Deathwing Apothecary

[dswanick]

(Don't have the codex here any more, sadly)

Well then, it's a good thing he comes pre-equipped with one (C:DA, pg.45), so he doesn't have to "take" one.

Page 45 isn't the Army List unit entry though, is it? Can't recall the Page Numbr of that, but in the Army List, the DWA doesn't have wargear listed specifically for them.

So now the rules in the codex aren't rules, unless their found in the "army list" section of the book?

[puffin]

Where is the permission for the DWA to have a Storm Bolter?

In the codex on page 95 under Wargear (this is the wargear for all 3 profiles shown in that unit and is the reason the DWA "replaces" his power fist with a Narthecium).  See also Codex page 45 which says the same thing.

 

Honestly, you're just being silly now - especially when you openly admit you don't even have the codex handy.

 

Nothing to say about order of operations vs resultant configuration btw?

[MadDoc]

I can't beleive that this didn't occur to me sooner but the ultimate arbiter of this really comes down to final army lists.

If you have an opponent read over a completed DA army list and they come to your DW Apothecary and check the wargear he is equipped with against what he is supposed to have/allowed to take (which with no upgrades available to a DW Apothecary will be nothing extra) and they find that your DW Apothecary has equipment he isn't actually legally able to take, then they can quite rightly call you on having an illegal list (or less charitably of cheating).

If somebody looks at your final list and sees something that isn't codex legal and has required you to play fast and loose to include it (i.e. isn't a list legal option for a given model type, but you've tried the weapon/wargear first then upgrade to character malarky so you can cram it in), then that something shouldn't have been included.

Ultimately, it really is that simple.

Edit -

Pedantic much?

Honestly, it seems far more like a case of wilful obtuseness than pedantry. :no:

[Raeven]

Pedantic much?

Nah, RAW.

RAW, huh?

Ok. I'll indulge, even though you are just repeating yourself.

RAW says, One Veteran/DWTDA/RWBK may replace his ***** with a Narthecium. We look at the wargear and see that the model has *****. So we replace ***** with the Narthecium and throw the appropriate bits in a model and Viola! Apothecary.

So, now we know why an Apothecary keeps his chainsword or storm bolter.. How about you show us where it is WRITTEN that an Apothecary can take anything else?

Remember. Permissive ruleset means it must be written to be legal.

[Gentlemanloser]

Hey, I've already said I don't think the DWA is intended to be allowed a CML.

 

But all the arguements about *permissions* are just wrong.

 

It's as puffin said above;

 

 

Nothing to say about order of operations vs resultant configuration btw?

 

There is quite obviously an order of operation for Upgrades.  And personally, I think the unwritten intention is that the upgrades follow 'standard' English reading rules.

 

Much like we're not told which face of the dice to read a result from, we're not told to read the rules top to bottom, left to right.  The standard format for English writing.

 

As such, it's an unwritten assumption that, reading the upgrades as usual, the Model changes come first.  As such, you *have* to choose to upgrade to an Apothecary before you look to purchase a CML, which the Apothecary can no longer do so.

 

Order of operation is the whole issue here, not anything to do with permissive systems.

 

Can you purchase a CML for a DWT *before* you purchase the Apothecary upgrade?

 

If you can, there is *no* restriciton on the Apothecary being armed with a CML.  If you *can't*, then it's not possible.

 

It's just an assumed intention that the upgrade lists follow 'standard' reading.  And we've had two FAQ entires from the say FAQ that contradict each other.  Both supporting, and confronting this assumption.

 

 

Honestly, you're just being silly now - especially when you openly admit you don't even have the codex handy.

 

Had the Codex until Wednesday, after which a mate has borrowed it.  And that's a problem, why?

[puffin]

Like every other argument on this topic there can be no conclusion as the exact method is not codified in the rules.

 

However, Occam's Razor should come into play here.

 

It is unlikely that they intended army lists to have accompanying essays stating that "That DWA has a CML because he was initially a DWT that then bought the CML before I upgraded him to a DWA". The counter argument states that they could just write the unit entry better (and I agree, they should), but this argument could be applied to half the rules in the BRB and all codices so it doesn't carry much weight with me.

[Dam13n]

I wouldn't necessarily say its a codex issue. It should be a universal army selection rule that upgrades should follow a sensible order that prevents people trying to exploit the list in order to gain some slight advantage.

 

If GW simply said that upgrades go Model -> Weapon unless otherwise stated in their codex entry, it would simplify things greatly. They could easily put it in the BRB FAQ to cover every army in one go.

[Raeven]

The problem with using the Ork Boyz entry as an example, is the terminology.

 

Mob - Does it refer to just the Ork Boys, or is it the unit as a whole?  If it's the unit, then the Nob can also exchange his choppa/slugga for a shoota.  In either case, order of operations doesn't matter as long as the end model is legal. 

 

Ork - Does this refer to just the Ork Boyz or the whole unit?  Why not just say Boyz?

 

Nob - A Boy may be upgraded...ok... why not say Ork?  Why the inconsistency?

 

It's obvious that the newer codex's are making an attempt to unify terminology in the entries. 

[[TA]Typher]

Not to dig up this headache of a thread, but I couldn't sleep and ending up reading every post in it. I'd have to say thanks to several of you guys. After painstakingly readling and checking myself I seems crystal clear that you can't weapon swap Apothocaries. I had read a couple of other debates at different locations and many people seemed so convinced that it was legal. It seemed counter the the intent of the rules, but sadly I was too lazy to do the leg work. I already followed the logic that it was illegal, but it rather bothered me that it all seemed so contrary to all the fluff. 

 

I'm ather a big fluff fan and have yet to read a BL book in with the Apothocary only had a chainsword. They always have at least a bolt pistol.

 

Anyway.. thanks again!

[Lysere]

@Captain Idaho - I've not claimed that the upgrades are required to be given in the order in which they are printed. I'm only claiming, with evidence (see Ork FAQ), that there is an order and that all upgrades are not applied simultaneously. Until someone provides evidence, rather than opinion, to the contrary then I maintain that the codex specifically allows multiple upgrades to the same model.

 

Okay first thing, honestly claiming you can take a heavy weapon on a Veteran model when the upgrade does not say Any model may take is silly.

 

Also your Ork Example actually makes your argument worse. Notice the order they did things in, First they said make character upgrades, then since the character has a weapon upgrade give him his, now the basic guys can take their upgrade.

 

Deathwing Terminators turn. Upgrades being taken, Apothecary, Cyclone Missile Launcher, Chainfist.

 

Well only one is a character so we apply that, now he no longer has a powerfist so someone else will be taking that chainfist. Also now that he is a character the Cyclone is out.

 

Keep in mind there is no rule that has said there is a turn of events, all wargear is (until said otherwise) purchased at the same time. If such a weapon being on a model is illegal at the end, it is still illegal no matter how you got there.

 

If anything the Ork codex FAQ makes it clear that character upgrades are to always take place first, then you may take your wargear for everyone else. In which case, no Assault Cannon or Cyclone Apothecary.