Alright went through about 5 different threads on this subject, a couple more off site, and I have reached the conclusion there is no definitive ruling on this? Half argue there is no precedent as with the Ork Painboy FAQ, which was the old codex and now longer is applied as Painboys are IC. They also used Army Builder Digital Codex as a "official"(?) ruling and I read that now even THAT has been changed and I cannot check due to not owning it.
So now as I sit here in front of the computer with a Command Squad ready to be assembled, I am forced to ask.
it's a very grey area that continues to be a grey area.
there are no guidelines on HOW upgrades are applied to a unit.
the argument you apply weapon/armour upgrades first then he 'takes' the nethcarium to become an apothecary is just as valid an argument as the taking the nethcarium makes him an apothecary first thus preventing weapon upgrades.
its a large grey area, one that cannot be resolved on an internet forum and it is something you should discuss with your opponent(s) who you regularly game with and any tournament organisers you wish to participate in their tournaments.
top to bottom doesn't work either, a friend and I went through a couple of codex's seeing if we could use that as a basis, we came across a few that, with that approach, wouldn't work if applied in such a manner...but ce-la-vie that's somewhat OT
nutty_nutter wrote: top to bottom doesn't work either, a friend and I went through a couple of codex's seeing if we could use that as a basis, we came across a few that, with that approach, wouldn't work if applied in such a manner...but ce-la-vie that's somewhat OT
From memory, the only issue is this one and same Command Squad in the SM Codex where it has:
• One Veteran may take one of the following: (...)
• One Veteran may be upgraded to a Company Champion, replacing (...)
• One Veteran may be upgraded to an Apothecary, taking a narthecium.
And nothing stops it from being the same man, as opposed to AM and AS:
- One Battle Sister may take a Simulacrum Imperialis
- One other Battle Sister may take one item from the Special Weapons list.
- One other Battle Sister may take one item from the Special Weapons or Heavy Weapons list.
or
• One Veteran may carry a vox-caster
• One other Veteran may replace his lasgun with a heavy flamer
• Two other Veterans may form a Veteran Weapons Team who must take one item from the Heavy Weapons list.
• Up to two (or three, if no heavy flamer is taken) remaining Veterans that have not been upgraded with one of the options above may replace (...)
Where the highlighted text above is a clear show of intent to me. Why would they have worded it like so if these options could be taken from bottom up?
Also, if you could point out the "counter-examples" you found i'd appreciate it, for further discussion.
nutty_nutter wrote: top to bottom doesn't work either, a friend and I went through a couple of codex's seeing if we could use that as a basis, we came across a few that, with that approach, wouldn't work if applied in such a manner...but ce-la-vie that's somewhat OT
Dark Reapers form Codex: Eldar in particular, a top to bottom approach simply doesn't work.
The order doesn't matter, but the end results do. If at the end you look at your list and you have an Apothecary with an upgrade only available to a Veteran then you have an illegal list, no matter if you upgraded the model to an Apothecary before or after taking that upgrade.
Given the fact that the Apothecary is only taken with veterans, it might be safe to assume that to become an Apothecary, one must first become a veteran. To me, this would be something like "all Apothecaries are veterans, but not all veterans are Apothecaries."
Ninjakk, Doesn't matter if it is a Marine Sargent and the option states Marine, or a Veteran Apothecary while the option simply states Veteran. If an option names a specific Model, only Models with that name can take said option.
Ninjakk wrote: Given the fact that the Apothecary is only taken with veterans, it might be safe to assume that to become an Apothecary, one must first become a veteran. To me, this would be something like "all Apothecaries are veterans, but not all veterans are Apothecaries."
It's utterly safe to assume this, since the initial unit composition is literally "5 Veterans." From there, you may select upgrades for any or all Veterans, one of which is the option to "...take a narthecium" and become an Apothecary. Nothing prevents a Veteran from selecting any other listed upgrade prior to taking that narthecium. Similarly, a Veteran could replace his bolt pistol prior to selecting the Company Champion upgrade, but he could not replace his chainsword since exchanging it for a power weapon and combat shieid is required as part of the Champion upgrade rules.
nutty_nutter wrote: top to bottom doesn't work either, a friend and I went through a couple of codex's seeing if we could use that as a basis, we came across a few that, with that approach, wouldn't work if applied in such a manner...but ce-la-vie that's somewhat OT
Dark Reapers form Codex: Eldar in particular, a top to bottom approach simply doesn't work.
Errrmmmm explain? I see no issue with top to bottom:
-May include up to seven additional DR
-All Death Reapers in the Unit may take starshot missiles
-Upgrade one Death Reaper to a Dark Reaper Exarch
-The Dark Reaper Exarch may exchange his reaper launcher for one of the following:
(...)
- If the Dark Reaper Exarch has a Reaper Launcher, he may take starshot missiles.
- (May take powers)
-The Unit can take a Wave Serpent as DT.
BlackTalos, the issue is with the point cost. The cost for Starshot is cheaper for the regular Reapers (individually) than it is for the Exarch (by 2 points IIRC).
The other issue is for units that have options added via FAQ/Errata. Does the option get placed at the end of the list, the beginning, or somewhere in the middle?
Happyjew wrote: BlackTalos, the issue is with the point cost. The cost for Starshot is cheaper for the regular Reapers (individually) than it is for the Exarch (by 2 points IIRC).
The other issue is for units that have options added via FAQ/Errata. Does the option get placed at the end of the list, the beginning, or somewhere in the middle?
the errata giving SM command squads (or it was DA? it was marine flavor) was intended to be the first one because in the codex they couldn't change a melee weapon for X (the new option was changing the bolter for a chainsword, I think - this was missing in the codex)
Happyjew wrote: BlackTalos, the issue is with the point cost. The cost for Starshot is cheaper for the regular Reapers (individually) than it is for the Exarch (by 2 points IIRC).
The other issue is for units that have options added via FAQ/Errata. Does the option get placed at the end of the list, the beginning, or somewhere in the middle?
Well, apart from a rather silly point costing, it would still work:
1) Pay for the Unit
2) Pay for +7 Reapers (you now have 10)
3) Pay for Starshot (10 times)
4) Pay for Exarch
5) Pay for Exarch Starshot
We can both see an issue (paying for Starshot twice), but as per this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/608047.page It does seem we enforce the 8 per model to everyone. Order makes this even clearer. If all the Orcs in the other thread must pay 1 point, all the Reapers (Inc Exarch) must pay their toll.
No issue with FAQs either, after a quick glance:
"Page 95 – Deathwing Command Squad, Options
Change the second bullet point to:
‘• One Deathwing Terminator in the army may be upgraded to the Deathwing Champion, replacing all of their weapons with the Halberd of Caliban."
or
"Page 72 – Succubus, Options
Change the first option to:
‘• May replace close combat weapon or splinter pistol with an archite glaive."
Creeperman wrote: Nothing prevents a Veteran from selecting any other listed upgrade prior to taking that narthecium. Similarly, a Veteran could replace his bolt pistol prior to selecting the Company Champion upgrade, but he could not replace his chainsword since exchanging it for a power weapon and combat shieid is required as part of the Champion upgrade rules.
Nothing prevents me from adding or taking 12 away from every diceroll you make; that does not mean I can.
If you look in other parts of the codex (bearing in mind it is the same codex, so the author's intent can be seen IMHO), the Sternguard Vets (Elites) have similar options;
Space Marine Codex, page 170 (physical) wrote:
Options - Any model can replace his boltgun with one of the following
Two veterans may take one item from either the Special Weapons or Heavy Weapons list.
[...]
- The Veteran Sergeant may take Melta Bombs
Does this mean I can give Veteran Sergeants the upgrades a normal member of their squad gets because "Not all Vets are Vet sergeants, but all Vet sergeants are Vets!"
No, it doesn't mean I can do that.
It's the same with the apoth; Cool, I have TH/SS on an apoth! Wait... It says a Veteran can take them, this is an Apoth.
Ond Angel wrote: Nothing prevents me from adding or taking 12 away from every diceroll you make; that does not mean I can.
Are we discussing rules here, or just pointless snark?
Ond Angel wrote: If you look in other parts of the codex (bearing in mind it is the same codex, so the author's intent can be seen IMHO)
Are you arguing RAW, RAI, or HYWPI?
Ond Angel wrote: Does this mean I can give Veteran Sergeants the upgrades a normal member of their squad gets because "Not all Vets are Vet sergeants, but all Vet sergeants are Vets!"
No, it doesn't mean I can do that.
No, a Sergeant is most certainly not a Veteran; he started as a Sergeant and a Sergeant he remains.
Ond Angel wrote: It's the same with the apoth; Cool, I have TH/SS on an apoth! Wait... It says a Veteran can take them, this is an Apoth.
And what does an Apothecary start out as? Look at your Command Squad unit composition again. You started with 5 Veterans. Is a Veteran a Veteran? If so, then you can take the upgrades as listed. Does the Apothecary upgrade require you to lose or exchange any wargear? Does the Apothecary upgrade contain any exclusionary language?
Ond Angel wrote: If you look in other parts of the codex (bearing in mind it is the same codex, so the author's intent can be seen IMHO)
Are you arguing RAW, RAI, or HYWPI?
Ond Angel wrote: It's the same with the apoth; Cool, I have TH/SS on an apoth! Wait... It says a Veteran can take them, this is an Apoth.
And what does an Apothecary start out as? Look at your Command Squad unit composition again. You started with 5 Veterans. Is a Veteran a Veteran? If so, then you can take the upgrades as listed. Does the Apothecary upgrade require you to lose or exchange any wargear? Does the Apothecary upgrade contain any exclusionary language?
RAW seems to say you can do it.
RAI seems clear, but RAI is always going to be down to the individual's interpretation, as none of us are the author.
HIWPI has no bearing here. I wasn't asked about that, so why is it relevant?
I'm arguing that if we were supposed to be able to take an Apoth with TH/SS and whatever else is available to a Command Squad, the author would have surely written "All models" or "Any models" like he did with Vanguard and Sternguard vets.
Hell, even in the Command Squad entry it says "The entire squad may take bikes".
Why not do that for the other options that call out Vets only if any of them were intended to be able to take certain things.
If the intention was to allow any model in the unit to take a specific upgrade, then why didn't they use the wording 'any model' as they did in the Scout Squad, Vanguard Veteran Squad, Sternguard Veteran Squad, Terminator Squad, Terminator Assault Squad, Centurion Assault Squad and Centurion Devastator Squad? Its because those upgrades are limited to the models designated, either a 'Veteran' or an 'Apothecary'.
If a Veteran can pay to take a Thunder Hammer AND a Veteran can pay to upgrade to an Apothecary, then selecting both upgrades (writing the Thunder Hammer one down first) will result in an Apothecary with a Thunder Hammer.
If the upgrade option said something like "One Veteran may pay X points to upgrade to an Apothecary, replacing all wargear with Bolt Pistol, Narthecium, etc..." then I would gladly agree that Apothecaries would be limited in wargear choices. RaW, they aren't.
We know that order of upgrades is important and legitimate as Space Marine Bikers have to switch Bolt Pistol for Chain Sword in order to be able to switch Melee Weapon for other items.
Happyjew wrote: BlackTalos, the issue is with the point cost. The cost for Starshot is cheaper for the regular Reapers (individually) than it is for the Exarch (by 2 points IIRC).
The other issue is for units that have options added via FAQ/Errata. Does the option get placed at the end of the list, the beginning, or somewhere in the middle?
Well, apart from a rather silly point costing, it would still work:
1) Pay for the Unit
2) Pay for +7 Reapers (you now have 10)
3) Pay for Starshot (10 times)
4) Pay for Exarch
5) Pay for Exarch Starshot
We can both see an issue (paying for Starshot twice), but as per this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/608047.page It does seem we enforce the 8 per model to everyone. Order makes this even clearer. If all the Orcs in the other thread must pay 1 point, all the Reapers (Inc Exarch) must pay their toll.
There is a difference. The Ork codex says "the entire mob" (iow unit). The Eldar codex, says "Dark Reapers". I think we can agree that Dark Reaper Exarch =/= Dark Reaper.
No issue with FAQs either, after a quick glance:
"Page 95 – Deathwing Command Squad, Options
Change the second bullet point to:
‘• One Deathwing Terminator in the army may be upgraded to the Deathwing Champion, replacing all of their weapons with the Halberd of Caliban."
or
"Page 72 – Succubus, Options
Change the first option to:
‘• May replace close combat weapon or splinter pistol with an archite glaive."
How about the SM opne? Specifically:
"Page 174 - Bike Squad, options
Add the following option to this list:
'Any model may replace his bolt pistol with
a chainsword...................................................................free'"
Happyjew wrote: The cost for Starshot is cheaper for the regular Reapers (individually) than it is for the Exarch (by 2 points IIRC).
Which is one (of the many) examples which illustrates why intent is that the upgrade characters cannot have options meant for the regular troopers. If they could, Exarch wouldn't need their own (and more expensive) Starshot option.
Happyjew wrote: The cost for Starshot is cheaper for the regular Reapers (individually) than it is for the Exarch (by 2 points IIRC).
Which is one (of the many) examples which illustrates why intent is that the upgrade characters cannot have options meant for the regular troopers. If they could, Exarch wouldn't need their own (and more expensive) Starshot option.
Except you might want to give just the Exarch Starshot, so he would still need his own option.
Happyjew wrote: There is a difference. The Ork codex says "the entire mob" (iow unit). The Eldar codex, says "Dark Reapers". I think we can agree that Dark Reaper Exarch =/= Dark Reaper.
"All Dark Reapers in the Unit". If you haven't purchased an Exarch (Yet), is that not all 10 members?
Sure, the point costing is wrong (or doesn't work - 18pts for an Exarch with Starshot), but that seems like a simple glitch (you even agreed that the Starshot costing is questionable already?)
How about the SM opne? Specifically:
"Page 174 - Bike Squad, options
Add the following option to this list:
'Any model may replace his bolt pistol with
a chainsword...................................................................free'"
It would seem to me that "add" is something to add at the end of the list, which would make sense and does not conflict.
Special weapon says "replace melee weapon or boltgun", but as the amendment above comes at the end, the Melee weapon (Chainsword) you can get for free can't be swapped (as last on the list) with a Special weapon.
Or do you thing GW added the amendment above so that Bike Squad could get a chainsword for free, and then swap it with a Special weapon? Which sounds a lot like Shenanigans.
It would mean you can 1) add an attack bike. 2) Swap B.Pistol for Chainsword. 3) Swap Chainsword for a plasma gun. And end up with an attack bike that has a heavy bolter AND a plasma gun.
If you follow direct order, as i've convinced myself further and further with any example given so far: first you choose 2 Special Weapons, secondly you can add attack bikes, and finally you may select the "added" swap mentioned above, then the above is not possible.
