Multiple upgrades on the same model?

Tiri Rana wrote:

To boost this argument, let's take a look at the Trueborn entry on page 88 in our codex.
The first thing to catch ones eye is, the difference between 'any model may take pistol and ccw or Shardcarbine' and 'only Kabalite Trueborn may take Blasters, Shredders, Dark lances or Splinter cannons'.
...
But, if we assume the difference between model and Kabalite Trueborn is indeed intentional then he can exchange his splinter rifle for a splinter pistol and close combat weapon and replace these with his personal options.

So, long story short, I think it is important to look for the difference between 'model' and '#special unit type', that makes clear, if a squad leader may take a upgrade or not.

Sorry to re-open an old argument, but this is something I'd thought about in the past and, having now got my DE codex, I want to say why I think the above quoted argument is wrong.

First, a slight misquotation of the codex in Tiri Rana's post. It doesn't say 'only Kabalite Trueborn may take blasters'. If the entry did have that 'only' in it, then that could reasonably be taken to mean only 'regular' Trueborn, as opposed to the Dracon, but there is no only.

Anyway, that clarification aside, the question is whether there's supposed to be a difference between 'one model may take...' and 'one Trueborn may take...'. As Tiri Rana notes, the Dracon has to be covered by 'any model may exchange his splinter rifle for pistol and CCW'. But that the Dracon is included under 'any model' is not evidence that he's not included under 'any Trueborn'.

There are two theories being compared here:

1) There is an intentional difference between 'any Trueborn' and 'any model', so the Dracon can take pistol and CCW but not blaster (etc).

2) There is no intentional difference - the Dracon is a Trueborn and can therefore take pistol and CCW or a blaster (but not both, of course, since both replace the splinter rifle).

Tiri Rana favours the first theory and rightly points out that it explains how a Dracon can get an Agoniser. Well, any theory has to explain this, since clearly the Dracon should be able to take an Agoniser, but it's not evidence in favour of theory 1 (rather than theory 2), because theory 2 also explains how it is that the Dracon can take an Agoniser. Neither of the two theories under consideration has any advantage in this respect.

My reading is that you can upgrade one model twice (assuming the two upgrades don't, e.g., replace the splinter rifle). The Hekatrix, for instance, may be a Hekatrix but that doesn't mean that she's not a Wych, just as it doesn't mean she's not a Dark Eldar. Any rules applying to Wyches would apply to the Hekatrix. Thus, even if the codex said 'any Wych may take Hydra gauntlets', I would still interpret that to include the Hekatrix.

Suppose one has five Wracks - call them A, B, C, D, and E. Look at the codex entry: one may take a Hexrifle. Suppose we give this to Wrack A. Now, reading down the options, we reach the character options, which tell us that one Wrack may be upgraded to an Acothyst. One could, of course, choose to upgrade B, but there's nothing that says you can't upgrade A (with the hexrifle) should you want.

(One note here though: this may depend upon the fact that the Wrack is upgraded to an Acothyst, rather than being replaced with an Acothyst. The former phrasing suggests that the Acothyst is still a Wrack, whereas the latter would suggest otherwise.)

I call bullexcrements from the depths of the sea.

A Dracon is not a Trueborn, he is a Dracon and has his own unit profile, which makes him the Dracon he is.

As Cavash said, please don't use that sort of language here. As written at the rules, there is a swear filter in place. Please do not try to avoid it. /mod

SleepyPillow wrote:

I call bullshit from the depths of the sea.

A Dracon is not a Trueborn, he is a Dracon and has his own unit profile, which makes him the Dracon he is.

Well, at least I had an argument, based on reference to the rules.

Does a Hekatrix not get a dodge then?

And is a Dracon not a Dark Eldar, because he's a Dracon?

Yes, the Dracon has a different profile, but it's included on p. 88 under the heading 'Kabalite Trueborn'. Can you point to anything that says he isn't one?

Firstly, SleepyPillow, please don't use that kind of language.

Ben_S, I can see your point, but in the unit entry at the back of the Codex, stating what upgrades can be taken, when a Trueborn is upgraded to a Dracon he only has access to the list in the Dracon entry.
A hekatrix does get a dodge, however, because the dodge is a special rule for the entire squad. So, the Dracon would share the Special rules of the Trueborn, as he is part of the squad.

Cavash wrote:

Ben_S, I can see your point, but in the unit entry at the back of the Codex, stating what upgrades can be taken, when a Trueborn is upgraded to a Dracon he only has access to the list in the Dracon entry.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The summary (at the very back of the book, p. 96) doesn't list options, so I take it that you mean p. 88. But if that's so then you're begging the question, because whether the Dracon is able to take the other options is what's being discussed.

It does say that the Dracon can take various other options (not open to the rest of the squad), but it doesn't say that he can only take these options and not those also available to the rest.

