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.

"Upgrade" in this case is very distinct from "exchange" or "replace." If the option entry read "May replace one Wolf Scout with a Wolf Guard Pack Leader" or "The unit may be joined by a Wolf Guard Pack Leader" we would not be having this debate, because it would be clear which state the WGPL model is in at the time he was added.

But since I never got an answer the last time I asked this, I will try asking again. By strict adherence to the logic of "backwards legality," can anyone demonstrate how we take the Pack Leader upgrade?

The option to upgrade is specific to Wolf Scouts, and the moment a model takes the upgrade, that model is no longer a Scout, and is thus ineligible to select the Pack Leader upgrade he just selected. How do you resolve this conundrum?

Rasko wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
If so, is a generic CCW better than the pistol that certain marines come with, and can be replaced?

I don't quite follow in how a CCW being better than a pistol will change anything...

From what I understand, one of the arguments is that the rules are using the definition of upgrade to be "to get something better than what you had originally." If so, then the option to upgrade a unit with pistols to have generic CCWs means that the generic CCWs are better than pistols.

Zarius wrote:
Second, if it's upgrading the whole unit, then why does it specify ONE scout gets an UPGRADE.

When we say unit upgrade, we are not saying, 'the whole unit must get the upgrade'. How does that even make sense in the context of the argument?
When we say unit upgrade, we are using it exactly the same context as everyone else here. That the unit is upgraded...

Zarius wrote:
Let's go for a logical approach here. If you want to upgrade a scout unit, are you a) going to ram some slob in there that has NO clue how to be stealthy or use a sniper rifle (which are two of the main functions of scouts, based on gear allotments) or b) take the BEST member of a scout unit and promote HIM, so that he can improve current scouts and teach new scouts? (I'll give you a hint, you don't have a group of ANYTHING lead by someone who doesn't know the first thing about that thing).

Someone on the other side of the argument.... Please tell him how he is wrong here. He is using IRL skill progression as a counter-argument to a game.
He won't accept any criticism on the matter from me, because he wants to be right. Can one of you please tell him that it is not how the game works?

 Happyjew wrote:
From what I understand, one of the arguments is that the rules are using the definition of upgrade to be "to get something better than what you had originally." If so, then the option to upgrade a unit with pistols to have generic CCWs means that the generic CCWs are better than pistols.

Ok. Can I play Devil's Advocate?
What if I consider a Wolf Scout better than the WGPL because of starting gear/special rules? The Wolf Scout could never be "promoted" to a WGPL. It would not even be a possibility. The game breaks if we take your stance.

Creeperman wrote:
"Upgrade" in this case is very distinct from "exchange" or "replace." If the option entry read "May replace one Wolf Scout with a Wolf Guard Pack Leader" or "The unit may be joined by a Wolf Guard Pack Leader" we would not be having this debate, because it would be clear which state the WGPL model is in at the time he was added.

But since I never got an answer the last time I asked this, I will try asking again. By strict adherence to the logic of "backwards legality," can anyone demonstrate how we take the Pack Leader upgrade?

The option to upgrade is specific to Wolf Scouts, and the moment a model takes the upgrade, that model is no longer a Scout, and is thus ineligible to select the Pack Leader upgrade he just selected. How do you resolve this conundrum?

Simple. It is a upgrade to the unit.

Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points cost for each.

You are never going through a process of "promotion". You have upgraded from 5 Wolf Scouts to 4 Wolf Scouts and a WGPL. This is shown in the above quote by upgrades adding to the unit. Not the model.

Zarius wrote:

Charistoph, read that whole post. I actually specifically SAID that a model upgrade is a unit upgrade.

Sorry, I forgot to put in a more obvious transition from specific response to general response. This has been corrected.

I just found it a little silly that some were presenting a concept of one upgrade type excluding the other.

 Happyjew wrote:

Rasko wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
If so, is a generic CCW better than the pistol that certain marines come with, and can be replaced?

I don't quite follow in how a CCW being better than a pistol will change anything...

From what I understand, one of the arguments is that the rules are using the definition of upgrade to be "to get something better than what you had originally." If so, then the option to upgrade a unit with pistols to have generic CCWs means that the generic CCWs are better than pistols.

Do you have a quote?

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Rasko wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
If so, is a generic CCW better than the pistol that certain marines come with, and can be replaced?

I don't quite follow in how a CCW being better than a pistol will change anything...

