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.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Spacewolverine wrote:
It's called a draft for a reason. I would love to see people get things perfect first draft and release it to the world for input... I think it's silly to be over critical on something so irrelevant. Oh noes, I cannot get another melta gun! Seriously, if you don't like 40k or think GW is abusive, sell your armies and quit crying.

Pretty much this.

Keep in mind that this is a huge new thing for GW. It used to be that the FAQs were just released without feedback. Then they would get feedback and then turn around some of their responses.

If you don't like some of these FAQs, respond in the replies and ask for clarification.

They're only asking for feedback on clarity though, not on the content.

But I agree - we'll have to wait and see whether or not they take the critique on the answers themselves into account and rethink some of the more dubious / problematic answers. Selling your armies is a bit over the top, at least wait for the official version.
And they didn't just change the rule on the Apothecary thing on a whim, they had the wrong answer pinned down on the image. Mistakes happen. You can claim they did it due to feedback or "just cause" all you want - I'll go with the good old in dubio pro reo here and believe it was a simple mistake.

 deevil wrote:
The Eldar Jetbike has a stat of 3+ not 5+/3+ to my knowledge (please correct me if I'm incorrect - as I am sure this forum will) regardless of what his equipment list says. It is not a case of mixed armor values where there is a mix of 'separate' targets with 5+ and 3+ respectively. IN which case the owning player can say you hit tommy instead of johnny. This is a case of everybody has 3+ even though they are also wearing mesh armor, their bike UPS it to 3+

Else you could make the same argument that everyone has save '-' and choose not use their 3+ armor... when being shot by grav... imagine

Wow and its not like Eldar jetbkes are not cheese anyway

Did anyone ask as a FAQ why the Eldar Jet bike is 3+ and not 4+ if so it might get changed to the correct value.

Its been 3+ for a decade or more. What makes you think 4+ is the "correct" value?

It might be a more balanced balue, of course, but then we know the more balanced points value for wraithguard as well...

Given the ruling with the LOS-blocking Drop Pods, is disembarking behind the pod so the enemy has to waste a turn shooting the Drop Pod a viable tactic? Makes assault units in a drop pod actually viable.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its been 3+ for a decade or more. What makes you think 4+ is the "correct" value?

It might be a more balanced balue, of course, but then we know the more balanced points value for wraithguard as well...

Cos bikes add +1 to your armour save and this "mistake" has simply been copy pasted into each Codex - just my opinion.

Immolators lost their fire point for a few years, now they have it back via FAQ.

Pretty much everyone had been playing grenades "wrong" for how long?

Just wondered if anyone had said - should Eldar jet bikes be a 4+ save not the 3+ save.

 Mr Morden wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its been 3+ for a decade or more. What makes you think 4+ is the "correct" value?

It might be a more balanced balue, of course, but then we know the more balanced points value for wraithguard as well...

Cos bikes add +1 to your armour save and this "mistake" has simply been copy pasted into each Codex - just my opinion.

Immolators lost their fire point for a few years, now they have it back via FAQ.

Pretty much everyone had been playing grenades "wrong" for how long?

Just wondered if anyone had said - should Eldar jet bikes be a 4+ save not the 3+ save.

Considering the codex clearly states they have a 3+ armor save, there is no reason to assume anything is wrong. The +1 is to Toughness, not armor.

Apart from the fact bikes dont, and havent since at least 4th. they just add one to toughness.

Or should marines have a 2+ save while on bikes? I think WS players would LOVE that....

Noone was playing grenades Wrong. The FAQ answer is pure rubbish, as the line used to "justify" it refers purely to the shooting attack and ignores the explicit permission to use grenades in assault.

 Spacewolverine wrote:
It's called a draft for a reason. I would love to see people get things perfect first draft and release it to the world for input... I think it's silly to be over critical on something so irrelevant. Oh noes, I cannot get another melta gun! Seriously, if you don't like 40k or think GW is abusive, sell your armies and quit crying.

Point #1 - I'm not crying. Don't put words in my mouth or assume actions that aren't happening. It makes you sound like a jerk, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a jerk.

Point #2 - This probably isn't and definitely shouldn't be a first draft. Realistically, this should be several drafts in and should have passed layers of internal review before being passed to the customer base for comment. The fact that there are so many basic errors lets me know that the internal review process either didn't happen or wasn't taken seriously. That's bad.

