BA Question

[Tynskel]

I am not sure people have asked this one:

The BA FAQ states:

Q:Can a Furioso Librarian take additional equipment (such as extra armour)?
A: No.

Obviously, that means no Additional equipment. No Extra Armor, Magna Grapple, Search Light.

However, the Frag Cannon and Hv Flamer are not 'additional' equipment. These entries replace one piece of gear with another.

Indiana Jones would know the answer to this question--ie, replace the gold statue with the bag of sand.

[lobster-overlord]

Sadly that bag of sand weighed no where near the correct amount as would the gold, unless the statue were hollow. IJ may be a good Pot Hunter. Chemist he is not.

As to the real question... No, the upgrade would not be valid. The intention of the ruling in the faq is that the Libby is the single upgrade and that is it.

John M.

[Duke]

The intent of the rule seems pretty clear to not allow any additions.

Duke

[Tynskel]

As I said earlier--- Swapping gear is not additional--- I am not getting more stuff, I am switching stuff.


Both of you guys state the 'intent' (or 'spirit') of the rule is not to allow additions. Once again, I point to both the example, and the word 'additional'. Extra Armor would be an addition. Exchanging an arm for a Frag Cannon is not additional.

I understand GW doesn't want you to take the Magna Grapple.

[Gir]

You cannot take a frag cannon. The FAQ sets the precidence that in the blood angel codex upgrades are taken 'in order'. Basically, if you go past an entry to take wargear, you can't go back to that entry.

[Nabterayl]

Exchanging an arm for a Frag Cannon is not additional.
It is not additional in the sense that your total number of weapons is not changing. However, it is additional in the sense that your total number of frag cannons has increased. Do you have a reason to prefer the first sense over the second?

[gwensdad]

I get the feeling I'm getting screwed. Our BA player uses Army Builder for everything and that program is allowing Furioso Librarians to take all the options.
(since I've been grappled by 1, then had the extra armor save it from stun results many times)

[harrybuttwhisker]

additional, as in additional to it's basic armament. All upgrade's are additional, its like adding things to a shopping basket. Even if I take out the spaghetti to replace it with farfalli im still adding the farfalli to the basket.

[Tynskel]

It is not additional in the sense that your total number of weapons is not changing. However, it is additional in the sense that your total number of frag cannons has increased. Do you have a reason to prefer the first sense over the second?

Nab, your question is the best of the lot.

I went through the definition of additional, and supplementary (because it is used to describe additional).

The BA Codex has two categories of changes- one that is strictly replacement/exchange (equivalent definitions in this case). Exchange is lose one thing, gain another-- net change ~ zero (in most cases, even with the hv flamer you pay a charge to 'break even'- an equivalent). It becomes difficult to justify 'additional frag cannons' when you can count the same amount of weapon systems (the arm + storm bolter is 1 weapon system in terms of damage applied to the dreadnought) on the dreadnought as before the exchange. As you know from our previous rule discussions on this forum, I take a hierarchical approach to the rule systems in the game (As a reminder: Ld test are a type of characteristic test, however, you cannot equate a Ld Test to a Initiative test-- the Ld Test has an additional {oooh there's that word...} subset of rules associated with it).

The second part of the entry is 'Take'. Taking something is not an exchange. You are explicitly adding to the profile of the Dreadnought in some fashion (adding a weapon, a 'buff', and/or an 'enhancement'). This fits with the additional/supplementary definitions.

The example from the FAQ uses the 'Take' as opposed to the 'replace'-- even within the million definitions, it is obvious which one applies to this situation. If the FAQ had used the 'replace' as the example, then it would be abundantly clear that your second suggestion would be the appropriate usage.

Parsimony would suggest to go with your statement #2, unless there was a reason not to. However, GW language has been, in almost all cases, vague. Often left open to interpretation--- even within the FAQs. (look up purchasing a second weapon for Grey Hunters-- what is the 'first weapon'? It is the one that the Player designates). The interpretation that I have demonstrated is consistent within the framework that the entire rule system has been designed around. Parsimony applies to how I am interpreting the rules--- the rules, by convention of how GW has written them, are meant to be applied in the most limited fashion (ie allowing the player the most amount of freedom)--- allowing 'additional' apply to 'replace' is going beyond their standard.

