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.

In the SM bike option's section, it reads that up to two bikers may take a meltagun.

Does this mean that the Attack bike can take a meltagun, as well as the guy in the sidecar using a multi-melta?

I don't think so personally, it sounds cheesy and it does say biker in place of any unit may.

No if you read it, it says "two Bikers" and when looking at the profiles one is "Space Marine Biker". The other is "Attack Bike". Only the SM Bikers may take the special weapons.

The melta gun upgrade is for marine bikers, not attack bikes. Since you don't upgrade a bike to an attack bike, you cannot have a melta gun on an attack bike.

To be fair, there are no such things as "Bikers"

There is:

Biker Sergeant
Space Marine Biker
Attack Bike

That's not being 'fair',.. It's the Space Marine Codex. A Space Marine Biker is a Biker.

So anyone that rides a bike is a "Biker"?

And they mention 'Bikers' taking the upgrades, not 'Biker'

Maybe I am just being too nitpicky but I really hate the way the GW staff writes their rules.

No.

A Space Marine Biker is a Biker.

The MOD has spoken.

... .... and his avatar is blinking at me. Must..get away..from thread.

But seriously, there's a difference. There actually are BIKERS

BIKER sergeant
Space Marine BIKER

Them's the rules. Same as general rules regarding melta or flamer weapons for Vulkan
MELTA gun
multi MELTA
FLAMER
heavy FLAMER

DeathReaper wrote:Maybe I am just being too nitpicky but I really hate the way the GW staff writes their rules.

Indeed.

In a game like Star Wars Minis, or MTG, where they actually do use properly defined keywords, your point would have been valid. But 40K doesn't use anything like that sort of precision. The rules are based much more on real world verbage rather than defined keywords. And within those confines, a Space Marine Biker is a Biker... because the rules don't tell us that 'Biker' refers only to those models whose name is specifically 'Biker'.

DeathReaper wrote:So anyone that rides a bike is a "Biker"?

And they mention 'Bikers' taking the upgrades, not 'Biker'

Maybe I am just being too nitpicky but I really hate the way the GW staff writes their rules.

Just to nitpick this 1 section:

In no reading would "Attack Bike" every be read as Biker(or one of 2 Bikers); now going with the extrapolation you could claim that the Sergeant could have the special weapon, but the attack bike is never referred to in the unit entry as any number of bikers(not even in the fluff section).

SO: what you have is a bike squad made up of 2 Space marine Bikers, 1 Biker sergeant, and 1 Attack bike; you then have the ability to give 2 "Bikers" Special weapons. You have no models simply known as Bikers(but, as Insaniak pointed out, this being a Space marine codex; the prefix "Space Marine" could be assumed in any place that it is logical to do so, such as this); so we would default to any model in the unit that is in part called a "Biker", this still precludes the Attack Bike.

The Dragon: Mods on this forum are not the be-all-end-all; they can be, and often enough are, wrong on some rules calls.
And as far as the Vulkan bit all the ites you listed are specifically listed in Vulkan's rules; the fact that Heavy Flamer/Multimelta contains the word Flamer/Melta means nothing, if Vanilla Marines had access to a hand flamer, it would not gain Vulkan's benefit because it is not on the list.

The Dragon wrote:The MOD has spoken.

... .... and his avatar is blinking at me. Must..get away..from thread.

But seriously, there's a difference. There actually are BIKERS

BIKER sergeant
Space Marine BIKER

Them's the rules. Same as general rules regarding melta or flamer weapons for Vulkan
MELTA gun
multi MELTA
FLAMER
heavy FLAMER

WAIT WAIT WAIT, ARE U TRYN T SUGGIST THAT MA VULKIN DUNT GIVE MA REDEEMUH TWIN-LINKED? LOLWUT?

I understand the point. I'm not arguing it, I just thought it would be curious.

TBH, the biker driving the attack bike should be focussed on driving and not getting his sidecar killed. The sidecar guy is the one who matters, not him, so he shouldn't have extra responsibilities.

Scipio Africanus wrote:WAIT WAIT WAIT, ARE U TRYN T SUGGIST THAT MA VULKIN DUNT GIVE MA REDEEMUH TWIN-LINKED? LOLWUT?

What are you trying to say here?

Please follow the forum rules and post clearly.

As for the Topic at hand:

Someone who pilots an Attack Bike, is a Biker.

