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.

 Spellbound wrote:

And "well this model can, but your far more elite models can't." doesn't really pass the stupid test anyway.

Why can't my Librarians bring a storm shield? Why can't my Interrogator-Chaplains bring artificer army despite being about as inner circle as you can possibly get? Why can't my Ravenwing Librarians and Chaplains ride regular old bikes instead of bikes with Plasma Talons, and how come, if they are the elite-most of the warriors in that company, they don't have Hit and Run when every other bike unit in my entire codex has one, and don't have skilled rider when the elites of that company have it? Why does it cost an extra point to bring 3 more Ravenwing Bikers into a squad than it takes to simply take another squad? How come Company Command Squads have to spend 15 points a storm shield when Company Veterans, which are the exact same unit sans ability to bring a standard, only have to pay 10 per guy? How come codex space marines only have to pay 240 points for a Land Raider Redeemer while we have to pay 245 despite their base being literally the exact same in every concievable way?

Warhammer has lots of stupid. Metric tons of stupid. I hate to say it because I agree with you the stupid test needs to be applied more often when people are hashing out rules (did you know as worded, Rhinos can fire Aegis Defense Line guns?), but the proper way to do things is often murky and real world logic doesn't apply.

For the record, if someone discussed it with me beforehand, I'd be cool with whatever as long as they weren't fielding a Tau army, because I honestly have more fun coming up with scenarios than actually playing them, but if someone were to just pull that on me and expect me to be cool with it, I'd probably just say "Well there's a couple other guys over there looking for a game, and I'm going to go back to painting. Cool looking model by the way."

SpellBound,
Umm... pistols do not have the Melee Special Rule, they have a 'counts as a close combat weapon' Rule which only triggers during the Assault phase. So even if you went off the logic that pistols gain the Melee Special Rule by 'counting as close combat weapons,' a fair argument, it still can only occur during the Assult phase. At that point it doesn't matter what weapons the Lord with this Boon has, because there is already a rule that grants a Close Combat weapon to any model without a Melee weapon and that would count just as well for the Instant Death Boon when it comes to Assault. Though the +1 from having 'two close combat weapons' is always very nice, one reason to consider keeping the Pistol.

40k is a permissive game, you can do/buy something, when it tells you that you can.

You can buy a Bike otem, this item also provide a TLbolter, does it anywhere says that the Boltgun replace/can be replaced/count has an additional weapon?

Is there somewhere in the codex a paragrpahe that says that if you take an artifact you can exchange it with the TLB of your Lord bike if he has one?

Nope.

Because else by that logic, there is nothing that prevents me to give the skull of Kargath to Kharn to give Him EW.

Or to buy a Battle canon for my Biker Lord.

If there is nothing, no where that says you can do it, then you can't do it.

You choose to do it because your Biker Lord is modeled that way, dude, i have a gak load of boxes with models from 3Ed and 3.5 Dexes that i can't use anumore, because of the simple reason that you can't do it anymore, whole units of Possesed with Wings, whole squads of Cult Terminators, bucket loads of CUltists with Plasmaguns and Meltas.

i have 2 Lieutenants on Chaos steeds and Defilers with 4 CCW, i can't use them, no matter what i say or feel, because they arn't legal anymore.

So saying that you put 4 or 5 weapons on your model because its modeled that way, its nice, but thats houseruling.

if you play between friends thats okay, but don't expect everyone to be forgiving or understanding, thats just not how things goes.

Chaos Bikes, as worded.

"Models with a Chaos bike chante their unit type to Bike, as described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. A Chaos bike is fitted with a single twin-linked boltgun." It does not give you a twin-linked boltgun. So in actuality, no, the Chaos Lord who takes a bike does not actually have a twin-linked boltgun. He can simply fire the one that's part of the wargear he purchased.

It says "is fitted with." Means the bike has one on it, and it's what it has on it. The Burning Brand is a shooting weapon so it still seems like it could fit on the front of a bike, but by the logic that any weapon on a model, even if granted to it through a buyable upgrade, can take any other artefact, we could stick a sword out of the front of a bike and say it's the Murder Sword. And that'd be really, really, really, really stupid and nonsensical. Don't even deny it.

Hmmm nope, still don't see how buying the bike doesn't give me a twin-linked bolter to do away with as I see fit.

