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.
I think this might be easier if I discuss the Con's:
Permissive: It does say that a Veteran can take the weapon, then we continue by upgrading it to an Apothecary. So we have permission.
Ork FAQ: Not a precedent because you upgrade the Veteran whereas the Ork-codex says: "One Nob may be a Painboy". This tells us that he turns into a Painboy, which implies that he swaps all Wargear for his new Wargear.
Digital Codex: This is the first thing that end this discussion, but we have to see how much 'authority' these Army Builders have.
Because at the moment their Builder does not correctly reflect the Codex/FAQ.
Plague Zombie: How is that a precedent? If anything that should be a 'Pro' since they need the extra rule. It would be a precedent if it said something like "Remember that they cannot purchase upgrades since they are now Plague Zombies!".
By 'continuing' to upgrade you are not being magically granted permission to apply one profiles options to another. No matter how you attempt to spin it.
The Nob may take an option (we'll use that as the collective term for all upgrades and other options like profile swapping) to become a Painboy.
Just as a Veteran may take an option to change to an Apothecary, the profile is changed, Which Implies that he swaps all his Wargear for that of an Apothecary. In the same manner as a Nob becoming a Painboy.
As I mentioned the Digital Codex is still in beta, however I don't own one so I don't know how it does not reflect the current FAQ. Thus cannot comment to it. But if it's a FAQ and not the Errata section then I fail to see how it could short of a back flip on GWs part from the original print.
Plague Zombies serve as a further precedent of a units model changing profile. They also serve as precedent that in order to gain a retroactive Option from a previous profile you need a specific exception.
Bausk wrote: Good job ignoring that I've been posting in the thread since page four, yet no one cares to answer the questions I ask.
What questions?
"As a curiousity, I recall a Melee weapon that if you wound a model all other models with the same profile name and state line take wounds (or something to that effect). By the logic of some people in this thread the company champion and apoth would both be taking wounds if a Vet took the initial wound." Nobody says that and that would not be 'by the logic of some people'.
Ignoring a single person or so, nobody claims that the Apothecary is still a Veteran.
They only say that a Veteran can take an upgrade, then upgrade to Apothecary.
And that's where the Ork FAQ precedent comes into play. Unless there is a precedent supporting changing profiles and keeping upgrades from the previous profile that you'd like to mention? If not then I can only infer that the Pro-side assume Apothecary is both a Veteran and an Apothecary to maintain its upgrade. The digital Codex, admittedly still in beta, supports the Con-side as well.
The Ork FAQ is a very bad example to bring up. In one answer it supports that you cannot take choices in any order, then in another answer reverses that support. It is essential a precedent neutral document or does not support either side of the debate.
Con
Permissive rule set - It doesn't specifically say you can
precedent - Ork FAQ Digital Codex
precedent - Plague Zombies - Minus a single FAQ'd exception.
The permissive rule set lets you select options for the unit, its pg 158 of the printed codex. At no point does it instruct in the order these selections need to be taken and we are left to guess the intent of author. Also the plague zombies do not set any sort of precedent here. Nominating the unit to be zombies is not an option under the cultist army list entry and is irrelevant to the discussion of the order of options, further more zombies are specifically forbidden from having any options other then unit size. This specific restriction is not present in the unit being discused in this debate.
It would be like arguing a Terminator Captain gets a command squad, even though it has a different profile to the Captain and is not specifically listed in the allowed HQs under the command squad.
Yeah, and in fact that is a question that needs an FAQ answer. In the past a terminator captain might still have counted as a captain much the same way named tau commanders still counted as commanders. While I think, after looking it over, that the T.Cap was made a different unit instead of an upgrade option and then left out of the list specifically to prevent a t.cap from getting a command squad it needs to be addressed because once again we are now guessing at intent.
The ipad codex thing might only be in beta, but a base understanding of how programming works and what people have described the app doing its quite clear the intent of the programmer is to limit these options. Trouble is we don't know if the intent of the programmer matches the intent of the author but we have to assume it does until we are told otherwise.
So, any one with an ipad codex want to check that out? Can you add a command squad if your only HQ is a terminator captain?
Edit: oh, thought of another question for the ipad check list. Can you give a single a chapter master the teeth of terra and the burning blade?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/09/23 08:40:02
Bausk wrote: By 'continuing' to upgrade you are not being magically granted permission to apply one profiles options to another. No matter how you attempt to spin it.
But we don't apply options to different profiles.
We apply the options to the Veteran, than UPGRADE it to an Apothecary.
The Nob may take an option (we'll use that as the collective term for all upgrades and other options like profile swapping) to become a Painboy.
Just as a Veteran may take an option to change to an Apothecary, the profile is changed, Which Implies that he swaps all his Wargear for that of an Apothecary. In the same manner as a Nob becoming a Painboy.
You cannot use the same word for both since they work differently.
The Nob becomes a Painboy.
The Veteran is upgrades to an Apothecary.
Plague Zombies serve as a further precedent of a units model changing profile. They also serve as precedent that in order to gain a retroactive Option from a previous profile you need a specific exception.
