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.

Well, I'm done arguing. After seeing what you're saying, I do agree they simply worded it badly. Honestly, they should've just reprinted the rules on the Codex to avoid stuff like this.

But in any case, I've emailed Games Workshop, so hopefully I'll either get a reply, or something going "Ya git, dis is fer ORDERZ! Send it 'ere instead! *Lists GW email for crap like this*"....or something. Or maybe they'll ignore me. Oh well. On the plus side, Dakka won't yell at me for not posting for another week! Yaaaay.

Gwar! wrote: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.

There is also a legitimate chance that they listed Frag Grenades in the rulebook as an example of a type of Assault Grenade because Frag Grenades are an example of a type of Assault Grenade.

Crazy, I know.

Yes, I agree.

However, from a 100% objective view point (That is, taking only the Rules as Written and not trying to add bits unconciously), giving a "Frag Grenade" as an EXAMPLE of an Assault Grenade does not mean all Frag Grenades are Assault Grenades.

The IG codex Explicitly tells you to look in the rulebook for the rules for "Frag Grenades", it never mentions Assault Grenades.

As there is no actual rule that says "Frag Grenades do xyx", IG Frag Grenades do not have any function.

It might seem "silly", but that is what the rules say, whether you agree with it or not.

'Silly' would be an understatement.

Frag Grenades are listed as an example of an Assault Grenade. Therefore, unless other more specific rules say otherwise, Frag Grenades are Assault Grenades.

If they weren't, they wouldn't be listed as an example. It's really that simple. You can try to redefine what an 'example' is all you like... but the simple fact is that being an example of an assault grenade makes a frag grenade an assault grenade. That's what an example is.

So all Storm Shields have the same rules then?

How about Smoke Launchers? or Plasma Grenades? or Assault Cannons?

Even I don't agree with the RaW, but what the RaW is and what I want it to be are not the same thing.

I didn't say all Frag Grenades have the same rules. I said that Frag Grenades are Assault Grenades.

Likewise, if you can find something that listes Storm Shields as an example, then that would cover all Storm Shields unless their rules specifically say otherwise... for the purposes of that rule. That doesn't mean that any other rules that apply to Storm Shields would necessarily be the same in different books.

As a comparison... An Assault Cannon could be listed as an example of a Heavy Weapon... which would make Assault Cannons Heavy Weapons. The fact that Assault Cannons in Codex A fire 3 shots and in Codex B fire 4 makes no difference to that. And they could still be something other than a Heavy Weapon if a codex specifically says otherwise.

But barring a rule specifically saying otherwise in a given situation, something being listed as an example means that the example is the thing it's an example of. Again, that's what an example is.

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

I am really surprised that anyone can read this without coming to the conclusion that frag grenades are assault grenades.

I mean, would you read "Upgrade characters are fielded as part of units from the start of the game, representing a squad leader or unit champion, SUCH AS a space marine sergeant" to mean that space marine sergeants aren't upgrade characters?

Would you read "Weapons LIKE chainswords, rifle butts, combat plades, bayonets, etc., do not confer any particular bonus" to mean that those weapons DO give a special bonus, because they use the word "like"?

The rule book is full of transition words. Using them as a means to negate the very rule they're putting down is as bizarre as it is wrong.

so some of this again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/280199.page

ironically it was the first thread i started, more ironicly Gwar! still holds the same opinion....
killkrazy come in and kill this thread like you did oh so long ago, pretty pwease!

Gwar! wrote:The IG codex Explicitly tells you to look in the rulebook for the rules for "Frag Grenades", it never mentions Assault Grenades.

As there is no actual rule that says "Frag Grenades do xyx", IG Frag Grenades do not have any function.

It might seem "silly", but that is what the rules say, whether you agree with it or not.

The only rules for Frag Grenades are that they are an example of Assault grenade. Therefore they follow the Assault grenade rules.

If the IG codex gave you rules on how their Frag Grenades worked, and it was different from Assault grenades, then you would follow the IG codex.

But the fact is that they do not. The IG book does not tell you to look for the phrase "Frag Grenades do xyx", it just says to look for the rules.

Your "objective" opinion is completely obtuse and unhelpful to anyone looking for an answer on this question.

Modquisition on.

This is a gentle reminder to keep this thread on course and away from personal attacks. Argue the points and avoid personal insults people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

This is why I never go to the YMDC forum unless there's a mod report I have to check...

"Hi there



I am really surprised by this question and it has never arisen before.



Frag Grenades are quite obviously assault grenades to be used as the rules describe.



I believe your group is misunderstanding the term example. If something is being used as an example for something…then the example is relevant and follows the rest of the rules it is an example for.



I can my self see the confusion or why an example is not relevant but I hope that this helps clear it up for you and helps you play your games easier.



Paul S"

Quick response is quick! In any case, there you go. GW says they're Assault Grenades.

