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.

Page 36 states that upgrades bought for tyrant guard are bought on a "per model" basis. This leads me to believe they can be complex.

However, Army Builder won't let me do this. Is this just an AB error? Or can they not be made complex for some reason?

I concur that the codex seems to state that individual Tyrant Guard models can be upgraded (that's how I've always seen it played to).

I'm not sure why AB won't let you do it. . .its probably just an error.

Is it a semi-hidden functionality like with Zoanthropes? When you take Zoans you can add to the brood size by clicking the "+" to increase the model count with an identical model. But there is also a button in the options list that lets you add a Zoan that is not identical to the first one.

No, you cannot.

I have never seen anyone play that you can. It's one or the other.

It says "per model" because the cost is per model, because tyrant guard can be of a variable size.

Hmmmm... I'm inclined to agree with yakface.

@Arschbombe: It doesn't let you add separate entries to differentiate them. However it wont be the first time AB messed up...

I went back in looked in my codex. There's nothing in the tyrant guard entry that states the tyrant guard models can take different biomorphs. It doesn't use exclusionary language that you see in other entries like genestealers and hormagaunts where it's clear that the whole brood must have the same biomorphs, but I think the AB file maintainers made the right call. The tyrant guard entry uses the plural form "Tyrant Guard have..." and "Tyrant Guard may..." and not the singular " A tyrant guard has..." or "A tyrant guard may..."

Looking at the other entries there are no broods that can have diverse biomorphs apart from weapons. Warriors can have different weapons as stated in their entry, but the other biomorphs are taken on a brood basis. Raveners can be configured as complex units as each ravener chooses a mix of scything talons, rending claws and can add a ranged weapon biomorph, but no other biomorphs are available for them. Gaunt, ripper and genestealer broods must be equipped identically in all ways. Zoanthropes choose psychic powers individually because they operate independently.

It actually uses the last singular you mentioned, exactly.

"Tyrant Guard have rending claws and scything talons, and may be equipped with flesh hooks at +1 point per model and/or... etc" It then goes on to list other options at the per model cost.

So I may equip them per model. One with flesh hooks, one with implant attack, one regular. Fully complex.

Budzerker wrote:It actually uses the last singular you mentioned, exactly.

"Tyrant Guard have rending claws and scything talons, and may be equipped with flesh hooks at +1 point per model and/or... etc" It then goes on to list other options at the per model cost.

So I may equip them per model. One with flesh hooks, one with implant attack, one regular. Fully complex.

I don't think so - I think they say 'per model' because you may have one model in the squad, or 4 - and so the points cost will be the same for each model in the unit - otherwise you are charging a fixed cost for a variable # of models.

That's the plural: "Tyrant Guard have.." If it said " A tyrant guard has rending claws and scything talons and may be equipped... " you'd have a point. It doesn't.

The per model cost is used because the brood has a variable size. It's like the SM Codex entry for vanguard vets says the entire squad may be given jump packs at 10 points per model.

I have always played it such that only warriors can be made complex since they are the only entry that state they can be given different weapons. No other entry in the codex states it.

Tyrant Guard MAY (do X) allows you to do or not do X - it does not state that you can choose to do X some of the time. "Per model" is within the clause and so, if you choose to do X, do it for every model.

I think it's an AB error... Stopped using it myself, paper, pen and a calculator for me .

I think AB is correct.

AB is correct.

There is nothing in the rule that dictates that is must be applied to all or nothing.

It is perfectly fine to only upgrade some guards

I had never really read it to mean they can be a complex unit. After seeing that potential pointed out I have wondered.

The issue that I see is that the difference between singular and plural relating to this is only in inference.
The text is ambiguous.

I (generally) play "No complex TG" because that way I do not need to discuss/debate/demand otherwise. "No complex TG" is the "weaker" option.

With my regular gaming group of players and when I go to a tournement, I ask/discuss/debate it before making a list.

Yaay for ambiguous rules! It lets me bring another list to random games - a list of FAQs that are not in FAQs.

coredump wrote:There is nothing in the rule that dictates that is must be applied to all or nothing.