Bought it.

Got it.

Threw it away for something better.

liturgies of blood wrote:572571 6435030 0ef01e055720b80058e779d5585782f2.jpg]Nos, would you like to stop misrepresenting what I'm saying?

Then I am sure you can find some rules to back up what you are saying. Found any yet?

liturgies of blood wrote:I'm sure it's your own oversight and not the continued misrepresenting of the rules that you began this morning but it's rich to be asked for rules when I have to correct the only one you referenced.

What correction is that? You havent managed it yet. I must be blind. Please find it for me.

liturgies of blood wrote:TL bolter is a weapon it is part of the wargear listed as chaos bike. A piece of wargear that is listed as chaos bike on models in the chaos codex.

Agreed. Not sure why you think this is contentious.

liturgies of blood wrote:Can you show where the weapon alone is listed as wargear on models in the codex?

No, but then again that isnt what the rule asks, so I dont need to do so. I also cant show you where the sky is defined as purple, but given a rule doiesnt ask me to do that, I dont see the relevance

Is the bike part of the model? Yes or no. Simple question, I am SURE this time you can manage an answer!

liturgies of blood wrote: It doesn't matter that the tl bolter is a weapon, it is part of a a composite item of wargear.

Page and paragraph where this distinction is made relevant.

liturgies of blood wrote:You have refused to answer my question, which I asked first, is a combi-weapon able to be broken down and it's parts swapped?

Dont lie. I didnt "refuse to answer it", blank, I declined to answer a corrollary until you are able to answer the main point. Which, by the way, you are still refusing to do.

liturgies of blood wrote:So here is a quick list of questions to distil the answer:
1) Is the chaos bike a single item of wargear? y/n

Yes. Now page and paragraph as to why that is relevant

liturgies of blood wrote:2) Is it listed as chaos bike in wargear lists in the codex? y/n

Yes. Now page and paragraph as to why that is relevant

liturgies of blood wrote:3) Is the chaos bike a weapon? y/n

Yay! Youre asking meaningless questions that I never stated anytyhing like! Well done! NO it isnt a weapon. I never said it was. This is a very poor way to try to discredit someone, and just makes you look silly.

liturgies of blood wrote:4) Is the tl bolter separate or detachable from the bike that makes up the chaos bike? y/n (this one requires justifications for a yes)

Yes, when given permission to swap ANYW EAPON the MODEL has for the ARTIFACTS

I have already given the permission to alter the model. So, again - is the bike not part of the model? Is the Tl bolter not a weapon? Any chance you can answer a single one of those questions, or refernce ANY RULES AT ALL to suypport your increasingly discredited opinion?

liturgies of blood wrote:5) Is there permission in the brb or codex aside from the specific permission in the chaos bike squad to alter composite pieces of wargear that consist of a weapon and another item? y/n ( justification required)

Yes, in the chaos codex when it allows you to alter the MODEL. The Bike is PART OF the MODEL, and so can be ALTERED. Nothing *restricts* the permission to alter the *MODEL* and so, unless you can come up with some rules, permission is granted to alter any part of the model that is a weapon.

So, any chance you can find ANY rules to back up your assertiojns? None have been forthcoming so far, from you, SRSFACE, etc.

Please answer:
1) Is the bike part of the model?
2) Do you have permission to alter the model?
3) Is the TL bolter a weapon?

Failure to do so is your immediate concession on this point, as I have complied with the tenets, and you are wilfully ignoring them

Wow, nosferatu and liturgies of battle - you are no closer to reaching a common understanding now than after the first post, and it looks unlikely that you will reach one. You might as well just accept that you do not have the same opinion, or interpretation.

Also, could everyone please leave all irrelevant analogies with combi-weapons and other things aside and just focus on the RAW regarding Chaos Artefacts? No-one thinks its possible replace part of a combi-weapon, so come on and leave that behind.

The core question is the wording on ARTEFACTS which is "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following". Interestingly, ranged weapons have the same wording. Melee weapons in the Chaos Wargear list do not have that wording, and instead explicitly list what you can replace: "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or close combat weapon with one of the following". I think there is a key difference.

Whether a bike's TL Boltgun is a weapon on the model or not seems to be the core question. Or rather, is there something that prevents them from being replaced, as they obviously are. And a second, less discussed one, if grenades are a weapon that can be replaced (although I would personally find that a far stretch).