Point #3 - I wouldn't characterize how the company who has sold me literally thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of product over a period of several decades handles the rules that dictate how I'm (practically speaking) able to use my models in a community setting as irrelevant. It's extremely relevant. The rules have been fragmenting more and more over the recent years and the game is becoming almost unplayable for many people. Balance is a joke with the power divide between a competitive build and a casual build usually being insurmountable for the casual player. Competitive play is a slave to the meta, more so than in days past with the majority of armies having no builds with a realistic chance of winning. This is also bad.

Point #4 - We don't need FAQs for many of these issues. We need Erratas. The rules should be unambiguous. As it stands, and as many have commented in this thread, the ambiguity still stands, just with a clarifying statement OR there was no ambiguity at all and the FAQ directly contradicts the written rules. If you're making a change to a rule, use an Errata and change the rule. Don't use an FAQ and change the meaning without changing the text. For me, this is another example of GW not taking this seriously.

I still like to paint, and GW makes nice models, so I'll likely still buy from them. I just sort of feel like they don't give a crap about the people who like to play. GW is flat out terrible with the rules compared with almost any other miniatures game on the market. Can you imagine Fantasy Flight Games having such a fragmented rule set riddled with ambiguities and inconsistencies, with multiple publications spanning game editions still in print? Can you imagine Privateer Press doing the same? Mantic? For a market leader, GW is terrible at certain things. Hopefully, this FAQ activity represents forward progress and not just a flavor of the month activity for GW.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Spacewolverine wrote:
It's called a draft for a reason. I would love to see people get things perfect first draft and release it to the world for input... I think it's silly to be over critical on something so irrelevant. Oh noes, I cannot get another melta gun! Seriously, if you don't like 40k or think GW is abusive, sell your armies and quit crying.

Point #1 - I'm not crying. Don't put words in my mouth or assume actions that aren't happening. It makes you sound like a jerk, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a jerk.

Not being a jerk nor putting words in your mouth. The knee jerk reaction of I'm selling my armies and accusing GW is abusive to their customer base which is completely unfounded when GW is trying to reconcile with the community is the crying factor over something very irrelevant. I'm going to leave this at that.

Point #2 - This probably isn't and definitely shouldn't be a first draft. Realistically, this should be several drafts in and should have passed layers of internal review before being passed to the customer base for comment. The fact that there are so many basic errors lets me know that the internal review process either didn't happen or wasn't taken seriously. That's bad.

We are the lawyers and RAW based oppinions. Typos or mistakes are very easy to happen and can get past proof reading. This is the right step for GW.

Point #3 - I wouldn't characterize how the company who has sold me literally thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of product over a period of several decades handles the rules that dictate how I'm (practically speaking) able to use my models in a community setting as irrelevant. It's extremely relevant. The rules have been fragmenting more and more over the recent years and the game is becoming almost unplayable for many people. Balance is a joke with the power divide between a competitive build and a casual build usually being insurmountable for the casual player. Competitive play is a slave to the meta, more so than in days past with the majority of armies having no builds with a realistic chance of winning. This is also bad.

I've been playing for 21 years have probably spent a house mortgage on figures. The game has never been balanced but plausible for any Army to win any given day depending on tactics and knowledge of the game. I think it's a joke that competitive players think there list are so high and mighty compared to a casual. I do not see a difference in competitive or cheese, I play what I want to play and have FUN.

Point #4 - We don't need FAQs for many of these issues. We need Erratas. The rules should be unambiguous. As it stands, and as many have commented in this thread, the ambiguity still stands, just with a clarifying statement OR there was no ambiguity at all and the FAQ directly contradicts the written rules. If you're making a change to a rule, use an Errata and change the rule. Don't use an FAQ and change the meaning without changing the text. For me, this is another example of GW not taking this seriously.

We do need FAQs to create a proper rules errata.

I still like to paint, and GW makes nice models, so I'll likely still buy from them. I just sort of feel like they don't give a crap about the people who like to play. GW is flat out terrible with the rules compared with almost any other miniatures game on the market. Can you imagine Fantasy Flight Games having such a fragmented rule set riddled with ambiguities and inconsistencies, with multiple publications spanning game editions still in print? Can you imagine Privateer Press doing the same? Mantic? For a market leader, GW is terrible at certain things. Hopefully, this FAQ activity represents forward progress and not just a flavor of the month activity for GW.

