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.

insaniak wrote:No, you're creating a distinction that isn't actually present in the rules.

Which part are you denying? The part where it says upgrade on page 30? Or the part where it says upgrade on the entries themselves? Because those are both present in the rules. What actually isn't present in the rules is taking the term upgrade from page 30 and blanket applying it to any entry that has an options heading. Weapon option =/= weapon upgrade I'm afraid, a distinction noted in the codex. Are you reading the same codex as I?

No, you're complicating the issue more than it needs to be.

Unit entries include an Options section. That section includes upgrade weapons that the unit can select. Selecting one of those upgrades replaces the model's original weapons.

It's that simple.

insaniak wrote:No, you're complicating the issue more than it needs to be.

Unit entries include an Options section. That section includes upgrade weapons that the unit can select. Selecting one of those upgrades replaces the model's original weapons.

It's that simple.

The way it reads is less complicating than that. Where do you see the word upgrade in the entry for a Crusader Squad? You are creating a bridge there for a river that doesn't exist. A unit entry that says upgrade is an upgrade. A unit entry that doesn't say upgrade is not an upgrade. How is this complicating? How is this not simple?

Read page 30 again.

BT pg 30, Options heading wrote:This lists the different weapon and equipment options for the unit and any additional points cost for taking these options.

Full stop. This is the only part of that paragraph applying to Crusader Squads and meltaguns.

BT pg 30, Options heading wrote:If a squad is allowed to have models with upgrades... Any model who takes an upgrade weapon loses the weapon he was orginally armed with unless otherwise stated.

Upgrade is a physical term in ink used throughout the codex in the entries I describe. Each use of the term upgrade more than fulfills the requirements placed on pg 30. You are incorrectly applying the second half of that paragraph to anything that takes an option from it's unit entry. No where in the book does it tell you to do so. It tells you that only upgrade weapons replace their originals. Again;

Culsandar wrote:1.) A Crusader Initiate equipped with a meltagun is not an upgrade, hence him not losing his normal armament because it does not use the words replace and/or exchange.

2.) A Command Squad member upgraded to an Company Champion is an upgrade, hence him losing his normal armament and gaining the listed power weapon, combat shield, and bolt pistol.

culsandar wrote:pg 30. You are incorrectly applying the second half of that paragraph to anything that takes an option from it's unit entry.

Not quite. I'm applying the statement on page 30 to anything that comes from the 'Options' section in the army list entry, because that's what page 30 says to do.


This:

2.) A Command Squad member upgraded to an Company Champion is an upgrade, hence him losing his normal armament and gaining the listed power weapon, combat shield, and bolt pistol.

... is not what the section on page 30 is referring to. It is talking about the 'Options' section of the list entry. The upgrade to turn a command squad member into a Company Champion doesn't come from that section.

So yes, the Company Champion is an upgrade. But not the sort of upgrade that the 'Options' section on page 30 is talking about.

insaniak wrote:Not quite. I'm applying the statement on page 30 to anything that comes from the 'Options' section in the army list entry, because that's what page 30 says to do.

You keep saying this, but the book does not tell you to do so. Page 30 tells you an 'orange is an orange'. You are implying it reads 'every fruit is an orange'. Not the case.

insaniak wrote:This:

2.) A Command Squad member upgraded to an Company Champion is an upgrade, hence him losing his normal armament and gaining the listed power weapon, combat shield, and bolt pistol.

... is not what the section on page 30 is referring to. It is talking about the 'Options' section of the list entry. The upgrade to turn a command squad member into a Company Champion doesn't come from that section.

So yes, the Company Champion is an upgrade. But not the sort of upgrade that the 'Options' section on page 30 is talking about.

Come again? Did you just say an upgrade isn't an upgrade? So the line in the Dreadnought entry about upgrading an Assault Cannon to a Lascannon or Multi-melta isn't an upgrade? But "may be armed with" is an upgrade?

I see the stance you are arguing from, but the text disagrees with you. It specifically mentions the word upgrade. Not option, not weapon, not equipment, just upgrade. If there was no other mention of the word upgrade anywhere in the codex's option entries, your stance might be relevant. Again, not the case.

Edit: argh spelling.

Edit2: Just noticed it's taken me 3 years to get "been around the block" @ 50 posts. Lurk much?

@culsandar
An upgraded model is not an upgraded weapon taken from the "Options" section of the unit entry. Again, the rule in question, "Any model who takes an upgrade weapon loses the weapon he was originally armed with unless otherwise stated.", is specifically dealing with the "Options" section of the unit entry. As described on page 30. Why are you insisting that this affect every section of the unit entry?

