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 Ork Kommando rules, we have

Up to 2 models may replace their slugga with one of the following....Rokkit, Big Soota, Burna

Then the next line is

One model may be upgraded to a Boss Nob

So...It looks to me like a Burna can be upgraded to the Nob. It makes it much more survivable, with 2 wounds and LoS! Kind of a point sink on an already marginal unit, but it might be fun in friendly games. Anyone try that?

Where is the rules question?

Just whether or not the burna could actually be the Nob.

I guess it seems clear enough that there wouldn't be any argument, but I've never heard anyone doing it so I was wondering if I missed something.

if it says 'model may replace'
then a nob or boy is a model in the unit. So you do not have to worry about order of operations making something valid, because upgrading a boy with a burna then upgrading a boy to a nob would have the same rules result as upgrading a nob then upgrading the nobs weapon (nob is a model) to a burna. Both would be legitimate.

 JimOnMars wrote:
In the Ork Kommando rules, we have

Up to 2 models may replace their slugga with one of the following....Rokkit, Big Soota, Burna

Then the next line is

One model may be upgraded to a Boss Nob

So...It looks to me like a Burna can be upgraded to the Nob. It makes it much more survivable, with 2 wounds and LoS! Kind of a point sink on an already marginal unit, but it might be fun in friendly games. Anyone try that?

You may wish to check the wording in the codex:

Up to two Kommandos may replace their sluggas with one of the following:

Then it becomes a question of "can I replace the burner, THEN upgrade to a Nob" and Orks have a history with this kind of ordering.

You will never get a consensus on this forum. This pops up every month or so and it ends with a mod lock after several pages of bickering.

My take is that yes, you can.

The second option is "Up to two Kommandos may replace their sluggas with one of the following:" with three weapons listed. I decide to do this and give a Kommando a Burna.

The third option is "One model may be upgraded to a Boss Nob".

Is the Kommando with the Burna a model? If yes, then he can be upgraded to a Boss Nob.

Here's where the breakdown occurs. Does the extra equipment carry over, or is part of being upgraded to a Boss Nob changing to a Boss Nob's default equipment? If you think you can carry over equipment during a profile upgrade, go for it. If you think the a profile upgrade has a corresponding new set of wargear, you can't keep the Burna. RaW really has nothing to say on the matter.

My take is no. Why the specific difference in wording ('Kommando' instead of 'model') if there's no difference?

 Ghaz wrote:
My take is no. Why the specific difference in wording ('Kommando' instead of 'model') if there's no difference?

Bad rules writing as per normal?

We have instances where the rules say things like "Two Dudes can take a special weapon" followed by "One other model can take something else".

GW clearly knows HOW to write rules where the Boss Nob can't have a Burna. They just either don't realize it, don't do it consistently or don't care. My best guess is that they don't care so long as you're buying models.

Not bad rules writing, just not telling us when to validate our army list. I don't believe in the 'one and done' method of checking to see if an army list is legal, but its an ongoing process. An option has to be legal throughout the list building process from when the option was taken to when the list is complete and ready to be fielded.

I naturally would assume that the upgrade does not carry over as the model is taking on a new form. This does raise the question however that if you upgrade your burna wielding kommando to a Nob can said model still take a Powker Klaw to wield a PK and Burna?

Can a Nob in a standard boyz squad do the same with a big shoota?

As far as the the rules go I would assume you cant do that, but there is no clear wording that you cant. It seems more like an implied limitation.

I personally would have zero problem with someone doing that with their Orks as I think its pretty cool.

It comes down to if you read the rules as being able to do things in a certain order, or if the end result fits the options.

Ie if you can do them in order, then it's ok.

If you can't do them in order then you end up with a nib with burna which is not a kommando which are what gave the option to have burnas.

There's no actua blatantl ruling on which is correct.

When I play I pick the latter interpretation, as it seems less exploitive. But that's HIWPI

blaktoof wrote:
It comes down to if you read the rules as being able to do things in a certain order, or if the end result fits the options.

Ie if you can do them in order, then it's ok.

If you can't do them in order then you end up with a nib with burna which is not a kommando which are what gave the option to have burnas.

There's no actua blatantl ruling on which is correct.

When I play I pick the latter interpretation, as it seems less exploitive. But that's HIWPI

I always pick the 'do them in order' option as it fits with how the English language is read. Left to right, top to bottom.

Also, we have examples in the rules where certain options can NEVER be taken if you require a validation of every option at every step. The shining example of this has historically been the Space Marine Bikers who first needed to exchange their Bolt Pistols for Chainswords so that they could subsequently exchange their melee weapon for something else. Validating every option at every step makes this impossible, so it's probably not how the authors are expecting you to choose options.

Not sure about other groups, but the ones I've seen play 'model' as sarge/nob or regular trooper. But if it names a trooper type specifically then only they can take it.

Do other groups actual play it the other way?

