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.

In the TFC gunner's wargear it says he has a servo harness, and the servo harness says it comes with an "extra" servo arm.

But there is no default servo arm listed in the TFC gunner's wargear.


Same goes for regular Techmarine, btw. He comes with a servo arm, but can "upgrade" this to a servo harness; not "take a servo harness". I assume upgrade means replace?

And the Master of the Forge is affected in the same way.

So do the above 2 have 1 attack when being fighting in a typical round of cc, and the MoF 2, or is it 2 and 3, respectively?

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.

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.

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

RAW, for the Master of the Forge, they have zero Servo-arms by default, so that "extra servo-arm" just gives them one servo-arm. I interpret that to mean that the techmarine only has 1 servo-arm even with the harness upgrade (since it replaces his usual servo-arm). Keep in mind that the Servo-harness is not "just" an extra servo-arm, it also gives you +1 to your repair roles, gives you a plasma weapon, a flamer, AND the extra shooting attacks.

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

They're also Specialist Weapons (like powerfists), so you would need another specialist weapon to get the extra attack. Since I interpret the rules as being that you can't have more than one servo-arm, that means you would have to buy a PF or a lightning claw for the techmarine to get that extra melee attack.

r4aw for MotF is he gets 1 since he auto comeswith a servoharness and thus doesnt already have an arm,

now the Tech Marine basic, starts with a servo arm, which directly states you upgrade it to a servoharness

now look under the servo harness rules: givers the bearer an extra servo-arm, so your basic standalone tech not the MotF or the TFC version gets 2 servo arms


Edit: having clicked by mistake:

looking at the TFC techmarine he is exactly like the MotF and auto has the servo harness, therefor he only has 1 servo arm, which also makes sense when you look at the model and the fluss he uses a modified version to assist with loading ammo



Automatically Appended Next Post:
now to offer the rai version before someone moans about it, the harness is an upgrade after alml there for one would assumer the intention was that all 3 versions got 2 arms but that is plain just not raw

wargamer1985 wrote:
r4aw for MotF is he gets 1 since he auto comeswith a servoharness and thus doesnt already have an arm,

now the Tech Marine basic, starts with a servo arm, which directly states you upgrade it to a servoharness

now look under the servo harness rules: givers the bearer an extra servo-arm, so your basic standalone tech not the MotF or the TFC version gets 2 servo arms


Edit: having clicked by mistake:

looking at the TFC techmarine he is exactly like the MotF and auto has the servo harness, therefor he only has 1 servo arm, which also makes sense when you look at the model and the fluss he uses a modified version to assist with loading ammo



Automatically Appended Next Post:
now to offer the rai version before someone moans about it, the harness is an upgrade after alml there for one would assumer the intention was that all 3 versions got 2 arms but that is plain just not raw

When you upgrade something, you lose the original; a Librarian that upgrades his mastery level to 2 does not also remain ML1. A sgt upgraded to veteran sgt does not still use the profile for a sgt, he uses the vet sgt profile.

Upgrading a servo arm to a servo harness removes the first arm.

But the harness is clearly meant to be 2 arms, across all 3 techmarines(std, thunderfire, and MotF) although RAW is just 1

so the word extra means only 1?

Upgrading does not in fact mean you loose the original automatically.


Its an obvious editing error on the MotF, but a servo harness is indeed 2 servo arms, a TL plasma pistol, and a flamer all in one package.

Within a Rule system it does, or else we end up in arguments over which options replace the original and which do not.
It is still an obvious error though, no one would seriously argue against that.

JinxDragon wrote:
no one would seriously argue against that.

You're seriously mistaken, i'm afraid. Monstrous creatures recieving cover from a toe in the bush also sounts totally wrong but...

Kooaei,
Two completely different situations.
One is a Rule granting all models a cover save regardless of obstruction, and while creating a curious situation it is one clearly intended by the Authors given their choice of words and the abstract nature of the system.
One is a Rule granting an 'extra arm' on models which do not have an arm to start with, or technically lose it during upgrading, creating uncertainty to the Authors intent thanks to the choice of words and the abstract nature of the system.

See, that's exactly what i'm talking about

I still don't see how one is related to the other....