Happyjew wrote: How about the SM opne? Specifically:
"Page 174 - Bike Squad, options
Add the following option to this list:
'Any model may replace his bolt pistol with
a chainsword...................................................................free'"
It would seem to me that "add" is something to add at the end of the list, which would make sense and does not conflict.
Special weapon says "replace melee weapon or boltgun", but as the amendment above comes at the end, the Melee weapon (Chainsword) you can get for free can't be swapped (as last on the list) with a Special weapon.
Or do you thing GW added the amendment above so that Bike Squad could get a chainsword for free, and then swap it with a Special weapon? Which sounds a lot like Shenanigans.
It would mean you can 1) add an attack bike. 2) Swap B.Pistol for Chainsword. 3) Swap Chainsword for a plasma gun. And end up with an attack bike that has a heavy bolter AND a plasma gun.
If you follow direct order, as i've convinced myself further and further with any example given so far: first you choose 2 Special Weapons, secondly you can add attack bikes, and finally you may select the "added" swap mentioned above.
Neither one of those examples work, though. First, the Attack Bike isn't an upgrade for a Biker, he's an entirely separate attachment for the unit. He never has the chance to swap his bolt pistol for anything. Secondly, you have no permission to swap the pistol directly for a special weapon, since it's not a boltgun or a Melee-type weapon (despite the fact that Pistol-type weapons may be used in assault combat). If you follow direct order the FAQ still doesn't allow a Biker squad to select any special weapon, unless you're swapping the bike's TL boltgun, which is also an interpretation on shaky rules territory.
Happyjew wrote: How about the SM opne? Specifically:
"Page 174 - Bike Squad, options
Add the following option to this list:
'Any model may replace his bolt pistol with
a chainsword...................................................................free'"
It would seem to me that "add" is something to add at the end of the list, which would make sense and does not conflict.
Special weapon says "replace melee weapon or boltgun", but as the amendment above comes at the end, the Melee weapon (Chainsword) you can get for free can't be swapped (as last on the list) with a Special weapon.
Or do you thing GW added the amendment above so that Bike Squad could get a chainsword for free, and then swap it with a Special weapon? Which sounds a lot like Shenanigans.
It would mean you can 1) add an attack bike. 2) Swap B.Pistol for Chainsword. 3) Swap Chainsword for a plasma gun. And end up with an attack bike that has a heavy bolter AND a plasma gun.
If you follow direct order, as i've convinced myself further and further with any example given so far: first you choose 2 Special Weapons, secondly you can add attack bikes, and finally you may select the "added" swap mentioned above.
Neither one of those examples work, though. First, the Attack Bike isn't an upgrade for a Biker, he's an entirely separate attachment for the unit. He never has the chance to swap his bolt pistol for anything. Secondly, you have no permission to swap the pistol directly for a special weapon, since it's not a boltgun or a Melee-type weapon (despite the fact that Pistol-type weapons may be used in assault combat). If you follow direct order the FAQ still doesn't allow a Biker squad to select any special weapon, unless you're swapping the bike's TL boltgun, which is also an interpretation on shaky rules territory.
Your first point is incorrect:
The Unit called "Bike Squad" from the SM Codex has the following options:
• The squad may include one Attack Bike - points
• Any model may replace his bolt pistol with a chainsword...................................................................free
Is the Attack Bike a model in the "Bike Squad" Unit? Yes. Does it have a Bolt Pistol? Yes. Why is it not allowed to swap?
Second point:
I never said that you have permission to swap the pistol directly for a special weapon. If you combine (with no order) these two following options (that the "Bike Squad" Unit has):
• 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.
Where Special Weapon: "A model can replace his Melee weapon or boltgun with one of the following:". Is the chainsword that "Any model" has not a Close combat weapon?
Agreed, the Attack bike is not "Up to two Space Marine Bikers" so the crazy idea that is an Attack Bike with Plasma gun is not feasible, whatever order you pick... But you can still have a standard Space Marine Biker with Boltgun+Plasma Gun, and my shenanigans argument above still stands.
Happyjew wrote: How about the SM opne? Specifically:
"Page 174 - Bike Squad, options
Add the following option to this list:
'Any model may replace his bolt pistol with
a chainsword...................................................................free'"
It would seem to me that "add" is something to add at the end of the list, which would make sense and does not conflict.
Special weapon says "replace melee weapon or boltgun", but as the amendment above comes at the end, the Melee weapon (Chainsword) you can get for free can't be swapped (as last on the list) with a Special weapon.
Or do you thing GW added the amendment above so that Bike Squad could get a chainsword for free, and then swap it with a Special weapon? Which sounds a lot like Shenanigans.
It would mean you can 1) add an attack bike. 2) Swap B.Pistol for Chainsword. 3) Swap Chainsword for a plasma gun. And end up with an attack bike that has a heavy bolter AND a plasma gun.
If you follow direct order, as i've convinced myself further and further with any example given so far: first you choose 2 Special Weapons, secondly you can add attack bikes, and finally you may select the "added" swap mentioned above.
Neither one of those examples work, though. First, the Attack Bike isn't an upgrade for a Biker, he's an entirely separate attachment for the unit. He never has the chance to swap his bolt pistol for anything. Secondly, you have no permission to swap the pistol directly for a special weapon, since it's not a boltgun or a Melee-type weapon (despite the fact that Pistol-type weapons may be used in assault combat). If you follow direct order the FAQ still doesn't allow a Biker squad to select any special weapon, unless you're swapping the bike's TL boltgun, which is also an interpretation on shaky rules territory.
Your first point is incorrect:
The Unit called "Bike Squad" from the SM Codex has the following options:
• The squad may include one Attack Bike - points
• Any model may replace his bolt pistol with a chainsword...................................................................free
Is the Attack Bike a model in the "Bike Squad" Unit? Yes. Does it have a Bolt Pistol? Yes. Why is it not allowed to swap?
You're right, the Attack Bike could swap for a chainsword. I was addressing the plasma gun part.
BlackTalos wrote: Second point:
I never said that you have permission to swap the pistol directly for a special weapon. If you combine (with no order) these two following options (that the "Bike Squad" Unit has):
• 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.
Where Special Weapon: "A model can replace his Melee weapon or boltgun with one of the following:". Is the chainsword that "Any model" has not a Close combat weapon?
Agreed, the Attack bike is not "Up to two Space Marine Bikers" so the crazy idea that is an Attack Bike with Plasma gun is not feasible, whatever order you pick... But you can still have a standard Space Marine Biker with Boltgun+Plasma Gun, and my shenanigans argument above still stands.
You did say "direct order" in the quote above. Do you not mean top-to-bottom, in order, with the FAQ addendum at the end? Here's what you wrote earlier:
BlackTalos wrote: If you follow direct order, as i've convinced myself further and further with any example given so far: first you choose 2 Special Weapons, secondly you can add attack bikes, and finally you may select the "added" swap mentioned above.
If so, please explain how you're swapping the Biker's default bolt pistol for a plasma gun without first exchanging it for a chainsword while maintaining strict top-to-bottom option ordering?
Creeperman wrote: You did say "direct order" in the quote above. Do you not mean top-to-bottom, in order, with the FAQ addendum at the end? Here's what you wrote earlier:
BlackTalos wrote: If you follow direct order, as i've convinced myself further and further with any example given so far: first you choose 2 Special Weapons, secondly you can add attack bikes, and finally you may select the "added" swap mentioned above.
If so, please explain how you're swapping the Biker's default bolt pistol for a plasma gun without first exchanging it for a chainsword while maintaining strict top-to-bottom option ordering?
No, no, no, it seems you got my post completely upside-down.
My point is: -I believe maintaining strict top-to-bottom option ordering.
If you don't follow strict top-to-bottom option ordering, then the plasma gun + boltgun wielding Biker was a result (Or the Apothecary with Thunder hammer + SS) and other "well i picked this first so it's legal" arguments.
I think those situations are wrong and was saying they are possible shenanigans. Hope this clears it up? Edited it for clarity.
Kriswall wrote: How does a Space Marine Biker take a Special Weapon if you enforce top to bottom option selection?
They cannot. Unless of course the "Swap Pistol for CCW" falls somewhere between "Add more Bikers" and "2 Bikers may take Special Weapons".
OR...
Unless of course you don't enforce a top to bottom option selection... something which is never mentioned in the rules anywhere so far as I can tell.
The options have to be READ from top to bottom to be understood in many cases (this is a phenomenom of the reading comprehension and not the rules), but I have yet to see a rules citation requiring me to choose options in a certain order.
Kriswall wrote: How does a Space Marine Biker take a Special Weapon if you enforce top to bottom option selection?
They cannot. Unless of course the "Swap Pistol for CCW" falls somewhere between "Add more Bikers" and "2 Bikers may take Special Weapons".
OR...
Unless of course you don't enforce a top to bottom option selection... something which is never mentioned in the rules anywhere so far as I can tell.
The options have to be READ from top to bottom to be understood in many cases (this is a phenomenom of the reading comprehension and not the rules), but I have yet to see a rules citation requiring me to choose options in a certain order.
Outside of obvious restrictions (X cannot be taken if Y is true), you won't find it.
And, sadly, I have some evidence against the follow-the-order-it's-printed "intent".
Space Marine Codex; Librarian, Chapter Master, or Chaplain.
You can take a SM bike while in power armour.
Then, by following it, I can swap it all (minus the bike, as it isn't called out) for Terminator armour.
Bikes cannot be taken if you're in Termi armour, but if you took the bike first (because I followed the list from top to bottom, or because I "took it first"), I can get guy in Termi armour on a bike.
I'd like to point out that I wouldn't try it, because I seriously think that's against intent.
But that is by going RaW.
Unless I missed something?
Kriswall wrote: How does a Space Marine Biker take a Special Weapon if you enforce top to bottom option selection?
I see, I thought they had a boltgun to exchange for some reason...
So yeah:
Happyjew wrote: They cannot. Unless of course the "Swap Pistol for CCW" falls somewhere between "Add more Bikers" and "2 Bikers may take Special Weapons".
I will have to note that the Space Marine Codex an anything before it are the issue. Anything published later has a top to bottom method, sometime very obvious like Codex Adepta Sororitas or Astra Militarum.
Ond Angel wrote: Outside of obvious restrictions (X cannot be taken if Y is true), you won't find it.
And, sadly, I have some evidence against the follow-the-order-it's-printed "intent". Space Marine Codex; Librarian, Chapter Master, or Chaplain. You can take a SM bike while in power armour. Then, by following it, I can swap it all (minus the bike, as it isn't called out) for Terminator armour. Bikes cannot be taken if you're in Termi armour, but if you took the bike first (because I followed the list from top to bottom, or because I "took it first"), I can get guy in Termi armour on a bike.
I'd like to point out that I wouldn't try it, because I seriously think that's against intent. But that is by going RaW. Unless I missed something?
Well, apart from the restrictions in the Special Issue Wargear (Note 3), that is order specific (you have to be in Terminator armour in order to "may not" take the Bike), the problem exists whether you take Options in "follow-the-order-it's-printed" or choose randomly out of them all.
Same as the Apothecary in Command Squads, it seems that the SM Codex is broken in this "part" of its wording. And the loop comes around: What is stopping you buying a bike and then Terminator armour. Or a Veteran taking TH+SS and then becoming apothecary.
At least follow-the-order-it's-printed "intent" fixes half of it. And as much as the SM Codex is broken whether we follow-the-order-it's-printed or not, a lot of other codex (pretty much all the ones that came out after it) do support the idea (against the "choose in any order")
I will re-iterate that you have no actual rule backing to support your hypothesis.
there is also no rule backing supporting the use of upgrade equipment either.
I personally don't see it as game breaking for the apothecary to be able to take upgrades, its not going to swing the balance of the game and he still has to pay the points for it.
and in the grand scale of things with the current state of the game its not even footnote worthy.
still, there are no set methods, rules or president's currently in print that allow nor deny the upgrading of the apothecary.
by default, there is permission to buy upgrades, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, the unit can purchase upgrades, and there isn't any expressive denial nor direction on order of purchase.
as such its perfectly acceptable to state that you bought 5 x storm shields, 5 x thunder hammers, one vet 'takes' a nethicarum, squad takes a drop pod DC.
nutty_nutter wrote: I will re-iterate that you have no actual rule backing to support your hypothesis.
there is also no rule backing supporting the use of upgrade equipment either.
I personally don't see it as game breaking for the apothecary to be able to take upgrades, its not going to swing the balance of the game and he still has to pay the points for it.
and in the grand scale of things with the current state of the game its not even footnote worthy.
still, there are no set methods, rules or president's currently in print that allow nor deny the upgrading of the apothecary.
by default, there is permission to buy upgrades, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, the unit can purchase upgrades, and there isn't any expressive denial nor direction on order of purchase.
as such its perfectly acceptable to state that you bought 5 x storm shields, 5 x thunder hammers, one vet 'takes' a nethicarum, squad takes a drop pod DC.
I do not have a Rule backing up the hypothesis written in any book, no.
But the hypothesis comes from standard English (read left to right, top to bottom) that induces an order of upgrades.
This can, however, be backed by a few codices, such as Astra Militarum: "• Up to four Tempestus Scions that have not been upgraded with one of the options above may replace their hot-shot lasgun with one item from the Special Weapons list." "• One remaining Guardsman that has not been upgraded with one of the options above may replace his lasgun with one item from the Special Weapons list." Adepta Sororitas: "- One other Battle Sister may take one item from the Special Weapons list." Orks: "One other model may be upgraded to a Boss Nob"
Now please explain how you :
A) Follow these instructions first, if you have not followed any other Option instructions. And how you follow the other (referred to here) set of instructions?
B) abide by the highlighted orange sections above if these are RaW from their respective Codex and if there is no RaW on "follow-the-order-it's-printed"?
and as was pointed out to you, the dark reapers don't work with your approach either.
you cannot blanket all the codex's with one brush because you have a couple of entries that support your hypothesis, more so when there are those that do not support it.
I don't need to explain how your examples work because it is clear that when reading those entries that they work in sections. not having the sisters of battle, orks or astra militarum codex's I cannot go through them to see if there are other entries within them that do not function with your approach, but I also cannot see how they are formatted within a given layout either.
I also put it to you that each codex is adherent unto itself, meaning that each codex's layout, options and the way to read and work out how units are selected is individual to how it was written at the time, more so when we are dealing with books written for previous editions.
as pointed out in this thread, there are multiple examples of how a top down approach works and doesn't work and without any method or rule telling us how upgrades are applied you cannot enforce such restrictions legitimately.
I stand by my original post.
discuss it with your TO's and regular play groups.
When reading the options, you have to read top to bottom and left to right as they are written in English. Reading them out of order results in utter lack of comprehension.
Nothing says you have to select them in order once you've read and comprehended the choices.
