wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You don't have permission until you can prove that upgrade means "promote" and not "replace".

Not true at all...

It does not say Replace. so we have no permission to replace the Scout, just to upgrade him.

Cool. Upgrade means replace.

Even in the instance where you CAN legitimately claim that upgrade inherently requires replacement, such as your example of changing the tires on a car, it DOES NOT BLOODY WELL REQUIRE FULL REPLACEMENT OF EVERYTHING. I don't magically loose a custom speaker/stereo set up just because I change my bloody tires. If I swap my video card for a better one, my computer has been upgraded and thus the whole of the computing power of my household, without completely replacing anything. The only viable difference between a scout and a WGPL, gear wise, is the armor. It's not like I'm completely replacing the class of unit. I'm not trading a scout for a walker. As you have said, REPEATEDLY, all upgrade means is to "get something better." Getting a better unit does NOT require trading out the whole of the bloody unit. Now, quit repeating tired old arguments that have been shown to be flaws ages ago. Crimeny, you argue like a Christian.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
And this being a permissive ruleset, if it is allowed and nothing restricts it, you do not take it away...

Well, here's the thing, we haven't established that it actually IS allowed, and that is part of the problem.

Yes we have. you can upgrade a scout to have a sniper rifle, then you can upgrade that same scout to be a WGPL.

Now show where the Sniper rifle is lost when the upgrade to WGPL happens.

Bottom line: it is allowed and nothing restricts it.

Apologies, I was not specific and detailed enough.

It has not been properly established that you can replace the Wolf Scout's boltgun to a Sniper Rifle before upgrading it to a Wolf Guard Pack Leader. This point is operating on an assumption that you can.

Christoph, the only way for a SM biker to get a Special weapon is to first swap out their Bolt Pistol for a Chainsword so that they have a melee weapon to trade. It can't be done as "consecutive option acquisition." More over, the same statement applies to WGPL and Meltabombs. You have to FIRST upgrade to WGPL and THEN upgrade to include meltabombs, because if you take both at the same time, when you check "is WGPL?" to see if you can take the meltabombs, the answer is NO until after the WGPL upgrade is complete which, since it happens at the same time as the meltabomb upgrade, means that the unit is still a scout when the checks are all done at the same time.

The two of these establish that there IS an order of operations, and thus there IS an order to the upgrades, period. To deny that is just being as childish as col_impact's constant claim that that "getting something better than you had" inherently means that you have to replace the whole thing.

Zarius wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Apologies, I was not specific and detailed enough.

It has not been properly established that you can replace the Wolf Scout's boltgun to a Sniper Rifle before upgrading it to a Wolf Guard Pack Leader. This point is operating on an assumption that you can.

Christoph, the only way for a SM biker to get a Special weapon is to first swap out their Bolt Pistol for a Chainsword so that they have a melee weapon to trade. It can't be done as "consecutive option acquisition." More over, the same statement applies to WGPL and Meltabombs. You have to FIRST upgrade to WGPL and THEN upgrade to include meltabombs, because if you take both at the same time, when you check "is WGPL?" to see if you can take the meltabombs, the answer is NO until after the WGPL upgrade is complete which, since it happens at the same time as the meltabomb upgrade, means that the unit is still a scout when the checks are all done at the same time.

The two of these establish that there IS an order of operations, and thus there IS an order to the upgrades, period. To deny that is just being as childish as col_impact's constant claim that that "getting something better than you had" inherently means that you have to replace the whole thing.

Yes, I do remember the Bikes example, I was one of the ones who brought it up, I think.

While I do not have a copy of the Wulfen version of the Space Wolves codex, I do have the previous version. If unchanged between these two, and if we use a "consecutive option acquisition" procedure, than the WGPL can get a camo cloak, but not a Sniper Rifle before upgrading.

The options are in order:
1) add models
2) add Camo cloaks to all Wolf Scouts
3) upgrade a Wolf Scout to WGPL
4) WGPL takes items from Melee or Ranged lists
5) add Meltabombs to WGPL
6) replace Wolf Scouts boltguns
7) replace 2 Wolf Scouts boltguns with a special weapon option
8) one Wolf Scout can take a weapon from Heavy or Special Weapon list.

So, if we go by this order, then there is no method for the WGPL to get one. Nothing specific is written to make this a required method.

However, if the operation can be done in any order, than one can go from step 1 to step 6, then back to step 3, than we can be looking at a WPGL getting a Sniper Rifle before becoming a WGPL, and it is to this that the above observations were directed regarding if the Wargear is reset on upgrade or not. However, nothing specific is written making THIS an allowed method.

