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.

Is there a point to keeping Boltpistols on a spavemarine / Ravenwing bikes? at all?

they are on bikes...you can still charge if you use the bolters in the shooting phase, if you trade the bolt pistol for a chainsword you get the offhand weapon attack bonus as the BRB states unless specified that units not listed as having a Melee weapon are counted as having one.
just cant think of a reason to keep the pistols

I would think that dropping the bolt pistol would reduce your number of attacks in close combat.

well i was playing on army builder, and i exchanged the bolt pistol for a chainsword in the program, and it added an attack.
to i started digging through the BRB.

If you look under Close combat weapons its states that a model that does not specificly have an entry stating they carry a "melee" weapon , are considered to have one
guess all marines have a combat knife. So guessing if you get rid of the bolt pistol for chainsword, you get the extra attack from 2 CCW
was just wondering what reason if any is there to keep the bolt pistol

No, you do NOT get the offhand weapon bonus for swapping your bolt pistol for a chainsword.

The rule about counting as having a close combat weapon even if you aren't listed as one also says that you LOSE that 'fake' close combat weapon if you have one - the bolt pistol and the chainsword both count. You only get a bonus attack if you have two actual close combat weapons.

This is the same reason that Necron Wraiths and Spyders don't get bonus attacks if they take their pistol and CCW options respectively.

Edit for clarity: A Bolt Pistol is a close combat weapon. A chainsword is a close combat weapon. Having both means you get +1 attack. Only having one or the other means you do not.

Army Builder granting an extra attack for the swap is a bug in the program.

Pookacalypse wrote:
well i was playing on army builder, and i exchanged the bolt pistol for a chainsword in the program, and it added an attack.
to i started digging through the BRB.

If you look under Close combat weapons its states that a model that does not specificly have an entry stating they carry a "melee" weapon , are considered to have one
guess all marines have a combat knife. So guessing if you get rid of the bolt pistol for chainsword, you get the extra attack from 2 CCW
was just wondering what reason if any is there to keep the bolt pistol

This is probably an issue with Army Builder. That swap should not give you an extra attack.

The main reason now - previous editions, Codexes and extra weapons notwithstanding - is so that models have something to swap for something else, in other words the Sergeant.
The Dark Angels Codex brings back the Wargear list, but the available options state that you trade a weapon to take something else...without that bolt pistol, you have nothing to trade.

since a bike is relentless, you can fire the bikes twin link bolters and charge, that being the case, there will never be a time where firing your bolt pistol will be beneficial. The change to a chain sword does not give you any bonus in CC, so the change is purely cosmetic.

This of course is baring some army special rule I am unaware of making things immune to twin linked or rapid fire weapons, but as I know of no such thing, the bolters on the bike would always be fired instead of your pistol.

It's probably just in the codex for people who already modeled them one way or another, or people who want to model them either way cosmetically. Personally, I think the chain sword looks better.

from what I understand of your description, army builder has an issue with granting an extra attack they should not get. You only get that bonus for actually having two close combat weapons. As stated before, the free cc weapon you get only applies if you do not have a cc weapon as part of your gear list. Even if you don't have a cc weapon by default, if you take an option that counts as a cc weapon, you lose the free default one.

ok, cool.....
anyone know where it state you lose the default one?

It doesn't state you lose it, because you never get it in the first place. Pistols have the Melee rule and therefore count as a CCW, so does the chainsword. So whichever one you have, you don't qualify for the free one.

There is one reason I could see where you'd want to shoot the bolt pisolts and not the twin-linked boltguns
It's when you want to shoot at a unit to soften it up, but not too much, thus reducing your firepower but still making a small dent

Bolter can still do that, you don't have to rapid fire.

Ravenwing Bikers have bolt pistols because it's a standard piece of Marine kit and there are models wielding them.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Bolter can still do that, you don't have to rapid fire.

You cannot choose how many shots a Rapid Fire weapon fires, it is purely a function of range.
Rapid Fire is not a mode, it's a type, just as Assault, Heavy, and Pistol are types of weapon.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Bolter can still do that, you don't have to rapid fire.

Actually, I'm afraid you do. Not that I have the book to hand, but there is a rule stating that if you fire a weapon you must fire its full number of shots.

That, and Rapid Fire is a type, not a mode...you don't Rapid Fire a bolter any more than you Heavy a lascannon.

(Edit) blast you marv!

Is the edit stating that your post was wrong? Rapid fire is a decision

 riverhawks32 wrote:
Rapid fire is a decision

No, it isn't.
Other than the decision to fire or not.
If you are within 1/2 max range, you fire 2 shots.
It doesn't matter how many shots you want to fire, if you fire at all, and you're within range to do so, you fire 2 shots

I thought the rule book said you can choose? I'm at work so I can't look it up.

You CAN choose whether or not to fire at all, and if you do, what weapon to fire with. So for instance, you can say "I'm going to fire one bolt pistol from this bike, one twinlinked bolter from this bike, and this bike isn't going to fire at all." But you have to fire the maximum number of shots from the weapon you're using.

If no-one else puts the page number up for that, I'll do it when I can get to my rulebook.

Page 51 in the big rulebook, but that only applies to weapons that state a number of shots. Rapid Fire does not state a number of shots, it just says that "a model firing at under half range can fire twice" in its special rules.

Then it's a choice.

p51 also states that if a model does fire, it must do so at full effect.

Seems as though this outweighs the "can" in my opinion. It's rather contradictory.

Your the only person I've ever heard of make this argument. I think your reading into it wrong, no offense.

 wowsmash wrote:
Your the only person I've ever heard of make this argument. I think your reading into it wrong, no offense.

That's not really an argument for it being wrong. I'm fairly certain that if something's in bold, you are meant to do that no matter what.

However, the point's moot. You can ignore the issue by just rapid firing with 1/2 the number of models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Page 51 in the big rulebook, but that only applies to weapons that state a number of shots. Rapid Fire does not state a number of shots, it just says that "a model firing at under half range can fire twice" in its special rules.

Just a thought while eating my dinner.

Can doesn't mean the colloquial use that most people use it for. It means "has the ability to." Which in turn, means that the rule stating you must fire to full effect refers to rapid fire weapons too.

If the rapid fire rule said "may" then your argument would be valid.

Brings back memories of school: "can I go to the to the toilet sir?"
"I don't know, can you?"

Page 51 pretty much spells it out. The rule states "at full effect" - the example given afterwards is in brackets and not in bold for just that reason, it's an example. It does NOT mean it only applies to weapons with a number.

Rapid Fire itself on page 52 also goes into greater detail... sure, the part about firing twice does say "can". But then there's this:
"Alternatively, it can instead fire one shot at a target over half the weapon's range away"
Emphasis mine. Context is everything here. "Can" is included in the first half to indicate that if you have targets within half range and targets within full range, you can fire at either. But at no point are you given permission to fire one shot within half range.

And finally, to really put the boot in, again under Rapid Fire...
"...the firing models within half range fire two shots, while those further away fire one."
There's no "can" in that one.

 wowsmash wrote:
Your the only person I've ever heard of make this argument. I think your reading into it wrong, no offense.

It's been non-optional for as long as rapid fire weapons have fired two shots... Which from memory came in with 4th edition.

Yeah, your choice is to fire or not fire the model's weapon at all.

So, if you just wanted to soften up a target but not ruin your chances to assault it, either us the bolt pistol or only fire with one or two of the bikes with bolters.