Until someone is able to point to a rule stating that Veterans lose all existing wargear and replace it with a default set of Apothecary wargear, I will assume they keep what they are equipped with and simply gain the Narthecium. If I upgrade a Thunder Hammer wielding Veteran to be an Apothecary, and in the absence of a rule telling me that he has to lose or trade in the Thunder Hammer, I am left with a Thunder Hammer wielding Apothecary.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If Johnny McSpaceMarine joined the Apothecarium before learning how to use a Thunder Hammer, then he will never learn how to use one. (Apothecary upgade chosen first, thus losing the option to subsequently take a Thunder Hammer).
insaniak wrote: No, any upgrade that is taken for a Veteran is not available to an Apothecary, as he is an Apothecary, not a Veteran.
He clearly was a veteran before becoming an apothecary and could've purchased options at that stage.
You have simply concluded that because one of the two paths to being an Apothecary prevents it, it should not be allowed.
Just as some conclude that because one of the two paths allows it, it should be allowed.
In other words, you should flag your interpretation and opinion as such instead of making it look like RAW, which it isn't.
Then why bother restricting an upgrade to a Veteran if you can get around that restriction by timing? Why not just say 'any model' like they do in numerous entries in the codex? Where do the rules say that you only check the legality of the wargear when you take it?
insaniak wrote: No, any upgrade that is taken for a Veteran is not available to an Apothecary, as he is an Apothecary, not a Veteran.
He clearly was a veteran before becoming an apothecary and could've purchased options at that stage.
You have simply concluded that because one of the two paths to being an Apothecary prevents it, it should not be allowed.
Just as some conclude that because one of the two paths allows it, it should be allowed.
In other words, you should flag your interpretation and opinion as such instead of making it look like RAW, which it isn't.
Then why bother restricting an upgrade to a Veteran if you can get around that restriction by timing? Why not just say 'any model' like they do in numerous entries in the codex? Where do the rules say that you only check the legality of the wargear when you take it?
The rules basically give you the legality check in the text of the option. 'Any Veteran may' limits the option to Veterans. Is the model a Veteran when you take the option? Yes.
Why bother restricting an upgrade to a Veteran if you can get around that restriction by timing? Poor writing? Restricting the upgrade from being taken by Sargeants? A lack of ability to translate RaI into RaW by the authors? We'll never know why they chose the words they chose. I think we can all agree that a couple of days with a technical copy editor talking to the author would have fixed all these issues.
It is very possible that Apothecaries aren't meant to have certain 'Veteran only' upgrades. Unfortunately, GW never put into writing that options have to be taken sequentially. As written, we can upgrade the wargear on the Veteran and then upgrade the Veteran to an Apothecary.
Not sure if this has been said before in this thread, but here's how my group has interpreted it (and this is based off the DA book, not sure if this changed for the vanilla Space Marine book).
If you look back at the page describing the unit and the fluff, it lists the load outs for the various upgrade characters. So, once you upgrade a veteran to an apothecary their load out becomes the one listed in the unit entry on that page. Therefore, you can upgrade a veteran with as much stuff as you want, but the moment he becomes an apoth his wargear is reverted to the apoth's load out.
We also use the precedent that if a character gets an upgrade then it is usually called out in the load out options (which is why you can't just give your sergeant a heavy bolter in the tac squad). Because there is nothing there specifically allowing an apothecary to take upgrades then he cannot take any other weapons and is stuck with his basic load out.
Again, this is just how my group interpreted it. I'm not looking to argue, just add that to the mix.
The Command Squad doesn't have a Sergeant. It's initial unit composition is five Veterans. So why do several units allow 'any model' to take certain upgrades and yet this one requires it to be a Veteran?
Plus you still haven't provided anything to support that you only check the legality of upgrades at the step you give it to the unit. Why don't you check to see if you have a legal army at other times, like when you start the game?
Ghaz wrote: The Command Squad doesn't have a Sergeant. It's initial unit composition is five Veterans. So why do several units allow 'any model' to take certain upgrades and yet this one requires it to be a Veteran?
Plus you still haven't provided anything to support that you only check the legality of upgrades at the step you give it to the unit. Why don't you check to see if you have a legal army at other times, like when you start the game?
Well, you're basically creating a side argument that is the exact same as the core argument. If I can take a Thunder Hammer and THEN upgrade to Apothecary, the army is legal. I don't check to see if the army is legal at other time because no rule tells me I need to. The rules tell me how to select an army, and if I've followed them correctly, the army is legal. If effect, the rules never ask for a validation check... they just tell you how to do it correctly in the first place.
The root of the argument is whether or not I've followed the army list creation rules correctly. Since there are no rules that tell me I have to take the options in order, the options aren't numbered and there is circumstancial evidence (Bikers FAQ) that order of upgrades is important (we have to take an option added to the list before being able to take an option already on the list) , I choose to take my options "out of order" to achieve the desired result. There are numerous situations in the game where performing action A before action B is legal, but doing B before A is not. That O'Vesa can join Farsight, but Farsight can't join O'Vesa is one example. Giving a Thunder Hammer to a Veteran and then Upgrading him to Apothecary is legal. Upgrading a Veteran to Apothecary and then giving him a Thunder Hammer is not.
Kriswall wrote: I don't check to see if the army is legal at other time because no rule tells me I need to.
Do you have support for this? Where does it say that as long as the option was legal when you took it it doesn't matter if you take another option that invalidates it. Where is there anything that even says you have to field a 'legal' army in the first place?
nutty_nutter wrote: I also put it to you that each codex is adherent unto itself, meaning that each codex's layout, options and the way to read and work out how units are selected is individual to how it was written at the time, more so when we are dealing with books written for previous editions.
Agreed, i suppose using a method from one Codex and applying it to an other is, indeed, a lost cause.
nutty_nutter wrote: as pointed out in this thread, there are multiple examples of how a top down approach works and doesn't work and without any method or rule telling us how upgrades are applied you cannot enforce such restrictions legitimately.
I would disagree with "multiple examples" until the list gets longer than:
- Eldar Dark Reapers
- Space Marine Command Squad (not really in the list. Broken in both methods)
- Space Marine Librarian, Chapter Master, or Chaplain
- Could probably put here: Space Marine Codex.
We have 2 Codex "against" (SM, Eldar), 3(4?) Codex "for" (Ork, AM, Tau, AS?). I'll just go by majority for now and say some Codex need a bit more work (Eldar, SM) Most don't have any issues and work around it (DA,SW: they all "replace boltgun" so both methods are the same)
Kriswall wrote: Nothing says you have to select them in order once you've read and comprehended the choices.
BlackTalos wrote: "• Up to four Tempestus Scions that have not been upgraded with one of the options above may replace their hot-shot lasgun with one item from the Special Weapons list."
Please explain to me (with RaW support) what this option (Rule) means by "Above"? I mean, there is no order in which i choose these options so i'll go for this one first? I have a Unit of 10 Scions, and i decide to use this option. I must follow the RaW of the option.
nutty_nutter wrote: I also put it to you that each codex is adherent unto itself, meaning that each codex's layout, options and the way to read and work out how units are selected is individual to how it was written at the time, more so when we are dealing with books written for previous editions.
Agreed, i suppose using a method from one Codex and applying it to an other is, indeed, a lost cause.
nutty_nutter wrote: as pointed out in this thread, there are multiple examples of how a top down approach works and doesn't work and without any method or rule telling us how upgrades are applied you cannot enforce such restrictions legitimately.
I would disagree with "multiple examples" until the list gets longer than:
- Eldar Dark Reapers
- Space Marine Command Squad (not really in the list. Broken in both methods)
- Space Marine Librarian, Chapter Master, or Chaplain
- Could probably put here: Space Marine Codex.
We have 2 Codex "against" (SM, Eldar), 3(4?) Codex "for" (Ork, AM, Tau, AS?). I'll just go by majority for now and say some Codex need a bit more work (Eldar, SM) Most don't have any issues and work around it (DA,SW: they all "replace boltgun" so both methods are the same)
Kriswall wrote: Nothing says you have to select them in order once you've read and comprehended the choices.
BlackTalos wrote: "• Up to four Tempestus Scions that have not been upgraded with one of the options above may replace their hot-shot lasgun with one item from the Special Weapons list."
Please explain to me (with RaW support) what this option (Rule) means by "Above"? I mean, there is no order in which i choose these options so i'll go for this one first? I have a Unit of 10 Scions, and i decide to use this option. I must follow the RaW of the option.
Above means above. If you aren't sure what it means in the context of the sentence, I suggest a dictionary. I checked the BRB glossary, but I guess GW assumed we'd know what above means. The option you cite is explicit in what you are and aren't allowed to take. You still have to read top to bottom for comprehension as the rules are written in English. If the Apothecary option was listed last and said something along the lines of 'One Veteran that has not been been upgraded with one of the options above may be upgraded to be an Apothecary...', then I would agree that the intent is to upgrade only 'plain' Veterans. The Apothecary upgrade has no such wording. If anything, your example helps my case because it shows that GW is perfectly willing to place restriction on upgrades... restrictions that don't appear in the Apothecary option.
I can no more provide rules that allow me to choose options 'out of order' than you can provide rules forcing me to choose options 'in order' because the BRB has no such rules anywhere. We're left with common sense and general reading comprehension.
Can Veterans take Thunder Hammers? Yes.
Can Veterans become Apothecaries? Yes.
Can Veterans who've been upgraded to Apothecaries take Thunder Hammers? Thunder Hammers aren't available to Apothecaries, and this model is now an Apothecary, so I'm forced to answer No.
Can Veterans who have taken Thunder Hammers become Apothecaries? Well, I know Veterans can become Apothecaries and the Apothecary upgrade doesn't say anything about models who have taken other options, so I'm forced to answer Yes.
If a Veteran becomes an Apothecary, does he have to give up his Thunder Hammer? I can't find anything in the rules about this such as I might find when a Chapter Master takes Terminator Armour and trades in his equipment, so I'm forced to answer No.
From a fluff perspective, if the Marine learns to use and acquires a Thunder Hammer before being enrolled in Apothecary training, he will retain the wargear and usage thereof. If he has not learned how to use one, the Master of Apothecaries certainly isn't going to teach him or give him one. It's all about your Marines path to becoming an Apothecary.
1. RAW: You can give an upgrade to a Veteran, and then turn him into an Apothecary, and he of course retains the upgrade because nothing says he loses it.
2. RAI: Based on stuff, including DA, and whatever else you may think of, it is likely that the Apothecary may not benefit from the Veteran's upgrades.
3. HYWPI: Apparently you play it with no upgrades on the Apothecary, good for you.
1. RAW: You can give an upgrade to a Veteran, and then turn him into an Apothecary, and he of course retains the upgrade because nothing says he loses it.
That's only if you believe in a strict 'top to bottom' method of determining legality. Do you have any written support for that versus checking to see if the list is legal once its complete?
morgoth wrote: He clearly was a veteran before becoming an apothecary ...
Indeed. But now he's not.
You have simply concluded that because one of the two paths to being an Apothecary prevents it, it should not be allowed.
No, I'm saying that the 'path' is irrelevant. An Apothecary is not a Veteran, he's an Apothecary. And so he only has access to upgrades that are available to an Apothecary, or to non-specific models.
In other words, you should flag your interpretation and opinion as such instead of making it look like RAW, which it isn't.
Anything that anybody writes on these forums that isn't a direct quote is an interpretation and opinion. There is little point asking everyone to flag every single post they make as such.
morgoth wrote: He clearly was a veteran before becoming an apothecary ...
Indeed. But now he's not.
You have simply concluded that because one of the two paths to being an Apothecary prevents it, it should not be allowed.
No, I'm saying that the 'path' is irrelevant. An Apothecary is not a Veteran, he's an Apothecary. And so he only has access to upgrades that are available to an Apothecary, or to non-specific models.
In other words, you should flag your interpretation and opinion as such instead of making it look like RAW, which it isn't.
Anything that anybody writes on these forums that isn't a direct quote is an interpretation and opinion. There is little point asking everyone to flag every single post they make as such.
Do you have any rules to back up your assertion that upgrade path isn't relevant? Do you have any rules to backup that any sort of list validation happens at the end of the list creation process and not during, at every step? Players make decisions in terms of order of operations constantly throughout this game. These decisions have tactical repercussions. Do I shoot with unit A first, or unit B? Do I declare an assault with unit A first, or unit B? Do I take the Thunder Hammer upgrade first, or the Apothecary upgrade?
If I field a Thunder Hammer wielding Apothecary and someone questions me on the legality, I'm just going to say that I chose the Thunder Hammer upgrade followed by the Apothecary upgrade. Unless you can demonstrate ANY rule in the rulebook telling me that the options must be selected in order, my choice is legal. I have yet to see any rule saying that options have to be selected in order. RaW seems to support taking options "out of order".
Also, when you say an Apothecary is not a veteran, he's an Apothecary, you're not telling the whole story. He's an Apothecary who used to be a Veteran and presumably made life choices while being a Veteran (such as selecting a Thunder Hammer).
True or false to each statement...
Veterans can take Thunder Hammers.
Veterans can become Apothecaries.
Becoming an Apothecary doesn't involve losing Wargear.
There is no rule in the core rule book telling us we have to select options from top to bottom.
Actually, after another look at the entry, I'm going to completely reverse my opinion on this one.
I think I still had the previous codex stuck in my head. The way this one is laid out, there is absolutely no reason you couldn't give a Veteran an upgrade weapon and then upgrade him to an Apothecary.
insaniak wrote: Actually, after another look at the entry, I'm going to completely reverse my opinion on this one.
I think I still had the previous codex stuck in my head. The way this one is laid out, there is absolutely no reason you couldn't give a Veteran an upgrade weapon and then upgrade him to an Apothecary.
So then a Dark Reaper Exarch gets a 2 point discount if the whole squad upgrades to have Starswarm Missles?
Happyjew wrote: So then a Dark Reaper Exarch gets a 2 point discount if the whole squad upgrades to have Starswarm Missles?
Probably. I don't recall seeing those options in the Space Marine Command Squad entry.
Your argument, if you will, is that you can upgrade a Veteran to have a weapon, and then upgrade to an Apothecary. By that logic, I can upgrade all Dark Reapers to have Skyswarm Missiles, (for 8 ppm) and then upgrade one to an Exarch (who normally pays 10 pts for the same upgrade).
Additionally, an AM Company Command Squad, could upgrade all 4 Veterans to have a special weapon, and then give them a vox-caster, medi-pack, and a regimental standard.
Happyjew wrote: So then a Dark Reaper Exarch gets a 2 point discount if the whole squad upgrades to have Starswarm Missles?
Probably. I don't recall seeing those options in the Space Marine Command Squad entry.
Your argument, if you will, is that you can upgrade a Veteran to have a weapon, and then upgrade to an Apothecary. By that logic, I can upgrade all Dark Reapers to have Skyswarm Missiles, (for 8 ppm) and then upgrade one to an Exarch (who normally pays 10 pts for the same upgrade).
