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.

So I won't to get a clarification , but can a Mek with a shock attack gun get a bike as well?

I am curious as to what would prevent a Big Mek from selecting these two independent options on their Army List, as I can't find any Rule interaction causing a problem here in a quick glance....

What you need to do when a new codex comes out is forget everything you know about an army as that will trick you into assuming certain things even though they have changed.

So while the last ork codex did not permit a Big Mek on a bike to take a SAG there is nothing that prevents him from doing so in the 7th edition codex.

Ok... So a Mek can have both ? That's what I see

Why would you do such a thing?

Not like you would want to move him as he would never be able to fire.

Bikes are not relentless due to the fact that they are not vehicles.

Or am I missing something here?

Yes, youre missing that bikes ARE relentless.

The BIKE is relentless.

This is not conferred to the rider as per the rules.

The bike can fire one weapon PER rider as noted in the BRB.


Edit**

The BRB even discerns between the two in the "Armoured Steed" section under bikes as well as the "Special Rules" section.

Rider vs Bike.

If you want to follow what is written so strictly and word for word, you'll see that a bike has no BS, WS, I, A, etc. so it may not even shoot.

A bike is a piece of wargear, last time I checked the model with a piece of wargear gains all of its rules.

 Ond Angel wrote:
If you want to follow what is written so strictly and word for word, you'll see that a bike has no BS, WS, I, A, etc. so it may not even shoot.

A bike is a piece of wargear, last time I checked the model with a piece of wargear gains all of its rules.

Where is that rule? ^

Wargear can be used by people with stats.

See: Artillery.

The special rules for THAT PIECE OF WARGEAR do not somehow magically float onto a DIFFERENT PIECE OF WARGEAR (Shokk Attack Gun) as I read it.

 Awfeel wrote:

 Ond Angel wrote:
If you want to follow what is written so strictly and word for word, you'll see that a bike has no BS, WS, I, A, etc. so it may not even shoot.

A bike is a piece of wargear, last time I checked the model with a piece of wargear gains all of its rules.

Where is that rule? ^

Wargear can be used by people with stats.

See: Artillery.

The special rules for THAT PIECE OF WARGEAR do not somehow magically float onto a DIFFERENT PIECE OF WARGEAR (Shokk Attack Gun) as I read it.

I'm not saying such a rule exists, I said "last time I checked".
I'm not claiming they "magically float onto a different piece of wargear".

Is a bike a separate model from its rider? No, they are not.
Bikes say they can move a maximum distance of 12".
By your interpretation, because it doesn't say the "bike rider" or "bike and its rider", the bike can move up to 12 inches, but the model riding it is still restricted by its type, which is normally infantry.
The rider can only move up to 6" (Again, assuming it is infantry). As soon as a model on a bike wishes to move more than 6", it can't (without running).
Bikes can't run though. Bikes can only Turbo-boost. Infantry can't Turbo-boost.

So, by your way of reading it, bikes don't work very well.

Agreed. Awfeel, what you are arguing basically leads to a host of contradictions and silliness. The special rules of the bike apply to the entire model, otherwise the game just falls apart. There is no distinction between the bike and the rider - the amount of riders simply specify how many weapons the model can fire.

I am not saying it isn't stupid or silly.

I am saying that is RAW. Blame GW.

The distinction is clear on the page given.

There are even a few players here that bend the rules in plain view.

I would have something to say about someone trying to take a gun that is HUGE on a bike.

I would rules lawyer it off the table so fast not just because not only are the rules cloudy about that sort of stuff, but even narratively Orkz wont wear big armour on a bike let alone an oversized gun.


EDIT**

Infantry not being able to turbo boost is akin to the problem I mentioned about Scout Redeploying with a vehicle with Scout and passengers without it. It causes lots of problems...

Awfeel - The bike grants the relentless USR. Relentles affects themodel.

Try again, your "RAW" is utterly incorrect.