GW does make fantastic models, that we can agree on. They obviously again I state do care for their customers if they are trying to take the time and effort to do an FAQ. GW and the New CEO is trying to reconcile with their customer base that they have basically abandoned due to the OLD CEO, not caring because they were a models first mentality. The new CEO actually talks to high end tournament organizers for input on rules, balance and erratas.

 insaniak wrote:
Funnily enough, my original drop pods (built in 4th edition before the GW model came out) were small Pringles cans with foamcore fins and a stormbolter mounted on the outside under the central compartment.

Nobody ever had an issue with them, either for the fact that they blocked LOS, or for doing so while still having a functional weapon... Even after the official model was released.

Back in the day, it was also a BS2 stormbolter, too!

It's going to take some time to digest the drop pod changes, for me.

I am fine with the "Apothecaries don't get special weapons" ruling. I can see the argument that they should, but I'm not hurt about it, nor did I model any with special weapons.

 Spacewolverine wrote:
Not being a jerk nor putting words in your mouth. The knee jerk reaction of I'm selling my armies and accusing GW is abusive to their customer base which is completely unfounded when GW is trying to reconcile with the community is the crying factor over something very irrelevant. I'm going to leave this at that.

A pattern of behavior isn't rectified with a box of chocolates and a bouquet of flowers. This hobby feels like an abusive relationship to me. It might not to you, but you have no right to invalidate my, or anyone else's feelings as irrelevant. It's condescending and offensive.

Typos or mistakes are very easy to happen and can get past proof reading.

Ever worked in publishing? I have. Even a mediocre review should have caught the differences between Yes and No or the discrepancies between image and accompanying text. This is actually pretty basic copy editing.

The game has never been balanced but plausible for any Army to win any given day depending on tactics and knowledge of the game. I think it's a joke that competitive players think there list are so high and mighty compared to a casual.

Awesome. I might need some pointers on how to win against Scatterbike Spam, Invisible Death Stars and no scatter first turn Alpha Strike charges with my Tempestus Scions army list. Surely, I'm just rolling the dice wrong or something. Balance IS an issue and tactics/knowledge of the game won't do enough for you if there is an insurmountable power divide between lists. There are a very limited number of top tier, tournament winning army builds. There are near infinite casual lists that will never win a tournament regardless of player skill.

We do need FAQs to create a proper rules errata.

Why would we possibly need FAQs to create Erratas? We should be able to claim ambiguity and GW should be able to reword via Errata without an intermediate FAQ step.

They obviously again I state do care for their customers if they are trying to take the time and effort to do an FAQ.

"Sure he gets mad sometimes and doesn't communicate well, but he buys me flowers after every fight, so I know he loves me." GW has a pattern of behavior over the recent years of not caring about its customer base. I'm somewhat committed at this point given how much I've spent, so I really do hope this is a legitimate shift in behavior. In the long run, I kind of doubt it. It's really hard to change a pervasive corporate culture and I haven't seen much change yet. This feels more like a team of a few new hires who don't really understand the rules were tasked with "putting together some FAQs to tide the noisy players over until we can sell them a new edition".

Maybe take this off topic conversation so where else?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe take this off topic conversation so where else?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Maybe take this off topic conversation so where else?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe take this off topic conversation so where else?

Nah. I'll just quit posting. Everything about this whole process just makes me mad for some reason. I think it's because GW has been defecating on something I love for several years now and while I appreciate the effort, the game still smells pretty bad.

nekooni wrote:They're only asking for feedback on clarity though, not on the content.

But I agree - we'll have to wait and see whether or not they take the critique on the answers themselves into account and rethink some of the more dubious / problematic answers. Selling your armies is a bit over the top, at least wait for the official version.
And they didn't just change the rule on the Apothecary thing on a whim, they had the wrong answer pinned down on the image. Mistakes happen. You can claim they did it due to feedback or "just cause" all you want - I'll go with the good old in dubio pro reo here and believe it was a simple mistake.

Asking why an answer is the way it is, is asking for clarity.

