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

hello there...can apothecary take any other weapon isntead of his chainsword??

i mean running the command squad full on power weapons or special ranged wapons and having the apothecary with a chainsword is kinda lame isnt it??


Automatically Appended Next Post:
seems he cant even take a bolter... at elast you get fnp if you go full plasma guns!

Which codex?

Insaniak wrote:We've had a bit of a rash of rules questions finding their way into the 40K General Discussion area, where the poor, lost creatures nose around for a while, bleating piteously, before some wandering mod stumbles upon them and returns them to their rightful home in You Made Da Call.

So please, think of the wee, lost questions, afraid and far from home, and post them where they belong.

space marines 6th edition codex ofc! so can he take any other weapon??

No. Some people will soon argue that you can first give an veteran some weapons and then upgrade him to an apotechary, but that's not how GW rules usually work. Also, apparently the army builder in digital codex doesn't allow this either.

The force req tool in the digital codex was updated today and now allow an apothecary to purchase war gear, something that prior to this update had not been allowed.. So there is an official source with an answer.

 gungagreg wrote:
The force req tool in the digital codex was updated today and now allow an apothecary to purchase war gear, something that prior to this update had not been allowed.. So there is an official source with an answer.

...

Really?

Yeah I'm gonna wait til the faq on that one.

 gungagreg wrote:


Really?

It's true...

This has never been answered and is still a point of contention with some people. Other precedents within the game seem to indicate that you can give your apothecary upgrades. Check out the longer thread on this topic here, and come to your own conclusion.

Apparently, the digital army builder (I was unaware there even WAS an official digital army builder) has been updated to allow this. Several people were using the digital army builder's inability to allow the upgrades as precedent for the upgrade not being allowed. I'm curious to see if they change their opinion.

I'm sorry what precedents are you refering? The only precedents set forth in the previous thread were against giving a upgraded model wargear options. And I stand by those precedents and the raw until officially faq'd.

Also in the 6ed C:SM you never give up your bolt pistol or chain sword to become an apothocary you still have both, look at his gear.

If it's true that the digital dex allows you to take different weapons with your apothecary after an update to it, then the pendulum in the rules battle might have swung in favor of allowing apothecaries to take special weapons and the like.

Previously, the rules seemed to be in something of a stalemate, since we didn't have any definitive answer, and precedent was inconsistent (DA could do it, Orks couldn't, etc.). The digital dex seemed like as good of a tiebreaker as any, since no FAQ on the issue yet existed (and doesn't seem to exist yet).

The digital dex was also the thing that seemingly settled the Burning Blade + Shield Eternal debate, so we might as well use it until GW opposes it, either with an update or FAQ change.

If the dex has changed to allow it (from not allowing it before), then I would say it's legal to add weapons to the apothecary. Someone, in what I assume was an official update, had to go in and make a change such that apothecaries could take special weapons and the like, which implies the change was meant to show it was allowed rules wise.

I still think an FAQ would be the best thing, but I don't know if we'll see that.

 Bausk wrote:
I'm sorry what precedents are you refering? The only precedents set forth in the previous thread were against giving a upgraded model wargear options. And I stand by those precedents and the raw until officially faq'd.

DA Apothecaries were allowed to in 4th, I believe. The final word on that came from an FAQ though. Still, in the absence of an FAQ, the digital dex is probably the most official thing we've got.

Doesn't sound like a current precedent. That said the raw without a faq doesn't permit it. If they errata it to 'any model' then great, until then an apoth isn't a veteran so can't take the wargear option. As I said in the previous thread no profile in 40k has the ability to keep or take options from another profile.

Oh and if anyone wants to bring dreadnoughts/venerable dreadnoughts up again I've seen its listing since then and it says 'may take' without a profile qualifier so anything in that listing may take those options.

Ork painboyz also lose all options available to nobz or flash gits, including wargear they already have ('eavy armor). The only exception is for upgrades affecting the entire unit, like bikes and cybork. It's in the ork FAQ.