Additionally, an AM Company Command Squad, could upgrade all 4 Veterans to have a special weapon, and then give them a vox-caster, medi-pack, and a regimental standard.
I can only assume that the Eldar version of Walmart sells Skywarm Missiles at a slight discount if you purchase in bulk.
In all fairness though, giving the Exarch a 2 point discount if his entire squad takes the same option seems reasonable.
The AM issue I'd have to look at. I don't have the Unit Entry handy.
Could you perhaps take the explanation from the FWFAQ regarding Chapter Tactics, particularly for the Red Scorpions and their ability to upgrade a Sergeant (or Veteran Sgt) to an Apothicary?
Purity Above All - "... upgraded to carry a Narthecium for no additional points cost this does not otherwise alter their wargear, additional options or profile, and should always be appropriately represented on the model."
One Veteran may take a vox-caster
One other Veteran may take a medi-pack
One other Veteran may take a regimental banner
Any remaining Veteran that has not been upgraded with one of the options above may replace his lasgun with one item from the Special Weapons list.
Since upgrades can be taken in any order, I can give all 4 special weapons, and then give them other upgrades.
Or, another example. Chaos Space Marines - Daemon Prince. Take 1-3 Mastery Levels (becoming a Psyker), and then upgrade to a Daemon of Khorne.
Kriswall wrote: The AM issue has wording that makes the upgrades mutually exclusive. The SM issue does not. It's comparing apples and oranges.
How so?
SM: Veterans can take Special Weapons. Apothecaries cannot. A Veteran with a Special Weapon is not prohibited from upgrading to Apothecary.
AM: Veterans can take Special Weapons. A Veteran with a Vox-caster/Medi-pack/Regimental Banner cannot. A Veteran with a Special Weapon is not prohibited from taking a Vox-caster/Medi-pack/Regimental Banner.
CSM: Daemon Prince can be upgraded to a Psyker. A Daemon Prince of Khorne cannot. A DP with levels of Psyker are not prohibited from becoming a Daemon of Khorne.
In all three cases it is the exact same argument.
A can take X, B cannot. Taking X does not prohibit A becoming B.
Saying nothing is not the same as saying it can't do something. In the case of the Apothecary all they say is the Veteran can take this, but then they dont say the Apothecary can't.
With the AM Vets, it says they can take X, but if they do they can't take Y. I would think logic dictates that they can't take Y and then X if they aren't allowed to have X with Y.
Saying nothing is not the same as saying it can't do something. In the case of the Apothecary all they say is the Veteran can take this, but then they dont say the Apothecary can't.
With the AM Vets, it says they can take X, but if they do they can't take Y. I would think logic dictates that they can't take Y and then X if they aren't allowed to have X with Y.
Would you agree that an Apothecary cannot take a Special Weapon?
Does it say that a Veteran with a Special Weapon cannot be an Apothecary? Because if the Veteran with a Special Weapon can't be one or if its like this.
-One may be upgraded to a Company Champ
-One may be upgraded to a Standard Bearer
-One may be upgraded to an Apothicary
And then
Any model remaining may take a Special Weapon, than no, the Apothecary can't have one.
This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.
BrotherStynier wrote: Could you perhaps take the explanation from the FWFAQ regarding Chapter Tactics, particularly for the Red Scorpions and their ability to upgrade a Sergeant (or Veteran Sgt) to an Apothicary?
Purity Above All - "... upgraded to carry a Narthecium for no additional points cost this does not otherwise alter their wargear, additional options or profile, and should always be appropriately represented on the model."
I would have to emphasis that there is a precedence regarding models upgraded to being an Apothecary however.
This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.
Missing the part where I go on to say that is says nothing are you?
Saying nothing is not the same as saying it can't do something. In the case of the Apothecary all they say is the Veteran can take this, but then they dont say the Apothecary can't.
With the AM Vets, it says they can take X, but if they do they can't take Y. I would think logic dictates that they can't take Y and then X if they aren't allowed to have X with Y.
Would you agree that an Apothecary cannot take a Special Weapon?
For the AM issue...
One Veteran may carry a vox-caster.
One other Veteran may replace his lasgun with a heavy flamer.
One other Veteran may carry a medi-pack.
One other Veteran may carry a regimental standard.
Two other Veterans may form a Veteran Weapons Team who must take on item from the Heavy Weapons list.
Any remaining Veteran that has not been upgraded with pone of the options above may replace his lasgun with one item from the Special Weapons list.
The unit entry tells me that no Veteran who carrys a vox-caster may also take an item from the Special Weapons list. If I take both, I violate the restriction in the Special Weapons line.
For the SM issue...
One Veteran my be upgraded to an Apothecary, taking a narthecium.
Any Veteran may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons and/or Special Weapons lists.
The unit entry has no such restrictions in the Apothecary line. An Apothecary can have a Special Weapon. If the unit entry read "One Veteran who has not selected items from the Special Weapons list can be upgraded to an Apthecary, taking a narthecium", then I would agree.
Apples and Oranges. The entries aren't worded the same.
BrotherStynier wrote: Does it say that a Veteran with a Special Weapon cannot be an Apothecary? Because if the Veteran with a Special Weapon can't be one or if its like this.
-One may be upgraded to a Company Champ
-One may be upgraded to a Standard Bearer
-One may be upgraded to an Apothicary
And then
Any model remaining may take a Special Weapon, than no, the Apothecary can't have one.
More or less. The list is as follows:
Spoiler:
• One Veteran may take one of the following:
- Company Standard
- Standard of the Emperor Ascendant (one per army)
• One Veteran may be upgraded to a Company Champion, replacing their chainsword with a power weapon and a combat shield
• One Veteran may be upgraded to an Apothecary, taking a narthecium
• The entire squad may take Space Marine bikes
• Any Veteran may take any of the following:
- Melta bombs
- Storm shield
• Any Veteran may replace his chainsword and/or bolt pistol with a boltgun
• Any Veteran may take items from the Melee Weapons and/or Ranged Weapons lists.
• The unit may select a Drop Pod, Rhino or Razorback as a Dedicated Transport.
The SMFAQ adds
Any Veteran may take items from the Special Weapons list.
I don't know if this helps or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Kriswall, would you agree an Apothecary cannot take a Melee/Ranged/Special Weapon (after upgrading to an Apothecary)?
BrotherStynier wrote: Does it say that a Veteran with a Special Weapon cannot be an Apothecary? Because if the Veteran with a Special Weapon can't be one or if its like this.
-One may be upgraded to a Company Champ
-One may be upgraded to a Standard Bearer
-One may be upgraded to an Apothicary
And then
Any model remaining may take a Special Weapon, than no, the Apothecary can't have one.
More or less. The list is as follows:
Spoiler:
• One Veteran may take one of the following:
- Company Standard
- Standard of the Emperor Ascendant (one per army)
• One Veteran may be upgraded to a Company Champion, replacing their chainsword with a power weapon and a combat shield
• One Veteran may be upgraded to an Apothecary, taking a narthecium
• The entire squad may take Space Marine bikes
• Any Veteran may take any of the following:
- Melta bombs
- Storm shield
• Any Veteran may replace his chainsword and/or bolt pistol with a boltgun
• Any Veteran may take items from the Melee Weapons and/or Ranged Weapons lists.
• The unit may select a Drop Pod, Rhino or Razorback as a Dedicated Transport.
The SMFAQ adds
Any Veteran may take items from the Special Weapons list.
I don't know if this helps or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Kriswall, would you agree an Apothecary cannot take a Melee/Ranged/Special Weapon (after upgrading to an Apothecary)?
I absolutely agree that AFTER upgrading to an Apothecary, the Veteran wouldn't be allowed to take a Melee/Ranged/Special Weapon. That's why it's so important that he take the upgrade BEFORE he joins the Apothecarium.
• One Veteran may take one of the following: - Company Standard - Standard of the Emperor Ascendant (one per army) • One Veteran may be upgraded to a Company Champion, replacing their chainsword with a power weapon and a combat shield • One Veteran may be upgraded to an Apothecary, taking a narthecium • The entire squad may take Space Marine bikes • Any Veteran may take any of the following: - Melta bombs - Storm shield • Any Veteran may replace his chainsword and/or bolt pistol with a boltgun • Any Veteran may take items from the Melee Weapons and/or Ranged Weapons lists. • The unit may select a Drop Pod, Rhino or Razorback as a Dedicated Transport.
The SMFAQ adds Any Veteran may take items from the Special Weapons list.
I don't know if this helps or not.
Kriswall wrote:
I absolutely agree that AFTER upgrading to an Apothecary, the Veteran wouldn't be allowed to take a Melee/Ranged/Special Weapon. That's why it's so important that he take the upgrade BEFORE he joins the Apothecarium.
After looking at everything I still feel the best option is to look at the FW assessment of upgrading a Veteran Sgt or Sgt (of the Red Scorpions) to being an Apothecary. With out that ruling, I would say an Apothecary can not take upgrades.
Reposting for sake of ease "...upgraded to carry a Narthecium for no additional points cost. This does not otherwise alter their wargear, additional options or profile, and should always be appropriately represented on the model."
• One Veteran may take one of the following:
- Company Standard
- Standard of the Emperor Ascendant (one per army)
• One Veteran may be upgraded to a Company Champion, replacing their chainsword with a power weapon and a combat shield
• One Veteran may be upgraded to an Apothecary, taking a narthecium
• The entire squad may take Space Marine bikes
• Any Veteran may take any of the following:
- Melta bombs
- Storm shield
• Any Veteran may replace his chainsword and/or bolt pistol with a boltgun
• Any Veteran may take items from the Melee Weapons and/or Ranged Weapons lists.
• The unit may select a Drop Pod, Rhino or Razorback as a Dedicated Transport.
The SMFAQ adds
Any Veteran may take items from the Special Weapons list.
I don't know if this helps or not.
Kriswall wrote:
I absolutely agree that AFTER upgrading to an Apothecary, the Veteran wouldn't be allowed to take a Melee/Ranged/Special Weapon. That's why it's so important that he take the upgrade BEFORE he joins the Apothecarium.
After looking at everything I still feel the best option is to look at the FW assessment of upgrading a Veteran Sgt or Sgt to being an Apothecary. With out that ruling, I would say an Apothecary can not take upgrades.
Reposting for sake of ease "...upgraded to carry a Narthecium for no additional points cost. This does not otherwise alter their wargear, additional options or profile, and should always be appropriately represented on the model."
From the start of that FAQ...
"Presented here is a brief set of conversion guidelines intended to represent the Chapter Tactics of the various Space Marine
Chapters featured in Forge World’s Imperial Armour books for use in games of 6th edition Warhammer 40,000. "
So, you're using an FAQ for a previous version of the game that deals with an entirely different unit to prove your point. I'm sorry, but that's not compelling at all.
Happyjew wrote: And would you agree that after taking a Vox-caster, an AM Veteran cannot take a Special Weapon?
Of course, because the option to take a Special Weapon specifically requires the Veteran not be carrying a vox-caster.
Are we testing my reading comprehension? This is fun. Ask me another.
So we are agreed that neither an Apothecary nor a Veteran with Vox can take a Special Weapon?
I agree that a SM Veteran who has already selected the upgrade to be an Apothecary can't subsequently take a Special Weapon. I agree that an AM Veteran who is carrying a vox-caster cannot take a Special Weapon.
So, you're using an FAQ for a previous version of the game that deals with an entirely different unit to prove your point. I'm sorry, but that's not compelling at all.
Im using an FAQ for a previous version of the game simply because a newer version has yet to be released.
Its like using a Codex for an Army from 6th Edition because it hasn't been updated for 7th. Further more, its unit comparison is little different to that of the AM Vet Squad to the Command Squad of the Space Marines.
Happyjew wrote: Kriswall, would you agree an Apothecary cannot take a Melee/Ranged/Special Weapon (after upgrading to an Apothecary)?
Personally, I would say that since there is functionally no difference between giving him the weapon and then upgrading him, or upgrading him and then giving him the weapon, that the correct answer to this question would be 'Who cares?'
Once it comes time to put models on the table, it would make absolutely no difference which order you applied the options to him.
Happyjew wrote: Kriswall, would you agree an Apothecary cannot take a Melee/Ranged/Special Weapon (after upgrading to an Apothecary)?
Personally, I would say that since there is functionally no difference between giving him the weapon and then upgrading him, or upgrading him and then giving him the weapon, that the correct answer to this question would be 'Who cares?'
Once it comes time to put models on the table, it would make absolutely no difference which order you applied the options to him.
I'm curious to see where he's going with this. It's like a bad court drama. "Objection!" "I'm going to allow it, but you'd better be heading somewhere!"
Happyjew wrote: Kriswall, would you agree an Apothecary cannot take a Melee/Ranged/Special Weapon (after upgrading to an Apothecary)?
Personally, I would say that since there is functionally no difference between giving him the weapon and then upgrading him, or upgrading him and then giving him the weapon, that the correct answer to this question would be 'Who cares?'
Once it comes time to put models on the table, it would make absolutely no difference which order you applied the options to him.
What is the difference between giving a Veteran a SW and then upgrading to an Apothecary, and giving a Veteran a Special Weapon and then giving him a Vox-caster? Or a DP from taking Mastery LEvels and then becoming a Daemon of Khorne?
Kriswall, you claim I'm comparing Apples to Oranges.
In all three cases (Apothecary with SW, Veteran with SW and Vox, or Psychic DP of Khorne), you agree that once a certain upgrade is taken you cannot take the other, yet only for SM do you claim you can take them in the opposite order.
Your arguing that you can take X then Y and it is legal for SM (although you cannot take Y then X). But if I try to take X then Y for AM it is illegal since if I have Y I cannot take X.
Happyjew wrote: Kriswall, would you agree an Apothecary cannot take a Melee/Ranged/Special Weapon (after upgrading to an Apothecary)?
Personally, I would say that since there is functionally no difference between giving him the weapon and then upgrading him, or upgrading him and then giving him the weapon, that the correct answer to this question would be 'Who cares?'
Once it comes time to put models on the table, it would make absolutely no difference which order you applied the options to him.
What is the difference between giving a Veteran a SW and then upgrading to an Apothecary, and giving a Veteran a Special Weapon and then giving him a Vox-caster? Or a DP from taking Mastery LEvels and then becoming a Daemon of Khorne?
The difference is in the wording. Again, I don't own the Chaos Daemon book, so am unable to discuss it unless you wish to post all the applicable entries and rules.
The SM Veteran can take a Special Weapon. The SM Veteran can become an Apothecary. These are not mutually exclusive. I'm not being told that I can only upgrade to Apothecary those Veterans who haven't taken a Special Weapon. The AM unit entry tells me I can't give a Special Weapon to a Veteran carrying a vox-caster.
Happyjew wrote: Kriswall, would you agree an Apothecary cannot take a Melee/Ranged/Special Weapon (after upgrading to an Apothecary)?
