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.

The issue I have is the fact that interpretation removes the ability to fire that weapon too....

No it doesn't. Can you shoot a combi-weapon? You've decided that for something to be part of the chaos warbike means that the lord doesn't own it. That's great but it's not in the rules. What the rules say is that the chaos bike is a bike and tl bolter. What the lord doesn't have is a tl bolter in isolation, it is part of the chaos bike.

If that narrow and reductionist interpretation that you're postulating was true then 40k players have been cheating for years.

Rules exist to give you permission for a model to fire that 'inbuilt' weapon, they do not exist for the Bike.
Unless the Twin-Linked Bolter belongs to the Lord, then there is no issue but it does also gain the ability to swap it.

Like I said:
We need a rule stating you can not swap part of a piece of war-gear, it clearly is not intended but permission does seem to exist from a pure Rule as Written perspective.

No you need a rule to allow substitution of part of a piece of wargear. We have permission to exchange weapons, not parts of wargear. Without that permission you cannot exchange part of a piece of wargear. That's how permissive rulesets work.

That the lord possesses a chaos bike and it's constituent parts gives him the ability to gain the rules of those parts. What has yet to be shown is an ability to exchange those parts. It's why nobody has answered the combi-weapon question, as that is another piece of wargear that has two parts to it. If the substitution was allowed then you'd be able to do as I suggested earlier.

As Nos pointed out;
You have to prove to us that the Twin-Linked Boltgun belongs to the bike, and not the model as a whole, or else it a weapon that triggers the swap in the same way it triggers firing - by being a weapon on the model.

Eh... no I don't. Just because he says that doesn't make it true, introducing false barriers is a great tactic in debates but not as good as refusing to answer a question.

The chaos bike includes a gun, you could see that if you look at the codex. It's not a weapon on the model, it's part of the chaos bike on the model.

And that gun belongs to the model, or else it can not be used by the model.

The gun belongs to the model in a round about way. What you are missing is that the gun is part of the chaos bike which is owned by the lord.

How is this hard?
a and b are parts of c owned by d.
a is bolter,
b is bike
c is chaos bike
d is lord

Permission exists to exchange any weapon the model owns with another. You have created this 'pseudo-belonging to the model' state and we would like to see some rules to support this stance. We would also need to see specific exceptions to the general permission that states this pseudo-ownership can not meet the requirements of 'Any weapon.' Until you show me those rules then permission exists for the Lord to exchange the Twin-Linked Bolter, regardless that everyone involved in this debate have pointed out this is probably not an intended consequence of the Rules as Written.

Ok, if that's true are you going to state finally that combi-weapons and mechatendrils can have their constituent parts shopped off for other weapons and artefacts?
You cannot have it both ways, either a part of a weapon or piece of wargear is a valid choice or it's not. Permission doesn't exist to exchange parts of wargear and nothing has been put forward yet to say it does other than repeating "any weapon".

That is still a debatable gray zone as far as I am concerned.

The reason I have the problem with the Bike is the fact it can not use the weapon if you are correct that 'fitted' means that it isn't belonging to the Lord for all rule purposes. The reason why those two particular items are still debatable is because the wording used in these is different and additional rules exist to get around the problem you have created: Even if those 'included weapons' do not belonging to the model for all rule purposes, they still can be used because of specific permission to fire them instead/in conjugation with of the models normal weapons.

We can ask you all day for rules to show that 'fitted' doesn't belong to the model
You can ask as all day for rules to show that 'fitted' belongs to the model
I don't think we are going to get anywhere with that line of questioning, so I am trying to find interpretations that do not render the weapon useless.

Fitted mean's it's part of the bike, in the same way a flamer is part of mechatendrils, that a bolter is part of a combi-weapon etc etc.

The issue isn't ownership it's still just the ability to modify wargear without permission to sell off the parts.

JinxDragon wrote:
And that gun belongs to the model, or else it can not be used by the model.

That's simply not true. At all.

Rigeld2,
Found a rule that states the Rider of a Bike can use a weapon that the model does not possess?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Liturgies of Blood,
The rule being evoked to make the swap says the model can change any weapon.... how is that not permission to exchange the Twin-Linked bolter that the model possess?

Is anyone going to answer the question on combi-weapons and mechatendrils then?
It's the same reason, because they are not a weapon. They are wargear that contains specified weapons, weapons you have no permission to change.

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,
Found a rule that states the Rider of a Bike can use a weapon that the model does not possess?

Not that it's relevant, but a model can fire any weapon it has.
Has != possesses. Not in every way anyway.

The rule being evoked to make the swap says the model can change any weapon.... how is that not permission to exchange the Twin-Linked bolter that the model possess?

Because The Lord doesn't possess the bolter - the bike does. The Lord possesses the bike.
Unless the bike is somehow firing it...

So the model has a weapon that it both posses and doesn't possess, depending on which rule is being reviewed?

The model has a weapon that is part of a piece of wargear.... the weapon is not a "free" weapon that exists in and of itself, it is fundamentally part of that piece of wargear.

We are going around in circles, with no resolution, on a subject that has been debated far longer throughout the Internet as a whole. Nos has proven his point quite well as far as I am concerned, and I was someone who originally didn't believe the weapon should be swapped. The questions I have over your interpretation exist because strange things happen if the weapon doesn't belong to the model, and if it does belong to the model then it meets the requirement for swapping. The only resolution to those strange things is a 'pseudo-on the model' state that allows the Lord to possess it for the sake of firing but not for the sake of any other rule....

Personally:
I like the stance that your replacing the bike entirely when you make this choice, they are linked after all.

Just wanted to answer the question on mechatentrils and combi-weapons, since liturgies insists.

