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.

HondaDaBest wrote:

Zarius wrote:
TECHNICALLY, that's true. But part of the problem here is that the bike wouldn't PHYSICALLY be able to run with a terminator on it.

Holy Face Palm....
We need to put a stop to this right now.
Please, someone explain to this man that this is not IRL. It does not follow IRL physics because it is not IRL.
He keeps using IRL mechanics as a counter-argument. Kriswall, I know that you do not believe this. We might be arguing but I know that we both know this... It seems he might listen to you.
Please tell this person that it is not how it works.

So, if that's not how it works, then explain to me why there are sections in MANY special rules that explain that '<blab blah> represents a unit <thingymcnugget>"? Such as the "Look out, Sir" rule. THAT is describing the real life equivalent of what the rule represents. It it unreasonable to then make a logical leap as to why a terminator wouldn't be allowed a bike in a unit that gets them?

Zarius wrote:
Also, being a jack(&^ when someone is actually being swayed by your arguments is stupid, and a great way to loose that support.

This isn't a matter settled by popular vote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zarius wrote:

HondaDaBest wrote:

Zarius wrote:
TECHNICALLY, that's true. But part of the problem here is that the bike wouldn't PHYSICALLY be able to run with a terminator on it.

Holy Face Palm....
We need to put a stop to this right now.
Please, someone explain to this man that this is not IRL. It does not follow IRL physics because it is not IRL.
He keeps using IRL mechanics as a counter-argument. Kriswall, I know that you do not believe this. We might be arguing but I know that we both know this... It seems he might listen to you.
Please tell this person that it is not how it works.

So, if that's not how it works, then explain to me why there are sections in MANY special rules that explain that '<blab blah> represents a unit <thingymcnugget>"? Such as the "Look out, Sir" rule. THAT is describing the real life equivalent of what the rule represents. It it unreasonable to then make a logical leap as to why a terminator wouldn't be allowed a bike in a unit that gets them?

You need to follow the game logic at all times. You are not allowed to insert real life logic into the game at any time.

 Kriswall wrote:
You do realize that in rational debate that sometimes a person can be convinced to change their mind, right? You made a statement, I responded and then thought a little more and decided you might be right. I'm willing to admit when there is an ambiguity. None of us are experts. What I didn't do is question your character or laugh at your comments. Again, let's keep this about the debate and not make implied personal attacks. I literally admitted I might be wrong in the same post. Relax, dude. You'll live longer.

It was in two separate posts... You put the post out while I was typing mine...
I agree, lets keep this civil and about the debate and not automatically dismiss each others points, purely because we are on opposite sides.

 Kriswall wrote:
Yeah... Forge that Narrative, man. Drop Pods would probably pulp anybody inside. They're basically hitting a planet with the force of a meteor, yet somehow you can put an unarmored human inside one (allied IC with Sv -) and it walks out without so much as a scratch. The rules don't care what's "physically possible". This is a game. If the game says something can happen, it can happen. The rules technically allow many things that seem like they wouldn't work in a real world combat scenario.

Thank you...

col_impact wrote:

Zarius wrote:
Also, being a jack(&^ when someone is actually being swayed by your arguments is stupid, and a great way to loose that support.

This isn't a matter settled by popular vote.

And yet, when looking at the greater gaming community, we see that rules are more and more being decided and modified by popular vote. If you don't believe me, search the rules forum for ITC and enjoy some good reading about their voting process and how they use it to arbitrarily nerf non-ambiguous rules.

 Kriswall wrote:
And yet, when looking at the greater gaming community, we see that rules are more and more being decided and modified by popular vote. If you don't believe me, search the rules forum for ITC and enjoy some good reading about their voting process and how they use it to arbitrarily nerf non-ambiguous rules.

There is nothing wrong with that. He doesn't not believe you. No one does...

But we are trying to found out RAW on the matter.

Actually... you want me to use gaming logic? OK, gaming logic dictates that, unless a model is KILLED, I'm always operating with the same troopers in my unit. That means that that WPGL we were talking about? He IS, in fact, the scout that was upgraded. He hasn't lost his shooting skill. That means that, per game logic, he is still the same guy that upgraded, just with fancier armor. Why? Because game logic. The same game logic that lets you eat fruit on the ground ten feet away, through a prison cell.

Dude... Are you being serious?

Everyone just addressed the fact that this is not IRL and you use IRL skill progression as a counter-argument again...

