Aye aye, Captain!

Fruz wrote:

Quote :

Also, you can hide ICs from challenges, its really simple

Yes you can, but the uni moves and the turn after you get into challenge.
Although I did not considered the fact that you could still hit during the same turn, it can make it usefull for 5 man squads actually.

Imo they made a mistake there, even though it kinda make sence, it makes challenge not really intersting unless between big squads fights maybe.

as for challenges being a mistake, I actually like them tbh. If you already know that your squad is going to be whiped anyway, a challenge gives you a chance to do damage to a key character. Ontop of that you can actually use it to mitigate damage delt to your squad. (say, agoniser Acoythist challenges a PF sergeant, that way his PF wouldnt kill a wrack or two off the bat, and if he doesnt accept, oh well... still no power fist attacks) This allows for the squad to do its job as it was ment to, while still producing combat res, and protecting your combat res.

My one problem with this entire thing is that there is no overkill like in fantasy. In fantasy there is a whole meta-game based around challenges, where its good to stop an offensive character from chopping up your unit, but you still have a risk of him overkilling you alot. In 40k, there is nothing stopping from Vect wasting 6 of his attacks on a 1 wound sarge...

Krovin-Rezh wrote:

Back to the Sybarite discussion, it's not hard at all to provide an explanation for how this is done. I just assumed it was well known in these parts, but here you go:

Upgrade a Kabalite Warrior with a special gun for X pts.

Then you can upgrade that Kabalite Warrior to a Sybarite for X pts. This doesn't replace any weapons, but note that he can no longer trade in his splinter rifle because he no longer has it. Can still take Ghostplate or PGL though.

This ^^. To my mind, no FAQ is even required here, it's simply a straightforward, plain English reading of the relevant codex entry. All you are doing is applying more than one upgrade to the same model. In fact, it would need a FAQ to tell us that we can't do it.

Count Adhemar wrote:

This ^^. To my mind, no FAQ is even required here, it's simply a straightforward, plain English reading of the relevant codex entry. All you are doing is applying more than one upgrade to the same model. In fact, it would need a FAQ to tell us that we can't do it.

Then why do tournaments ban it?

Because what is legit and what isn't ultimately depends on the TO, not GW. They are in the position of power to change some rules they don't like if need be.

Every tournament is different. Just because one bans a rule, doesn't mean that rule is null and void universally.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Mushkilla wrote:

Why doesn't it just say "one model" then instead of "one kabalite warrior", like in the harlequin entry, or the wych weapon entry?

GW has never really been known for the tightness of their wordings in rules or codexes.

it definitely says "one kabalite warrior". as a sybarite has a separate profile, he is not allowed to take that weapon option as he is no longer a warrior.

csjarrat wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

Mushkilla wrote:

Why doesn't it just say "one model" then instead of "one kabalite warrior", like in the harlequin entry, or the wych weapon entry?

GW has never really been known for the tightness of their wordings in rules or codexes.

it definitely says "one kabalite warrior". as a sybarite has a separate profile, he is not allowed to take that weapon option as he is no longer a warrior.

But he was when he took the option and we have specific permission to take upgrades in whatever order we wish (Ork FAQ quoted earlier in thread).

Let's take the specific example of a Kabalite Warrior.

I pick a unit of Kabalite Warriors
Using my upgrade options I pick one Kabalite Warrior and replace his splinter rifle with a dark lance
I then use another upgrade option to upgrade a Kabalite Warrior to a Sybarite. I pick the same warrior.
The Sybarite may then pick Ghostplate Armour and/or PGL.
He may not take a splinter pistol and close combat weapon as he no longer has a splinter rifle to trade for them.
He may not take a blast pistol as he has no way to get the splinter pistol that he is required to exchange for it.
He may not take any of the other options as he has no way to get the close combat weapon that he is required to exchange for them.

If I do the above, unless someone can explain to me specifically which rules have been broken then I am perfectly entitled to do so.

I started off thinking that this might be a slightly grey area but the more I read the more I am convinced that it is 100% legit and requires a FAQ if that is not the intent of GW.

Unfortunately most tournament organisers would disagree with you and therein lies the problem. And it will take more then an Ork FAQ to change their minds. Optimistically I have posted this question on several sites, warseer (largest 40k forum), 3++ etc (a great competitive blog) and the unanimous answer has also been "No you can't, what are you on about?". So the 40k community seems to have a similar opinion on the subject.

As for it being obvious why is it specifically written warrior and not any model (like for the fusion pistols in the harlequin entry)? And arguing that GW wording is not consistent is a moot point as it would invalidate you own argument. Not to mention this wording occurs over a range of codexies.

Finally the ork FAQ does not really support the case as clearly as you think. It specifical concerns upgrading an ork boy to a Nob before changing the weapon load out for the boys not after (which is what is needed to give an sybarite a splinter cannon).

As previously mentioned, the specifics of the Ork FAQ are not relevant. The point is that upgrades are chosen in any order you wish.

Also as perviously mentioned, if a tournament wishes to change the rules to preclude this then that is absolutely fine and they are perfectly within their rights to do so.

