A common load out is the CSM Lord with a PF, LC and BboS.
I really hope I'm missing something but a Lord has a bolt pistol and a ccw, he swaps those out for the PF and LC but, the BboS also requires the user to swap an existing weapon for its use.

Am I cuckoo?

I think most people would drop the PF and take the artefact instead.

To your point, yes, you are limited to swapping wargear for weapons unless the item has a specific rule stating it doesn't actually replace the weapon. For some artefacts, this is the case.

People are trying to make out constantly that 2 weapons and the brand or the brand and a daemon weapon are legal. You're not crazy, you're just faced with people that either want a fluffy HQ or desperately want a broken lord.

Well regarding the daemon weapon and the brand, I can see why that would be an issue depending on how you take the way it's worded. But taking 3 weapons, needing 3 weapon swaps where there are only two to swap in the first place... :s

Does the lord come with grenades? Those are technically weapons (but I don't think GW intended for them to be swappable).

 Happyjew wrote:
Does the lord come with grenades? Those are technically weapons (but I don't think GW intended for them to be swappable).

He does come with grenades.

Replacing Kraks with a Pfist seems reasonable.

 Happyjew wrote:
Does the lord come with grenades? Those are technically weapons (but I don't think GW intended for them to be swappable).

I'd call bs on that one tbh.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Does the lord come with grenades? Those are technically weapons (but I don't think GW intended for them to be swappable).

I'd call bs on that one tbh.

It is BS, and certainly not RAI; but it is technically RAW

I still find stupid to put a PF on a Init5 Char, but thats maybe just me...

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
I still find stupid to put a PF on a Init5 Char, but thats maybe just me...

Otherwise you have no response to 2+ saves. If you want to chop terminators you need to drop the initiative.

 Happyjew wrote:
Does the lord come with grenades? Those are technically weapons (but I don't think GW intended for them to be swappable).

Grenades, while listed in the weapons chapter of the BRB, are not weapons as far as the codex is concerned. In the codex they are not listed as weapons but are listed in the Special Issue Wargear section.

Some grenades are simply listed in the codex as: 'check the basic rule book,' where they are then located under the heading of Weapons.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
People are trying to make out constantly that 2 weapons and the brand or the brand and a daemon weapon are legal. You're not crazy, you're just faced with people that either want a fluffy HQ or desperately want a broken lord.

Broken Lord? Really?

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
I still find stupid to put a PF on a Init5 Char, but thats maybe just me...

Otherwise you have no response to 2+ saves. If you want to chop terminators you need to drop the initiative.

Axe of Blind Fury...best AP2 response.

Plenty of response to those pesky 2+ saves, ask my weekly Deathwing adversary, His termies never had the chance to last enough to land a hit since the 5 last games we've played.

I'm even considering to give a more mundane weapon to the lord so that the guy doesn't become disgusted with the game and his army..., na just kiddin i'm an evil Chaos whorshipper, that enjoys loyal lapdogs tears.

To me, I want the grenades. Those assaulting spawn need them in the Juggerlord.

If you give him a bike, that also gives him a twin-linked bolter that he can swap for the brand. I've done that before.

Spellbound,
There has been some past debates if that is legal, mostly centered around what classifies as 'his' weapon when it comes to the swap.

Perhaps but it's RAW legal.

A lord with grenades charging with spawn does not give them grenades though does it? I thought the rule had to specifically say it does like the harlequin shadow seer.

 Spellbound wrote:
Perhaps but it's RAW legal.

Not many would agree.

 Spellbound wrote:
Perhaps but it's RAW legal.

Is the bike armed with the twin-linked bolter or is it the lord? RAW it's the bike and that's how a lot of people read it.

So he can't shoot the twin-linked bolter in the shooting phase, because in the shooting phase a model can shoot any weapon it's armed with - but he's not armed with a twin-linked bolter, the bike is?

He also can't fire it in overwatch, because a model is only able to shoot a weapon it's equipped with during overwatch, and it's the bike that's armed with the twin-linked bolter and not the chaos lord?

Seems a bit of a stretch.

It is but you're the one making the stretch/ not knowing the rules.

Pg 45 says that the weapons are on the bike and can be fired by the rider. So yes the bike is equipped with the weapon not the rider.

I think if you equip the character with a bike, it comes with those things. I see no issue with the rules. He has a twin-linked bolter, just like he has T5 and hammer of wrath. Things the bike gives him.

Are you saying, also, that if he rolls the chaos boon that gives one ranged weapon +1 strength he can't put it on the bike's twin-linked bolter, because he actually doesn't have the weapon to give it a bonus?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
For that matter can I use that boon to make my krak grenade S7 or my frag grenade S4?

Yes the bike comes with the weapons and gives extra rules.... what you're missing is any allowance to exchange weapons on the bike. There is allowance to fire the guns on the bike not swap them out.

Chaos bikers have explicit permission to swap out the twinlinked guns, the wargear entry for the bike doesn't give permission for exchange.

Of course the Biker Lord can exchange the twinlinked bolter for a Burning Brand, or combi-melta, or any other ranged weapon he can buy. The model is armed with the twinlinked bolter once the bike is purchased. That can be swapped.

I don't think the lord needs explicit permission because he has a blanket allowance for customization from the wargear list. Two bikers get explicit allowance because the other 1-8 bikers DON'T get that option.

Think about the champion, for instance, of the unit. Are you saying that the aspiring champion can't swap his bike's bolters for a combi-weapon, and has to replace his bolt pistol with it, meaning while all his biker buddies get +1a for two close combat weapons, he loses his?

Plus I think the biker's entry mentions that they are armed with a twin-linked bolter as one of their weapons, no?

I'm saying you've got no permission to swap out the different parts of a combi-weapon. Similarly you don't have permission to sway out the parts of another piece of wargear, namely the bike.

I am saying that you have no permission to swap out the weapons on the bike in the bike squad beyond the 3 options that it lists. The bikers are listed as having a bike. Do you own the codex as you sound like you're fishing for their wargear list?

The MODEL has permission to purchase a swap for a weapon to get either the Burning Brand or combi-melta, and the purchase of a bike grants another weapon (the twinlinked bolter). The bike is just part of the MODEL. The MODEL, not a piece of the model, gets to exchange a weapon for a weapon. The MODEL exchanges A WEAPON for what it purchases.
That's what it says in Codex CSM, the MODEL, not the dude and whatever is on his body proper.

Pretty damn straight forward.

Pretty damn making stuff up there. The model exchanges a weapon, is part of a combi-weapon a weapon? Is a bike a weapon? Just because the bike has a gun doesn't make it a valid option for replacement.

Why do you get to pull the parts out of a piece of wargear and trade them off? You've got to provide some rules here.

So you ar esaying a twin-linked bolter isnt a weapon? Do you have any rules to back up that assertion?

Note that your combi-weapon strawman is just that. A combibolter is a singular weapon with two firing modes, not two weapons - so you cant swap part of that. I dont see how you can claim the same is true abotu a bike with the very-much-a-weapon twin-linked bolter.

I never said it wasn't a weapon, I'm saying you've no permission to disassemble the piece of wargear. Specifically, if you read what I say I'm saying it's not a valid weapon to exchange.

A bike includes a weapon, ie: Wargear A is made up of bike x and weapon y. Is that weapon a valid choice to swap and if so care to back up that assertion?

Also a combi-weapon is described as being two weapons on page 56. A weapon that fires in two modes would be something like a blastmaster. Finally a combi-bolter isn't a combi-weapon so I don't know why you brought that up at all. Saying it's a strawman doesn't make it so, especially when you don't tackle it with relevant information.

So, despite the model having that weapon, you are saying it isnt a valid weapon to swap? Anything to back up that assertion?

I'll take that as your concession.

No permission to exchange one part of a piece of wargear exists. I don't have to prove a negative, you have to prove a positive.
If you are allowed swap out parts of wargear, why do people generally think trading out half of a combi-weapon is not cool?

Can you swap the storm bolter of the single piece of wargear: "Dreadnought Close combat weapon with built-in storm bolter"?

Ah, I forgot the biker lord model has a TL boltgun as well, that makes perfect sense to exhange that one for the BBoS.

liturgies of blood: I don't see your analogy with a combi-weapon that way. A bike gives the _model_ a Toughness increase, changes his unit type and gives him a further weapon. The _model_ can then exchange one weapon, e.g. the TL Boltguns. A combi-weapon on the other hand is one weapon, so of course you cannot exchange just part of it. I don't see why you are debating this as is is not the same thing.

And I can see that you don't want broken lords, but we are discussing rules interpretations, not competitiveness, here. It is quite possible to be interested in this topic because you want to run a "normal" Lord with power weapon, bolt pistol and the BBoS. That's what I want for friendly games anyway.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Can you swap the storm bolter of the single piece of wargear: "Dreadnought Close combat weapon with built-in storm bolter"?

yes because its explicitly said that he can exchange the stormbolter with a flamer.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Can you swap the storm bolter of the single piece of wargear: "Dreadnought Close combat weapon with built-in storm bolter"?

yes because its explicitly said that he can exchange the stormbolter with a flamer.

Therefore "single" wargear items have trade able parts.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I'll take that as your concession.

No permission to exchange one part of a piece of wargear exists. I don't have to prove a negative, you have to prove a positive.
If you are allowed swap out parts of wargear, why do people generally think trading out half of a combi-weapon is not cool?

Funny, thats your concession instead.

The rule is the *model* may exchange one weapon. You either have to prove the weapon isnt a weapon (good luck!), that the weapon isnt part of the model(good luck!)

I can prove it is a weapon, and that it is part of the model. I have thus satisfied the rule. Find the denial. Page, para or concede.

It seems there are several examples where a piece of wargear or a wargear/weapon combo, etc is able to switch part of it for something else, so it seems perfectly reasonable to do so.

Plus, the distinction made that the model switches weapons, not "the lord" or "the bike" pretty much clears it up.

I don't know who brought up combi-weapons in an attempt to switch half the weapon for something else, but what I was saying was that it seemed strange that the bikers in a bike squad were allowed to trade twin-linked bolters for plasmaguns, but by your insistence, the champion couldn't switch his twin-linked bolter for a combi-weapon, which means he would have to switch his bolt pistol or his close combat weapon for it and lose one of his bonus attacks for having two ccw, which is just odd and, thankfully, not how the rule works.

Seems the lord is in fact able to change the bolter on his bike just fine.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Does the lord come with grenades? Those are technically weapons (but I don't think GW intended for them to be swappable).

Grenades, while listed in the weapons chapter of the BRB, are not weapons as far as the codex is concerned. In the codex they are not listed as weapons but are listed in the Special Issue Wargear section.

Take krak grenades, for eg, they are listed as "special issue wargear" with the proviso to check the brb.
On p62, "shooting" a krak grenade is an option you may take rather than using another shooting weapon.

= krak grenades (and therefore some special issue wargear) are weapons.

If a "model" ic on a bike has the option to swap weapons, the biker entry is irrelevant.

In the wargear swaps you've listed there is specific permission, the ccw on the dread's stormbolter for a flamer.

The lord has a bike, the bike includes a weapon. The bike states it has a specific loadout, not that it has a weapon that can be exchanged. The only permission to exchange the weapon on a bike exists in the biker squad entry. There are a few places in the chaos codex where weapons options aren't available for the champion that the squad members can take as they have to pay higher rates and use the weapons tables.

So Nos, you'd allow the exchange of part of a combi-weapon?

 liturgies of blood wrote:


So Nos, you'd allow the exchange of part of a combi-weapon?

I see why you ask this, but, something similar can be found, upgrading to terminator armour, that has a load out, that can be further upgraded, not necessarily because the ic is a terminator (as in the unit entry), but he has access to the wargear list.
There is no-relevance to the terminator entry, a character upgrades in a different manner to that of a squad member as you have said.

 liturgies of blood] wrote:
In the wargear swaps you've listed there is specific permission, the ccw on the dread's stormbolter for a flamer.

Agreed

liturgies of blood wrote:The lord has a bike, the bike includes a weapon.

Meaning the model, which is comprised of the lord plus bike, has a weapon. Agreed?

liturgies of blood wrote:The bike states it has a specific loadout,

So does the lord, when you look at just the Lords wargear.

liturgies of blood wrote: not that it has a weapon that can be exchanged.

Yet it is part of the "lord" model, and the MODEL has permission to exchange a weapon - agreed?

liturgies of blood wrote:The only permission to exchange the weapon on a bike exists in the biker squad entry.

False. There is ALSO permission to change the weapon ON THE MODEL in the chaos lord entry. Or are you now stating that the bike is not part of the model?

liturgies of blood wrote:There are a few places in the chaos codex where weapons options aren't available for the champion that the squad members can take as they have to pay higher rates and use the weapons tables.

Irrelevant

So, can you answer why, when I have GENERAL permission to exchange ANY WEAPON on the MODEL, you are disallowing the WEAPON on the MODEL from being exchanged?

Page, and paragraph, or concede

liturgies of blood wrote:So Nos, you'd allow the exchange of part of a combi-weapon?

Once you answer, with page and para if needed, the above questions, then I may answer this. Answer the relevant question first, then the corrolaries can be looked at.

Then its the same why a termi lord can't take Plasma Pistols...

The Lord can exchange is PBolt for a plasma pistol, but once you buy the Termi armor he has a new options, that specifically says that he can exchange the wargear he gets with the armor for other options.

no where is a option for the plasma pistol, but by your logic he could exchange it with the weapons he get with the armour, even though he has a restrictif and specific list of weapons he as acces.

The Same is with the bike.

Erm, no? As in, what you wrote has no relation to the rules.

Go through it again - the model can swap a weapon for. Do you disagree that the bike is part of the model? Do you disagree the Bolger is a weapon?

Anything, in fact, that shows you are making a rules argument.,

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I'll take that as your concession.

No permission to exchange one part of a piece of wargear exists. I don't have to prove a negative, you have to prove a positive.
If you are allowed swap out parts of wargear, why do people generally think trading out half of a combi-weapon is not cool?

This. Exalted !

 BlackTalos wrote:
Can you swap the storm bolter of the single piece of wargear: "Dreadnought Close combat weapon with built-in storm bolter"?

Yes, because it explicitly states so in the wargear options listed for Dreadnoughts. That is irrelevant.

The bike is special issue wargear and is purchased as such. It doesn't give a weapon to the model. It has a boltgun on it, which can be fired by the rider. It is not "part of the model" as the biker's boltgun is not listed as wargear the model brings to the table.

Therefore it cannot be swapped for another weapon.

ALSO: I'd like to see the model in question that's rocking LS/BF/Burning Brand. I really would. Because my bet is you're proxying all sorts of things to make this model happen.

You mean the Nurgle Biker Lord with PF/LC and swapping his bike's twin linked bolter for the BBoS?


The Bike is war gear, in the bike's description it says that the bike comes with a free twin-linked bolter.

The section for Chaos Artefacts says you may replace one weapon with the following.

If the Twin-linked Bolter counts as a weapon, then you should be able to replace it.

Question, Im on the fence about this, As much as id like to be able to take all three on my biker, (Friends seem to disagree.) What about the Warpsmiths Mechatendrils that has a flamer and melta incorporated into it. Your saying i could swap out the flamer for a combi melta? I dont have the codex with me so i cant see if it says i cant or not.

@GuitarQuero: being the friend you mentioned that disagrees, I feel inclined to post my reasoning.

The Bike is a piece of wargear that has the TL boltgun attached. It's in the description of how you should treat that piece of wargear. Purchasing weapons from the lists says you have to replace something of the Lord's to get that. I wouldn't treat the Bike's TL boltgun as being his, because it's part of the piece of his wargear, not directly one of his weapons. The fact that it has the TL boltgun is akin to how a combi-plasma has a 2nd profile that you treat it as a plasmagun once per game. That plasma shot is part of the Combi-plasma's description, not a seperate weapon. It's just a rule from part of a larger piece of wargear. Just because he can fire it doesnt mean it's part of HIS weapons. He can fire an Aegis quadgun, but that's not part of his gear. The rule just says he counts it as a weapon option when choosing what to shoot that turn.

Not sure about warpsmiths, but Techmarines get a plethora of weapon-profiles form the servo-harness. Plasmacutter (literally says is treated as a TL plasma pistol) is part of the harness, as an example. I wouldn't let you do that either because the Techmarine is equipped with a Servo-harness. The Servo-harness' rule says you can use any of the following weapon profiles, but those weapons are not part of the Techmarine. They're part of his Harness. Are you truly saying that I can swap all (I think) 5 weapons for Combi-grav guns? Not only does that reek of cheddar, that sounds like a REAL stretch to even allow that.

TL;DR: no, the Bike's TL boltgun does *not* count as one of it's riders weapons.

The chaos bike is wargear. The chaos bike in its entirety is an item of wargear. The difference between the bike and a bolter the models wargear states it has, is that in models that list a bike in their wargear list don't have tl bolter listed at all.

At no point would the wargear list have tl bolter, it only has chaos bike. So your assumption would work if a chaos biker had bike and tl bolter listed, it doesn't but does allow substitution in 3 specific cases only in that unit. Nos you've fetishised the model's possession when that's not the point, it is that the wargear list doesn't list a weapon, it lists a chaos bike. While a grenade is questionable at best it is actually listed in the wargear list.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
The chaos bike is wargear. The chaos bike in its entirety is an item of wargear. The difference between the bike and a bolter the models wargear states it has, is that in models that list a bike in their wargear list don't have tl bolter listed at all.

