bikes and rapid fire

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.

**Mr. Bombadidaloo**

lollll.... what wonderful fun I'm having being a part of this thread

...I love you guys

But seriously, all kidding aside. There *is* *NO* better flavor than mint-chocolate-chip. To state there is is to jump to conclusions and assumptions. THE RULES SPECIFICALLY STATE "Sorbet ice cream sucks" followed by "no flavor is as good as mint-chocolate-chip (MCC)". It doesn't say the sorbet flavors aren't as good- it its a more general statement; it says ALL flavors aren't as good as MCC! GOSH I FEEL LIKE I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO STILL HAS A GRASP ON SANITY HERE!

...and with that, I'm off to go paint my BFG crap at GW for the day.

<3

**Janthkin**

There is no-where that says P1 applies to a bike. Just because a bike in P2 follows part of the rule quoted in P1 you cannot assume or imply intent that the rest of the rule applies. To add anything else to it is basically an intent argument. If they meant it too say "counts as stationary" they should have said so. They didn't so you go RAW.

Look, I have very little interest in the argument either way, but you're just plain missing the point.

We have a rule, that states that SOME UNITS, defined as meeting one of two preconditions, can perform certain actions. (Some rare units always count as stationary when firing rapid fire weapons and some units can move and fire heavy weapons. Such units can charge after firing.)

We have another rules, that states that A PARTICULAR UNIT meets one of these two preconditions. (In addition, rapid fire weapons and heavy weapons may be fired if the unit moves and the bike is still allowed to charge into close combat in the same turn.)

We have exactly ONE determination to make: does a bike meet one of the two preconditions used to define the group of "Such units" from the first rule? No intent arguments; no inferences; just a straight-up binary yes/no determination.

So, is a bike a unit that always count as stationary when firing rapid fire weapons? Is a bike a unit that can move and fire heavy weapons? If the answer to EITHER of these questions is "yes," then a bike MUST be one of the group of "such units" that "can charge after firing."

Binary logic at its purest. If you want, here it is in symbol form:
If A or B, then C.
Bikes are in the set of B.
Therefore, bikes can C.

In order for the above to be incorrect, you must somehow argue that bikes are not a unit that "can move and fire heavy weapons" (B). No one is saying that bikes "count as stationary" (A).

**don_mondo**

Posted By Mr. Bombadidaloo on 08/14/2007 8:16 AM
the conundrums of life surface in mysterious ways my friend

Back on topic, which do you think is better? Baskin Robins's or Cold Stone's mint-chocolate-chip ice cream???

Honestly, I'm torn.

Ooooooo.... Can I have chocolate chip cookie dough instead......???

**don_mondo**

Posted By Janthkin on 08/14/2007 9:33 AM

There is no-where that says P1 applies to a bike. Just because a bike in P2 follows part of the rule quoted in P1 you cannot assume or imply intent that the rest of the rule applies. To add anything else to it is basically an intent argument. If they meant it too say "counts as stationary" they should have said so. They didn't so you go RAW.

Look, I have very little interest in the argument either way, but you're just plain missing the point.

We have a rule, that states that SOME UNITS, defined as meeting one of two preconditions, can perform certain actions. (Some rare units always count as stationary when firing rapid fire weapons and some units can move and fire heavy weapons. Such units can charge after firing.)

We have another rules, that states that A PARTICULAR UNIT meets one of these two preconditions. (In addition, rapid fire weapons and heavy weapons may be fired if the unit moves and the bike is still allowed to charge into close combat in the same turn.)

We have exactly ONE determination to make: does a bike meet one of the two preconditions used to define the group of "Such units" from the first rule? No intent arguments; no inferences; just a straight-up binary yes/no determination.

So, is a bike a unit that always count as stationary when firing rapid fire weapons? Is a bike a unit that can move and fire heavy weapons? If the answer to EITHER of these questions is "yes," then a bike MUST be one of the group of "such units" that "can charge after firing."

Binary logic at its purest. If you want, here it is in symbol form:
If A or B, then C.
Bikes are in the set of B.
Therefore, bikes can C.