I see you are under the impression that we have to upgrade it to an Apothecary before taking weapons.
And how is that a precedent?
Plague Zombies have a specific restriction.
That is actually a precedent that things without that specific restriction CAN do it.
Venerable Dreadnoughts have typically been a different listing or list as 'Any Deadnought' (something to that effect), would have to see the entry in the current CM Dex on that one. But the best reference I have to Venerable Dreads is the SW Dex which is a 5th ed dex, lists Vens as a different listing and is not very helpful when discussing the SM entry. So I'll get back to you when I see the entry and it's wording.
Zombies work for an order of operations as they change profiles, regardless of the order they cannot have any options aside from the exception. Point being that unless it's FAQ'd with a similar exception granting a model with a different profile to take another profiles options then I'm simply not buying the order of operations argument.
As to the TDA Captain; Seeing as it's clearly a different listing and every character, unique or not, that can take a command squad is listed in the command squads listing then it's a fair assumption it's intended. The reason, as I see it, is the lack of TDA command squad or options to upgrade to TDA. Being that it's more of a Dark Angel Death Wing thing, I believe they didn't want to detract from the DA Codex. It still doesn't stop a TDA Captain from leading the Terminators from the (admittedly over bloated) Elite section obviously.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Essentially you're applying one Option 1 (Nob: Power Klaw/Cultist: MoN/Veteran: Plasma Gun) to Profile A (Nob/Cultist/Veteran), then using Option 2 to change to Profile B (Painboy/Plague Zombie/Apothecary) expecting that Option 1 is still valid for Profile B, even though Profile B has no permission to take Option 1. That's the assumed permission you're talking about yes?
The Ork Codex is two editions old and has slightly different wording to achieve the same result, good for you for pointing that out.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/23 09:09:24
ah64pilot5 wrote: What about all of the non digital codexes or the digital ones without the force org portion.
There is nothing there to which specifies the order of upgrades or prohibits/permits the apothecary to have special weapons.
So which one takes precedence? It has already been put out that the force org part is very Beta and incomplete so can it really be considered as the final answer when the only people who will have that answer are the ones with that version of the digital book?
Based on the way it is written in the basic codex it very much alludes to just allowing them to take the weapons.
For me it was never about RAW. Clearly the RAW is a little vague and almost every argument here is really about RAI. Thanks to the ipad codex RAI is clear, and RAW is a lot less vague once you know the author's intent.
But then I go back to asking, what about those without the Ipad version of the codex? That can lead to two different interpretations of the same thing.
Also to previous, it never states anywhere in this specific codex, that the chap and apothecary are not veterans. The squad description states that all members are veterans. It then states that you can make one a champ and one an apothecary, but nowhere, in this codex, does it state what happens to their status as veterans. To me the simplest answer would be that since they started as such, and nothing specific and directly takes that away from them, that they would retain that status.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those ... moments will be lost in time, like tears...in rain
It's obvious that an Apothecary can't take special wargear because he is an Apothecary and no Veteran. For me all upgrades happens at the same time, there is no "I can take special weapon first and THEN upgrade to Apothecary" ... sounds like BSimho.
My gut feeling on the issue says that if there has been a 7+ page thread on trying to articulate subtle details to if it actually legal to upgrade an apothecary gives me the impression that it isn't. This would be remarkably easy to be settled by GW by simply stating in the errata "an apothecary may take..." and since there isn't I cant help but feel they don't want you to. As much as I would love to have an apothecary with a power weapon it just seems like you have to try too hard to "make" it legal
The Force Requisition tool in the enhanced digital codex comes to the rescue again (see thread on multiple chapter relics per special character) - it does not allow you to upgrade the weapons or add weapons to the apothecary. It blocks adding extra if you upgrade before adding weapons and it wipes out the upgrades if you kit out 5 veterans with special weapons and then upgrade one to an Apothecary. So that's the most official answer for now.
ah64pilot5 wrote: What about all of the non digital codexes or the digital ones without the force org portion.
There is nothing there to which specifies the order of upgrades or prohibits/permits the apothecary to have special weapons.
So which one takes precedence? It has already been put out that the force org part is very Beta and incomplete so can it really be considered as the final answer when the only people who will have that answer are the ones with that version of the digital book?
Based on the way it is written in the basic codex it very much alludes to just allowing them to take the weapons.
For me it was never about RAW. Clearly the RAW is a little vague and almost every argument here is really about RAI. Thanks to the ipad codex RAI is clear, and RAW is a lot less vague once you know the author's intent.
But then I go back to asking, what about those without the Ipad version of the codex? That can lead to two different interpretations of the same thing.
Also to previous, it never states anywhere in this specific codex, that the chap and apothecary are not veterans. The squad description states that all members are veterans. It then states that you can make one a champ and one an apothecary, but nowhere, in this codex, does it state what happens to their status as veterans. To me the simplest answer would be that since they started as such, and nothing specific and directly takes that away from them, that they would retain that status.