So the fact there are the following in the book:
-Exchange
-Replace
-Armed with

We are treating all of those the same? Because there are examples of all three in the codex.

Jstncloud wrote:So the fact there are the following in the book:
-Exchange
-Replace
-Armed with

We are treating all of those the same? Because there are examples of all three in the codex.

I'm not sure I understand your question. We are treating them as context tells us to treat them.

If you exchange a weapon for a different one, then you exchange the weapon.
If you replace a weapon with a different weapon, then it is replaced.
If you are armed with a weapon, then you are armed with it.

The specific unit entry tells you exactly which you do. I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are confused about.

culsandar wrote:Come again? Did you just say an upgrade isn't an upgrade?

No, I didn't. I just said that the upgrades that you're talking about aren't the upgrades that are relevant to this discussion.

Go have another look at page 30. You have misconstrued what it is talking about in the 'Options' section.

The section under discussion is breaking down the layout of the army list entries and explaining some of the sections within the entries. The bit about upgrade weapons replacing original gear is specifically referring to upgrade weapons selected from within the 'Options' section of the army list entry. The upgrades that you're talking about are not... they're a completely separate thing.

Jstncloud wrote:So the fact there are the following in the book:
-Exchange
-Replace
-Armed with

We are treating all of those the same? Because there are examples of all three in the codex.

Yes. Because page 30 tells us that the entry needs to specifically state that they keep their original gear, otherwise it is replaced by the upgrade weapon.

insaniak wrote:

Jstncloud wrote:So basically, the guys I am asking about, because it says "may be armed with" or whatever and not "exchange, replace, etc" the addition weapon is in addition to their normal gear, right?

Nope. As per page 30, if it doesn't actually specify that they keep their original weapons, the upgrade weapon replaces them.

Even if the weapon does not state that it is an upgrade? This is my problem. I've looked at other references, such as HQs for example, and in the codex marine book it is possible to load a bunch of gear on some characters and to choose between what weapon to swing with, those purchase did not say 'replace' or 'exchange' they were just purchases. Perhaps it is because this codex is old but I am still confused, why would some units say exchange and replace but another utilize the word 'may be armed with?'

Jstncloud wrote:Even if the weapon does not state that it is an upgrade?

In most cases, the weapons you're swapping are bolters, or bolt pistols and close combat weapons. Anything that they take instead of that is going to be an upgrade, since Marines don't have any lighter weaponry.

The age of the codex is why other Marines do it differently. Once upon a time, they all worked pretty much the same as the BT book. Now, they just have a list of stuff to select from instead.


As to the inconsistent wording, welcome to Warhammer 40K 4th edition. That was the biggest killer for the game throughout late 3rd edition/most of 4th... the complete and utter disregard for consistent and tight rules-writing made the game an absolute mess to play.

insaniak wrote:

Jstncloud wrote:Even if the weapon does not state that it is an upgrade?

In most cases, the weapons you're swapping are bolters, or bolt pistols and close combat weapons. Anything that they take instead of that is going to be an upgrade, since Marines don't have any lighter weaponry.

The age of the codex is why other Marines do it differently. Once upon a time, they all worked pretty much the same as the BT book. Now, they just have a list of stuff to select from instead.


As to the inconsistent wording, welcome to Warhammer 40K 4th edition. That was the biggest killer for the game throughout late 3rd edition/most of 4th... the complete and utter disregard for consistent and tight rules-writing made the game an absolute mess to play.

Thanks

ToBeWilly wrote:@culsandar
An upgraded model is not an upgraded weapon taken from the "Options" section of the unit entry. Again, the rule in question, "Any model who takes an upgrade weapon loses the weapon he was originally armed with unless otherwise stated.", is specifically dealing with the "Options" section of the unit entry. As described on page 30. Why are you insisting that this affect every section of the unit entry?

I'm not insisting that at all. What I'm insisting is that when it speaks of "upgrade weapon" it is specifically referring to the few entries in the codex that actually have the word "upgrade" in Options section. I have not discussed any part of the entry other than the Options section.

@Insaniak: But they aren't a completely separate thing. That section talks about upgrades in the Options section. There are documented instances throughout the book that list the word upgrade, again in the Options section. Concluding that replace/exchange/armed with is the same as upgrade, when there are actual entries using the term upgrade, is misconstrued.

Culsandar wrote:Page 30 tells you an 'orange is an orange'. You are implying it reads 'every fruit is an orange'.

culsandar wrote:

ToBeWilly wrote:@culsandar
An upgraded model is not an upgraded weapon taken from the "Options" section of the unit entry. Again, the rule in question, "Any model who takes an upgrade weapon loses the weapon he was originally armed with unless otherwise stated.", is specifically dealing with the "Options" section of the unit entry. As described on page 30. Why are you insisting that this affect every section of the unit entry?

