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.

Solkan:

I can't prove it. If what has been posted in this topic is not sufficient proof for you, then proving such a thing is far beyond my capabilities. Frankly I'm baffled and confused by your opinion. It simply makes no sense to me that you could honestly say that Frag Grenades are not plainly Assault Grenades.

Nurglitch, the entire point that I'm trying to get across is that, just like telling a person that a mikan is a fruit tells that person nothing useful about what type of fruit it is, merely listing a Frag Grenade as an example of Assault Grenades doesn't say anything about what sort of Assault Grenade it is.

Since the rulebook doesn't say anything meaningful about what sort of Assault Grenade the Frag Grenade is, the rulebook doesn't define what a Frag Grenade is specifically. Because the rulebook doesn't define what a frag grenade is, that renders the IG codex reference to frag grenades useless, and leads to the argument that RAW the IG frag grenade does nothing.

Solkan:

Okay, let me try it this way: "Frag Grenade" is just another name for "Assault Grenades", and all instances of "Frag Grenades" can be replaced by "Assault Grenade" because the rulebook tells us that Frag Grenades are an example of Assault Grenades.


It need not tell us anything else about a Frag Grenade because it tells us about Assault Grenades. In defining an Assault Grenade, it defines a Frag Grenade, so there's no need to additionally define what sort of Assault Grenade a Frag Grenade might be; it's an Assault Grenade sort of Assault Grenade.

So because the rulebook gives Frag Grenades as an exemplar of Assault Grenades, it defines what a Frag Grenade is, gives an extension to the Imperial Guard reference to Frag Grenades, and should make the argument that the Imperial Guard Frag Grenades do nothing utterly senseless and demonstrably wrong.

solkan wrote:Nurglitch, the entire point that I'm trying to get across is that, just like telling a person that a mikan is a fruit tells that person nothing useful about what type of fruit it is, merely listing a Frag Grenade as an example of Assault Grenades doesn't say anything about what sort of Assault Grenade it is.

Since the rulebook doesn't say anything meaningful about what sort of Assault Grenade the Frag Grenade is, the rulebook doesn't define what a Frag Grenade is specifically. Because the rulebook doesn't define what a frag grenade is, that renders the IG codex reference to frag grenades useless, and leads to the argument that RAW the IG frag grenade does nothing.

But a frag grenade doesn't do anything specifically, or function in any way differently to a plasma grenade. It states that a frag grenade is an assault grenade in the very first LINE.

Assault grenades, like the ubiquitous fragmentation grenades or Eldar plasma grenades....

No, it says "fragmentation grenades", which are not "Frag Grenades".

solkan wrote:Since the rulebook doesn't say anything meaningful about what sort of Assault Grenade the Frag Grenade is,

This is the part where you are losing everyone. Why do you think that there needs to be any further clarification? There is only one "sort" of Assault Grenade.

Nurglitch wrote:Solkan:

Okay, let me try it this way: "Frag Grenade" is just another name for "Assault Grenades", and all instances of "Frag Grenades" can be replaced by "Assault Grenade" because the rulebook tells us that Frag Grenades are an example of Assault Grenades.

And if I tell you "Fruit (e.g. bananas and oranges)" then you think I'm saying that a banana is the same as an orange since they're both examples of fruit?

It need not tell us anything else about a Frag Grenade because it tells us about Assault Grenades. In defining an Assault Grenade, it defines a Frag Grenade, so there's no need to additionally define what sort of Assault Grenade a Frag Grenade might be; it's an Assault Grenade sort of Assault Grenade.

So because the rulebook gives Frag Grenades as an exemplar of Assault Grenades, it defines what a Frag Grenade is, gives an extension to the Imperial Guard reference to Frag Grenades, and should make the argument that the Imperial Guard Frag Grenades do nothing utterly senseless and demonstrably wrong.

It's demonstrably wrong only if you make the unfounded conclusion that a Frag Grenade, given as an example of Assault Grenades, is generic of the type Assault Grenade. You're welcome to make any guesses or assumptions if you just want to ignore the problem and move on, if you're content to have rules based on guesswork and assumption.

ArbitorIan wrote:But a frag grenade doesn't do anything specifically, or function in any way differently to a plasma grenade. It states that a frag grenade is an assault grenade in the very first LINE.

Assault grenades, like the ubiquitous fragmentation grenades or Eldar plasma grenades....

Your conclusion isn't defensible. If I say "Fruit, like the ubiquitous banana or tasty orange, is enjoyable on a summer day" do you suddenly conclude that oranges and bananas are identical?

Gwar! wrote:No, it says "fragmentation grenades", which are not "Frag Grenades".

Absolutely ludicrous argument.