No, I didn't. I used game logic. Pay attention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Game logic lets me pick up and eat fruit 10 feet away through a locked door without opening the door. Tell me to use game logic is like telling me to blank out half of the rules, at my own discression.

Zarius wrote:
No, I didn't. I used game logic. Pay attention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Game logic lets me pick up and eat fruit 10 feet away through a locked door without opening the door. Tell me to use game logic is like telling me to blank out half of the rules, at my own discression.

Since you won't listen to anything on this side of the argument, please read what Kriswall wrote again.

The game does not follow IRL skill progression because it is not IRL.

HondaDaBest wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
And yet, when looking at the greater gaming community, we see that rules are more and more being decided and modified by popular vote. If you don't believe me, search the rules forum for ITC and enjoy some good reading about their voting process and how they use it to arbitrarily nerf non-ambiguous rules.

There is nothing wrong with that. He doesn't not believe you. No one does...

But we are trying to found out RAW on the matter.

I was being snarky.

I honestly don't think there will be a RaW consensus. The core issue is twofold. Issue one is whether or not options have to be taken in the order they are listed. RaW has no comment on the matter and given that the list is unordered (i.e. bullet points and not numbered), regular old reading comprehension doesn't help either. The second issue is whether a given model loses any previous upgrades it has taken and "resets" its wargear to some default state when upgraded to a new profile. Again, RaW has nothing specific to say on the matter of resetting wargear. We're told to use a new profile, but profile specifically refers to the line with the name, WS, BS, etc. and doesn't refer to the Wargear section.

This is why I wrote in the 5th post that we're never coming to a consensus on this. The rules are vague and most of the arguing parties suffer from confirmation bias. We all KNOW how the rules work, so we can't see the ambiguities. I admit there are ambiguities and am really just arguing what I consider to be the most reasonable interpretation. I could easily be wrong, but would need an FAQ or Errata from GW to be sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zarius wrote:
No, I didn't. I used game logic. Pay attention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Game logic lets me pick up and eat fruit 10 feet away through a locked door without opening the door. Tell me to use game logic is like telling me to blank out half of the rules, at my own discression.

I have literally no idea what you're talking about. I don't recall a section in the core rulebook surrounding feeding the Troops. Presumably they ate before the battle? I mean, the Dark Eldar do drugs, but that's not the same thing!

I imagine you're actually speaking about poor programming in some video games wherein you're able to pick up items within X meters of the player, regardless of intervening obstacles. If the rules of that game allow it, they allow it. It's not really relevant to this discussion. We're discussing Warhammer 40k list building and not video game fruit collection.

No, no, Col told me to use game logic. I.E. broken logic to allow for the most simplistic approach possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honda, shut up. All you're doing is barfing out the same drivel over and over again. I mean that literally, you're just repeating yourself at this point.

... Um... Is anyone getting the sense that he has no idea what is going on?...

This is not meant in a disrespectful manner....

Yes, I do. I understand exactly what's going on. I'm being told to use game logic, then YOU mock me for doing exactly that. So, yeah, I got pissed when you keep repeating it.

Zarius wrote:
No, no, Col told me to use game logic. I.E. broken logic to allow for the most simplistic approach possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honda, shut up. All you're doing is barfing out the same drivel over and over again. I mean that literally, you're just repeating yourself at this point.

Zarius, please keep it professional. Personal attacks and things like 'shut up' will get this thread locked ASAP. I'm interested in discussing the rules and that can't happen when we're telling each other to shut up.

On Topic...

I don't think we're going to come to a consensus. We're probably due for a thread lock. This thing is circling the drain. As per normal, talk to your opponents.

Zarius is merely the comical exaggeration of the key shortcoming of your argument.

You are using real-world logic of "upgrade" as "promotion" to go against plainly stated rules.

When you adhere to the rules and treat the upgrades as unit upgrades there is no confusion or ambiguity in this manner.

The confusion comes from losing sight of how the rule is actually using upgrade.

I was talking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rules don't plainly state that you replace ANYTHING, except weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And THOSE specifically state "replace" or "trade"

Just an outsider here, but I think you're all wasting your time. When the rulebook doesn't contain the answer these threads should fall flat instantly, because all you have left is opinions.

I'm just saying, use your opinion if you want to. Discussing rules is fine, but that isn't what this looks like to me anymore, it's a contest of who can support their opinion the longest, until someone gives up or a mod swoops in and locks it up. Most of this argument is about which definition of upgrade you prefer.

It's kinda like arguing HIWPI endlessly... what's the point. No one has to change anyway. There's no actual rule to change anyone's mind in this circumstance and many others. There's hardly even anything to argue.

