Jump to content

Deathwing Apothecary


Thantoes

Recommended Posts

 

You keep trying to avoid the problem with an Apothecary having options they aren't entitled to in the context of a permissive rules set. To be right on this one, quote the rule that specifies an Apothecary directly can have the options.

 

The Apothecary doens't have any options it's not entitled too.  Much like the Storm Bolter he has, he is entitled too, while not having his own specific wargear list, nor any option to take a Storm Bolter.

 

If you think a CML on an Apothecary is 'illegal' you *will* have to show the rule that stops the Apothecary from having one.

 

So far, you've shown nothing.

And the reason you won't is because you can't. 40K is a permissive rule set and an Apothecary doesn't have explicit permission to have the upgrades you want to give him. It's that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Deathwing Terminater has standard armament we all know and love. When upgraded to an Apothecary he loses his Power fist.

 

This has no bearing on whether an Apothecary can take further upgrades. The standard armament has not been interferred with so it's not illegal to have a storm bolter because an Apothecary has standard wargear minus the powerfist.

 

You're still not answering my points above, rather continuing to try and get round them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This has no bearing on whether an Apothecary can take further upgrades.

 

The Apothecary *isn't* taking further upgrades...

 

 

When upgraded to an Apothecary he loses his Power fist.

 

And when said DWT has a CML...

 

 

You're still not answering my points above, rather continuing to try and get round them.

 

You have no point.  No rule to back up your opinion.  And you haven't tackled the rules I and others have posted.

 

Permissions have been given.  By the printed rules.  You need to prove those wrong to have any ground for your opinion.

 

We won't get this of course, and round and round this will go, as there are no additional rules ot bring to this discussion.  Everything GW have said on the matter has been posted.

 

/shrug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? It's up to you to show us where it states an Apothecary can take these options. You can't; all you've tried to do is try and loop hole your way round it and ignore the actual content of my posts.

 

Where does it say that an Apothecary can take these options? In the Codex! At the risk of repeating myself...

 

Can a Veteran replace his chainsword with one of the options listed? Yes.

Can a Veteran be upgraded to an Apothecary? Yes.

Does the Apothecary lose any item of wargear? Yes - his Bolt Pistol, which is swapped for a Narthecium.

Is any other change to the Veteran's wargear required when upgrading to an Apothecary? No.

Is the above all legal and above board? Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can believe you're right and be condescending if you like, but you haven't proven anything. Only your willingness to avoid directly answering my rebuttals.

 

Your position relies on there being an order to your upgrades which you haven't proven and I've shown is inconsistent with the rules.

 

I'm out. I have wasted my time enough repeating myself in the face of denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there's an order.

 

Otherwise you could legally have a OMI with both Power Armour *and* TDA, at once.

 

Becuase you trade Carapace simultaniously for both Power Armour and TDA.

 

Which is quite obviously, ludicrous.

 

Or you trade TDA's Strom Botler for a Combi-melta, plasma *and flamer, as you take it simultaniously for all three upgrades....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except I have proven that there is an order to upgrades. On page 1 of the thread, backed up by evidence from Games Workshop? The fact that some people don't like that particular FAQ entry or Codex is of precisely zero importance to the debate. What exactly have you produced in support of your argument? Nothing! You simply maintain that someone has to show that a model is permitted to have certain items of wargear despite the fact that the codex entry itself provides the necessary permission. If the upgrade is legal then the model is legal, by definition! There is no post-codex entry checklist to reference to see if a certain combination is legal or not. It simply doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear lord, is this thread still alive? It should be obvious by now that neither side is convinced by the other's reasoning. Submit the question to GW, agree to disagree, and save wear and tear on the keyboards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What side am I on? ;)

 

Personally, I don't think the Apothecary is intended to be allowed to have things like a CML.  Personally, I think the order of upgrades is that the choice to become an Apothecary preceeds the upgrade options for a Deathwing Terminator.

 

Sadly, neither of these are backed by any rules, and the permissive system of 40k actually permits a DWT purchasing both a CML and the upgrade to Apothecary.

 

None of  the counter arguements presented here hold any weight though, as there's no rule backing for them.  Just pure personal opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm completely fair I'd admit, despite thinking I'm still correct, that there is a case for an FAQ being required. My learned colleagues here wouldn't be contributing over nothing, just as I hope they feel the same about my position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think the rules are wrong then an "errata" would be required, implying that GW wrote it wrong. FAQ's are just GW telling you you read it wrong and that their original writing was not flawed, only your interpretation. They word it nicer then that, but its how it shakes out.

