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.

 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?