Personally, I would say that since there is functionally no difference between giving him the weapon and then upgrading him, or upgrading him and then giving him the weapon, that the correct answer to this question would be 'Who cares?'
Once it comes time to put models on the table, it would make absolutely no difference which order you applied the options to him.
What is the difference between giving a Veteran a SW and then upgrading to an Apothecary, and giving a Veteran a Special Weapon and then giving him a Vox-caster? Or a DP from taking Mastery LEvels and then becoming a Daemon of Khorne?
The difference is in the wording. Again, I don't own the Chaos Daemon book, so am unable to discuss it unless you wish to post all the applicable entries and rules.
The SM Veteran can take a Special Weapon. The SM Veteran can become an Apothecary. These are not mutually exclusive. I'm not being told that I can only upgrade to Apothecary those Veterans who haven't taken a Special Weapon. The AM unit entry tells me I can't give a Special Weapon to a Veteran carrying a vox-caster.
Now it's my turn for questions.
Can a SM Veteran take a Special Weapon?
Yes.
And on a side note, though not relevant, the FWFAQ that has been referenced was to update the various Chapters for use with the current SM codex.
Happyjew wrote: Kriswall, you claim I'm comparing Apples to Oranges.
In all three cases (Apothecary with SW, Veteran with SW and Vox, or Psychic DP of Khorne), you agree that once a certain upgrade is taken you cannot take the other, yet only for SM do you claim you can take them in the opposite order.
Your arguing that you can take X then Y and it is legal for SM (although you cannot take Y then X). But if I try to take X then Y for AM it is illegal since if I have Y I cannot take X.
I have not said anything about all three cases. I don't own the Daemons book and can't and won't speak to it.
I claim there is a difference... because there is a difference. They are worded differently. The authors chose different words when they wrote the entries. If they were written the same, I'd treat them the same.
You can take things in different orders, but only the AM codex creates a conflict as only the AM codex has a restriction in the unit entry.
Happyjew wrote: Kriswall, would you agree an Apothecary cannot take a Melee/Ranged/Special Weapon (after upgrading to an Apothecary)?
Personally, I would say that since there is functionally no difference between giving him the weapon and then upgrading him, or upgrading him and then giving him the weapon, that the correct answer to this question would be 'Who cares?'
Once it comes time to put models on the table, it would make absolutely no difference which order you applied the options to him.
What is the difference between giving a Veteran a SW and then upgrading to an Apothecary, and giving a Veteran a Special Weapon and then giving him a Vox-caster? Or a DP from taking Mastery LEvels and then becoming a Daemon of Khorne?
The difference is in the wording. Again, I don't own the Chaos Daemon book, so am unable to discuss it unless you wish to post all the applicable entries and rules.
The SM Veteran can take a Special Weapon. The SM Veteran can become an Apothecary. These are not mutually exclusive. I'm not being told that I can only upgrade to Apothecary those Veterans who haven't taken a Special Weapon. The AM unit entry tells me I can't give a Special Weapon to a Veteran carrying a vox-caster.
Now it's my turn for questions.
Can a SM Veteran take a Special Weapon?
Yes.
And on a side note, though not relevant, the FWFAQ that has been referenced was to update the various Chapters for use with the current SM codex.
Happyjew wrote: Kriswall, you claim I'm comparing Apples to Oranges.
In all three cases (Apothecary with SW, Veteran with SW and Vox, or Psychic DP of Khorne), you agree that once a certain upgrade is taken you cannot take the other, yet only for SM do you claim you can take them in the opposite order.
Your arguing that you can take X then Y and it is legal for SM (although you cannot take Y then X). But if I try to take X then Y for AM it is illegal since if I have Y I cannot take X.
I have not said anything about all three cases. I don't own the Daemons book and can't and won't speak to it.
I claim there is a difference... because there is a difference. They are worded differently. The authors chose different words when they wrote the entries. If they were written the same, I'd treat them the same.
You can take things in different orders, but only the AM codex creates a conflict as only the AM codex has a restriction in the unit entry.
Happyjew wrote: Kriswall, would you agree an Apothecary cannot take a Melee/Ranged/Special Weapon (after upgrading to an Apothecary)?
Personally, I would say that since there is functionally no difference between giving him the weapon and then upgrading him, or upgrading him and then giving him the weapon, that the correct answer to this question would be 'Who cares?'
Once it comes time to put models on the table, it would make absolutely no difference which order you applied the options to him.
What is the difference between giving a Veteran a SW and then upgrading to an Apothecary, and giving a Veteran a Special Weapon and then giving him a Vox-caster? Or a DP from taking Mastery LEvels and then becoming a Daemon of Khorne?
The difference is in the wording. Again, I don't own the Chaos Daemon book, so am unable to discuss it unless you wish to post all the applicable entries and rules.
The SM Veteran can take a Special Weapon. The SM Veteran can become an Apothecary. These are not mutually exclusive. I'm not being told that I can only upgrade to Apothecary those Veterans who haven't taken a Special Weapon. The AM unit entry tells me I can't give a Special Weapon to a Veteran carrying a vox-caster.
Now it's my turn for questions.
Can a SM Veteran take a Special Weapon?
Yes.
And on a side note, though not relevant, the FWFAQ that has been referenced was to update the various Chapters for use with the current SM codex.
Can a SM Veteran become an Apothecary?
Again yes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Kriswall, might I suggest moving this to PM? That way if on the off-chance this thread gets locked, we can continue the discussion.
What is the difference between giving a Veteran a SW and then upgrading to an Apothecary, and giving a Veteran a Special Weapon and then giving him a Vox-caster? Or a DP from taking Mastery LEvels and then becoming a Daemon of Khorne?
The difference, as Kriswall said, is that they're worded differently.
Different units that have differently worded rules don't always work the exact same.
I'm fine with that. The line of questioning was ultimately going to continue with...
Does a Veteran lose his wargear or "reset" to a default set of "Apothecary wargear" when choosing the option to upgrade to an Apothecary?
...with the ultimate question being...
If a Veteran takes a Special Weapon and then upgrades to an Apothecary, why can't he keep the Special Weapon?
HIWPI:
I suspect very strongly that GW expects that people will take options in the order in which they appear on the page. The issue is that they never explicitly told us that this is the way it works. We're left to hash out RaW, and RaW doesn't tell us to pick things in order. My SM Codex says, in the unit entry description about options, "This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points for each". You'll note that there is nothing about choosing things in order.
I feel strongly enough about RaW allowing me to do so, that I would convert an Apothecary to wield dual grav pistols and a storm shield on a bike. I also realize that this is likely just bad writing on the part of GW and would not be upset or disappointed if they release an FAQ tomorrow saying that options are intended to be taken in the order in which they are presented.
Any downside to not being able to further upgrade an Apothecary is mitigated by the fact that you're not spending 30+ points on a single 1 wound model.
darkcloak wrote: Any downside to not being able to further upgrade an Apothecary is mitigated by the fact that you're not spending 30+ points on a single 1 wound model.
I'd be spending 165 points on my T5, 3++ having, Space Marine Bike riding, Twin Grav Pistol toting Gunslinger Medic who causes Fear and has a burning Hatred for his enemies. Oh yeah, and he inspires his Battle Brothers so much so that everyone nearby re-rolls Morale and Pinning tests as well as getting +1 to assault results!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tell me that doesn't sound fun!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh! And he can even be the Warlord!
HIWPI:
I suspect very strongly that GW expects that people will take options in the order in which they appear on the page. The issue is that they never explicitly told us that this is the way it works. We're left to hash out RaW, and RaW doesn't tell us to pick things in order. My SM Codex says, in the unit entry description about options, "This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points for each". You'll note that there is nothing about choosing things in order.
I feel strongly enough about RaW allowing me to do so, that I would convert an Apothecary to wield dual grav pistols and a storm shield on a bike. I also realize that this is likely just bad writing on the part of GW and would not be upset or disappointed if they release an FAQ tomorrow saying that options are intended to be taken in the order in which they are presented.
And to this i agree, with the addition (that you missed in the intent of my last post) that some of the Codex, like Astra militarum that you quoted so must have read:
One Veteran may carry a vox-caster.
One other Veteran may replace his lasgun with a heavy flamer.
One other Veteran may carry a medi-pack.
One other Veteran may carry a regimental standard.
Two other Veterans may form a Veteran Weapons Team who must take on item from the Heavy Weapons list.
Any remaining Veteran that has not been upgraded with pone of the options above may replace his lasgun with one item from the Special Weapons list.
The unit entry tells me that no Veteran who carrys a vox-caster may also take an item from the Special Weapons list. If I take both, I violate the restriction in the Special Weapons line.
That these Codices must be in a "follow-the-order-it's-printed" format. Simply by words like " that have not been upgraded" and "above". Because by RaW, this would not work:
-Any remaining Veteran that has not been upgraded with pone of the options above may replace his lasgun with one item from the Special Weapons list.
-Two other Veterans may form a Veteran Weapons Team who must take on item from the Heavy Weapons list.
-One other Veteran may carry a regimental standard.
-One other Veteran may carry a medi-pack.
-One other Veteran may replace his lasgun with a heavy flamer.
-One Veteran may carry a vox-caster. Which means that, to follow these options by RaW, you must apply them (by RaW) in a "follow-the-order-it's-printed" format.
This is never explicitly told anywhere, and until they FAQ we will never know... But some Codex do have the method implied, and that is a "truth" by RaW i will always advocate.
As for the issue at hand and the Space Marines Codex, i remember last time this argument cropped up, that by RaW the best interpretation is an "End loadout" check.
IE: Nothing stops you taking a Bike, then taking Terminator Armour (no order as you say). But when you put the model on the board, you check his equipment: he has a Bike+Terminator armour, but Bike says you can't have Termi armour, so the model must be "re-done".
Same here: give the Apothecary all the equipment you want, but when it comes to check what he has: he is an apothecary, not a Veteran, so some of the options are then "illegal".
This works in the same way as anything: you can decide to field a Command Squad 1st, then choose a Company commander. The "End check" will go through, even though by the rules, you could not take the CCS without the commander.
BlackTalos wrote: Same here: give the Apothecary all the equipment you want, but when it comes to check what he has: he is an apothecary, not a Veteran, so some of the options are then "illegal".
The problem with that interpretation is that there is nothing that says that an Apothecary can't have optional equipment. He just has no option to select that equipment from the armoury.
I don't have enough money to buy a Reaver Titan. That doesn't mean that I can't keep the one I already have sitting out on my shelf. Just that I can't buy one.
As for the issue at hand and the Space Marines Codex, i remember last time this argument cropped up, that by RaW the best interpretation is an "End loadout" check.
IE: Nothing stops you taking a Bike, then taking Terminator Armour (no order as you say). But when you put the model on the board, you check his equipment: he has a Bike+Terminator armour, but Bike says you can't have Termi armour, so the model must be "re-done".
Same here: give the Apothecary all the equipment you want, but when it comes to check what he has: he is an apothecary, not a Veteran, so some of the options are then "illegal".
This works in the same way as anything: you can decide to field a Command Squad 1st, then choose a Company commander. The "End check" will go through, even though by the rules, you could not take the CCS without the commander.
This. And Termie armour and bike example is an excellent one. The same logic that people here use to allow an Apotechary eith a special weapon would allow a Captain with a bike and a terminator armour, by taking the bike first.
Crimson wrote: The same logic that people here use to allow an Apotechary eith a special weapon would allow a Captain with a bike and a terminator armour, by taking the bike first.
Captains in the current Space Marine codex don't have Terminator Armour as an option. Terminator Captains are a completely separate entry.
Crimson wrote: The same logic that people here use to allow an Apotechary eith a special weapon would allow a Captain with a bike and a terminator armour, by taking the bike first.
Captains in the current Space Marine codex don't have Terminator Armour as an option. Terminator Captains are a completely separate entry.
BlackTalos wrote: Same here: give the Apothecary all the equipment you want, but when it comes to check what he has: he is an apothecary, not a Veteran, so some of the options are then "illegal".
The problem with that interpretation is that there is nothing that says that an Apothecary can't have optional equipment. He just has no option to select that equipment from the armoury.
I don't have enough money to buy a Reaver Titan. That doesn't mean that I can't keep the one I already have sitting out on my shelf. Just that I can't buy one.
That interpretation (same as bike & Termi armour), is that you check at the end the "status" of the model, in a way. In no specific order, the model has: • One Veteran may be upgraded to an Apothecary, taking a narthecium • Any Veteran may take any of the following: - Melta bombs • Any Veteran may take items from the Melee Weapons and/or Ranged Weapons lists. (Power fist + Grav-pistol).
So we have 3 "statuses", or "options": Is Apothecary; Has Melta bombs; Has melee+ranged weapons. But as you check the requirements for melee/ranged & Melta bombs, you see that the model is no longer "Any Veteran", because he is Apothecary. Model is illegal.
You can go back and choose all of his options again, but as soon as he takes (or ends up taking) "Is Apothecary", then all the options "Veteran" no longer apply.
That was in essence the interpretation that was concluded previously. I'd still go "by order" over this any-day....
There is no RaW telling us to take the options in order.
There is no RaW telling us to do an "end of selections check".
There is no RaW telling us Apothecaries can't have a Special Weapon.
I've said I believe GW intends us to select options top to bottom, but NEVER EXPLICITLY TELLS US to do this. I believe this is sloppy writing.
In a friendly, casual environment, I would allow anyone to choose out of order, while using common sense to solve conflicts. Termie Chapter Masters can't ride bikes because bikes don't allow Termie Armour. AM Veterans with vox-casters can't have Special Weapons because Special Weapon Vets can't have vox-casters. SM Apothecaries can have Special Weapons because nothing in the Apothecary option text puts a restriction on owning a Special Weapon.
In a tournament environment, I would require people to select options from top to bottom. It avoids a lot of poorly written situations and avoids arguments. Having said that, tournaments have to use house rules to tighten up poorly written RaW. Tournaments shouldn't be used as an indication of what RaW actually is, but maybe what it should be.
Kriswall wrote: 99% of what people are saying is just HIWPI.
There is no RaW telling us to take the options in order. There is no RaW telling us to do an "end of selections check". There is no RaW telling us Apothecaries can't have a Special Weapon.
I've said I believe GW intends us to select options top to bottom, but NEVER EXPLICITLY TELLS US to do this. I believe this is sloppy writing.
In a friendly, casual environment, I would allow anyone to choose out of order, while using common sense to solve conflicts. Termie Chapter Masters can't ride bikes because bikes don't allow Termie Armour. AM Veterans with vox-casters can't have Special Weapons because Special Weapon Vets can't have vox-casters. SM Apothecaries can have Special Weapons because nothing in the Apothecary option text puts a restriction on owning a Special Weapon.
In a tournament environment, I would require people to select options from top to bottom. It avoids a lot of poorly written situations and avoids arguments. Having said that, tournaments have to use house rules to tighten up poorly written RaW. Tournaments shouldn't be used as an indication of what RaW actually is, but maybe what it should be.