At no point would the wargear list have tl bolter, it only has chaos bike. So your assumption would work if a chaos biker had bike and tl bolter listed, it doesn't but does allow substitution in 3 specific cases only in that unit. Nos you've fetishised the model's possession when that's not the point, it is that the wargear list doesn't list a weapon, it lists a chaos bike. While a grenade is questionable at best it is actually listed in the wargear list.

Concession accepted.

The permission is to replace a weapon the model has. I do that. You're saying I cannot, but haven't provided a single actual rule to back up your repeated assertion, despite repeated requests.

As per the tenets, please mark your posts as hywpi, as they lack any form of rules.

Can you show where it lists the weapon in the lords wargear as a tl bolter and not a chaos bike or give permission to modify the bike? If not your concession is accepted.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Can you show where it lists the weapon in the lords wargear as a tl bolter and not a chaos bike or give permission to modify the bike? If not your concession is accepted.

That question, as you are aware, isn't relevant, as the actual rule only requires the model to swap a weapon. Oh, and as the bike is part of the model, and I have permission to alter the model, permission to alter the bike has been granted. Unless you can find a denial of this permission written anywhere?

Or are you claiming the bike isn't part of the model? Or that a tl bolter isn't a weapon? Or that the permission to alter the model somehow excludes the bike, or is otherwise denied? Any chance you can explain your rules basis, if you have one, for making any of your claims, at any point in this thread? I make that at least your 3rd refusal to provide ANY rules at all.

For now though , Thanks for again conceding you are only arguing hywpi , although you are still not following the tenets by making this clear. I am sure this is an oversight.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Or are you claiming the bike isn't part of the model?

I don't know about him, but I am.

Whenever the rule book refers to "model" it's referring to "unit entry" really, rather than actual physical thing existing on the table. The unit entry does not list a bike with moddable options. It simply lists you can take a bike. No where does it list you can then modify the weapons on said bike.

The reason Chaos Bikers can swap the TL boltgun on their bike is because it specifically says so in their unit entry.

Nos, would you like to stop misrepresenting what I'm saying?

I'm sure it's your own oversight and not the continued misrepresenting of the rules that you began this morning but it's rich to be asked for rules when I have to correct the only one you referenced.

TL bolter is a weapon it is part of the wargear listed as chaos bike. A piece of wargear that is listed as chaos bike on models in the chaos codex. Can you show where the weapon alone is listed as wargear on models in the codex? It doesn't matter that the tl bolter is a weapon, it is part of a a composite item of wargear. You have refused to answer my question, which I asked first, is a combi-weapon able to be broken down and it's parts swapped? If no, why is the bike different as another piece of composite wargear?

So here is a quick list of questions to distil the answer:
1) Is the chaos bike a single item of wargear? y/n
2) Is it listed as chaos bike in wargear lists in the codex? y/n
3) Is the chaos bike a weapon? y/n
4) Is the tl bolter separate or detachable from the bike that makes up the chaos bike? y/n (this one requires justifications for a yes)
5) Is there permission in the brb or codex aside from the specific permission in the chaos bike squad to alter composite pieces of wargear that consist of a weapon and another item? y/n ( justification required)

The bike is itself a piece of wargear, it is not further upgradable. If it was it would say something to the effect of: purchase bike X points... Upgrade twin linked bolter on bike to plasma, melta, whatever... You can't use it as an excuse to purchase another weapon upgrade . The two linked boltgun on the bike IS the upgrade you get when you buy a bike.

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
The bike is itself a piece of wargear, it is not further upgradable. If it was it would say something to the effect of: purchase bike X points... Upgrade twin linked bolter on bike to plasma, melta, whatever... You can't use it as an excuse to purchase another weapon upgrade . The two linked boltgun on the bike IS the upgrade you get when you buy a bike.

Shhhhhh..... we're all fools and communists for thinking so. :p

All I know is I'm going to run a Master of the Forge and swap out one of the weapons on his Servo-Harness now with that silly Salvo boltgun in their relics, because OBVIOUSLY that's a thing we allow now.

Generally for my lord it's not an issue. I run power fist, burning brand.

Sometimes I run power fist, burning brand, combi-meltagun. I have a melta modeled on my bike as well as a sonic blaster, which used to be my doomsiren (when chaos lords could take doomsirens) and is now my burning brand (it's a sonic counts-as version of the burning brand, obviously, as I run slaanesh).

The model I use is doomrider's bike, so if anyone really complains I can say the gargoyle head on the front spits the burning brand.

At any rate I always opt to keep my bolt pistol, so that when I get the boon that says my melee attacks cause instant death, I can opt to use my bolt pistol (has the melee special rule) when I want to utilize my initiative 6 and hope my opponent fails an armor save, rather than my powerfist. I always replace the bike's twin-linked bolter.

And will continue to do so, because I haven't seen anything to convince me that my model isn't armed with a twin-linked bolter on his bike that I can switch out for another weapon.

And "well this model can, but your far more elite models can't." doesn't really pass the stupid test anyway. Kind of like when tournament organizers choose to ban Tau commanders joining riptides for game balance purposes but will allow O'vesa to join said commander, which is the exact same thing, and that's suddenly perfectly balanced.

 Spellbound wrote:

And "well this model can, but your far more elite models can't." doesn't really pass the stupid test anyway.

Why can't my Librarians bring a storm shield? Why can't my Interrogator-Chaplains bring artificer army despite being about as inner circle as you can possibly get? Why can't my Ravenwing Librarians and Chaplains ride regular old bikes instead of bikes with Plasma Talons, and how come, if they are the elite-most of the warriors in that company, they don't have Hit and Run when every other bike unit in my entire codex has one, and don't have skilled rider when the elites of that company have it? Why does it cost an extra point to bring 3 more Ravenwing Bikers into a squad than it takes to simply take another squad? How come Company Command Squads have to spend 15 points a storm shield when Company Veterans, which are the exact same unit sans ability to bring a standard, only have to pay 10 per guy? How come codex space marines only have to pay 240 points for a Land Raider Redeemer while we have to pay 245 despite their base being literally the exact same in every concievable way?

Warhammer has lots of stupid. Metric tons of stupid. I hate to say it because I agree with you the stupid test needs to be applied more often when people are hashing out rules (did you know as worded, Rhinos can fire Aegis Defense Line guns?), but the proper way to do things is often murky and real world logic doesn't apply.

For the record, if someone discussed it with me beforehand, I'd be cool with whatever as long as they weren't fielding a Tau army, because I honestly have more fun coming up with scenarios than actually playing them, but if someone were to just pull that on me and expect me to be cool with it, I'd probably just say "Well there's a couple other guys over there looking for a game, and I'm going to go back to painting. Cool looking model by the way."

SpellBound,
Umm... pistols do not have the Melee Special Rule, they have a 'counts as a close combat weapon' Rule which only triggers during the Assault phase. So even if you went off the logic that pistols gain the Melee Special Rule by 'counting as close combat weapons,' a fair argument, it still can only occur during the Assult phase. At that point it doesn't matter what weapons the Lord with this Boon has, because there is already a rule that grants a Close Combat weapon to any model without a Melee weapon and that would count just as well for the Instant Death Boon when it comes to Assault. Though the +1 from having 'two close combat weapons' is always very nice, one reason to consider keeping the Pistol.

40k is a permissive game, you can do/buy something, when it tells you that you can.

You can buy a Bike otem, this item also provide a TLbolter, does it anywhere says that the Boltgun replace/can be replaced/count has an additional weapon?

Is there somewhere in the codex a paragrpahe that says that if you take an artifact you can exchange it with the TLB of your Lord bike if he has one?

Nope.

Because else by that logic, there is nothing that prevents me to give the skull of Kargath to Kharn to give Him EW.

Or to buy a Battle canon for my Biker Lord.

If there is nothing, no where that says you can do it, then you can't do it.

You choose to do it because your Biker Lord is modeled that way, dude, i have a gak load of boxes with models from 3Ed and 3.5 Dexes that i can't use anumore, because of the simple reason that you can't do it anymore, whole units of Possesed with Wings, whole squads of Cult Terminators, bucket loads of CUltists with Plasmaguns and Meltas.

i have 2 Lieutenants on Chaos steeds and Defilers with 4 CCW, i can't use them, no matter what i say or feel, because they arn't legal anymore.

So saying that you put 4 or 5 weapons on your model because its modeled that way, its nice, but thats houseruling.

if you play between friends thats okay, but don't expect everyone to be forgiving or understanding, thats just not how things goes.

Chaos Bikes, as worded.

"Models with a Chaos bike chante their unit type to Bike, as described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. A Chaos bike is fitted with a single twin-linked boltgun." It does not give you a twin-linked boltgun. So in actuality, no, the Chaos Lord who takes a bike does not actually have a twin-linked boltgun. He can simply fire the one that's part of the wargear he purchased.

It says "is fitted with." Means the bike has one on it, and it's what it has on it. The Burning Brand is a shooting weapon so it still seems like it could fit on the front of a bike, but by the logic that any weapon on a model, even if granted to it through a buyable upgrade, can take any other artefact, we could stick a sword out of the front of a bike and say it's the Murder Sword. And that'd be really, really, really, really stupid and nonsensical. Don't even deny it.

Hmmm nope, still don't see how buying the bike doesn't give me a twin-linked bolter to do away with as I see fit.

Bought it.

Got it.

Threw it away for something better.

liturgies of blood wrote:572571 6435030 0ef01e055720b80058e779d5585782f2.jpg]Nos, would you like to stop misrepresenting what I'm saying?

Then I am sure you can find some rules to back up what you are saying. Found any yet?

liturgies of blood wrote:I'm sure it's your own oversight and not the continued misrepresenting of the rules that you began this morning but it's rich to be asked for rules when I have to correct the only one you referenced.

What correction is that? You havent managed it yet. I must be blind. Please find it for me.

liturgies of blood wrote:TL bolter is a weapon it is part of the wargear listed as chaos bike. A piece of wargear that is listed as chaos bike on models in the chaos codex.

Agreed. Not sure why you think this is contentious.

liturgies of blood wrote:Can you show where the weapon alone is listed as wargear on models in the codex?

No, but then again that isnt what the rule asks, so I dont need to do so. I also cant show you where the sky is defined as purple, but given a rule doiesnt ask me to do that, I dont see the relevance

Is the bike part of the model? Yes or no. Simple question, I am SURE this time you can manage an answer!

liturgies of blood wrote: It doesn't matter that the tl bolter is a weapon, it is part of a a composite item of wargear.

Page and paragraph where this distinction is made relevant.

liturgies of blood wrote:You have refused to answer my question, which I asked first, is a combi-weapon able to be broken down and it's parts swapped?

Dont lie. I didnt "refuse to answer it", blank, I declined to answer a corrollary until you are able to answer the main point. Which, by the way, you are still refusing to do.

liturgies of blood wrote:So here is a quick list of questions to distil the answer:
1) Is the chaos bike a single item of wargear? y/n

Yes. Now page and paragraph as to why that is relevant

liturgies of blood wrote:2) Is it listed as chaos bike in wargear lists in the codex? y/n

Yes. Now page and paragraph as to why that is relevant

liturgies of blood wrote:3) Is the chaos bike a weapon? y/n

Yay! Youre asking meaningless questions that I never stated anytyhing like! Well done! NO it isnt a weapon. I never said it was. This is a very poor way to try to discredit someone, and just makes you look silly.

liturgies of blood wrote:4) Is the tl bolter separate or detachable from the bike that makes up the chaos bike? y/n (this one requires justifications for a yes)

Yes, when given permission to swap ANYW EAPON the MODEL has for the ARTIFACTS

I have already given the permission to alter the model. So, again - is the bike not part of the model? Is the Tl bolter not a weapon? Any chance you can answer a single one of those questions, or refernce ANY RULES AT ALL to suypport your increasingly discredited opinion?

liturgies of blood wrote:5) Is there permission in the brb or codex aside from the specific permission in the chaos bike squad to alter composite pieces of wargear that consist of a weapon and another item? y/n ( justification required)

Yes, in the chaos codex when it allows you to alter the MODEL. The Bike is PART OF the MODEL, and so can be ALTERED. Nothing *restricts* the permission to alter the *MODEL* and so, unless you can come up with some rules, permission is granted to alter any part of the model that is a weapon.

So, any chance you can find ANY rules to back up your assertiojns? None have been forthcoming so far, from you, SRSFACE, etc.

Please answer:
1) Is the bike part of the model?
2) Do you have permission to alter the model?
3) Is the TL bolter a weapon?

Failure to do so is your immediate concession on this point, as I have complied with the tenets, and you are wilfully ignoring them

Wow, nosferatu and liturgies of battle - you are no closer to reaching a common understanding now than after the first post, and it looks unlikely that you will reach one. You might as well just accept that you do not have the same opinion, or interpretation.

Also, could everyone please leave all irrelevant analogies with combi-weapons and other things aside and just focus on the RAW regarding Chaos Artefacts? No-one thinks its possible replace part of a combi-weapon, so come on and leave that behind.

The core question is the wording on ARTEFACTS which is "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following". Interestingly, ranged weapons have the same wording. Melee weapons in the Chaos Wargear list do not have that wording, and instead explicitly list what you can replace: "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or close combat weapon with one of the following". I think there is a key difference.

Whether a bike's TL Boltgun is a weapon on the model or not seems to be the core question. Or rather, is there something that prevents them from being replaced, as they obviously are. And a second, less discussed one, if grenades are a weapon that can be replaced (although I would personally find that a far stretch).

Is there really no GW or major tournament clarification on this? Are lists with replaced TL boltguns accepted?

No, there is no chance of a common understanding - I have cited the only relevant rule, and liturgies insists on breaking the forum tenets by failing to provide any rules themselves to back up their assertions.

The bike is part of the model. Fact. This is undeniable.
There is no restriction stating WHAT weapon can be replaced, only that it is a weapon the MODEL has. And th model, most certainly, has a weapon in the shape of the twinlinked bolter

Liturgies is insistent that either you need specific permission to alter the bike-part of the model - and does so without providing a single rule to help their argument - OR that there is some restriction on splitting up wargear this way, again failing to cite a single rule. What theyre actually claiming seems to change, so it is difficult to know for sure. What is known is their refusal to provide rules, breaking the tenets of this forum.

The TL-Bolter CAN be exchanged, RAW.

Its a little known fact (not represented in the rules) that marneus calgar has a bionic arse.
This is because he got an itch one day, scratched it and only then realised he forgot to turn off the power fists.

Now all that is very well and good, but the biker/termie/whatever entries are of no-relevance here.

The relevant permission to swap out weapons is contained in the granting of exchanging weapons in the wargear section.
If, something, in of itself, is a weapon, it can be exchanged.
Part of a combi-weapon is not a weapon, the entirety of the combi is a weapon.

A bike/termie armour purchased for an ic, is not a weapon, though parts of it, are and are therefore exchangeable.

Indeed.

I am still waiting on liturgies providing a single rules quote that restricts the permission to exchange a weapon the model has for an artifact.

3 pages, still waiting.

 fuusa wrote:

A bike/termie armour purchased for an ic, is not a weapon, though parts of it, are and are therefore exchangeable.

The first half, I agree. The last part, no...

You're given specific rules enabling you to change out the tda gear as you see fit, within the sections given. Whereas you are not when it comes to the bike. You're only given similar weapon changing rules for the bike in the fast attack section in the Codex.

Now as Nos is fighting in the 'it's the MODEL changing' corner, that's where it becomes difficult because people will understand it in a different way. You're right that the bike is a model, physically, but to me, the Lord is the model and the bike is just a piece of wargear subject to no changes as it is not stated that it is allowed. I really must stress that that is just MY interpretation. So don't ask me to cite any page/para etc. If I decide to play, that my CSM bike cannot have 3 weapons, then I have not broken any rules.

Infact, if I play like that and Nos is right, then im just screwing myself over. Until either is proven wrong by an faq or or something then , I suggest that we leave this as an unresolved issue as it can go on forever.

Nos, you couldn't even get the rules right on a combi-weapon on page one, that's what I had to correct you on. You also made out that the tl bolter is listed in the wargear of models that have a chaos bike, have you looked at codex chaos on page 100? It only lists the chaos bike, it also lists the guns as belonging to the bike. The model doesn't have a weapon, it has a chaos bike. Where is the permission to exhange part of a piece of wargear? Any weapon is fine when the piece of wargear is a weapon and "everyone" is against that when it comes to combi-weapons but not this..... seems odd. Oh sorry, not odd, hypocritical and a false dichotomy.

Fusa pg 56 describes the combi-weapon with both parts being weapons, so you're wrong there. If part of a piece of wargear is a weapon and a valid exchange then part of a combi-weapon which is a part of a piece of wargear and is a weapon would hence be a valid exchange. If your side want to answer the question instead of going "no that's different and doesn't apply" or if they'd like to show a gradiation in the application of this "ANY WEAPON" stance I'd be grateful.

You've got your blinkers on as "any weapon"(which the codex doesn't say btw) any time is exchangeable for an artefact. Next a combat familiar will be a valid exchange as it has a "weapons profile" and thus must be a weapon.As for the terminator armour, well that usually has permission to swap items off of it using a different table or list of weapons options.