I'm probably annoying and off topic though, as well as functionless, so I'll duck out. My main point is that in alot of circumstances, HIWPI is all we have, and it's entirely pointless to beat a dead horse. The company you bought the rules from doesn't even care about them 5% as much as you do. But by all means carry on.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Just an outsider here, but I think you're all wasting your time. When the rulebook doesn't contain the answer these threads should fall flat instantly, because all you have left is opinions.

I'm just saying, use your opinion if you want to. Discussing rules is fine, but that isn't what this looks like to me anymore, it's a contest of who can support their opinion the longest, until someone gives up or a mod swoops in and locks it up. Most of this argument is about which definition of upgrade you prefer.

It's kinda like arguing HIWPI endlessly... what's the point. No one has to change anyway. There's no actual rule to change anyone's mind in this circumstance and many others. There's hardly even anything to argue.

I'm probably annoying and off topic though, as well as functionless, so I'll duck out. My main point is that in alot of circumstances, HIWPI is all we have, and it's entirely pointless to beat a dead horse. The company you bought the rules from doesn't even care about them 5% as much as you do. But by all means carry on.

You are probably correct.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Just an outsider here, but I think you're all wasting your time. When the rulebook doesn't contain the answer these threads should fall flat instantly, because all you have left is opinions.

I'm just saying, use your opinion if you want to. Discussing rules is fine, but that isn't what this looks like to me anymore, it's a contest of who can support their opinion the longest, until someone gives up or a mod swoops in and locks it up. Most of this argument is about which definition of upgrade you prefer.

It's kinda like arguing HIWPI endlessly... what's the point. No one has to change anyway. There's no actual rule to change anyone's mind in this circumstance and many others. There's hardly even anything to argue.

I'm probably annoying and off topic though, as well as functionless, so I'll duck out. My main point is that in alot of circumstances, HIWPI is all we have, and it's entirely pointless to beat a dead horse. The company you bought the rules from doesn't even care about them 5% as much as you do. But by all means carry on.

You're absolutely correct. This is more or less what I said in the 5th post of this thread. I'm still here because I work a cubicle job and have been watching a report generate for about 8 hours straight today. I have literally nothing better to do. Believe me, I'd much rather do just about anything else.

 Kriswall wrote:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Just an outsider here, but I think you're all wasting your time. When the rulebook doesn't contain the answer these threads should fall flat instantly, because all you have left is opinions.

I'm just saying, use your opinion if you want to. Discussing rules is fine, but that isn't what this looks like to me anymore, it's a contest of who can support their opinion the longest, until someone gives up or a mod swoops in and locks it up. Most of this argument is about which definition of upgrade you prefer.

It's kinda like arguing HIWPI endlessly... what's the point. No one has to change anyway. There's no actual rule to change anyone's mind in this circumstance and many others. There's hardly even anything to argue.

I'm probably annoying and off topic though, as well as functionless, so I'll duck out. My main point is that in alot of circumstances, HIWPI is all we have, and it's entirely pointless to beat a dead horse. The company you bought the rules from doesn't even care about them 5% as much as you do. But by all means carry on.

You're absolutely correct. This is more or less what I said in the 5th post of this thread. I'm still here because I work a cubicle job and have been watching a report generate for about 8 hours straight today. I have literally nothing better to do. Believe me, I'd much rather do just about anything else.

You could start naiiling scrap metal to your body

 Kriswall wrote:

Zarius wrote:
No, I didn't. I used game logic. Pay attention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Game logic lets me pick up and eat fruit 10 feet away through a locked door without opening the door. Tell me to use game logic is like telling me to blank out half of the rules, at my own discression.

I have literally no idea what you're talking about. I don't recall a section in the core rulebook surrounding feeding the Troops. Presumably they ate before the battle? I mean, the Dark Eldar do drugs, but that's not the same thing!

I imagine you're actually speaking about poor programming in some video games wherein you're able to pick up items within X meters of the player, regardless of intervening obstacles. If the rules of that game allow it, they allow it. It's not really relevant to this discussion. We're discussing Warhammer 40k list building and not video game fruit collection.

I honestly have gived up arguing with you, Zarius, about upgrades.

The only thing I want you to understand is that the game is not IRL. This is important because it will encompass every single rule you come about. It's not just about this ruling.