[Tynskel]

additional, as in additional to it's basic armament. All upgrade's are additional, its like adding things to a shopping basket. Even if I take out the spaghetti to replace it with farfalli im still adding the farfalli to the basket.

you are correct.

But what are you trying to say? The frag cannon is an upgrade? No--- the rules does not state "upgrade to a frag cannon" it says to "replace".

There is a hierarchy within your statement. You are not adding to the basket as a whole. Taking a Magna Grapple adds an additional weapons system--- whereas replacing the storm bolter + blood fist for a Frag Cannon leaves you with the same amount of weapon systems (weapon damages destroys the entire arm).

[Duke]

From the Blood Angels FAQ:

Q: Can a Furioso Librarian take additional equipment (such as extra armour)?
A: No.

That is a pretty clear "No."

From Codex Blood Angels:

"Upgrade to a Furioso Librarian, exchanging all wargear for a blood fist (With built in storm bolter), smoke launchers, psychic hood and force weapon."

Granted GW could have been more clear in saying that a Furioso can only have the weapons and gear described in the upgrade paragraph, but it is pretty clear that he loses any upgrades you choose once he becomes a Librarian...

Duke

[ctrich77]

Right all that stuff is wargear and it is all replaced by becoming a Furioso Lib.

[Tynskel]

There are many instances where a model has taken an upgrade and can adjust that upgrade-- you are not taking additional equipment, just swapping things around.

The rule states no additional---- a frag cannon and hv flamer, once again, are not additional-- they are replacements.

[harrybuttwhisker]

ok we take the original state of a furioso before any upgrades/replacements etc.

1)This is a furioso dreadnought.
2)We give it the librarian upgrade.
3)it is now a librarian dreadnought.
4)anything we try to change would be additional to the librarian dreadnought equipment (it does not already have a frag cannon etc) therefore we cannot do it.

hence the basket analogy, just because we take something away it doesn't negate the act of adding something. In the act of 'replacing' or 'exchanging' a weapon system your are still adding something as it is something it does not already have. How simple is that? librarian dreadnoughts have fixed weapon configurations trying to word lawyer rules to your advantage is cheating, if its a secret 'easter egg' only you have found it doesn't exist.

[lowdog]

I thought this was covered in the BA FAQ and it said no, you take the 50 point librarian upgrade, with the listed equipment for that upgrade, and that's it?

[AirHorse]

Strikes me as similar to terminator armour upgrades, if you take terminator armour upgrade you skip all previous options and only have the options for the armour. In this case you take librarian upgrade and then your only options are choice of psychic powers so you are done.

[keithsilva]

I believes this could help, its like in the space marine codex u can upgrade a master, captain, etc. with terminator armour u lose your grenades and I believe u lose the option to take some wargear ( could be wrong dont have the codex in front of me I am at work lol). I would think this would be the same u are upgrading him and lose any wargear u had for the new gear.

[Tynskel]

I believes this could help, its like in the space marine codex u can upgrade a master, captain, etc. with terminator armour u lose your grenades and I believe u lose the option to take some wargear ( could be wrong dont have the codex in front of me I am at work lol). I would think this would be the same u are upgrading him and lose any wargear u had for the new gear.

you don't have the option to buy grenades (except for MeltaBombs). Plus you have the weapons options that you could take without Terminator armor, anyhow.

[Tynskel]

ok we take the original state of a furioso before any upgrades/replacements etc.

1)This is a furioso dreadnought.
2)We give it the librarian upgrade.
3)it is now a librarian dreadnought.
4)anything we try to change would be additional to the librarian dreadnought equipment (it does not already have a frag cannon etc) therefore we cannot do it.

hence the basket analogy, just because we take something away it doesn't negate the act of adding something. In the act of 'replacing' or 'exchanging' a weapon system your are still adding something as it is something it does not already have. How simple is that? librarian dreadnoughts have fixed weapon configurations trying to word lawyer rules to your advantage is cheating, if its a secret 'easter egg' only you have found it doesn't exist.