In order for the above to be incorrect, you must somehow argue that bikes are not a unit that "can move and fire heavy weapons" (B). No one is saying that bikes "count as stationary" (A).

Problem is, you left out D... Pistols and not being able to assault if you shoot them twice.

**ender502**

Posted By Janthkin on 08/14/2007 9:33 AM

There is no-where that says P1 applies to a bike. Just because a bike in P2 follows part of the rule quoted in P1 you cannot assume or imply intent that the rest of the rule applies. To add anything else to it is basically an intent argument. If they meant it too say "counts as stationary" they should have said so. They didn't so you go RAW.

Look, I have very little interest in the argument either way, but you're just plain missing the point.

We have a rule, that states that SOME UNITS, defined as meeting one of two preconditions, can perform certain actions. (Some rare units always count as stationary when firing rapid fire weapons and some units can move and fire heavy weapons. Such units can charge after firing.)

We have another rules, that states that A PARTICULAR UNIT meets one of these two preconditions. (In addition, rapid fire weapons and heavy weapons may be fired if the unit moves and the bike is still allowed to charge into close combat in the same turn.)

We have exactly ONE determination to make: does a bike meet one of the two preconditions used to define the group of "Such units" from the first rule? No intent arguments; no inferences; just a straight-up binary yes/no determination.

So, is a bike a unit that always count as stationary when firing rapid fire weapons? Is a bike a unit that can move and fire heavy weapons? If the answer to EITHER of these questions is "yes," then a bike MUST be one of the group of "such units" that "can charge after firing."

Binary logic at its purest. If you want, here it is in symbol form:
If A or B, then C.
Bikes are in the set of B.
Therefore, bikes can C.

In order for the above to be incorrect, you must somehow argue that bikes are not a unit that "can move and fire heavy weapons" (B). No one is saying that bikes "count as stationary" (A).

The flaw in your arguement is that this is not a game of deductive reasoning. It is a game of rules. Nowhere on P.36 say "If Unit X meets criteria A and B then it is C."

Here is the quote on p.36...

Note: Some rare units always count as stationary when firing rapid fire weapons and some units can move and fire heavy wepons. Such units can charge after firing.

There is nothing that says if the units meet certain criteria than they count as stationary. But, to entertain your arguement (sad as it is) for just a moment... A bike does not meet your criteria 1. Why? Because rapid fire weapns do not always fire from a bike as if they were stationary. Only a mounted rapid fire weapon can fire its full range if moving. A plasma gun that is NOT mounted is subject to the normal infantry rules.

So, by your own arguement, bikes fail criteria A and do not count as stationary.

But why even argue that? It is so far beyond the realm of applicable it is laughable.

The rules for this game are permissive. If it says you can "X" then you can "X." If it does not say you can "Y" then you cannot "Y."

Now, for a change let's look at the way the rules are written.

1. P.53 "Unless stated in this section, these unit types will follow the rules for infantry."

2. P.53 "If rapid fire weapons are mounted on a bike, then they are allowed to fire once up to the maximum range even if the bike moved. In addition, rapid fire weapons and heavy weapons may be fired if the unit moves and the bike is still allowed to charge into close combat in the same turn."

The rules for bikes make several exceptions to the Infantry rules (which they follow unless stated otherwise, see #1) as shown in #2 above. An exception to the rules as they apply to pistold is never mentioned. Hence, there is no exception.

ender502

**skyth**

Posted By ender502 on 08/14/2007 10:51 AM

The flaw in your arguement is that this is not a game of deductive reasoning. It is a game of rules. Nowhere on P.36 say "If Unit X meets criteria A and B then it is C."

Here is the quote on p.36...

Note: Some rare units always count as stationary when firing rapid fire weapons and some units can move and fire heavy wepons. Such units can charge after firing.

Actually, that is EXACTLY what the quote is saying.

**tegeus-Cromis**

ender502, the point, I think, is that a unit does not have to be A and B to be C. It merely has to be A or B: units that count as stationary for firing rapid fire weapons and units that can move and fire heavy weapons are each a subset of "such units", and both can "charge after firing". Janthkin and others are reading "charge after firing" to mean "charge after firing [anything]".