You can't use IRL skill progression or IRL logic as an argument in the game. That does not make any sense. If anything, this is the most important thing that you should take away from this argument. Not one person that you ever play with will agree with you on this. Since you have shown that you won't listen to this side, please read what Kriswall wrote here, and before. I hope that you can understand the difference between IRL logic and game logic because it encompasses every single rule in the game.

*facepaws* YES, I UNDERSTAND WHAT GAME LOGIC IS. NOW, STOP HARPING ABOUT IT.

He repeats it because it actually is that important. And you have shown a propensity for not understanding it by using it in an argument many times. You say you did, so we can be hopeful that you have.

At least you guys admit that you can have Terminator Armour Bikers through promotion. It is consistant and that's something I can respect.
Good luck arguing that with anyone though...
We might need to tell the community about this discovery. There hasn't been a single person in the world who thought it was possible.

Creeperman wrote:
So in other words, nothing at all. "Replacing" your 5 sniper scouts with 5 camouflaged sniper scouts is just as legal as "replacing" those 5 camouflaged sniper scouts with 4 camouflaged sniper scouts and 1 camouflaged sniper WGPL because both operations are explicitly permitted by the ALE options. I'm glad we finally straightened that out through rigorous reinterpretation and redefinition of the word "upgrade."

Not quite.
You have "upgraded" from 5 sniper scouts with camo to 4 sniper scouts with camo and 1 WGPL. When the WGPL joins the unit, it is not through a direct "promotion", as we've established. But through a unit that has been upgraded. That means that it will come with it's own starting gear, it's own stats, etc, etc. There is no carry-over because there is no "promotion". You have "upgraded" from 5 Sniper Scouts with camo to 4 Sniper Scouts with camo and 1 WGPL.

Like I said, Rasko, I understand the difference between a game and real life. Now, that said, certain things ARE complete BS, and I have to draw the line somewhere. I've SEEN terminator armor. I've SEEN biker models. The Terminator armor is larger than the bike. RL or no, it wouldn't work. Now, that (again) said, I'd allow it to be used as a weapon. Meaning, I'd allow the terminator to pick it up and hit people with it.

BUT, from a purely rules stand point, the way the rules are written, yes, I'd allow the terminator biker under the same line of logic as allowing a sniper rifle on a WGPL in a scout unit.

Zarius wrote:
Like I said, Rasko, I understand the difference between a game and real life. Now, that said, certain things ARE complete BS, and I have to draw the line somewhere. I've SEEN terminator armor. I've SEEN biker models. The Terminator armor is larger than the bike. RL or no, it wouldn't work. Now, that (again) said, I'd allow it to be used as a weapon. Meaning, I'd allow the terminator to pick it up and hit people with it.

BUT, from a purely rules stand point, the way the rules are written, yes, I'd allow the terminator biker under the same line of logic as allowing a sniper rifle on a WGPL in a scout unit.

Go on. Are there other examples of things you allow in the game?

You are doing wonders for the credibility of your side of the argument.

You say you have understood it and directly contradict yourself...

Zarius wrote:
Like I said, Rasko, I understand the difference between a game and real life. Now, that said, certain things ARE complete BS, and I have to draw the line somewhere. I've SEEN terminator armor. I've SEEN biker models. The Terminator armor is larger than the bike. RL or no, it wouldn't work.

If you truly understood the difference, you would not say this...

Zarius wrote:
Now, that (again) said, I'd allow it to be used as a weapon. Meaning, I'd allow the terminator to pick it up and hit people with it.

...

Zarius wrote:
BUT, from a purely rules stand point, the way the rules are written, yes, I'd allow the terminator biker under the same line of logic as allowing a sniper rifle on a WGPL in a scout unit.

This is what you should have wrote. This and only this... I really wish you can understand why it is the case.
This goes beyond the "upgrade" argument. You are fundementally on a different level than every single person in this thread.
Kriswall, col, creeper, me, etc. Literally pick anyone. You are still using IRL logic...

Rasko wrote:

Creeperman wrote:
So in other words, nothing at all. "Replacing" your 5 sniper scouts with 5 camouflaged sniper scouts is just as legal as "replacing" those 5 camouflaged sniper scouts with 4 camouflaged sniper scouts and 1 camouflaged sniper WGPL because both operations are explicitly permitted by the ALE options. I'm glad we finally straightened that out through rigorous reinterpretation and redefinition of the word "upgrade."

Not quite.
You have "upgraded" from 5 sniper scouts with camo to 4 sniper scouts with camo and 1 WGPL. When the WGPL joins the unit, it is not through a direct "promotion", as we've established. But through a unit that has been upgraded. That means that it will come with it's own starting gear, it's own stats, etc, etc. There is no carry-over because there is no "promotion". You have "upgraded" from 5 Sniper Scouts with camo to 4 Sniper Scouts with camo and 1 WGPL.

