Bike and weapons. How many?

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.

**Hellfury**

Can the rider of a bike fire its side arm in addition to the weapon mounted on the bike?

For example: An eldar jetbike has a twin linked shuriken catapult mounted and the rider has a shuriken pistol.

Can the jetbike fire both weapons in the same turn? Or am I just having a bout of wishful thinking?

Here is what it says on page 54 of the rulebook:

"Each Jetbike in a unit may fire with one weapon for each rider on the bike. If rapid fire weapons are mounted on a jetbike, then they are allowed to fire once up to maximum range even if the bike moved. In addition, rapid fire weapons and heavy weapons may be fired if the unit moves and the jetbike is still allowed to charge into close combat in the same turn"

**ATI**

EDIT, actually I'm gonna consult the books, will have answer tomorrow

**insaniak**

Posted By Hellfury on 10/17/2006 5:36 PM
Can the rider of a bike fire its side arm in addition to the weapon mounted on the bike?

"Each Jetbike in a unit may fire with one weapon for each rider on the bike."

That seems pretty conclusive to me...

**Hellfury**

Yeah thats what i thought too, until I started to complicate things by reading into codex entries.

Why give riders their own sidearms? What purpose does it serve? if they can only fire one or the other, whats the point? I dont recall any ability or wepon that removes the use of a certain firearm so that youre forced to use a differing weapon.

call me whatever you want, but something doesnt sit right with the rules entry.

Or maybe I am confusing 3rd ed rules where the sm rider could use the mounted bolters and the assualt wepon.... I need to go to bed.

**insaniak**

Posted By Hellfury on 10/17/2006 8:05 PM
Why give riders their own sidearms? What purpose does it serve? if they can only fire one or the other, whats the point? I dont recall any ability or wepon that removes the use of a certain firearm so that youre forced to use a differing weapon.

They actually explained that one back when 3rd edition was released.

Under second edition rules, there WAS a point to having sidearms, or single close combat weapons, on bikers.

When 3rd edition was released, the new rules made the extra weapons redundant, but since it really made no difference to leave them on, they left the option in there for the sake of those people who already had bikers with them modelled.

That's the official party line, anyway.

**Corpsman_of_Krieg**

What about when the said biker takes an additional weapon, say, a Power Sword? could that unit use those two CC weapons in Assault (I'm using Black Templar Initiate Bikers as my example, who are each armed with a bolt pistol sidearm, of which up to three may take a Power Sword for 10 points)? I'm asking so that I don't go and and burn $45 on a trio of Bikes only to discover that one of two things are true:

1. They replace their BP with the Power Sword (I don't think they do)

2. They just don't get the extra attack.

This seems like a trivial piece of info, but it is the difference between 3 and 6 power weapon attacks (9 on the charge) by these three models, who come out to an expensive 126 points as it is. If they only get 3 in CC, then they're pointless. If I can get 6 power sword attacks out of these three models, then they're in. I love my assault, and won't stand to have 126 points be wasted for 3 T5 models with 3 Power Weapon attacks.

Sorry to threadjack, but no one was answering this question in the other thread.

CK

**Hellfury**

ahh I see. Well I guess that explains that then.

**Hellfury**

Posted By Corpsman_of_Krieg on 10/17/2006 8:21 PM
What about when the said biker takes an additional weapon, say, a Power Sword? could that unit use those two CC weapons in Assault (I'm using Black Templar Initiate Bikers as my example, who are each armed with a bolt pistol sidearm, of which up to three may take a Power Sword for 10 points)? I'm asking so that I don't go and and burn $45 on a trio of Bikes only to discover that one of two things are true:

1. They replace their BP with the Power Sword (I don't think they do)

2. They just don't get the extra attack.

This seems like a trivial piece of info, but it is the difference between 3 and 6 power weapon attacks (9 on the charge) by these three models, who come out to an expensive 126 points as it is. If they only get 3 in CC, then they're pointless. If I can get 6 power sword attacks out of these three models, then they're in. I love my assault, and won't stand to have 126 points be wasted for 3 T5 models with 3 Power Weapon attacks.

Sorry to threadjack, but no one was answering this question in the other thread.

CK

No problem, it seems appropriate here.

I seem to remeber something in third ed that said you couldnt use 2 weapons in the same turn when mounted on a bike. But then again, that was third so I am not positive about that now.

**insaniak**

In 3rd edition, they did indeed state (I believe it was included in the Dark Eldar FAQ, and listed as applying to everyone) that bikers needed one hand free, so never got the bonus for two CCWs.

For 4th, however, this no longer applies as a blanket rule. Some codexes contain a restriction, others don't.

In the case of BT Bikers, if you check the entry again you will find that the Power Weapon actually replaces their bolt pistol.

Of course, it never actually says that they HAVE a bolt pistol, but since it gives you the option to replace it, we can probably assume that they do...

**Corpsman_of_Krieg**

Damn. Oh well, thanks for clarifying.

It would have been a really nice unit otherwise. Now they're even more worthless for the BT.

CK