Is there really no GW or major tournament clarification on this? Are lists with replaced TL boltguns accepted?

No, there is no chance of a common understanding - I have cited the only relevant rule, and liturgies insists on breaking the forum tenets by failing to provide any rules themselves to back up their assertions.

The bike is part of the model. Fact. This is undeniable.
There is no restriction stating WHAT weapon can be replaced, only that it is a weapon the MODEL has. And th model, most certainly, has a weapon in the shape of the twinlinked bolter

Liturgies is insistent that either you need specific permission to alter the bike-part of the model - and does so without providing a single rule to help their argument - OR that there is some restriction on splitting up wargear this way, again failing to cite a single rule. What theyre actually claiming seems to change, so it is difficult to know for sure. What is known is their refusal to provide rules, breaking the tenets of this forum.

The TL-Bolter CAN be exchanged, RAW.

Its a little known fact (not represented in the rules) that marneus calgar has a bionic arse.
This is because he got an itch one day, scratched it and only then realised he forgot to turn off the power fists.

Now all that is very well and good, but the biker/termie/whatever entries are of no-relevance here.

The relevant permission to swap out weapons is contained in the granting of exchanging weapons in the wargear section.
If, something, in of itself, is a weapon, it can be exchanged.
Part of a combi-weapon is not a weapon, the entirety of the combi is a weapon.

A bike/termie armour purchased for an ic, is not a weapon, though parts of it, are and are therefore exchangeable.

Indeed.

I am still waiting on liturgies providing a single rules quote that restricts the permission to exchange a weapon the model has for an artifact.

3 pages, still waiting.

 fuusa wrote:

A bike/termie armour purchased for an ic, is not a weapon, though parts of it, are and are therefore exchangeable.

The first half, I agree. The last part, no...

You're given specific rules enabling you to change out the tda gear as you see fit, within the sections given. Whereas you are not when it comes to the bike. You're only given similar weapon changing rules for the bike in the fast attack section in the Codex.

Now as Nos is fighting in the 'it's the MODEL changing' corner, that's where it becomes difficult because people will understand it in a different way. You're right that the bike is a model, physically, but to me, the Lord is the model and the bike is just a piece of wargear subject to no changes as it is not stated that it is allowed. I really must stress that that is just MY interpretation. So don't ask me to cite any page/para etc. If I decide to play, that my CSM bike cannot have 3 weapons, then I have not broken any rules.

Infact, if I play like that and Nos is right, then im just screwing myself over. Until either is proven wrong by an faq or or something then , I suggest that we leave this as an unresolved issue as it can go on forever.

Nos, you couldn't even get the rules right on a combi-weapon on page one, that's what I had to correct you on. You also made out that the tl bolter is listed in the wargear of models that have a chaos bike, have you looked at codex chaos on page 100? It only lists the chaos bike, it also lists the guns as belonging to the bike. The model doesn't have a weapon, it has a chaos bike. Where is the permission to exhange part of a piece of wargear? Any weapon is fine when the piece of wargear is a weapon and "everyone" is against that when it comes to combi-weapons but not this..... seems odd. Oh sorry, not odd, hypocritical and a false dichotomy.

Fusa pg 56 describes the combi-weapon with both parts being weapons, so you're wrong there. If part of a piece of wargear is a weapon and a valid exchange then part of a combi-weapon which is a part of a piece of wargear and is a weapon would hence be a valid exchange. If your side want to answer the question instead of going "no that's different and doesn't apply" or if they'd like to show a gradiation in the application of this "ANY WEAPON" stance I'd be grateful.

You've got your blinkers on as "any weapon"(which the codex doesn't say btw) any time is exchangeable for an artefact. Next a combat familiar will be a valid exchange as it has a "weapons profile" and thus must be a weapon.As for the terminator armour, well that usually has permission to swap items off of it using a different table or list of weapons options.

 Reptile(5iN) wrote:
You're given specific rules enabling you to change out the tda gear as you see fit, within the sections given. Whereas you are not when it comes to the bike. You're only given similar weapon changing rules for the bike in the fast attack section in the Codex.

I'd ask these questions, then, does a biker aspiring champion count as having in its wargear, a twin linked boltgun?
Is that boltgun a weapon or not?