So if someone here on the boards uses atsknf and doesn't type it out, you call them out because no such thing exists?

Frag is a commonly used term for fragmentation.

solkan:

Insofar as them both being fruit, yes. Your statement defines bananas and oranges as fruit and all statements about fruit will transitively apply to them.

Which brings me to the question: how is unfounded to assume that all frag grenades are assault grenades? It seems more reasonable to assume that frag grenades are token assault grenades than to assume otherwise, given that the Assault Grenade rules cite Frag Grenades as an example of Assault Grenades and make no distinction or additional definition about how frag grenades might be different or special from regular run-of-the-mill assault grenades.

In other words, the evidence available only supports the less ostentatious conclusion: that frag grenades are indeed just assault grenades. It is an assumption well found on the evidence, and better founded than its contradiction.

The rulebook tells us that Frag grenades are examples of assault grenades. You know that Frag Grenades have no additional characteristics beyond being Assault Grenades because there is no entry stating that they have additional rules.

Frag Grenades are therefore a subset of Assault Grenades, using exactly the same rules until defined otherwise.

Nurglitch,
I'm not disputing that Frag Grenades are of the type Assault Grenades.

What I am disputing is that to say that Frag Grenades, colloquially, are Assault Grenades, or, more precisely, that the special rules for Frag Grenades are exactly the same as the special rules for Assault Grenades requires evidence that Frag Grenades don't have any special rules of their own.

By their very existence as a named type of Assault Grenades, it is possible that Frag Grenades have their own special rules. 40K is, after all, the game which has Eldar Jetbikes as a type of Jetbike and Jetbike as a type of Bike, with significant special rules for each particular type. And unlike terms like 'bolter' and 'bolt gun', there is no evidence to indicate that 'Frag Grenade' is a synonym of either 'plasma grenade' or 'assault grenade'.

And this is the point at which various assumptions about the rulebook would be needed to conclude that Frag Grenades lack any special rules of their own. But the nature of GW's rules makes various assumptions which could be used in this situation problematic. In particular, the game's FAQ's state that the wargear definitions in each codex are to be used for items in each codex. For instance, the Storm Shield has multiple different versions with differing special rules. The Space Wolves codex properly defines its Frag Grenades as Assault Grenades, yet the Imperial Guard codex defers back to the main rulebook. How, in a game in which storm shields differ from codex to codex, can it be safe or reasonable to assume that frag grenades are the same for Space Wolves and Imperial Guard?

Now, having constructed all of this, I'd like to point out that I was originally pointing out what I thought was Gwar's position, and from his post earlier in this thread it appears that I was incorrect in that characterization. However, despite the fact that Gwar's position appears to rest on the presumption that 'frag grenade' and 'fragmentation grenade' are not synonyms, I still feel that the logic in my argument is sound.

solkan wrote:Now, having constructed all of this, I'd like to point out that I was originally pointing out what I thought was Gwar's position, and from his post earlier in this thread it appears that I was incorrect in that characterization. However, despite the fact that Gwar's position appears to rest on the presumption that 'frag grenade' and 'fragmentation grenade' are not synonyms, I still feel that the logic in my argument is sound.

Actually, my argument is the same as yours, my Ponting out that Frag grenade and Fragmentation Grenade is not the same was just nit-picking.

solkan wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Solkan:

Okay, let me try it this way: "Frag Grenade" is just another name for "Assault Grenades", and all instances of "Frag Grenades" can be replaced by "Assault Grenade" because the rulebook tells us that Frag Grenades are an example of Assault Grenades.

And if I tell you "Fruit (e.g. bananas and oranges)" then you think I'm saying that a banana is the same as an orange since they're both examples of fruit?

Your conclusion isn't defensible. If I say "Fruit, like the ubiquitous banana or tasty orange, is enjoyable on a summer day" do you suddenly conclude that oranges and bananas are identical?

Except, While it doesn't indicate that Oranges and Bananas are identical, it does tell you that both of them follow the rules of fruit, such as being a fleshy part of a plant which contains the seeds of said plant, among other things.

Your example if anything, only serves to reinforce the idea that frag grenades DO follow assault grenade rules.

Luckily for you, nobody sane is actually going to take this argument seriously, so you didn't inadvertantly provide support for the opposing side of the debate.

Guys, his argument is that, "because Frag grenades and assault grenades are the same, why do they specify frag grenades? In fact, the only way they could be assault grenades is if there was a difference. "

solkan wrote:

What I am disputing is that to say that Frag Grenades, colloquially, are Assault Grenades, or, more precisely, that the special rules for Frag Grenades are exactly the same as the special rules for Assault Grenades requires evidence that Frag Grenades don't have any special rules of their own.
.

