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.

Hi Dakka,

I feel like I need to double check this, but are Frag Grenades the same as the S4 Assault Grenades mentioned in the BRB in the same panel it mentions Krak and Melta bombs and attacking vehicles? I'm a bit confused on this and a search turned up a bunch of older articles.

ComputerGeek01 wrote:Hi Dakka,

I feel like I need to double check this, but are Frag Grenades the same as the S4 Assault Grenades mentioned in the BRB in the same panel it mentions Krak and Melta bombs and attacking vehicles? I'm a bit confused on this and a search turned up a bunch of older articles.

It depends on what codex you are using.

For the newer Space Marine codexes (Ultrapals, Spess Puppehs and Twilight Marines), yes, they are, as their rules say Frag Grenades are Assault grenades.

For the 5th edition IG one, RaW, their Frags don't work at all.

As for the older codexes, I am not 100% sure what the RaW situation is off the top of my head.
If it says to look in the rulebook for "Frag Grenades", then they don't work. If it says to look for "Assault Grenades", then they do.

You will find, however, most people House Rule this to make all Frags and Plasma Grenades "Assault Grenades".

So by way of "majority" house rules IG infantry blob squads have just become 10X more obnoxious. Awsome, thank you Gwar! I beginning to see why you and others are such hardliners toward RaW. Now I have one MORE thing to clarify before the game starts.

ComputerGeek01 wrote:So by way of "majority" house rules IG infantry blob squads have just become 10X more obnoxious. Awsome, thank you Gwar! I beginning to see why you and others are such hardliners toward RaW. Now I have one MORE thing to clarify before the game starts.

I am glad to see that I am not the only one who saw this.

See RAI guys? There are other (normal) people who assume when GW Says "Look for the rules for Frag Grenades" they actually mean "Look for the rules for FRAG GRENADES" and don't mean "Look for the rules for Frag Grenades, don't find them and instead use the Assault Grenade rules for no rules reason whatsoever."

ComputerGeek01 wrote: I feel like I need to double check this, but are Frag Grenades the same as the S4 Assault Grenades mentioned in the BRB in the same panel it mentions Krak and Melta bombs and attacking vehicles? I'm a bit confused on this and a search turned up a bunch of older articles.

If you check the Assault Grenade rules on page 36, Frag Grenades are listed as the very first example.

So yes, Frag Grenades are Assault Grenades.

I second Insaniak.

insaniak wrote:

ComputerGeek01 wrote: I feel like I need to double check this, but are Frag Grenades the same as the S4 Assault Grenades mentioned in the BRB in the same panel it mentions Krak and Melta bombs and attacking vehicles? I'm a bit confused on this and a search turned up a bunch of older articles.

If you check the Assault Grenade rules on page 36, Frag Grenades are listed as the very first example.

So yes, Frag Grenades are Assault Grenades.

Sorry, but they are listed only as an example.

Wargear with the same name can have different rules (Examples off the top of my head: Assault Cannon, Storm Shield, Smoke Launchers, Plasma Grenades and Haywire Grenades), and this is the case here.

The rule is "Assault Grenades". The rule is not "Assault and whatever other type you want Grenades ".

Inb4thelock.

Gwar! wrote:Sorry, but they are listed only as an example.

The fact that they are listed as an example was, indeed, the point.

Gwar!'s point is that, say, you have a list of things that have water in them. Included in that list is an example of a sponge. However, not all sponges have water in them.

Jokorey, that's not how it's written. It's giving examples of grenades that are assault grenades twice, and both times it gives frag and plasma grenades.

Mahtamori wrote:Jokorey, that's not how it's written. It's giving examples of grenades that are assault grenades twice, and both times it gives frag and plasma grenades.

And both times, it fails to mention that Frag and Plasma have different rules in different codexes.

And once again, they are listed as EXAMPLES. Just because it says "Frag Grenade" it does not mean all Frag Grenades are Assault Grenades, the same way that not all Assault Cannons, Storm Shields, Smoke Launchers, Plasma Grenades and Haywire Grenades have the same rules as all other Assault Cannons, Storm Shields, Smoke Launchers, Plasma Grenades and Haywire Grenades.

Jokorey wrote:Gwar!'s point is that, say, you have a list of things that have water in them. Included in that list is an example of a sponge. However, not all sponges have water in them.

Sorry, but that argument doesn't (ahem) hold water.