Alright, then, RAW-wise - purchasing the Warbike upgrade does not strictly mount the model as a driver on the bike, it changes the model's unit type to Bike. Hence the model RAW-wise has all the benefits of being a bike.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Awfeel - The bike grants the relentless USR. Relentles affects themodel.

Try again, your "RAW" is utterly incorrect.

What page in the book do you see a rule that says that bikes confer relentless to the rider ?

It is not like I don't agree with what you're saying.

I am arguing that they specified the bike and not the rider as they had specified earlier in the page.

That is all.

That is the way it is WRITTEN.

 Awfeel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Awfeel - The bike grants the relentless USR. Relentles affects themodel.

Try again, your "RAW" is utterly incorrect.

What page in the book do you see a rule that says that bikes confer relentless to the rider ?

It is not like I don't agree with what you're saying.

I am arguing that they specified the bike and not the rider as they had specified earlier in the page.

That is all.

That is the way it is WRITTEN.

Is the "rider" the model? yes. Is the Bike the model? Yes. Does the special rule relentless state that the MODEL gets x,y,z? Yes.
There is no conferring going on. There is ONE Model - the bike+rider+everything - and that MODEL has Relentless.

THAT is RAW

I will assume Awfeel is correct and that the bike and rider are separate for rules purposes.

They specify the bike itself when stating which special rules are conferred to models with the Bike unit type. However, if you look carefully, the Relentless special rule affects the model with the rule. The Bike and the Rider are the same model. If they were separate models, they would have separate bases and you would be able to measure a distance between the two.

In the codex, warbikes change the unit type to " bike". So I see no reason why he wouldnt get the same rules as the " Bike" unit type...

Really sounds like someone is trying to bend the rules.

I will have to work on making a shock attack on a bike : D

 Awfeel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Awfeel - The bike grants the relentless USR. Relentles affects themodel.

Try again, your "RAW" is utterly incorrect.

What page in the book do you see a rule that says that bikes confer relentless to the rider ?

It is not like I don't agree with what you're saying.

I am arguing that they specified the bike and not the rider as they had specified earlier in the page.

That is all.

That is the way it is WRITTEN.

The model's Unit Type changes to Bike.

Bikes and Jetbikes have the Hammer of Wrath, Jink, Relentless and Very Bulky special rules.

Who is firing the weapon?

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

So no, your assertions have no basis in actual rules. The model firing the Heavy weapon has Relentless.

As stated, the bike was never a model in and of itself, it is just a piece of wargear.

It confers relentless just in the same manor that terminator armor does.

Masters of the Forge on bikes have always been able to fire off their conversion beamers with no penalty while moving so why cant a Big mek?

Eihnlazer wrote:
As stated, the bike was never a model in and of itself, it is just a piece of wargear.

It confers relentless just in the same manor that terminator armor does.

Masters of the Forge on bikes have always been able to fire off their conversion beamers with no penalty while moving so why cant a Big mek?

Here is what I asked about 10 posts ago.

EDIT**

Someone, not going back, insisted that it just "was".

So, do you now agree your "RAW" position was wrong?

What is the points cost for all this?

130?

Bike + Gun + Big Mek ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, do you now agree your "RAW" position was wrong?

No. Not in the slightest.

The rules say that the bike is relentless.

Its written that way.

Eihnlazer wrote:
As stated, the bike was never a model in and of itself, it is just a piece of wargear.

It confers relentless just in the same manor that terminator armor does.

Masters of the Forge on bikes have always been able to fire off their conversion beamers with no penalty while moving so why cant a Big mek?

According to that poster the relentless rule is conferred via wargear rules similar to Terminator Armour.

Which was the answer to the question I brought up WAAAAAAY before someone argueing with me said that it was not conferred.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Is the "rider" the model? yes. Is the Bike the model? Yes. Does the special rule relentless state that the MODEL gets x,y,z? Yes.
There is no conferring going on. There is ONE Model - the bike+rider+everything - and that MODEL has Relentless.

