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.

Timmah wrote:

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
I know. His argument basically comes down to "it doesn't say i can't do this"

What a great argument.

Nothing in the rules forbids this, so therefore it is legal.

(Now GW might not have intended this but that is neither here nor there as atm I would consider it legal.)

Actually you are both wrong. My argument is they are classified as infantry in their entry. One option is for them to take a bike. Where does it say that they lose their infantry status? As usual, just a theoretical discussion, one I definitely think is against RAI.

As I already said it doesn't matter if they are still infantry. They follow all the rules for bikes so are not diffrent from bikes in any way.

But then it depends on what the transport's requirements on passengers are, and whether it is possible to have more than one unit type.

Using logic definitions:
Does it use: TYPE=INFANTRY (ie, if unit is of type infantry then it is allowed in transport)
or possibly NOT(TYPE=NOT(INFANTRY)) (ie, if the unit doesn't have a Non-Infantry unit type, it is allowed on transport)

Personally I think it is the second logic.
Also, On the first page of the Unit Types section, it says 'Except for the rules detailed in this section for each unit type, these units follow the same rules as infantry'

Which could be argued that the unit retains both the unit types of Infantry and (X type), so everything could go in a transport. The hive tyrant + wings is moot, as the Jump Infantry rules are only different than infantry for Movement only.

So, i think the rules indicate:
That it may be possible in extremely rare circumstances for units to have 2 special unit types. (implied by rare wargear choices)
However if a unit acquires a special unit type and its only current unit type is 'infantry', it loses the infantry classification as it is redundant (implied by 2nd paragraph page 51)
That you are not allowed in a transport if you possess any one non-infantry special unit type.

Despite the outcome of this debate, I still think it would be a badass GD entry to have a land raider with a SM biker bursting through the mouth of a land raider, running over an orks face in mid-launch.

This is right up there with the guy that wanted to use the daemon rules from C:CSM to allow his CoC daemons to assault on the turn they arrive. . .

Brice

Rymafyr wrote:It's this kind of assinine interpretations of the rules that makes me cringe when I open a thread anymore.

QFT.


When reading your rulebook, it is important to pay attention to capital letters.

"Infantry" is a unit type, while "infantry" is merely a noun.
IIRC (no rulebook handy), when Infantry takes a bike, they become Bike infantry.

At any point in the book, when they are referring to a Unit Type, it is capitalized. Not just at the beginning of the sentence.

Eric

Kaej wrote:Despite the outcome of this debate, I still think it would be a badass GD entry to have a land raider with a SM biker bursting through the mouth of a land raider, running over an orks face in mid-launch.

Even better when he smashes his helmet on the opening's steel header on the way out

MagickalMemories wrote:

Rymafyr wrote:It's this kind of assinine interpretations of the rules that makes me cringe when I open a thread anymore.

When reading your rulebook, it is important to pay attention to capital letters.

"Infantry" is a unit type, while "infantry" is merely a noun.
IIRC (no rulebook handy), when Infantry takes a bike, they become Bike infantry.

At any point in the book, when they are referring to a Unit Type, it is capitalized. Not just at the beginning of the sentence.

Eric

No, that's not the case. If it says infantry (without jump before it) then in almost all cases the rules refer to the unit type. The rulebook repetitively interchange capital I with diminutive i without consistency.

as far as I know the only way a bike or jump troopers (space marines) can use a transport is in apoc using a thunder hawk you can put up to 30 units in it dreds count as 10 models. terms 2. jump troopers as 1. bikers as 3

Actually, I've been thinking about playtesting this idea for a while now with Ravenwing. I think them pouring out of Landraiders and hard dropping out of Thunderhawks would be ace, and give the Dark Angels some sort of swagger again.

Webbe wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:

Rymafyr wrote:It's this kind of assinine interpretations of the rules that makes me cringe when I open a thread anymore.

When reading your rulebook, it is important to pay attention to capital letters.

"Infantry" is a unit type, while "infantry" is merely a noun.
IIRC (no rulebook handy), when Infantry takes a bike, they become Bike infantry.

At any point in the book, when they are referring to a Unit Type, it is capitalized. Not just at the beginning of the sentence.

Eric

No, that's not the case. If it says infantry (without jump before it) then in almost all cases the rules refer to the unit type. The rulebook repetitively interchange capital I with diminutive i without consistency.

Well, considering that you aren't in the States, I don't know what language your rulebook is written in. In MY rulebook, though, it is not inconsistent. It is quite clear what their intentions are if you (a) pay attention to what you're reading and (b) pay attention to capitalization.

It doesn't mean they're being inconsistent just because you don't understand what they're referring to.

Eric

What exactly would this allow you to do? You can move the Land Raider 12," exit, and assault 6," or exit, move the bikes 12," and assault 6," right?

It seems like a waste of a transport to shuttle bikes around, but it would make for an interesting conversion.