I'm not insisting that at all. What I'm insisting is that when it speaks of "upgrade weapon" it is specifically referring to the few entries in the codex that actually have the word "upgrade" in Options section. I have not discussed any part of the entry other than the Options section.

@Insaniak: But they aren't a completely separate thing. That section talks about upgrades in the Options section. There are documented instances throughout the book that list the word upgrade, again in the Options section. Concluding that replace/exchange/armed with is the same as upgrade, when there are actual entries using the term upgrade, is misconstrued.

Culsandar wrote:Page 30 tells you an 'orange is an orange'. You are implying it reads 'every fruit is an orange'.

Sweet more confusion, is this something that the player group should just make a house rule for then, because the back and forth is not really getting anywhere '100%'

culsandar wrote:@Insaniak: But they aren't a completely separate thing.

Go have a look at the command squad entry. See how the option to upgrade a model to a Cmpany Champion is not under the 'Options' heading?

A reference on page 30 to how to apply upgrades taken from the Options section applies to upgrades taken from the Options section. Upgrades taken from elsewhere have absolutely no bearing on the issue whatsoever.

insaniak wrote:

culsandar wrote:@Insaniak: But they aren't a completely separate thing.

Go have a look at the command squad entry. See how the option to upgrade a model to a Cmpany Champion is not under the 'Options' heading?

A reference on page 30 to how to apply upgrades taken from the Options section applies to upgrades taken from the Options section. Upgrades taken from elsewhere have absolutely no bearing on the issue whatsoever.

The command squad is technically listed under "Specialists", which there is no section for on page 30. But are you implying that those models keep their original wargear even if they take those upgrades, simply because it isn't listed under the options section? For example, the Company Champion keeps his bolter, in addition to gaining the power weapon, combat shield, and bolt pistol?

That also doesn't change the other entries that have upgrade in the options section. For example, look at the Dreadnought. There is use of the word upgrade and replace in the options section. Why the difference? We have to assume the difference is intentional, because there is a difference. This is not the place to discuss intentions.

I may be a bit unclear on who holds what position here. So, instead of re-reading the thread, because I'm lazy and don't want to, I will just restate my position.

The OP asked if a Black Templar Crusader Squad model who takes an optional weapon gets to keep it's original weapon(s). I'm saying no, they may not keep their original weapon(s). As per page 30.

ToBeWilly, if they take an optional weapon from the unit listing, you are correct. It replaces their normal weapon. If the optional weapon is from the Armoury, however, they keep their original weapon.

culsandar wrote:The command squad is technically listed under "Specialists", which there is no section for on page 30. But are you implying that those models keep their original wargear even if they take those upgrades, simply because it isn't listed under the options section? For example, the Company Champion keeps his bolter, in addition to gaining the power weapon, combat shield, and bolt pistol?

No, I'm not addressing the Company Champion at all because, yet again, they are nothign to do with the topic at hand.

The discussion is solely about selecting weapons from the 'Options' section of the army list entry.

We have to assume the difference is intentional, because there is a difference.

We really don't, for the reasons I already mentioned. Anyone who played through 4th edition would be well aware of just how little attention GW paid to consistent wording during that period.

Besides which, using different language doesn't automatically mean the outcome is different. If I say now that I'm going outside in 10 minutes, and then 5 minutes later say that I'm on my way out the door in 5 minutes, the action remains the same despite me describing it two different ways.

In this case, GW didn't label all of the weapons options as upgrades... but by any sensible definition of the word, trading in a boltgun for a plasma gun is upgrading your weapon. The fact that some entries use the specific word 'upgrade' and others don't doesn't change that.

insaniak wrote:
In this case, GW didn't label all of the weapons options as upgrades... but by any sensible definition of the word, trading in a boltgun for a plasma gun is upgrading your weapon. The fact that some entries use the specific word 'upgrade' and others don't doesn't change that.

My friend who constantly rolls 1s considers plasma guns to be more of a sidegrade or even downgrade.

insaniak wrote:

culsandar wrote:The command squad is technically listed under "Specialists", which there is no section for on page 30. But are you implying that those models keep their original wargear even if they take those upgrades, simply because it isn't listed under the options section? For example, the Company Champion keeps his bolter, in addition to gaining the power weapon, combat shield, and bolt pistol?

No, I'm not addressing the Company Champion at all because, yet again, they are nothign to do with the topic at hand.

The discussion is solely about selecting weapons from the 'Options' section of the army list entry.

We have to assume the difference is intentional, because there is a difference.

We really don't, for the reasons I already mentioned. Anyone who played through 4th edition would be well aware of just how little attention GW paid to consistent wording during that period.