If we look at it from a "final perspective", then the WPGL could not get it because there is no option for the WPGL to take one on the list, just the Scouts. The process in how it got it is irrelevant, it simply does not have permission to have it. And again, there is nothing specifically written making this the required or allowed method.

It is terribly irritating in these situations that it isn't properly defined as it leads to these discussions and someone finds a combination that can be rather broken when you put it on the board.

Even in the instance where you CAN legitimately claim that upgrade inherently requires replacement, such as your example of changing the tires on a car, it DOES NOT BLOODY WELL REQUIRE FULL REPLACEMENT OF EVERYTHING. I don't magically loose a custom speaker/stereo set up just because I change my bloody tires.

On the other hand, if you upgrade the tires on a Dodge Dart model car, then upgrade the car model to a Dodge Charger, the tires are still on the Dart and the Charger does not have access to them.

The thing is. Whether "upgrade" replaces the scout or not, in the end he is no longer a wolf scout. Wolf scout does not have permission to have a sniper rifle.

Either that or I'm giving my company champion and apothecary a storm shield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also jump pack terminators are now a thing.

col_impact wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I don't have to. I am not trying to give a WGPL a sniper rifle.

you do have to prove it. because Upgrade does not necessarily mean replace...

No sniper rifle on your WGPL until you can prove it can be on there. The burden of proof is on you.

Already proved it can be there. He took the Sniper rifle as a scout then was upgraded to a WGPL.

Any rules that actually state that he loses his gear?

Any at all?

Please post them.

But you wont be able to, because they do not exist.

And don't try to argue that it is not the same thing. The whole basis for your argument is you are doing it in a specific order and the end product is not subject to a legality check.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok. Be on the look out for my librarian terminators with jump packs. It's gonna be awesome!!!

 Kavish wrote:
The thing is. Whether "upgrade" replaces the scout or not, in the end he is no longer a wolf scout. Wolf scout does not have permission to have a sniper rifle. .

Please quote any actual rule that states a WGPL CAN NOT have a Sniper rifle...

 Kavish wrote:
Also jump pack terminators are now a thing.

No they are not, a model in Terminator Armor are specifically disallowed from having a Jump pack. (This has been noted earlier in the thread)

 DeathReaper wrote:

Already proved it can be there. He took the Sniper rifle as a scout then was upgraded to a WGPL.

My librarian took a jump pack before he took the terminator armour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's not a model with terminator armour taking a jump pack, it's a model with a jump pack taking terminator armour. By your logic this is legal because I did it in the right order.

 Kavish wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Already proved it can be there. He took the Sniper rifle as a scout then was upgraded to a WGPL.

My librarian took a jump pack before he took the terminator armour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's not a model with terminator armour taking a jump pack, it's a model with a jump pack taking terminator armour. By your logic this is legal because I did it in the right order.

Except there is a rule explicitly forbidding the terminator...

So not at all the same situation.

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I don't have to. I am not trying to give a WGPL a sniper rifle.

you do have to prove it. because Upgrade does not necessarily mean replace...

Doesn't a wgpl wear power armour? So in this case you would have to replace the model from one wearing carapace armour to one wearing power armour. Upgrade or replace depends upon the nature of the the upgrade. Upgrading a librarian to a higher mastery level would not require a new model. Upgrading a chapter master to one riding a bike would clearly need replacing with a suitable model riding a bike. It doesn't take much common sense to know which meaning of upgrade is required for each particular option, and the rules assume that the player will apply this.

I also go down the line that it is the end product that the rules are concerned with, not the process. Foc, detachments, and dataslates all tell us what something should look like at the end. If it doesn't, it isn't legal. If I look at your list, see a wgpl, any gear he has must be from the allowable upgrades for a wgpl. As soon as you upgrade him, he no longer has access to the wargear available to a scout, and as a part of editing and double checking your list you have to remove any upgrades that are no longer allowable. It's in black and white what options are available to each model, and the rules only care that this is correct at the end of the list. Arguing otherwise is at best bending the rules, at worst trying to cheat.

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
But upgrade means "to get something better than what you originally had" so you replace the scout model with the WPGL model when you upgrade the unit.

Upgrade has many different definitions, not all of them mean replace.

it does not say to replace the scout, just Upgrade him, so you do not replace him.

 TheCrusadeSmurf wrote:
I dare someone to find me another instance where the logic of WGPL with snipers applies.

if I get no responses, we know who is right.