 Reptile(5iN) wrote:
You're given specific rules enabling you to change out the tda gear as you see fit, within the sections given. Whereas you are not when it comes to the bike. You're only given similar weapon changing rules for the bike in the fast attack section in the Codex.

I'd ask these questions, then, does a biker aspiring champion count as having in its wargear, a twin linked boltgun?
Is that boltgun a weapon or not?

If it is, then he has permission to exchange that weapon, whatever it is.
That's the only criteria that must be met.

Now, it may be daft, but what that (in the simple RAW terminology) means, is, 1 weapon is discarded, another is taken.
Precisely where these weapons come from or end up, is moot.
The only permission necessary, is you need to have a weapon included in your wargear, to exchange it for another.

So, by the bare bones RAW, my biker champ has permission to swap out a weapon in his possession, for another.
He has a tl boltgun (a weapon), which he swaps for a plasma pistol.
At this point, he has a ccw, bolt pistol and plasma pistol.

If you build this model wysiwyg, where are these weapons?
Does it actually matter (in rules terms)???

I could end up with a champ, bolt pistol in one hand, plasma pistol on a foot and a close combat weapon, attached to the bikes axle, ben hur style.

Make of that what you will, but it is bare bones RAW.

No, the biker doesn't have a listed tl bolter, he has a chaos bike. It's in the codex.

And again, as I said in my last post. This can go on forever. We would all be banging our heads against the wall for all eternity.

If it comes up in a game you play, come to a mutual agreement with your opponent and play the game.

Words from gw are needed. End of.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No, the biker doesn't have a listed tl bolter, he has a chaos bike. It's in the codex.

By that logic, a termie lord has termie armour, but no weapons.
How would he be able to get a burning brand?

 Reptile(5iN) wrote:

If it comes up in a game you play, come to a mutual agreement with your opponent and play the game.

Words from gw are needed. End of.

Fair enough.

I have argued in the past, for grenades are weapons, therefore they are swappable, but, would not actually do it, as this is one of those nailed-on RAW truths, but subject to eyebrow raising and potential trouble.
Go there if you want but keep an eye open on what is likely to happen.

Also, bear in mind, that gw words are what cause these nonsense moments, do you really want more???

 fuusa wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No, the biker doesn't have a listed tl bolter, he has a chaos bike. It's in the codex.

By that logic, a termie lord has termie armour, but no weapons.
How would he be able to get a burning brand?

No, that's not the same logic at all. Once a Lord gets Termie armor he has additional weapons (which are spelled out in the entry with Terminator armor) and a line that says
"A Chaos Lord in Terminator armour may then take..."
"may then take". I don't see anything like that for the bike. Maybe I'm missing it though - mind pointing it out?

If you can't, that's a poor example of your point.

rigeld2 wrote:

No, that's not the same logic at all. Once a Lord gets Termie armor he has additional weapons (which are spelled out in the entry with Terminator armor) and a line that says
"A Chaos Lord in Terminator armour may then take..."
"may then take". I don't see anything like that for the bike. Maybe I'm missing it though - mind pointing it out?

Wake up then.

What does a termie lord need to get a burning brand?
= a weapon.

Does the wargear terminator armour, when selected by a lord include weapons or not?
Does all that lord need to do, is give-up 1 weapon to get a brand?
Would a bike give him an additional weapon, or not?

If weapons are to be exchanged by a terminator for something else, it is clear that this particular wargear is subject to change, like a bike, because it is equipped with weapons.
No permissions specific to the bike are necessary, all that exists is the weapon clause.
Is the tl boltgun a weapon or not?

If it is, its exchangeable.

 fuusa wrote:
Wake up then.

I wasn't asleep... Or are you implying I'm not paying attention? That's kind of rude.

What does a termie lord need to get a burning brand?
= a weapon.

Does the wargear terminator armour, when selected by a lord include weapons or not?

No, it does not. At all. Perhaps you should read the entry?

Fuusa, the terminator armour states you get terminator armour plus weapons for the points. The bike states you get a chaos bike.
Terminator armour doesn't include weapons when it's listed in your wargear, the weapons are listed separately. Weapons and armour =/= to the same piece of wargear.

I think rigeld is awake, it's hard to form sentences while asleep and typing. In fact he's so awake he ninja'd me.

Doing a quick review of the wording found in some codex:
Chaos lord states to replace all your war-gear with the following: Terminator armour, Power Weapon and Combi-Bolter
Sorcerer states to replace all your war-gear with the following: Terminator armour, Force Weapon and Combi-Bolter
Chapter Master states: May replace power armour with Artificer Armour - nothing about loosing any other wargear
Librarian states: Replace x,y and z with Terminator Armour - they still keep a Force weapon and gain additional options to purchase weapons outside of the 'exchange X for Y' system
Chaplin states: Replace x,y and z with Terminator Armour and a Storm Bolter

The logic behind the 'can not exchange the Twin-Bolter on the Bike' is that the Lord doesn't have the weapon as part of their war-gear, it is something found in the bike entry with additional rules granting permission for the Lord to fire it. The counter argument presented here was that it can not be correct, because it would make the Terminator Weapon entry pointless. However there are two things causing me an issue here: The first is that no weapons are granted as part of the Terminator Armour itself and the second is that the units in question still have weapons listed on their war-gear even after upgrading to Terminator Armour, as they are granted independent of the Armour.

So please elaborate a little more on this counter argument so I can understand why it is reverent.

rigeld2 wrote:
That's kind of rude.

Coming from you, that's a major compliment, as its something you do so regularly and seem to enjoy.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, it does not. At all. Perhaps you should read the entry?

Then by selecting termie armour, he doesn't also select a power weapon and tl bolt gun, which are weapons. Fine.


No need for this comment.
Reds8n

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's kind of rude.

Coming from you, that's a major compliment, as its something you do so regularly and seem to enjoy.

Tell people to wake up? No, I don't - and I resent that.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, it does not. At all. Perhaps you should read the entry?

Then by selecting termie armour, he doesn't also select a power weapon and tl bolt gun, which are weapons. Fine.

No - he does. They're in addition to the termie armor, not part of it. Do you understand the difference?

Well you're not conflating a wargear choice with a piece of wargear. That's not what the argument is, the argument is about a single piece of listed wargear being sold off piece by piece.

You cannot exchange the tl boltgun on a bike purchased as an upgrade for a chaos lord, or any other hq, for a burning brand.

Try doing it in army builder, or battle scribe...see what happens.

liturgies has been correct. The chaos lord purchases the bike as wargear. That wargear contains a weapon the rider may fire. It does not confer an additional weapon, which may then be exchanged, to the chaos lord.

The Chaos Lord has two weapons. One of those he may exchange for the brand. If he purchases a bike, he cannot replace the tl bolter for an artefact. What game are you people playing?

 liturgies of blood] wrote:
Nos, you couldn't even get the rules right on a combi-weapon on page one, that's what I had to correct you on.

So, you corrected me on an irrelevant rule? And then hid that context to make it seem like you were correcting me on something important?

Wow. Impressed!

liturgies of blood wrote:You also made out that the tl bolter is listed in the wargear of models that have a chaos bike,

Did I? Any chance you can quote that for me? Just to refresh my memory. Thanks.

liturgies of blood wrote:have you looked at codex chaos on page 100? It only lists the chaos bike, it also lists the guns as belonging to the bike.

I never disputed that. You keep bringing it up, yet have failed to show a single rule that makes that fact relevant.

Oh, and STILL cant answer the 3 simple questions?

liturgies of blood wrote: The model doesn't have a weapon, it has a chaos bike.

Ah, so you DO CLAIM that the MODEL doesnt have a weapon?

Finally, you sort of hide the answer to one of the questions!

Of course, you are aware that page 3 states models have a characteristic profile, yes? So, the profile ends up as T5, so are you now claiming there are two models? Or that the bike isnt part of the model? Whcih is it?

The actual rules suggest otherwise, of course. Page 3 only allows there to be one model, the chaos lord on bike, with all wargear. Which means you claim is false

Please retract and correct it, and apologise. See, answering the question was useful - it proves you are wrong.

liturgies of blood wrote:Where is the permission to exhange part of a piece of wargear?

I have already answered this. In the permission for the model to replace one [/b]weapon[/b]. The TL-Bolter on the bike is a weapon, yes? Or will you now, in order to cling to your rule-less assertion now claim otherwise?

After all, you just claimed the bike isnt part of the model. Impressive

liturgies of blood wrote: Any weapon is fine when the piece of wargear is a weapon and "everyone" is against that when it comes to combi-weapons but not this..... seems odd. Oh sorry, not odd, hypocritical and a false dichotomy.

No, not a false dichotomy, actually. Thats where you present two options as if they are the only choices possible.

I also, just to remind you as you seem to have forgotten, not answered your question as yet - as you hadnt managed to prove your case.

liturgies of blood wrote:You've got your blinkers on as "any weapon"(which the codex doesn't say btw)

No, it states "one weapon". Again, is the TL bolter a weapon? Is the bike part of the model? The answer to both of these is yes

The case is proven. You continually refuse to provide any actual rules, flouting the rules of this forum.

liturgies of blood wrote: Next a combat familiar will be a valid exchange as it has a "weapons profile" and thus must be a weapon.

Ah, so you are now claiming the TL-Bolter isnt a weapon? Thats the only way you can possibly be avoiding the slippery slope fallacy you appear to be presenting here - or its possibly a strawman fallacy.

The Tl-bolter is a weapon (pg 52)
The bike is a part of the model, and thus the tl-bolter is a part of the model (pg 3, allowance for only a single char. profile, therefore single model)
The weapon (tl-bolter) is on the model and can therefore be swapped

Proven. If you have any actual rules to contribute, finding a restriction on the general permission to replace the weapon on the model with any one of your ever changing assertions, or proof that somehow the bike isnt part of the model (one of your claims) or that the bolter somehow isnt a weapon, please follow the tenets for once this thread and provide them.

So far we have your assertions, that were proven wrong. Over to you.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tell people to wake up? No, I don't - and I resent that.

No, you call people liars for disagreeing with you.

rigeld2 wrote:
No - he does. They're in addition to the termie armor, not part of it. Do you understand the difference?

They are what you get as a result of taking termie armour.
The very fact that they are weapons in of themselves, is what makes them swappable, or do you disagree with that?

rigeld2 wrote:
Reported.

When playing, do you find yourself hiding under the table a lot?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Well you're not conflating a wargear choice with a piece of wargear. That's not what the argument is, the argument is about a single piece of listed wargear being sold off piece by piece.

Certainly, I understand that.

But, the piece of wargear in question (the bike), includes a weapon (an additional one).
On p45, we have the shooting rules "can fire with one weapon for each rider on the bike."

Which weapons?
What is the difference between the bikes weapon(S) and those carried by the rider?

This rule makes no distinction.
Exactly like swapping one weapon for another.

I'm not saying that the tl bolter isn't a weapon. I said that the model has wargear listed as a chaos bike, not a bike and a tl bolter.

I respond to your misrepresentations and condescension that you call posts, would you do me the great and lauded honour of answering this one question.

If a piece of wargear can have parts of it replaced, as you've asserted it can, why can I not swap out the parts of a combi-weapon? Please end this double standard in your argument because this is the reason why you cannot trade parts out of a piece of wargear you need to exchange the entire thing and as you have correctly said a chaos bike isn't a weapon. So the chaos bike is not a valid exchange for an artefact. Your dichotomy is it's a valid choice or the gam

Fuusa, since you asked. The difference between the bikes weapons and those carried by the rider is that those carried by the rider are listed in their wargear list. They are listed as single entries of their own, while the chaos bike is only listed as that. Not a bike and a tl bolter, just a chaos bike, a single piece of wargear. My issue is that there is a falsehood in the arguments that Nos has put forward and refuses to address. Maybe you'd like to clear it up.

Liturgies - I quoted your post where you stated the model doesn't have a weapon but a bike. You have yet to state where in the actual rules this is stated. It must be easy enough for you by now, you've had plenty of time.

Again. You have asserted that you cannot swap part of a piece of war gear. Prove it. Page and paragraph.

Until you can follow the tenets for the first time in three pages, I assume you have conceded the rules argument.

Oh, and that STILL isn't a false dichotomy. You really don't read posts that well, do you, as I explained it in the post above....

Oh, and not refusal. Stop lying, thanks

Nos, the model doesn't have a weapon listed in it's wargear, it has a chaos bike. If you cannot agree to that then you're not following the tennents yourself. Part of the bike is a weapon, part of it is a bike but is it one piece of wargear. I know you don't understand this due to the insults and ad hominum attacks questioning my ability to understand the game but that's fine you do this every thread.

I edited it, I meant double standard of course, which is again what you're failing to address.

You've not answered the question after 3 pages and it's not a refusal to answer it? Please, how am I lying?
Or are you implying that swapping parts of a combi-weapon is legal and not stating it because you know that people will disagree with that?

Nosferatu1001,

Do you believe part of a combi-weapon can be swapped for another weapon?
Do you believe part of a servo-harness can be swapped for other weapons?
Do you believe part of a bike can be swapped for other weapons?

Those are the questions that keep getting asked and I am curious to what you think on all of them and why they are different.

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Tell people to wake up? No, I don't - and I resent that.

No, you call people liars for disagreeing with you.

No, I call people liars when they lie. There's a difference.

rigeld2 wrote:
No - he does. They're in addition to the termie armor, not part of it. Do you understand the difference?

They are what you get as a result of taking termie armour.
The very fact that they are weapons in of themselves, is what makes them swappable, or do you disagree with that?

Incorrect. You do not "take termie armor". You trade all wargear for termie armor, a power weapon, and a combi-bolter. It's all one deal, not "Get one thing and some other stuff as a consequence."

rigeld2 wrote:
Reported.

When playing, do you find yourself hiding under the table a lot?

No. I just don't enjoy being insulted for literally no reason. I'm sorry you don't like me personally but I'm not sure why you're bothering to bring that into rules discussions that were polite.
See - when playing I BS with my opponent according to the rules of the place we're playing.
According to the rules of the place we're talking right now, what you did was worth reporting. I'm not going to apologize for it.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I'm not saying that the tl bolter isn't a weapon. I said that the model has wargear listed as a chaos bike, not a bike and a tl bolter.

Ok, then, but doesn't it follow, that whatever a model is equipped with, is part of its (the models) wargear?
Is it not also true, that some wargear items are weapons, where others are not?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
If a piece of wargear can have parts of it replaced, as you've asserted it can, why can I not swap out the parts of a combi-weapon?

From my pov, the wargear (bike) exists as something that changes your unit type and gives an additional weapon.
The permissions that exist, revolve around swapping weapons, not "elements" (for want of a better term) of wargear.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Fuusa, since you asked. The difference between the bikes weapons and those carried by the rider is that those carried by the rider are listed in their wargear list.

Isn't the bike, just an extension of the models wargear list?
Or, is a weapon (specifically a weapon) granted by wargear, not a weapon???

If I had a special rule that can render any particular weapon (or wargear) that a model has equipped, inoperative, would the bikes weapons be immune?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
My issue is that there is a falsehood in the arguments that Nos has put forward and refuses to address. Maybe you'd like to clear it up.

In all honesty, I don't particularly like publicly agreeing with nos, I would rather stay silent.

The wargear list says chaos bike, you don't have a list of all of the parts of wargear. So you have a combi-melta not a bolter and 1 shot melta (this is why I keep bringing up combi-weapons, they are another 2 part piece of wargear). In this case it's a chaos bike, not a bike and tl bolter. Some wargear items are weapons, I don't disagree at all with that. It's just that they are listed in the wargear list. A weapon listed as part of a piece of wargear is a weapon. It is not a weapon in and of itself and you have no permission to exchange parts of a piece of wargear. If that was the case I'd take a combi-bolter on my lord exchanging his ccw and swap the bolter part for the brand and the melta part for the axe of blind fury, stick a juggernaught on him and go nuts with crazy numbers of attacks + 1 for 2 ccw.

A chaos bike isn't an extension of the list it is an item in the list as per the chaos codex's treatment of chaos bikers.

 liturgies of blood] wrote:
Nos, the model doesn't have a weapon listed in it's wargear, it has a chaos bike.

And the model is the sum total of its parts, and just because the whole set of weapons et al isnt listed in one place, it doesnt mean that weapon ceases to exist as part of the model. Found a quote to prove your assertions yet?

liturgies of blood wrote:If you cannot agree to that then you're not following the tennents yourself.

"tenets"

liturgies of blood wrote:Part of the bike is a weapon, part of it is a bike but is it one piece of wargear.

....and all of it is part of the same model. The same model that has permission, via the chaos codex, to replace a weapon.
Again, you KEEP ON bringing up this "one piece of wargear" concept, as if it has relevance - but have failed to actually give a rule showing its relevance. Any chance you can find a quote to prove your assertion yet?

liturgies of blood wrote:I know you don't understand this due to the insults and ad hominum attacks questioning my ability to understand the game but that's fine you do this every thread.

Reported. I fully understand the point, as evidenced throughout this thread, so please avoid lying and attacks.

liturgies of blood wrote:I edited it, I meant double standard of course, which is again what you're failing to address.

No, I havent answered your query. Because, despite 3 pages of requests, you havent found a single rule to back up your assertions. You HAVE consistently insulted me.

liturgies of blood wrote:You've not answered the question after 3 pages and it's not a refusal to answer it? Please, how am I lying?