The rulebook does not present the options as a hierarchy--- note that there isn't 1) do this, 2) do that---the list presented as a shopping list. If the rulebook does present them as a hierarchy, the wording is explicit-- GW is well aware HOW to write something explicitly. This is something that many people do not pick up on.

The 'Upgrade a Librarian, replace all wargear' is written in that format to prevent you by first replacing Bloodfists for Blood Talons, then upgrade to Librarian (yeah, they thought ahead to make sure ya didn't get to re-roll to hit and wound, or re-roll to wound and Instant Death them)--- Yet you still have 1 Blood Fist with a Storm Bolter. The options are still written as 'replace'. These are not 'Upgrades' (the wording of the Furioso Librarian states 'upgrade', by the way), these weapons are not 'additional items'--- you do not add onto the dreadnought.

The Magna Grapple, Extra Armor, and Searchlight are specifically written as 'Take'. These specifically 'add' to your dreadnought. The FAQ did not state 'you may not change any options on the dreadnought'. The FAQ states no additional items, and specifically cites an item that you can 'Take' as the example. Extra Armor and Especially the Magna Grapple make the Furioso very very powerful (combine with blood lance, your get 2 anti-tank weapons and anti-tank close combat). However, losing your Str 10 weapon and a bonus extra attack in exchange for a double flamer is an even exchange-- this does not enhance your dreadnought. Same with the Hv Flamer, you are exchanging range of the stormbolter for density of firepower. You could very easily design your Librarian to be long range with the variety of powers available.

Remember, the 40k rulebook, on purpose, is written to give the player the most flexibility, not the other way around. Even their FAQs are written this way! They want players to 'have fun' while playing, purposefully leaving wiggle room in their rule design. They do have good rules writers, because there are sections of the 40k Rulebook that do not allow for wiggle room, but those sections are limited, on purpose. How do I know this? RAW The rules were written that way.

[DrWobbles]

I agree with tynskel on the frag cannon. You're not upgrading an upgrade its simply a different version. In the BA codex there are three options that begin with 'replace' and three options that begin with 'take'. The faq asks; 'Can a furioso librarian [B]TAKE[B] additional equipment?' no, but it doesn't say it can't replace its equipment.

[harrybuttwhisker]

ok one more attempt at teaching the english language.

When you 'take' an upgrade you add it to the vehicle, it is additional, it did not have this before, 0 became 1.

When you 'replace' a weapon you add the new weapon to the vehicle, it is additional, it did not have this before, 0 became 1.

If you buy your upgrades first, then librarian, you lose all the previous upgrades you bought and cannot buy anymore.

If you buy the librarian upgrade first you cannot purchase any more upgrades it is as simple as that.

You cannot simply ignore the FAQ by changing the word 'take' or 'replace' for additional, that is rules lawyering and cheating.

[Tynskel]

Rules Lawyering and cheating? That is a pretty harsh accusation.

There are two scopes to this debate: 1) Narrow, 2) Broad. The rulebook is consistently written from a broad perspective.

The Dreadnought weapons are not individual, but weapon systems. They are a broad based form. A Bloodfist with a storm bolter is equivalent to a Bloodfist with a Hv Flamer. If you shoot the arm off, it destroys both the Bloodfist and Storm Bolter. I am not adding 'additional' weapons when replace the storm bolter with a hv flamer. Same with the Frag Cannon.

Attempting to narrow the debate down to your definitions of 'additional' is parsing words and could easily be interpreted as Rules Lawyering and Cheating. (see, I can make harsh accusations too.)

The difference between these two camps is how they relate to the Rulebook. The rulebook's overriding philosophy, as I mentioned earlier, is a broad wide grey format with the explicit use of vague terms. The vague terms are specifically chosen to allow players flexibility. The interpretations that 'additional' and 'replace' are equivalent do not fall in line with the rulebook's use of language. The Rulebook and FAQs are specifically worded to be clear and flexible. The wording and example from the FAQ are directly talking about 'additional' equipment--- more than before, ie adding more abilities. Replacing the Storm Bolter with Hv Flamer does not add more abilities, it just changes how the abilities work.