"Hi there



I am really surprised by this question and it has never arisen before.



Frag Grenades are quite obviously not assault grenades to be used as the rules describe.



I believe your group is misunderstanding the term example. If something is being used as an example for something…then the example is only relevant to the wargear that uses the rules for it.



I can my self see the confusion or why a generic example could be considered relevant but I hope that this helps clear it up for you and helps you play your games easier.



Simon P"

Omg, my Email was answered too!

For the record, Box packers are not the authority on rules. If anything, a Poodle picking answers at random has a better correct rate than some of the answers I have seen from "GW" regarding rules. Harsh? Maybe, but that is what my opinion is.

Furthermore, "Paul S" didn't write the rulebook, so he cannot tell you what the "intent" is.

Well, whatever. I've made my point. But I'm not gonna feel bad for rocking Frags in my Vet squads. Not in the slightest.

Guardsmanius wrote:Quick response is quick! In any case, there you go. GW says they're Assault Grenades.

As per the Tenets of YMDC, emails from GW, or anyone else, aren't considered particularly useful in rules discussions as there is no real way to verify them. Posting such emails generally does nothing more than stir the pot.

The rules question email is really more for personal reference than anything... It's an alternative to, say, asking on a forum, and no more 'official' (due to not actually coming from the studio) or guaranteed to get you the right answer.

Although it did this time

furthermore, I'd like to wonder why frag grenades would be considered an "example" of assault grenades if they were not, in fact, assault grenades. If they weren't assault grenades, then why use them as an example of assault grenades?

Otherwise it would make as much sense as saying "there have been many popular movie actresses in the past 50 years, for example, Tom Cruise and Sean Connery".

The only time you'd ever use something as an example to support a definition is if it fit the definition.

frags are assault grenades unless stated as otherwise in the codex. NO brainer. but some people here consider a power sword not a power weapon. Good luck arguing with them too. Seems a lot of folks think well they have played since first or second ed so they know it all. yeah right!!

Power swords not a power weapon? That's just blatantly dumb. Come on, if someone argues a fact as simple as a power sword being a power weapon, they may as well argue frag grenades are not assault gra... oh wait, they are arguing that aren't they? This is all a matter of semantics and such a horrid point to argue. Grenades by default are summerised in the book as one of two categories with specific examples given for each: Assault and defensive. And we all know that the only way something doesn't follow the general ruling is when it's individual codex specifically states the difference.

"Power sword not a power weapon..."
- Sounds like a good way to have a land raider shoved up your corn hole.

If you want to claim Power Sword = Power Weapon then my Land Speeders are Land Raiders.

Same Difference. 50 Points for a Land Raider. Sounds awesome to me.

Dude, (@Gwar) you take this way to seriously. Everytime I think I may learn something new about a rule you ruin it. If we played the game based on how you would rule no one would get to play. GW has written there books using examples to demonstrate rules since they created the game. I know because I have been playing since rogue trader. (And no I am not going to look up examples because I have a life)

Thanks for taking simple rule and blowing it out of the water.

This game is simple and should never be this complicated.

how old are you? like 10 cause thats what your argument sounds like. big difference between calling a power sword what it is, a power weapon. and a speeder a landraider!!!
and don't come back and say yes it is cause it ain't. war gear states power weapons typically swords or axes...... So if my power weapon is a sword, which by the way is clearly pictured in the wargear section with a note of how armour is no protection, I would call it a power sword. By the way having read the 5th ed rules many many times and most codexs i Haven't seen Gwar mentioned in any of the credits. With good reason too by the sound of it. a gw employee answered the grenade question and you say some box packer knows jack about the game? all bow to he who knows all. Your argument has no merit and makes no sense at all. and if you are over 10 you should be able to see that.
Very surprised you can find opponents willing to play you at all.

Gwar! wrote:If you want to claim Power Sword = Power Weapon then my Land Speeders are Land Raiders.

Same Difference. 50 Points for a Land Raider. Sounds awesome to me.

This argument is a joke, right? "Power" is the operative word here. "Power weapon" is a broad category of specific weapon rules for a variety of weapons with the "power" modifier. Land raider and Land speeders are specifically defined vehicles. Not categories of vehicles as such outside of their individual variants. What you're basically arguing is that a sword is not a weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You tell em, guys. Really. Arguing with Gwar on rules seems to be like trying to tell a Nuke Booster in Call of Duty that he's cheap. "The loop hole is there so it must have been planned!" Yeah right. Go argue semantics elsewhere.

amen!!

Ok, if "Power" is the operative word:

My Power Weapons are now all Power Fists. For the same cost as Power Weapons.

By your logic this is fair and legal. I really don't see why you need to resort to name calling and breaking of DakkaDakka's Rule #1.

Just because you don't agree with a rule, doesn't make it any less true.

Well, since this seems to have wandered off into the land of the even more ridiculous than usual, I think we're done here.