That being said, the Ork FAQ clearly tells us that unit options are taken in an order and that can be however you want as long as you follow the trades correctly.  DW Apoc with CML is currently legal and if that is incorrect they will errata the entry.  The argument that you might not have taken the right path when there was a legal way to get there is ridiculous. Its like saying someone moved a tank 24 over two turns but there is no way he can prove it wasnt 20 inches and then 4 on the third turn so he should be dced.....ridiculous. If there is a single legal path to a loadout then it is a legal loadout. If you feel the rules intent is to not allow this then i suggest talking to your gaming group. Judges especially at major tournaments pay HUGE attention to precedents set in other errata/faq (i.e. Orks) . Any worth their salt would allow this until further clarification from GW.  From my perspective on what RAI (only the writer of the rules themselves actually know RAI) should be, I dont see any reason that an elite command squad member couldn't personalize his loadout, including the apoc, and the rules as they are now support this. Whether he should be allowed a heavy weapon is debatable and if that is not the intent then GW will most likely errata it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a permissive ruleset, permission is explicit. If the rule doesn't say a specific thing, then that thing is not allowed. 

 

If you go through the FOC of Dark Angels, every upgrade to a model with a different name/statline has that models entire name listed in the options or has the caveat "any model". 

 

The only time you do not have this, is with dreadnoughts.  You can upgrade a Venerable Dreadnought with all the equipment of a regular Dreadnought, because it says "May take..."  If it said, "Dreadnought may take..." the Venerable Dreadnought would not be allowed to take that equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raeven, what Wargear does a Deathwatch Apothecary have?

 

Storm bolter and Narthecium.  He starts as a stock Veteran and exchanges his Powerfist.

 

You still haven't shown where you can upgrade a Veteran then upgrade them to a Apothecary.

 

I'm not saying you are entirely wrong.  I see your logic and agree that it is sound.

 

I'm taking a starker position on the reading of the rules.  From my experience in these debates and correlation with FAQ's and errata, I've learned that in nearly all cases, unless the rules explicitly state something is legal, you cannot do it.  The evidence is in every entry where unit types are listed by specifically by name under options.  Therefore, I have to conclude that unless the specific unit type is listed by name in the options, it cannot select those options.   That also means, once you change a unit from type A to type B, all equipment that is legal for type A is now illegal for type B unless permission is given.

 

Otherwise, there would be no need to differentiate between the base units and the other models that can be upgraded to in the unit. 

 

Neither side is entirely wrong.  Neither side is completely right either.  I cannot show you where it says I cannot make multiple upgrades to single models.  It's just the premise I have decided to work from as it garauntees I do not break the rules and cheat another player.  Your position may be correct, but it is not the safe position to take from a rules standpoint. 

 

Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would approach the subject from slightly different angle.

 

Can the DW Apothecary be equipped with a cyclone launcher and a sacred standard? Sure, when reading rules in a certain order.

Is it a sensible/fluff backed vision of an apothecary? I'm positive that some people would argue yes, but unfortunately my imagination is not so good.

 

As we're on it, why not give a DW termie a cyclone launcher, then replace ALL of his weapons with thunder hammer and stormshield. Nobody would do that. Why? Because reading the rules in the opposite way makes much more sense. 

 

Let's take this poor termie further, why not give him a standard and finally turn him to a champion wasting a total of 30 points more than necessary.

 

My point is that if a "rule" can lead to a nonsens like that then surely can't be valid.

 

For my own peace of mind I decided that the role of an apothecary changed from the previous edition and modeled mine with stormbolter, although I absolutely hate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Unlike say a C:SM company champion, an apothecary doesnt have his own unique profile. So what makes him different than any other Veteran?

Apothecaries do have a profile.

 

Noted... so, how are they veterans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Storm bolter and Narthecium.

Can you show the rule for that? Not being a douche, just trying to highlight the problem here. msn-wink.gif

exchanges his Powerfist

This is the problem. This is all we're told by the rules.

The DWT exchanges his Powerfist for a Narthecium.

The rules do not mention his other wargear, what he has, what he's allowed.

It's left that *all* the wargear the DWT has becomes the Wargear for the Apothecary (sans Powerfist change), as no specific wargear entry is given, and it's not mentioned that the Apothecary requires only the base/default wargear of a DWT.

Otherwise the Apothecary doesn't have TDA or a SB.

And if the wargear the DWT has includes a CML...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.