It is perfectly fine to only upgrade some guards

Except the rule.

coredump wrote:There is nothing in the rule that dictates that is must be applied to all or nothing.

There is nothing explicit that says it, but the language is clear enough. "Tyrant guard have rending claws and scything talons and may..." This is english English, not american English. In England, where the codex is written, they say "the crowd are going wild" whereas in the states they say "the crowd is going wild." The text of the rule means the tyrant guard, collectively, have rending claws and scything talons and may, collectively, take the upgrades at the listed costs per model. If the tyrant guard were meant to have variable access to upgrades, unlike any other brood in the codex, it would be made explicitly clear.

Budzerker wrote:It actually uses the last singular you mentioned, exactly.

"Tyrant Guard have rending claws and scything talons, and may be equipped with flesh hooks at +1 point per model and/or... etc" It then goes on to list other options at the per model cost.

So I may equip them per model. One with flesh hooks, one with implant attack, one regular. Fully complex.

Not necessarily. It has to say per model because you may have one to three tyrant guard & it would be unfair to just pay for the upgrade for one & get it on all 3.

That aside heres the sentence that to me says they must be the same "Tyrant Guard may replace their Scything Talons with Lash Whips at no extra cost. Which seems to indicate if one does then they all must.

Zoanthropes and Raveners state that they may be different (in that each model may choose something). All other broods are explicit and state that the entire brood must be equipped identically. The Tyrant Guard entry does not have this explicit language and they are the only multiple model brood that do not say one way or the other. The question boils down to do they mean Tyrant Guard the model, as that is what the statline is for, or Tyrant Guard the unit. If model, then the unit can be complex. If unit, then no they must all be the same.

Homer

kirsanth wrote:The issue that I see is that the difference between singular and plural relating to this is only in inference.
The text is ambiguous.

I (generally) play "No complex TG" because that way I do not need to discuss/debate/demand otherwise. "No complex TG" is the "weaker" option.

Kirsanth's humility sways me again...guess I won't be playing with complex guard ...thanks alot

Just wait 12 weeks and they probably won't be a retinue anymore. I can't think of one retinue remaining in a codex since Eldar.

Homer

Homer S wrote:Just wait 12 weeks and they probably won't be a retinue anymore.

Good call.

Except this is a crisis right now!

So use my FAQ, released about 2 weeks BEFORE the codex came out.

Shows how good GW's editors are

You have a FAQ for the upcoming Nid dex? Wow. You da man.

Arschbombe wrote:You have a FAQ for the upcoming Nid dex? Wow. You da man.

Damn right I did!

Ok, I need my coffee before posting. I thought ya'll were talking about Wolf Lords with Wolves

Though actually, that's not a bad Idea, I'll make a Nid FAQ too! Though not before it comes out though, I don't care enough about them to go through my connections

Based on how the rules are written I'd say no they can't. Since it's not clear the best thing to do is play it conservatively and don't do it. : )

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Based on how the rules are written I'd say no they can't. Since it's not clear the best thing to do is play it conservatively and don't do it. : )

G

Generally speaking, that is the strategy for most rules arguments in AB as well.

Homer

I tend to keep the biomorphs the same, but will change the weapons.

I've had this argument before.

AB is wrong.


The codex specifically states which units are required to be equipped the same way (warrior biomorphs, gaunt biomorphs and weapon biomorphs, hormagaunt biomorphs, ripper biomorphs and weapon biomorphs, genestealer biomorphs and weapon biomorphs, biovore ammunition). In each of those cases, the codex specifically says, "Each model in the brood must be equipped identically" or "The whole brood may take" in reference to their biomorphs.

This is left out of the ravener, zoanthrope, and tyrant guard entries. Therefore, these 3 creatures do not follow the restrictions placed upon the others I named in the codex, and to assume otherwise is to put words into the codex where there are none.

Army Builder is fan-made and not an official GW product, and thus should not be relied upon for questions as far as legality of your army list.