Because it isnt a refusal to answer, with no conditions. it is a conditional delay of answering, until you can find a single rule - somewhere! - to back up your asserttions. I have stated WHEN I will answer your corrolary, whcih is AFTER you manage to answer mine AND provide some actual rules.

Something startlingly absent from your posts so far this thread.

LIke, the chaos lord model doesnt have a TL-bolter weapon. Found something to prove that yet? Because Ive proven otherwise.

liturgies of blood wrote:Or are you implying that swapping parts of a combi-weapon is legal and not stating it because you know that people will disagree with that?

I'm not implying a damn thing, again dont strawman.

I dont expect you to provide some rules, as 3 pages have proven your inability in that regard. Just more insults.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jinx - I;m not ignoring you, just trying to get Liturgies pinned down to actually providing a straight answer, backed up by rules. Rather than muddy the thread further, I will answer on the condition Liturgies is able to find rules support for their assertion that the Model does not have a Tl-Boltgun weapon.

At least, I think that is their assertion. The inconsistency in argument makes it diffiuclt to tell at times.

Oh I didn't realise I was holding you up. Please feel free to go first since I asked first. I didn't point out your misspellings Nos, grown up. I'm sorry if you feel insulted but everyone feels insulted when you speak to them.
The relevance of the one piece of wargear is tied directly to the questions you refuse to answer. Delaying until you feel fit to deign to respond is refusal to answer a question.
So part of a combi-weapon is a valid exchange? That is the natural extension of your argument as the model is the sum of it's parts not the list of wargear, rules and the physical item itself.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Oh I didn't realise I was holding you up. Please feel free to go first since I asked first. I didn't point out your misspellings Nos, grown up. I'm sorry if you feel insulted but everyone feels insulted when you speak to them.
The relevance of the one piece of wargear is tied directly to the questions you refuse to answer. Delaying until you feel fit to deign to respond is refusal to answer a question.
So part of a combi-weapon is a valid exchange? That is the natural extension of your argument as the model is the sum of it's parts not the list of wargear, rules and the physical item itself.

Concession accepted

3 pages and you cannot show a single rule to support your position therefore your position remains baseless.

Youre done here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 liturgies of blood] wrote:
Nos, the model doesn't have a weapon listed in it's wargear, it has a chaos bike.

And the model is the sum total of its parts, and just because the whole set of weapons et al isnt listed in one place, it doesnt mean that weapon ceases to exist as part of the model. Found a quote to prove your assertions yet?

Page 66 C:CSM. Chaos Bikes are defined as having a single twin linked boltgun.
Find permission to alter the Chaos Bike wargear.

liturgies of blood wrote:Part of the bike is a weapon, part of it is a bike but is it one piece of wargear.

....and all of it is part of the same model.

Irrelevant statement.

The same model that has permission, via the chaos codex, to replace a weapon.

Replacing a weapon is not the same as altering a piece of wargear. You're changing the Chaos Bike. Cite permission.

LIke, the chaos lord model doesnt have a TL-bolter weapon. Found something to prove that yet? Because Ive proven otherwise.

No - your statement is absolutely false. The Lord has a Chaos Bike. The rules for Bikes on page 45 of the BRB allow the rider to fire that TL-Boltgun.
That does not make it the Chaos Lord's weapon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
3 pages and you cannot show a single rule to support your position[/b] therefore your position remains baseless.

Youre done here.

That would be "You're".
I've shown you quotations from the codex, the one you've misquoted, shown quotes from the rulebook to show the relevance of combi-bolters to this debate. I've shown that much and all you have done is state that I am wrong. Rigeld has asked a few questions of you, jinx dragon the same, would you deign to answer them if you are not too busy?

robzidious wrote:
You cannot exchange the tl boltgun on a bike purchased as an upgrade for a chaos lord, or any other hq, for a burning brand.

Try doing it in army builder, or battle scribe...see what happens.

As a former member of the team that produced the 40K files for Army Builder I can tell you with 100% certainty that they have no special insight into the rules and we tended to disallow certain questionable options if there was a doubt as to if they were legal. Bringing AB or BattleScribe into a rules discussion is pointless.

rigeld2] wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 liturgies of blood] wrote:
Nos, the model doesn't have a weapon listed in it's wargear, it has a chaos bike.

And the model is the sum total of its parts, and just because the whole set of weapons et al isnt listed in one place, it doesnt mean that weapon ceases to exist as part of the model. Found a quote to prove your assertions yet?

Page 66 C:CSM. Chaos Bikes are defined as having a single twin linked boltgun.
Find permission to alter the Chaos Bike wargear.

Already given. You are given permission to alter the model. The bike is part of the model. Can you address that point? Directly.

rigeld2 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Part of the bike is a weapon, part of it is a bike but is it one piece of wargear.

....and all of it is part of the same model.

Irrelevant statement.

Not when you have permission to alter the models weapons. Or would you like to clarify your "irrelevant statement" comment as to why the permission does not apply to this specific part of the model?

rigeld2 wrote:

The same model that has permission, via the chaos codex, to replace a weapon.

Replacing a weapon is not the same as altering a piece of wargear. You're changing the Chaos Bike. Cite permission.

Done. Please explain why altering a piece of wargear is important. RUles please.

rigeld2 wrote:

LIke, the chaos lord model doesnt have a TL-bolter weapon. Found something to prove that yet? Because Ive proven otherwise.

No - your statement is absolutely false. The Lord has a Chaos Bike. The rules for Bikes on page 45 of the BRB allow the rider to fire that TL-Boltgun.
That does not make it the Chaos Lord's weapon.

Sigh. No, that statement is not absolutely false. Note how you change the wording to something different?

The model absolutely has a twinlinked boltgun. Do you agree or disagree?

The model has a chaos bike.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
3 pages and you cannot show a single rule to support your position[/b] therefore your position remains baseless.

Youre done here.

That would be "You're".
I've shown you quotations from the codex, the one you've misquoted, shown quotes from the rulebook to show the relevance of combi-bolters to this debate. I've shown that much and all you have done is state that I am wrong. Rigeld has asked a few questions of you, jinx dragon the same, would you deign to answer them if you are not too busy?

You have shown quotations that prove you incorrect.
My misquote a) wasnt a quote and b) wasnt a relvant misquote - exchaning any weapon and one weapon have the same function in this context.

I have not said the are irrelevant, I have said they are a corrolary. As in, I am trying to address the ------>topic<------, to help you understand your error. Its simpler to argue one key point, as when you find out your error, you will find the answer to your question.

So - can you find a rule restricting me from exchanging a weapon on the model as per the chaos codex? Anything? Something relevant would be good for the first time this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
The model has a chaos bike.

Which has a twinlinked bolter. So the model has a twinlinked bolter.

Do you agree or disagree?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2] wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 liturgies of blood] wrote:
Nos, the model doesn't have a weapon listed in it's wargear, it has a chaos bike.

And the model is the sum total of its parts, and just because the whole set of weapons et al isnt listed in one place, it doesnt mean that weapon ceases to exist as part of the model. Found a quote to prove your assertions yet?

Page 66 C:CSM. Chaos Bikes are defined as having a single twin linked boltgun.
Find permission to alter the Chaos Bike wargear.

Already given. You are given permission to alter the model. The bike is part of the model. Can you address that point? Directly.

The bike is part of the model, but the bolter is not - it's part of the bike. You're making a leap you've not supported with rules.

Not when you have permission to alter the models weapons. Or would you like to clarify your "irrelevant statement" comment as to why the permission does not apply to this specific part of the model?

Because the bike is wargear for the model.
The bolter is not.

Done. Please explain why altering a piece of wargear is important. RUles please.

Because you're given permission to replace a weapon. You're not given permission to alter wargear.

The model absolutely has a twinlinked boltgun. Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree. The model (the Chaos Lord) has a Chaos Bike.
The Bike has a TL Boltgun and the BRB gives the rider permission to fire it.
That does not mean that the Chaos Lord has a TL Boltgun.

So you're going to refuse to answer them too?
It's not too much to ask you to clarify your position with some examples and where you draw the line. We've been good enough to explain what we believe.

Nos,
As I write this I am starting to slide further onto your side.

My biggest concern is the fact the sentence stating that the Rider can fire the inbuilt weapons is located within the 'fluff' of the entry, and not even in every piece of fluff talking about Bikes but only a handful of Codex's. Of course, if I have overlooked where this is repeated in the Rule portion of the entry please direct me to the correct page and paragraph, but all of those seem to be copy and paste jobs of each other. So unless people are going to start arguing that the Bike classifies as a Melee weapon, granting a +1 if they even have a single listed melee weapon, then they know they are arguing fluff as if it is rules. After all, that same section in the Space Marine Codex states that the Bike is a formidable weapon when charging into combat so it must be a Melee weapon!

Just like the Hammer of Wrath Special Rule is the abstract representation of the bike being a weapon when driving into Melee, firing a weapon through normal rules represents the fact the Bikes are a stable weapon platform. They simply have permission to move a greater distance within the Movement Phase without suffering any penalty to the To Hit Rolls during the shooting phase. The only way to make a normal attack with this in mind would be if the model in question was physically in possession of the weapon for the very same reason we demand every other model possess the weapon they are firing normally. The bike has to be part of the model for all purposes or it's inbuilt weapon has zero permission to fire because it is part of a different model and the only sentence that comes close to granting permission is fluff clearly.

To be fair, on the matter of Servo Harnesses, they would be even harder to deny:
They outright state that they give the bearer X, Y and Z and if those bearers have permission to swap any weapon, like the Master of the Forge does, then....
Combi-Weapons are still a little more gray right now but even that is starting to look doubtful....

So yeah, maybe we need a rule stating parts of war-gear can not be swapped out because this is clearly not intended!

So Jinx is it a case of I can switch the mechatendril weapons on my warpsmith for artefacts?

The part about the rider firing weapons on his bike is in the brb not in some fluff section. You don't need a rule to say you cannot do something if there was no permission to do so in the beginning, without the permission to swap out parts of wargear it doesn't matter that no rules exist as you have nothing to justify the action.

JinxDragon wrote:
My biggest concern is the fact the sentence stating that the Rider can fire the inbuilt weapons is located within the 'fluff' of the entry, and not even in every piece of fluff talking about Bikes but only a handful of Codex's. Unless people are going to start arguing that the Bike classifies as a Melee weapon, granting a +1 if they even have a single listed melee weapon, then they know they are arguing fluff as if it is rules. After all, that same section in the Space Marine Codex states that the Bike is a formidable weapon when charging into combat so it must be a Melee weapon!

Wow - a failure to read and a strawman all in one!

p45 wrote:Each Bike or Jetbike in a unit can fire with one weapon for each rider on the Bike.

Since the Lord is now a Bike, it can fire with one weapon per rider.
There's one rider.
Fire a weapon.

rigeld2] wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2] wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 liturgies of blood] wrote:
Nos, the model doesn't have a weapon listed in it's wargear, it has a chaos bike.

And the model is the sum total of its parts, and just because the whole set of weapons et al isnt listed in one place, it doesnt mean that weapon ceases to exist as part of the model. Found a quote to prove your assertions yet?

Page 66 C:CSM. Chaos Bikes are defined as having a single twin linked boltgun.
Find permission to alter the Chaos Bike wargear.

Already given. You are given permission to alter the model. The bike is part of the model. Can you address that point? Directly.

The bike is part of the model, but the bolter is not - it's part of the bike. You're making a leap you've not supported with rules.

Apart from page 3, which describes exactly what a model is. I have consistenly supported that the model, which includes by definition all wargear that model has, has a tl-boltgun weapon. You have asserted it does not, yet have failed to cite an actual rule stating that page 3 does not apply here.

You are, in essence, stating the bike is not partr of the model.

rigeld2 wrote:

Not when you have permission to alter the models weapons. Or would you like to clarify your "irrelevant statement" comment as to why the permission does not apply to this specific part of the model?

Because the bike is wargear for the model.
The bolter is not.

And the bike is part of the model, meaning the tl-bolter, which is part of the bike, is part of the model. This has been proven. You are simply asserting the same thing Liturgies, and with - unusually for you - the same lack of proof.

rigeld2 wrote:

Done. Please explain why altering a piece of wargear is important. RUles please.

Because you're given permission to replace a weapon. You're not given permission to alter wargear.

I am given permission to replace the weapon on the model, and I have proven the weapon is on the model. I do not need specific permission to replace a weapon that is part of wargear, as long as that wargear is on the model I am talking about.

Cf to deployment rules, where you can deploy anywhere in your deployment zone (minus exceptions) - can you deploy within woods within your deployment zone?

rigeld2 wrote:

The model absolutely has a twinlinked boltgun. Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree. The model (the Chaos Lord) has a Chaos Bike.

Why is the model "just " the lord? The "model" is the complete totality of parts - bike, wargear and all. Page 3, again.

rigeld2 wrote:The Bike has a TL Boltgun and the BRB gives the rider permission to fire it.
That does not mean that the Chaos Lord has a TL Boltgun.

I never said the Lord has a TL Boltgun. I said - and I am being very precise here - that the Chaos Lord model has the TL Boltgun. Because it does, as I have proven it does

Again: you are in essence arguing that the bike is not part of the model. This is what liturgies argued, and has refused to back up with rules. You have also - unusually - failed to cite any rules.

Liturgies - cite the rules required, or quit trolling.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cf to deployment rules, where you can deploy anywhere in your deployment zone (minus exceptions) - can you deploy within woods within your deployment zone?

Irrelevant comparison.

Again: you are in essence arguing that the bike is not part of the model. This is what liturgies argued, and has refused to back up with rules. You have also - unusually - failed to cite any rules.

Page 3 shows that a model has a profile of characteristics.
Each model also has a unit type.
It may also have shooting or Melee weapons, or an additional save.

I don't see where, on page 3, your assertion is supported.

Liturgies of Blood;
Direct me to the right page please, as it is not the Unit Type I am looking in?

For all I see within the Unit Type Entry for Bikes is permission for multiple riders to fire multiple weapons granted to certain bikes, but not all. Nothing within this section states that the weapons being discussed are the 'fitted weapons' of the bike, that term seems found only under the Special Wargear section of the codex's. Without this section Bikes would be restricted to one weapon, seeing they would have just as much as much permission to fire two as standard infantry. Therefore we still require to meet the normal limitations on which weapon we have permission to fire, and one the requirements we hold people to is that the weapon in question is either: A) part of the war-gear of the model firing it or B) granted permission to fire via a secondary Rule.

So where is that precise Rule stating a rider can fire a weapon fitted to the bike, given that the argument against swapping it out is the fact the Lord does not possess it, if it is not in the Unit Type Section?
Because, if they where talking about fitted weapons in this section, then using an Attack Bike as an example is very odd:
Attack bikes are not pieces of war-gear with fitted weapons, but a model given it's own wargear listing....

Mechatendrils themselves are still a gray area for the same reason as Combi-weapons, because they do not outright state they give the bearer any weapons unlike Servo-Harnesses. They still function because they do give the bearer permission to fire the 'inbuilt' weapons independently of normal Firing rules, for whatever that is worth. Therefore the original argument put forth against Bikes switching the 'fitted weapons' still can apply to these weapons because it doesn't break anything further. The conclusion I come to when applying it to Bikes purchased as wargear, for when it is not purchased as an upgrade it isn't listed as 'bike' in the wargear list after all, is that the Rider has no permission to fire the fitted weapon under that argument so it can not be correctly applied to bikes.

Rigeld - so you claim is that the bike is not part of the model?

Yes or no

Oh, and it isnt irrlevant. You are requiring specific permission o replace part of the wargear a model possesses, despite the model having permission to replace that weapon. It is analogous to requiring specific permission to deploy within woods, despite being told you can deploy anywhere within your deployment zone (minus excpetions)

Stating "irrelevant", without an explanation as to why, is rude. Please desist.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - so you claim is that the bike is not part of the model?

The bike is.
The bolter is not - it's part of the bike but you're applying a transitive property without supporting it with a rule.
Nothing on page 3 supports it.

Cool, so when measuring range to the model when firing the bolter, you dont measure to the model?
Because the bolter isnt part of the model, and you measure range from the model. So is the bolter its own model? Or just a non-entity "thing"?

DO you have any rules support for this assertion?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cool, so when measuring range to the model when firing the bolter, you dont measure to the model?
Because the bolter isnt part of the model, and you measure range from the model. So is the bolter its own model? Or just a non-entity "thing"?

You measure range from the firing model. If you quote rules correctly things magically work out.
What model is firing? The Bike.

Yet it is firing a weapon it doesn't possess and doesn't have precise permission to fire as if it was his own weapon.

Jinx if you read the codex entry for chaos bikes you'd see why the bike rules apply to the chaos bike and why the bolter is part of the bike.

The rules for firing the weapon are in the shooting rules. I'm not trying to say the the model doesn't have a weapon. I'm saying that the weapon is part of a piece of wargear the the model has. It's a subtle but important difference that changes the nature of how the "weapon" is dealt with.

I'm loving how after 4 pages people are still afraid to answer the question on combi-weapons. It must be very difficult.