A sponge is not an example of something that has water in it. It's an example of something that may have water in it... so could not correctly be included in a list of things that do contain water. (A wet sponge could be... assuming that water was what was causing it to be wet... )

By the same token, the Assault Grenades entry does not state that the listed items may be assault grenades. It simply lists examples of assault grenades.

So a Frag Grenade is not just something that may be an assault grenade... it is a listed example of an assault grenade.

Gwar! wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:Jokorey, that's not how it's written. It's giving examples of grenades that are assault grenades twice, and both times it gives frag and plasma grenades.

And both times, it fails to mention that Frag and Plasma have different rules in different codexes.

And once again, they are listed as EXAMPLES. Just because it says "Frag Grenade" it does not mean all Frag Grenades are Assault Grenades, the same way that not all Assault Cannons, Storm Shields, Smoke Launchers, Plasma Grenades and Haywire Grenades have the same rules as all other Assault Cannons, Storm Shields, Smoke Launchers, Plasma Grenades and Haywire Grenades.

No, it doesn't mean that all fragmentation grenades are assault grenades, it means that all undefined fragmentation grenades are assault grenades. Just like all undefined smoke launchers provide cover while the only defined smoke launcher down-grades penetrating hits.

Mahtamori wrote: it means that all undefined fragmentation grenades are assault grenades.

This is something you just made up.

Just like all undefined smoke launchers provide cover while the only defined smoke launcher down-grades penetrating hits.

Because that is what the rulebook says. It makes no such mention for Frag Grenades.

So, Gwar, do I have your logic right that a given example of a type of equipment does not constitute that that equipment is of that type unless externally specified to be so. I just wish to point out that, specifically the Eldar army's plasma grenades are given as an example, yet the Eldar army do not have specified plasma grenades.
Are we to interpret the rules such that examples are entirely hypothetical, and that examples may even be given which are directly contrary to what will be found, or even that very specific examples such as the case of the plasma grenades may still leave exactly that equipment for exactly that army without a rule, by RAW?

RaW, Eldar Plasma Grenades do nothing. Never have. Dark Eldar ones work because their rules are detailed in their codex.

Gwar! wrote:RaW, Eldar Plasma Grenades do nothing.

That's only RAW if you ignore the Assault Grenades rules, that specifically refer to Eldar Plasma Grenades.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:RaW, Eldar Plasma Grenades do nothing.

That's only RAW if you ignore the Assault Grenades rules, that specifically refer to Eldar Plasma Grenades.

No, they do not. They list them AS AN EXAMPLE of Assault Grenades. It even says "e.g." (Latin for exempli gratia, which means "for the sake of example" and is used in English to represent "For Example").

At no point do the rules in the BRB say "Plasma Grenades found in the Eldar Codex are Assault Grenades." Just because something is listed as an example doesn't mean they all follow that rule. See Smoke Launchers for an Obvious Example, as well as the other examples I have listed.

Gwar! wrote:They list them AS AN EXAMPLE of Assault Grenades.

Yes, we already covered that. The issue is simply that you disagree as to what being an example actually means.

At no point do the rules in the BRB say "Plasma Grenades found in the Eldar Codex are Assault Grenades."

"Assault grenades, like the ubiquitous fragmentation grenades or the more advanced Eldar plasma grenades, ..."

Just because something is listed as an example doesn't mean they all follow that rule.

If the rules list something as an example of something that follows a given rule, that means that the thing listed follows that rule. If the example doesn't follow that rule, it would not be an example of something that follows that rule.

insaniak wrote:

At no point do the rules in the BRB say "Plasma Grenades found in the Eldar Codex are Assault Grenades."

"Assault grenades, like the ubiquitous fragmentation grenades or the more advanced Eldar plasma grenades, ..."

So we can use fluff as rules now? Awesome! Strength 10 Grey Hunters for me!

The fact is, being listed as an Example is not good enough. Never has, never will be. You can house rule it all you want, but the ACTUAL RULES mean that Eldar Plasma grenades and Imperial Guard Frags do nothing. Does it make sense? No. Would I ever play it that way? Probably not. Is it what the rules say? 110% yes.

Gwar! wrote:The fact is, being listed as an Example is not good enough.

For you, perhaps. For pretty much everyone else who plays the game, I suspect it will do just fine.

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:

At no point do the rules in the BRB say "Plasma Grenades found in the Eldar Codex are Assault Grenades."