**Yad**

I'm of the opinion though that Ender's point, that the more specific Bike type rules on page 53, overrule the general rule found on page 36. Our group always plays that when a specific and and a general 'collide' always go with the more specific.

Bikes can fire [mounted] rapid fire and heavy weapons and still assault afterwards (no mention of Pistol type weapons). In all other shooting respects they behave like infantry. No double tapping Pistol assaults.

-Yad

**ender502**

Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 08/14/2007 11:41 AM
ender502, the point, I think, is that a unit does not have to be A and B to be C. It merely has to be A or B: units that count as stationary for firing rapid fire weapons and units that can move and fire heavy weapons are each a subset of "such units", and both can "charge after firing". Janthkin and others are reading "charge after firing" to mean "charge after firing [anything]".

The Quote:

Note: Some rare units always count as stationary when firing rapid fire weapons and some units can move and fire heavy wepons. Such units can charge after firing.

Actually, they would have to meet criteria A and B. They use the conjunctive word AND. If they had meant Or they would have used OR. You cannot ignore the language of the quote.

ender502

**tegeus-Cromis**

Yes, it uses "and", but it doesn't say "Some rare units always count as stationary when firing rapid fire weapons and can move and fire heavy weapons", it says "Some rare units always count as stationary when firing rapid fire weapons and some units can move and fire heavy weapons". There is no reason why "some rare units" and "some units" need to have the same referent. Some rare animals are white tigers and some animals are chickens, yet it is not the case that any animal is both a white tiger and a chicken.

No offence, but if you want to challenge Janthkin's interpretation, I think a better bet would be to claim that "Such units can charge after firing" does not overrule the restriction against charging after firing two shots from a pistol. I am undecided on this point myself.

**ender502**

Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 08/14/2007 12:07 PM
Yes, it uses "and", but it doesn't say "Some rare units always count as stationary when firing rapid fire weapons and can move and fire heavy weapons", it says "Some rare units always count as stationary when firing rapid fire weapons and some units can move and fire heavy weapons". There is no reason why "some rare units" and "some units" need to have the same referent. Some rare animals are white tigers and some animals are chickens, yet it is not the case that any animal is both a white tiger and a chicken.

No offence, but if you want to challenge Janthkin's interpretation, I think a better bet would be to claim that "Such units can charge after firing" does not overrule the restriction against charging after firing two shots from a pistol. I am undecided on this point myself.

A fair criticism.

My point is this.....

P. 53 covers the rules for bike units. The top of P.53 says they are subject to the rules for infantry unless otherwise stated.

P.53 also gives bikes specific exceptions to the rules for infantry.

Theses exceptions are:

1. A mounted rapidfire weapon can fire once to maximum range even if the bike unit moved.

2. The bike unit can move, fire a rapid fire weapon AND charge.

3. The bike unit can move, fire a heavy weapon and charge.

All other rules for infantry apply ( I am not mentioning the moves 12" one and the dangerous terrain tests). I know this to be true because p. 53 says ALL rules for infantry apply... unless otherwise stated,, and here is the kicker... IN THIS SECTION.

ender502

**Alpharius**

Posted By Mr. Bombadidaloo on 08/14/2007 7:35 AM
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee we're driving in cirrrcless!

...on bikes, shooting our pistols twice into the air, itching to assault!

If nothing else, this thread has made me laugh out loud more than twice (thanks to posts like that one above!)...

**ender502**

Posted By Alpharius on 08/14/2007 12:47 PM

Posted By Mr. Bombadidaloo on 08/14/2007 7:35 AM
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee we're driving in cirrrcless!

...on bikes, shooting our pistols twice into the air, itching to assault!

If nothing else, this thread has made me laugh out loud more than twice (thanks to posts like that one above!)...

Mr. Bombadidaloo is my new favorite poster.

Yak used to be my favorite poster but he did ascend as has been suggested. Though one day he came to me in the form of a cow. And now I am carrying Hercules!

ender502

**Janthkin**

No offence, but if you want to challenge Janthkin's interpretation, I think a better bet would be to claim that "Such units can charge after firing" does not overrule the restriction against charging after firing two shots from a pistol. I am undecided on this point myself.