Liturgies of Blood,
This is the problem with your statement:
no such rule exists

The rule you keep referring to mentions nothing about the rider being able to fire a weapon fitted to the Bike. It simply states that the Bike, as in the model with this unit type, has permission to fire more then one weapon if there is more then one Rider present on the physical model. It is clearly designed because they intended for certain models to have permision to fire more then one weapon, while other Bikes would still be limited to just one. This is why the example they provide is the Attack Bike: Attack Bike models do not posses a piece of war-gear called 'attack bike' that comes with a Heavy Bolter. They are simply 'Attack Bikes' and are granted the Heavy Bolter in the same way any other model would be... it is stated on their wargear list as Heavy Bolter (Attack Bike).

Without specific permission stating this firing process can include a weapon that the model doesn't 'possess,' because it is built into the wargear and somehow not in his possession, then it can not fire it at all....

You know what? next time i see someone who try to pull this off i say" okay you exchange the TL Bolter for the artefact, but then your Lord is on foot, why?, well you exchanged the Bolter, the bolter is part of the bike, so you exchanged the whole thing" that would be fun to watch.

Jinx, I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth.
The lord has the same wargear as a chaos biker in this regard. A chaos bike which includes a weapon. Stop misrepresenting this fact.

The lord doesn't have a weapon to trade because the weapon is part of the chaos bike and there is nothing to allow the substitution of part of a piece of wargear. Would you like to answer the important question in this debate now?

The issue I have is the fact that interpretation removes the ability to fire that weapon too....

No it doesn't. Can you shoot a combi-weapon? You've decided that for something to be part of the chaos warbike means that the lord doesn't own it. That's great but it's not in the rules. What the rules say is that the chaos bike is a bike and tl bolter. What the lord doesn't have is a tl bolter in isolation, it is part of the chaos bike.

If that narrow and reductionist interpretation that you're postulating was true then 40k players have been cheating for years.

Rules exist to give you permission for a model to fire that 'inbuilt' weapon, they do not exist for the Bike.
Unless the Twin-Linked Bolter belongs to the Lord, then there is no issue but it does also gain the ability to swap it.

Like I said:
We need a rule stating you can not swap part of a piece of war-gear, it clearly is not intended but permission does seem to exist from a pure Rule as Written perspective.

No you need a rule to allow substitution of part of a piece of wargear. We have permission to exchange weapons, not parts of wargear. Without that permission you cannot exchange part of a piece of wargear. That's how permissive rulesets work.

That the lord possesses a chaos bike and it's constituent parts gives him the ability to gain the rules of those parts. What has yet to be shown is an ability to exchange those parts. It's why nobody has answered the combi-weapon question, as that is another piece of wargear that has two parts to it. If the substitution was allowed then you'd be able to do as I suggested earlier.

As Nos pointed out;
You have to prove to us that the Twin-Linked Boltgun belongs to the bike, and not the model as a whole, or else it a weapon that triggers the swap in the same way it triggers firing - by being a weapon on the model.

Eh... no I don't. Just because he says that doesn't make it true, introducing false barriers is a great tactic in debates but not as good as refusing to answer a question.

The chaos bike includes a gun, you could see that if you look at the codex. It's not a weapon on the model, it's part of the chaos bike on the model.

And that gun belongs to the model, or else it can not be used by the model.

The gun belongs to the model in a round about way. What you are missing is that the gun is part of the chaos bike which is owned by the lord.

How is this hard?
a and b are parts of c owned by d.
a is bolter,
b is bike
c is chaos bike
d is lord

Permission exists to exchange any weapon the model owns with another. You have created this 'pseudo-belonging to the model' state and we would like to see some rules to support this stance. We would also need to see specific exceptions to the general permission that states this pseudo-ownership can not meet the requirements of 'Any weapon.' Until you show me those rules then permission exists for the Lord to exchange the Twin-Linked Bolter, regardless that everyone involved in this debate have pointed out this is probably not an intended consequence of the Rules as Written.

Ok, if that's true are you going to state finally that combi-weapons and mechatendrils can have their constituent parts shopped off for other weapons and artefacts?
You cannot have it both ways, either a part of a weapon or piece of wargear is a valid choice or it's not. Permission doesn't exist to exchange parts of wargear and nothing has been put forward yet to say it does other than repeating "any weapon".

That is still a debatable gray zone as far as I am concerned.

The reason I have the problem with the Bike is the fact it can not use the weapon if you are correct that 'fitted' means that it isn't belonging to the Lord for all rule purposes. The reason why those two particular items are still debatable is because the wording used in these is different and additional rules exist to get around the problem you have created: Even if those 'included weapons' do not belonging to the model for all rule purposes, they still can be used because of specific permission to fire them instead/in conjugation with of the models normal weapons.

We can ask you all day for rules to show that 'fitted' doesn't belong to the model
You can ask as all day for rules to show that 'fitted' belongs to the model
I don't think we are going to get anywhere with that line of questioning, so I am trying to find interpretations that do not render the weapon useless.

Fitted mean's it's part of the bike, in the same way a flamer is part of mechatendrils, that a bolter is part of a combi-weapon etc etc.

The issue isn't ownership it's still just the ability to modify wargear without permission to sell off the parts.

JinxDragon wrote:
And that gun belongs to the model, or else it can not be used by the model.

That's simply not true. At all.

Rigeld2,
Found a rule that states the Rider of a Bike can use a weapon that the model does not possess?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Liturgies of Blood,
The rule being evoked to make the swap says the model can change any weapon.... how is that not permission to exchange the Twin-Linked bolter that the model possess?

Is anyone going to answer the question on combi-weapons and mechatendrils then?
It's the same reason, because they are not a weapon. They are wargear that contains specified weapons, weapons you have no permission to change.

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,
Found a rule that states the Rider of a Bike can use a weapon that the model does not possess?

Not that it's relevant, but a model can fire any weapon it has.
Has != possesses. Not in every way anyway.

The rule being evoked to make the swap says the model can change any weapon.... how is that not permission to exchange the Twin-Linked bolter that the model possess?

Because The Lord doesn't possess the bolter - the bike does. The Lord possesses the bike.
Unless the bike is somehow firing it...

So the model has a weapon that it both posses and doesn't possess, depending on which rule is being reviewed?

The model has a weapon that is part of a piece of wargear.... the weapon is not a "free" weapon that exists in and of itself, it is fundamentally part of that piece of wargear.

We are going around in circles, with no resolution, on a subject that has been debated far longer throughout the Internet as a whole. Nos has proven his point quite well as far as I am concerned, and I was someone who originally didn't believe the weapon should be swapped. The questions I have over your interpretation exist because strange things happen if the weapon doesn't belong to the model, and if it does belong to the model then it meets the requirement for swapping. The only resolution to those strange things is a 'pseudo-on the model' state that allows the Lord to possess it for the sake of firing but not for the sake of any other rule....

Personally:
I like the stance that your replacing the bike entirely when you make this choice, they are linked after all.

Just wanted to answer the question on mechatentrils and combi-weapons, since liturgies insists.

Combi-weapon: No. The weapon is a combi weapon. Once per game it fires a special shot. It is not a bolter and a meltagun. It is a combi-weapon. A combi-weapon is allowed one time to shoot with the profile and rules of a different weapon. So if you wanted to swap a combi-weapon for something, sure do so. But the combi-weapon IS the weapon.

Mechatendrils: Absolutely, sure. Swap your flamer for a burning brand, or your plasma pistol for an axe of blind fury. Buying mechatendrils gives you those two weapons. Swap them all day long and pay the points for it.

"OMG you're saying that the warpsmith has extra weapons to use for swapping that other characters don't?" Yeah. I am. Big deal.


Also I like the very flawed "well these programs say I can't, so I can't". Those same programs have disallowed characters from buying wargear, shoota boys from buying their nobz power claws, etc. etc. over the years. They are a convenience, they are not rules. I had a good laugh over this .

 liturgies of blood wrote:
The model has a weapon that is part of a piece of wargear.... the weapon is not a "free" weapon that exists in and of itself, it is fundamentally part of that piece of wargear.

You have yet to cite a rule that makes that distinction important. Also, no one disputes your point, so literally your point is trolling - it has no relevance to the thread, and you cannot point to a rule showing its relevance.

I can point to the weapon on the model. Claiming the weapon isn't part of the model is asinine.

Oh, and it isn't being afraid, just wanting you to provide some rules support. You haven't, as yet.

Just to make you happy you can swap mecha weapons, as they are weapons. I don't give a flying gak if that is unpopular, as you seem to care about it your bias is showing something awful here.

Still no rules support, just a made up requirement that being able to replace a weapon on the model - which the bolter indisputably IS - somehow isn't sufficient. You can't, of course, provide a rule to back up this assertion, just continuing snide remarks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,
Found a rule that states the Rider of a Bike can use a weapon that the model does not possess?

Not that it's relevant, but a model can fire any weapon it has.
Has != possesses. Not in every way anyway.

The rule being evoked to make the swap says the model can change any weapon.... how is that not permission to exchange the Twin-Linked bolter that the model possess?

Because The Lord doesn't possess the bolter - the bike does. The Lord possesses the bike.
Unless the bike is somehow firing it...

Good job possession isn't important, just that the model has the weapon on it. When I point to the model on the table, will you claim there is no tl bolter on that model? Or will you claim the bike has the weapon, despite the bike also being part of the model, and that has importance because...wait, have you shown that importance?

Unusually for you you haven't actually backed your contention - that to swap a part of war gear requires specific permission - with any actual rules as yet. Just made the extraordinary claim that a model of "chaos lord on bike" doesn't have a tl bolter.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,
Found a rule that states the Rider of a Bike can use a weapon that the model does not possess?

Not that it's relevant, but a model can fire any weapon it has.
Has != possesses. Not in every way anyway.

The rule being evoked to make the swap says the model can change any weapon.... how is that not permission to exchange the Twin-Linked bolter that the model possess?

Because The Lord doesn't possess the bolter - the bike does. The Lord possesses the bike.
Unless the bike is somehow firing it...

Good job possession isn't important, just that the model has the weapon on it. When I point to the model on the table, will you claim there is no tl bolter on that model? Or will you claim the bike has the weapon, despite the bike also being part of the model, and that has importance because...wait, have you shown that importance?

Unusually for you you haven't actually backed your contention - that to swap a part of war gear requires specific permission - with any actual rules as yet. Just made the extraordinary claim that a model of "chaos lord on bike" doesn't have a tl bolter.

Found somewhere on page 3 that actually supports your statements yet?
I asked before and you never corrected me. You've cited it as support, I don't see anything on that page that actually supports your statements.
Please clarify. I'd hate to think you were citing an irrelevant page knowingly.

Spellbound, iirc the rules for combi-weapons says they are made of two weapons (Bolter and a single shot weapon). Therefore, it would be two weapons.

 Spellbound wrote:
Combi-weapon: No. The weapon is a combi weapon. Once per game it fires a special shot. It is not a bolter and a meltagun. It is a combi-weapon. A combi-weapon is allowed one time to shoot with the profile and rules of a different weapon. So if you wanted to swap a combi-weapon for something, sure do so. But the combi-weapon IS the weapon.

p56 wrote:A model armed with a combi-weapon can choose to fire either the primary boltgun, or the secondary weapon.

It's actually two weapons. Yay rules!

Stupid phone just buggered up a long post... cba to type it all again.

Short version... Went to GW today, spoke to the resident rules guru, he said you cannot swap the bikes built in weapon as it is set wargear. Anyone he found to say otherwise, simple, don't play the game with them as long as they are trying to change it.

Reptile, while that's great for your local store. GW staff are unfortunately not the people that wrote the rules and as such it's an appeal to authority.

Spellbound since you had the combi-weapon rules pointed out to you in page 1 of this mess, why is a combi-weapon different to mechatendrils?
Why is this one sacred cow that cannot be cut up for the parts when everything else is fair game?

I'm well aware they are not the final say regarding rules. What I was getting at was, even the members of staff agree with you and I, after hearing both sides of the debate.

What I'm saying is that it's a logical fallacy to use their opinion in a debate as anyone can say they talked to GW staff or have been to 3 400+ player tournaments and everyone agreed with them etc.

Fair point.

I'm just gonna sit back now and wait for the next few posts that make this thread make another full circle.

Rigeld - page 3 tells us what a single model is made up of. Are you arguing that the bolter is not part of the model? Found a rule for that assertion, or one for your assertion that breaking up a piece of war gear on a model needs specific permission?

Your silence on these matters is puzzling, as you are aware of the tenets which state you have to back up your argument. So please, Do so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Your silence on these matters is puzzling, as you are aware of the tenets which state you have to back up your argument. So please, Do so.

In news just in, the pot has called the kettle black.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Your silence on these matters is puzzling, as you are aware of the tenets which state you have to back up your argument. So please, Do so.

In news just in, the pot has called the kettle black.

Still making constructive posts I see.

I, unlike you, posted rules that allow the model, The Lord on bike, to swap the tl-bolter on the model for something else.

You have managed......nothing. Not a single rule to back up your assertions.

Found a rule yet? Or just more lies?

nos, I really have no side in this argument, I'm just curious. Do you consider it legal to swap out parts of the mechatendrils or either part of a combi-weapon? Could I, for example, purchase a combi-flamer, swap out the flamer for the burning brand and then swap the Bolter portion for a combi-plasma (assuming bolters can normally be swapped for combi-weapons of course)?

I'm sorry you're making a false equivalence and don't see it.

I'm sure you'll be happy to answer my question then to prove that nothing I've said is relevant instead of just saying it is, proving your case as per the tenants of the forum which you hold so dear.

Hmm guess I was going by old wording.

But if you made a combi-meltagun into a combi-burning brand, I think you would only get one shot with it, as that would be the secondary weapon.

So I say then, in light of that wording, sure. Do it. But you'll only get one shot with your combi-burning brand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heh I like the purchasing a combi-flamer to replace a bolt pistol, then replace the bolter part with a combi-plasma, then replace its bolter with a combi-melta, then replace that bolter with a combi-bolter so you have a twin-linked bolter with one flamer, plasma, and melta shot each game!

For the low low cost of 35 points?

Whatever, sounds legit. Yay careful reading of RAW! This keeps getting better and better for chaos please keep arguing.

 Spellbound wrote:
Hmm guess I was going by old wording.

But if you made a combi-meltagun into a combi-burning brand, I think you would only get one shot with it, as that would be the secondary weapon.

So I say then, in light of that wording, sure. Do it. But you'll only get one shot with your combi-burning brand.

Why? You've replaced the "single shot meltagun" with a CC weapon, removing the limitation of one shot. The issue I take with swapping out the TL bolter on the bike (beyond the Chaos Biker's entry assigning possession of the TL bolter to the bike, not the rider) is the order in which this is done. In order for your substitution to work you must purchase the bike upgrade, then swap out the TL bolter for another weapon. I would argue that all purchases occur simultaneously, therefore the Lord does not have the third weapon (TL bolter) to swap out as all upgrades are purchased at the same time. The justification for this is Terminator armor upgrade which states "... may then take items from ...". This is the only upgrade that gives permission to make one purchase, then modify that purchase.

The brand isn't a ccw. The issue isn't purchases, it's wargear. Terminator armour doesn't include it's weapons as they are listed separately in the wargear while the chaos bike includes it's unlisted weapon.

So you're saying tyranid warriors can't take two sets of ccw biomorphs? Because before they swapped the devoured for talons, and the talons for a different cc biomorph. But since you think purchases happen at the same time, and only scything talons switch out for cc biomorphs, all cc warriors are a thing of the past?

Regardless, nothing at all says things are simultaneous. Otherwise the world would explode if you bought terminator armor.

"Omg I wanna buy a black mace with my terminator armour to replace my bolter but terminator armor says replace all wargear with pweapon and combi bolter but then it says I can buy stuff but it says all wargear is replaced OH GOD WHAT DO I DO"

Without having the 'Nid codex in front of me I cannot confirm nor deny whether simultaneous purchasing would affect them or not.

The hyperbole you're using doesn't really address the issue. You purchase Termie armor and replace the initially listed wargear (as that option instructs). Next there is a subset rule indicating that once your wargear is replaced you now have the option to purchase wargear from a different list of tables. So you can certainly purchase the Termie armor, then swap combi-bolter for certain items, the power weapon for certain items, or one or both weapons for 1 or 2 artifacts.

While nothing specifies that purchases are simultaneous we do have a wargear option that applies a specific order to the purchase, in 40k that distinction is only made when it differs from the norm. Otherwise there is no limit to the number of weapons your Lord can carry - swap bolt pistol for combi-plasma, exchange plasma for Burning Brand and bolter for combi-melta, now switch melta for Black Mace and bolter for combi-flamer, swap flamer for Axe of Blind Fury and bolter for combi-bolter. Now we have a Lord with 3 artifacts, a CCW, and a combi-bolter

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - page 3 tells us what a single model is made up of. Are you arguing that the bolter is not part of the model? Found a rule for that assertion, or one for your assertion that breaking up a piece of war gear on a model needs specific permission?

I quoted what page defines. None of what you've said is included. It does include wargear, but the TL Bolter is not wargear.
Quote your rule. I've hinted at it before - I'll ask outright now

Page 3 does not say what you're asserting. Quote it.

Your silence on these matters is puzzling, as you are aware of the tenets which state you have to back up your argument. So please, Do so.

I have not been silent. I have cited my argument. Please don't disregard my posts.