For example, on the question regarding Apothecaries, why is the answer yes/no? Is there an order of operations we are to follow, or does an upgraded model drop any upgrades they had?

And no, I wasn't referring to that, I don't consider this official yet. I do not have the old FAQs to reference them, but there have been a few cases of a rule being answered one way in one month, and then the exact opposite two or three months later.

 Kriswall wrote:
I think it's because GW has been defecating on something I love for several years now and while I appreciate the effort, the game still smells pretty bad.

while i agree to some degree... i dont think its about bad rules... no one would ever be able to make a perfect ruleset especially not with a game as complex as 40k. its more about the borderline frame of mind of some players willing to exploit every little innaccuracy with zealous obsessiveness in order to gain an advantage. and yes this can make you sad.

just look at the drop pod discussion over the last few pages... the creativeness for "interpreting" the rules is just unbelievable.

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:They're only asking for feedback on clarity though, not on the content.

But I agree - we'll have to wait and see whether or not they take the critique on the answers themselves into account and rethink some of the more dubious / problematic answers. Selling your armies is a bit over the top, at least wait for the official version.
And they didn't just change the rule on the Apothecary thing on a whim, they had the wrong answer pinned down on the image. Mistakes happen. You can claim they did it due to feedback or "just cause" all you want - I'll go with the good old in dubio pro reo here and believe it was a simple mistake.

Asking why an answer is the way it is, is asking for clarity.

For example, on the question regarding Apothecaries, why is the answer yes/no? Is there an order of operations we are to follow, or does an upgraded model drop any upgrades they had?

And no, I wasn't referring to that, I don't consider this official yet. I do not have the old FAQs to reference them, but there have been a few cases of a rule being answered one way in one month, and then the exact opposite two or three months later.

because you are changing the model and that model does not have excess to that weapon. If it did it would say a model may be upgrades to an apoth the apoth may exchange his weapon for..... Ect. Like they do for all other models.

OgreChubbs wrote:
because you are changing the model and that model does not have excess to that weapon. If it did it would say a model may be upgrades to an apoth the apoth may exchange his weapon for..... Ect. Like they do for all other models.

That is one opinion. No Order of Operations is given there or in any rulebook, though. As I said, they didn't explain the answer with anything more than a "no".

 Kriswall wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Wait... they said yes and then they changed it to no with no explanation? I think I might be done with this game. It's like GW doesn't take the rules seriously at all.

I can see this one hits a nerve for you Kriswall, why is that?

Admittedly, I'm curious how this one slipped through. It'd be a fun article to hear how GW came to some of these decisions. I'd buy that White Dwarf for sure!

It's the straw that broke the camel's back. The rules are written so poorly that we constantly bicker about what they mean. When we finally get an FAQ, there is no explanation and then we get a "Yes... or No? Yeah, go with No." No explanation, no Errata to fix the underlying ambiguous rules issues. This game is almost unplayable for a casual player at this point.

Anybody interested in Necrons, Tau Empire or Skitarii, PM me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Wait... they said yes and then they changed it to no with no explanation? I think I might be done with this game. It's like GW doesn't take the rules seriously at all.

Considering that all these are currently rough drafts and have not been finalized, why the anger over this? Particularly since it could have been a simple mistake when writing them up.

No anger. Just tired of feeling abused. The rule set is a joke. It's poorly written and it feels like this FAQ effort isn't being taken seriously. They seem more worried in making fancy layouts with background graphics than fixing the ambiguous wordings.

There are way too many good rule sets out there to continue to be in an abusive relationship with GW.

messaged you about buyi g your tau.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
because you are changing the model and that model does not have excess to that weapon. If it did it would say a model may be upgrades to an apoth the apoth may exchange his weapon for..... Ect. Like they do for all other models.

That is one opinion. No Order of Operations is given there or in any rulebook, though. As I said, they didn't explain the answer with anything more than a "no".

Because it is simple, the anwser is no apoths do not carry anything but what is listed. That is like someone saying I was a jet pilot now I am driving tanks can I take my plane in the tank? NO

When you change the model it bcomes something else, not order of operation nothing it is a different model. It was a trooper then changed to a apoth with the apoth weapons. No one tries to say I gave this guy a heavy bolter then changed him into a sergant so he keeps it. No he had a bolter then he was changed to a sergant and under the weapons tab it says. A sergant may replace is bolter with blah.