This is the part that goes a bit unclear, yes. For my own units, I would not play that the "Such units may charge after firing" applies to pistol weapons (or ordnance, etc.). But I could not, in good conscience, prevent an opponent from so doing - the RAW does not limit the actions of the group "such units."

All other rules for infantry apply ( I am not mentioning the moves 12" one and the dangerous terrain tests). I know this to be true because p. 53 says ALL rules for infantry apply... unless otherwise stated,, and here is the kicker... IN THIS SECTION.

Not conclusive, though I can understand your meaning. The rules on p. 53 already provided the only modifier necessary to utilize the rules on p. 26 - that bikes may move and fire heavy weapons. And the rule on p. 26 is a rule for infantry (and all units), so following it does not break the "infantry rules apply unless otherwise stated" bit.

**DaIronGob**

Well...

The bike does not count as stationary therefore if it MOVES and fires the 'pistol' it would only be firing it once anyway, therefore the argument wouldn't even be taking place if the bike could assault afterward since it wouldn't be firing twice after moving in the first place.

Or is this whole thread using the "move and fire = assault" assuming the bike is standing still?

Last I heard you have to remain stationary to fire a pistol twice in the first place since the pistol is not mounted on the bike.

Great thread, glad to be in before lock.

EDIT: removed my assumption.

**tegeus-Cromis**

Janthkin, that depends. Look at the Eldar Jetbike rules, for example: "Eldar jetbike units are always allowed to move 6" the Assault phase, even if they don't assault." Would you say that because of this, they are allowed to move 6" even if they are locked? No, because being locked overrides their ability to move, right? Similarly, since there is no special dispensation regarding pistols, double-tapping would seem to override the permission to charge after firing.

**ender502**

Posted By Janthkin on 08/14/2007 1:34 PM
Not conclusive, though I can understand your meaning. The rules on p. 53 already provided the only modifier necessary to utilize the rules on p. 26 - that bikes may move and fire heavy weapons. And the rule on p. 26 is a rule for infantry (and all units), so following it does not break the "infantry rules apply unless otherwise stated" bit.

An odd question... is the p.36 quote a rule or merely an indication that rules will follow? The reason i ask is that the "note" is in the middle of the shooting and assaulting rules. It does not have an "exception" or "bullet" by it like other rules sections.

Presumably, the rare units are defined under the unit rules themselves. I don't think p.36 allows us to use the rules on p.53. Nor doi think the rules on p.53 allow us to use p.36. I think, as I read it yet again, that p.36 is merely a note that there are exceptions to the basic rule. P. 53 reitereates the basic rule (that all infantry rules apply and so do the assaultinga nd shooting rule on p.36) and then says there are exceptions listed in the Unit Type Rules section. It then gives the exception to the basic rules for shooting and assaulting.

So, is the note on p.36 actually a rule? I know it's an odd question but Janth's last post made me wonder.

ender502

**Janthkin**

An odd question... is the p.36 quote a rule or merely an indication that rules will follow? The reason i ask is that the "note" is in the middle of the shooting and assaulting rules. It does not have an "exception" or "bullet" by it like other rules sections.

Gods only know (but don't ask the Chaos gods, 'cause they're too busy weeping over the travesty of the new Chaos codex). The interleaving of fluff and rules and exceptions is disorderly in the extreme. (See, e.g., the "torrent of fire" rules...buried in the middle of a block of text.)

Presumably, the rare units are defined under the unit rules themselves. I don't think p.36 allows us to use the rules on p.53. Nor doi think the rules on p.53 allow us to use p.36. I think, as I read it yet again, that p.36 is merely a note that there are exceptions to the basic rule.

Oooh, my turn! "Show me a rule, not a presumption!" (Did I do that right?)

"Some rare" units are defined in the sentence itself: they are units that either count as stationary when firing rapid fire weapons, OR can move and fire heavy weapons. We don't have anything else to go on there. *shrug*

Can we follow the both rules, without breaking either? I think we can.