THAT is RAW

Found it.

 Awfeel wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
As stated, the bike was never a model in and of itself, it is just a piece of wargear.

It confers relentless just in the same manor that terminator armor does.

Masters of the Forge on bikes have always been able to fire off their conversion beamers with no penalty while moving so why cant a Big mek?

Here is what I asked about 10 posts ago.

EDIT**

Someone, not going back, insisted that it just "was".

Well, no, you said

 Awfeel wrote:

Why would you do such a thing?

Not like you would want to move him as he would never be able to fire.

Bikes are not relentless due to the fact that they are not vehicles.

Or am I missing something here?

And then doubled down when challenged instead of saying "Well, lemme look at the rules involved."

The BIKE is relentless.

This is not conferred to the rider as per the rules.

The bike can fire one weapon PER rider as noted in the BRB.


Edit**

The BRB even discerns between the two in the "Armoured Steed" section under bikes as well as the "Special Rules" section.

Rider vs Bike.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Awfeel wrote:

What is the points cost for all this?

130?

Bike + Gun + Big Mek ?

Who cares?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, do you now agree your "RAW" position was wrong?

No. Not in the slightest.

The rules say that the bike is relentless.

Its written that way.

So you're just going to ignore that the bike is what fires the weapon? And that the unit type of the model is Bike? And that there's literally no way for the Rider to actually ever fire a weapon? And since the Bike is Relentless and it's firing the weapon, everything works fine?
Sure, if you ignore all of the actual rules, your stance has support.

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're just going to ignore that the bike is what fires the weapon? And that the unit type of the model is Bike? And that there's literally no way for the Rider to actually ever fire a weapon? And since the Bike is Relentless and it's firing the weapon, everything works fine?
Sure, if you ignore all of the actual rules, your stance has support.

I am going to ignore some of your post. Deal.

Although this highlighted part, contradicts what was previously said.

I ALSO said this...

 Awfeel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Awfeel - The bike grants the relentless USR. Relentles affects themodel.

Try again, your "RAW" is utterly incorrect.

What page in the book do you see a rule that says that bikes confer relentless to the rider ?

It is not like I don't agree with what you're saying.

I am arguing that they specified the bike and not the rider as they had specified earlier in the page.

That is all.

That is the way it is WRITTEN.

----------

regeld2 wrote:

 Awfeel wrote:

What is the points cost for all this?

130?

Bike + Gun + Big Mek ?

Who cares?

Edit** I care. It's relevant. Don't be a douche simply because you're frustrated with someone who sees things as being worded differently.

 Awfeel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're just going to ignore that the bike is what fires the weapon? And that the unit type of the model is Bike? And that there's literally no way for the Rider to actually ever fire a weapon? And since the Bike is Relentless and it's firing the weapon, everything works fine?
Sure, if you ignore all of the actual rules, your stance has support.

I am going to ignore some of your post. Deal.

... That's the right way to participate in a debate. Just ignore what the other person says. Well done old chap.

Although this highlighted part, contradicts what was previously said.

It's also the rules. I quoted it. Maybe you ignored that?
See, I like to discuss what we call "the rules". When doing so, I try not to make things up and I apologize if I misremember something (but I normally check before I post).
So when I contradict what someone else has said, it's normally because they said something that is not 100% "the rules". Perhaps if you'd check for yourself you'd notice that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Awfeel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Awfeel wrote:

What is the points cost for all this?

130?

Bike + Gun + Big Mek ?

Who cares?

Edit** I care. It's relevant. Don't be a douche simply because you're frustrated with someone who sees things as being worded differently.

How is the point cost relevant at all to the rules involved here?
If you care, buy the codex. This isn't the right place for that. And you have yet to support your stance with actual, quoted rules. I have. Please do so.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Awfeel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're just going to ignore that the bike is what fires the weapon? And that the unit type of the model is Bike? And that there's literally no way for the Rider to actually ever fire a weapon? And since the Bike is Relentless and it's firing the weapon, everything works fine?
Sure, if you ignore all of the actual rules, your stance has support.