 Bausk wrote:
Doesn't sound like a current precedent. That said the raw without a faq doesn't permit it. If they errata it to 'any model' then great, until then an apoth isn't a veteran so can't take the wargear option. As I said in the previous thread no profile in 40k has the ability to keep or take options from another profile.

Oh and if anyone wants to bring dreadnoughts/venerable dreadnoughts up again I've seen its listing since then and it says 'may take' without a profile qualifier so anything in that listing may take those options.

The precedent is out of date, as are all of the ones with an FAQ addressing the kind of situation with the apothecary (ork painboys, etc., all from at least 1 edition back). The reason it was brought up in the other thread was that allowing apothecaries to take weapons had happened before, with similar wording to the 6th ed codex. That made the RAW somewhat ambiguous, since if similar wording to 6th's could mean they could take weapons, then the logic barring them from taking them now might not necessarily work. Again, it leans against it, but RAW isn't 100% definitive.

The thing here is that with the update to the digital dex they've apparently followed the lead of the 4th ed. DA codex, with Apothecaries being "extraordinary individuals" and all that.

The situation is similar to the 2 relics thing, a lot of people feel the RAW clearly says you can't take 2 weapons, but the digital dex allows it, something that would be simple enough to fix if they wanted to avoid that. The fact that someone actually went in and changed the digital dex to allow apothecaries to take these weapons means either someone with access to the code is acting maliciously, or it was planned and is following similar logic to the 4th ed. DA.

Point still stands without an errata for the hard copy. The only precedent that exists in the current rules is against it and I say again that no profile swapped model is granted options for another profile anywhere else in the game to my knowledge.

 Bausk wrote:
Point still stands without an errata for the hard copy. The only precedent that exists in the current rules is against it and I say again that no profile swapped model is granted options for another profile anywhere else in the game to my knowledge.

There is no rule that states when a model is upgraded from one profile to another any previous upgrades are lost. There isn't even a shred of information of the subject in any of the BRB editions or codex entries. The RAW never mention it one way or another.. Similarly there is ZERO information what order options can and cannot be taken in.

The FAQs do not create rules. They only serve to give us an understanding of the rules already provided. Sometimes, we try and draw conclusions were no conclusions should be found.
This is as closes as we have come to a 'rule' about profile upgrades.

Q: Can a Painboy in a unit of Nobs take the ‘eavy armour, bosspole,
Waaagh! Banner or ammo runt upgrades? (p98)
A: No.

Trouble is, this is'nt a rule, and its not about profile upgrades. The questions ask can a Painboy take these options. The simple answer of 'No' is technically correct. A Painboy does not have permission to take these options. This answer fails to tell us why. Some have ASSUMED that this means that a Nob, who takes these options, cannot be upgraded to a Painboy, but the question does not address this possibility.

So, by RAW. We have permission to take options. We do not have a known restriction on the order of these options, nor do we have any indication that taking an option that changes the profile of the model will automatically reverse any previous options. Seems to me RAW allows for a Apothecary with a power sword.

 DJGietzen wrote:
So, by RAW. We have permission to take options. We do not have a known restriction on the order of these options, nor do we have any indication that taking an option that changes the profile of the model will automatically reverse any previous options. Seems to me RAW allows for a Apothecary with a power sword.

No, RAW Veterans are allowed to take options. When upgraded to an Apothecary, they get the Apothecaries gear which do not include the options.

This would be a cool discussion. But, if RAW dont make it clear (or make it clear, as DJGietzen pointed out), so lets follow the another real rule of 40k: rule of cool.

So, give me an explanation on why an Apothecary (a soldier trained in healing), would not carry a power sword to battle, if it have the honour, skill and reason to use it...

 Happyjew wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
So, by RAW. We have permission to take options. We do not have a known restriction on the order of these options, nor do we have any indication that taking an option that changes the profile of the model will automatically reverse any previous options. Seems to me RAW allows for a Apothecary with a power sword.

No, RAW Veterans are allowed to take options. When upgraded to an Apothecary, they get the Apothecaries gear which do not include the options.

