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.

Nosferatu1001,

Do you believe part of a combi-weapon can be swapped for another weapon?
Do you believe part of a servo-harness can be swapped for other weapons?
Do you believe part of a bike can be swapped for other weapons?

Those are the questions that keep getting asked and I am curious to what you think on all of them and why they are different.

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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

No, you call people liars for disagreeing with you.

No, I call people liars when they lie. There's a difference.

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?

Incorrect. You do not "take termie armor". You trade all wargear for termie armor, a power weapon, and a combi-bolter. It's all one deal, not "Get one thing and some other stuff as a consequence."

rigeld2 wrote:
Reported.

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

No. I just don't enjoy being insulted for literally no reason. I'm sorry you don't like me personally but I'm not sure why you're bothering to bring that into rules discussions that were polite.
See - when playing I BS with my opponent according to the rules of the place we're playing.
According to the rules of the place we're talking right now, what you did was worth reporting. I'm not going to apologize for it.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
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.

Ok, then, but doesn't it follow, that whatever a model is equipped with, is part of its (the models) wargear?
Is it not also true, that some wargear items are weapons, where others are not?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
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?

From my pov, the wargear (bike) exists as something that changes your unit type and gives an additional weapon.
The permissions that exist, revolve around swapping weapons, not "elements" (for want of a better term) of wargear.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
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.

Isn't the bike, just an extension of the models wargear list?
Or, is a weapon (specifically a weapon) granted by wargear, not a weapon???

If I had a special rule that can render any particular weapon (or wargear) that a model has equipped, inoperative, would the bikes weapons be immune?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
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.

In all honesty, I don't particularly like publicly agreeing with nos, I would rather stay silent.

The wargear list says chaos bike, you don't have a list of all of the parts of wargear. So you have a combi-melta not a bolter and 1 shot melta (this is why I keep bringing up combi-weapons, they are another 2 part piece of wargear). In this case it's a chaos bike, not a bike and tl bolter. Some wargear items are weapons, I don't disagree at all with that. It's just that they are listed in the wargear list. A weapon listed as part of a piece of wargear is a weapon. It is not a weapon in and of itself and you have no permission to exchange parts of a piece of wargear. If that was the case I'd take a combi-bolter on my lord exchanging his ccw and swap the bolter part for the brand and the melta part for the axe of blind fury, stick a juggernaught on him and go nuts with crazy numbers of attacks + 1 for 2 ccw.

A chaos bike isn't an extension of the list it is an item in the list as per the chaos codex's treatment of chaos bikers.

 liturgies of blood] wrote:
Nos, the model doesn't have a weapon listed in it's wargear, it has a chaos bike.

And the model is the sum total of its parts, and just because the whole set of weapons et al isnt listed in one place, it doesnt mean that weapon ceases to exist as part of the model. Found a quote to prove your assertions yet?

liturgies of blood wrote:If you cannot agree to that then you're not following the tennents yourself.

"tenets"

liturgies of blood wrote:Part of the bike is a weapon, part of it is a bike but is it one piece of wargear.

....and all of it is part of the same model. The same model that has permission, via the chaos codex, to replace a weapon.
Again, you KEEP ON bringing up this "one piece of wargear" concept, as if it has relevance - but have failed to actually give a rule showing its relevance. Any chance you can find a quote to prove your assertion yet?

liturgies of blood wrote: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.

Reported. I fully understand the point, as evidenced throughout this thread, so please avoid lying and attacks.

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

No, I havent answered your query. Because, despite 3 pages of requests, you havent found a single rule to back up your assertions. You HAVE consistently insulted me.

liturgies of blood wrote:You've not answered the question after 3 pages and it's not a refusal to answer it? Please, how am I lying?

Because it isnt a refusal to answer, with no conditions. it is a conditional delay of answering, until you can find a single rule - somewhere! - to back up your asserttions. I have stated WHEN I will answer your corrolary, whcih is AFTER you manage to answer mine AND provide some actual rules.

Something startlingly absent from your posts so far this thread.

LIke, the chaos lord model doesnt have a TL-bolter weapon. Found something to prove that yet? Because Ive proven otherwise.

liturgies of blood wrote: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?

I'm not implying a damn thing, again dont strawman.

I dont expect you to provide some rules, as 3 pages have proven your inability in that regard. Just more insults.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jinx - I;m not ignoring you, just trying to get Liturgies pinned down to actually providing a straight answer, backed up by rules. Rather than muddy the thread further, I will answer on the condition Liturgies is able to find rules support for their assertion that the Model does not have a Tl-Boltgun weapon.

