Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In the Fun RAW thread, Gwar argued that frag grenades were not assault grenades. I argued against him bringing up points i believed were valid to my dismay Gwar stopped arguing and the topic never got resolved. I for one would really like to know as i know a rule lawyer jerk with a codex which lists them as just frags grenades, but as of now i think they're assault grenades.
I would like to point out now that this is not a thread intended to pick a fight with/ harass/ or bash Gwar or any other person who disagrees with me. So everyone please keep it clean and unflamey or a mod will be likely to close this...

Now the question is are frag grenades assault grenades?

If not why not?

Should have changed your sig before posting that bit about Gwar!.

Pure RAW you answered your own question.
Do people play it this way? Of course not.

Only in the IG Codex does this happen.

The IG Codex says "Frag Grenades: See the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook".

Compare this to the wording in the SM and SW codex, which makes Frag Grenades Assault Grenades.

There are no rules in the rulebook for "Frag Grenades". "Frag grenades" are given as an EXAMPLE, but it does not say it is the same as the Frag Grenades as the ones in the IG Codex.

So, because Frag Grenades are cited as an example of Assault Grenades, Frag Grenades are Assault Grenades. This ain't rocket surgery.

Frag are assualt grenades.

Kazerkinelite wrote:Frag are assualt grenades.

Sadly that is not what the rule says.

Nurglitch wrote:So, because Frag Grenades are cited as an example of Assault Grenades, Frag Grenades are Assault Grenades. This ain't rocket surgery.

Yeah i understand that i completely agree i just don't see why Gwar doesn't agree.

No, the rules say:

Grenades, Assault Phase, The Rules Section, The Rulebook, p.36 wrote:Assault Grenades (e.g. frag grenades, plasma grenades, and so on)

So, yes, that is exactly what the rules say. Gwar is wrong as usual.

Hmm, I can see your point, Gwar.

But I'd argue that the IG codex only says to see the rulebook for frag grenades. This does not mean that there has to be a section entitled Frag Grenades, or a heading 'Frag Grenades' under which the rules for frag grenades can be made valid.

GW could hide the rules for frag grenades in the psychic section, or in the scrollwork on a dreadnought illustration. According to the IG codex there just needs to be some mention of something called Frag Grenades somewhere in the rulebook.

And there IS. Under assault grenades, clearly defining frag grenades as an example of a type of assault grenade. It doesn't need it's own heading, section or 'rule title' to be valid.

If they aren't assault grenades, what else do they do with them?

Joetaco wrote: I argued against him bringing up points i believed were valid to my dismay Gwar stopped arguing and the topic never got resolved.

Hmm... seems to be a recurring theme.

On topic: even the "RAW" counterargument is super weak here, but RAI is abundantly clear. Frag = Assault

There is no "RAW" counter-argument. The rulebook clearly states that Frag Grenades are Assault Grenades.

Hence the "RAW"-- I don't think it's the Rules As Written, and thus the sarcastic "s.

Don't assume that a subordinate clause that is adding definition to the primary clause is valid in itself. If you do, you get eversor assassins shooting a pistol twice all the time.

'The Eversor never counts as moving when firing its executioner pistol (so it may always fire twice)"

Whatever is in brackets is not a rule, just clarification to help people understand the rule.

Therefore the RAW argument is valid, as nowhere does it say Frag = Assault

They infer it strongly by saying "assault (ie frag...)" but it is enough of a difference for a rule lawyer to be right (RAW) and earns him a swift kick in the codpiece.

Actually it's interesting that you should bring up something so incredibly stupid as "Frag = Assault" because the rules don't say that. "=" as an identity symbol is commutative, so say that would be saying not only that Frag Grenades are Assault Grenades, but that Assault Grenades are Frag Grenades.

What it does say is that Frag Grenades are given as an example of Assault Grenades. Hence the reference is transitive, all references to Frag Grenades are references to Assault Grenades, but not all references to Assault Grenades are references to Frag Grenades, e.g. Plasma Grenades. You know, "e.g."?