If it is, then he has permission to exchange that weapon, whatever it is.
That's the only criteria that must be met.

Now, it may be daft, but what that (in the simple RAW terminology) means, is, 1 weapon is discarded, another is taken.
Precisely where these weapons come from or end up, is moot.
The only permission necessary, is you need to have a weapon included in your wargear, to exchange it for another.

So, by the bare bones RAW, my biker champ has permission to swap out a weapon in his possession, for another.
He has a tl boltgun (a weapon), which he swaps for a plasma pistol.
At this point, he has a ccw, bolt pistol and plasma pistol.

If you build this model wysiwyg, where are these weapons?
Does it actually matter (in rules terms)???

I could end up with a champ, bolt pistol in one hand, plasma pistol on a foot and a close combat weapon, attached to the bikes axle, ben hur style.

Make of that what you will, but it is bare bones RAW.

No, the biker doesn't have a listed tl bolter, he has a chaos bike. It's in the codex.

And again, as I said in my last post. This can go on forever. We would all be banging our heads against the wall for all eternity.

If it comes up in a game you play, come to a mutual agreement with your opponent and play the game.

Words from gw are needed. End of.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No, the biker doesn't have a listed tl bolter, he has a chaos bike. It's in the codex.

By that logic, a termie lord has termie armour, but no weapons.
How would he be able to get a burning brand?

 Reptile(5iN) wrote:

If it comes up in a game you play, come to a mutual agreement with your opponent and play the game.

Words from gw are needed. End of.

Fair enough.

I have argued in the past, for grenades are weapons, therefore they are swappable, but, would not actually do it, as this is one of those nailed-on RAW truths, but subject to eyebrow raising and potential trouble.
Go there if you want but keep an eye open on what is likely to happen.

Also, bear in mind, that gw words are what cause these nonsense moments, do you really want more???

 fuusa wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No, the biker doesn't have a listed tl bolter, he has a chaos bike. It's in the codex.

By that logic, a termie lord has termie armour, but no weapons.
How would he be able to get a burning brand?

No, that's not the same logic at all. Once a Lord gets Termie armor he has additional weapons (which are spelled out in the entry with Terminator armor) and a line that says
"A Chaos Lord in Terminator armour may then take..."
"may then take". I don't see anything like that for the bike. Maybe I'm missing it though - mind pointing it out?

If you can't, that's a poor example of your point.

rigeld2 wrote:

No, that's not the same logic at all. Once a Lord gets Termie armor he has additional weapons (which are spelled out in the entry with Terminator armor) and a line that says
"A Chaos Lord in Terminator armour may then take..."
"may then take". I don't see anything like that for the bike. Maybe I'm missing it though - mind pointing it out?

Wake up then.

What does a termie lord need to get a burning brand?
= a weapon.

Does the wargear terminator armour, when selected by a lord include weapons or not?
Does all that lord need to do, is give-up 1 weapon to get a brand?
Would a bike give him an additional weapon, or not?

If weapons are to be exchanged by a terminator for something else, it is clear that this particular wargear is subject to change, like a bike, because it is equipped with weapons.
No permissions specific to the bike are necessary, all that exists is the weapon clause.
Is the tl boltgun a weapon or not?

If it is, its exchangeable.

 fuusa wrote:
Wake up then.

I wasn't asleep... Or are you implying I'm not paying attention? That's kind of rude.

What does a termie lord need to get a burning brand?
= a weapon.

Does the wargear terminator armour, when selected by a lord include weapons or not?

No, it does not. At all. Perhaps you should read the entry?

Fuusa, the terminator armour states you get terminator armour plus weapons for the points. The bike states you get a chaos bike.
Terminator armour doesn't include weapons when it's listed in your wargear, the weapons are listed separately. Weapons and armour =/= to the same piece of wargear.

I think rigeld is awake, it's hard to form sentences while asleep and typing. In fact he's so awake he ninja'd me.