People like me with out the ipad codex can still learn from others what that book does and does not allow by coming here and asking. Sure GW should be handling this but they are not do a good job, its causing debates. Thing is now we have a way of getting inside GW's head on some of these issues. You can't believe the intent of the author was to allow version X of a codex to do something that version Y cannot do.
The issue with the veteran status is that its not a status. There are several different model profiles for the unit. Not all of them are veterans. by upgrade from one profile to another you stop being one thing and start being something 'better'.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/23 21:52:08
Bausk wrote: Sorry, where dose it reverse that stance?
In the span of three questions
Q. If a Boyz mob exchange sluggas and choppas with shootas, can a
Nob take a power klaw or a big choppa? (p100)
A. You may upgrade the Nob to have a big choppa or power
klaw before you choose to upgrade the mob to have shootas, in
which case the Nob is not affected by the mob’s weapon swap
(as he no longer has a choppa to swap), does notreceive a
shoota and keeps his slugga and power klaw/big choppa
instead.
This answer could mean you can take the options in any order.
Q: Can a Painboy in a unit of Nobs take the ‘eavy armour, bosspole,
Waaagh! Banner or ammo runt upgrades? (p98)
A: No.
This answer could mean you must take the options in the order presented.
Bausk wrote: Sorry, where dose it reverse that stance?
In the span of three questions
Q. If a Boyz mob exchange sluggas and choppas with shootas, can a
Nob take a power klaw or a big choppa? (p100)
A. You may upgrade the Nob to have a big choppa or power
klaw before you choose to upgrade the mob to have shootas, in
which case the Nob is not affected by the mob’s weapon swap
(as he no longer has a choppa to swap), does notreceive a
shoota and keeps his slugga and power klaw/big choppa
instead.
This answer could mean you can take the options in any order.
Q: Can a Painboy in a unit of Nobs take the ‘eavy armour, bosspole,
Waaagh! Banner or ammo runt upgrades? (p98)
A: No.
This answer could mean you must take the options in the order presented.
How is that confusing? First question pertains to wargear options withing the unit. Second pertains to a profile option having access to the previous profiles wargear options.
Bausk wrote: Sorry, where dose it reverse that stance?
In the span of three questions
Q. If a Boyz mob exchange sluggas and choppas with shootas, can a
Nob take a power klaw or a big choppa? (p100)
A. You may upgrade the Nob to have a big choppa or power
klaw before you choose to upgrade the mob to have shootas, in
which case the Nob is not affected by the mob’s weapon swap
(as he no longer has a choppa to swap), does notreceive a
shoota and keeps his slugga and power klaw/big choppa
instead.
This answer could mean you can take the options in any order.
Q: Can a Painboy in a unit of Nobs take the ‘eavy armour, bosspole,
Waaagh! Banner or ammo runt upgrades? (p98)
A: No.
This answer could mean you must take the options in the order presented.
How is that confusing? First question pertains to wargear options withing the unit. Second pertains to a profile option having access to the previous profiles wargear options.
The two statements I made earlier, highlighted for you here, are mutely exclusive. They are also both reasonable interpretations of the facts at hand. When you have two mutely exclusive reasonable interpretations things tend to be confusing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/24 04:36:44
This has nothing to do with order of upgrades; you can take upgrades in any order, but no model may end up with an option it couldn't purchase. The Ork FAQ is perfectly logical in this regard. Shoota option affects entire mob, so it affects the Nob too if he has correct gear for the trade. You however couldn't give one or Rokkit Launcha and then upgrade that ork into a Nob.
I'm not sure why this is so hard. It has been like this pretty much forever. You have never been able to give special/heavies to upgrade characters.
Exactly my point Crimson. Unless there is a specific exception, as per the Plague Zombie FAQ. Order of operation has no bearing on the subject, it's simply that the model in question is no longer (but once was) a veteran. And as such it may never have an option that a veteran may take.
Crimson wrote: You however couldn't give one or Rokkit Launcha and then upgrade that ork into a Nob.
It is perfectly legal to give the Nob the rokkit launcha as you may give it to any ork, and the Nob is still an ork.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
It is perfectly legal to give the Nob the rokkit launcha as you may give it to any ork, and the Nob is still an ork.
Damn, you're apparently right. Orks are weird.
Actually working example: you couldn't give a Kabalite Warrior Dark Lance and then upgrade him into a Sybarite.
In any case, the order of upgrades is not the issue here, merely that model cannot have upgrades it is not eligible for.
about the original post. It seems quite simple to me. On page 88 of C:SM it lists the wargear of an apothecary (bolt pistol and chain sword etc) so when you upgrade that's what you get.
Then after that you can't take any veteran options as your an apothecary that has a separate stat line.
Andram wrote: about the original post. It seems quite simple to me. On page 88 of C:SM it lists the wargear of an apothecary (bolt pistol and chain sword etc) so when you upgrade that's what you get.
Same equipment as the Veteran entry above :(, (except narthecium), do's this mean you can't give a veteran any upg
rades?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/16 14:04:51
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Burn the Xenos! 