 Kriswall wrote:
Also, we have examples in the rules where certain options can NEVER be taken if you require a validation of every option at every step. The shining example of this has historically been the Space Marine Bikers who first needed to exchange their Bolt Pistols for Chainswords so that they could subsequently exchange their melee weapon for something else. Validating every option at every step makes this impossible, so it's probably not how the authors are expecting you to choose options.

How do you come to that conclusion? If you have to trade X for Y so that you can trade Y for Z then the only way you'll have a problem is if you ignored the trade for Y and just look at it as trading X for Z. If you do that, you're not validating the entire process.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Also, we have examples in the rules where certain options can NEVER be taken if you require a validation of every option at every step. The shining example of this has historically been the Space Marine Bikers who first needed to exchange their Bolt Pistols for Chainswords so that they could subsequently exchange their melee weapon for something else. Validating every option at every step makes this impossible, so it's probably not how the authors are expecting you to choose options.

How do you come to that conclusion? If you have to trade X for Y so that you can trade Y for Z then the only way you'll have a problem is if you ignored the trade for Y and just look at it as trading X for Z. If you do that, you're not validating the entire process.

I'm not sure I'm explaining myself correctly. In any case, it's proof that options are taken sequentially with a new state existing (however briefly) between option selections.

You can absolutely give a Kommando a Burna and then subsequently upgrade that Kommando to be a Nob.

The real question is whether or not upgrading a model to a Nob would reset that model's wargear to a Nob's default wargear. The rules give us no guidance, so we'll never reach a RaW consensus.

HIWPI Nob can take a burna.

My take is that people misinterpret the word "Upgrade" in this context. A lot of people look at it as "You can upgrade your Ford pickup truck to a 5 litre engine." It's still the same truck, you keep all the other bits, just the engine changes (So whatever the boy has, the "upgraded" boy, now called a nob, has.) I read "Upgrade" in this context to be "You can upgrade your Ford Pickup truck to a Chevrolet." In this context "Upgrade" is equivalent to "Replace", meaning you'd carry over nothing. I believe that's the intent.

If you think about it in a physical way too, i.e you put 10 boys on the table, two can "take" burna's - cool, you swap the arms out on 2 to give them burnas - one can "upgrade" to a nob - a nob is a different model entirely, so you take a boy off and place a nob model down.

Not suggesting i'm right and everyone else is wrong, there are 2 readings that both have a claim at validity, just explaining my stance.

NickAtkins wrote:
My take is that people misinterpret the word "Upgrade" in this context. A lot of people look at it as "You can upgrade your Ford pickup truck to a 5 litre engine." It's still the same truck, you keep all the other bits, just the engine changes (So whatever the boy has, the "upgraded" boy, now called a nob, has.) I read "Upgrade" in this context to be "You can upgrade your Ford Pickup truck to a Chevrolet." In this context "Upgrade" is equivalent to "Replace", meaning you'd carry over nothing. I believe that's the intent.

If you think about it in a physical way too, i.e you put 10 boys on the table, two can "take" burna's - cool, you swap the arms out on 2 to give them burnas - one can "upgrade" to a nob - a nob is a different model entirely, so you take a boy off and place a nob model down.

Not suggesting i'm right and everyone else is wrong, there are 2 readings that both have a claim at validity, just explaining my stance.

Upgrade doesn't mean replacing the whole. It can mean replacing a component... in this case, the name and profile of the model, but nothing else. as nothing else is mentioned.

up·grade
verb
ˈəpˌɡrād,ˌəpˈɡrād/
1.
raise (something) to a higher standard, in particular improve (equipment or machinery) by adding or replacing components.

 Kriswall wrote:

NickAtkins wrote:
My take is that people misinterpret the word "Upgrade" in this context. A lot of people look at it as "You can upgrade your Ford pickup truck to a 5 litre engine." It's still the same truck, you keep all the other bits, just the engine changes (So whatever the boy has, the "upgraded" boy, now called a nob, has.) I read "Upgrade" in this context to be "You can upgrade your Ford Pickup truck to a Chevrolet." In this context "Upgrade" is equivalent to "Replace", meaning you'd carry over nothing. I believe that's the intent.

If you think about it in a physical way too, i.e you put 10 boys on the table, two can "take" burna's - cool, you swap the arms out on 2 to give them burnas - one can "upgrade" to a nob - a nob is a different model entirely, so you take a boy off and place a nob model down.

Not suggesting i'm right and everyone else is wrong, there are 2 readings that both have a claim at validity, just explaining my stance.

Upgrade doesn't mean replacing the whole. It can mean replacing a component... in this case, the name and profile of the model, but nothing else. as nothing else is mentioned.

up·grade
verb
ˈəpˌɡrād,ˌəpˈɡrād/
1.
raise (something) to a higher standard, in particular improve (equipment or machinery) by adding or replacing components.

Actually when applied as a noun it does mean replace (It looks like the quote you provided is from Google, if so check the text directly below the excerpt you C&P'd) and assuming the text in the Ork codex follows other 7th ed codex's it will read: “May upgrade the/one 'X' to a 'X'…'X' pts”, meaning you are told to replace it.