Grey hunters Squads.

Blood Claw squads

Swiftclaw squads

Skyclaw squads...

 Kavish wrote:
No sniper rifle for WGPL. Permissive rule set. He does not have permission to have one. List not legal at end. Upgrading is replacing so he is no longer a wolf scout (ie: does not have the option for a sniper rifle).

This is incorrect...

Upgrading is not replacing.

col_impact wrote:
Second, the WGPL is a different model than the scout model.

I would ask you to prove it, but you can't

All the units you just listed are all in Power Armour, have the same starting Wargear and nobody has yet found a problem with their wording.

Let's take Vanguard Veterans for instance, the Veteran Sergeant may take a relic blade, but the rest may not because it is an explicit, permissive ruleset.

It is literally the same logic as jump pack terminators and every time I've seen somebody post about that logic, they've been dismissed with a mere 'You're wrong' with no explanation. Proves to me that they are right because you refuse to explain.

It's also useless using Merriam-Webster, because it's not a Queen's English dictionary, which if it's not Queen's English, it's not english.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kavish wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Already proved it can be there. He took the Sniper rifle as a scout then was upgraded to a WGPL.

My librarian took a jump pack before he took the terminator armour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's not a model with terminator armour taking a jump pack, it's a model with a jump pack taking terminator armour. By your logic this is legal because I did it in the right order.

Except there is a rule explicitly forbidding the terminator...

So not at all the same situation.

HE WAS NOT A TERMINATOR WHEN HE GOT THE JUMP PACK. There is no rule expressly forbidding a model with a jump pack from taking terminator armour. Honestly. Are you choosing to ignore the facts? What's so great about a sniper rifle on a model with power armour anyway?

This exactly.

The reason It can't be done by the iPad version brcause it can't be done at all. The order and names of models that are stated forbid it, not the dictionary definition, not the codex.

col_impact wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
And this being a permissive ruleset, if it is allowed and nothing restricts it, you do not take it away...

Well, here's the thing, we haven't established that it actually IS allowed, and that is part of the problem.

Yes we have. you can upgrade a scout to have a sniper rifle, then you can upgrade that same scout to be a WGPL.

Now show where the Sniper rifle is lost when the upgrade to WGPL happens.

Bottom line: it is allowed and nothing restricts it.

But upgrade means "to get something better than what you originally had" so you replace the scout model with the WPGL model when you upgrade the unit.

Again, that's one possible definition. Another possible definition is to take something and change it to make it better than it was before. Upgrading doesn't require a component of replacing. Since you aren't getting this, I'll quote one of the core tenants of this board.

"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out. "

By continuing to quote dictionary definition as backup for your position, you are violating the core tenants of this board.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JamesY wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I don't have to. I am not trying to give a WGPL a sniper rifle.

you do have to prove it. because Upgrade does not necessarily mean replace...

Doesn't a wgpl wear power armour? So in this case you would have to replace the model from one wearing carapace armour to one wearing power armour. Upgrade or replace depends upon the nature of the the upgrade. Upgrading a librarian to a higher mastery level would not require a new model. Upgrading a chapter master to one riding a bike would clearly need replacing with a suitable model riding a bike. It doesn't take much common sense to know which meaning of upgrade is required for each particular option, and the rules assume that the player will apply this.

I also go down the line that it is the end product that the rules are concerned with, not the process. Foc, detachments, and dataslates all tell us what something should look like at the end. If it doesn't, it isn't legal. If I look at your list, see a wgpl, any gear he has must be from the allowable upgrades for a wgpl. As soon as you upgrade him, he no longer has access to the wargear available to a scout, and as a part of editing and double checking your list you have to remove any upgrades that are no longer allowable. It's in black and white what options are available to each model, and the rules only care that this is correct at the end of the list. Arguing otherwise is at best bending the rules, at worst trying to cheat.

We aren't talking about real world. The rules also tell us that a given model can swap its Bolter for a Sniper Rifle. GW doesn't make a model that allows you to pull off a Bolter and put on a Sniper Rifle... yet we allow it and conceptually don't think of the model as being replaced. Only his weapon is being replaced. You need to look at what the rules actually tell us and not how you'd physically manage your models in the real world.

@kriswall I don't see how your reply to my comment addresses the points I made. I was referring to what the rules tell you to do. The rules are related to the end product, not the process of arriving at it. It black and white tells you what wargear different models can take. If your list has a character with a weapon that isn't on their allowable upgrade list, it isn't legal. Arguing that you were able to select it at a previous point is immaterial, because the rules don't care about the process, just the end result.

