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.

 Ghaz wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And if you had asked, I would have said that I agree with Blaktoof entirely. Those who believe in a 'one and done' validation method for army building could potentially have Space Marine Bikes as Troops without a HQ on a bike simply by adding the HQ, adding the Bikes as Troops and then removing the HQ from the army.

Not true, because you have to keep it if you select it.

If you remove it, you have to remove everything you did after it.

Which would also be true for the Apothecary. Since the model is no longer a Veteran you would have to remove all the upgrades you gave it when it was a Veteran.

Please cite rules that require you to "remove" or "replace" the Veteran when selecting the Apothecary upgrade. My Space Marines codex says to "upgrade" the model and to take a Narthecium, which is neither of those things.

Please cite the rule that allows you to upgrade an Apothecary, or the rule that you only validate the legality of the upgrade at the time you take it.

 Ghaz wrote:
Please cite the rule that allows you to upgrade an Apothecary, or the rule that you only validate the legality of the upgrade at the time you take it.

For the first, there is no such rule. For the second, you have permission to upgrade the Veteran, and no explicit restriction on carrying over wargear when upgrading to the Apothecary. Compare with the Company Champion, who requires you to exchange his chainsword. No chainsword? No upgrade. Compare further with Astra Militarum Company Command Squads, which does have exclusionary language ("One other Veteran" or "Any remaining Veteran that has not been upgraded") preventing multiple upgrades.

Yes, you have permission to upgrade a Veteran, An Apothecary is not a Veteran. So again, why are you giving an upgrade to a model that can't have it?

Not a Veteran? Then you can't have an upgrade that's for Veterans.

Because I had permission at the time I took the upgrade, and no part of the upgrade process requires me not to have taken other upgrades. Now please answer me why you think "upgrading" a model equates to removing and/or replacing it with another model?

So you're placing an order on validation when you just said there wasn't one. So which is it? Because when you upgraded the Veteran to an Apothecary your earlier upgrade became illegal.

I never said there wasn't an order on validation. In fact, I said exactly the opposite.

What I said was there was no rule allowing an Apothecary to take upgrades directly. If the Command Squad unit composition was "three Veterans, one Champion, and one Apothecary" as it is in Blood Angels, I'd agree that the Apothecary has no access.

But RAW, the Veteran you start with has weapon options, and no part of the Apothecary upgrade process removes or restricts those.

Then quote the rule that allows you to do a 'one and done' front to back rules validation. Page and paragraph please. And yes, the Apothecary upgrade does remove options by making the model an Apothecary and NOT a Veteran.

 Ghaz wrote:
Then quote the rule that allows you to do a 'one and done' front to back rules validation. Page and paragraph please. And yes, the Apothecary upgrade does remove options by making the model an Apothecary and NOT a Veteran.

Show me the rule that states that upgrades do not carry over. Page and paragraph.

So you can't support your claims that there's a strict order to validating your lists, nor can you prove that an Apothecary is still a Veteran when they have different names and profiles. So your entire position breaks down to "... because you said so...". I think we're done here if you refuse to provide any support for your position.

I've provided step by step rules cites for my claims. All you have provided is repetitions of "No, you're wrong" and demanded more rules while failing to substantiate your own interpretations.

Yes, I think we are done here.

For it to work there must be an assumption that equipment upgrades carry over with model type upgrades and that there's some kind of order of operation.

For it not to work there must be an assumption that equipment upgrades apply only to model types they are written as applying to.

It seems to me that one of these is an assumption following simple RAW, while the other is an assumption going beyond RAW.

Time during building a list is a subjective concept, take away that (meaning also the concept of order of operations) and you have a solid foundation for what is factually correct. Additionally the concept of order of operations is not something that is in the rules, so take a step back and just look at it from a different perspective without subjective concepts.

Just because an argument has been brought up once before doesn't invalidate it. The simple and undeniable fact is an apothicary has a different profile to a veteran . As such it has no option to take or be equiped with a different profiles options.

If timing and order of operations does not exist, and all options must be legal at all times, please explain how to build a Captain in Terminator armor with a combi-melta and a chainfist.

Note this is plainly intended to be possible, but only if you accept that one option (in this case TDA) can fully resolve and affect a second option (access to the Terminator Weapons list).

 Bausk wrote:
Additionally the concept of order of operations is not something that is in the rules, so take a step back and just look at it from a different perspective without subjective concepts.

While I agree the concept is not explicitly in the rules it very much is implicitly, as we can see in the datasheet for Space Marine Bike Squads. Bike Squads have the following wargear:

-Bolt Pistol
-Frag grenades
-Krak grenades
-Space Marine Bike

They have the option to replace their bolt pistol with a chainsword for free, and then up to two Space Marine Bikers may each take one item from the Special Weapons list. What does the Special Weapons list say about taking items?