But you have not answered how we can go from 5 bolter scouts to 5 sniper scouts, and still "carry over" their rifles when we "upgraded" them again with camo cloaks. To be more plain, what is the (rules-based) difference between taking the camo cloak option, the sniper rifle option, and/or the WGPL option? Where in the rules are you drawing the distinction between those options that apparently "carry over" wargear and those that do not?

Creeperman wrote:
But you have not answered how we can go from 5 bolter scouts to 5 sniper scouts, and still "carry over" their rifles when we "upgraded" them again with camo cloaks. To be more plain, what is the (rules-based) difference between taking the camo cloak option, the sniper rifle option, and/or the WGPL option? Where in the rules are you drawing the distinction between those options that apparently "carry over" wargear and those that do not?

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

This tells us that the Unit Composition of a unit will change after upgrades are taken. When you upgrade a unit, the unit composition has changed.
So take a basic unit of Wolf Scouts. That is 5 Wolf Scouts. You choose to upgrade 4 of them to have Sniper Rifles.
Since we know the unit composition will change after an upgrade has been taken, the unit composition after this upgrade will be, 5 Wolf Scouts (4 with Snipers).
You decide you want to upgrade all of them with camo as well as 4 with Snipers instead. The unit composition after this upgrade is 5 Wolf Scouts (all with Camo, 4 with Snipers).

A unit is comprised of models. While these are all model upgrades, the game classifies them as an upgrade to the unit. We know this because of my previous argument.

The unit has been upgraded from 5 Wolf Scouts to 5 Wolf Scouts, 4 of them with Snipers. From there, decide you want 4 snipers and all camo instead, you have upgraded the unit from 5 Wolf Scouts to 5 Wolf Scouts, all with Camo, and 4 with Snipers.
So you decide to upgrade a Wolf Scout with Camo and a Sniper Rifle to a WGPL. As above, it is not an upgrade through a 'model promotion'.
There is an entry for the WGPL, for you to use. There is no carry-over from the Wolf Scout because it is not a 'model promotion'.
You have "upgraded' the unit from 5 Wolf Scouts to 4 Wolf Scouts, 3 of them with Snipers, 4 of them with Camo, and 1 WGPL (with any wanted upgrades).

We could not have even progressed to this point without understanding what the game meant by "upgrade" because it would lead to two, directly contradicting paths.
Don't get me wrong. If the Codex says somewhere that "upgrade" means "promote", there can definitely be an argument to be made. I could not find anything that said so.
We could only find something that it meant the other.

I realised I described it in a slightly confusing way that seems to point to 'promotions' so I fixed it. I was referring to IRL thought process decisions and have corrected it.
From a game point of view, it would go from 5 Wolf Scouts to final compoistion.

Creeperman wrote:

Rasko wrote:

Creeperman wrote:
So in other words, nothing at all. "Replacing" your 5 sniper scouts with 5 camouflaged sniper scouts is just as legal as "replacing" those 5 camouflaged sniper scouts with 4 camouflaged sniper scouts and 1 camouflaged sniper WGPL because both operations are explicitly permitted by the ALE options. I'm glad we finally straightened that out through rigorous reinterpretation and redefinition of the word "upgrade."

Not quite.
You have "upgraded" from 5 sniper scouts with camo to 4 sniper scouts with camo and 1 WGPL. When the WGPL joins the unit, it is not through a direct "promotion", as we've established. But through a unit that has been upgraded. That means that it will come with it's own starting gear, it's own stats, etc, etc. There is no carry-over because there is no "promotion". You have "upgraded" from 5 Sniper Scouts with camo to 4 Sniper Scouts with camo and 1 WGPL.

But you have not answered how we can go from 5 bolter scouts to 5 sniper scouts, and still "carry over" their rifles when we "upgraded" them again with camo cloaks. To be more plain, what is the (rules-based) difference between taking the camo cloak option, the sniper rifle option, and/or the WGPL option? Where in the rules are you drawing the distinction between those options that apparently "carry over" wargear and those that do not?

Huh? There is no sequencing of upgrades. You make a flat final decision of how all of the components of the unit are going to be defined and there is your unit.

They kept their rifles because þe cloak and sniper options are probably indented slightly, just like Codex Space Marines, just like the fairly similar edition before that...
And maybe even fifth too.