JinxDragon wrote:
Within a Rule system it does, or else we end up in arguments over which options replace the original and which do not.
It is still an obvious error though, no one would seriously argue against that.

I would seriously argue against it, I think you're projecting what you think the rules should be based on how it used to be. The 5th edition codex specifically spells out that servo-harnesses give the bearer 2 servo-arms (even mentioning that it gives them extra attacks). The 6th edition codex has no such wording, and I think clearly does not grant you two servo arms - what's telling is that the servo-harness rules in 6e are a direct copy/paste, but with the note about how it specifically grants you two servo arms removed. Now, it could be that Robin Cruddace intended them to have two servo arms, but that's not what ended up in the 6th edition SM codex - and lord knows GW screws up on fluff a lot when they write the codexes.

I would agree that they only have one servo-arm as per the Rules.
The argument is really over the intention, the question of 'did the Authors intend for the model to gain an extra arm to the one already existing?' is very valid because it runs counter to the Rule as Written but is indicated heavily by the words chosen.

I can not accept your argument that these minor changes indicate they intended for the original arm to be lost, because there are other reasons as to why these changes took place which are just as plausible if not more so.

Given that the Authors have completely re-written the underlining wargear, the Servo-Arm functions differently, it would make sense that they have to modify the Harness Rules to match the new Servo-Arm Rules as they where always interlinked. All the removed sections directly relate to Rules that are no longer in existence or are redundant as they information has been presented in a far more standardized format, a weapon profile. Given that the section you are using as evidence directly relates to one of those no longer existing Rules, the unique attacks caused by the servo-arms, it is far more plausible to state that section was removed as referring the unique attacks which no longer exist makes little sense. Yet they did keep the word 'extra' in relation to how many Servo-arms the Harness has, which makes no sense if the Authors intended for the Harness to only have one Servo-arm.

Original Harness Rules:
A servo-harness gives the Techmarine an extra servo-arm (giving him two servo-arm attacks), a plasma-cutter (fired in the shooting Phase as a twin Linked Plasma Pistol, but cannot be used in close combat) and a Flamer. In the shooting Phase the Techmarine can fire both harness-mounted weapons, or one harness mount and another gun.

Updated Harness Rules:
A servo-harness gives the bearer an extra servo-arm, a plasma cutter and a flamer. In the Shooting phase, the bearer can fire both harness-mounted weapons, or one harness-mounted weapon and another weapon.

Point taken though:
I should know better as people on the internet seriously argue over anything.

Note that the original entry did not specify that the Techmarine got "2 servo arms", simply 2 servo-arm attacks. It sill used the term "extra servo arm", just as the current edition states. So why did we play it as having 2 servo arms? Probably because the model and the fluff showed that to be the case (and possibly from even earlier editions, but I'm unaware of that)

Based on the wording and understanding of the model available, there is absolutely no way I would play a model with servo-harness as anything less than 2 servo arms.

"Extra" generally speaking means "in addition to what you already have (which is at least one)" and not "You had none, now you have one extra" (that sentence makes little grammatical sense).

or, always solve the issue like gentlemen and roll a D6...on a 4+, you get the 2 servo arm attacks.

Because if you boldly walk in saying your techmarine has 2 servo arm attacks, you opponent will accept it (he would sound like a douche for vocally disagreeing - this is a game, after all) but I'm sure most will think to themselves that this aint right. According to the model a Dire Avengers Exarch should have 2 shuricats.

 Sir Arun wrote:
or, always solve the issue like gentlemen and roll a D6...on a 4+, you get the 2 servo arm attacks.

Because if you boldly walk in saying your techmarine has 2 servo arm attacks, you opponent will accept it (he would sound like a douche for vocally disagreeing - this is a game, after all) but I'm sure most will think to themselves that this aint right. According to the model a Dire Avengers Exarch should have 2 shuricats.

And he used to. Until they decided that two Avenger Shuricats fired as one was OP so they changed it to Twin-linked.

- Edited by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1 -

if you have 1 basic servo-arm aka my left arm and i buy an upgrade that gives me another servo arm aka my right arm do i not have 2 arms?

wargamer1985 wrote:
if you have 1 basic servo-arm aka my left arm and i buy an upgrade that gives me another servo arm aka my right arm do i not have 2 arms?

