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.

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.