From what I understand, one of the arguments is that the rules are using the definition of upgrade to be "to get something better than what you had originally." If so, then the option to upgrade a unit with pistols to have generic CCWs means that the generic CCWs are better than pistols.

Do you have a quote?

No, which is why I asked you if my assumption was correct.

Creeperman wrote:
"Upgrade" in this case is very distinct from "exchange" or "replace." If the option entry read "May replace one Wolf Scout with a Wolf Guard Pack Leader" or "The unit may be joined by a Wolf Guard Pack Leader" we would not be having this debate, because it would be clear which state the WGPL model is in at the time he was added.

But since I never got an answer the last time I asked this, I will try asking again. By strict adherence to the logic of "backwards legality," can anyone demonstrate how we take the Pack Leader upgrade?

The option to upgrade is specific to Wolf Scouts, and the moment a model takes the upgrade, that model is no longer a Scout, and is thus ineligible to select the Pack Leader upgrade he just selected. How do you resolve this conundrum?

Backwards legality is a great house rule. But it won't help in a RAW argument unless you find that somewhere in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Rasko wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
If so, is a generic CCW better than the pistol that certain marines come with, and can be replaced?

I don't quite follow in how a CCW being better than a pistol will change anything...

From what I understand, one of the arguments is that the rules are using the definition of upgrade to be "to get something better than what you had originally." If so, then the option to upgrade a unit with pistols to have generic CCWs means that the generic CCWs are better than pistols.

Do you have a quote?

No, which is why I asked you if my assumption was correct.

What is the relevance if you are making up a scenario?

He is implying that he thinks CCW's are worse than Pistols.
Which means it is not an upgrade. Which means the meaning breaks.

A poor argument because it can literally just be thrown right back. I consider Wolf Scout to be better than the WGPL because of the special rules/wargear. The promotion can't be considered an upgrade. Which means the meaning breaks.

Our personal opinions mean nothing.

"All Wolf Scouts in the unit may take camo cloaks…2 pts/model" This is UNIT only upgrade. You can't make one Scout model in the unit have a cloak and NOT have all 4-10 units.

"Any Wolf Scout may replace his boltgun with a:" This is a model specific upgrade, because you can do this anywhere between 0 and 10 times, at whim. This applies to one, and only one, model at a time, because you CHOOSE which model. Infact, if you take just one sniper and a plasma pistol AND you decide to take a Special Weapon, you have to decide whether all three of those are going on one model, or if you're going to spread them out. If all three are on one model, your unit can't USE all three in one Shooting phase.

The difference between a Unit upgrade, meaning an upgrade that only affects the unit, and a model upgrade is whether you have to apply it to more than one unit at a pop (cloak) or if you can chose how many/which models GET that upgrade.

HappyJew actually, you're slightly wrong. The rule for Generic Melee is that ALL models are considered to have a generic CCW, which operates under the profile of Range - Str U AP -

I suppose that, TECHNICALLY, that means that ANY unit could use the Swap Melee Weapon for -blarf- rule, regardless. Assuming it's an allowed option.

col_impact wrote:

Creeperman wrote:
"Upgrade" in this case is very distinct from "exchange" or "replace." If the option entry read "May replace one Wolf Scout with a Wolf Guard Pack Leader" or "The unit may be joined by a Wolf Guard Pack Leader" we would not be having this debate, because it would be clear which state the WGPL model is in at the time he was added.

But since I never got an answer the last time I asked this, I will try asking again. By strict adherence to the logic of "backwards legality," can anyone demonstrate how we take the Pack Leader upgrade?

The option to upgrade is specific to Wolf Scouts, and the moment a model takes the upgrade, that model is no longer a Scout, and is thus ineligible to select the Pack Leader upgrade he just selected. How do you resolve this conundrum?

Backwards legality is a great house rule. But it won't help in a RAW argument unless you find that somewhere in the rules.

Which is of course my point exactly. Insisting that an upgrade be legal to take again after it has already been taken once is a house rule, because there is no rules support for adjudicating it that way.

Except, Col, that Backwards legality is one of the arguments being used here, so if that's the case, why are you arguing FOR my side?

I really hope you understand the discussion going on...

Zarius wrote:
Except, Col, that Backwards legality is one of the arguments being used here, so if that's the case, why are you arguing FOR my side?

I am not using Backwards Legality as an argument.

Your argument falls apart because it does not have rules support. It also falls apart because it is propped up on taking one definition of upgrade arbitrarily over another instead of letting the context of the rules decide which definition is appropriate.