At least, I think that is their assertion. The inconsistency in argument makes it diffiuclt to tell at times.

Oh I didn't realise I was holding you up. Please feel free to go first since I asked first. I didn't point out your misspellings Nos, grown up. I'm sorry if you feel insulted but everyone feels insulted when you speak to them.
The relevance of the one piece of wargear is tied directly to the questions you refuse to answer. Delaying until you feel fit to deign to respond is refusal to answer a question.
So part of a combi-weapon is a valid exchange? That is the natural extension of your argument as the model is the sum of it's parts not the list of wargear, rules and the physical item itself.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Oh I didn't realise I was holding you up. Please feel free to go first since I asked first. I didn't point out your misspellings Nos, grown up. I'm sorry if you feel insulted but everyone feels insulted when you speak to them.
The relevance of the one piece of wargear is tied directly to the questions you refuse to answer. Delaying until you feel fit to deign to respond is refusal to answer a question.
So part of a combi-weapon is a valid exchange? That is the natural extension of your argument as the model is the sum of it's parts not the list of wargear, rules and the physical item itself.

Concession accepted

3 pages and you cannot show a single rule to support your position therefore your position remains baseless.

Youre done here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 liturgies of blood] wrote:
Nos, the model doesn't have a weapon listed in it's wargear, it has a chaos bike.

And the model is the sum total of its parts, and just because the whole set of weapons et al isnt listed in one place, it doesnt mean that weapon ceases to exist as part of the model. Found a quote to prove your assertions yet?

Page 66 C:CSM. Chaos Bikes are defined as having a single twin linked boltgun.
Find permission to alter the Chaos Bike wargear.

liturgies of blood wrote:Part of the bike is a weapon, part of it is a bike but is it one piece of wargear.

....and all of it is part of the same model.

Irrelevant statement.

The same model that has permission, via the chaos codex, to replace a weapon.

Replacing a weapon is not the same as altering a piece of wargear. You're changing the Chaos Bike. Cite permission.

LIke, the chaos lord model doesnt have a TL-bolter weapon. Found something to prove that yet? Because Ive proven otherwise.

No - your statement is absolutely false. The Lord has a Chaos Bike. The rules for Bikes on page 45 of the BRB allow the rider to fire that TL-Boltgun.
That does not make it the Chaos Lord's weapon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
3 pages and you cannot show a single rule to support your position[/b] therefore your position remains baseless.

Youre done here.

That would be "You're".
I've shown you quotations from the codex, the one you've misquoted, shown quotes from the rulebook to show the relevance of combi-bolters to this debate. I've shown that much and all you have done is state that I am wrong. Rigeld has asked a few questions of you, jinx dragon the same, would you deign to answer them if you are not too busy?

robzidious wrote:
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.

As a former member of the team that produced the 40K files for Army Builder I can tell you with 100% certainty that they have no special insight into the rules and we tended to disallow certain questionable options if there was a doubt as to if they were legal. Bringing AB or BattleScribe into a rules discussion is pointless.

rigeld2] wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 liturgies of blood] wrote:
Nos, the model doesn't have a weapon listed in it's wargear, it has a chaos bike.

And the model is the sum total of its parts, and just because the whole set of weapons et al isnt listed in one place, it doesnt mean that weapon ceases to exist as part of the model. Found a quote to prove your assertions yet?

Page 66 C:CSM. Chaos Bikes are defined as having a single twin linked boltgun.
Find permission to alter the Chaos Bike wargear.

Already given. You are given permission to alter the model. The bike is part of the model. Can you address that point? Directly.

rigeld2 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Part of the bike is a weapon, part of it is a bike but is it one piece of wargear.

....and all of it is part of the same model.

Irrelevant statement.

Not when you have permission to alter the models weapons. Or would you like to clarify your "irrelevant statement" comment as to why the permission does not apply to this specific part of the model?

rigeld2 wrote:

The same model that has permission, via the chaos codex, to replace a weapon.

Replacing a weapon is not the same as altering a piece of wargear. You're changing the Chaos Bike. Cite permission.

Done. Please explain why altering a piece of wargear is important. RUles please.

rigeld2 wrote:

LIke, the chaos lord model doesnt have a TL-bolter weapon. Found something to prove that yet? Because Ive proven otherwise.

No - your statement is absolutely false. The Lord has a Chaos Bike. The rules for Bikes on page 45 of the BRB allow the rider to fire that TL-Boltgun.
That does not make it the Chaos Lord's weapon.