"A model may replace his Melee weapon or boltgun with one of the following:"

Necessarily we must accept there's a RAI order of operations for Space Marine Bikers to take items from the Special Weapons list, i.e. they may exchange their bolt pistol with a chainsword (a Melee weapon) and then replace that with a special weapon from the Special Weapons list.

This of course is what muddies the waters when it comes to the idea of giving an Apothecary a Meltagun, for example. Although it's a slightly different issue in that it's discussing options for a named model type being given to a model type that is no longer the same model type (although once was).

With your example you state options that are specifically for the Space Marine Biker profile. Reviewing your example without an order of operations is simple. Its no different to the previous example in the thread about the Space Marine Captian profile, the options are available to his profile specifically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Point being, its more about what is valid for the profile. Even as the profile changes with options, as with the captain's profile changing to a bike thus removing options like TDA. Which is a prime example of why an apothicary cannot have a veterans option. The profile has changed and it removes the ability to take options at all. Its fairly plain when you look at profiles that have a multitude of options, many will limit or change optipns available as the profile changes.

Based on GW's past ruling I would say it does not work (see 4th edition Orks and 5th edition Blood Angels).

Until such a time GW releases an FAQ that does allow it, I will stick with their previous intent that is not allowed.

 Happyjew wrote:
Based on GW's past ruling I would say it does not work (see 4th edition Orks and 5th edition Blood Angels).

Until such a time GW releases an FAQ that does allow it, I will stick with their previous intent that is not allowed.

Ah yes, thanks Happy. I forgot all about the old Ork Boy to Nob FAQ. Same exact situation, Ork Boyz had an option to take a Big Shoota or Rokkit Lancha etc and also had an option to upgrade one Ork Boy to a Nob. People argued the same points of order of operations and such. But the same undeniable fact remained that the Nob is an entirely different profile to an Ork Boy, thus GW ruled that options from the "previous" profile did not carry over as they were not options available to a Nob.

 Bausk wrote:
Same exact situation, Ork Boyz had an option to take a Big Shoota or Rokkit Lancha etc and also had an option to upgrade one Ork Boy to a Nob. People argued the same points of order of operations and such.

Actually that was a different situation, IIRC. The profiles were for an 'Ork Nob' and an 'Ork Boy' while the upgrade was available for an 'Ork' which the FAQ clarified as basically meaning 'any Ork model'.

EDIT: Found my old codex. The profiles are listed as 'Boy, 'Ard Boy, Nob and 'Ard Boy Nob' and the upgrade in question says "For every ten Orks in the mob, one Ork may exchange his slugga or shoota for..."

 Bausk wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Based on GW's past ruling I would say it does not work (see 4th edition Orks and 5th edition Blood Angels).

Until such a time GW releases an FAQ that does allow it, I will stick with their previous intent that is not allowed.

Ah yes, thanks Happy. I forgot all about the old Ork Boy to Nob FAQ. Same exact situation, Ork Boyz had an option to take a Big Shoota or Rokkit Lancha etc and also had an option to upgrade one Ork Boy to a Nob. People argued the same points of order of operations and such. But the same undeniable fact remained that the Nob is an entirely different profile to an Ork Boy, thus GW ruled that options from the "previous" profile did not carry over as they were not options available to a Nob.

Actually I was referring to a Nob upgrading to a Painboy (which is a much closer relationship to Apothecaries and Veterans). The FAQ specifically said that Painboyz could not take any upgrades, except for those taken at unit-level (such as bikes).

Haha yeah I was trying to remember what it was exactly and thought it was the painboy one first but thought I was deluded for remembering something so close to the current discussion. None the less same deal with the right profile names haha

But even there, the wording was slightly different and in the very best GW traditions, ambiguous. "One Nob may be a Painboy" could be construed as either "One Nob can be upgraded to a Painboy" or "One Nob can be replaced by a Painboy." The one-word reply from the GW FAQ implies the later interpretation is correct by the result given, but fails to make clear the logic behind the ruling.

Either interpretation of the wording still makes the Nob a Painboy though, so still changes the Nob profile to the Painboy profile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If it were worded "one nob may also be a painboy" then yes there would be a huge diffence as that implies the nob may have two profiles or being a painboy is simply an upgrade like the guard medics.

Creeperman wrote:
If timing and order of operations does not exist, and all options must be legal at all times, please explain how to build a Captain in Terminator armor with a combi-melta and a chainfist.

Note this is plainly intended to be possible, but only if you accept that one option (in this case TDA) can fully resolve and affect a second option (access to the Terminator Weapons list).

I missed this post earlier. Is the argument that all options must be legal at all times versus legal only at the time the option is taken? I thought the argument was that all options must be legal at the model's end state versus legal only at the time the option is taken.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I missed this post earlier. Is the argument that all options must be legal at all times versus legal only at the time the option is taken? I thought the argument was that all options must be legal at the model's end state versus legal only at the time the option is taken.