**ender502**

Posted By Janthkin on 08/14/2007 3:37 PM

An odd question... is the p.36 quote a rule or merely an indication that rules will follow? The reason i ask is that the "note" is in the middle of the shooting and assaulting rules. It does not have an "exception" or "bullet" by it like other rules sections.

Gods only know (but don't ask the Chaos gods, 'cause they're too busy weeping over the travesty of the new Chaos codex). The interleaving of fluff and rules and exceptions is disorderly in the extreme. (See, e.g., the "torrent of fire" rules...buried in the middle of a block of text.)

Presumably, the rare units are defined under the unit rules themselves. I don't think p.36 allows us to use the rules on p.53. Nor doi think the rules on p.53 allow us to use p.36. I think, as I read it yet again, that p.36 is merely a note that there are exceptions to the basic rule.

Oooh, my turn! "Show me a rule, not a presumption!" (Did I do that right?)

"Some rare" units are defined in the sentence itself: they are units that either count as stationary when firing rapid fire weapons, OR can move and fire heavy weapons. We don't have anything else to go on there. *shrug*

Can we follow the both rules, without breaking either? I think we can.

Edit: Yes, you did that perfectly. Like I said, it was an odd question.

First, I have to agree that the specific rules will always overrule the general. So, I think P.53 rolls right over P. 36 in terms of the ability to assault after firing. I think that ends the debate personally.

Second, bikes are never defined as rare units.

Third, I am not willing to admit P.36 actually defines a rule.

Fourth, If p.36 does indeed describe a rule, I think the conjunction AND creates a list of preconditions in order to be such a rare unit.

Fifth, if p.36 does not create a list and is really creating 2 seperate conditions (both of which can define a unit as rare and hence can charge after firing) then bikes would not fit as either condition A or B. Bikes do not count as stationary for rapid fire weapons, only those mounted ones. So A is right out. Further, B doesn't work because the rules for bikes charging after firing are not that they might charge after firinga heavy weapon. The rule for bikes include (in the section dispensations for charging after firing a rapid fire weapon AND for charging after firing a heavy weapon. Clearly nota unit that either counts as staionary for fapid fire weapons OR can move and fire. It is entirely different. It can do both.

ender502

**Mr. Bombadidaloo**

Posted By ender502 on 08/14/2007 1:06 PM

Mr. Bombadidaloo is my new favorite poster.

I'd say "I love you too" here, but apparently you're not a fan of MCC ice cream, and that's where I draw the line in relationships, so....

....Anyway now that you agree the quote from p. 36 means "or" not "and" (or at least I think you agree....) I hope you can at least see then on what I base my argument; I don't want you to feel like I'm just attacking you for the sake of argument; the very wording in that one quote is where I base my entire argument.

...However! After reading these recent explanations and references of how some rules override others, I am inclined to see it more your way. The only thing that has me worried here is are you trying to override a specific rule with a blanket rule, when specific rules are by nature meant to override blanket rules?

...When I was a little boy I had a very soft and fuzzy blanket my grandma made me. But it was stitched together loosely with lots of "holes" between the threads, so specific things like, oh, my toes, could fit their way right through it. So you can see where I'm coming from!

**ender502**

Posted By Mr. Bombadidaloo on 08/14/2007 5:30 PM

Posted By ender502 on 08/14/2007 1:06 PM

Mr. Bombadidaloo is my new favorite poster.

I'd say "I love you too" here, but apparently you're not a fan of MCC ice cream, and that's where I draw the line in relationships, so....

....Anyway now that you agree the quote from p. 36 means "or" not "and" (or at least I think you agree....) I hope you can at least see then on what I base my argument; I don't want you to feel like I'm just attacking you for the sake of argument; the very wording in that one quote is where I base my entire argument.

...However! After reading these recent explanations and references of how some rules override others, I am inclined to see it more your way. The only thing that has me worried here is are you trying to override a specific rule with a blanket rule, when specific rules are by nature meant to override blanket rules?