Where does it say that? If you can't quote it then its RAI nor RAW. Also, could you inform me where it lists the wargear of an apothecary?

 DJGietzen wrote:
Also, could you inform me where it lists the wargear of an apothecary?

Sure, page 88. Where it lists the wargear for each member of a Command Squad. At least in C: SM.

 Bausk wrote:
Point still stands without an errata for the hard copy. The only precedent that exists in the current rules is against it and I say again that no profile swapped model is granted options for another profile anywhere else in the game to my knowledge.

Just because no profile swapped model is explicitly stated as being granted options, does not mean that such a possibility is barred. It does lean in opposition to the idea that you can swap, but doesn't fully foreclose it.

Basically, RAW doesn't specifically bar it. Unless there's a specific rule barring it, we're getting into RAI.

RAI leans one way in the absence of errata, but leaning is not definitive. Moreover, I would argue that the digital dex, where it doesn't definitively stand in opposition to the book, and clarifies a RAI situation, should be taken as the intended rules and played as such. FAQs would overrule the digital dex, but we don't have that yet.


Basically, if someone showed up to a table with a list with an apothecary with a special weapon, I wouldn't tell them they were breaking any rules, nor think they were. Prior to the change in the digital dex, if they had, I would voice some rules concerns (but I'd probably let them do it anyway since it'd likely be a fun game).

Here's a simple way of telling if something may take a wargear option. look at its listing. if it says the specific profile may take x then they and only they may take x. As I've said previously order of operations does not matter if the profile does npt have permission to take rhe option then it simply can't take it


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further more i could care less about how you play it or intend to play it. This forum is not for that. hell i'd play someone who did it and then kill the apoth, that's a lot of points riding in one model.

 DJGietzen wrote:

Q: Can a Painboy in a unit of Nobs take the ‘eavy armour, bosspole,
Waaagh! Banner or ammo runt upgrades? (p98)
A: No.

Trouble is, this is'nt a rule, and its not about profile upgrades. The questions ask can a Painboy take these options. The simple answer of 'No' is technically correct. A Painboy does not have permission to take these options. This answer fails to tell us why. Some have ASSUMED that this means that a Nob, who takes these options, cannot be upgraded to a Painboy, but the question does not address this possibility.

So, by RAW. We have permission to take options. We do not have a known restriction on the order of these options, nor do we have any indication that taking an option that changes the profile of the model will automatically reverse any previous options. Seems to me RAW allows for a Apothecary with a power sword.

The indication (not a hard rule) would be a painboy taken for a unit of flash gits. In this case, the painboy upgrade actually reverses a wargear upgrade which the unit has by default: 'eavy armor.

We basically have two different assumptions here...

The 1st being that a model upgraded to an alternate stat-line exchanges all equipment for a preset list based on that alternate stat line.

The 2nd assumption is that the model retains all equipment it had before it was upgraded.

As Happyjew pointed out there is indeed a preset list of equipment for space marine apothecary, but do we know if such a preset list exists for all upgrade stat lines in all codices? If not (I'll admit I have not looked) how do we know what equipment all alternate stat lines should have? RAW there is no permission to remove the equipment from a veteran when he is upgraded to an apothecary and the veteran is not replaced with an apothecary.

To be honest, both assumptions are reasonable but being a permissive rule set only one is possible with out an errata.

 DJGietzen wrote:
As Happyjew pointed out there is indeed a preset list of equipment for space marine apothecary, but do we know if such a preset list exists for all upgrade stat lines in all codices?.

If it is in a 6th edition codex, then yes.

space marines codex 6th edition page 24 top...we can see an apothecary with a bolter... witch acording to the rules then he cant have it (he only has a bolt pistol and a chainsword)

There are several marines carrying auspexes in the miniature gallery of the same book that are clearly not allowed to do so.
Do you really want to use an illustration as a proof of intent?

Had written many instead of several but it'd be exaggerated

its not miniature gallarey...open the book and see