Sigh. No, that statement is not absolutely false. Note how you change the wording to something different?

The model absolutely has a twinlinked boltgun. Do you agree or disagree?

The model has a chaos bike.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
3 pages and you cannot show a single rule to support your position[/b] therefore your position remains baseless.

Youre done here.

That would be "You're".
I've shown you quotations from the codex, the one you've misquoted, shown quotes from the rulebook to show the relevance of combi-bolters to this debate. I've shown that much and all you have done is state that I am wrong. Rigeld has asked a few questions of you, jinx dragon the same, would you deign to answer them if you are not too busy?

You have shown quotations that prove you incorrect.
My misquote a) wasnt a quote and b) wasnt a relvant misquote - exchaning any weapon and one weapon have the same function in this context.

I have not said the are irrelevant, I have said they are a corrolary. As in, I am trying to address the ------>topic<------, to help you understand your error. Its simpler to argue one key point, as when you find out your error, you will find the answer to your question.

So - can you find a rule restricting me from exchanging a weapon on the model as per the chaos codex? Anything? Something relevant would be good for the first time this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
The model has a chaos bike.

Which has a twinlinked bolter. So the model has a twinlinked bolter.

Do you agree or disagree?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2] wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 liturgies of blood] wrote:
Nos, the model doesn't have a weapon listed in it's wargear, it has a chaos bike.

And the model is the sum total of its parts, and just because the whole set of weapons et al isnt listed in one place, it doesnt mean that weapon ceases to exist as part of the model. Found a quote to prove your assertions yet?

Page 66 C:CSM. Chaos Bikes are defined as having a single twin linked boltgun.
Find permission to alter the Chaos Bike wargear.

Already given. You are given permission to alter the model. The bike is part of the model. Can you address that point? Directly.

The bike is part of the model, but the bolter is not - it's part of the bike. You're making a leap you've not supported with rules.

Not when you have permission to alter the models weapons. Or would you like to clarify your "irrelevant statement" comment as to why the permission does not apply to this specific part of the model?

Because the bike is wargear for the model.
The bolter is not.

Done. Please explain why altering a piece of wargear is important. RUles please.

Because you're given permission to replace a weapon. You're not given permission to alter wargear.

The model absolutely has a twinlinked boltgun. Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree. The model (the Chaos Lord) has a Chaos Bike.
The Bike has a TL Boltgun and the BRB gives the rider permission to fire it.
That does not mean that the Chaos Lord has a TL Boltgun.

So you're going to refuse to answer them too?
It's not too much to ask you to clarify your position with some examples and where you draw the line. We've been good enough to explain what we believe.

Nos,
As I write this I am starting to slide further onto your side.

My biggest concern is the fact the sentence stating that the Rider can fire the inbuilt weapons is located within the 'fluff' of the entry, and not even in every piece of fluff talking about Bikes but only a handful of Codex's. Of course, if I have overlooked where this is repeated in the Rule portion of the entry please direct me to the correct page and paragraph, but all of those seem to be copy and paste jobs of each other. So unless people are going to start arguing that the Bike classifies as a Melee weapon, granting a +1 if they even have a single listed melee weapon, then they know they are arguing fluff as if it is rules. After all, that same section in the Space Marine Codex states that the Bike is a formidable weapon when charging into combat so it must be a Melee weapon!

Just like the Hammer of Wrath Special Rule is the abstract representation of the bike being a weapon when driving into Melee, firing a weapon through normal rules represents the fact the Bikes are a stable weapon platform. They simply have permission to move a greater distance within the Movement Phase without suffering any penalty to the To Hit Rolls during the shooting phase. The only way to make a normal attack with this in mind would be if the model in question was physically in possession of the weapon for the very same reason we demand every other model possess the weapon they are firing normally. The bike has to be part of the model for all purposes or it's inbuilt weapon has zero permission to fire because it is part of a different model and the only sentence that comes close to granting permission is fluff clearly.

To be fair, on the matter of Servo Harnesses, they would be even harder to deny:
They outright state that they give the bearer X, Y and Z and if those bearers have permission to swap any weapon, like the Master of the Forge does, then....
Combi-Weapons are still a little more gray right now but even that is starting to look doubtful....

So yeah, maybe we need a rule stating parts of war-gear can not be swapped out because this is clearly not intended!

So Jinx is it a case of I can switch the mechatendril weapons on my warpsmith for artefacts?