...When I was a little boy I had a very soft and fuzzy blanket my grandma made me. But it was stitched together loosely with lots of "holes" between the threads, so specific things like, oh, my toes, could fit their way right through it. So you can see where I'm coming from!

Actually, I don't believe in the great and might "or." It's just a rhetorical device.

"A is correct!"

"No, it's not."

"Well, if not A then B is correct"

"No, it's not"

Then on to C, D and eventually E.

I think the bike rules are more specific than the charge rules. P.36 is "Declaring Charges". It applies to everyone. P. 53 are bike rules which apply only to bikes. Everyone strikes me as less specific than bikes.

ender502

**tegeus-Cromis**

ender502:

Fifth, if p.36 does not create a list and is really creating 2 seperate conditions (both of which can define a unit as rare and hence can charge after firing) then bikes would not fit as either condition A or B. Bikes do not count as stationary for rapid fire weapons, only those mounted ones. So A is right out. Further, B doesn't work because the rules for bikes charging after firing are not that they might charge after firinga heavy weapon. The rule for bikes include (in the section dispensations for charging after firing a rapid fire weapon AND for charging after firing a heavy weapon. Clearly nota unit that either counts as staionary for fapid fire weapons OR can move and fire. It is entirely different. It can do both.

That doesn't disqualify it.

P1) If an object is a dessert or a pastry, it is something I like to eat.
P2) An apple pie is a dessert and it is a pastry.
C) An apple pie is something I like to eat.

The confusion here stems from the fact that we have two everyday meanings for the word "or", one exclusive and one inclusive. When I said "or" in rephrasing the rule, I was using it in the inclusive sense (the truth-functional sense, if you've done Logic), in which it is the case that "A is B or C" is true even if A is both B and C. Note that the original rule does not say "or", so if there's any ambiguity here, it's my fault for rephrasing in that manner, not GW's.

Oh man. I never thought I'd say that.

**Mr. Bombadidaloo**

did someone say dessert?!?!

yes mooore mint-chocolate-chip ice creaaaammmmm! *dies of a heart attack*

**ender502**

Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 08/14/2007 11:40 PM

That doesn't disqualify it.

P1) If an object is a dessert or a pastry, it is something I like to eat.
P2) An apple pie is a dessert and it is a pastry.
C) An apple pie is something I like to eat.

The confusion here stems from the fact that we have two everyday meanings for the word "or", one exclusive and one inclusive. When I said "or" in rephrasing the rule, I was using it in the inclusive sense (the truth-functional sense, if you've done Logic), in which it is the case that "A is B or C" is true even if A is both B and C. Note that the original rule does not say "or", so if there's any ambiguity here, it's my fault for rephrasing in that manner, not GW's.

Oh man. I never thought I'd say that.

Logic. You are trying to apply logic to a GW rules dispute? Man o man you ar eway off the market. My answer is very much a legal one. If the conditions are A or B then the unit must be A or B. A we dealt with quite nicely. But P.53 cannot be B. It is B + C. It does contain B. But it is B + C and p.36 makes no mention of B + C. Only A OR B.

But I don't actually believe it is an OR. Considering the word doe snot appear on the P.36 quote.

Here is a good one for ya...

This assumes bikes count as stationary because they can charge after firing a heavy weapon. But if they are stationary then they would be able to fire a rapid fire weapon it's full distance even though they moved as well. Why? Because that is what the infantry rules say they can do and we know the infantry rules apply unless otherwise stated. But we know that a biker cannot always use a rapid fire weapon as if stationary. The only logical conclusion is that bikes do not always count as stationary in the same manner as they do for heavy weapons and mounted rapid fire weapons. Held rapid fire weapons and pistols would be treated differently.

So, no pistol double tap.

Of course, I don't believe in the "or." I think the more specific bike rule overides the more general p.36 note.

ender502

**skyth**

And you are missing the point entirely. The rules allow you to charge after firing anything if you can move and shoot heavy weapons, which bikes can.