Nab's question was the best one of the lot. Within his question he demonstrates that there is room for both interpretations by looking at the phrasing in the FAQ and the specific entry in the BA Codex.

What I am pointing out is that when framing the argument with the Holy Bible, err Main Rulebook, the design is aimed for the most flexibility, ie most fun, and that parsimony, in all rules discussions, would mean that there is no need to be more restrictive. One would have to prove without a doubt that a "Furioso Librarian with a Hv Flamer/Frag Cannon is absolutely broken", before justifying applying a restrictive interpretation of the rules.

Or, as another example, you attend a tournament that explicitly states that 'additional' equipment = replace. Tournaments are allowed to add 'additional' rules. Once again, this is GW's philosophy at work, allowing the organizers flexibility to allow the players to have the 'most fun'.

As an aside, this relates to Rams on Trucks--- Rams allow wartrucks to Tank Shock, and that entitles them to all the special abilities that are apart of Tank Shock-- ie Ramming. The way the rules work is that you have to declare ramming to be able to ram, but you lose the ability to shoot. You still perform all other aspects of Tank Shock, causing units to move out of the way, and stopping before you would hit your own.

[Old_Paladin]

I wouldn't say that it's GW goal to make vague rules that are open to many ways of playing (which would actually be a very, very stupid way of making a game that can be played between two or more individuals); rather, that they are simply not that great at writing concise rules, phrased to not be open to interpretation (english also being a language not well suited to exacting specificity) and then leave it up to the players to try and come to friendly agreements.

The fact is that this is argument is nothing more then a game a semantics.
Add/equip/replace/take/modify/upgrade/etc. are all very similar words.

If we want to be totally literal; then the faq would allow replacement of weapon options, as it only limited adding new equipment.

However, if the original question was worded in any other manner (such as "may the dread have any modifications"), I strongly believe that the answer would have remained "No."

[harrybuttwhisker]

ok lets assume this broad interpretation of the rules your insisting upon.

I move my guardsmen (for arguments sake) 6" across the board, realising that I am not within asssault range (god knows why I want to assault with guardsmen) I now "shift" my guardsmen another 8" across the board. My opponent says you've moved them too far, to which I reply no I moved them 6" then "shifted" them another 8" and nothing says I cant "shift" my models as much as I like.

Is this ok? under your argument it's fine as even though the meaning is the same i'm using a different word. Under your premise it's fine to cheat in this way. Under the rules it's a huge no no.

You have to realise it is not the word applied that makes the difference, it's the meaning of the word.

If it were any other way you could cause someone to "cease living" without fear of a murder charge.

As far as this have fun etc argument it is fine with a closed group of friends who have prior knowledge and understanding to make alterations to the gaming system, that is in fact what it says in the rulebook, not cheat to your hearts content.

Though once again I am forced to reinforce the meaning of additional equipment, If I replace a storm bolter with a heavy flamer (your example) I am removing the storm bolter and adding the heavy flamer. The dreadnought never had a heavy flamer before and as such is additional to it's original armament. Replace is a combined function whereby something is removed and something is added, that which is added is additional. That is how the english language functions.

As far as your ramming example, the ram allows you to perform a tank shock, this is a singular and defined function as explained in the rulebook, although ramming is a special type of tank shock it does not grant you that function as you must be a tank or be specifically stated that you can perform a ramming action to do so. It's like a health spa membership, the basic membership allows me to use the excercise room (being able to tank shock), however I don't get a personal trainer. If I have premium membership (im a tank) I get to use the excercise room, but I also get a personal trainer (able to ram).

See inclusive and exclusive statements, very obvious and simple as to how it works.

[Tynskel]

UH. NO.

The Rulebook is flexible. Yes.

However, GW are not idiots, and where the language needed to be tight, it was tightened up in the rules. This is where I have issues with people making statements that GW does not know how to write rules--- GW knows how to write restrictive rules sets. Those are Boring and very mechanical. Instead, the made very specific mechanic rules within a framework of loose flexible terms. That way a majority of the game is flexible allowing for 'surprises', but the mechanics are there for situations where people can epic fail at horrible analogies.