Cavash wrote:

A hekatrix does get a dodge, however, because the dodge is a special rule for the entire squad. So, the Dracon would share the Special rules of the Trueborn, as he is part of the squad.

She gets the dodge because she's a Wych. Hence, p. 89 lists her under 'Wyches', who have the special rule Dodge. (See also p. 27 "Dodge: Wyches have a 4+ invulnerable saving throw against wounds caused by close combat attacks".)

Pagee 88 lists all of the upgrades and the points cost for the Trueborn unit, along with the Dracon.

Even though that it does not say that it can't take the upgrades available to the rest of the unit, it does not say that you can, either. I tend to think pesimistically when it comes to GW rules, it prevents arguements.

Yes, I know that the Hekatrix is a Wych, and I am aware of the rules. I was backing you up.

Ben_S wrote:

Well, at least I had an argument, based on reference to the rules.

Does a Hekatrix not get a dodge then?

And is a Dracon not a Dark Eldar, because he's a Dracon?

Yes, the Dracon has a different profile, but it's included on p. 88 under the heading 'Kabalite Trueborn'. Can you point to anything that says he isn't one?

You nearly wrote a book of wrong assumptions to a fact that I solved with a sentence.

While the first question is kinda tricky but logically answered by Cavash, does your second one makes me thing you only want to provoke me back with some rhetorical bull****. (just cuz Cavash said please) Am I a Human because I'm German? Well I guess I'm not he?

The heading is the name of the squad, while the dracon is a valorized character of the squad.

One rhetorical question from me. Why would they bother writing once "a unit may take" and once "a trueborn may take" if there is no difference in it?

Cavash wrote:

I tend to think pesimistically when it comes to GW rules, it prevents arguements.

Fair enough, when you're making your own lists - if there's no particular reason that you want to, e.g., give a Dracon a blaster, then you're pragmatically better off not doing so, since you thereby avoid having these arguments with your opponent or tournament organiser (TO). And, in many cases, there's no particular reason why you should. But there's still the question whether you could have legally done so - e.g., what would you say if you were TO called to rule on it?

Now I'm not saying that my reading is the only reasonable one. It's perfectly reasonable to take the difference between 'one model' and 'one Trueborn' to be significant and to therefore conclude that the Dracon can't have a blaster. But that depends on assuming that the 'one model'/'one Trueborn' distinction is significant.

I'm assuming that it's not - that it's simply for variety or line spacing. (So we're both making assumptions here about what's intended.) I think that, given everything in the codex and that's been said here, this is also a reasonable reading of the options. SleepyPillow apparently thinks I'm wrong in this, but nothing he's said changes my mind. (For the record: I don't think his reading is wrong, it's also a reasonable interpretation of vague rules, but I do think he's wrong to think that mine is wrong.)

As you say, Cavash, it may be wise not to do something controversially within the rules. But I think it is within the rules.

Codex: DE Pg 88 wrote:

Options:

Any model in the squad may exchange his splinter rifle for...
xxx

Up to four Kabalite Trueborn may replace their splinter rifles with...
xxx

Up to two Kabalite Trueborn may replace their splinter rifles with...
xxx

The entire squad may be armed with any of the following...
xxx

Character Options:

One Kabalite Trueborn may be upgraded to...
xxx

The Dracon may take...
xxx

The Dracon may replace his splinter pistol with...
xxx

The Dracon may replace his CCW with...
xxx

Problem solved. It spells out everything. The Dracon is not a Trueborn, but falls within the rules of the squad. They specifically say "Any model may..." if they want to include the Trueborn and the Dracon, just as they say "The Dracon may" when only the Dracon can do something, and "X Kabalite Trueborn may..." when only the Trueborn can do something. Just as they say "The entire squad may..." when you don't have the option of doing it to a certain number of models in the squad, and that includes both the Dracon and the Trueborn.

The Dracon would be included under "Any model may..." and "The entire squad may..." but would not be included in "Any Kabalite Trueborn may...", likewise the Trueborn would be included in "Any model may..." and "The entire squad may..." but would not be included in "The Dracon may...". Hence the reason the Dracon could not have a blaster, and a regular trueborn can not have an agoniser.

Also, only the acothyst can take a hexrifle, as it says "The acothyst may replace...", however he could not have a liquifier as that is worded "For every five models in the squad a WRACK may replace..."


Which actually brings up the question, does a Wrack that takes a liquifier have 2 attacks in close combat, or only one? IE: is a liquifier considered a pistol for CC purposes?

Ruke wrote:

[Problem solved. It spells out everything. The Dracon is not a Trueborn, but falls within the rules of the squad. They specifically say "Any model may..." if they want to include the Trueborn and the Dracon, just as they say "The Dracon may" when only the Dracon can do something, and "X Kabalite Trueborn may..." when only the Trueborn can do something. Just as they say "The entire squad may..." when you don't have the option of doing it to a certain number of models in the squad, and that includes both the Dracon and the Trueborn.