Besides which, using different language doesn't automatically mean the outcome is different. If I say now that I'm going outside in 10 minutes, and then 5 minutes later say that I'm on my way out the door in 5 minutes, the action remains the same despite me describing it two different ways.

In this case, GW didn't label all of the weapons options as upgrades... but by any sensible definition of the word, trading in a boltgun for a plasma gun is upgrading your weapon. The fact that some entries use the specific word 'upgrade' and others don't doesn't change that.

Actually the topic was about their troop choice taking upgrades that said 'armed with' not specifically the Pg30 stuff,seems everyone has read all of that already.

That's just it though... The 'page 30 stuff' is exactly what answers the question.

insaniak wrote:That's just it though... The 'page 30 stuff' is exactly what answers the question.

Could you sum up in one post the ins and outs of this, just to get the final verdict please.

I understand the intent seems to be that upgrades work like the upgrades typically do for units in the SM codex, however, there were some examples in the thread about HQ's and so forth who would be hindered if they took certain weapons or something to that nature. There was also an issue presented in regards to grenades.

Basically, looking for an in depth post that explains the ruling being made and covers the other loophole concerns that have been expressed in the thread. Some guys I play with in real life have been shown this thread and one of them is the guy who presented the issue in my original post, he plays BTs and I'd like to present him with a ruling that has support and is concise.

Jstncloud: If the weapon they are taking is from the unit entry, it replaces the original weapon. If the weapon is from the Armoury, however, it is added on in addition to any weapons the model already has.

Jstncloud wrote:Could you sum up in one post the ins and outs of this, just to get the final verdict please.

insaniak wrote:If a unit entry includes weapons upgrades in the Options section, and a model takes one of those upgrades, they lose their original weapons unless the entry specifically says otherwise as per page 30.

If a model selects weapons from the armoury, they don't.

The only thing to add to that is that the page 30 restriction can't apply to the armoury, even though characters with access to the armoury have that access listed in their Options section, because that would lead to silliness like Chaplains not being able to have a second weapon if they wish to retain their crozius.

You could technically make a case for taking grenades replacing your bolter... if you were inclined towards making argument for the sake of argument, since it wouldn't stand on the table against any sensible opponent. The counter would be that in the current rules, frag and krak grenades aren't really weapons other than against vehicles, and that they're quite clearly not what page 30 is referring to when it talks about upgrade weapons.

Ultimately, the rules aren't as clear here as they probably should be, because the codex was written at a time when GW weren't too bothered about writing clear rules, working on the assumption that people would just figure out what they meant. But even with that, in this particular case it's not too difficult to see what they were going for.

insaniak wrote:

Jstncloud wrote:Could you sum up in one post the ins and outs of this, just to get the final verdict please.

insaniak wrote:If a unit entry includes weapons upgrades in the Options section, and a model takes one of those upgrades, they lose their original weapons unless the entry specifically says otherwise as per page 30.

If a model selects weapons from the armoury, they don't.

The only thing to add to that is that the page 30 restriction can't apply to the armoury, even though characters with access to the armoury have that access listed in their Options section, because that would lead to silliness like Chaplains not being able to have a second weapon if they wish to retain their crozius.

You could technically make a case for taking grenades replacing your bolter... if you were inclined towards making argument for the sake of argument, since it wouldn't stand on the table against any sensible opponent. The counter would be that in the current rules, frag and krak grenades aren't really weapons other than against vehicles, and that they're quite clearly not what page 30 is referring to when it talks about upgrade weapons.

Ultimately, the rules aren't as clear here as they probably should be, because the codex was written at a time when GW weren't too bothered about writing clear rules, working on the assumption that people would just figure out what they meant. But even with that, in this particular case it's not too difficult to see what they were going for.

So if they take an option "may be armed with" the player would choose to replace the CCW or Pistol correct? (Just like SW, SM, BA, and DA do).

No. Squads like the Assault Squad, who have the specific option to replace a single weapon for the upgrade, can do so.

Squads that have any of the 'may be armed with' options would replace whatever weapons they started with. So in the case of the Sword Brethren squad, for example, whether you equip them initially with a bolter or with a pistol/CCW, giving one of them a flamer gives him just a flamer. The bolter or the pistol/CCW is lost.

insaniak wrote:No. Squads like the Assault Squad, who have the specific option to replace a single weapon for the upgrade, can do so.

Squads that have any of the 'may be armed with' options would replace whatever weapons they started with. So in the case of the Sword Brethren squad, for example, whether you equip them initially with a bolter or with a pistol/CCW, giving one of them a flamer gives him just a flamer. The bolter or the pistol/CCW is lost.

Thanks.