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.

Can an Arena Champion have a Blaster?

Pg 88
"..one Reaver may replace their reaver jetbike's splinter rifle with one one the following..."

If we assume that an Arena Champion can not take a Blaster due to no longer being a "Reaver", couldn't you just upgrade to a Blaster BEFORE you upgrade that same model to an Arena Champion?

Nobody truly knows if purchasing options in a particular order to open up more combinations is legal or not.
Guides in the past have stated both yes and no, depending on which Codex's Frequently Asked Question is being reviewed, just to make the matter all that more confusing....

For what its worth (probably not much), there is a picture in the middle of page 59 that shows an Arena Champion with a Heat Lance.

So an Arena Champion with an Agoniser, Heat Lance and Cluster Caltrops. That's a one man wrecking ball right there, for the low low price of 76 pts (I think, not looking at the codex right now) is that worth it?

For what's it's worth, I am of the opinion that all Codex choices are in a certain "decided" order.
So you'd choose whether you want "up to 9additional Reavers",
then if you want a Champion,
then if you want to upgrade a Reaver...

Obviously this would be opposite to quite clear intent on page 59...

Sow by RaW: yes, i don't see why you would not be able to take Champion+Blaster.

Once a Reaver is upgraded to an Arena Champion he is no longer a 'Reaver' so is ineligible for the Blaster or Heat Lance. The Cluster Caltrops and Grav Talons state 'model' however, so an Arena Champion can take one of these.

Also, the model on pg 59 is a normal Reaver, it's just modelled with a melee weapon from the Wyche sprue.

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
Once a Reaver is upgraded to an Arena Champion he is no longer a 'Reaver' so is ineligible for the Blaster or Heat Lance. The Cluster Caltrops and Grav Talons state 'model' however, so an Arena Champion can take one of these.

Indeed. The RAW may be a bit unclear, but the fact that some upgrades say 'model' and some specify 'Reaver' is a pretty strong indication that RAI is that the champion cannot have a special weapon.

This question is super old and comes up over and over in most codex releases.

Ultimately, it could go either way.

If you can give a Reaver a Blaster and can upgrade a Reaver to an Arena Champion, whether or not the Arena Champion can have a Blaster depends on the order of operations when you upgrade. If you give the Reaver a Blaster and THEN upgrade him to a Champion, he would presumably keep the Blaster. There doesn't appear to be any rule telling us to remove all previous upgrades.

There have also been Army Lists in the past where the only way any Models have access to certain pieces of war-gear was through selecting one option prior to another... swap X for Y and then Y for Z sort of thing.
I believe Space Marines Bikes was the primary Unit in that case, but I can't remember right now.

In the ETC clarifications, you get to choose in which order the upgrades are taken.

I don't think RAW specifies anything about this so by default you're also allowed to take upgrades in any order you like.

It is not about order of the upgrades, it is about becoming entirely different model, that cannot have the item. I am absolutely certain, that the intent is that the unit champions cannot have weapon upgrades meant for the regular troopers. The only exception is Aberration, as in the Grotesque unit weapon option say 'any model' instead of 'any Grotesque.' You also cannot have unit of Trueborn with five blasters, by first giving one Kabalite a blaster, then upgrading them to Trueborn and then give four of them blasters. The difference in the wording is intentional, and it has a meaning.

Crimson,
Can you post a Rule which supports the concept that Model X can not possess items for Model Y?

The counter-argument is very simple:
We have permission to select option A, so we evoke option A to give Model Y a unique weapon
We have permission to select option B, so we evoke option B to turn Model Y into Model X
At that point we have done nothing but evoked Rules granting us permission to do something, so we need a Restriction preventing access to those permissions....

I was very clear that I was making RAI argument. I am perfectly aware that the RAW can be interpreted the way you present, I just do not think that is the intent. Why you think the wording is different? How you feel about the Trueborns with five blasters?

Sorry, as I did overlook the word 'intent' in your post, and I retract my request.

Personally, I have never faced a Unit of Trueborn with five blasters and I have not reviewed the Rules involved that will allow it to occur. However, if I did, I would probably not think too much about it till long after the battle itself. At that time my view on the matter will be skewed, based on their performance which is greatly random chance, and that will not allow me to say for certain if the concept is 'broken' or if it is simply a poorly written Rule being exploited for minimal gains. It would then be up to me and my opponent to decide if the whole concept is even plausible as we will need to create a few Rules of our own to govern the order in which options are selected.

You are probably right on the intention though, assuming the Rule reads as I picture it.

I don't think the wording implies an intent to prevent such things.

However, I think I've always read it that way or never really had an option that would be more interesting that way.

The problem is GW does not enven know what they intend half the time.

If you were to assume that upgrades can be taken in any order, then it is theoretically possible to upgrade a basic model with Item X, and then upgrade said model to Model Y, giving Model Y, item X; even though the codex does not give permission for Model Y to take said item.

If you were to assume that upgrades are applied in order they are listed, then occasionally the upgraded model would be able to take Items that only the basic models are given permission to take.

For example.
Following Path A a Command Squad veteran could take a grav-pistol and then be upgraded to an apothecary.
Following Path B, however, since the Apothecary upgrade is listed before the ability to take a Grav-pistol, the Apothcary would not be able to take one.

Now I'm not saying that either method is correct, however when GW is asked similar questions for the same codex, and give two different answers (Orks I'm looking at you) we cannot claim to know the intent.

 Happyjew wrote:

If you were to assume that upgrades can be taken in any order, then it is theoretically possible to upgrade a basic model with Item X, and then upgrade said model to Model Y, giving Model Y, item X; even though the codex does not give permission for Model Y to take said item.