The Dracon would be included under "Any model may..." and "The entire squad may..." but would not be included in "Any Kabalite Trueborn may...", likewise the Trueborn would be included in "Any model may..." and "The entire squad may..." but would not be included in "The Dracon may...". Hence the reason the Dracon could not have a blaster, and a regular trueborn can not have an agoniser.

Precisely. The entry differentiates between "any model" and "any Trueborn" for EXACTLY this reason. GW has (surprisingly) been pretty consistent about this sort of language in army list entries.

Quote :

Which actually brings up the question, does a Wrack that takes a liquifier have 2 attacks in close combat, or only one? IE: is a liquifier considered a pistol for CC purposes?

No, it's an Assault weapon, and they do not have the pistol trait of granting an extra attack in close combat. And since the Liquifier explicitly replaces one of the Wrack's poisoned weapons, this leaves him with only a single weapon and no bonus attack.

Sad times...

Allandrel wrote:

Ruke wrote:

[Problem solved. It spells out everything. The Dracon is not a Trueborn [...] The Dracon would be included under "Any model may..." and "The entire squad may..." but would not be included in "Any Kabalite Trueborn may...", [...] Hence the reason the Dracon could not have a blaster, and a regular trueborn can not have an agoniser.

Precisely. The entry differentiates between "any model" and "any Trueborn" for EXACTLY this reason. GW has (surprisingly) been pretty consistent about this sort of language in army list entries.

I'm clearly in a minority and can accept that, but I'm still not convinced. Simply pointing to what's written isn't going to do that when the controversy is over how to interpret what's written, i.e. whether 'any Trueborn' is intended to exclude the Dracon.

As far as GW's consistency goes, I just consulted Codex Ultramarines (1995) and that says 'any model' in a tactical squad may carry a heavy weapon. So presumably space marine sergeants were once permitted heavy weapons, even if not any more (on your reading).

Anyway, I still don't see any reason to assume that the Dracon is not a Trueborn. Suppose you see the following written in an army list:

Quote :

5 Trueborn. 3 blasters. Dracon.

How many models? I say five, i.e. that this is five Trueborn one of whom is (also) a Dracon. But if the Dracon isn't a Trueborn, then presumably it should be read as five Trueborn plus one Dracon, i.e. six models.

But, in any case, my argument doesn't rest on the Dracon being a Trueborn (though I think he is). Look again at my Wrack example. Ok, I said hexrifle when I meant liquifier, but ignore that.

The point there is that if you apply the options in the order listed, you give the liquifier to a model that is clearly a Wrack (because you haven't yet got to character options), and it's only after that that you upgrade a Wrack to an Acothyst, and nothing says that the Wrack that you upgrade to an Acothyst can't be the one with the liquifier.

Perhaps it's fruitless to continue the discussion, because I'm prepared to admit that the rules are vague enough to permit either reading, so simply pointing to what's written isn't going to convince anyone. But I don't see anything in what's written that mandates a distinction between weapons the Dracon may have and weapons that only the rest of the squad may have. GW might FAQ it that way - indeed, they may already have done so somewhere, for all I know - but it would be a case of the FAQ making, rather than merely reaffirming, the rules.

Ruke wrote:

what army builder DOES do is break down each unit and simplify it for ease of use. Had the person been using army builder, the question of if a syb could take a blaster or not wouldn't have come up. As a side note... who would want to? just due to wound allocation would make me not want to...

This is not always correct. AB has been wrong before concerning this type of question. AB should never be used for anything regarding rules, that's what codexes, core rules, and FAQs are for. AB should only every be used in lieu of a pen and paper for writing a list.

Quote :

Quote :

5 Trueborn. 3 blasters. Dracon.

How many models? I say five, i.e. that this is five Trueborn one of whom is (also) a Dracon. But if the Dracon isn't a Trueborn, then presumably it should be read as five Trueborn plus one Dracon, i.e. six models.

That's how I would read it. 6 Models. In fact, when I have made the mistake of posting my list and writing it like that, more often then not, I have been called on the face that I have too many models in the squad to hang out in a venom or raider (actually more often in the case of wyches, rather than kabs, but the same idea applies.)

4 Trueborn. 3 blasters
Dracon w/blast pistol and CCW

Get it easy - just make the army you feel good about, then ask your opponents if it is OK like that. If you'd rather not go through such hassle, stay in open waters and pick the safe course.

Example in point: I won't field my Empire army without the Kislev Horse Archers which have been last updated in 2005 or so. My opponent may moan that these rules are outdated, but if I can't use them I lose a whole lot of feeling while playing the army. All that static infantry, bah, I want my fast cavalry. After I wrote GW a letter about that, they tended to agree with me. It is not that either those horse archers or cluster caltrops are either greater deamons or the ultimate power fist... So little point to get tied in a knot about either of them (imho).