I am going to ignore some of your post. Deal.

... That's the right way to participate in a debate. Just ignore what the other person says. Well done old chap.

Although this highlighted part, contradicts what was previously said.

It's also the rules. I quoted it. Maybe you ignored that?
See, I like to discuss what we call "the rules". When doing so, I try not to make things up and I apologize if I misremember something (but I normally check before I post).
So when I contradict what someone else has said, it's normally because they said something that is not 100% "the rules". Perhaps if you'd check for yourself you'd notice that?

Go back and read what I said, please. I think you may be on the wrong end of the arguement considering my ENTIRE arguement is based on wording in the book.

That being said, I see no quote there. And you are a condescending person who doesn't care to read replies regardless of whether or not I type them to you, it seems.

Debates do not usually consist of "who cares" either, "Old Chap"



Automatically Appended Next Post:


EDIT ** Let me quote myself one moment...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Awfeel wrote:
The BIKE is relentless.

This is not conferred to the rider as per the rules.

The bike can fire one weapon PER rider as noted in the BRB.


Edit**

The BRB even discerns between the two in the "Armoured Steed" section under bikes as well as the "Special Rules" section.

Rider vs Bike.

Literally the second thing I posted in this thread. Shortly before I asked where the rule was, which I was not directed to, mind you.

 Awfeel wrote:
Go back and read what I said, please. I think you may be on the wrong end of the arguement considering my ENTIRE arguement is based on wording in the book.

And yet you've provided literally no rules quotes this thread, instead it seems like you're going off what other people have said.

That being said, I see no quote there. And you are a condescending person who doesn't care to read replies regardless of whether or not I type them to you, it seems.

No, I didn't have a rules quote in that post. I did here though:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Awfeel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Awfeel - The bike grants the relentless USR. Relentles affects themodel.

Try again, your "RAW" is utterly incorrect.

What page in the book do you see a rule that says that bikes confer relentless to the rider ?

It is not like I don't agree with what you're saying.

I am arguing that they specified the bike and not the rider as they had specified earlier in the page.

That is all.

That is the way it is WRITTEN.

The model's Unit Type changes to Bike.

Bikes and Jetbikes have the Hammer of Wrath, Jink, Relentless and Very Bulky special rules.

Who is firing the weapon?

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

So no, your assertions have no basis in actual rules. The model firing the Heavy weapon has Relentless.

Debates do not usually consist of "who cares" either, "Old Chap"

When there's an irrelevant statement, they do.

On page 63 there is a discernment, made by GW, between rider and bike.

I was literally ONLY ARGUING THAT.

EDIT**

Said this in my second post... not off what other people said.


EDIT 2**

I also said the bike fired the weapon, someone disagreed. I will find that also...

 Awfeel wrote:

 Awfeel wrote:
The BIKE is relentless.

This is not conferred to the rider as per the rules.

The bike can fire one weapon PER rider as noted in the BRB.


Edit**

The BRB even discerns between the two in the "Armoured Steed" section under bikes as well as the "Special Rules" section.

Rider vs Bike.

Literally the second thing I posted in this thread. Shortly before I asked where the rule was, which I was not directed to, mind you.

And you're missing that the Rider never needs Relentless as he never fires the weapon. The Bike does. The Bike has Relentless. The model is a Bike. The model has the gun.
Show the rule saying the model without relentless fires a weapon. Quote it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Awfeel wrote:


On page 63 there is a discernment, made by GW, between rider and bike.

I was literally ONLY ARGUING THAT.

EDIT**

Said this in my second post... not off what other people said.

No one said that the Rider and Bike are the same. Not that I can see.
So if you agree that a Big Mek that bought a bike can move and fire the SAG, then fine - but that's not what you started out arguing.