Alright, mr. RAW fancypants, that would then give the normal Techmarine 2 servo arm attacks.


But what about the MoF or TFC gunner? They only have the servo harness listed in their wargear entry, but not the servo arm. And the servo harness wargear entry does not say the harness has 2 arms.

So they have 1 arm.

Only in la-la-land could they have upgraded their servo arm with a servo harness prior to being printed with their current wargear in the armylist but, as long as this is not discernible on the armylist, there is no legal way to justify it from the codex. You would have to resort to fluff reasoning; pointing out WYSIWYG-style number of servo arms on the model itself, or reference how the process is handled on another unit (regular Techmarine) to justify the existence of a similar process having taken place a priori on the MoF and TFC gunner.

wargamer1985 wrote:
if you have 1 basic servo-arm aka my left arm and i buy an upgrade that gives me another servo arm aka my right arm do i not have 2 arms?

Except this is a case where the model doesn't upgrade its servo arm, because it never is stated to have one to begin with.
It should mean that they have 2 servo arms from the servo harness, but due to the new wording for the latter this is less clear than it used to be.

In the DA Codex a Techmarine starts with one base attack. The servo arm (standard) is a special weapon 2x S, Ap 1. A Servo harness adds an addition servo arm as well as other cute weapons. Thus a techmarine with servo harness would have two servo arm attacks base, three on the charge, four with digital weapons...

 Deuce11 wrote:
In the DA Codex a Techmarine starts with one base attack. The servo arm (standard) is a special weapon 2x S, Ap 1. A Servo harness adds an addition servo arm as well as other cute weapons. Thus a techmarine with servo harness would have two servo arm attacks base, three on the charge, four with digital weapons...

Question for you. If you upgrade "X" to "Y" do you still have "X"?

For example, I have a squad of 20 Boyz. I upgrade one to a Nob. Do I still have 20 Boyz?

 Happyjew wrote:

 Deuce11 wrote:
In the DA Codex a Techmarine starts with one base attack. The servo arm (standard) is a special weapon 2x S, Ap 1. A Servo harness adds an addition servo arm as well as other cute weapons. Thus a techmarine with servo harness would have two servo arm attacks base, three on the charge, four with digital weapons...

Question for you. If you upgrade "X" to "Y" do you still have "X"?

For example, I have a squad of 10 Dire Avengers. I upgrade one to a Dire Avenger Exarch. Do I still have 10 Dire Avengers?

Are you implying that a servo harness does not add a servo arm? Because I am as positive as I can be without having the book open in front of me that it does. Maybe the wording is different in other codices, but the DA one is pretty clear.

The Dark Angels codex says "May upgrade servo-arm to servo-harness...XXX pts".

Now IMO, upgrade means you no longer have the original but have something new in its place (kinda like hte above example with the Nob).

Furthermore, the rules for Servo-harness (in the DA codex) never say the model has two Servo-arms, it says it gives an extra Servo-arm.

So you start with 1. You upgrade to something else (losing the 1) and gain +1. You are left with (1-1)+1.

Deuce11,
The issue isn't that the Harness states it adds an 'extra Servo-Arm,' it clearly does, but the fact it is purchased as an upgrade to the original Servo-Arm.

The problem stems from how purchased upgrades work within the Warhammer 40K Rule system. When we purchase something as an upgrade it replaces the original model/wargear that is being upgraded with the upgraded instructions. It is the only way it can work because far to often is the term 'upgrade' involved with changing individual Models then wargear, though it is found there as well. With the logic that an upgrade is simply added to the original option, then strange things occur as we might have models accessing the wargear for X as well as the wargear for Y, Models with two different Profiles containing different Unit Types, arguments over which Ballistic Score we use, and a list of other strange things that are completely avoided by replacing the original with the upgraded version.

For example:
Would an upgrade that twin-links a weapon be allowed to keep the original non-twin linked version, firing both if on a Vehicle?

actually this argument is getting pretty stupid.

I find it harder and harder to argue that you only end up with 1 servo arm with the harness.

