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.

The fundamental concept is that the Rules are universally applied, that they need to specifically state if we are to resolve a situation differently to normal and without those instructions we do not have permission to do anything but the default resolution.

Where in the option does it state this upgrade does not replace the original piece of war-gear?

What rule is failing to be universally applied? The option tells us that it doesn't replace the original because if you read the description it tells you to add an extra servo arm. No where does it say to remove anything.

Yet for every other option where X is 'upgraded' to Y we no longer have permission to use Rules related to X but instead use Rules related to Y, unless otherwise told to do so of course.

This option is normally found on Model choices, so I will point you back to HappyJews example:
A unit of 30 Boyz evokes the option to upgrade to a Nob:-
How many Models are in the unit?
Does it have access to it's original profile?
Does the new Nob start with all the Boyz wargear as well as it's own?

Boyz might not be the best example, so imagine a Unit which has specific war gear for it's basic Models and a different list for the 'leader' of the Unit.
Will that Leader still have access to the basic war-gear, even though it is specifically flagged to belong to just the basic models?

And once again, not all upgrades remove gear.

When you upgrade a veteran to an apothecary you are only adding a narthecium and not removing or replacing anything.

Eihnlazer wrote:
And once again, not all upgrades remove gear.

When you upgrade a veteran to an apothecary you are only adding a narthecium and not removing or replacing anything.

Except you no longer have a "Veteran". The Veteran is gone. Now you have an Apothecary.

Eihnlazer,
Does it have a different profile in the Army List Entry?
Does it have different war-gear to the default Veteran?
Does it have access to different Special Rules then the default Veteran?

If any of those are Yes, then it is a different Model then it once was.

He would have 2 attacks. 1 base, 1 for 2 servo arms. The use of the word "extra" in the description of the harness determines that you retain the original arm.

A servo-harness gives the Techmarine an extra servo-arm,

If he didn't have 2 servo arms, the extra would be omitted, as it would be redundant. Therefore, he has 2.

Simple question, simple answer. No need to argue ridiculous amounts of RAW and suchlike.

JinxDragon wrote:
Eihnlazer,
Does it have a different profile in the Army List Entry?
Does it have different war-gear to the default Veteran?
Does it have access to different Special Rules then the default Veteran?

If any of those are Yes, then it is a different Model then it once was.

Irrelevent. The discussion was specifically about wargear and not whether or not he is a different model.


We were talking about how buying an upgrade "removes" the old gear to replace it and that is definately not the case with an apothecary.

Eihnlazer,
Relevant, because without a specific Exception informing us that we treat Upgrades to Wargear differently to any other Upgrade, we simply lack permission to treat it any differently. As no one can quote a paragraph or page which states that Upgrades to Models follow X method, Upgrades to Wargear follow Y, and Upgrades to other things follow Z we are left with one conclusion: All upgrades must follow the same process. As this process clearly replaces Models, and likely other things if I researched the problem more, it must also replace Wargear in the same fashion or else we end up in a Black Hole situation. One where anyone can argue that they keep access to X whenever they Upgrade to Y, in any situation it grants them a benefit.

One thing you need to keep in mind as well:
Any Equipment which is not (Model Name Only) is found on all Models within that Unit regardless of name
That Upgrade does replace all the Apothecary's equipment as well, it just happens the Apothecary is also granted access to a near identical load out

 Happyjew wrote:

barnowl wrote:
You can probably make the argument RAW it is one, but I recall it using 2 in the blessing explanation, and the Harness else where is described as having 2 arms.

EDIT: missed the second half
The servo arm changes how CC attacks work a little bit. You get all profile, charge, special weapon attacks on Int. then at Int 1 you get additional attacks for each servo arm.

Not true on the Edit.

Servo-arms are basically Power Fists, meaning it is a normal melee weapon.

A Servo-harness is (fluff-wise) 2 Servo-arms, so you are basically equipped with 2 Power Fists.

Ack, complete missed that being dropped in the 6e codex, shows how often I have played techmarines in the new codex.