I would agree with Tri's intent. Bikes don't go in transports. I have never seen this done, never heard of this being done, and your interpretation of the rules to allow this to be done is wretchedly flawed. If anyone were to try this in a battle I would tell them "no," and if they tried to continue the arguement, I would simply leave, and call victory due to my opponent's stupidity (seriously, if they can't figure out this simple intent then their commander must not be able to figure out how to make sure their troops continue breathing so they will be soon suffocating and I would win by default... or in the case of non-oxygen breathing armies, they would forget how to continue existing in this realm of actuality and disintergrate into non-existance).

MagickalMemories wrote:Well, considering that you aren't in the States, I don't know what language your rulebook is written in. In MY rulebook, though, it is not inconsistent. It is quite clear what their intentions are if you (a) pay attention to what you're reading and (b) pay attention to capitalization.

It doesn't mean they're being inconsistent just because you don't understand that they're referring to.

Eric

GW material is in general not translated into Swedish so I guess I use exactly the same rulebook as you.
In most cases I prefer the original language anyway as things can always be lost in translation.

I admit that English is my second language but I'm confident that I understand written English good enough to comprehend any GW-published material as well as any US subject.

Despite that I made a mistake and I accidentally gave GW less credit than the deserve (for once). When I check rules and wording while reading and discussing on this site I mostly use a pdf-version of the rules so I don't have to take my eyes of the screen and can copy and paste easily. The problem is that I have the pages slightly zoomed out (84%) so that the whole page fit on the screen which tend to make some of the lower case i blur into capital I.

Now when carefully looking through both the paper version of the rulebook (in my case the Black Reach compact version) and the pdf zoomed at 100% I can't find a single case in the rulebook where the word infantry is written with a capital I unless it's in the beginning of a sentence.

This doesn't make you correct in your earlier assumption though. For all we know every time the word infantry is written in the rulebook it refers to the unit type. But as always, it can depend on the context.

Webbe wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:Well, considering that you aren't in the States, I don't know what language your rulebook is written in. In MY rulebook, though, it is not inconsistent. It is quite clear what their intentions are if you (a) pay attention to what you're reading and (b) pay attention to capitalization.

It doesn't mean they're being inconsistent just because you don't understand that they're referring to.

Eric

GW material is in general not translated into Swedish so I guess I use exactly the same rulebook as you.
In most cases I prefer the original language anyway as things can always be lost in translation.

I admit that English is my second language but I'm confident that I understand written English good enough to comprehend any GW-published material as well as any US subject.

Despite that I made a mistake and I accidentally gave GW less credit than the deserve (for once). When I check rules and wording while reading and discussing on this site I mostly use a pdf-version of the rules so I don't have to take my eyes of the screen and can copy and paste easily. The problem is that I have the pages slightly zoomed out (84%) so that the whole page fit on the screen which tend to make some of the lower case i blur into capital I.

Now when carefully looking through both the paper version of the rulebook (in my case the Black Reach compact version) and the pdf zoomed at 100% I can't find a single case in the rulebook where the word infantry is written with a capital I unless it's in the beginning of a sentence.

This doesn't make you correct in your earlier assumption though. For all we know every time the word infantry is written in the rulebook it refers to the unit type. But as always, it can depend on the context.

Your English is written quite well Webbe

RAW, models that purchase bikes as wargear may not embark in transports.

As has been pointed out numerous times, pg 66 of the BRB states that "Only infantry models may embark in transports."

Because of this several unwritten rules are implied:

MC cannot embark in transports

Jump Infantry cannot embark in transports

Walkers cannot embark in transports

Bikes cannot embark in transports

These rules are not written in the BRB; they are logically implied by the written rule on pg 66. Nevertheless, they are applicable rules and this is a ligitimate application of RAW.

Now we look at the entry for SM codex: "models equipped with SM bikes follow all the rules for bikes as described in the warhammer 40000 rulebook."

Therefore you follow all the rules that apply to bikes, both written in the BRB and implied by the BRB. Again, the rule that bikes may not embark in transports in not written but implied by the BRB.

Unlike the wargear entry for jumpacks, the SM codex does not change the unit type of the guard, they are still infantry (RAI hardly). The BRB says that infantry may be transported.

However, the codex says to follow the rules for bikes, and as already noted, the rules for bikes forbid them from embarking on a transport. In doing so, the codex overrules the BRB that would otherwise allow the guard, being infantry, to be embarked in a transport.

Therefore the answer is no, guard and commanders that buy SM bikes may not embark in a transport. Is this rules lawyering, yes, but it closes an alleged "loop hole" that does not fit with either RAW or RAI; that is what rules lawyering should be about.

just to reiterate wyomingfoxs point.

is an infantry model equipped with a bike an infantry model and a bike model? yes since there is nowhere in the rules to contradict this.

can infantry embark on transports? yes

can bikes embark on transports? no

can an infantry bike embark on transports? no because it is still a bike and bikes cannot embark on transports.

wyomingfox wrote:RAW, models that purchase bikes as wargear may not embark in transports.

As has been pointed out numerous times, pg 66 of the BRB states that "Only infantry models may embark in transports."

Because of this several unwritten rules are implied:

MC cannot embark in transports

Jump Infantry cannot embark in transports

Walkers cannot embark in transports

Bikes cannot embark in transports

These rules are not written in the BRB; they are logically implied by the written rule on pg 66. Nevertheless, they are applicable rules and this is a ligitimate application of RAW.