Doing a quick review of the wording found in some codex:
Chaos lord states to replace all your war-gear with the following: Terminator armour, Power Weapon and Combi-Bolter
Sorcerer states to replace all your war-gear with the following: Terminator armour, Force Weapon and Combi-Bolter
Chapter Master states: May replace power armour with Artificer Armour - nothing about loosing any other wargear
Librarian states: Replace x,y and z with Terminator Armour - they still keep a Force weapon and gain additional options to purchase weapons outside of the 'exchange X for Y' system
Chaplin states: Replace x,y and z with Terminator Armour and a Storm Bolter

The logic behind the 'can not exchange the Twin-Bolter on the Bike' is that the Lord doesn't have the weapon as part of their war-gear, it is something found in the bike entry with additional rules granting permission for the Lord to fire it. The counter argument presented here was that it can not be correct, because it would make the Terminator Weapon entry pointless. However there are two things causing me an issue here: The first is that no weapons are granted as part of the Terminator Armour itself and the second is that the units in question still have weapons listed on their war-gear even after upgrading to Terminator Armour, as they are granted independent of the Armour.

So please elaborate a little more on this counter argument so I can understand why it is reverent.

rigeld2 wrote:
That's kind of rude.

Coming from you, that's a major compliment, as its something you do so regularly and seem to enjoy.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, it does not. At all. Perhaps you should read the entry?

Then by selecting termie armour, he doesn't also select a power weapon and tl bolt gun, which are weapons. Fine.


No need for this comment.
Reds8n

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's kind of rude.

Coming from you, that's a major compliment, as its something you do so regularly and seem to enjoy.

Tell people to wake up? No, I don't - and I resent that.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, it does not. At all. Perhaps you should read the entry?

Then by selecting termie armour, he doesn't also select a power weapon and tl bolt gun, which are weapons. Fine.

No - he does. They're in addition to the termie armor, not part of it. Do you understand the difference?

Well you're not conflating a wargear choice with a piece of wargear. That's not what the argument is, the argument is about a single piece of listed wargear being sold off piece by piece.

You cannot exchange the tl boltgun on a bike purchased as an upgrade for a chaos lord, or any other hq, for a burning brand.

Try doing it in army builder, or battle scribe...see what happens.

liturgies has been correct. The chaos lord purchases the bike as wargear. That wargear contains a weapon the rider may fire. It does not confer an additional weapon, which may then be exchanged, to the chaos lord.

The Chaos Lord has two weapons. One of those he may exchange for the brand. If he purchases a bike, he cannot replace the tl bolter for an artefact. What game are you people playing?

 liturgies of blood] wrote:
Nos, you couldn't even get the rules right on a combi-weapon on page one, that's what I had to correct you on.

So, you corrected me on an irrelevant rule? And then hid that context to make it seem like you were correcting me on something important?

Wow. Impressed!

liturgies of blood wrote:You also made out that the tl bolter is listed in the wargear of models that have a chaos bike,

Did I? Any chance you can quote that for me? Just to refresh my memory. Thanks.

liturgies of blood wrote:have you looked at codex chaos on page 100? It only lists the chaos bike, it also lists the guns as belonging to the bike.

I never disputed that. You keep bringing it up, yet have failed to show a single rule that makes that fact relevant.

Oh, and STILL cant answer the 3 simple questions?

liturgies of blood wrote: The model doesn't have a weapon, it has a chaos bike.

Ah, so you DO CLAIM that the MODEL doesnt have a weapon?

Finally, you sort of hide the answer to one of the questions!

Of course, you are aware that page 3 states models have a characteristic profile, yes? So, the profile ends up as T5, so are you now claiming there are two models? Or that the bike isnt part of the model? Whcih is it?

The actual rules suggest otherwise, of course. Page 3 only allows there to be one model, the chaos lord on bike, with all wargear. Which means you claim is false

Please retract and correct it, and apologise. See, answering the question was useful - it proves you are wrong.

liturgies of blood wrote:Where is the permission to exhange part of a piece of wargear?

I have already answered this. In the permission for the model to replace one [/b]weapon[/b]. The TL-Bolter on the bike is a weapon, yes? Or will you now, in order to cling to your rule-less assertion now claim otherwise?

After all, you just claimed the bike isnt part of the model. Impressive

liturgies of blood wrote: Any weapon is fine when the piece of wargear is a weapon and "everyone" is against that when it comes to combi-weapons but not this..... seems odd. Oh sorry, not odd, hypocritical and a false dichotomy.

No, not a false dichotomy, actually. Thats where you present two options as if they are the only choices possible.