So anyone trying to say order i gave it males no sense anymore then saying. I was adding a predator to my army then changed it into a hell drake but he keeps the weapons because it the order it is written. You changed the model and unless the model says you can change his gear you cant.

Also it tells you the load out for apoths and then gives you his upgrades, So how is this a question you turned him into a apoth and now he has this profile, so those weapons are gone.

Kriswall I totally agree with you.
I've invested money in 7k points new painted Space Marines last year (that was a lot of money for me). At the beginning I was proGW but inconsistant rules and new psychic powers in Angels of Death supplement followed by the new rules in Skies of Death was to much for me.
I organize local events in my area and now I have "moral hangover" that I get some of my friends into this game. Many of them are getting beaten every single game...
I'll try to do some fluff events and see how it will work out, but I already lost my enthusiasm...

Oh btw game/codecies are "broken" for months and we will be waiting another months for official FAQ. Is this how you treat your customers?

So to stay on topic
Do you think that when this draft in first question on page 8 say that ICs lose their chapter benefits it take only C:SM Chapter Tactics benefits or new Angels of Death "duplicated" chapter detachment benefits too?

OgreChubbs wrote:
Because it is simple, the anwser is no apoths do not carry anything but what is listed. That is like someone saying I was a jet pilot now I am driving tanks can I take my plane in the tank? NO

Real Life examples are pointless to this discussion about game mechanics, especially since Real Life would allow an Apothecary to pick up the dead soldier's Meltagun and fire it at that Walker, but cannot do that in game.

OgreChubbs wrote:
When you change the model it bcomes something else, not order of operation nothing it is a different model. It was a trooper then changed to a apoth with the apoth weapons. No one tries to say I gave this guy a heavy bolter then changed him into a sergant so he keeps it. No he had a bolter then he was changed to a sergant and under the weapons tab it says. A sergant may replace is bolter with blah.

That would be an order of operation to consider the final outcome of the model as to what it can have.

OgreChubbs wrote:
So anyone trying to say order i gave it males no sense anymore then saying. I was adding a predator to my army then changed it into a hell drake but he keeps the weapons because it the order it is written. You changed the model and unless the model says you can change his gear you cant.

Try a better example. Where is the option to change a Predator to a Helldrake?

OgreChubbs wrote:
Also it tells you the load out for apoths and then gives you his upgrades, So how is this a question you turned him into a apoth and now he has this profile, so those weapons are gone.

It gives a default loadout for the models in the unit, but nothing says that he would lose any such upgrades when upgraded to an Apothecary. The upgrade option certainly doesn't say it.

Again, there is no order of operations regarding this. Without it, we don't know why the "no" is applicable.

 Charistoph wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Because it is simple, the anwser is no apoths do not carry anything but what is listed. That is like someone saying I was a jet pilot now I am driving tanks can I take my plane in the tank? NO

Real Life examples are pointless to this discussion about game mechanics, especially since Real Life would allow an Apothecary to pick up the dead soldier's Meltagun and fire it at that Walker, but cannot do that in game.

OgreChubbs wrote:
When you change the model it bcomes something else, not order of operation nothing it is a different model. It was a trooper then changed to a apoth with the apoth weapons. No one tries to say I gave this guy a heavy bolter then changed him into a sergant so he keeps it. No he had a bolter then he was changed to a sergant and under the weapons tab it says. A sergant may replace is bolter with blah.

That would be an order of operation to consider the final outcome of the model as to what it can have.

OgreChubbs wrote:
So anyone trying to say order i gave it males no sense anymore then saying. I was adding a predator to my army then changed it into a hell drake but he keeps the weapons because it the order it is written. You changed the model and unless the model says you can change his gear you cant.

Try a better example. Where is the option to change a Predator to a Helldrake?

OgreChubbs wrote:
Also it tells you the load out for apoths and then gives you his upgrades, So how is this a question you turned him into a apoth and now he has this profile, so those weapons are gone.

It gives a default loadout for the models in the unit, but nothing says that he would lose any such upgrades when upgraded to an Apothecary. The upgrade option certainly doesn't say it.

Again, there is no order of operations regarding this. Without it, we don't know why the "no" is applicable.