The part about the rider firing weapons on his bike is in the brb not in some fluff section. You don't need a rule to say you cannot do something if there was no permission to do so in the beginning, without the permission to swap out parts of wargear it doesn't matter that no rules exist as you have nothing to justify the action.

JinxDragon wrote:
My biggest concern is the fact the sentence stating that the Rider can fire the inbuilt weapons is located within the 'fluff' of the entry, and not even in every piece of fluff talking about Bikes but only a handful of Codex's. Unless people are going to start arguing that the Bike classifies as a Melee weapon, granting a +1 if they even have a single listed melee weapon, then they know they are arguing fluff as if it is rules. After all, that same section in the Space Marine Codex states that the Bike is a formidable weapon when charging into combat so it must be a Melee weapon!

Wow - a failure to read and a strawman all in one!

p45 wrote:Each Bike or Jetbike in a unit can fire with one weapon for each rider on the Bike.

Since the Lord is now a Bike, it can fire with one weapon per rider.
There's one rider.
Fire a weapon.

rigeld2] wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2] wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 liturgies of blood] wrote:
Nos, the model doesn't have a weapon listed in it's wargear, it has a chaos bike.

And the model is the sum total of its parts, and just because the whole set of weapons et al isnt listed in one place, it doesnt mean that weapon ceases to exist as part of the model. Found a quote to prove your assertions yet?

Page 66 C:CSM. Chaos Bikes are defined as having a single twin linked boltgun.
Find permission to alter the Chaos Bike wargear.

Already given. You are given permission to alter the model. The bike is part of the model. Can you address that point? Directly.

The bike is part of the model, but the bolter is not - it's part of the bike. You're making a leap you've not supported with rules.

Apart from page 3, which describes exactly what a model is. I have consistenly supported that the model, which includes by definition all wargear that model has, has a tl-boltgun weapon. You have asserted it does not, yet have failed to cite an actual rule stating that page 3 does not apply here.

You are, in essence, stating the bike is not partr of the model.

rigeld2 wrote:

Not when you have permission to alter the models weapons. Or would you like to clarify your "irrelevant statement" comment as to why the permission does not apply to this specific part of the model?

Because the bike is wargear for the model.
The bolter is not.

And the bike is part of the model, meaning the tl-bolter, which is part of the bike, is part of the model. This has been proven. You are simply asserting the same thing Liturgies, and with - unusually for you - the same lack of proof.

rigeld2 wrote:

Done. Please explain why altering a piece of wargear is important. RUles please.

Because you're given permission to replace a weapon. You're not given permission to alter wargear.

I am given permission to replace the weapon on the model, and I have proven the weapon is on the model. I do not need specific permission to replace a weapon that is part of wargear, as long as that wargear is on the model I am talking about.

Cf to deployment rules, where you can deploy anywhere in your deployment zone (minus exceptions) - can you deploy within woods within your deployment zone?

rigeld2 wrote:

The model absolutely has a twinlinked boltgun. Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree. The model (the Chaos Lord) has a Chaos Bike.

Why is the model "just " the lord? The "model" is the complete totality of parts - bike, wargear and all. Page 3, again.

rigeld2 wrote:The Bike has a TL Boltgun and the BRB gives the rider permission to fire it.
That does not mean that the Chaos Lord has a TL Boltgun.

I never said the Lord has a TL Boltgun. I said - and I am being very precise here - that the Chaos Lord model has the TL Boltgun. Because it does, as I have proven it does

Again: you are in essence arguing that the bike is not part of the model. This is what liturgies argued, and has refused to back up with rules. You have also - unusually - failed to cite any rules.

Liturgies - cite the rules required, or quit trolling.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cf to deployment rules, where you can deploy anywhere in your deployment zone (minus exceptions) - can you deploy within woods within your deployment zone?

Irrelevant comparison.

Again: you are in essence arguing that the bike is not part of the model. This is what liturgies argued, and has refused to back up with rules. You have also - unusually - failed to cite any rules.

Page 3 shows that a model has a profile of characteristics.
Each model also has a unit type.
It may also have shooting or Melee weapons, or an additional save.

I don't see where, on page 3, your assertion is supported.

Liturgies of Blood;
Direct me to the right page please, as it is not the Unit Type I am looking in?