A Biker Sergeant is a Biker.

A Space Marine Biker is a biker.

Biker is not a defined term in 40k, so we default it to the English definition of it, being "one that rides a bike is a biker"

DeathReaper wrote:

Scipio Africanus wrote:WAIT WAIT WAIT, ARE U TRYN T SUGGIST THAT MA VULKIN DUNT GIVE MA REDEEMUH TWIN-LINKED? LOLWUT?

What are you trying to say here?

Please follow the forum rules and post clearly.

As for the Topic at hand:

Someone who pilots an Attack Bike, is a Biker.

A Biker Sergeant is a Biker.

A Space Marine Biker is a biker.

Biker is not a defined term in 40k, so we default it to the English definition of it, being "one that rides a bike is a biker"

First off, I must ask. Are you so dull witted that you didn't understand the joke made there?

Personal insults are against forum rules. Thanks! ~Manchu

Its pretty simple.

Anyway, IT does not specifically refer to the attack bike driver as separate. For all intents and purposes an attack bike is singular, suggest a single model.

Bar the fact that both the driver and the gunner may shoot, they are a single model.

Instead of having two profiles like horse and rider in fantasy, they specifically have two wounds and two attacks - to suggest two people. That is the only other instance where there are two characters mentioned.

They get one attack for charging.

They only carry one bolt pistol [notice in the wargear it says 'bolt pistol' as in single bolt pistol, not bolt pistols]

they have one set of power armour

the fact that there are two guys sitting in the bike is anulled. the attack bike as a whole is single.

Finally, you do not upgrade to an attack bike, you can have eight bikers and one attack bike. you cannot have ten bikers.

see the difference?

If you're going to haul out broken English, then we'll hall out grammar.

EDIT: Spelling

The Dragon wrote:Them's the rules. Same as general rules regarding melta or flamer weapons for Vulkan
MELTA gun
multi MELTA
FLAMER
heavy FLAMER

This is not at all the same issue. Vulkan's rules give a specific list of weapons affected. The Avatar would be a better example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scipio Africanus wrote:Instead of having two profiles like horse and rider in fantasy, they specifically have two wounds and two attacks - to suggest two people. That is the only other instance where there are two characters mentioned.

Except for the bike shooting rules where they can use one weapon per rider.

if you had read literally one line down, I mentioned that.

Scipio Africanus wrote:if you had read literally one line down, I mentioned that.

"They get one attack for charging"?

You didn't mention anywhere in your post that a bike with two riders gets to shoot twice.

"Anyway, IT does not specifically refer to the attack bike driver as separate. For all intents and purposes an attack bike is singular, suggest a single model.

Bar the fact that both the driver and the gunner may shoot, they are a single model. "

My mistake.

It was above it, rather. which meant you really should've read it already.

Scipio Africanus wrote:First off, I must ask. Are you so dull witted that you didn't understand the joke made there?

Its pretty simple.

Seriously read the forum rules.

1. Rule #1 is Be Polite! It's easy!

5. Please be intelligible. We strongly encourage proper punctuation, spelling, grammar and composition, but if we can't understand you, we'll ignore you. Before you post, hit the Preview button and double-check what you've written before posting it, and remember that you can always go back and edit your posts to fix any problems. I usually don't catch my mistakes until after I've posted, so you'll see a lot of "This post was edited 2 times" in small letters at the bottom of my posts.

Listed Here

I... I honestly don't know how to talk to that.

IT's like you've thrown dirt in the lake to call it dirty.

If I honestly have to explain those two sentences to you, then I don't think its worth speaking to you, because you are being unintelligible.

If you'll notice, everywhere else I've written in semi-perfect english. aside from a few broke rules, mistakes of spelling and sentence fragments, I've not written in either 'l33t speak' or in text speak. I have not WRITTEN IN CAPITALS TO STRESS A POINT. There, I've intentionally written in an expression that suggests a tone of stupidity. The poor english speaks for itself as light mocking.

I'm sorry, but if you fail to understand that there must be something going wrong for you.

IT was a harmless and stupid joke. you're meant to groan and move on, but no. You've dragged the topic off course and you've cause a three-repeat argument over basically nothing.

Not everything is relevant, and not everything is to be taken at face value. Don't assume that because it is there you must take it as important. No person would be able to survive school if they did that.