"Assault grenades, like the ubiquitous fragmentation grenades or the more advanced Eldar plasma grenades, ..."

So we can use fluff as rules now? Awesome! Strength 10 Grey Hunters for me!

The fact is, being listed as an Example is not good enough. Never has, never will be. You can house rule it all you want, but the ACTUAL RULES mean that Eldar Plasma grenades and Imperial Guard Frags do nothing. Does it make sense? No. Would I ever play it that way? Probably not. Is it what the rules say? 110% yes.

Oh for crying out loud. You honestly down to heart say that an example, even specific ones, actually have no meaning what-so-ever.

This is a rule, this is an example of what the rule applies to, but ignore that example because it has no meaning.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The fact is, being listed as an Example is not good enough.

For you, perhaps. For pretty much everyone else who plays the game, I suspect it will do just fine.

-Edit- Not worth it. Not looking for another unwarranted ban.

@Mahtamori: Yes, I do, because the Example is not a rule.

Looks like we are an impasse it seems.

I would treat the IG frag grenades as Assault grenades as described in the 40k rulebook.

I'm pretty sure the IG's Frag Grenades are in fact Assault Grenades, because in the wargear section of that codex under Frag Grenades it states "See the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook". Upon searching the rulebook, only two pages have mentions of Grenades: 36, and 63. Since page 63 has only the damage values for grenades, let's assume it's not there. Page 36 mentions Assault Grenades and Defensive Grenades. Since Frags are there, listed as an example of an Assault Grenade, and not a Defensive Grenade, one must assume they are in fact Assault Grenades.

I think it would be wise to not use the rule for Assault Grenades with DEFINED Frag Grenade rules as stated in their codices, but the damn thing says "See the Rulebook". Frags are listed under Assault Grenades in the rulebook. Therefore, undefined Frags are Assault Grenades.

Guardsmanius wrote:Frags are listed under Assault Grenades in the rulebook.

And as I have pointed out a million times, This is wrong.

They are listed, all together now, AS AN EXAMPLE. At no point does it say "Imperial Guard Frag Grenades are Assault Grenades" or "All Frag Grenades are Assault Grenades."

However, it does state that the Frag Grenade rules are contained in the rulebook, and not the codex. The only grenade rules to that effect are on page 36, under the "Grenades" section. It then states examples under "Assault Grenades" as "frag grenades, plasma grenades, and so on". I do not see any other specific rules for Frag Grenades in the rulebook, and despite being an example of an Assault Grenade, one might assume that they are Assault Grenades BECAUSE they are an EXAMPLE of an Assault Grenade. Point to the part in the rulebook where it states that Frag Grenades can be anything else. They aren't listed as being capable of anything else, the Codex says to look in the Rulebook for rules. Grenades are listed in the Index as being on pages 36, and 63. From there, since 63 is only damage values, you have to look at 36. Under that, it goes "GRENADES".

....A Frag Grenade IS a Grenade, yes? By definition? And it's a listed example of an Assault Grenade? Then unless the codex or rulebook states otherwise, it's an Assault Grenade.

It says they are in the rulebook.

Now please show me where it says "This is what "Frag Grenades" do."

Not "Assault grenades", "Frag Grenades". Explicitly, not as an "example".

Unfortunately, I cannot. But on the other hand, it's ridiculous to believe that a 5th edition weapon that appears in the 5th edition rulebook as an "example" of, say, weapon type Z, is NOT weapon type Z if it is listed nowhere else. They shouldn't have to spell everything out for the normal player. Are you saying they should have a place in the rulebook to define each and every kind of grenade specifically? An example is, BY DEFINITION, "A specimen or instance that is typical of the group or set of which it forms part". So a Frag Grenade is a typical Assault Grenade, assuming a "frag grenade" is the same thing as a "Frag Grenade". Since there are nothing that says otherwise, I do believe it's safe to assume that is what they intended.

Maybe it's unfortunate that they didn't word it as to your lofty standards, but it's pretty clear even to a novice like me.

(Though it might be smart if someone just goes and asks GW or something.)

Guardsmanius wrote:But on the other hand, it's ridiculous

In your Opinion.

Having played 40k since the very end of 2nd edition, I can honestly say that there is a legitimate chance they made Imperial Guard frags not work, either through deliberately or just from a lack of a proofreading/playtest group.

Why? I don't know, I didn't write the codex.