In all honesty, your opponent would be a real turd if he made a big deal about it, as long as you didnt exceed your allowances (like trying to give 4 trueborn a blaster and a dracon a blaster as well), but I would say that if your opponent made a fuss about it they would, in all technicality, be in the right.

@Tiresias: If the Kislev Horse Archers havn't received a update since 2005 they're sill a legit unit, update or no. How long did DE go without a update? Now if another empire codex had been released and the KHA were excluded from it, then I would say that they are not a legit unit to use in a army (similarly to if someone tried to use Warp Beasts and all the rules for them in a DE army now.)

Ruke wrote:

@Tiresias: If the Kislev Horse Archers havn't received a update since 2005 they're sill a legit unit, update or no. How long did DE go without a update? Now if another empire codex had been released and the KHA were excluded from it, then I would say that they are not a legit unit to use in a army (similarly to if someone tried to use Warp Beasts and all the rules for them in a DE army now.)

Might be - but would you like it if for lack of commercial success, somebody just erased your favorite unit, together with 30 of your painted models? If they just put basic bowmen on a horse, and basic warriors with chain mail with a lance and a shield on another horse (like the winged lancers), I would be very happy, and it is not that making up some rules to satisfy a grand number of Empire players is so much trouble? Or do I truly NEED to use those ridiculous pigeon bombs and so on from the present codex? Do they truly suggest then that a whole model line is ripe for the waste basket?

Off-topic, of course...

Allandrel wrote:

Precisely. The entry differentiates between "any model" and "any Trueborn" for EXACTLY this reason. GW has (surprisingly) been pretty consistent about this sort of language in army list entries.

Ok, since what other people are saying challenges what I've long assumed, I've taken some time to think it over. I'm still not convinced, but I want - for the moment - to consider the consequences of my being wrong here.

Let's assume then that I was wrong to think that a Dracon is a Trueborn and (the other side of the coin) that the variation between 'any model' and 'any Trueborn' is deliberate and carefully used - i.e. concede for sake of argument that Allandrel (and others) are right on this.

The bit that gets me is the fact that the squad size is listed as 3-10 Trueborn. I'd always assumed that this includes the Dracon because I'd assumed the Dracon is a Trueborn, but for now I'm considering what's the case if I've been wrong about that all along. If the Dracon isn't a Trueborn, then wouldn't this imply that I could take a unit of ten Trueborn plus a Dracon, i.e. eleven models total?

I'm sure that someone will say this is wrong, but I want to know why. If GW were employing a careful distinction between 'model' and 'Trueborn' then they could have said 3-10 models, if that's what they meant. So, it seems to me, that there are three possibilities:

i) GW aren't carefully distinguishing between 'model' and 'Trueborn' - i.e. that I was right, the Dracon is a Trueborn, counts towards the 3-10 squad size, and can take a blaster.

ii) There is a consistent distinction between 'model' and 'Trueborn', so you really can take eleven models in your squad (provided that one's a Dracon and not a Trueborn).

iii) There's a careful distinction between 'model' and 'Trueborn' in the equipment list but, for some reason, it doesn't apply in the squad size bit.

These are listed from what I consider most plausible to least plausible. I'm sure that (if anyone bothers replying) someone will want to argue for iii, but it doesn't seem plausible to me that GW would use 'Trueborn' to mean 'regular Trueborn, not including the Dracon' on one line and then in the very same entry 'any member of the Trueborn squad including the Dracon'.

In other words, I find it far more plausible to think that two phrases, 'model' and 'Trueborn', are used interchangeably to refer to the same thing, than to think that one expres​sion('Trueborn') is used in the same entry with two different meanings. I'm prepared to concede that I might be wrong about whether the Dracon is allowed a blaster, but I don't consider the position that the Dracon is not allowed a blaster and nonetheless counts towards the limit of ten Trueborn very plausible. What have I missed here?

I fell into that trap before, too.

DE_C p.81 wrote:

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

So, no you can't take 10 Trueborn and one Dracon, because you have to upgrade one of the Trueborn, so you end with 9 Trueborn and one Dracon, if you started with the maximum number of 10 Trueborn.

Ok, fair enough you can't take 11 models then. That answers that question, though - for what it's worth - I don't think it settles the original one. It still seems an odd way for them to phrase it, given the supposed distinction between 'Trueborn' and 'models'. I don't see why they didn't just say 3-10 models.

Tiresias wrote:

After I wrote GW a letter about that, they tended to agree with me. It is not that either those horse archers or cluster caltrops are either greater deamons or the ultimate power fist... So little point to get tied in a knot about either of them (imho).

You got a response? Impressive.