On the other hand, the techmarine entry says 'upgrade' the servo-arm, and then two points later, say 'replace' when talking about bolt pistols and such. QED if they meant 'replace' in the case of the servo-harness they would have used 'replace'. Since they didn't they must mean something else.

Arguments about the use of 'upgrade' are shaky anyway since it really isn't used in a consistent way by GW. It seems to feature heavily in YMDC generally right now, which is usually a good indicator that it's not a cut and dry issue.

Fenris-77,
Can you provide me with other options which use the word Upgrade but do not replace the original?

If I had some more evidence that Game Workshop has duel used the word upgrade, within the context of purchasable options, then we would be better able to explain the problem away as a 'Formatting Error.' I already believe it is one, it is clear through the use of the word extra that the Author was talking about situations where any original Servo-Arms are not lost, but we can not support that conclusion using the Rules as currently Written. If it can be proved that the word Upgrade does not mean to replace with a new and improved version, in more instances than just this one, then we have grounds argue based on Game Workshops wonderful use of Duel Terminology.

Personally, I think the Authors should of penned the following option instead:
May purchase a Servo-Harness for X Points.
It is the standard format for anything which is simply added to the Model's profile, like we believe the Servo-harness is meant to be.

JinxDragon wrote:
Fenris-77,
Can you provide me with other options which use the word Upgrade but do not replace the original?

Not in the Marine Codex. Upgrade is only used in two ways there. First, specifically about the harness (and no other gear I might add) and second to refer to sergeant and command squad personnel. In the Astra Militarum codex the term is used to refer to extra equipment purchased my squad members though, which is exactly the sort of example you're looking for. Specifically the CCS entry reads as follows: Any remaining Veteran that has not been upgraded with one of the options above may replace his lasgun with one item from the Special Weapons list. In that example the upgrades are specifically additional equipment as opposed to the weapon options, which do actually replace something.

JinxDragon wrote:
If I had some more evidence that Game Workshop has duel used the word upgrade, within the context of purchasable options, then we would be better able to explain the problem away as a 'Formatting Error.' I already believe it is one, it is clear through the use of the word extra that the Author was talking about situations where any original Servo-Arms are not lost, but we can not support that conclusion using the Rules as currently Written. If it can be proved that the word Upgrade does not mean to replace with a new and improved version, in more instances than just this one, then we have grounds argue based on Game Workshops wonderful use of Duel Terminology.

You can't even prove to me in the first place that upgrade means what you say it does above in the bolded text, so I can't agree with you about burden of proof. Even the sergeant example isn't obvious. People have made some kinda specious arguments about what models 'look like' and how that means it's a completely new entity and not simply an improved version of what it was upgraded from. The reality is more grey than that, and similar arguments can be marshaled in favor of those upgrades just being an improved version of what was already there. Neither is useful for sorting out RAW issues IMO.

JinxDragon wrote:
Personally, I think the Authors should of penned the following option instead:
May purchase a Servo-Harness for X Points.
It is the standard format for anything which is simply added to the Model's profile, like we believe the Servo-harness is meant to be.

The problem with that is it does not help models that come with a Servo-harness standard.

Now if they changed "upgrade" to "replace", and "extra servo-arm" with "two servo-arms" then the problem would be solved.

Fenris-77,
Models upgraded to a 'leader type' use a completely different profile then the original, often have their own unique load outs and access to Rules which the original lacks. They may even lose access to Special Rules or Wargear within situations where the original had a (Model Name Only) flag after them. Upgraded Models also loose access to any option that Names the original Model directly, this has been supported by Frequently Asked Question in the past. For example, a Nob Unit has the option to make a Nob into a PainBoy and in doing so it no longer can be fielded with any Option which are Nobs only. This is the same Frequently Asked Question which states that options can be purchased in sequences designed to get the best out of the options, but in those cases they are 'all Models may' options, so the Negative response they give for the PainBoy has to be directly related to the fact it is no longer a Nob.

Given that everything is being replaced with something new it is really hard to state that it is still the original, but that is the good old philosophy question:
If you replace every board in a ship one at a time, is it still the same ship?