This whole tread reminds me of the time I had to explain to a guard player why the master of Ordinance couldn't be his warlord and why he didn't replace the company commander... People will try any amount of rule bending and distortion to get their way...

Wow, I just spent at least 30 minutes reading up from page 3 and still this thread goes in circles..

The distinction that weapons granted as part of, or bought with, other wargear do not count as weapons, or cannot by replaced (as liturgies claims) I cannot find any rule support for. If someone can provide me with a page number to a rule that does, then that becomes important. If not, it is not an important distinction and that argument is void. Likewise, nowhere does it state that an Artefact can only replace a weapon listed as separate wargear, so that distinction is also irrelevant.

This would in turn mean that the flamer and meltagun included with the mechatendtrils are indeed also replaceable (why should they not be?). The combi-weapons are not two weapons, partly because they are listed as one ranged _weapon_ choice. So no, part of that cannot be replaced. Note the difference, the bike is also one wargear choice, but not a weapon. It comes fitted with a weapon though. The bike is then part of the model, which changes its unit type to Bike etc. The model can then replace one weapon, e.g. the TL boltguns.

So to summarize - No-one has presented any rules specifying that a bike's weapons do not qualify as weapons, or that they are not part of the model. And the RAW say "the model can replace one weapon" so as long as the weapons are part of the model it's clearly allowed by RAW.

As far as I'm concerned it's clear that RAW allow the substitution. Intended? Probably not. Rules bending? Yeah. But allowed if you play strictly by ryles as written - unless someone can quote a rule that prevents it. And since this has not happened in 6 pages I regard it unlikely.. In friendly game context I personally will simply discuss it and decide if we allow it or not in my group, until further clarification by GW.

westibestie your distinction on combi-weapons is non-existant. Mechatendrils are listed as one thing, so is a chaos bike and a combi-weapon, I know this because the chaso codex tells me they are one piece of wargear. Also combi-weapons are two weapons in one, the brb says so and it has been quoted for you already.

Either be consistent or admit that you're choosing favourites.

 westiebestie wrote:
The combi-weapons are not two weapons, partly because they are listed as one ranged _weapon_ choice. So no, part of that cannot be replaced.

You're going to assert this despite the rule I've quoted proving that there are 2 weapons?
That's interesting. Not what the rules say, but interesting.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
westibestie your distinction on combi-weapons is non-existant. Mechatendrils are listed as one thing, so is a chaos bike and a combi-weapon, I know this because the chaso codex tells me they are one piece of wargear. Also combi-weapons are two weapons in one, the brb says so and it has been quoted for you already.

The one thing in my post I am not convinced about are combi-weapons, they are a grey area and as such I am not going to be pushy about my intepretation on the wording. I'm happy to leave that as, again, no-one is saying it's possible to replace part of it.

The rest of your statement I don't agree with. The chaos codex tells bikes (and mechatendrils) are wargear, yes. The chaos codex also tells that they include weapons. It also allows that the model that has access to Artifacts may "replace one weapon with..". You however, repeatedly claim that a weapon has to be a separate wargear entry to be replaceable (and/or that the bike's weapons are not part of the model). I see no such rule, can you please clarify which rule you mean? Since there is a written permission in the CSM Codex to replace it, and you claim it is not allowed, you must cite a rule that prevents it. Not just an opinion.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Either be consistent or admit that you're choosing favourites.

I actually don't favour any of you, you are behaving like children both of you. I personally think it would be good if GW clarified it either way.

Well it's good that you've called us all children but choosing favourites refers to saying you can't break up a combi-weapon but all the others you can. I've never said that the lord didn't have a tl bolter, what I've consistintly said is that he doesn't have a tl bolter on it's own (or as Rigeld puts it he doesn't have a tl bolter, he has a chaos bike that includes a bolter) and I've asked for some basis for the chopping and changing of parts of wargear.

Thanks for the name calling, come back soon.

Liturgies of Blood is just wrong. It clearly says the MODEL may replace a weapon with a combi-melta or Burning Brand, etc. There is no distinction between the Lord model and the bike model which he is riding.

This has not been an issue in any event in which I've ever played., nor should it be.

Lord krungharr, appeal to authority isn't going to win this for you.

Why are you talking about models again? This has nothing to do with models, there is also 1 model the lord on the bike, not a lord model and a bike model.

Well, the unit that automatically comes with a bike in the CSM codex (bikers!) specifically mentions being able to swap out the bikes TL Bolter.

I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that other models on bikes in the same codex work the same way. /shrug

So you can swap the tl bolter for one of 3 weapons that the chaos lord doesn't have access to? Sure I'm ok with that as it amounts to the same as not being able to break up wargear.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Well, the unit that automatically comes with a bike in the CSM codex (bikers!) specifically mentions being able to swap out the bikes TL Bolter.

An interesting point...
The bikers entry has to specifically call out the bikes twin-bolters.
And it even refers to it as the Bike's bolters, not theirs...

 grendel083 wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Well, the unit that automatically comes with a bike in the CSM codex (bikers!) specifically mentions being able to swap out the bikes TL Bolter.

An interesting point...
The bikers entry has to specifically call out the bikes twin-bolters.
And it even refers to it as the Bike's bolters, not theirs...

Yes and this is not an option given anywhere else! Therefore unless stated (given permission to) you cannot switch the twin bolters on the bike for something else.

The chaos lord does not come with a bike as a default, so why would his listing specifically mention the tl Bolter like chaos bikers do?

The fact that chaos bikers can swap the bikes tl Bolter just as they could any of their other weapons shows that the bikes TL Bolter IS one of the models weapons.

 BarBoBot wrote:
The fact that chaos bikers can swap the bikes tl Bolter just as they could any of their other weapons shows that the bikes TL Bolter IS one of the models weapons.

Strange, because the bikers entry shows the oppersite.
It shows that the twin-bolters are not one of their weapons, and refers to it as the bike's weapon.

Does The Lord come with Terminator armor by default?
Because the Terminator armor gives permission to further exchange the weapons. Does the bike?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Well it's good that you've called us all children but choosing favourites refers to saying you can't break up a combi-weapon but all the others you can.

I did not call you children, i said you are behaving like them. Clearly you are intelligent adults, please behave as it. (I'm refering to you and nos here) You are wasting our time by going in circles and argueing for argueing's sakes and obstructing eachother here.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

I've never said that the lord didn't have a tl bolter, what I've consistintly said is that he doesn't have a tl bolter on it's own (or as Rigeld puts it he doesn't have a tl bolter, he has a chaos bike that includes a bolter) and I've asked for some basis for the chopping and changing of parts of wargear.

Yes you've consistenly stated this over and over in this thread for over 6 pages. Could you now please provide a rule reference that makes this differentiation relevant? Then this discussion would be over.

There is (AFAIK) no rule to make weapons bought as part of other wargear any different than weapons that you have from the beginning. And there is rule support in the CSM codex (PG91, Chaos Artefacts section) to replace one weapon on the model:
"A model can replace one weapon with one of the following. Only one of each Chaos Artefact may be taken per Army."
There are no restrictions in the rule definition. There you have the "basis" for allowing it. So now if you still claim there are restrictions imposed by some other rule, please enlighten me by referring to that rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - page 3 tells us what a single model is made up of. Are you arguing that the bolter is not part of the model? Found a rule for that assertion, or one for your assertion that breaking up a piece of war gear on a model needs specific permission?

I quoted what page defines. None of what you've said is included. It does include wargear, but the TL Bolter is not wargear.
Quote your rule. I've hinted at it before - I'll ask outright now

Page 3 does not say what you're asserting. Quote it.

So the bolter weapon on the model isn't war gear on the model? What is it then? The point is page three points out the physical model is a singular entity. It doesn't allow the possibility for anything else. You're stating, probably, that this is possible.

I
Be "hinted" before, but I'm asking outright now - quote the rule stating the bolter that I can point to on the model is NOT part of the model. Page and para.

rigeld2 wrote:

Your silence on these matters is puzzling, as you are aware of the tenets which state you have to back up your argument. So please, Do so.

I have not been silent. I have cited my argument. Please don't disregard my posts.

Cite the page that states:
The weapon is not part of the model. You have made this claim, but not cited a page
When you point to a weapon on the model, and are told you can exchange a weapon in the model , that you STILL need further, specific permission because that weapon is part of a set of items, in this case a bike.

I have NOT disregarded your posts, do not be so disrespectful as to state that. I HAVE, repeatedly, required you to provide page and para. You have not done so, that I can see. If you have done, please provide a link to where you have done so.

Liturgies. - still waiting on your page and paras, no false equivalence here. Just waiting on you to back up your assertions, for a change. So far, nothing constructive from you this thread. Shock,

Grendel - belonging to the bike does not preclude it belonging to the model


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Westiebeastie - I've asked liturgies for this "special permission is required" rule citation since page one, it seems. Apparently it is ok for liturgies to not follow the tenets.

Permission to alter the model, which is the "thing" you point to on the table, IS sufficient permission. Liturgies of course will, not accept that - I assume it is an unwillingness to admit a mistake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Does The Lord come with Terminator armor by default?
Because the Terminator armor gives permission to further exchange the weapons. Does the bike?

Does permission to alter the model not equate to permission to alter the model? Is the bike not part of the model? Or is the bolter, that I can happily point to on the table, not part of the model?

Page and para for either would be just great

Nos, thanks for the insinuations and snide comments. As others have pointed out there is explicit permission to exchange weapons in the biker entry but no such permission exists for the lord. Why does one require specific permission but not the other?

I know you're having fun with the "Is this not a bolter I see before me?" argument but why does the chaos biker squad not say "any" or "one of any" or "one" of the model's weapons? It lists the lot and differentiates the tl bolter? If it is as self-evident as you claim then why is it different?

Westie, you have permission to exchange weapons but not parts of weapons or parts of wargear, without permission to do something you cannot do it. That's how these rules work, nos, believes that sufficient permission has been given. Others disagree with that view specifically due to the chaos biker entry and the general problems and abuses that it allows for. I don't have to show that there is a restriction, permission must be shown.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Grendel - belonging to the bike does not preclude it belonging to the model

It's an example where they've made a clear distinction between the two.
Also they specifically called out the bikes bolters, rather than just one of the "models weapons".

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Westie, you have permission to exchange weapons but not parts of weapons or parts of wargear, without permission to do something you cannot do it. That's how these rules work, nos, believes that sufficient permission has been given. Others disagree with that view specifically due to the chaos biker entry and the general problems and abuses that it allows for. I don't have to show that there is a restriction, permission must be shown.

I agree about permission generally being needed, and permission has indeed been given in the CSM Codex, page 91,Chaos Artefacts section. I quoted that rule above. There is no restriction towards weapons that come with other wargear (e.g. bike and mechatendrils) in that rule. Are you making that up yourself? It seems so, since You are yet to provide a rule which makes that difference relevant at all. You are entitled to that opinion, which you keep telling it over and over, but without a rule to support your case, you are not going to convince that anyone that it is not allowed by RAW. You are just stalling.

I also don't see the Chaos bikers FA entry as relevant to this, unless someone points out a rule that either
a) says that the Lord's upgrade options are the same as that entry, or
b) that weapons eligeble to be replaced has to be listed specifically in the wargear list of the model wanting to replace it, or
c) that weapons that come with other wargear choices are not eligeble to be replaced

I do agree with you about the possible abuse problems though, so GW clarification would be the best.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Nos, thanks for the insinuations and snide comments. As others have pointed out there is explicit permission to exchange weapons in the biker entry but no such permission exists for the lord. Why does one require specific permission but not the other?

I know you're having fun with the "Is this not a bolter I see before me?" argument but why does the chaos biker squad not say "any" or "one of any" or "one" of the model's weapons? It lists the lot and differentiates the tl bolter? If it is as self-evident as you claim then why is it different?

Westie, you have permission to exchange weapons but not parts of weapons or parts of wargear, without permission to do something you cannot do it. That's how these rules work, nos, believes that sufficient permission has been given. Others disagree with that view specifically due to the chaos biker entry and the general problems and abuses that it allows for. I don't have to show that there is a restriction, permission must be shown.

Yet, as you are aware, permission has been shown. I have permission to exchange a weapon on the model, any I can point to the model and the weapon on it. The fact it is part of another piece of war gear is IRRELEVANT. Or rather, until YOU can prove relevancy of your assertion, it is irrelevant.

You have shown to date, NOTHING to back up your "specific permission" or "bolter not part of the model" assertions. Not. One. Thing. Yet, somehow, our side has to keep on showing the same permission sober and over, while you provide nothing.

Re bikers - easy. They want you to exchange that specific weapon and no others. That is blindingly obvious with approximately two seconds of thought. They don't want you keeping the tl bolter, so they make it so you can't. This is, oddly enough, NOT an analogous situation, as the wording is completely different.

So, please, to restore some sense of credibility in your posts, follow the tenets. I would love to be proven wrong on this, as I really doubt this was intended. However, unlike you I will not make appeals based on emotional cries of broken etc.

Currently the bolter is a weapon on the model. I have permission to replace a weapon on the model, so I choose the bolter.

Permission given and exercised. Find the restriction. PROVE your case, or concede.

Further posts from you without rules citations will be reported for failure to follow the tenets, and you will be on ignore, as I will no longer waste time responding when you have such lack of courtesy as to fail to support your argument, and instead resort to troll like behaviour.

You don't see the only unit that contains bikes in the codex as relevant?

I'm not stalling, I've pointed to how the bike is treated differently to your and nos's view within the codex, how other items are treated and all that has been said is "that's irrelevant".
It's taken 5 pages to get anyone to answer the question regarding combi-weapons and even then it was answered that they are different without cause. I just have an issue with 1 rule for some and another rule for the rest without any sort of justification. So to clarify that is page 100, 1st unit entry, 2nd bullet point.

Nos, you're misrepresenting the codex again, could you please read it and justify the biker entry's different stance to your argument?
The "bolter not part of the model" thing is your misrepresentation not my argument. You've refused to answer any questions in a civil manner and again accuse people of arguing from HIPI or RAI or emotion as always.
Feel free to contact the mods, I find your use of them to scaremonger those that disagree with you to be little more than school yard tactics.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You don't see the only unit that contains bikes in the codex as relevant?

I'm not stalling, I've pointed to how the bike is treated differently to your and nos's view within the codex, how other items are treated and all that has been said is "that's irrelevant".
It's taken 5 pages to get anyone to answer the question regarding combi-weapons and even then it was answered that they are different without cause. I just have an issue with 1 rule for some and another rule for the rest without any sort of justification.

No, that is a lie.

You have not shown your "specific permission" requirement actually exists. At any point. You have quoted rules that have no relevance, as they do not support your claims

You have shown how the FA entry is treated. Good job that has different, specific wording unrelated to the lords allowance.

It wouldn't have tAken five pages to get people to answer, if you had managed to answer a single query as to your rules. Basis.

Instead your posts have been content less for about five pages, as you have REFUSED to support your argument with anything, just more assertions.

So, where are these rules you keep claiming exist? Where are the rules requiring more specific permission than "model"? Page and paragraph. Where are these rules showing that the bolter is not a weapon on the model? Page and paragraph.

Page and paragraph showing your EXACT claims, in your next post, or concede you are not arguing rules.

P66 Chaos bike. Fitted with, if it doesn't have a bolter it's not a chaos bike anymore as it's been changed. Show permission for that change.
I'm sure you're just going to cite "any weapon" which isn't even the rule but it's not a weapon your exchanging in a vacuum.
I'm actually impressed with your answer to why you refuse to answer the combi-weapon question, it takes real brass to say "I've not answered because you refuse to admit you're wrong." that's an amazing argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So the bolter weapon on the model isn't war gear on the model? What is it then? The point is page three points out the physical model is a singular entity. It doesn't allow the possibility for anything else. You're stating, probably, that this is possible.

Refusing to quote your rule? That's interesting.
I can find literally no rule on page 3 that says the bolded.

Be "hinted" before, but I'm asking outright now - quote the rule stating the bolter that I can point to on the model is NOT part of the model. Page and para.

Page 3 - Other Important Information.
Talks about things that make up a model - including Wargear, special rules... But not something fitted to wargear.

When you point to a weapon on the model, and are told you can exchange a weapon in the model , that you STILL need further, specific permission because that weapon is part of a set of items, in this case a bike.

You're a fan of rules in a book not being useless, right?
Using your interpretation the specific permission Chaos bikers have is redundant and useless. Cool!

I have NOT disregarded your posts, do not be so disrespectful as to state that. I HAVE, repeatedly, required you to provide page and para. You have not done so, that I can see. If you have done, please provide a link to where you have done so.

The other option is that you saw - and ignored - the fact that I challenged your rules support and asked for clarification.
I'll make it very clear - page 3 does not support your argument. At all. If you disagree, quote the rule instead of hand waving.
I'm literally not seeing support despite having read the page a dozen times now.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
P66 Chaos bike. Fitted with, if it doesn't have a bolter it's not a chaos bike anymore as it's been changed. Show permission for that change.

So a chaos biker that upgrades to a melta gun, swapping out the tl bolter, is no longer having a chaos bike as part of his wargear?

To take the RAW argument seriously (the rai is debatable and possibly is that NO YOU CANT), you need to provide rules.
Not "logic", or an attempt at being reasonable, you need rules.