RaW: Chapter Masters can take a bike first and then choose Terminator armour. It uses the same logic that allows you to take Apoth that has Vet upgrades: the Chapter Master in power armour when he chose a bike. Nothing prevents a Chapter Master riding a bike from taking Terminator armour, but restrictions prevent him from taking a bike when he's in Termi armour already. This extends to a Libby and Chaplain. This works if you take it in any order you like, or top to bottom.
By saying "Apoths can have X upgrade because he was a Veteran when he purchased it", you'd need to accept that a CM, Libby, or Chaplain can do the same for Bike + TDA.
In other words, you should flag your interpretation and opinion as such instead of making it look like RAW, which it isn't.
Anything that anybody writes on these forums that isn't a direct quote is an interpretation and opinion. There is little point asking everyone to flag every single post they make as such.
The RAW allows it, your vision of the RAI does not. Therefore, you should at least mention that it's RAI, if not your RAI.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've seen Chapter Masters with Terminator armors on a bike. I think.
In other words, you should flag your interpretation and opinion as such instead of making it look like RAW, which it isn't.
Anything that anybody writes on these forums that isn't a direct quote is an interpretation and opinion. There is little point asking everyone to flag every single post they make as such.
The RAW allows it, your vision of the RAI does not. Therefore, you should at least mention that it's RAI, if not your RAI.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've seen Chapter Masters with Terminator armors on a bike. I think.
Except you've not shown the RAW on how you check the legality of the list, insisting its a strict 'top to bottom' system when it could be an 'end of operation' check as well. If it was RAW, you would have something written to support that.
nutty_nutter wrote: there are no guidelines on HOW upgrades are applied to a unit.
None RaW indeed. But i still stand by Intent (RaI) that the order from top to bottom is kept. Multiple examples if you need them
To which i would add that the Astra Militarum Codex must have an order of options in "top to bottom" for some of the RaW to work.
This is RaW: "-Any remaining Veteran that has not been upgraded with one of the options above may replace his lasgun with one item from the Special Weapons list."
Can you follow that Rule in a vacuum for Unit X?
The answer of No will mean that "Top to Bottom" must be implied RaW (for this Codex only)
You have to READ the options from top to bottom to comprehend them. You don't have to apply them from top to bottom as there is no RaW on the matter and the options aren't numbered. So long as you've read and comprehended the option, applying "out of order" is no issue. What does above mean? You're not operating in a vaccum if you apply the option first. You just have to look at the physical paper or computer screen and look above the option to see what is written there. Saying you're operating in a vacuum is being a little dramatic.
A Biker Chapter Master who selects Terminator Armour is perfectly acceptable according to current RaW and perfectly illustrates the issue with current RaW. We can never know RaI, but it seems likely that RaI would prevent a Biker CM from taking Termie Armour. It's also possible from a RaI standpoint that it's allowed and the resulting Biker CM represents a CM riding an up-armoured bike with a built in invuln save/forcefield and the ability to teleport onto the battlefield... a CM worthy Relic Bike if you will.
RaI is dangerous because any halfway creative person can come up with a perfectly reasonable explanation for any rules issue to go either way.
So i guess you can explain what "the options above" refer to without quoting any other part of the AM codex? That would be surprising.
BlackTalos wrote: This is RaW: "-Any remaining Veteran that has not been upgraded with one of the options above may replace his lasgun with one item from the Special Weapons list."
BlackTalos wrote: So i guess you can explain what "the options above" refer to without quoting any other part of the AM codex? That would be surprising.
BlackTalos wrote: This is RaW: "-Any remaining Veteran that has not been upgraded with one of the options above may replace his lasgun with one item from the Special Weapons list."
Sure. It means whatever options are listed above that one.
BlackTalos wrote: So i guess you can explain what "the options above" refer to without quoting any other part of the AM codex? That would be surprising.
BlackTalos wrote: This is RaW: "-Any remaining Veteran that has not been upgraded with one of the options above may replace his lasgun with one item from the Special Weapons list."
Sure. It means whatever options are listed above that one.
So, you would not conclude that this "list" has an order?
The list specifically doesn't have an order. Since this list uses bullet points, it is by definition unordered. If it were numbered (1, 2, 3), then it would be an ordered list. I tried googling to find a good explanation, but evidently ordered versus unordered lists are a thing in web site programming also, so the first few pages of results were about HTML coding!
Also, RaW is the whole entry. Citing one sentence out of the entire entry doesn't represent RaW... it represents a citation of one small part of the overall RaW. We use citations to prove our points, but must make sure the citation is large enough to include context. We need to know what is written above to know what above means. By citing the one line and saying above is unknowable, you're basically quoting something without the relevant context.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And again, this comes down to poor writing. Consider this...
AM Vets
Each Veteran may select up to one upgrade from the following list.
* take a vox-caster (no more than one per unit)
* take a company standard (no more than one per unit)
* take a medi-pack (no more than one per unit)
* take an item from the Special Weapons list
SM Vets
One Veteran my be upgraded to an Apothecary, exchanging all wargear for Power Armour, Bolt Pistol, Chainsword and Narthecium
Simple wording and both result in what most of us thing is probably RaI.
GW needs to hire a technical copy editor. Or just give some law school student a free army to edit the books. Literally anything. The current writers aren't very good at the technical mechanics of the rules.
BlackTalos wrote: So i guess you can explain what "the options above" refer to without quoting any other part of the AM codex? That would be surprising.
BlackTalos wrote: This is RaW: "-Any remaining Veteran that has not been upgraded with one of the options above may replace his lasgun with one item from the Special Weapons list."
Sure. It means whatever options are listed above that one.
So, you would not conclude that this "list" has an order?
No, I wouldn't. List doesn't inherently imply ordered list.
morgoth wrote: The RAW allows it, your vision of the RAI does not. Therefore, you should at least mention that it's RAI, if not your RAI.
2 points - For one, the fact that you think the RAW says something different to what I think it says does not automatically make my interpretation RAI.
For two, it's a good idea to read the whole thread before responding, since I've already said that I was wrong with my initial response on this.
So the question then becomes: Is it just the Chapter Master entry that is badly written, or both of them?
The thing is, the 'top down' approach that people are espousing doesn't fix the Chapter Master either, since the option to put him on a bike comes before the option to upgrade to Terminator armour.
The 'interpretation' suggested by Black Talos fixes this, but isn't based on any actual rules provided anywhere in the army selection process.
I don't have the SM 'Dex in front of me right now, but what exactly is the wording on the Chapter Master Termie upgrade? I thought there was some wording about trading in all Wargear for [list of Termie wargear]? I might be way off. I was just wondering, because if so, buying a Bike that is immediately traded in wouldn't be an issue?
I might be wrong. Apologies if so. I don't fully remember the wording. I really need to load all these ePub codexes onto my phone.
Codex Space Marines wrote:• A Chapter Master may replace his power armour, bolt pistol, chainsword and frag and krak grenades with Terminator armour, storm bolter and power sword
• A Chapter Master in Terminator armour may only take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists.
So, again you're left with the fact that a Chapter Master in Power Armour is taking the Bike. He acquires the Terminator armour later. We know that option upgrades happen sequentially and not all at once from the Bikers issue (Bolt Pistol to Chainsword THEN Chainsword to Special Weapon). RaW, you can have a Chapter Master on Bike with Terminator Armour.
Yes, you can. But the fact that the terminator armour limits what he can select suggests that this isn't intended. Otherwise there would be no point to that limitation.
In other words, you should flag your interpretation and opinion as such instead of making it look like RAW, which it isn't.
Anything that anybody writes on these forums that isn't a direct quote is an interpretation and opinion. There is little point asking everyone to flag every single post they make as such.
The RAW allows it, your vision of the RAI does not. Therefore, you should at least mention that it's RAI, if not your RAI.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've seen Chapter Masters with Terminator armors on a bike. I think.
Except you've not shown the RAW on how you check the legality of the list, insisting its a strict 'top to bottom' system when it could be an 'end of operation' check as well. If it was RAW, you would have something written to support that.
On the contrary, you have not shown that there even is a list legality check.
insaniak wrote: Yes, you can. But the fact that the terminator armour limits what he can select suggests that this isn't intended. Otherwise there would be no point to that limitation.
I'd like to say that isn't strictly true. A Captain in Termi armour is its own entry in this edition of the codex, and it also has access to the special issue wargear list.
No, I'm not trying to argue the intent of "A Termi Captain can't do it, but CMs, Libbys and Chaplains can!". I'm just making a point.
However, the same could be said about the Apothecary, as the entry does say "Veterans may ...", not any model.
Maybe the author intended the CM, Libby, and Chaplain to take bike + Termi armour, and for Apoths to have Vet upgrades (unlikely, but possible for the former, more likely on the latter IMO). The problem is that none of us can know for sure unless we go and interrogate the guy.
Or get an FAQ.
RAI is actually perfectly clear. When GW intends any model to have an upgrade, they write 'any model', when they they specify which model can take the upgrade, then it is meant for that model only. They do not hide upgrades in easter eggs for clever rules lawyers to find.
Crimson wrote: RAI is actually perfectly clear. When GW intends any model to have an upgrade, they write 'any model', when they they specify which model can take the upgrade, then it is meant for that model only. They do not hide upgrades in easter eggs for clever rules lawyers to find.
RaI may seem clear in this instance, but is, as always, utterly unknowable without speaking directly to the author.
And saying the hide upgrade in easter eggs is giving them too much credit. The sad reality is most likely that they simply lack the technical acumen to translate their intentions into effective, clear and concise rules.
Rules lawyer has the negative connotation of someone who is trying to exploit the rules for advantage and I don't think is fair to say. I don't consider myself a rule lawyer, but do genuinely enjoy a debate on how to interpret what was ACTUALLY written down. It's not a clever easter egg upgrade if it's printed in black and white. You need to divorce yourself from your beliefs and expectations and only read what GW has written. We all know that GW doesn't want Terminators to ride Bikes. By critically examining the rules, we can see that what GW ACTUALLY wrote allows us to field a Terminator Chapter Master riding a Bike. That's why we differentiate between RaW, RaI and HIWPI...
RaW - Biker Chapter Masters can take Terminator Armour.
RaI - GW most likely doesn't want Biker Chapter Masters to take Terminator Armour.
HIWPI - I wouldn't give a Biker Chapter Master a suit of Terminator Armour, but would allow an opponent to do so as it is current RaW.
Kriswall wrote: RaW - Biker Chapter Masters can take Terminator Armour.
Only if you believe in a strict 'top to bottom, one and done' method of determining legality instead of an 'end of operations' method. Can you show us which method is used for determining legality as written in the rules?
morgoth wrote: On the contrary, you have not shown that there even is a list legality check.
Which means that you can't know if it's RAW because you don't know how to check if it's legal.
There is no legality check. The rules tell you how to build an army. At a very high level, you choose a detachment or formation, then choose a unit to fill a spot and then choose options for that unit before moving to the next unit or detachment.
So long as you're following the rules on how to build an army, you should end up with an army. There is nothing in the rules about a "post list creation validation check", so talking about list legality check RaW is pointless.
I decide to take a Space Marine Combined Arms Detachment.
I decide to take a Space Marine Chapter Master to fulfill the Mandatory HQ slot.
I decide to take the Space Marine Bike option in the unit entry. (The Bike is being taken by a model equipped with Power Armour and is therefore a valid choice.)
I decide to take the Terminator Armour option in the unit entry. (Again, this is a valid selection for a Power Armoured model. There is no restriction regarding Bike riding Marines taking Terminator Armour... only one about the reverse situation.)
I decide to take no further options for my Space Marine Chapter Master and move on to my Mandatory Troops slot...
etc.
I've obeyed every rule and ended up with a Terminator on a Bike. The restriction we want to apply, and that makes a RaI sense to apply is that models wearing Terminator Armour are restricted from taking Bikes. The issue with this is that, as you can see in the above sequence, at the point during which the Chapter Master takes the Bike, he is wearing Power Armour. It's a legal list that likely breaks RaI, but is compliant with strict RaW.
At no point in the process am I asked by the rules to go back and validate that a unit is equipped with legal options. At no point in the rules is there a clause saying that I need to make sure no Terminator has somehow been mounted on a bike. There is no post unit selection validation.
There is a legality check, otherwise any model could take any upgrade even if the option is for a different type of model. So again, why are you claiming a 'top to bottom, one and done' legality check is RAW when the rules make no mention of it?
Crimson wrote: When GW intends any model to have an upgrade, they write 'any model', when they they specify which model can take the upgrade, then it is meant for that model only.
Expecting GW to use consistent wording across the board is the road to disappointment.
GW have a long history of mostly using consistent wording, and then throwing in the odd different one just for giggles.
They do not hide upgrades in easter eggs for clever rules lawyers to find.
Not intentionally, anyway.
The issue comes with trying to determine which options are easter eggs and which are intentional.
Ghaz wrote: There is a legality check, otherwise any model could take any upgrade even if the option is for a different type of model. So again, why are you claiming a 'top to bottom, one and done' legality check is RAW when the rules make no mention of it?
I'm not claiming any legality check at all past the "you're supposed to follow the rules and not intentionally break them" one. Presumably, you'd check to see if you're following the rules every time you take an action?
I give my Chapter Master a Bike. Did I break a rule? No.
I subsequently give my Chapter Master Terminator Armour. Did I break a rule? No.
Terminator Armoured Marines can't take Bikes. That never happened. A Power Armoured Marine took a Bike. A Power Armoured Marine riding a Bike took Terminator Armour. Strictly speaking, neither action is prohibited.
Well using common sense one would assume that a CM can't take the bike and then the Terminator armor, because he can't take the Terminator armor and then the bike.
BrotherStynier wrote: Well using common sense one would assume that a CM can't take the bike and then the Terminator armor, because he can't take the Terminator armor and then the bike.
Common sense is applicable for HIWPI. It has no place in a RaW discussion!
BrotherStynier wrote: Well using common sense one would assume that a CM can't take the bike and then the Terminator armor, because he can't take the Terminator armor and then the bike.
Common sense is applicable for HIWPI. It has no place in a RaW discussion!
BrotherStynier wrote: Well using common sense one would assume that a CM can't take the bike and then the Terminator armor, because he can't take the Terminator armor and then the bike.
Which, as I said before, is sufficient to suggest that it's probably an error. We'd know for sure if GW still believed in supporting their game.
It doesn't do much, however, to tell us how to apply the options in a completely different unit entry.
BrotherStynier wrote: Well using common sense one would assume that a CM can't take the bike and then the Terminator armor, because he can't take the Terminator armor and then the bike.
Which, as I said before, is sufficient to suggest that it's probably an error. We'd know for sure if GW still believed in supporting their game.
It doesn't do much, however, to tell us how to apply the options in a completely different unit entry.