Combi-weapon: No. The weapon is a combi weapon. Once per game it fires a special shot. It is not a bolter and a meltagun. It is a combi-weapon. A combi-weapon is allowed one time to shoot with the profile and rules of a different weapon. So if you wanted to swap a combi-weapon for something, sure do so. But the combi-weapon IS the weapon.

Mechatendrils: Absolutely, sure. Swap your flamer for a burning brand, or your plasma pistol for an axe of blind fury. Buying mechatendrils gives you those two weapons. Swap them all day long and pay the points for it.

"OMG you're saying that the warpsmith has extra weapons to use for swapping that other characters don't?" Yeah. I am. Big deal.


Also I like the very flawed "well these programs say I can't, so I can't". Those same programs have disallowed characters from buying wargear, shoota boys from buying their nobz power claws, etc. etc. over the years. They are a convenience, they are not rules. I had a good laugh over this .

 liturgies of blood wrote:
The model has a weapon that is part of a piece of wargear.... the weapon is not a "free" weapon that exists in and of itself, it is fundamentally part of that piece of wargear.

You have yet to cite a rule that makes that distinction important. Also, no one disputes your point, so literally your point is trolling - it has no relevance to the thread, and you cannot point to a rule showing its relevance.

I can point to the weapon on the model. Claiming the weapon isn't part of the model is asinine.

Oh, and it isn't being afraid, just wanting you to provide some rules support. You haven't, as yet.

Just to make you happy you can swap mecha weapons, as they are weapons. I don't give a flying gak if that is unpopular, as you seem to care about it your bias is showing something awful here.

Still no rules support, just a made up requirement that being able to replace a weapon on the model - which the bolter indisputably IS - somehow isn't sufficient. You can't, of course, provide a rule to back up this assertion, just continuing snide remarks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,
Found a rule that states the Rider of a Bike can use a weapon that the model does not possess?

Not that it's relevant, but a model can fire any weapon it has.
Has != possesses. Not in every way anyway.

The rule being evoked to make the swap says the model can change any weapon.... how is that not permission to exchange the Twin-Linked bolter that the model possess?

Because The Lord doesn't possess the bolter - the bike does. The Lord possesses the bike.
Unless the bike is somehow firing it...

Good job possession isn't important, just that the model has the weapon on it. When I point to the model on the table, will you claim there is no tl bolter on that model? Or will you claim the bike has the weapon, despite the bike also being part of the model, and that has importance because...wait, have you shown that importance?

Unusually for you you haven't actually backed your contention - that to swap a part of war gear requires specific permission - with any actual rules as yet. Just made the extraordinary claim that a model of "chaos lord on bike" doesn't have a tl bolter.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,
Found a rule that states the Rider of a Bike can use a weapon that the model does not possess?

Not that it's relevant, but a model can fire any weapon it has.
Has != possesses. Not in every way anyway.

The rule being evoked to make the swap says the model can change any weapon.... how is that not permission to exchange the Twin-Linked bolter that the model possess?

Because The Lord doesn't possess the bolter - the bike does. The Lord possesses the bike.
Unless the bike is somehow firing it...

Good job possession isn't important, just that the model has the weapon on it. When I point to the model on the table, will you claim there is no tl bolter on that model? Or will you claim the bike has the weapon, despite the bike also being part of the model, and that has importance because...wait, have you shown that importance?

Unusually for you you haven't actually backed your contention - that to swap a part of war gear requires specific permission - with any actual rules as yet. Just made the extraordinary claim that a model of "chaos lord on bike" doesn't have a tl bolter.

Found somewhere on page 3 that actually supports your statements yet?
I asked before and you never corrected me. You've cited it as support, I don't see anything on that page that actually supports your statements.
Please clarify. I'd hate to think you were citing an irrelevant page knowingly.

Spellbound, iirc the rules for combi-weapons says they are made of two weapons (Bolter and a single shot weapon). Therefore, it would be two weapons.

 Spellbound wrote:
Combi-weapon: No. The weapon is a combi weapon. Once per game it fires a special shot. It is not a bolter and a meltagun. It is a combi-weapon. A combi-weapon is allowed one time to shoot with the profile and rules of a different weapon. So if you wanted to swap a combi-weapon for something, sure do so. But the combi-weapon IS the weapon.

p56 wrote:A model armed with a combi-weapon can choose to fire either the primary boltgun, or the secondary weapon.

It's actually two weapons. Yay rules!

Stupid phone just buggered up a long post... cba to type it all again.

Short version... Went to GW today, spoke to the resident rules guru, he said you cannot swap the bikes built in weapon as it is set wargear. Anyone he found to say otherwise, simple, don't play the game with them as long as they are trying to change it.

Reptile, while that's great for your local store. GW staff are unfortunately not the people that wrote the rules and as such it's an appeal to authority.

Spellbound since you had the combi-weapon rules pointed out to you in page 1 of this mess, why is a combi-weapon different to mechatendrils?
Why is this one sacred cow that cannot be cut up for the parts when everything else is fair game?

I'm well aware they are not the final say regarding rules. What I was getting at was, even the members of staff agree with you and I, after hearing both sides of the debate.

What I'm saying is that it's a logical fallacy to use their opinion in a debate as anyone can say they talked to GW staff or have been to 3 400+ player tournaments and everyone agreed with them etc.

Fair point.

I'm just gonna sit back now and wait for the next few posts that make this thread make another full circle.

Rigeld - page 3 tells us what a single model is made up of. Are you arguing that the bolter is not part of the model? Found a rule for that assertion, or one for your assertion that breaking up a piece of war gear on a model needs specific permission?

Your silence on these matters is puzzling, as you are aware of the tenets which state you have to back up your argument. So please, Do so.