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.

Easy question, can you take a Techmarine, get him a full-servo harness, and then throw that monstrosity on a bike? 

I know the Pete Haines Unofficial FAQ says it's a no-go, but according to RAW I'm guessing it's legit.

Is it bad form, as in you can do it but it'll piss of just about everyone you play in doing so?

What about a stock Techmarine w/ Artificer Armor and a Bolt Pistol on a Bike?

My guess is that it would piss off players who take the Pete Haines rulings as gospel.

Most other people (like myself) wouldn't care.

You know, until it says somewhere official, who really cares about what Pete Haines said? Never cared for the guy anyway.
A friend of mine uses a tech marine on a bike with a servo harness. It's irritating as all get out, but very expensive and not indestructible. I hardly think it's overpowered. You're paying through the nose for this thing.

Posted by wspatterson on 05/24/2006 11:28 PM
You know, until it says somewhere official, who really cares about what Pete Haines said?

There's a lot of people who care what the GW Design Studio says on their forums, official or not.

Posted By Voodoo Boyz on 05/24/2006 4:52 PM
What about a stock Techmarine w/ Artificer Armor and a Bolt Pistol on a Bike?

As nobody has addressed THIS portion of the question... it's 100% legal, with no Pete Haines ruling to say otherwise... so should draw no complaints.

And a lot of people don't care what Pete Haines says. If they want to make it a rule that you can't have a servo harness and a bike, put out a FAQ.

Well, if you think that that is bad, think of putting a servo harness on a jump pack.

Posted by wspatterson on 05/25/2006 1:12 AM
And a lot of people don't care what Pete Haines says. If they want to make it a rule that you can't have a servo harness and a bike, put out a FAQ.

And there are a lot of people who are going to play it that way because someone from the GW Design Studio says so, even if he is a former member. Ignoring it like you seem to want to do isn't going to change things. Maybe you should care what other people think.

Ghaz....are you Pete Haines?!?! P.S. Maybe if we start abusing the rules and using loopholes whenever we can it might prompt games workshop to come out with a FAQ. My army of 2 HQ Tech Marines on bikes and 3 Regular Tech Marines on bikes attached to troop squads of bikes will make waves

Anyone that wants to claim the posts of some conversation someone once had with a former employee are rules is obviously mistaken. And I'm not in the habbit of paying much mind to the opinion of people that are obviously mistaken.

Agreed!

It is a rather odd position for Ghaz to take, isn't it?

It's odd that I'm saying that you should listen to your opponent instead of just dismissing any of his concerns out of hand? Because that's exactly what wspatterson and some of the others in this thread are saying.  The ruling exists and you are going to have to deal with it.  Ignoring it is not going to make it go away.

Ghaz makes a very good point. 

If getting along with your mates or opponents matters to you than what they think should also matter.

And precedent clearly should be relevant, especially for clearing up unclear rules and addressing situations that are not addressed.

In legal proceedings an appeals court judge writes a commentary in addition to simply ruling yea or nay.  Those commentaries form the basis for case law and deciding future questions.

The Pete Haines comment while not the same as a judicial commentary is still similar in that it provides a precedent/guideline.

I believe very firmly in the idea of RAW but I also think that precedent and similar such arguments should apply for genuinely disputed situations.

As to the bike and harness question specifically:  other bulky equipments like jump packs and terminator armour cannot be combined with a bike, so a designer statement that servo-harnesses are also on the prohibited list does make sense.  In freindly play you should expect some objections.  In tournament play you should expect some objections and the very real possibility that a judge will rule against you.

And that last sentence is why I think that GW needs to keep current FAQ's if they are going to organize and promote tournaments.  (They cannot run their own tournaments while pretending that people only play in their basements and should get along with a d6)

I try not to play idiots. Because of this, I very rarely run into people that think a post of what someone that used to work at GW thinks something should be played in a thread marked "clearly, definitely, undoubted not official" is official.

Now I'm sure I'll eventuall run into someone that is in fact so stupid that he thinks things marked "not official in any way" are official in every way, and in that case if I can't reason with this moron, and a judge won't settle it for me, I'll just D6 it and move on.

And just to be clear, this is not in any way a disputed situation. It's 100% legal. Not 50%, not 99%, but 100%.

Ghaz - sorry, I wasn't very clear...

I agree, you should (for the sake of having an enjoyable game) of course listen to what your opponent says on rules that are "in question".

However, the infamous Pete Haines clarification document is a rather thin reed to balance upon, isn't it?

I'm also with SaimAlendryelII when he writes:

"...I think that GW needs to keep current FAQ's if they are going to organize and promote tournaments. (They cannot run their own tournaments while pretending that people only play in their basements and should get along with a d6)"

Especially as GW has already clearly defined what is and is not "official".

I try not to play idiots either but at tournaments it isn't always a choice and when the idiot is backed up by a redshirt or judge it becomes more problematic.

That being the case under US law (and by extenstion English Law) there is in fact a middle ground between official and unofficial.  This grey area is defined by precedent and commentary.  It can be changed, expanded upon or ignored on a case-by-case by a professional jurist.  But it is real and there is a grey are between official and unofficial.

The particular example that started this thread is (techmarine w/ servo-harness), unfortunately, not a good example of my point as the rule is clear if arguably non-sensical.  Further, the non-official heading for Pete Haines comment pushes this example to the 'guideline for friendly play' category and out of the rule for tourney play.

Alas that doesn't mean that a judge will necessarily agree with me.

This also supports my 'FAQs for Tourney Play' position.

"However, the infamous Pete Haines clarification document is a rather thin reed to balance upon, isn't it?"

Not really. Not at all by a long shot. So stop being a TFDHMF.