Kriswall wrote: I'm not claiming any legality check at all past the "you're supposed to follow the rules and not intentionally break them" one. Presumably, you'd check to see if you're following the rules every time you take an action?
Except you are intentionally breaking the rules by claiming you can do so by ignoring any upgrades you've already taken when determining if something is legal. What leads you to believe that you ignore any other actions when determining if its legal?
BrotherStynier wrote: Well using common sense one would assume that a CM can't take the bike and then the Terminator armor, because he can't take the Terminator armor and then the bike.
Which, as I said before, is sufficient to suggest that it's probably an error. We'd know for sure if GW still believed in supporting their game.
It doesn't do much, however, to tell us how to apply the options in a completely different unit entry.
Then I put forth that if someone wants to use Apothecaries with options they should play either a Red Scorpions army, or a HH Army. At least for the time being.
Crimson wrote: Yes it does, it is exactly the same situation.
So?
We can assume the Chapter Master entry is a mistake because it leads to a silly conclusion. The Apothecary issue doesn't. It just leads to Apothecaries potentially having something other than a bolt pistol in their hand.
So we have no way to know for sure if they're both errors, or if just the CM entry is in error. You can guess that they both are wrong, but a guess is all it can be.
Crimson wrote: Yes it does, it is exactly the same situation.
So?
We can assume the Chapter Master entry is a mistake because it leads to a silly conclusion. The Apothecary issue doesn't. It just leads to Apothecaries potentially having something other than a bolt pistol in their hand.
So we have no way to know for sure if they're both errors, or if just the CM entry is in error. You can guess that they both are wrong, but a guess is all it can be.
There is no error in either. There merely is an universal unstated assumption that the end result must be legal, no matter the order you choose stuff; terminators cannot have bikes and apotecharies cannot have veteran weapons. You could argue that this is not RAW but I'm 100% certain it is the RAI.
Kriswall wrote: I'm not claiming any legality check at all past the "you're supposed to follow the rules and not intentionally break them" one. Presumably, you'd check to see if you're following the rules every time you take an action?
Except you are intentionally breaking the rules by claiming you can do so by ignoring any upgrades you've already taken when determining if something is legal. What leads you to believe that you ignore any other actions when determining if its legal?
I'm not ignoring past upgrades. I'm ignoring FUTURE upgrades as they haven't happened yet.
When I take the Bike, it's a legal choice.
Subsequently, when I take the Terminator Armour, it's a legal choice.
Show me the rule saying a Chapter Master on a Bike can't take Terminator Armour.
While doing so, keep in mind that I don't care about the fact that a Chapter Master in Terminator Armour can't take a Bike. My Chapter Master is in Power Armour when he selects the Bike. This is a critical distinction.
Crimson wrote: Yes it does, it is exactly the same situation.
So?
We can assume the Chapter Master entry is a mistake because it leads to a silly conclusion. The Apothecary issue doesn't. It just leads to Apothecaries potentially having something other than a bolt pistol in their hand.
So we have no way to know for sure if they're both errors, or if just the CM entry is in error. You can guess that they both are wrong, but a guess is all it can be.
There is no error in either. There merely is an universal unstated assumption that the end result must be legal, no matter the order you choose stuff; terminators cannot have bikes and apotecharies cannot have veteran weapons. You could argue that this is not RAW but I'm 100% certain it is the RAI.
I'm also fairly certain it's RaI. Thankfully, we aren't arguing RaI. We're arguing RaW. What is your opinion on RaW?
Crimson wrote: There is no error in either. There merely is an universal unstated assumption that the end result must be legal, no matter the order you choose stuff; terminators cannot have bikes and apotecharies cannot have veteran weapons. You could argue that this is not RAW but I'm 100% certain it is the RAI.
You can be as certain as you like, but a rule that requires an unwritten assumption in order to function as intended is an error. Because not everyone is going to make that same assumption... as evidenced by the Apothecary argument.
Then why are you posting on YMDC? This board is about RaW.
No it is not, it is about rules, and often attempting to decipher the intent behind the rule is quite important (at least if the intent is to actually play the game instead of engaging sophistry.)
Crimson wrote: There is no error in either. There merely is an universal unstated assumption that the end result must be legal, no matter the order you choose stuff; terminators cannot have bikes and apotecharies cannot have veteran weapons. You could argue that this is not RAW but I'm 100% certain it is the RAI.
You can be as certain as you like, but a rule that requires an unwritten assumption in order to function as intended is an error. Because not everyone is going to make that same assumption... as evidenced by the Apothecary argument.
I'd call that 'imprecision' rather than 'error', but indeed it would be nice if that was actually clearly stated.
If a veteran just got a narthecium, I would be fine with him taking war gear, as he is still a veteran.
But, since he becomes a different model, with it's own name, with it's own stat line in the codex, I am going to say that it cannot take or retain any upgrades that specify it is used by a veteran. Same deal with the company champion, sergeants, chapter champion...
Just on that basic level, not using the Chapter Master buying the Bike and then the TDA argument.
Apothecaries don't have access to options. I don't think anyone is saying they do. Veterans do. The real question is whether or not Veterans are allowed to use the Veteran options before becoming Apothecaries.
Then I think, and I know this goes against YMDC logic, but we go with common sense and say, No veterans are not allowed to use the Veteran Options before becoming an Apothecary because Apothecaries are not allowed to have them.
Then why are you posting on YMDC? This board is about RaW.
No it is not, it is about rules, and often attempting to decipher the intent behind the rule is quite important (at least if the intent is to actually play the game instead of engaging sophistry.)
Crimson wrote: There is no error in either. There merely is an universal unstated assumption that the end result must be legal, no matter the order you choose stuff; terminators cannot have bikes and apotecharies cannot have veteran weapons. You could argue that this is not RAW but I'm 100% certain it is the RAI.
You can be as certain as you like, but a rule that requires an unwritten assumption in order to function as intended is an error. Because not everyone is going to make that same assumption... as evidenced by the Apothecary argument.
I'd call that 'imprecision' rather than 'error', but indeed it would be nice if that was actually clearly stated.
I don't appreciate the implication that I'm using false arguments in an effort to deceive.
Any attempt to decipher intent is doomed to failure in the sense that we can never, ever know intent without a further clarifying comment by the authors. Deciding whether or not the rules as written on the page allow something to happen is another story entirely. That's what I'm trying to do here. I could care less about authorial intent as it's not relevant to the actual words on the page.
The question is whether or not what is actually written on the page allows you to field an Apothecary wielding a Special Weapon. The intended answer is likely no. What do the rules actually say?
The further question is whether or not what is actually written on the page allows you to field a Chapter Master in Terminator Armour riding a Bike. The intended answer is likely no. What do the rules actually say?
I am unable to find anything in the actual written rules preventing either of these scenarios. I have yet to see anyone post any actual written rules preventing either of these scenarios.
Let's just agree that RaI is probably a no and decide whether or not the rules can provide a consensus and what that consensus is.
Ideally, at the end of the debate, we could go to GW and say "We suspect you didn't want to allow A and B to occur, but the rules you wrote allow them to occur. Do we need an errata?".
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Poll choices are awful. Apothecaries aren't Veterans. They used to be Veterans. Sigh.
Any attempt to decipher intent is doomed to failure in the sense that we can never, ever know intent without a further clarifying comment by the authors.
Really? And yet somehow you managed to conclude that:
The intended answer is likely no.
My point was that arguing over what the RAW is is pointless, if you're not going to play that way anyway. For editions by RAW models without eyes couldn't shoot, yet that fact was completely irrelevant, as everyone played by obvious RAI.
Any attempt to decipher intent is doomed to failure in the sense that we can never, ever know intent without a further clarifying comment by the authors.
Really? And yet somehow you managed to conclude that:
The intended answer is likely no.
My point was that arguing over what the RAW is is pointless, if you're not going to play that way anyway. For editions by RAW models without eyes couldn't shoot, yet that fact was completely irrelevant, as everyone played by obvious RAI.
Except we cannot know what the intent is. We can have ideas, and some are more likely than others. Hence the reason Kriswall said that it is likely to be no. He did not say it was no.
So, as the results stand, preliminary as they are;
No, you may not have options on the Apothecary, how ever numerous examples have been made about ways you can use it, if you discuss it with your opponents.
Except we cannot know what the intent is. We can have ideas, and some are more likely than others. Hence the reason Kriswall said that it is likely to be no. He did not say it was no.
And this is exactly how people approach the rules when they actually try to play the game. Written language is always somewhat imprecise, and the reader has to conclude by the context what the writer most likely meant.
No, you may not have options on the Apothecary, how ever numerous examples have been made about ways you can use it, if you discuss it with your opponents.
Your conclusion doesn't match the wording of the poll.
The poll is asking whether an Apothecary can be given upgrades... which pretty much everyone has agreed is not possible.
The issue under dicussion is whether a Veteran can be given other upgrades before being upgraded to an Apothecary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crazyterran wrote: If a veteran just got a narthecium, I would be fine with him taking war gear, as he is still a veteran.
But, since he becomes a different model, with it's own name, with it's own stat line in the codex, I am going to say that it cannot take or retain any upgrades that specify it is used by a veteran. Same deal with the company champion, sergeants, chapter champion...
So the Apothecary has just the Narthecium, no other gear?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherStynier wrote: Then I think, and I know this goes against YMDC logic, but we go with common sense and say, No veterans are not allowed to use the Veteran Options before becoming an Apothecary because Apothecaries are not allowed to have them.
Please quote the rule that says Apothecaries are not allowed to have any specific gear.
The entry allows Veterans to take a Special Weapon.
The entry allows Veterans to become an Apothecary.
There is no wording that would take away any wargear when a Veteran becomes an Apothecary.
The options list is unordered. There is a rule telling me I can take options. There is no rule telling me I have to take the options in any specific order.
In order to disallow a Veteran from taking a SW and subsequently becoming an Apothecary, you need to demonstrate that options have to be taken in a certain order.
Are you able to do that?
We've provided rules based explanations for our position. Can you provide any rules to backup the position that options have to be taken in order from an unordered list?
Happyjew wrote: insaniak, would the onus not be on you to quote a rule that allows Apothecaries to have specific gear?
If there is no rule that says that he loses the gear he already has when he is upgraded, then there is no reason for him to lose the gear that he already has when he is upgraded.
You're not going to find a rule for any model that says that they get to keep their gear when you apply an upgrade to them. There is simply no reason to remove said gear.
Your conclusion doesn't match the wording of the poll.
The poll is asking whether an Apothecary can be given upgrades... which pretty much everyone has agreed is not possible.
The issue under dicussion is whether a Veteran can be given other upgrades before being upgraded to an Apothecary.
BrotherStynier wrote: Then I think, and I know this goes against YMDC logic, but we go with common sense and say, No veterans are not allowed to use the Veteran Options before becoming an Apothecary because Apothecaries are not allowed to have them.
Please quote the rule that says Apothecaries are not allowed to have any specific gear.
Fair enough, I though we were using the initially suggested concept which ignored the whole Vet buys gun, vet become Apothecary still.
Because order in which you buy things seems like a topic for another thread considering the fact that it would affect much more than just the Apothecary.
As for the other thing, there is no rule saying specifically that they can't nor is there one that says they can. It does how ever say Veteran, and since a Veteran and Apothecary have a separate Stat line I would have to believe that they are not allowed to have Veteran options even if they purchased it 'before' they were an Apothecary. (Which by the way I find to be a silly notion.)
BrotherStynier wrote: Because order in which you buy things seems like a topic for another thread considering the fact that it would affect much more than just the Apothecary.
The order in which you buy things is entirely the topic of discussion here, because pretty much everyone agrees that the Apothecary can't select Veteran-only upgrades.
You're still conflating 'can not take' with 'can not have' though... and there is no rules-basis for this.
BrotherStynier wrote: Because order in which you buy things seems like a topic for another thread considering the fact that it would affect much more than just the Apothecary.
The order in which you buy things is entirely the topic of discussion here, because pretty much everyone agrees that the Apothecary can't select Veteran-only upgrades.
You're still conflating 'can not take' with 'can not have' though... and there is no rules-basis for this.
Why can they have something they can not take? Couldn't upgrading him to Apothecary take place at the same time you are upgrading the others? Thus making him unable to take an upgrade of special weapons?
We are told we can take options. We are not told that we have to take options in any specific order. In fact, the options list is an unordered list. Unordered lists are generally used when order is not important.
We know from the Space Marine Bikers issue that options are taken sequentially and not at the same time.
Since the options are taken sequentially, we have to treat each option selection as a separate activity.
Each time we take an option, we are obligated as rules obeying players to ensure that the selected option is valid.
Now... Case study.
I take a Command Squad. Valid choice? Yes.
I give one Veteran a Plasma Gun. Valid choice? Yes.
I upgrade the same Veteran to an Apothecary. Valid choice? Yes.
The result is an Apothecary with a Plasma Gun.
To invalidate the selection, one of three things has to happen.
1. Demonstrate via rules that Veterans can't take Plasma Guns.
2. Demonstrate via rules that Veterans can't become Apothecaries.
3. Demonstrate via rules that options have to be taken in a specific order.
If you can't demonstrate one of the three above things, Plasma Gunner Medics must be a valid choice.
BrotherStynier wrote: Because order in which you buy things seems like a topic for another thread considering the fact that it would affect much more than just the Apothecary.
The order in which you buy things is entirely the topic of discussion here, because pretty much everyone agrees that the Apothecary can't select Veteran-only upgrades.
You're still conflating 'can not take' with 'can not have' though... and there is no rules-basis for this.
Why can they have something they can not take? Couldn't upgrading him to Apothecary take place at the same time you are upgrading the others? Thus making him unable to take an upgrade of special weapons?
Taking multiple options don't happen at the same time. We know this because Space Marine Bikers must first swap Bolt Pistol for Chain Sword BEFORE taking the second option of swapping melee weapon for a Special Weapon.
Again, I can't buy a Reaver titan. I have a Reaver titan in my cabinet. Do I have to get rid of it, due to my inability to currently buy one?
Couldn't upgrading him to Apothecary take place at the same time you are upgrading the others?
How would that change anything? If you are applying the upgrade to Apothecary at the same time as you are upgrading his weapons, he's still a Veteran at the time both of the upgrades are applied. So still perfectly legal for the resultant Apothecary to have an upgraded weapon.
The only way it would be illegal for the Apothecary to take any of the Veteran-only upgrades prior to becoming an Apothecary is if the Apothecary upgrade has to happen first. And there is nothing in any of the relevant rules section that tells us that this is the case.
Edit - it's also worth a reminder that there is a precedent for players selecting the order in which upgrades are applied, in the 4th/5th edition Ork Codex. GW clarified in the FAQ that Nobs in Boys mobs were allowed to upgrade their choppa to a power klaw before the entire mob swapped their choppa and slugga for shootas.