**DaIronGob**

This assumes bikes count as stationary because they can charge after firing a heavy weapon. But if they are stationary then they would be able to fire a rapid fire weapon it's full distance even though they moved as well. Why? Because that is what the infantry rules say they can do and we know the infantry rules apply unless otherwise stated. But we know that a biker cannot always use a rapid fire weapon as if stationary. The only logical conclusion is that bikes do not always count as stationary in the same manner as they do for heavy weapons and mounted rapid fire weapons. Held rapid fire weapons and pistols would be treated differently.
So, no pistol double tap

Anyone care to go back a few posts and read that I JUST FRICKIN SAID THAT!?

The "may assault after firing" bit is in regards to the weapons mounted on the bike ONLY. The Pistols would not be mounted therefore they wouldn't be able to fire twice if they move. If they stood still to fire the pisto twicel (why is beyond me) then the bike would have to remain stationary and therefore not able to assault!!!!

This entire thread, though highly amusing, is amazingly MOOT since the situations being described aren't even valid arguments.

The bike wouldn't be moving and firing the pistol twice. In order to do so they would need to remain stationary, therefore if they have to remain stationary to fire the pistol twice they then would not be able to assault afterward.

So now that I've said it twice, anyone care to finally read it?

Thanks!

**ender502**

Posted By skyth on 08/15/2007 6:22 AM
And you are missing the point entirely. The rules allow you to charge after firing anything if you can move and shoot heavy weapons, which bikes can.

Actually, the specific bike rules on p.53 do not say that at all. You are referring to the note on p.36. You are claiming the p.36 note (that applies to every unit if it is indeed a rule) overides the more specific (only applies to bikes) p.53 rule.

That's just silly. The more specific rule always overides the more general.

ender502

**ender502**

Posted By DaIronGob on 08/15/2007 6:24 AM
Anyone care to go back a few posts and read that I JUST FRICKIN SAID THAT!?

The "may assault after firing" bit is in regards to the weapons mounted on the bike ONLY. The Pistols would not be mounted therefore they wouldn't be able to fire twice if they move. If they stood still to fire the pisto twicel (why is beyond me) then the bike would have to remain stationary and therefore not able to assault!!!!

This entire thread, though highly amusing, is amazingly MOOT since the situations being described aren't even valid arguments.

The bike wouldn't be moving and firing the pistol twice. In order to do so they would need to remain stationary, therefore if they have to remain stationary to fire the pistol twice they then would not be able to assault afterward.

So now that I've said it twice, anyone care to finally read it?

Thanks!

DarlonGob-

I agree 100% and you did say it first. Iunderstand the other sides points even though I don't agree. There are several logical incongruities involved with the "counts as stationary" arguement. You found the biggest.

BTW, there is only 1 instance I can imagine the pistol double tap would ever come up as an issue... That's where you had a veteran bike sergeant with plasma pistol within 6" of a target unit. Double tap with pistol and plasma guns and then charge. It is unlikely but... there ya go.

ender502

**DaIronGob**

Yep, since the bike would have to remain stationary to fire the pistol twice then it would not be allowed to assault as per the pistol rules.

This entire discussion is moot as the assaulting after firing rapid fire weapons and heavy weapons involve only those weapons mounted on the bike and not those carried by the riders. Pistols still have to follow the rules for pistols as they apply to infantry.

They have to remain stationary to fire a pistol twice and cannot assault after doing so. Period.

**skyth**

Posted By ender502 on 08/15/2007 6:58 AM

Posted By skyth on 08/15/2007 6:22 AM
And you are missing the point entirely. The rules allow you to charge after firing anything if you can move and shoot heavy weapons, which bikes can.

Actually, the specific bike rules on p.53 do not say that at all. You are referring to the note on p.36. You are claiming the p.36 note (that applies to every unit if it is indeed a rule) overides the more specific (only applies to bikes) p.53 rule.

That's just silly. The more specific rule always overides the more general.

ender502

The specific overrides the general ONLY in the case of the rules being in conflict. The rules are NOT in conflict.

If the bike rule said that it cannot assault after firing pistols twice, then it would be in conflict and more specific. Lacking a specific rule about pistols from bikes, we go to the general rule, which is anything that can move and fire heavy weapons can assault after firing, full stop.