The rules tell us that Options are unit upgrades.

So the Option to upgrade a Wolf Scout into a WPGL is the Option for the unit to get WPGL model instead of the Wolf Scout model the unit originally had.

If you mean me, yes. Backwards legality, meaning that every time you take an upgrade, you have to go BACK and check that a) the upgrade you took doesn't interfere with a previous upgrade and b) old upgrades aren't rendered illegal by the new upgrade.

Certain logical exceptions would apply (you can't replace one bolt pistol twice, because you no longer HAVE a bolt pistol), but outside of the brutally obvious, backwards legality isn't specifically defined in the manual as a thing. Which is one of the arguments YOU'VE made against it.

Creeperman wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Creeperman wrote:
"Upgrade" in this case is very distinct from "exchange" or "replace." If the option entry read "May replace one Wolf Scout with a Wolf Guard Pack Leader" or "The unit may be joined by a Wolf Guard Pack Leader" we would not be having this debate, because it would be clear which state the WGPL model is in at the time he was added.

But since I never got an answer the last time I asked this, I will try asking again. By strict adherence to the logic of "backwards legality," can anyone demonstrate how we take the Pack Leader upgrade?

The option to upgrade is specific to Wolf Scouts, and the moment a model takes the upgrade, that model is no longer a Scout, and is thus ineligible to select the Pack Leader upgrade he just selected. How do you resolve this conundrum?

Backwards legality is a great house rule. But it won't help in a RAW argument unless you find that somewhere in the rules.

Which is of course my point exactly. Insisting that an upgrade be legal to take again after it has already been taken once is a house rule, because there is no rules support for adjudicating it that way.

My point is the rules state that it's a unit upgrade.



So the unit of scouts is upgraded by getting a WPGL model instead of the Wolf Scout model the unit originally had.

Col, the context of the rules could mean ANY of the three definitions. Conventions of the English language therefore dictate that you use the FIRST definition, as the most commonly used one.

Zarius wrote:
If you mean me, yes. Backwards legality, meaning that every time you take an upgrade, you have to go BACK and check that a) the upgrade you took doesn't interfere with a previous upgrade and b) old upgrades aren't rendered illegal by the new upgrade.

Certain logical exceptions would apply (you can't replace one bolt pistol twice, because you no longer HAVE a bolt pistol), but outside of the brutally obvious, backwards legality isn't specifically defined in the manual as a thing. Which is one of the arguments YOU'VE made against it.

Yup. I tend to stick to RAW unless something can simply be dismissed as absurd (reductio ad absurdem). For example, you throw out lines of reasoning that lead to a radically unplayable game.

Col, Rasko, could you BOTH stop using the Spoilers thing? Seriously, I'm about to stop accepting ANYTHING the both of you put inside them. There AREN'T any spoilers there, so knock it off.

Zarius wrote:
Col, the context of the rules could mean ANY of the three definitions. Conventions of the English language therefore dictate that you use the FIRST definition, as the most commonly used one.

Incorrect. The rules clearly state that we are dealing with a unit upgrade so the 3rd definition is the only one that makes sense of that context. Units don't get promoted.

Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points cost for each.

How does that mean anything else than the unit...

Zarius wrote:
Conventions of the English language therefore dictate that you use the FIRST definition, as the most commonly used one.

No it doesn't... Where is this "life" rulebook you have. I would like to read it.

So by extension, you are now arguing that a unit of Wolf Scouts cannot have both camo cloaks and sniper rifles. After all, your new argument states that we must first upgrade our 5-man bolter scouts to a 5-man bolter and camo scout unit, but then our next upgrade can only target the basic unit profile listed on the datasheet, resulting in 5 scouts with sniper rifles and no camo cloaks.

I suppose this argument is at least consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent.

Creeperman wrote:
So by extension, you are now arguing that a unit of Wolf Scouts cannot have both camo cloaks and sniper rifles. After all, your new argument states that we must first upgrade our 5-man bolter scouts to a 5-man bolter and camo scout unit, but then our next upgrade can only target the basic unit profile listed on the datasheet, resulting in 5 scouts with sniper rifles and no camo cloaks.

I suppose this argument is at least consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent.

The upgrades on the ALE are unit upgrades per the Options rule. Unit upgrades can involve changes at any level beneath the unit level.

If the Option adds a camo cloak and a sniper rile to a scout, the unit has been upgraded to 4 scouts with boltguns and 1 scout with a camo cloak and sniper rifle.

