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.

LIKELY

 Crimson wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

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.

 Kriswall wrote:
LIKELY

Good enough.

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.

 Happyjew wrote:

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.

 BrotherStynier wrote:
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.

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.

insaniak, would the onus not be on you to quote a rule that allows Apothecaries to have 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.

 insaniak wrote:

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.

 insaniak wrote:

 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?

There is no order of operations present, so what restricts 'can take upgrades' to a specific order?
This is the problem....

Agreed. This is the core issue.

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.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherStynier wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

 BrotherStynier wrote:
Why can they have something they can not take?

Why could they not?

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.

But for the Command Squad nothing is changed.

 Quickjager wrote:

 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.

 Ghaz wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
There is no order of operations present, so what restricts 'can take upgrades' to a specific order?
This is the problem....

There is no order.
There is no problem.
There is no restriction.

There is no problem with SM Command Squad.

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 SM RaI, it'd have to be an "End check" method as Ghaz suggests.

As for the AM RaW, 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.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 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 SM RaI, it'd have to be an "End check" method as Ghaz suggests.

As for the AM RaW, 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:

 Ghaz wrote:

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.

Is your 'check at the end' method written in the book anywhere?

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.

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.

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.

At no point do you do a "validation check". You just follow the rules as you build the list and don't cheat.

 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.

 Ghaz wrote:

 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.

 Ond Angel wrote:

 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.