You are also making the mistake about Tank Shock--- there is a hierarchy--- Ramming is a Subset Rule within the Hierarchy of Tank Shock. The rulebook does not explicitly state that Ramming is NOT Tank Shock, in fact, it does the opposite, it defines Ramming as Tank Shock with some different features.

Your Health Spa analogy is poor as well. The Tank Shock is the most broad term (Like Premium Membership) and grants access to more functions, and the Ramming is the lower lvl term (with restricted rules). If the Ram stated that you could Ram, it would not mean you could tank shock, per se. The Ram has a stricter application in the hierarchy of the rules system. Otherwise, Ramming would have been the title of the section and then 'tank shock' would have been described later.

[harrybuttwhisker]

wrong, once again. The ram allows a trukk to perform a tank shock move, if you read the rules on page 68 brb if the vehicle comes within 1 inch of an enemy vehicle it, immediately stops moving.

You are only allowed to tank shock as defined under the tank shock section on page 68 of the brb.

You may notice it is very clear, the trukk may not ram a vehicle during a tank shock move, and it is only allowed to perform a tank shock.

Ramming is different, hence it has a different rules section on a different page. only tanks may ram as ramming is a rule only vehicles with the tank type can use.

It's simple and seperate in the rulebook to show these are two different things.

There is a huge glaring reason for this, if you could ram with trukks, you would perform a 19" ramming move (thanks to red paint job) at a landraider, your trukk will explode, however any remaining boys can now assault as they have not disembarked from a vehicle, they have simply been placed on the table due to the vehicle destruction.

With waagh this would gives orks the ability to assault turn 1. This is not and never was the intention in the rulebook.

This follows the basis of GT rulings, discussions with codex writers and the use of literal interpretation based on the english legal system as well as the correct understanding of the english language.

If you wish to use the 'incorrect' rules for your benefit feel free, but don't be suprised when you get called up on it.

I feel this is as clear as can be made and leave these points for others to draw there own conclusions so this does not descend into a pointless flame thread.

[Tynskel]

Nope, Ram is a Type of Tank Shock.
If you have the over arching rule, Tank Shock, then you can Ram.
If you have Ram, and not the over arching rule, Tank Shock, then you cannot Tank Shock.


However, you bring up a rules confusion, one that even the standard judge does not remember.
p. 70 Passengers may not Embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that Movement phase.
p. 41 Orks, 1-2, 3-4, 5-6-- the 'passengers must immeadiately disembark'.
p. 67 "... If even this disembarkation is impossible, they can't disembark.'

The ork codex ignores the normal rules, up to a certain point. They change what happens normally, however, the rules still point to a specific situation. If you floor it in your MOVEMENT phase, and blow up (not blown up in your opponent's shooting phase) it is at your OWN Risk. (Very appropriate for orksies. You kill everyone! Even that Pesky Warboss that has prevented you from being Warboss! Whaaaaaaggggg!!!)




A better example would be this: Unit takes a Characteristic Test: The rulebook defines units are made up of models, and characteristic tests are taken by individual models--- hence every model takes the test, if the unit has to take it. However, a type of Characteristic is Leadership, which has specific rules that only the model with the Highest Ld has to take the test for the Unit. In this case, however, the Leadership rules do not move back up to the Characteristic Test rules. Unless stated, a Unit Taking a Characteristic Test must apply such test to every model in such unit.

An Example is Acid Blood--- if the Pyrovore is wounded in close combat, the Unit must take a Initiative Check (a standard Characteristic Check). Every Model must take the check.
Example #2 Hit and Run. The Unit must take an initiative check-- normally this would apply to each model, however, the resultant action of the test is dependent on the unit moving or not moving. Since individual models cannot move unless the entire unit can move, the test must be applied with one check using the average characteristic of the unit (There are many many precedents for 'average' characteristic-- see shooting, and assault).

This is also an example of the flexibility within the rulebook. The Hit and Run rule is not abundantly clear, however, it does not need to be. The rest of the rulebook defines how movement, shooting, and assault works, and therefore, through parsimony, the application of the rule is discovered.