Lastly, in your postings on various blogs, forums etc, I would be very interested in why people feel this is against the rules. With rules quotes and page references. I have posted exactly why it is legal in my previous post and all I seem to have in response is "Well, that's wrong". Why? What rules have been broken. If I do what I said in my previous post, what have I done wrong?

Here are the arguments I have seen:

1) This is the same argument that crops up in the other discussions I have had.

When any model in the unit can take an upgrade:

"Any model may take"

When a specific model may take:

"The sybarite may take"

When any model may take:

"Up to two models may"

When a specific model may take:

"Up to two kabalite trueborn may"

This is consistent throughout the other codexies.

2) Your argument is based on there being a specific order (no where is this order defined), the only reason why the Ork FAQ mentioned this was because they wrote the entry badly in the first place, the nob was unable to take any upgrades if the squad was upgraded to shoota boys. In all the other codexes no specific order is ever needed.

3) Ruleswise, a sybarite is a specific entry, and it says splinter cannon can only be given to a kabalite warrior, so at the end a sybarite wielding a splinter cannon will be illegal.

None of that precludes more than one upgrade being given to the same model, which is all that is being done here.

I upgrade a Kabalite Warrior with a Dark Lance. I then upgrade the same Kabalite Warrior to a Sybarite. What have I done wrong?

You have given a splinter cannon to a sybarite who does not have that option (by using a specific order). In short you are jumping through hoops to get an advantage. Again previously when GW have wanted any model in the unit to have access to an upgrade they will use the term "model" rather then a more specific term like "kabalite warrior".

it's hardly jumping through hoops is it! It's following two simple steps in the codex exactly as written.

Now this may not be the intent of GW but it is what is written in the codex.

Count Adhemar wrote:

None of that precludes more than one upgrade being given to the same model, which is all that is being done here.

I upgrade a Kabalite Warrior with a Dark Lance. I then upgrade the same Kabalite Warrior to a Sybarite. What have I done wrong?

where does it say that upgrades are done in a specific order? why arent all upgrades done at the same time?
by your reckonging, you could have an arena champion with blaster, cluster caltrops and a venom blade, because you've applied the upgrades at different times to suit your needs.

as a game mechanic, your unit champions are there to specialise a squad, or to help compensate for some weakness.
marine sarges allow them to have anti-MC capabilities via the PF, avenger exarches have powers to make his unit better in CC for example.
the unit champ isnt there really to man the lascannon, he's there to lead the charge, which is why you don't normally have the option to purchase a sarge/exach/sybarite with a lascannon/lance/blaster.
using shennanigans on some inferred "order of upgrades" isnt going to win you many friends.
it clearly doesnt say: first, pick one <model> and apply <upgrade>. THEN pick next <model> and apply <upgrade> finally, pick any <model> and upgrade it to <profile of unit leader>
the books are pretty clear on what weapon options a unit champ can take, because they have a seperate profile. a model with the profile of sybarite may only have the weapons listed for a sybarite. which is why you dont see sarges running around with lascannons and powerfists

csjarrat wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

None of that precludes more than one upgrade being given to the same model, which is all that is being done here.

I upgrade a Kabalite Warrior with a Dark Lance. I then upgrade the same Kabalite Warrior to a Sybarite. What have I done wrong?

where does it say that upgrades are done in a specific order? why arent all upgrades done at the same time?
by your reckonging, you could have an arena champion with blaster, cluster caltrops and a venom blade, because you've applied the upgrades at different times to suit your needs.

It doesn't say they are done in a specific order. In fact the Ork FAQ confirms that they can be done in whatever order we wish. About the only thing we do know is that they are not done simultaneously as that would actually prevent many upgrades being taken at all, ie anyupgrade that requires us to replace x with y and then replace y with z (such as the splinter pistol/ccw on the Sybarite).

And, once again, what might be the intent of Games Workshop is not necessarily what they write down in the rulebook and codex. Which is why I get to spend my boring days at work arguing the toss over RAW v RAI.

the ork codex is actually a fix to a known issue with their own wording though, hardly a deeper reason to delve into rai-raw shennanigans.
i was only asking a question, there is a hint of an order when looked at logically. you cant give an exarch a weapon before there is an exarch of course. but why do you think that giving a squad a blaster happens at a different time to upgrading a model to a sybarite? that was more the question i was asking

csjarrat wrote:

i was only asking a question, there is a hint of an order when looked at logically. you cant give an exarch a weapon before there is an exarch of course. but why do you think that giving a squad a blaster happens at a different time to upgrading a model to a sybarite? that was more the question i was asking

Why wouldn't I think that? We've established that the upgrades are not done simultaneously (a point on which we seem to agree) and the Ork FAQ tells us that they're not in a fixed order, and we know we can't pick certain upgrades first (ie sybarite weapons before sybarite) so the only option left is that they are in whatever order we choose. It makes perfect sense and even comes with it's own balancing factor (for example, the sybarite cannot now take any special melee weapons or a blast pistol).