- BT

Can someone please get me a glass of unBloodyT?

Anyway, how does the following:

"Please remember these are not official until they get into print or appear in a PDF or other official media! Treat them as useful gaming aids for now folks.
-Tim"

not cause you any difficulty?*

*And while you're explaining that, please don't think I also want a definition of TFDHMF.

Perfectally legal. Unofficial statements mean nothing in almost any situation.

It would also make a pretty cool conversion!

It is clear that this Pete Haines comment is not official but it does form a useful guideline for freindly play.

It also forms a suggestion of which way the wind will blow if (when) it does get FAQed.

And a judge can rule incorrectly so basing a tourney force on a rule you know is likely to cause a problem that may get you ruled against is an approach of questionable wisdom.

* * *

The commentaries provided on the GW forum by the designers, even if unofficial, are useful in that they provide a guideline for unofficial play and (where applicable)  a way to resolve the otherwise intractable rules disputes.

I can't see dismissing them out of hand as good idea.

Well, not only is it 100% legal as of right now, I've got to agree with "Me_Person" - it would make one hell of a conversion!

Integrate the harness into the bike somehow... I might have to give it a go!

The Techmarine is a great Character but like most characters suffers from not being able to get into CC fast enough. With normal characters you can give them a Jump Pack, Bike or Terminator Armour so they can deepstrike. Vehicles are an option but you cannot assault the turn you disembark unless in a Land Raider.

Using Scion of Mars a Techmarine can become an HQ choice and gains a wound for 15 points, give him terminator honours, a bolt pistol, a bike = 161
On the charge he has 2 Servo Arm attacks and 5 Regular attacks. Thats close to the cost of a suped up Librarian.

As for legality we have ruled out that it is technically legal. The only argument is that the intent of the design team forbade the use of Bikes with Servo Harness'. This is dakka and intent means nothing. I have seen people ripped apart on this site for using that word. I don't know anyone that would be offended if I used a Techmarine on a bike and if that is the case then I guess we wouldn't play. He dies just as easily to power weapons and power fists as any other character on a bike and his weapon skill is only 4. Bringing this to a tourny might be a gamble but as for day to day gaming why not. If GW had or has a problem with it they might have taken what Pete Haines had to say as officially or put out a god damned FAQ. By the time they put out a V4 FAQ , V5 will be upon us. Ever get the feeling they cruise these sites looking at all the unrest they have wrought on all of us. How we turn on each other whenever there is a rule in question. We are ants to them, these rules debates are their magnifying glasses.

Personally, I generally go by the assumption that the EoT FAQ's are in force when I'm playing. I would expect the other person to say that they don't want to play by them, as using them is the more common situation than not.

And I would probably kill the sports score of anyone that insists on using them, especially if they're not using them because they want to exploit rules loopholes.

I can't see dismissing them out of hand as good idea

I can't see how giving them any mind is a good idea.

What purpose does it serve to take something that is clearly legal in the rules and then say it is unofficially illegal? I can't see what the upside to that is, unless you really like your games filled with needless arguments.

I might consider his statements interesting if the rules were ambiguous on the point. They are not. Not even slightly.

Dang mauleed that was profound for once in yer life.

Heh!

- BT

The fact that it took me to point that out for you to understand, and that you think it's profound firmly root you in the "people Ed tries not to play" camp.

be relistick does a teck marine in full servo harness, look like he could use a jump pack?? in any of the fluff or books have you read of this?? No i thought not. just cos its not official yet does not meen we should not use common sence, but then this arguement swings both ways with people only listening to official stuff not the contex or spirit of the game. i personnally would not be bothered either way as somebody earlier said its very expensive and does not make that much of a difference, i would love to play the army with 2 teck marine HQs and 3 teck leaders. it sounds like a cool army. if poeple do it as they like the sound of that sort of army i believe thats in the spirirt of the hobby, you should have some flex in not having to 100% stick to the official line. i have a converted wulfan lord for my 13th company that uses a demon princes stats that i use with opponents permision. it does not swing the game my way but it fun to play with a huge wulfen conversion.

in all fairness it aint illegal yet to have a teck marine in full servo harness and bike so people will say while you can use it if you must

Why can't a Techmarine have jump pack techonology built into his servo-harness?

If anyone should have the special-tech to pull this off it would be a (semi) follower of the machine god.


That's why "fluff" and "common sense" only help in rules discussions when both players agree on a subject. Otherwise, it ain't so common.

Posted By yakface on 06/02/2006 8:07 PM

Why can't a Techmarine have jump pack techonology built into his servo-harness?

have you seen the size of a full servo harness, it huge.  it would take atleast 3 standard jump packs to be able to carry the thing, 1 for the tec marine and 2 for his full harness.  in all the fluff and books you read a single jump pack can carry one marine,  it cant carry 2.  so the teckmarine would have to build a special one with x3 power. although teck marines dont invent they are trained to restore and maintain, not invent.  tecknology is not movig ahead very fast for the imperium.  if he hung out with the tau maybe they could teach them how to do it.  they have alot of jump tecknology.

 

As for the bike, have you ridded one??  silly things like that would seriously put you off balance.  i could agree with one serco arm like the old tech marines used to have but not a full harness,, Did i say how huge and heavy that thing would be??

Did someone just say "be realistic" as their rules argument about our space elves with daemonic lasers game?

The rules say what they say. If this confuses you, either trust in those that aren't confused to explain it to you, or switch to a game with less confusing rules, like connect 4.

The rules are an abstraction. And trying to argue the realism of abstractions, particularly ones so obviously not grounded in reality, makes you seem both foolish and even nerdier than the rest of us.