If you were to assume that upgrades are applied in order they are listed, then occasionally the upgraded model would be able to take Items that only the basic models are given permission to take.

It has nothing to do with the order the items are listed. It has to do whether the model is a kind of a model that can have the item. If 'A' can have 'X', but you stop being 'A' and become 'B' instead, you no longer can have 'X', no matter which order the items were listed or taken. You however can have 'Y', as anyone can have 'Y'.

I do not believe for a second, that they would sometimes (even in the same entry) use 'any model' and sometimes specify which kind of model can have the upgrade, if it wouldn't mean you cannot have the upgrade if you no longer are that kind of a model.

 Crimson wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

If you were to assume that upgrades can be taken in any order, then it is theoretically possible to upgrade a basic model with Item X, and then upgrade said model to Model Y, giving Model Y, item X; even though the codex does not give permission for Model Y to take said item.

If you were to assume that upgrades are applied in order they are listed, then occasionally the upgraded model would be able to take Items that only the basic models are given permission to take.

It has nothing to do with the order the items are listed. It has to do whether the model is a kind of a model that can have the item. If 'A' can have 'X', but you stop being 'A' and become 'B' instead, you no longer can have 'X', no matter which order the items were listed or taken. You however can have 'Y', as anyone can have 'Y'.

I do not believe for a second, that they would sometimes (even in the same entry) use 'any model' and sometimes specify which kind of model can have the upgrade, if it wouldn't mean you cannot have the upgrade if you no longer are that kind of a model.

For most units the point is moot. For example, with a mob of Boyz, 1 in 10 can upgrade to a heavier weapon. One other boy can upgrade to a nob. In this case it is clear that a nob cannot be one of the heavy weapon carriers. For most armies, a "sergeant" is included with the unit and as such would not be eligible to take the option. The only instance I can think of where it causes a slight issue (other than units that have options put in place via FAQ) would be Dark Reapers. In that case, a Dark Reaper (by option listing) is upgraded to an Exarch after the unit buys alternate ammunition for cheaper than what an Exarch pays for it.

When I get back I will review the Tau Codex to see how they have worded their 'upgrade a Model to a Shas-ui' type Rules.

 Happyjew wrote:
The only instance I can think of where it causes a slight issue (other than units that have options put in place via FAQ) would be Dark Reapers. In that case, a Dark Reaper (by option listing) is upgraded to an Exarch after the unit buys alternate ammunition for cheaper than what an Exarch pays for it.

Which again is a good indication that you're not supposed to be able to do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
When I get back I will review the Tau Codex to see how they have worded their 'upgrade a Model to a Shas-ui' type Rules.

Tau do not tend do have different weapon options for sergeant type characters.

 Happyjew wrote:
One other boy can upgrade to a nob. In this case it is clear that a nob cannot be one of the heavy weapon carriers.

I would like to point out RAI for "order" of upgrades. What would "Other" refer to if you chose to select that option first? (because we can follow options in a random order)

Following Path B, however, since the Apothecary upgrade is listed before the ability to take a Grav-pistol, the Apothcary would not be able to take one.

Have people been playing Apothecaries with Grav-Pistols then? Unaware of such and i always thought they never had any options past of "being apothecaries" (just bolt pistol).
I'll have a look at the Codex in a bit.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Have people been playing Apothecaries with Grav-Pistols then? Unaware of such and i always thought they never had any options past of "being apothecaries" (just bolt pistol).
I'll have a look at the Codex in a bit.

They don't have options, only veterans have, but similarly like in this case, some people think that you can first give a veteran gear and then upgrade him into an Apotechary. (Resulting things like Banner-Bearer-Apotecharies.)

I have just had a look and it is indeed the case.

Going by me, and order, you could indeed provide a Banner via the 1st Option, and then upgrade to an apothecary via the 3rd Option (= Banner-Bearer-Apotecharies.)

Going by your method (Model naming being "timeless") the model who is now "Apothecary" would indeed have no access to other options.

But both of us would agree that Apothecaries cannot "Any Veteran may take items from the Melee Weapons and/or Ranged Weapons lists." by not being a "Veteran" any longer.

As suspected,
Jeremy Vetock understanding of Rule interactions is once more shown to be better then the other Authors over in Game Workshop. If an option is available for a Shas'ui, by name and not just any model, it also has the very same option with the word Shas'vre instead. This side steps the entire debate, instead of making it obvious that a model can select X and be upgraded Y or making it illegal through a Restriction this Author has made it so even if such a Restriction was created in the future his Codex is still usable....

I'm not sure the Trueborn example is a good one. With that upgrade, they become a different unit all-together.

Even if you upgrade to a Champ, it is still a Reaver unit. I'm not even sold on the Idea that a Arena Champion model is not a Reaver. In fact the champ doesnt have a sperate wargear listing, just additonal upgrade options.

Then explain why they're so specific as to who the upgrades apply to (Reaver or Arena Champion) until they get to the entry for the Talos (which can only consists of 1-3 Talos) and the Cronos (which can only consist of 1-3 Chronos) where they use the term 'model' instead of 'Talos' or 'Cronos'?

I really can't comment to their choice in wording. Especially given the wildly different wording they use for how relics are taken across the books.

Talos and Chronos have seperate wargear listings, right?
(don't have my book with me atm)

The arena champ does not have a separate wargear listing IIRC, he just has additional upgrade options.\

To me, there is nothing indicating that an Arena Champ is not still a Reaver.

For example, on the Beast pack card, its is clear that a Best Master is not a Clawed Fiend, as they have seperate wargear and point value listings. The Arena Champ on the other hand is listed as an upgrade.