That being said, I will review the section you have quoted when I have access and time because it would be good to have some documented 'prior clauses.' This might not be for a few days however, given that I am either working or doing other things which take me away from the library over the long weekend. If you can put forth any additional that you find in the mean time it would further add weight to tip the scales back into 'upgrades do not replace the original' territory. I would ask to see if you can find any that prove the opposite as well, upgrades that must replace the original in order to function, but it really is asking too much to request someone research both sides of an argument.

 Happyjew wrote:

Now if they changed "extra servo-arm" with "two servo-arms" then the problem would be solved.

It would be made totally clear for people who like arguing "RAW" all day. However the answer is already clear.

A servo-harness gives the bearer an extra servo-arm,

Lets get some basic English clarified here:
An, means one. In this case, the article is a servo-arm.
Extra (taken from the oxford English dictionary: "Added to an existing or usual amount or number"

The very description of the servo harness therefore tells you, that a servo-harness adds a single servo arm, to the existing number of servo arms (which is also one).
1 plus 1 extra is 2. This is pretty simple guys.

Also, for those people who wish to argue that the original servo arm is removed, please check the techmarine entry:

May upgrade servo-arm to servo-harness
May replace bolt pistol and/or boltgun with a power axe

If the game designers had wished for the original servo arm to be removed, the harness uption would be under the same heading as "replaced", However it is not.
YMDC makes mountains out of molehills.

Big Blind Bill; A Tecmarine gunner (from the TFC) comes standard with a Servo-harness. Nothing in his entry states he has a servo-arm to start.

Please provide a rule giving the Techmarine gunner a servo-arm, in addition to the extra servo-arm from the harness.

I can understand how it's sort of a big deal. Since the Servo Arm is now an actual weapon the Techmarine / Master of the Forge has.

Master of the Forge is two attacks base, and would get to be doubly armed with the Servo Harness, giving him three attacks. Four on the charge...

Quick general question:

RAW argument aside; do we all agree that it is most likely intended that all servo harnesses have 2 servo arms?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Quick general question:

RAW argument aside; do we all agree that it is most likely intended that all servo harnesses have 2 servo arms?

Sure.

Kommissar Kel,
I am in agreement.

KK, I've said that since the beginning.

Fenris-77,
Did a look over those Rules seeing I got a chance to do so sooner then I thought, and I am still unsure what to make of it. The word 'upgraded' has been applied to all options, strangely I never noticed that the Army List Explained section uses it throughout that section in relation to purchasable options. Options which including those that clearly replace something and those that are purchased in addition, as even 'replace X with Y' is an upgrades as far as the Rule's are concerned thanks to all options being upgrades. This of course creates numerous problems with any interpretation we put forth, because there are no instructions telling us how to determine if an upgrade just flagged as 'an upgrade' falls under 'replace,' 'purchase' or something else.

That does give heavy support to the concept that 'upgrade' is Duel Terminology, and opening the flood gates to all the arguments that come along with such a wonderful way of writing Rules....

 Happyjew wrote:
Big Blind Bill; A Tecmarine gunner (from the TFC) comes standard with a Servo-harness. Nothing in his entry states he has a servo-arm to start.

Please provide a rule giving the Techmarine gunner a servo-arm, in addition to the extra servo-arm from the harness.

I don't follow this. Pg 93 says the Techmarine gunner had a servo-harness. Pg 125 then gives profile to servo-harness saying that it also gives them an extra servo-arm. Then we look at pg 122 for the profile of servo-arm which is a specialist weapon. Rules give the user of servo-harness an extra of something and it was already shown what that means. Pg 42 of BRB then says that having two Specialist Weapons gives +1A.

It is the servo-harness entry that states they have not one but two servo-arms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I see where the confusion comes from, though. Due to poor editing a techmarine gunner only has 1 attack on his profile, but from the above rules we know that this is not possible.

A tech marine must take one of the following, with an option for a servo arm (free) and a harness (the points it costs) would be very useful here.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
A tech marine must take one of the following, with an option for a servo arm (free) and a harness (the points it costs) would be very useful here.

And the servo harness text stating it has 2 servo Arms.

Yes that would be in a perfect world.

Or even just the Servo Harness text stating it has 2 servo Arms.