 JamesY wrote:
the rules don't care about the process, just the end result.

[CITATION NEEDED]

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
the rules don't care about the process, just the end result.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Why are you shouting? Get a grip.

Citation? P128, after the rules on composing your army, where it says 'preparing for battle'. This informs us that there will be no further ruling on the content of the previous chapter. Also, the table which tells us the mission format, and how to progress from agreeing on a game to playing through it. P130 tells us that after picking our army with the rules given in the previous chapter, we then need to attend to the battlefield. Given that you cannot progress to this, then deployment, and then the first turn without a list, the rules clearly assume that the list writing has been completed. Hence the end result is what is needed to progress to organizing the battlefield, deploying, the first turn etc.

 JamesY wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
the rules don't care about the process, just the end result.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Why are you shouting? Get a grip.

Citation? P128, after the rules on composing your army, where it says 'preparing for battle'. This informs us that there will be no further ruling on the content of the previous chapter. Also, the table which tells us the mission format, and how to progress from agreeing on a game to playing through it. P130 tells us that after picking our army with the rules given in the previous chapter, we then need to attend to the battlefield. Given that you cannot progress to this, then deployment, and then the first turn without a list, the rules clearly assume that the list writing has been completed. Hence the end result is what is needed to progress to organizing the battlefield, deploying, the first turn etc.

That is not dismissal of the process, though, just a direction for when the army list is complete.

The closest I am aware of is earlier in the introduction to "Choosing Your Army"

Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use.

Basically, it is in our hands to make the determination of how options are to be addressed. So unless someone can demonstrate something in the codex that is more specific than that, I think we are properly done with RAW, and redirect this over to Proposed Rules.

I don't think anyone wants to inadvertently allow jump pack terminators just so people can waste points on WHPLs for sniper scouts.

 Kavish wrote:


HE WAS NOT A TERMINATOR WHEN HE GOT THE JUMP PACK. There is no rule expressly forbidding a model with a jump pack from taking terminator armour. Honestly. Are you choosing to ignore the facts?

That does not matter because there is a rule that disallows models in terminator armor from taking jump packs.

I am not ignoring facts.

At the end of the build has this rule been broken if you have a jump pack and terminator armor?

What's so great about a sniper rifle on a model with power armour anyway?

Nothing, but i do not see how this has any bearing on anything we are discussing.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kavish wrote:


HE WAS NOT A TERMINATOR WHEN HE GOT THE JUMP PACK. There is no rule expressly forbidding a model with a jump pack from taking terminator armour. Honestly. Are you choosing to ignore the facts?

That does not matter because there is a rule that disallows models in terminator armor from taking jump packs.

I am not ignoring facts.

At the end of the build has this rule been broken if you have a jump pack and terminator armor?

What's so great about a sniper rifle on a model with power armour anyway?

Nothing, but i do not see how this has any bearing on anything we are discussing.

Except the rule was not broken, since a model in terminator armor did not take a jump pack.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kavish wrote:


HE WAS NOT A TERMINATOR WHEN HE GOT THE JUMP PACK. There is no rule expressly forbidding a model with a jump pack from taking terminator armour. Honestly. Are you choosing to ignore the facts?

That does not matter because there is a rule that disallows models in terminator armor from taking jump packs.

I am not ignoring facts.

At the end of the build has this rule been broken if you have a jump pack and terminator armor?

What's so great about a sniper rifle on a model with power armour anyway?

Nothing, but i do not see how this has any bearing on anything we are discussing.

Except the rule was not broken, since a model in terminator armor did not take a jump pack.

but it has been because the model in terminator armor has taken a jump pack. at the end of the process they have both...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kavish wrote:


HE WAS NOT A TERMINATOR WHEN HE GOT THE JUMP PACK. There is no rule expressly forbidding a model with a jump pack from taking terminator armour. Honestly. Are you choosing to ignore the facts?

That does not matter because there is a rule that disallows models in terminator armor from taking jump packs.

I am not ignoring facts.

At the end of the build has this rule been broken if you have a jump pack and terminator armor?

What's so great about a sniper rifle on a model with power armour anyway?

Nothing, but i do not see how this has any bearing on anything we are discussing.

Except the rule was not broken, since a model in terminator armor did not take a jump pack.

but it has been because the model in terminator armor has taken a jump pack.

No, a model with a jump pack took terminator armor. Order matters.