The rules do state that the Apothecary is a separate model, not a Veteran, but if you upgrade a Veteran the rules do not state the Veteran may not then be upgraded to an Apothecary. Q.E.D. you may arm your Apothecary however you like so long as you don't replace the piece of equipment that's being traded for the Narthecium (my Deathwing Command Squad has an assault cannon on their Apothecary).
AnomanderRake wrote: The rules do state that the Apothecary is a separate model, not a Veteran, but if you upgrade a Veteran the rules do not state the Veteran may not then be upgraded to an Apothecary. Q.E.D. you may arm your Apothecary however you like so long as you don't replace the piece of equipment that's being traded for the Narthecium (my Deathwing Command Squad has an assault cannon on their Apothecary).
Nothing is traded for a Narthecium. It is simply gained as a part of the upgrade to Apothecary.
AnomanderRake wrote: The rules do state that the Apothecary is a separate model, not a Veteran, but if you upgrade a Veteran the rules do not state the Veteran may not then be upgraded to an Apothecary. Q.E.D. you may arm your Apothecary however you like so long as you don't replace the piece of equipment that's being traded for the Narthecium (my Deathwing Command Squad has an assault cannon on their Apothecary).
That is correct for that squad, for instance Grey Knight Paladin follow the same rule, the stormbolter is traded in for the Narthecium.
AnomanderRake wrote: The rules do state that the Apothecary is a separate model, not a Veteran, but if you upgrade a Veteran the rules do not state the Veteran may not then be upgraded to an Apothecary. Q.E.D. you may arm your Apothecary however you like so long as you don't replace the piece of equipment that's being traded for the Narthecium (my Deathwing Command Squad has an assault cannon on their Apothecary).
That is correct for that squad, for instance Grey Knight Paladin follow the same rule, the stormbolter is traded in for the Narthecium.
But for the Command Squad nothing is changed.
It depends on which command squad, yes. So you're more flexible in normal command squads than in a Deathwing Command Squad (where the powerfist is swapped out), for instance.
Can a Chapter Master (legally) have both Terminator armour and a Bike (or Jump Pack)?
Can A daemon Prince legally be both a Daemon of Khorne and a Psyker?
Can an AM Veteran legally have both a Special Weapon and a Vox-caster?
In all of these cases if you take "X" (Apothecary, Terminator Armour, Vox, Daemon of Khorne) you cannot take "Y" (Bike, Special Weapon, Psyker) afterwards, but if you allow a Command Squad to take "Y" and then take "X" (because nothing prevents it), then you must also allow the above to take "Y" before "X", as nothing prevents it.
Kriswall wrote: I am unable to find anything in the actual written rules preventing either of these scenarios. I have yet to see anyone post any actual written rules preventing either of these scenarios.
Let's just agree that RaI is probably a no and decide whether or not the rules can provide a consensus and what that consensus is.
This is basically how i see this RaW too, for the SM Codex. For the RaI, i'd go with top-to-bottom for all codices. And for the SMRaI, it'd have to be an "End check" method as Ghaz suggests.
As for the AMRaW, i do not see a difference between "Order in reading" (having to look at text above first) and "Order of Selection" (having to choose the option above first). To me it's the same as saying: "I've read i need to Deep Strike before moving, but i'll deep strike in the Shooting phase" Because having to read in order =/= having to play in order.
Kriswall wrote: I am unable to find anything in the actual written rules preventing either of these scenarios. I have yet to see anyone post any actual written rules preventing either of these scenarios.
Let's just agree that RaI is probably a no and decide whether or not the rules can provide a consensus and what that consensus is.
This is basically how i see this RaW too, for the SM Codex. For the RaI, i'd go with top-to-bottom for all codices. And for the SMRaI, it'd have to be an "End check" method as Ghaz suggests.
As for the AMRaW, i do not see a difference between "Order in reading" (having to look at text above first) and "Order of Selection" (having to choose the option above first). To me it's the same as saying:
"I've read i need to Deep Strike before moving, but i'll deep strike in the Shooting phase" Because having to read in order =/= having to play in order.
Non-useful argument. Deep Strike clearly does not happen during the Shooting Phase. If you believe it does, please quote rules and I'll be happy to debate.
This is more along the lines of where a player is in the Shooting Phase and has the ability to shoot with two different units. Do you shoot with Unit A first, or Unit B? Shooting with Unit A first may change the targets available to Unit B (if, for instance, Unit A wipes out a unit) and vice versa. Taking the Terminator Armour versus the Bike first may change the remaining options available to a Chapter Master. The legality of the second option depends entirely on the previous options selected.
Take Terminator Armour first. Bike is no longer a legal option and can't be taken.
Tak Bike first. Terminator Armour is still a legal option and can be taken.
Remember, having Terminator Armour restricts being able to take a Bike. Having a Bike doesn't restrict being able to take Terminator Armour. Compare this to a Jump Pack and a Bike where the two pieces of Wargear are specifically listed as mutually exclusive. Bikes and Terminator Armour are not marked as mutually exclusive.
morgoth wrote: On the contrary, you have not shown that there even is a list legality check.
Which means that you can't know if it's RAW because you don't know how to check if it's legal.
It just means that your argument is pointless.
If it's not in the rules, it's not RAW.
That applies to your concept of a legality check.
What IS in the rules, and therefore RAW, is that a Veteran can take a Thunder Hammer and a Veteran can become an Apothecary.
On one level you have what's written in the book = RAW.
On the other level you have what you think the book implies = one possible RAI.
Simply reading the book and accepting what's written in it equals to knowing RAW, so just read it and I'm sure you'll get it too.
Yes, you do have legality checks when you build your army. Can you give a model already upgraded to an Apothecary an upgrade listed for a Veteran? If not, why? Is it because you checked to see if it was legal? Guess what, you just did a legality check. Without these checks you'd never be able to take whatever you want without consequence because you'd never check to see if you've broken a rule and have a legal list. You're still claiming it's an actual written rule that you only check if something is legal using your 'top to bottom, one and done' method is the only way to check what's legal instead of an 'end of operations' method.
So yes, what IS in the rules is RAW, but your 'top to bottom, one and done' method is NOT in the rules.
Kriswall wrote: Is your 'check at the end' method written in the book anywhere?
Is you're 'top to bottom, one and done' written in the rulebook anywhere?
Kriswall wrote: There is no such thing as a legality check. You simply either follow the rules or you are cheating. It's as simple as that.
Yes, there is a legality check. Or are you saying we can take an upgrade for a Veteran on an Apothecary because we never check?
Kriswall wrote: If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary and then give the Apothecary a Special Weapon, you are cheating because the second option doesn't exist.
How do we know it's cheating if we never check to see if it's legal or not? Its there in the codex, right? It doesn't disappear. We have to check to see if it's legal, something you say we don't do.
Kriswall wrote: If you give a Veteran a Special Weapon and then upgrade the Veteran to an Apothecary, you are following the rules as both of these options exist.
Just because the options exist doesn't make them legal. Please provide a RULE allowing you to ignore previous upgrade operations.
Kriswall wrote: At no point do you do a "validation check". You just follow the rules as you build the list and don't cheat.
Then why are you doing a 'top to bottom, one and done' validation check if there's no validation checks?
So, I'm just curious at this point, who would take a Bike and Terminator Armor anyway?
For the SAME points cost as the Terminator Armor alone, you could take Artificer Armor and a Bike. Would it only be to try and cheese out an ability to deepstrike? Is it really worth the additional 20 points?
BrotherStynier wrote: So, I'm just curious at this point, who would take a Bike and Terminator Armor anyway?
For the SAME points cost as the Terminator Armor alone, you could take Artificer Armor and a Bike. Would it only be to try and cheese out an ability to deepstrike? Is it really worth the additional 20 points?
A Libby could get an invulnerable save while on a bike.
It's something to consider for me since I love my biker libby to the little bits I received him in, but he has no invulnerable (Clan Raukaan player).
A 5++ is something great to consider. A 3++ makes me very happy.
I'm aware RaW it's a valid thing.
But I doubt the intent is that it's doable. If it were (little to no chance), I'd be a happy bunny.
I'd re-model him to have TDA on a bike.
Kriswall wrote: Is your 'check at the end' method written in the book anywhere?
Is you're 'top to bottom, one and done' written in the rulebook anywhere?
It's not. The point seems to be that you shouldn't cheat when you do things. This equates to a "make sure you aren't cheating when you do something" policy.
Kriswall wrote: There is no such thing as a legality check. You simply either follow the rules or you are cheating. It's as simple as that.
Yes, there is a legality check. Or are you saying we can take an upgrade for a Veteran on an Apothecary because we never check?
I'm saying that taking a Veteran only option for an Apothecary is cheating and shouldn't be allowed. If you want to call not cheating a legality check, I'm ok with that. But the "legality check" happens for every single action and not after several actions have taken place.
Kriswall wrote: If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary and then give the Apothecary a Special Weapon, you are cheating because the second option doesn't exist.
How do we know it's cheating if we never check to see if it's legal or not? Its there in the codex, right? It doesn't disappear. We have to check to see if it's legal, something you say we don't do.
This is a permissive ruleset. It's cheating if you do something you don't have permission to do. We have permission to take a Special Weapon for a Veteran. We don't have permission to take a Special Weapon for an Apothecary. The second action is cheating. This is not to say we can't have an Apothecary with a Special Weapon. We just can't give it to him after he becomes an Apothecary.
Kriswall wrote: If you give a Veteran a Special Weapon and then upgrade the Veteran to an Apothecary, you are following the rules as both of these options exist.
Just because the options exist doesn't make them legal. Please provide a RULE allowing you to ignore previous upgrade operations.
Um... Option #1 states that a Veteran may take a Special Weapon. That is my rule allowing me to take a Special Weapon for a Veteran. Option #2 states that a Veteran may be upgraded to an Apothecary. There is no restriction stating that only Veterans who haven't taken a Special Weapon may be upgraded. The previous upgrade is definitely not ignored... it simply has no impact on whether or not we're upgrading a Veteran to an Apothecary. I would challenge you to provide a rule saying that only Veterans who have no selected Special Weapons can be upgraded.
Kriswall wrote: At no point do you do a "validation check". You just follow the rules as you build the list and don't cheat.
Then why are you doing a 'top to bottom, one and done' validation check if there's no validation checks?
I don't think there are validation or legality checks past the obvious "Don't Cheat Policy". "Don't Cheat checks" would have to take place at every player action or decision.
Why are you trying to impose a "check for legality at the end of the unit selection"? Is that in the rules somewhere, or is it something you've made up? If it's something you've made up, how do you explain how it works? If a Biker swaps Bolt Pistol for Chainsword and then Chainsword for Meltagun, is the resulting model illegal because the resulting Biker can't initially select Meltaguns? If a Veteran takes a Meltagun and then upgrades to an Apothecary, is the resulting model illegal because the resulting Apothecary can't initially select Meltaguns. I'm genuinely curious as to your answer. Same logic in both situations.
BrotherStynier wrote: So, I'm just curious at this point, who would take a Bike and Terminator Armor anyway?
For the SAME points cost as the Terminator Armor alone, you could take Artificer Armor and a Bike. Would it only be to try and cheese out an ability to deepstrike? Is it really worth the additional 20 points?
A Libby could get an invulnerable save while on a bike. It's something to consider for me since I love my biker libby to the little bits I received him in, but he has no invulnerable (Clan Raukaan player). A 5++ is something great to consider. A 3++ makes me very happy. I'm aware RaW it's a valid thing. But I doubt the intent is that it's doable. If it were (little to no chance), I'd be a happy bunny. I'd re-model him to have TDA on a bike.
Why not pick up the Gorgon's Chain then for an Invuln Save? It costs only 5 points more than Terminator armor, for a total of 65 points for that and a Bike vs 60 from Bike/Termie and has the added bonus of not making fellow players ask "what the hell?" You lose the 2+ but gain a 3++ and Eternal Warrior as long as you are able to take no wounds. Which you could avoid a fair bit of by being T5 with a 3+/3++.
Automatically Appended Next Post: TDA Guy on a bike could look cool though, or lead to an awesome amount of conversion options.
Kriswall wrote: Non-useful argument. Deep Strike clearly does not happen during the Shooting Phase. If you believe it does, please quote rules and I'll be happy to debate.
I was just pointing out against your point that reading things in order is independent to applying them in order.
As for trying to end this seemingly endless Space Marine Apothecary or Bike Terminator argument:
We are all agreed that there is no RAW for "top-to-bottom"?
We are all agreed that there is no RAW for "check at the end"?
Can we agree that the Space Marine Codex was most probably intended as a "check at the end" Codex? Because Termis on bike were not intended, or apothecaries with TH+SS?
I will agree that Bikers are most likely not intended to take Terminator Armour. RaW currently allows it. Might need an errata.
I'm not sure l agree that Apothecaries are not intended to take upgrades. RaW currently allows it. Might need an errata.
I don't think "check at the end" is a thing. I don't understand how it would even work on units that are required to take multiple options in order to get to an end state... Bikers being the perfect example. If I check at the end for a Meltagun Biker, I need to know that he first applied an option that is no longer reflected in his wargear, namely the Bolt Pistol to Chainsword option. You would have to validate each step of the process to know if the outcome is legal.
I do think "check after each option" is a thing and that thing is more commonly known as "don't cheat".
Kriswall wrote: I will agree that Bikers are most likely not intended to take Terminator Armour. RaW currently allows it. Might need an errata.
I'm not sure l agree that Apothecaries are not intended to take upgrades. RaW currently allows it. Might need an errata.
For consistency they are both the same (to me anyway) and indeed, let's hope Space Marine are next after the Necron codex
Kriswall wrote: I don't think "check at the end" is a thing. I don't understand how it would even work on units that are required to take multiple options in order to get to an end state... Bikers being the perfect example. If I check at the end for a Meltagun Biker, I need to know that he first applied an option that is no longer reflected in his wargear, namely the Bolt Pistol to Chainsword option. You would have to validate each step of the process to know if the outcome is legal.
Ghaz would have to confirm, but i do believe that is indeed the technique. Definitely not RaW, but the most "honest" of methods to use with the SM Codex. All of the options have a synergy that must work at the end. So the Meltagun biker needs to make sure he's done the bolt pistol > chainsword change and the Terminator Librarian check that he's not on a bike, etc. "End Checks"
The rules are quiet on the matter, supporting neither the 'top to bottom, one and done' nor the 'end of operations' method of determining if you have a valid and legal list. Neither have the backing of RAW.
BlackTalos wrote: I was not asking for RaW support, but rather on agreement as to "How the 'end of operations' method works".
You look at the entire operation at the end to determine the unit's validity. If you have five actions to make a unit, you look at the interaction of all five actions. If you need to switch your bolt pistol for a chainsword in order to take another upgrade then you would see that. If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary after you have taken a Veteran-only upgrade then you would see that too. You look at all of the interactions, not just one at a time.