I would ask, then, if I have a chaos lord on a bike, that model is clearly armed with a weapon, why, because that weapon is part of his wargear.
Therefore, among that models wargear, is a weapon. It is exchangeable because the rules that actually exist (not what anybody may "want" to be the case, or infer that "should" be the case) only require the swapping of weapons.

That is the sum total of the rules.
There are no "ring fenced" wargear options, just the requirement of swapping weapons.
That's the mechanism we have, tacking other baggage onto it, is not justified according to the RAW, its imaginary.

As I see it, the other option, is to say that the lord is not armed with the weapon, the bike is, which gets silly really quickly.

rigeld2 wrote:

Talks about things that make up a model - including Wargear, special rules... But not something fitted to wargear.

Imaginary distinction of your creation.

No Fuusa, the biker has specific permission in his entry that is why they can swap the tl bolter but the lord cannot. I think logic is a good standard to use in argument, maybe I'm wrong and wild assertions, threats of mods and insults are a better.
I agree the rules allow exchange of weapons but not the exchange of parts of wargear or weapons. That's why there is specific permission in the chaos biker entry. The rules don't have to ring fence permission as that would be a restrictive ruleset instead of a permissive one.

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Talks about things that make up a model - including Wargear, special rules... But not something fitted to wargear.

Imaginary distinction of your creation.

Since you obviously refuse to read the rule I cited, it talks about wargear listed on the models profile.
I'm sure you won't argue that the TL Bolter is ever listed under the models profile?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Currently the bolter is a weapon on the model.

Yet we have a clear example where the codex refers to it as being the Wargear's (bike) weapon and not the model.
It creates a distiction between the Biker (model) and Bike (wargear).

I think fuusa said it all in his post really.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No Fuusa, the biker has specific permission in his entry that is why they can swap the tl bolter but the lord cannot. I think logic is a good standard to use in argument, maybe I'm wrong and wild assertions, threats of mods and insults are a better.

Or maybe actually quoting a rule to back up your claims would be better.. Your talk of logic is only valid to RAI, not RAW. And differentiation on weapons that come with wargear is only relevant to the RAW discussion if you can back it up with a rule, which you are not doing.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

I agree the rules allow exchange of weapons but not the exchange of parts of wargear or weapons.

What rule prevents the exchange of weapons that are parts of other wargear, or rather, come with other wargear?

I find it interesting you are still avoiding to cite any rule. Ergo: You are still stalling, stating your opinion over and over without rules to back them up.

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Talks about things that make up a model - including Wargear, special rules... But not something fitted to wargear.

Imaginary distinction of your creation.

Since you obviously refuse to read the rule I cited, it talks about wargear listed on the models profile.
I'm sure you won't argue that the TL Bolter is ever listed under the models profile?

I can't find any cited rule from you above, could you please point me to it? Is it the "Talks about" statement?

Not to mention, could you point out (or better, quote) any rule that would make the distinction that it is listed under the model's profile relevant to this RAW discussion. Sure they are not listed separately as wargear. Why is this relevant for the RAW discussion? Unless backed up by rule support, it is indeed an irrelevant/imaginary distinction.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No Fuusa, the biker has specific permission in his entry that is why they can swap the tl bolter but the lord cannot.

The biker lord and a biker, have a different set of permissions, that's all.
More pertinent to this, would be what the biker champ can/can't do.

Is a biker champ, with a "fitted" tl bolter on his bike, treated as being armed with it, or is the bike armed with that weapon???
I would appreciate an answer to that as it is important, imo.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I think logic is a good standard to use in argument, maybe I'm wrong and wild assertions, threats of mods and insults are a better.

In "reality" sure, that's fine, but we are in gw rules reality here, standard logic does not always apply.
Many rules (or possibly, the unintended outcomes of them) just do not read as logical.

People who whine and moan to mods are telling teacher that somebody is saying something they dont like.
Shrug shoulders.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
The rules don't have to ring fence permission as that would be a restrictive ruleset instead of a permissive one.

That's a bit ironic though, isn't it?

What your doing, is ring-fencing distinguishable elements of wargear against swapping, where the only actual rules we have, give explicit permission to swap out identifiable weapons.
That would be imposing something rather restrictive without a rules basis.

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Talks about things that make up a model - including Wargear, special rules... But not something fitted to wargear.

Imaginary distinction of your creation.

Since you obviously refuse to read the rule I cited, it talks about wargear listed on the models profile.

So, the fact that I did read it, proves that to be baseless imaginary nonsense.
Of course, rather than admit that it is (like much of your "input" here), you will probably believe me to be a liar.

The thing that rigeld is saying is that the rules say the model consists of listed wargear, tl-bolter isn't listed on the model at any time. Chaos bike is.

The weapons you can exchange without any issue are listed in a model's wargear, a combi-weapon is listed but parts of it are not, a chaos bike and mechatendrils are listed but not their parts.

Fuusa, identify a weapon called tl bolter in the model's wargear list. You know the list of what's on a model.

 grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Currently the bolter is a weapon on the model.

Yet we have a clear example where the codex refers to it as being the Wargear's (bike) weapon and not the model.
It creates a distiction between the Biker (model) and Bike (wargear).

So the bike is armed with the weapon, not the model/rider?

At liturgies, second request for question above to be answered.

What does the wargear list fuusa? It doesn't list tl bolter at any point.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Fuusa, identify a weapon called tl bolter in the model's wargear list. You know the list of what's on a model.

So, the bolter is not on the model then?

Third request for an answer.
If you don't want to answer, that's fine, but do me the courtesy of saying so and save me a bit of typing.

 fuusa wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Fuusa, identify a weapon called tl bolter in the model's wargear list. You know the list of what's on a model.

So, the bolter is not on the model then?

Correct - as far as the rules are concerned it is not.
Just like page 3 says.

What do you want answered?
If you're looking for me to talk about a biker champion... he is the same as the lord as he doesn't have permission to switch his tl bolter out of his bike.
The model has a chaos bike, the chaos bike includes a bolter. The model at no point has a bolter listed in his wargear.
It counts as armed with a bolter, same as a model with mechatendrils counts as armed with the listed weapons, same as a combi-bolter counts as armed with a 1 shot weapon and a bolter.

What it doesn't have is a weapon to swap as that weapon is an intrinsic part of another item of wargear.

westiebestie wrote:I can't find any cited rule from you above, could you please point me to it? Is it the "Talks about" statement?

Not to mention, could you point out (or better, quote) any rule that would make the distinction that it is listed under the model's profile relevant to this RAW discussion. Sure they are not listed separately as wargear. Why is this relevant for the RAW discussion? Unless backed up by rule support, it is indeed an irrelevant/imaginary distinction.

Cite allowance to swap something the model does not have.
I'll help you out - it doesn't exist.

rigeld2 wrote:

Be "hinted" before, but I'm asking outright now - quote the rule stating the bolter that I can point to on the model is NOT part of the model. Page and para.

Page 3 - Other Important Information.
Talks about things that make up a model - including Wargear, special rules... But not something fitted to wargear.

That is a citation. It's not a quote, but it is a citation.

Which brings me back to the question:
How is he firing it, if it is not on the model?

Every other situation put forth contains instructions on how the model can fire the secondary/built in weapons, so the argument it is not on the model does not create any additional problems. Similar wording has not been found for the bike though, all it states is that the bike comes with a Twin-Linked Bolter and that the model can fire more then one weapon if it is depicted as having more then one Rider. Not a single sentence has been provided that would fix this problem, no permission exists for the rider to fire a weapon that is 'not on the model.' If we are going to use the argument that it can not be swapped out because it is not wargear on the model itself, and I would like to be able to accept that argument, then we run into the problem of not being wargear on the model for shooting purposes as well.

So the bike is armed with the weapon, not the model/rider?

 fuusa wrote:
So the bike is armed with the weapon, not the model/rider?

See the repeated citations of the chaos bike in codex chaos.

JinxDragon wrote:
Which brings me back to the question:
How is he firing it, if it is not on the model?

Every other situation put forth contains instructions on how the model can fire the secondary/built in weapons, so the argument it is not on the model does not create any additional problems. Similar wording has not been found for the bike though, all it states is that the bike comes with a Twin-Linked Bolter and that the model can fire more then one weapon if it is depicted as having more then one Rider. Not a single sentence has been provided that would fix this problem, no permission exists for the rider to fire a weapon that is 'not on the model.' If we are going to use the argument that it can not be swapped out because it is not wargear on the model itself, and I would like to be able to accept that argument, then we run into the problem of not being wargear on the model for shooting purposes as well.

I'm on my phone forgive me but doesn't the rule actually say that the bike fires one weapon per rider?
If so that solves the problem completely if it does create another problem where either the rider can't fire at all or you can fire the rider and the bike

The rule reads that it is the bike that fires with one weapon for each rider on the bike.

So the "problem" that hasn't been addressed was invented?
Okay. Cool.

Any rules based objections currently then?

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
So the bike is armed with the weapon, not the model/rider?

See the repeated citations of the chaos bike in codex chaos.

What is it about this question, that cannot be answered yes or no?

So, again then ...
1. The rider is armed with the weapon (the fitted tl bolter).
2. The bike and not the rider is armed with the weapon.

Other stuff then ...
Where is there specific permission to fire a weapon "fitted" to a bike.
1. Nowhere.
2. You don't need specific permission.
3. P 45.
4. P 51.

Can a model fire a weapon he is not armed with?
If a model is armed with a weapon, is it not a weapon if it is part of something else?
If so, where does it say that?

 fuusa wrote:
[What is it about this question, that cannot be answered yes or no?

If you scroll up, you'll see you were given a straight answer.

The explanation that the 'Bike' is firing does not work for a few reasons but here is just two:
If the Bike is singled out to have permission to fire 'it's weapon,' and the bike and rider are different entities, then the Lord and Bike can fire independently to each other. This would make it possible for a bike with a single Rider to fire two weapons, on the belief that the Bike has independent permission to fire to the rest of the model. Of course it would be limited to a small list of weapons, only those found in the Bikes entry itself but that highlights another issue. If it isn't permission to fire independently, and the bike and rider are still different entities as far as the rules are concerned, then the Bike unit could never fire anything but the Twin-Linked Bolter, regardless of what wargear the rider is carrying.

It also encounters a few problems when you take a look at bikes units, instead of a wargear upgrade purchase, as they do not posses a ''bike." Instead they simply start with the Unit Type Bike, the toughness bonus put right into their stat-line and a list of wargear simply includes the Twin-Linked Bolter. The most obvious example of this is the Assault Bike, which clearly the Heavy Bolter is meant to be 'fitted to' but instead it is simply listed as Heavy Bolter (Assault Bike Only). By the logic the bike has it's own list of weapons and is a separate entity then the rider, then it lacks permission to use weapons attached to the rider. Therefore a model with the Unit Type of Bike and two Riders can not fire a second weapon at all unless it is specifically listed as 'fitted to the bike.' Which isn't done for the vast majority of Bikes, just those purchased as War-gear, and all of those have a singe Rider.

Instead maybe I need to break out my old arguments about the formatting within the Unit Type Section of the book:
Throughout this section the Unit Type being discussed is never written out as 'models with the Unit Type: X' but instead these models are always refereed by their Unit Type directly. The reference to the Bike is therefor a reference to any model with the Unit Type: Bike, and not the piece of war-gear called the bike. Any other reading on this entire section leads to all sorts of broken outcomes, my favorite is still that Jump/Jet-Pack Unit's lose the Bulky penalty whenever a non-Jump/Jet Pack model is attached to them.

More so because buildings now take Jump/Jet-Pack units:-
Imagine a good sized Farsight deathstar with one of those AV - 14 bunkers that allow a large number of models to fire out the front of it.

 grendel083 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
[What is it about this question, that cannot be answered yes or no?

If you scroll up, you'll see you were given a straight answer.

Hardly, I asked a specific question, umpteen times and the so-called "straight answer" was "go look in the book."

You have quoted a different question, not answered that and made an odd claim indeed.
Do you want to have a go at answering the question?
It can be answered yes/no, no-one wants to bite though, it seems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
The explanation that the 'Bike' is firing does not work either for one of two reasons:

Personally, I think it gets a lot worse than that, if anyone answers the questions I have raised, clearly yes this is true, or no thats not true, I think we will be nearer to putting this away.

What are the chances of co-operation?

What question are you looking to have answered?
1)Is the model armed with a tl bolter? There is a page quote that tells you the answer.
2) Is a biker champion allowed swap his tl bolter for another weapon? Well this assumed the weapon is his and not the bikes which that unit entry states, but to answer it fully there is no permission for him to swap out the weapon.


Jinx, why are you asserting that the bike and the lord are separate models? There is only one model and there is permission for a model to shoot 1 weapon in the shooting phase.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
What question are you looking to have answered?
1)Is the model armed with a tl bolter? There is a page quote that tells you the answer.

Still no yes or no answer then?
Why not, why wont you state exactly what you think, yes or no?
What's the problem here?

rigeld2 wrote:

westiebestie wrote:I can't find any cited rule from you above, could you please point me to it? Is it the "Talks about" statement?

Not to mention, could you point out (or better, quote) any rule that would make the distinction that it is listed under the model's profile relevant to this RAW discussion. Sure they are not listed separately as wargear. Why is this relevant for the RAW discussion? Unless backed up by rule support, it is indeed an irrelevant/imaginary distinction.

Cite allowance to swap something the model does not have.
I'll help you out - it doesn't exist.

There is no such allowance and it's not needed, as the model does have the weapon. And allowance to swap it out.

The assertion that the model does not have them that you make earlier, if I understand what you're getting at, is based on the wording "fitted with" and that the BRB does not define a model to include other things except wargear.

rigeld2 wrote:
Page 3 - Other Important Information.
Talks about things that make up a model - including Wargear, special rules... But not something fitted to wargear.

"Fitted with" simply means comes with/includes. Thus the TL boltguns are included in the wargear, and obviously part of the model. As they also are weapons, hence they are replaceable.

Even if you argue that "Fitted with" is not the same as comes with/includes, that will mean that you are "choosing favourites" as liturgies puts it, since it will only cover the Bike. The wording on Mechatendrils (CSM Codex pg 66) is indeed "Mechatendrils also include a meltagun and a flamer." Both are weapons, and included in wargear. BRB pg 3 definition you refer to says that wargear is part of the model. Included in the wargear here is explicitly two further weapons.

So are you now argueing that bikes TL bolters cannot be replaced, but Mechatendrils weapons can?

And as a side note I find it pretty funny that the side which previously argued logig be applied here is now saying the TL boltguns are not part of the model.

Oh I'm sorry I thought it was obvious after 7 pages of me saying it. The lord is equipped with a bike that includes a tl bolter.

Fitted with doesn't mean that it comes with a separate weapon, it means build in or part of the bike. Mechatendrils, bikes and combi-weapons are all in the same boat if one is game to break up then they all are.

Please try and answer the question I asked.

Lord, bike and tl boltgun.
Is the lord armed with the boltgun, or is the bike armed with it?

I did the answer is neither. The lord doesn't have a boltgun, it's got a boltgun built into it's bike as per the chaos codex. Only a model can be "armed" with a weapon and the lord and bike are not separate models. By armed I assume you mean can shoot.
I'm sorry you're asking the question wrong.

The lord can shoot the gun.
The lord "rides" the bike.
There is only one model "the lord" which is modelled as a guy on a bike.

 fuusa wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
What is it about this question, that cannot be answered yes or no?

If you scroll up, you'll see you were given a straight answer.

Hardly, I asked a specific question, umpteen times and the so-called "straight answer" was "go look in the book."

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
So, the bolter is not on the model then?

Correct - as far as the rules are concerned it is not.
Just like page 3 says.

That's not a straight answer?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I did the answer is neither. The lord doesn't have a boltgun, it's got a boltgun built into it's bike as per the chaos codex. Only a model can be "armed" with a weapon and the lord and bike are not separate models. By armed I assume you mean can shoot.
I'm sorry you're asking the question wrong.

The lord can shoot the gun.
The lord "rides" the bike.
There is only one model "the lord" which is modelled as a guy on a bike.

Thankyou, finally.

So the model (this gestalt organism) is armed with a weapon.
If it is not armed with a weapon, it cannot shoot.
The model (again all elements of this, are part of the model, the model is the lord on bike, its not the lord and bike, they are not seperate) has a weapon.
Weapons can be exchanged because permission is granted to the character to do so.
The biker entry in no-way influences this.

Now find a rule, an actual rule, that protects composite wargear that contains weapons, from having those weapons swapped, when a character has explicit permission to swap weapons.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

That's not a straight answer?

I was referring to liturgies.

Nope, sorry. You've still to show an allowance for the chaos bike to be broke apart, you know the item of wargear that includes the tl bolter? The entire thrust of the argument?
I knew you were going to say that, I tried so hard to explain the weapon is not a weapon in and of itself it is included in the chaos bike but you refuse to acknowledge the chaos codex.

The model includes all but it lists wargear and still has not have the permission granted to the chaos bikers to modify that piece of wargear.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Nope, sorry. You've still to show an allowance for the chaos bike to be broke apart, you know the item of wargear that includes the tl bolter?

The allowance exists to swap the models weapons, you need proof that "weapons" doesn't include the "weapons" a model has, in that statement.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I knew you were going to say that, I tried so hard to explain the weapon is not a weapon in and of itself it is included in the chaos bike but you refuse to acknowledge the chaos codex.