To be perfectly honest, I'm not really bothered either way by this issue. It was just that nobody seems to be able to explain why their opinion of the rules was correct so I wanted to expand on the issue to see if anyone had anything to back up their opinions. I rarely play in tournament games and I doubt if any of my mates would be bothered if I chose to put a blaster on a sybarite (or whatever). Particularly in 6th where one precise shot can pick the sybarite off and lose me a very expensive model.

i see your argument mate, i just cant see that its any stronger than the reasons against it. i agree, it'd be nice to have it clarified via FAQ, but if they didnt do it for previous versions of the game, i cant suddenly see it being done for this one. the codexes themselves are pretty prescriptive about what the sybarite/sarge/equivelant can take, though not explicit about the ordering of it.
it looks to me as bordering on shennanigans, because i know if i tried it and someone called me on it, there is absolutely no passage in any book i can go to and say "read that, there is the absolute and clear ruling that supports me"

the mechanics of 6th mean that you could gain benefit from it, in that your flamer could then be protected by LoS rolls you may not otherwise have had, which could really impact on the game. (flaming a squad of warriors off an objective on last turn for example.)

On a lighter note, when ever arguing about anything (especial in 40k) you can always fall back on the Chewbacca Defence.

actually in some codexs the upgrade is written as "one unupgraded unit may...". has anyone asked an organizer about this?

csjarrat wrote:

i see your argument mate, i just cant see that its any stronger than the reasons against it. i agree, it'd be nice to have it clarified via FAQ, but if they didnt do it for previous versions of the game, i cant suddenly see it being done for this one. the codexes themselves are pretty prescriptive about what the sybarite/sarge/equivelant can take, though not explicit about the ordering of it.
This assumes two things incorrectly. First, that the codex forces us to take upgrades in some simultaneous fashion, which is not stated. In fact, the list-like presentation of upgrade options should be read in top-down order, as wi any list in English. To force us to do read it another way, it would have to specifically state the manner in which we should do this. Second, it assumes Sybarites are no longer Kabalite Warriors. This is also not true, as the Sybarite would no longer be a part of the unit, since the composition is listed as "5-20 Kabalite Warriors," not, "5-20 Kabalite Warriors (or 4-19 Kabalite Warriors and 1 Sybarite)."

it looks to me as bordering on shennanigans, because i know if i tried it and someone called me on it, there is absolutely no passage in any book i can go to and say "read that, there is the absolute and clear ruling that supports me"
Again, the passage is easy enough to find. It is in fact the upgrade options for KWs in our codex!

the mechanics of 6th mean that you could gain benefit from it, in that your flamer could then be protected by LoS rolls you may not otherwise have had, which could really impact on the game. (flaming a squad of warriors off an objective on last turn for example.)
It does not affect this case. Wounds are allocated to the nearest remaining model until they are gone. LO,S just allows another model to bite it instead of the Sybarite, but if there are equal or greater wounds than targeted models, there will be no one left to defer the wound onto, and the Sybarite will still die. If the flamer unit didn't do enough wounds to begin with, they would have failed in clearing the objective (unless morale is failed) regardless of the Sybarite.

My comments in blue.

I can find a precedent for an upgrade character retaining their former status as a "Basic" Trooper in the squad:

Fabius Bile, of the Chaos Marine Codex, allows you to upgrade any number of Chaos Space Marines (basic Chaos Space Marines, as has been clarified by the FAQ, rather than Cult Troops) to "Enhanced" Warriors. However, when a Chaos Space Marine takes a 10 PT Aspiring Champion upgrade, he is no longer a "Chaos Space Marine" in name ... except he is, because he continues to benefit from Enhanced Warrior special rules, indicating he remains both a Champion AND a Chaos Space Marine.

Broodlords retain Toxin Sacs after being upgraded from standard Genestealers, but the 'Stealers are the ones who purchase the Toxin Sacs upgrade -- you don't buy it separately for the Broodlord.

I kind of sort of think you could make a fair argument for a Sybarite being able to be a Kabalite Warrior as well.

That being said, I still feel I'd never try it -- it does have a certain "feels weird" quality to it that doesn't seem quite right.

Things only feel weird if you're not used to them, but I can understand the unease.

At the end of the day the discussion is rather pointless, as it is irrelevant to anyone who plays in/on any sort of competitive environment/circuit.

In my case practically all of my opponents at my FLGS are very completive/run tournament lists and the rules tend to reflect this (no mysterious terrain, no mysterious objectives, no double force organisation chart). None of them let this sort of thing slide. Especially when people know the intention of the rules, and you don't want to open the RAI vs RAW can of worms with them, as common sense will go out the window and everything will be argued to the minutiae (a bad thing considering how many mistakes there are in the 6th ed rule book). In this sort of environment player need common sense/respect as everyone is a seasoned rules lawyer.

But that's my experience, people can do whatever they want. Just don't hold your breath when go to any form of competitive event.

You know it's time to call it quits on an argument when your only point is "someone I know who makes up their own rules won't let me do it."

Still, I appreciate the input. I have never run into anyone (tournament setting or not) who had a problem with a Sybarite holding a splinter cannon. So it's interesting to see a decenting viewpoint in action. I've met my fair share of people in both settings, and my regular opponents are highly compititve to say the least.