I have a feeling that no matter what they say you will try and re-word it to suit your intrest so best of lick mate, side note no one like to play a (game) where people try and take advantage of things. But like I said it is a game where you pick your freinds and enemies for a fun game.

If users could remeber to be polite when dealing with each other please....

Thank you.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I have a feeling that no matter what they say you will try and re-word it to suit your intrest so best of lick mate, side note no one like to play a (game) where people try and take advantage of things. But like I said it is a game where you pick your freinds and enemies for a fun game.

That is a rather rude way of putting it.

I did not state anything in that which I did not state in other threads on the same topic. The biggest problem with the Apothecary question (along with numerous others in a similar vein) is that there are no rules specifically nailing it down as to why a "yes" or "no" is applicable. I have argued for your position on the exact same basis that I just argued against it for that reason.

On the Apothecary issue

Just something I've noticed reading through several codexes.

It seems they made the effort to state either 'all models' can take an item/upgrade or they specifically name out certain models within a unit.

Even if one model is an upgrade of the other they will still say model A or model B can take X - even if B is an upgrade of A.

 Charistoph wrote:
that there are no rules specifically nailing it down as to why a "yes" or "no" is applicable.

Who cares? There's no "why" infantry move 6" either. It's the rules. Accept it.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
that there are no rules specifically nailing it down as to why a "yes" or "no" is applicable.

Who cares? There's no "why" infantry move 6" either. It's the rules. Accept it.

I think what he means is that it would be nice for them to explain the mechanics - and once and for all to clear up the order of operation discussions that keep popping up.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
that there are no rules specifically nailing it down as to why a "yes" or "no" is applicable.

Who cares? There's no "why" infantry move 6" either. It's the rules. Accept it.

But we have a rule that specifically states Infantry move 6".

Nothing states how the options are purchased, what checks are to be made when or even if, is it top down or can we meander through the list, or if a model can keep any upgrades after being upgraded to another model. We are just given a list of options and that is it. Out of all the threads on this, no one has presented one piece of quote to substantiate which order of operations is correct.

It is pertinent in cases where in the top down format, a Wolf Scout Pack Leader is given an opporutunity to have a camo cloak before being upgraded, and the Crusader Squad Sword Brother is upgraded after adding any Neophytes per Initiate. If we are looking at a final format confirmation system, the answer would be "no", but if top down without replacement, the answer is "yes". The Apothecary is upgraded before any Weapon options, but after the Standard and Champion are chosen.

So whine about that in the Space Wolf FAQ?

This question was about Apothecaries.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
So whine about that in the Space Wolf FAQ?

This question was about Apothecaries.

lol i like you

It is not order of purchase, you changed the item you where buying. Think of it is way

You walk into a store and order a cake.
Cake owner says you can exchange the plain toppings for sprikles, a picture or candels.
You say I want sprinkles.
Then you say oh I want to turn the cake into a pie.
Owner says ok here is your options for your pie.

You cant keep the options for a different item.

By the logic of how you write the list you could abuse anything. Mass heavy weapons?
Buy a heavy bolter in a squad of 5 then turn him into sergant, then a heavy bolter turn him into a apoth, buy a heavy weapon then turn him into anything.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
So whine about that in the Space Wolf FAQ?

This question was about Apothecaries.

And what gear they can acquire. I also gave a Codex Marine option as well with the Sword Brother.

Did the question mention anything about Standards, out of curiosity?

OgreChubbs wrote:
It is not order of purchase, you changed the item you where buying. Think of it is way

You walk into a store and order a cake.
Cake owner says you can exchange the plain toppings for sprikles, a picture or candels.
You say I want sprinkles.
Then you say oh I want to turn the cake into a pie.
Owner says ok here is your options for your pie.

You cant keep the options for a different item.

By the logic of how you write the list you could abuse anything. Mass heavy weapons?
Buy a heavy bolter in a squad of 5 then turn him into sergant, then a heavy bolter turn him into a apoth, buy a heavy weapon then turn him into anything.

Invalid comparison. Making a cake has some very defined processes involved, as does a pie. Where is this process defined for unit purchasing?

Your final example is also in poor choice. Sergeants are not upgrades of Marines (currently). Being the Heavy Weapon Guy does not change the model name.