But there's no requirement to show they are the same-- the onus, in a permissive set, is to show that special rules -do- exist. Lacking a specific entry for frag grenades, we have to assume they are identical to assault grenades in all regards, as they are of the type 'assault grenades.'

Your fruit example, as DS points out, gives further credence to the point you argue against:

Oranges and Bananas are fruits. No, it doesn't help us determine anything outside of their fruit-ness. But, that's all we're concerned about. Frag and Plasma are Assault is sufficient information for us to use frag as assault. Does a frag round use explosive shrapnel to achieve its effect? Or rainbows and kisses? Doesn't matter-- those are specifics that a) aren't addressed by the rules, and B) don't need to be. For purposes of determining their effect, frag grenades are assault.

Drunkspleen wrote:
Except, While it doesn't indicate that Oranges and Bananas are identical, it does tell you that both of them follow the rules of fruit, such as being a fleshy part of a plant which contains the seeds of said plant, among other things.

Doesn't that raise the question of what else defines an Orange then? So one assumes a Frag grenade is an assault grenade, but does it have any other rules? If it did, the reference in the codex is to look up the rule for Frag grenades in the BRB, which you can't find, so you scratch your head for a second and everyone plays it like we all do. But a rules lawyer does have a leg to stand on as a) you can't find the rule for frag grenades when someone asks you to let them read it; and b) Even the assault grenade aspect relies on an assumption (no matter how plain to see, still an assumption)

These arguements get out of hand so fast...

RAW: frag grenades are not defined as assault grenades.
HYWPI: frag grenades are assault grenades.
RAI: frag grenades are assault grenades.

There is no reason to flame Gwar! because he doesnt feel the need to explain English sentence construction and syntax. Just let it go and dont worry.

solkan wrote:
And if I tell you "Fruit (e.g. bananas and oranges)" then you think I'm saying that a banana is the same as an orange since they're both examples of fruit

Your conclusion isn't defensible. If I say "Fruit, like the ubiquitous banana or tasty orange, is enjoyable on a summer day" do you suddenly conclude that oranges and bananas are identical?

No, but you DO conclude that both bananas and oranges are enjoyable on a summer day.

Fruit Based Rules wrote:FRUIT (eg, bananas, oranges, apples)

Fruit is tasty and enjoyable on a summers day

If your man is armed with a banana, you WOULD deduce that it is tasty and enjoyable on a summers day. Because that's what our fruit rule states.

You seem to be saying that, in this situation, bananas are not mentioned in the rules, and thus have no rules!

You are saying that we need a rule headed 'banana' and that this rule states 'bananas are fruit'. We also need the same rule for apple and orange. The fact that the FRUIT rule clearly cites bananas and oranges are examples if somehow not valid???

Furthermore, we at no point are suggesting that bananas and oranges are THE SAME. We don't need to. It doesn't matter. They may have extra rules (Orange: Oranges are orange, Bananas: Bananas are yellow) but they both are listed as types of Fruit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deminyn wrote: the reference in the codex is to look up the rule for Frag grenades in the BRB, which you can't find, so you scratch your head for a second and everyone plays it like we all do. But a rules lawyer does have a leg to stand on as a) you can't find the rule for frag grenades when someone asks you to let them read it; and b) Even the assault grenade aspect relies on an assumption (no matter how plain to see, still an assumption)

It doesn't have to have a rule heading 'Frag Grenades'. The IG Codex merely says 'see the rulebook'.

If you check rules section of the rulebook, the only mention of Frag Grenades is as an example of an Assault Grenade, along with the rules for all types of Assault Grenade. Have you checked the rulebook? Yes. Have you found the bit about Frag Grenades? Yes. Do you need this to be in a separate section entitled 'Frag Grenades? No.

It's like this, A poodle is a special kind of dog, anyone can own a dog, but only a fruit can own a poodle, but when the poodle eats a banana then the owner is a furry, and it's impossible to determine the rules for a furry...

I think I get it now

Drunkspleen wrote:It's like this, A poodle is a special kind of dog, anyone can own a dog, but only a fruit can own a poodle, but when the poodle eats a banana then the owner is a furry, and it's impossible to determine the rules for a furry...

I think I get it now

Exactly,

So the RAW is, throw Frag Grenades at furries to get assault grenades and win THE GAME.

which you just lost.

Strawberry/banana smoothies rock! Of course they are not in the BRB so I just created a blackhol..........................

yep assault grenades

Clearly this thread has gone on long enough, and now there are complaints.

Everyone needs to remember Rule No.1 !

I am locking the thread. If you want to continue discussion Assault Grenades, feel free to start another one. And be polite or I shall have to apply some sanctions.