Explanation accepted that the comment was intended as a joke, but humor doesn't always come across well in this kind of context. What's one person's lighthearted ironical comment may come off as sarcasm and snide insult to another.

It also never helps when we take comments in an internet debate and start using them to make assessments about other people's personalities, educations, and lives in the real world. If you take the discussion seriously enough to do that, it's probably time to take a time out, step back and have a refreshing beverage.

Everyone shake hands and try to keep it friendly, please.

I realise that tone isn't possible to pick up on the internet. it has been a shortcomming of this darned text based communications, but it's still not that hard to pick up.

If I had written that like I am writing now, you would be in the right completely, and I'd admit fault - it would be my fault [not that there's any fault to be had, having said that.]

I never once made a suggestiong that would attack him, I said he was being unintelligible, I don't follow his logic.

I didn't ever attempt to suggest that he was an idiot or anything of the sort.

That said, I hope that this can be put to bed. I don't think that any of this was necessary given the condition of its catalyst, but as you said, we're not to judge.

Scipio Africanus wrote:I never once made a suggestiong that would attack him, I said he was being unintelligible, I don't follow his logic.

I didn't ever attempt to suggest that he was an idiot or anything of the sort.

Scipio Africanus wrote:First off, I must ask. Are you so dull witted that you didn't understand the joke made there?

That said, the Mod has spoken... so yeah.

Scipio Africanus wrote:I didn't ever attempt to suggest that he was an idiot or anything of the sort.

Scipio Africanus wrote:First off, I must ask. Are you so dull witted that you didn't understand the joke made there?

Its pretty simple.

Howabout folks shake hands, apologize, and drop the matter?

Scipio Africanus wrote:...I have not WRITTEN IN CAPITALS TO STRESS A POINT...

You did post:

Scipio Africanus wrote:WAIT WAIT WAIT, ARE U TRYN T SUGGIST THAT MA VULKIN DUNT GIVE MA REDEEMUH TWIN-LINKED? LOLWUT?

I will leave it at that. <Shakes hands, and drops it.>

As for the Topic it still remains that 'Bikers' is not a defined term in 40k, so we default it to the English definition of it, being "one that rides a bike is a biker"

So by Strict RAW Bikers refers to nothing, but that is a silly way to play.

Bikers means wheat we assign to it to mean, since the BRB does not define it. Anyone group riding a bike are 'Bikers" at least in the commom interpretation of it.

People may have a different interpretation of what 'Bikers' means, so OP discuss it with your group or the TO before the game.

DR: he clearly said he did not use capitals "to stress a point".

He only used capitals when he was trying to be funny, and since then he has repeatedly said it was only intended as a joke.

Your making it into a MUCH bigger deal than it really is.

As for the topic at hand, I dont thing that the attack bike should be able to take the melta gun on the rider or the sidecar, but GW does not make it easy to understand.

Is the guy that drives the attack bike a biker? realistically, yes, but in game terms, I dont belive he counts as one.

I simply asked him to "follow the forum rules and post clearly." concerning his all caps post.

I had no idea what he was trying to convey.

he even said:

Scipio Africanus wrote:I've not written in either 'l33t speak' or in text speak.

Yet he said this:

Scipio Africanus wrote: LOLWUT?

But it is dropped, and does not need to be mentioned again.

DeathReaper wrote:I simply asked him to "follow the forum rules and post clearly." concerning his all caps post.

I had no idea what he was trying to convey.

he even said:

Scipio Africanus wrote:I've not written in either 'l33t speak' or in text speak.

Yet he said this:

Scipio Africanus wrote: LOLWUT?

But it is dropped, and does not need to be mentioned again.

Asking gets better results than assuming.

I'd say no melta for the Attack bike.

edit:
Speelings....

I'm scared to get involved in this thread; but....

whats the point in giving the 'driver' a melta gun when he can't shoot it!

Attack Bike is only one stat line - its only one model, so it can only fire one weapon at a time. Why would you pay for a melta gun on a model that can have a multi melta but not shoot both at the same time!

Common sense...

Read the rules for shooting with bikes on page 53 of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook. You will see bikes can fire one weapon per rider.

Ghaz wrote:Read the rules for shooting with bikes on page 53 of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook. You will see bikes can fire one weapon per rider.

I love how this has become the answerable issue now.