The "rule lawyer" isn't right. He's wrong, as usual.

So then the Eversor gets to shoot twice? The thing in brackets is not the rule, it is there only to add meaning to the main clause.

Nurglitch wrote:So, because Frag Grenades are cited as an example of Assault Grenades, Frag Grenades are Assault Grenades. This ain't rocket surgery.

wtf when does anyone do rocket surgery? isnt it rocket science or brain surgery

No, the Eversor only gets to shoot his Pistol weapons once because all Pistol weapons are Assault 1. In the case of the Eversor rule the extension is empty, because back in 3rd edition Pistols could have two shots if their bearer was stationary, and now they don't. In the case of the relation of Assault Grenades to Frag Grenades, the extension is fixed by stating that Frag Grenades are exemplars of Assault Grenades. Apples to oranges.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ham doctor wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:So, because Frag Grenades are cited as an example of Assault Grenades, Frag Grenades are Assault Grenades. This ain't rocket surgery.

wtf when does anyone do rocket surgery? isnt it rocket science or brain surgery

It's called a "Joke". You see, when someone puts two cliches together in a nonsensical combination, the resulting absurdity has a quality known as "funny" to humans of the planet Earth.

Nurglitch wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ham doctor wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:So, because Frag Grenades are cited as an example of Assault Grenades, Frag Grenades are Assault Grenades. This ain't rocket surgery.

wtf when does anyone do rocket surgery? isnt it rocket science or brain surgery

It's called a "Joke". You see, when someone puts two cliches together in a nonsensical combination, the resulting absurdity has a quality known as "funny" to humans of the planet Earth.

Win

Ham doctor wrote:
wtf when does anyone do rocket surgery? isnt it rocket science or brain surgery

Oh, so THAT's why I haven't managed to find its liver yet!

I think some of you guys are totally missing the argument being made about the frag grenades and the Eversor. You need to really look at the sentence construction and what it doesn't say; those parantheticals don't actually mean anything. It's a hyper-technical and pedantic reading, and I can't imagine anyone would actually play that way (meaningless frag grenades), but I don't think anyone is actually suggesting that. I think the point is instead, frag grenades in the IG book were much more sloppily written than frag grenades in the SM book, and it's just another example that the GW books would be well served by a more technical editor going over the writing and ensuring they actually say what they want them to say. In this case it's so obvious it's a non-issue, but that's clearly not the case in many other areas of the rules.

Hey, stop trying to make everyone be rational. This is the internet.

MOAR NERD RAGE!!!!!!!!

it says in the BGB that

"like the frag grenade or the more advanced eldar plasma grenade" for assault grenade.

they're generally classed as assault grenades, unless otherwise mentioned.

Latin FTW!!!

e.g. is abbreviation for exempli gratia which translates into for example.

So, yea, frag grenades are indeed a type of Assault Grenades.

/sigh

I think the point Gwar is trying to make is that frag grenades, as not defined in the rulebook, could do anything.

Are frag grenades subject to restrictions on their use as a specific type of assault grenades? Do they have any special benefits as a specific type of assault grenades? If frag grenades were defined in the rulebook, we'd know the answer to those questions instead guessing.

Considering that a model can use defensive grenades to assault a tank, it's hard to be certain what the writers meant.

solkan:

But frag grenades are defined in the rulebook. How is it that you believe that they aren't?

Nurglitch wrote:solkan:

But frag grenades are defined in the rulebook. How is it that you believe that they aren't?

By two questions which I had in my post. How can you tell me that they don't have any additional special rules without guessing?

Because they're entirely covered by the rules for Assault Grenades?

Nurglitch wrote:Because they're entirely covered by the rules for Assault Grenades?

Prove it. The rulebook gives two examples of assault grenades but offers no indication as to whether or not those two examples are identical.

The rulebook may as well have said "Fruit (e.g. banana and mikan)" and then posed the question whether there was anything special about the mikan.