I also, just to remind you as you seem to have forgotten, not answered your question as yet - as you hadnt managed to prove your case.

liturgies of blood wrote:You've got your blinkers on as "any weapon"(which the codex doesn't say btw)

No, it states "one weapon". Again, is the TL bolter a weapon? Is the bike part of the model? The answer to both of these is yes

The case is proven. You continually refuse to provide any actual rules, flouting the rules of this forum.

liturgies of blood wrote: Next a combat familiar will be a valid exchange as it has a "weapons profile" and thus must be a weapon.

Ah, so you are now claiming the TL-Bolter isnt a weapon? Thats the only way you can possibly be avoiding the slippery slope fallacy you appear to be presenting here - or its possibly a strawman fallacy.

The Tl-bolter is a weapon (pg 52)
The bike is a part of the model, and thus the tl-bolter is a part of the model (pg 3, allowance for only a single char. profile, therefore single model)
The weapon (tl-bolter) is on the model and can therefore be swapped

Proven. If you have any actual rules to contribute, finding a restriction on the general permission to replace the weapon on the model with any one of your ever changing assertions, or proof that somehow the bike isnt part of the model (one of your claims) or that the bolter somehow isnt a weapon, please follow the tenets for once this thread and provide them.

So far we have your assertions, that were proven wrong. Over to you.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tell people to wake up? No, I don't - and I resent that.

No, you call people liars for disagreeing with you.

rigeld2 wrote:
No - he does. They're in addition to the termie armor, not part of it. Do you understand the difference?

They are what you get as a result of taking termie armour.
The very fact that they are weapons in of themselves, is what makes them swappable, or do you disagree with that?

rigeld2 wrote:
Reported.

When playing, do you find yourself hiding under the table a lot?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Well you're not conflating a wargear choice with a piece of wargear. That's not what the argument is, the argument is about a single piece of listed wargear being sold off piece by piece.

Certainly, I understand that.

But, the piece of wargear in question (the bike), includes a weapon (an additional one).
On p45, we have the shooting rules "can fire with one weapon for each rider on the bike."

Which weapons?
What is the difference between the bikes weapon(S) and those carried by the rider?

This rule makes no distinction.
Exactly like swapping one weapon for another.

I'm not saying that the tl bolter isn't a weapon. I said that the model has wargear listed as a chaos bike, not a bike and a tl bolter.

I respond to your misrepresentations and condescension that you call posts, would you do me the great and lauded honour of answering this one question.

If a piece of wargear can have parts of it replaced, as you've asserted it can, why can I not swap out the parts of a combi-weapon? Please end this double standard in your argument because this is the reason why you cannot trade parts out of a piece of wargear you need to exchange the entire thing and as you have correctly said a chaos bike isn't a weapon. So the chaos bike is not a valid exchange for an artefact. Your dichotomy is it's a valid choice or the gam

Fuusa, since you asked. The difference between the bikes weapons and those carried by the rider is that those carried by the rider are listed in their wargear list. They are listed as single entries of their own, while the chaos bike is only listed as that. Not a bike and a tl bolter, just a chaos bike, a single piece of wargear. My issue is that there is a falsehood in the arguments that Nos has put forward and refuses to address. Maybe you'd like to clear it up.

Liturgies - I quoted your post where you stated the model doesn't have a weapon but a bike. You have yet to state where in the actual rules this is stated. It must be easy enough for you by now, you've had plenty of time.

Again. You have asserted that you cannot swap part of a piece of war gear. Prove it. Page and paragraph.

Until you can follow the tenets for the first time in three pages, I assume you have conceded the rules argument.

Oh, and that STILL isn't a false dichotomy. You really don't read posts that well, do you, as I explained it in the post above....

Oh, and not refusal. Stop lying, thanks

Nos, the model doesn't have a weapon listed in it's wargear, it has a chaos bike. If you cannot agree to that then you're not following the tennents yourself. Part of the bike is a weapon, part of it is a bike but is it one piece of wargear. I know you don't understand this due to the insults and ad hominum attacks questioning my ability to understand the game but that's fine you do this every thread.

I edited it, I meant double standard of course, which is again what you're failing to address.

You've not answered the question after 3 pages and it's not a refusal to answer it? Please, how am I lying?
Or are you implying that swapping parts of a combi-weapon is legal and not stating it because you know that people will disagree with that?