Where did you get the idea that the unit composition never changes?

Unit Composition: This section will show the number and type of models that make up the basic unit, before any upgrades have been taken.

The unit composition will change after upgrades are taken...

Rasko wrote:
Where did you get the idea that the unit composition never changes?

From your insistence that a unit upgrade somehow resets the wargear of the existing models, in re the WGPL. You can't have it both ways. Either upgrades can build on each other (which renders this model vs unit upgrade argument meaningless), or they can't, and multiple upgrades can't be taken. So which is it?

Creeperman wrote:

Rasko wrote:
Where did you get the idea that the unit composition never changes?

From your insistence that a unit upgrade somehow resets the wargear of the existing models, in re the WGPL. You can't have it both ways. Either upgrades can build on each other (which renders this model vs unit upgrade argument meaningless), or they can't, and multiple upgrades can't be taken. So which is it?

False dichotomy.

All of the choices are unit upgrades and factor in to the final composition of the unit.

I have a unit of scouts that has been upgraded to 9 scouts (3 of which have camo cloaks, 2 of which have sniper rifles) and 1 WPGL.

col_impact wrote:

Creeperman wrote:

Rasko wrote:
Where did you get the idea that the unit composition never changes?

From your insistence that a unit upgrade somehow resets the wargear of the existing models, in re the WGPL. You can't have it both ways. Either upgrades can build on each other (which renders this model vs unit upgrade argument meaningless), or they can't, and multiple upgrades can't be taken. So which is it?

False dichotomy.

All of the choices are unit upgrades and factor in to the final composition of the unit.

I have a unit of scouts that has been upgraded to 9 scouts (3 of which have camo cloaks, 2 of which have sniper rifles) and 1 WPGL.

If by "false dichotomy" you mean "the root of the issue under discussion," then yes.

I have a unit of 5 scouts, all of whom have camo cloaks and sniper rifles. Then I select the WGPL upgrade. Result: 4 sniper scouts with camo, plus 1 WGPL with camo and sniper rifle. I'm glad you finally agree with me.

Creeperman wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Creeperman wrote:

Rasko wrote:
Where did you get the idea that the unit composition never changes?

From your insistence that a unit upgrade somehow resets the wargear of the existing models, in re the WGPL. You can't have it both ways. Either upgrades can build on each other (which renders this model vs unit upgrade argument meaningless), or they can't, and multiple upgrades can't be taken. So which is it?

False dichotomy.

All of the choices are unit upgrades and factor in to the final composition of the unit.

I have a unit of scouts that has been upgraded to 9 scouts (3 of which have camo cloaks, 2 of which have sniper rifles) and 1 WPGL.

If by "false dichotomy" you mean "the root of the issue under discussion," then yes.

I have a unit of 5 scouts, all of whom have camo cloaks and sniper rifles. Then I select the WGPL upgrade. Result: 4 sniper scouts with camo, plus 1 WGPL with camo and sniper rifle. I'm glad you finally agree with me.

Incorrect. That scout got replaced by the WPGL model when you upgraded the unit with that option.

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. That scout got replaced by the WPGL model when you upgraded the unit with that option.

Please cite rules that instruct you to "replace" a model when taking an upgrade. Alternatively, explain how your unit of 9 scouts with 3 camo cloaks doesn't get replaced by your unit of 9 scouts with 2 sniper rifles.

Creeperman wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. That scout got replaced by the WPGL model when you upgraded the unit with that option.

Please cite rules that instruct you to "replace" a model when taking an upgrade. Alternatively, explain how your unit of 9 scouts with 3 camo cloaks doesn't get replaced by your unit of 9 scouts with 2 sniper rifles.

There is something that tells us upgrade means 'replace' right here.
Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points cost for each.

This shows us we add to the unit, not the model. Therefore meaning the model is not 'promoted/transformed'.

Rasko wrote:

Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points cost for each.

Doesn't this contradict that it is a model upgrade. It says that it is a unit upgrade.
You will upgrade from 5 Wolf Scouts to 4 Wolf Scouts and 1 WGPL.

It is an upgrade to a model, it is also an upgrade to the unit...

It is both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. That scout got replaced by the WPGL model when you upgraded the unit with that option.

Incorrect, the scout got upgraded to the WGPL.

It literally says this in the rules.

"May upgrade one Wolf Scout to Wolf Guard Pack Leader..."

Not replace, Upgrade.