Now we look at the entry for SM codex: "models equipped with SM bikes follow all the rules for bikes as described in the warhammer 40000 rulebook."

Therefore you follow all the rules that apply to bikes, both written in the BRB and implied by the BRB. Again, the rule that bikes may not embark in transports in not written but implied by the BRB.

Unlike the wargear entry for jumpacks, the SM codex does not change the unit type of the guard, they are still infantry (RAI hardly). The BRB says that infantry may be transported.

However, the codex says to follow the rules for bikes, and as already noted, the rules for bikes forbid them from embarking on a transport. In doing so, the codex overrules the BRB that would otherwise allow the guard, being infantry, to be embarked in a transport.

Therefore the answer is no, guard and commanders that buy SM bikes may not embark in a transport. Is this rules lawyering, yes, but it closes an alleged "loop hole" that does not fit with either RAW or RAI; that is what rules lawyering should be about.

I do agree that bikes shouldn't use transport and I also wouldn't play someone who tried it, though the imagry is quite cool. However, where is it implied? Quote me the pg and text where it implies because I cannot see it. Enlighten me, I am happy to be proven wrong. Where does it say or imply Infantry models that select bikes actually change the type. When jump infantry remove their packs it states that they change their unit type in their entry - why doesn't it say "if select bikes become troop type "bike"".

I have quoted page and text to support my rather tongue in cheek opinion that only infantry unit types use transport and therefore honor guards that use bikes are still infantry. No where on the rules for bikes does it say it alters troop designation or that bikes don't use transport. The transport rules are the only limiters as to who can use transport.

Instead of asserting that it doesn;t apply - use some pg numbers and quoted text out of the rule book to prove me wrong - especially where implied. You cannot just say it is implied and then not support that (if you did it earlier apologies for not seeing it).

Like I said, just a silly thought and definitely not the way the game should be played but silly debates over dumbass interpretations of rules is the bread of butter of YMDC isn't it? I may even add this thread title to my sig.

fullheadofhair wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:RAW, models that purchase bikes as wargear may not embark in transports.

As has been pointed out numerous times, pg 66 of the BRB states that "Only infantry models may embark in transports."

Because of this several unwritten rules are implied:

MC cannot embark in transports

Jump Infantry cannot embark in transports

Walkers cannot embark in transports

Bikes cannot embark in transports

These rules are not written in the BRB; they are logically implied by the written rule on pg 66. Nevertheless, they are applicable rules and this is a ligitimate application of RAW.

Now we look at the entry for SM codex: "models equipped with SM bikes follow all the rules for bikes as described in the warhammer 40000 rulebook."

Therefore you follow all the rules that apply to bikes, both written in the BRB and implied by the BRB. Again, the rule that bikes may not embark in transports in not written but implied by the BRB.

Unlike the wargear entry for jumpacks, the SM codex does not change the unit type of the guard, they are still infantry (RAI hardly). The BRB says that infantry may be transported.

However, the codex says to follow the rules for bikes, and as already noted, the rules for bikes forbid them from embarking on a transport. In doing so, the codex overrules the BRB that would otherwise allow the guard, being infantry, to be embarked in a transport.

Therefore the answer is no, guard and commanders that buy SM bikes may not embark in a transport. Is this rules lawyering, yes, but it closes an alleged "loop hole" that does not fit with either RAW or RAI; that is what rules lawyering should be about.

I do agree that bikes shouldn't use transport and I also wouldn't play someone who tried it, though the imagry is quite cool. However, where is it implied? Quote me the pg and text where it implies because I cannot see it. Enlighten me, I am happy to be proven wrong. Where does it say or imply Infantry models that select bikes actually change the type. When jump infantry remove their packs it states that they change their unit type in their entry - why doesn't it say "if select bikes become troop type "bike"".

I have quoted page and text to support my rather tongue in cheek opinion that only infantry unit types use transport and therefore honor guards that use bikes are still infantry. No where on the rules for bikes does it say it alters troop designation or that bikes don't use transport. The transport rules are the only limiters as to who can use transport.

Instead of asserting that it doesn;t apply - use some pg numbers and quoted text out of the rule book to prove me wrong - especially where implied. You cannot just say it is implied and then not support that (if you did it earlier apologies for not seeing it).

Like I said, just a silly thought and definitely not the way the game should be played but silly debates over dumbass interpretations of rules is the bread of butter of YMDC isn't it? I may even add this thread title to my sig.

derrrrrrr, I am so smart .... just saw the bit where it says how it is implied and how. Honor guard is still an infantry model tho'.

fullheadofhair wrote:derrrrrrr, I am so smart .... just saw the bit where it says how it is implied and [why].

No problem...I have overlooked peoples arguements in my rush to answer a thread as well.

fullheadofhair wrote:Honor guard is still an infantry model tho'

Yes you are correct that the Honor gaurd are still infantry. However, the codex says to follow the rules for bikes, and as already noted, the implied rules for bikes forbid them from embarking on a transport. In doing so, the codex overrules the BRB that would otherwise allow the guard, being infantry, to be embarked in a transport.