I am arguing that options need only be legal at the point you select them. My example highlights that otherwise, a Captain cannot select a chainfist, since he does not get access to the Terminator Weapons list until after he selects Terminator armor, and even if he did have such access he would not have a power sword to exchange for it.

Q.E.D., the game requires that some sense of timing and order of operations exists in list building.

Creeperman wrote:
I am arguing that options need only be legal at the point you select them. My example highlights that otherwise, a Captain cannot select a chainfist, since he does not get access to the Terminator Weapons list until after he selects Terminator armor, and even if he did have such access he would not have a power sword to exchange for it.

Q.E.D., the game requires that some sense of timing and order of operations exists in list building.

By that logic a Space Marine Captain or Chapter Master with Space Marine Bike/Jump Pack and Terminator Armour is legal then, despite the restriction stated in the two former options.

"A Space Marine Bike/Jump Pack can't be taken by models wearing Terminator Armour, but I took the Space Marine Bike/Jump Pack before I gave him Terminator Armour. Terminator Armour doesn't say it can't be taken by models with a Space Marine Bike/Jump Pack!"

While clearly as you point out there must be an order of operations, that is absolutely not to say that necessarily options need only be legal in the order you select them, as my example shows.

"the game requires that some sense of timing and order of operation exists in list building" ≠ "you only need to check the legality of the option against the model's state when you take it and not versus any susbequent options or upgrades"

Hence the sensible conclusion being that all options must comply with the model's end state.

Does taking TDA remove all weapons and give none? I'm not up on the latest SM dexs wording.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
By that logic a Space Marine Captain or Chapter Master with Space Marine Bike/Jump Pack and Terminator Armour is legal then, despite the restriction stated in the two former options.

"A Space Marine Bike/Jump Pack can't be taken by models wearing Terminator Armour, but I took the Space Marine Bike/Jump Pack before I gave him Terminator Armour. Terminator Armour doesn't say it can't be taken by models with a Space Marine Bike/Jump Pack!"

While clearly as you point out there must be an order of operations, that is absolutely not to say that necessarily options need only be legal in the order you select them, as my example shows.

"the game requires that some sense of timing and order of operation exists in list building" ≠ "you only need to check the legality of the option against the model's state when you take it and not versus any susbequent options or upgrades"

Hence the sensible conclusion being that all options must comply with the model's end state.

Jump Packing Terminator characters are more of an indictment of GW's sloppy editing than anything else. At least there's some kind of exclusionary language there letting you know that it's probably not supposed to be legal, even though it (very) technically is.

I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion reached in this example, but I'd like to know where you're getting the definition of "compliant with the model's end state?" Is it just tracing through the path of options chosen in a legal manner, or is this a fuzzy RAI concept subject to varying interpretation?

Bausk wrote:Does taking TDA remove all weapons and give none? I'm not up on the latest SM dexs wording.

Taking Terminator Armour exchanges bolt pistol, chainsword and grenades, off the top of my head.

Creeperman wrote:Jump Packing Terminator characters are more of an indictment of GW's sloppy editing than anything else. At least there's some kind of exclusionary language there letting you know that it's probably not supposed to be legal, even though it (very) technically is.

I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion reached in this example, but I'd like to know where you're getting the definition of "compliant with the model's end state?" Is it just tracing through the path of options chosen in a legal manner, or is this a fuzzy RAI concept subject to varying interpretation?

As I think I said earlier we've got either of two ways of reading what's there. Either we assume options are taken and are checked only against the model at the time of being selected and are not bound by any subsequent options, or we assume options are taken and must be checked against both the model's current state and any subsequent options.

One of these complies with RAW stating, "Any Veteran may..." and never has to try to answer why model type B has options stated as being for model type A. The other assumes that when the rules say, "Any Veteran..." they mean something beyond what is simply stated.

Does that not strike you as simple RAW versus more RAI, respectively?

 Mr. Shine wrote:
As I think I said earlier we've got either of two ways of reading what's there. Either we assume options are taken and are checked only against the model at the time of being selected and are not bound by any subsequent options, or we assume options are taken and must be checked against both the model's current state and any subsequent options.

One of these complies with RAW stating, "Any Veteran may..." and never has to try to answer why model type B has options stated as being for model type A. The other assumes that when the rules say, "Any Veteran..." they mean something beyond what is simply stated.

Does that not strike you as simple RAW versus more RAI, respectively?

What you're describing seems to be not looking forwards at subsequent options, but looking backwards at the preceding ones. There's no RAW way to do that without running afoul of the restrictions you met the first time through but no longer satisfy because you made another equipment selection (i.e., trading power armor and chainsword for TDA and power sword, then trading power sword for chainfist). If you're only looking forwards, then jump pack first still never interferes with TDA later.