I know GW doesnt often use the word "upgrade" when it comes to wargear, but in this case both on the model, and the fact that the word "extra" was used in the wargear description makes it pretty clear that GW intends the original servo arm to be kept on the techmarine.

Of course, there's still the glaring travesty with MoF and TFC gunner without a servo arm in their entry.

*sigh* if GW had only used the word "replace" and in the servo harness entry "two"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
For example:
Would an upgrade that twin-links a weapon be allowed to keep the original non-twin linked version?

except there is no "upgrade" word used by GW to describe wargear options in any other codex. Usually this is only characters in squads, like a sargeant upgrading himself to a veteran sergeant.

 Sir Arun wrote:
actually this argument is getting pretty stupid.

I find it harder and harder to argue that you only end up with 1 servo arm with the harness.

I know GW doesnt often use the word "upgrade" when it comes to wargear, but in this case both on the model, and the fact that the word "extra" was used in the wargear description makes it pretty clear that GW intends the original servo arm to be kept on the techmarine.

Of course, there's still the glaring travesty with MoF and TFC gunner without a servo arm in their entry.

*sigh* if GW had only used the word "replace" and in the servo harness entry "two"

I would like to point out, that while I may be arguing you only have 1 Servo-arm, I really don't think it is intended. Whch is why for my BS catalogues, Servo-harness has 2 Servo-arms.

This is my last post in this thread because i think the reasoning against 2 servo arm attacks verges on insane BUT...

The upgrade is to the model/unit. So the inclusion of a servo-harness tells us in its description that it gives an (indefinite article, singular) EXTRA (in addition to one or more that already exist) servo-arm. Thus more than one, and in this case, no more than two. The fact that it says extra removes the ambiguity the nay-sayers are "hanging their hats" on. A Techmarine with servo-harness in the DA codex has two servo-arms and therefore two servo-arm attacks before additional modifiers.

I like YMDC because people's arguments tickle your brain. Reading comprehension is a necessary skill in life that develops over time. It requires an abstraction and goes beyond sounding out words on a page. Good luck to you all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Deuce11,
The issue isn't that the Harness states it adds an 'extra Servo-Arm,' it clearly does, but the fact it is purchased as an upgrade to the original Servo-Arm.

The problem stems from how purchased upgrades work within the Warhammer 40K Rule system. When we purchase something as an upgrade it replaces the original model/wargear that is being upgraded with the upgraded instructions. It is the only way it can work because far to often is the term 'upgrade' involved with changing individual Models then wargear, though it is found there as well. With the logic that an upgrade is simply added to the original option, then strange things occur as we might have models accessing the wargear for X as well as the wargear for Y, Models with two different Profiles containing different Unit Types, arguments over which Ballistic Score we use, and a list of other strange things that are completely avoided by replacing the original with the upgraded version.

For example:
Would an upgrade that twin-links a weapon be allowed to keep the original non-twin linked version, firing both if on a Vehicle?

That is why you have to read the rule and not assume there is a uniform system for purchasing wargear. It's all there, you just have to read and comprehend it.

Sir Arun,
Agreed, it is clear that the Authors intended for there to be 2 Servo Arms in that 'upgrade.' Had the Authors simply stated that the Harness comes with 2 Servo Arms and left it at the default of 'replace,' it would be far less confusion and come to the resolution that the vast majority believes to be correct. One of the things we need to always keep in mind about this forum, we like to bring to light the stupid things we find in the Rules and then enjoy debating what the intent for such a broken Rule might be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deuce11,
I disagree, Rules are always written within the system they are being designed for and those systems require we resolve situations in an identical way unless directly instruct us to do otherwise. Removing that fundamental concept only leads to the Rules becoming meaningless, because we can ignore what the Rule actually does. It becomes far to easy too argue that we have permission to ignore Restriction X simply because Restriction X is designed for 'some other situation,' even though the Restriction does not mention a thing about the current situation having an exception.

That is why the Rules have an 'unless otherwise specified' clause, because they need to directly tell us when we do something different to normal.

What 'fundamental concept' applies here? There is an assumption that purchasing wargear MUST replace something. That is not always the case. It may not even be the case a majority of times.