No, you have been explaining what you think the rules say.
Refuse to acknowledge the chaos codex?
You're starting to sound like nos and rigeld.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
The model includes all but it lists wargear and still has not have the permission granted to the chaos bikers to modify that piece of wargear.

When the rule states the model may exchange one weapon for another, what wargear/equipment/stuff the model has, do you think it is referring to?
Is it referring to weapons and only weapons, or not?

Where then, when it gives explicit permission for weapon swaps, is the get out clause for wargear?

So, can a model be armed with a weapon, the model doesn't have?
Not imagination, but actually written down somewhere and not assumed or even vaguely implied?

PSAs are a weapon the model doest have. Weapons emplacements and enplaced weapons are not armed to a model.

All of the weapons a lord has are bp and ccw, they exchange those as they are weapons. No caveats, they are weapons. There is a caveat in the case of the tl-bolter as it is part of the bike and is specifically fitted to it. Similarly there is a caveat to the one shot secondary weapon in the combi-weapon, they are not weapons in and of themselves they are part of a weapon named the combi-whatever. That is why the tl bolter is not the same as a bp.

I'm sure Rigeld and Nos would love that they are pejoratives now.

JinxDragon wrote:
The explanation that the 'Bike' is firing does not work for a few reasons but here is just two:

So because there are potential issues you refuse to accept how a rule works?
That's fine - you can argue intent but that's nor what the actual rules say.

Instead maybe I need to break out my old arguments about the formatting within the Unit Type Section of the book:
Throughout this section the Unit Type being discussed is never written out as 'models with the Unit Type: X' but instead these models are always refereed by their Unit Type directly. The reference to the Bike is therefor a reference to any model with the Unit Type: Bike, and not the piece of war-gear called the bike. Any other reading on this entire section leads to all sorts of broken outcomes, my favorite is still that Jump/Jet-Pack Unit's lose the Bulky penalty whenever a non-Jump/Jet Pack model is attached to them.

The problem with that is that the rider and bike are referred to distinctly. You can ignore that fact all you want, but it doesn't make your stance correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:
The assertion that the model does not have them that you make earlier, if I understand what you're getting at, is based on the wording "fitted with" and that the BRB does not define a model to include other things except wargear.

Correct - rules matter.

rigeld2 wrote:Page 3 - Other Important Information.
Talks about things that make up a model - including Wargear, special rules... But not something fitted to wargear.

"Fitted with" simply means comes with/includes. Thus the TL boltguns are included in the wargear, and obviously part of the model. As they also are weapons, hence they are replaceable.

Prove the bolded - you've failed to so far.
They're demonstrably not included in the wargear. - another thing you've asserted and failed to prove.

Even if you argue that "Fitted with" is not the same as comes with/includes, that will mean that you are "choosing favourites" as liturgies puts it, since it will only cover the Bike. The wording on Mechatendrils (CSM Codex pg 66) is indeed "Mechatendrils also include a meltagun and a flamer." Both are weapons, and included in wargear. BRB pg 3 definition you refer to says that wargear is part of the model. Included in the wargear here is explicitly two further weapons.

If it's in the wargear list it can be swapped out. I'm not "playing favorites" at all.

And as a side note I find it pretty funny that the side which previously argued logig be applied here is now saying the TL boltguns are not part of the model.

I'm not on a "side". I resent the implication that I've not been consistent.

Can you draw LoS to a bike?
If the rider is 100% obscured and all you can see is the bike, can you target it?

 fuusa wrote:
The model (again all elements of this, are part of the model, the model is the lord on bike, its not the lord and bike, they are not seperate) has a weapon.

I've proven this is not the case as far as the rules are concerned.. Please stop repeating it.

Rigeld2,
I will look into the Rider and Bike angle a little deeper when I can review them, I expect to find that both ideals still function perfectly fine but till I do I can not say for certain.

However I do want to state that I always look at other precedents as they are sometimes the only way we really have to resolve some questions put forth on this forum. This is most true when we have two different ideals and both either claim the very same sentence or word as Rules as Written support, or put forth a sentence that can be read different ways without changing a single word within. In such situations we need to look at the end result of these ideals, find out which ones create the most unusual situations and how 'gray' those situations are. If both lead to either very broken scenarios or both function without issue then we have a problem that can only be solved by the writers, though don't hold your breath about that given their Frequently Asked Question scheduled.

Should only one of the ideals causes a wide range of secondary problems, Gray Areas or questions.....

In this case we have a single word and it could very well mean 'Bike as Wargear' or 'any model with the Unit Type: Bike' from a Rule as Written stand point; so no one can claim the rules are entirely on their side just yet. The rider angle is a very good touch, hence why I will review it deeper, but if the sentence can still be read correctly either way then it doesn't prove the Rule as Written was addressing the wargear itself. All it will do, at the very best, is show that the terminology used is too vague for us to know exactly for sure what the Rule as Written actually is. At that point I go back onto the fence over this matter, quite happily too because I really don't think the intent was to allow the Twin-Linked Bolter to be swapped out, until they verify if this sentence gives permission for a piece of wargear to have a shot all of it's own or simply means that a model with the Unit Type of Bike can fire a single weapon for each rider.

Besides:
How else would you go about stating a 'model with the Unit Type: Bike' can fire multiple weapons without addressing the method we use to determine how many they can fire?
In this case counting how many X the singular model has.

You would think if this place had responsible moderators, once several pages of literally the exact same things being said back and forth, they'd just lock it down with the final word "We can't come to a consensus, so simply discuss it with your playing partners."

Edited by Manchu

The purpose of a discussion forum is to provide a space for discussion. Posters are allowed to argue ad infinitum as long as they are polite and on-topic.

This has been polite, to you? O_o

Sorry, I should have been more clear that this line of conversation is actually off-topic. Please feel free to PM me with any questions. Thanks!

 grendel083 wrote:
Can you draw LoS to a bike?
If the rider is 100% obscured and all you can see is the bike, can you target it?

I'd play it as yes you can shoot it. Is the model not the entire plastic piece aside from wings, tails and banners?

 grendel083 wrote:
Can you draw LoS to a bike?
If the rider is 100% obscured and all you can see is the bike, can you target it?

Is the bike part of what the rules define as the "body"?

 Happyjew wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Can you draw LoS to a bike?
If the rider is 100% obscured and all you can see is the bike, can you target it?

Is the bike part of what the rules define as the "body"?

Nope. It's listed as wargear, the codex in question refers to it as separate from the model, can't even target it.

Rigeld2,
I reviewed the rules in question again, the wargear listings and everything else only to find the rules are once more thrust into the strange gray area that can only come from Game Workshop. While I can not conclude completely that they are separate entities, it can read both ways still, I do have to admit that reading them as separate is far more fluent. This creates all sorts of problems and issues, lots of questions about all sorts of things, but I guess I shouldn't really be surprised at this point given it isn't the first time I have seen this reading through this Rule Book.

I will have to still hold to the ideal that the formatting throughout the Unit Type section are taking about the unit type in question because things don't break down that way. However, in the situation of Bikes the terminology is vague enough in places thanks to the inclusion of the terminology 'Rider.' Until I see some more information related to this, preferably from the Game Workshops themselves, I will simply return to the fence I like so much and just shake my head over the mess this creates. I particularly feel sorry for the Assault Bikes which have all sorts of additional problems if your interpretation is indeed correct.

On that note to the site:
I am not going to be able to take part in debates on this site anymore due to real life time restraints, at least not constant enough that I feel such debates deserve, but do wish you luck sorting these messes out while I am reduced to Lurking and the occasional post.

The Chaos Bike is a Special Issue Wargear. It is fitted with a single twin-linked boltgun weapon. The Chaos Lord can select the Chaos Bike as a wargear option.

The Chaos Artefacts rule "a model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

Given the twin-linked boltgun is a weapon, I should be able to replace this weapon with a Chaos Artefact.

However, here is explicit information for a specific permission-

Space Marine codex- page 174, allows Scout Bikes the ability to replace twin-linked boltguns with Astartes grenade launchers even though the Space Marine Bike is fitted with a twin-linked bolt gun (page 125).

But this is one specific weapon swap for another specific weapon swap despite the twin-linked boltgun being fitted to a Space Marine bike. It does show it can be removed and replaced with another weapon.

If the bike and rider are seperate models and the bike has permission to shoot its tl bolter, how do we know whats its BS is to shoot with?

And in reguards to more and more questions, I thought the rule was if a rule could be read in multiple ways but one rule breaks the game and the other rule doesn't (Lord swapping bike tl bolter vs swapping the bolter part of a combi bolter ad infinium) you take the rule that doesn't break the game

rigeld2 wrote:
They're demonstrably not included in the wargear. - another thing you've asserted and failed to prove.

Ok, then.
So, according to you because the bolter is not specifically listed as wargear, this sets it aside somehow (despite it being a weapon and the relevant rule deals with weapons specifically, not wargear despite their sometimes being the same), this will conflict with how we are told to use a unit profile in the chaos dex.
P90, 5. Wargear.
"This section details the weapons and equipment the models in the unit are armed with."

If the distinction you are making is correct, because the bolter is not listed as wargear in this section of the profile, the biker cannot be armed with the bolter and so cannot fire it.
If however, a weapon that is gained through a piece of wargear, is just an extention of the wargear already possessed, its fine.

On p45, there is no specific permission to fire a weapon that is "fitted to" or comes along with a bike (piece of wargear). We only have how many we can fire.
Therefore, all we have is the general permission on p12, which gives us "a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons ..."

On p51, we have "more than one weapon" which clearly states a model can have more than one weapon, this is possible.
According to you though the biker lord model with bolt pistol and tl bolter , does not have two weapons, therefore cannot choose which one to use, despite the lord demonstrably being equipped with two ranged weapons.

Its nonsense.

 grendel083 wrote:
Can you draw LoS to a bike?
If the rider is 100% obscured and all you can see is the bike, can you target it?

That's a fair point at first glance, but, I could ask you if all that was visible on an infantry model was its gun, could you draw los to it?
What does that have to say about parts of models, weapons and wargear?

 fuusa wrote:
If the distinction you are making is correct, because the bolter is not listed as wargear in this section of the profile, the biker cannot be armed with the bolter and so cannot fire it.
If however, a weapon that is gained through a piece of wargear, is just an extention of the wargear already possessed, its fine.

Do you read all of my posts, or just the ones directed at you?
I addressed this already.

Its nonsense.

Let's see... in a debate about rules and what they say your defense for your argument is that mine is nonsense. Not a rules quote proving me wrong - just saying that it's nonsense.
Yeah, no - doesn't help your argument at all, nor hurt mine. Welcome to GW.

I've always played it as bikes are wargear and you have to be able to see the rider to shoot them.
Since that's what the rules say and all

So a model armed with a set of wargear does not have that war gear? It isn't part of the model.

Those bolters on the model aren't on the model. Thus spake Rigeld and Liturgies.
(Liturgies - you have still not cited a rule stating you need specific permission to alter wargear, given you already have permission to alter the model. Thus you must stop with that line of argument. The only "contention" is whether the bolter on the model is on the model. One position is absurd, the other isn't)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So a model armed with a set of wargear does not have that war gear? It isn't part of the model.

Incorrect - wargear is part of the model.
The TL Bolter is not wargear.

Those bolters on the model aren't on the model. Thus spake Rigeld and Liturgies.

I'm sure you meant "Thus how the RAW reads."
Unless you can come up with a disagreement based on rules and no an ad hominem.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So a model armed with a set of wargear does not have that war gear? It isn't part of the model.

Incorrect - wargear is part of the model.
The TL Bolter is not wargear.

Those bolters on the model aren't on the model. Thus spake Rigeld and Liturgies.

I'm sure you meant "Thus how the RAW reads."
Unless you can come up with a disagreement based on rules and no an ad hominem.

The TL Bolter is a weapon fitted to a wargear piece. It is still a weapon however.

No, your claim is based on a set of wargear not still being wargear. Bolters are wargear, being attached to another piece of wargear doesn't stop them existing on the model.

You also made another assertion - that permission to alter the model isn't permission to alter part of the model. Have you backed tht up yet?

"It could be carrying one or more shooting...weapons" page 3. The model is carrying the weapon, the weapon is part of the model. Case closed.

RAW the bolter ON the model IS on the model, and thus can be swapped. Unless, of course, you can prove your so far unsupported assertion that being a part of wargear restricts the permission we have already demonstrated.

You have not made any attempt to do so so far, despite direct requests to do so. Please, do so.

Nos, can I swap a 1 shot meltagun from a combi-melta? Or will it be another few pages of thus refused nosferatu?

I've asked repeatedly for the rule that allows the breaking apart of wargear but you've refused to engage... because there is none. The reason we've stated they are different is because they are. The multipart wargear says that they include or are fitted with x, y, z. If you swap them out they aren't fitted with x,y,z and you need to show permission to swap them. You've shown permission to swap weapons the model is armed with but not parts of wargear.

Also the chaos codex shows that the tl bolter isn't part of the wargear list and isn't wargear but part of the chaos bike.

Space Marine Codex does show permission for a bike weapon to be swapped, but in context is a specific permission.

WarOne wrote:The TL Bolter is a weapon fitted to a wargear piece. It is still a weapon however.

Which is entirely irrelevant. Unless you can find permission to swap something that isn't wargear and isn't yours.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, your claim is based on a set of wargear not still being wargear. Bolters are wargear, being attached to another piece of wargear doesn't stop them existing on the model.

According to the actual rules and not nos40k, it does matter - as I've proven. And you've declined to cite rules that disagree with that, instead preferring to attack me.

You also made another assertion - that permission to alter the model isn't permission to alter part of the model. Have you backed tht up yet?

No, that's not what I said. It may be what you decided to interpret, but that's not what I said.

"It could be carrying one or more shooting...weapons" page 3. The model is carrying the weapon, the weapon is part of the model. Case closed.

Talk about selective reading.

RAW the bolter ON the model IS on the model, and thus can be swapped. Unless, of course, you can prove your so far unsupported assertion that being a part of wargear restricts the permission we have already demonstrated.

Unsupported?
You have permission to swap a weapon you have. You do not have the bolter - your wargear does.
You can assume a transitive ownership all you want but you've utterly failed to prove it exists.

You have not made any attempt to do so so far, despite direct requests to do so. Please, do so.

That's incorrect - I have supported my argument.

You've again declined to actually quote the support from page 3 from your argument. Despite repeating (likely) dozens of times in this thread alone that page 3 absolutely states that everything physically part of the model belongs to the model, when I asked for you to quote the rule you've declined repeatedly.

Any further attempts to cite page 3 without a quote will be considered trolling or lying - you know it doesn't support what you said and have refused to admit it.

rigeld2 wrote:

WarOne wrote:The TL Bolter is a weapon fitted to a wargear piece. It is still a weapon however.

Which is entirely irrelevant. Unless you can find permission to swap.

On that point I agree the CSM codex fails to assert a specific allowance for this and Scout bikes in the Space Marine Codex does allow for a bike's weapons to be swapped out. But it does mention the bike as a unique item and the change specific to that item.

Liturgies - I have asked for a rule showing such specific permission is needed. Provide it. I am altering the model and have permission to do so, find where that permission is restricted.

And yes, I won't treat things inconsistently. Your desire to prove a point is hilarious.

Will you now provide a relevant rule? Anything? I've demolished every assertion you have made so far, so will you finally admit your assertion I lacks a rules base?

Rigeld - so the model isn't carrying a shooting weapon? That's odd, I could swear it is

You have absolutely not supported your position. You absolutely DID claim that the bolter is not part of the model, and that page three quote states otherwise (and no, "selective reading" is not a rebuttal. You know it, and are clinging to anything now) so that is wrong.

You also claimed. As liturgies has, that permission to alter a model is not permission to alter part of the mod, when the weapon is part of another piece of wargear.

You have not provided a single rules quote proving that. None. Again, PROVE IT. I asked you more than once to state your rule requiring this, and you haven't provided it, I asked you to link to where you did quote it, because surely you would not repeatedly break the tenets of this forum, but no, you just ASSERT you have supported it.

Well, you haven't. You are , by definition, trolling. Your refusal to comply with the rules of the forum is noted. Do not pretend to know what I think, your arrogance is stunning..

Nos, what does the wargear section of the description of the profile say? That's point 5 page 90. "details the weapons and equipment the model is armed with" so the tl isn't listed there at any point, the model isn't "armed" with a weapon, it's armed with a piece of wargear that isn't a weapon but includes one. (that's page 66) So some weapons are listed in the wargear section and others, specifically ones that are parts of wargear are not... why is this? Does this not make the different to you as it makes them damn different to me and what the rules say about them?

Rigeld's arrogance isn't stunning, as you're hardly stunned. Don't pretend you understand our motivations and purchase a better dictionary for your definitions.

Looks like an agree to disagree issue. I'll just continue on then.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - so the model isn't carrying a shooting weapon? That's odd, I could swear it is

Given that I've shown a rule stating exactly that...

And given that you again decline to actually support your argument outside of misquoting page 3 (because page literally does not say what you asserted it says) I'd like to thank you for conceding.

All I'm conceding is that the model still has a twin-linked bolter that can be swapped out. The biker entry only gives express permission for troopers to swap out gear. Characters get that permission from the wargear list in the codex, which says you can swap their weapons. The weapons they have. On the bikes, even.

Pretty cut and dry.