For all I see within the Unit Type Entry for Bikes is permission for multiple riders to fire multiple weapons granted to certain bikes, but not all. Nothing within this section states that the weapons being discussed are the 'fitted weapons' of the bike, that term seems found only under the Special Wargear section of the codex's. Without this section Bikes would be restricted to one weapon, seeing they would have just as much as much permission to fire two as standard infantry. Therefore we still require to meet the normal limitations on which weapon we have permission to fire, and one the requirements we hold people to is that the weapon in question is either: A) part of the war-gear of the model firing it or B) granted permission to fire via a secondary Rule.

So where is that precise Rule stating a rider can fire a weapon fitted to the bike, given that the argument against swapping it out is the fact the Lord does not possess it, if it is not in the Unit Type Section?
Because, if they where talking about fitted weapons in this section, then using an Attack Bike as an example is very odd:
Attack bikes are not pieces of war-gear with fitted weapons, but a model given it's own wargear listing....

Mechatendrils themselves are still a gray area for the same reason as Combi-weapons, because they do not outright state they give the bearer any weapons unlike Servo-Harnesses. They still function because they do give the bearer permission to fire the 'inbuilt' weapons independently of normal Firing rules, for whatever that is worth. Therefore the original argument put forth against Bikes switching the 'fitted weapons' still can apply to these weapons because it doesn't break anything further. The conclusion I come to when applying it to Bikes purchased as wargear, for when it is not purchased as an upgrade it isn't listed as 'bike' in the wargear list after all, is that the Rider has no permission to fire the fitted weapon under that argument so it can not be correctly applied to bikes.

Rigeld - so you claim is that the bike is not part of the model?

Yes or no

Oh, and it isnt irrlevant. You are requiring specific permission o replace part of the wargear a model possesses, despite the model having permission to replace that weapon. It is analogous to requiring specific permission to deploy within woods, despite being told you can deploy anywhere within your deployment zone (minus excpetions)

Stating "irrelevant", without an explanation as to why, is rude. Please desist.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - so you claim is that the bike is not part of the model?

The bike is.
The bolter is not - it's part of the bike but you're applying a transitive property without supporting it with a rule.
Nothing on page 3 supports it.

Cool, so when measuring range to the model when firing the bolter, you dont measure to the model?
Because the bolter isnt part of the model, and you measure range from the model. So is the bolter its own model? Or just a non-entity "thing"?

DO you have any rules support for this assertion?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cool, so when measuring range to the model when firing the bolter, you dont measure to the model?
Because the bolter isnt part of the model, and you measure range from the model. So is the bolter its own model? Or just a non-entity "thing"?

You measure range from the firing model. If you quote rules correctly things magically work out.
What model is firing? The Bike.

Yet it is firing a weapon it doesn't possess and doesn't have precise permission to fire as if it was his own weapon.

Jinx if you read the codex entry for chaos bikes you'd see why the bike rules apply to the chaos bike and why the bolter is part of the bike.

The rules for firing the weapon are in the shooting rules. I'm not trying to say the the model doesn't have a weapon. I'm saying that the weapon is part of a piece of wargear the the model has. It's a subtle but important difference that changes the nature of how the "weapon" is dealt with.

I'm loving how after 4 pages people are still afraid to answer the question on combi-weapons. It must be very difficult.

Liturgies of Blood,
This is the problem with your statement:
no such rule exists

The rule you keep referring to mentions nothing about the rider being able to fire a weapon fitted to the Bike. It simply states that the Bike, as in the model with this unit type, has permission to fire more then one weapon if there is more then one Rider present on the physical model. It is clearly designed because they intended for certain models to have permision to fire more then one weapon, while other Bikes would still be limited to just one. This is why the example they provide is the Attack Bike: Attack Bike models do not posses a piece of war-gear called 'attack bike' that comes with a Heavy Bolter. They are simply 'Attack Bikes' and are granted the Heavy Bolter in the same way any other model would be... it is stated on their wargear list as Heavy Bolter (Attack Bike).

Without specific permission stating this firing process can include a weapon that the model doesn't 'possess,' because it is built into the wargear and somehow not in his possession, then it can not fire it at all....

You know what? next time i see someone who try to pull this off i say" okay you exchange the TL Bolter for the artefact, but then your Lord is on foot, why?, well you exchanged the Bolter, the bolter is part of the bike, so you exchanged the whole thing" that would be fun to watch.

Jinx, I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth.
The lord has the same wargear as a chaos biker in this regard. A chaos bike which includes a weapon. Stop misrepresenting this fact.

The lord doesn't have a weapon to trade because the weapon is part of the chaos bike and there is nothing to allow the substitution of part of a piece of wargear. Would you like to answer the important question in this debate now?