Jump to content

Attack Bike Question


Recommended Posts

I didn't say that they were sergeants but that they fulfil a similar function with a SW spin on it. The difference is here that AB cannot have a sergeant under any circumstances but, probably because of an oversight, SW's can have WGPLs. By this logic you can attach them to anything, including landspeeders!

 

Hopefully that helps to clarify why I would say that a unit that is not classified as a pack before cannot take a WGPL and never has been able to.

 

I Understand the alternative reasoning but disagree. It just sounds like the sort of thing that gives SW players a bad name - our list provides the ability to produce strong enough and characterful enough forces already so I'm not sure the reason why one would look for another, and rather dubious, angle.

Is it just me, or has the new edition brought so many "is this legal?" "can I do this?". Everyone seems far too concerned with teh absolute legality, picking out single words to provide arguments for/against. Seriously, where's the ROC gone. I read a thread yesterday about soeone questioning whether Chapter tactics only applies when teh character is alive because the word "included" in the rule could mean anything (army, battle, table etc.) apparently. Then there was the one about whether you could model a scorpion defiler legally. Someone came on and was talkign about LOS and "oh you could hide it behind buildings to avoid being fired at...you'd need a normal one to replace it when firing/being fired at to check LOS" etc. What happened to the days when you just drew a line from the models base and if something was in the way you couldn't bloody shoot.

 

Anyway mini rant over. Back on topic. I prefer to use fluff to solve frankly completely trivial matters such as this, rather than simply RAW. Sure some people will be really annoying about it but then I wouldn't play wiht those people. If you consider all SW units above 1 model and apart from things with armour values "packs" (as I do, that's what we call them) the sure take a WGBL with attack bikes. Most opponents probably wouldn't even notice or if they did the conversation would prob be:

"hey can you take him in that squad"

"he's a WGPL, he can join any pack. Thats an attack bike pack. so yeah"

"OK"

 

I sure as hell wouldn't care.

 

And I'd like to bering uop teh Scout point again. They aren't called a pack int eh title but they can have WGPL. I think that probably solves teh entire argument.

 

Can we all please lighten up and stop with the rule nazism. It's starting to really piss me off. We play the game to have fun, so lets have fun adn not argue about rules all teh time.

 

*Rant over*

 

Meta.

You seem to be bringing baggage from other threads when this issue is not solely due to a new C:SM but has developed into whether ABs have ever been allowed a WGPL.

 

The opposite to you might call rule nazism (a hugely offensive term if you were to think about it even a little bit) others might call stretching the rules in order to gain an unfair advantage aka cheating. Exactly the sort of people who I avoid playing with as playing against someone committed to winning at any cost and damn the rules is no fun at all. So you see, name calling really doesn't doesn't help us much here, little brother.

 

I am not aware of any fluff to support WGPL and ABs but would be delighted if you could present some.

 

Sorry if the thread is starting to piss you off - you could always stop reading it or, alternatively, you could, as you put it yourself, lighten up.

I didn't say that they were sergeants but that they fulfil a similar function with a SW spin on it. The difference is here that AB cannot have a sergeant under any circumstances but, probably because of an oversight, SW's can have WGPLs. By this logic you can attach them to anything, including landspeeders!

 

Hopefully that helps to clarify why I would say that a unit that is not classified as a pack before cannot take a WGPL and never has been able to.

 

I Understand the alternative reasoning but disagree. It just sounds like the sort of thing that gives SW players a bad name - our list provides the ability to produce strong enough and characterful enough forces already so I'm not sure the reason why one would look for another, and rather dubious, angle.

The logic doesnt extend to landspeeders though is what I was trying to say.

 

These are bikers, really no different then bloodclaw bikers. They have wounds, toughness, and a full profile in general just like a space marine. They are not vehicles anymore than bikers are. And yes I know the dangers of putting common sense into the mix sometimes but frankly it seems to me that as they are marine bikes they can be lead by a WGPL on a marine bike.... just like if they were say bloodclaws on a bike.

The logic doesnt extend to landspeeders though is what I was trying to say.

 

These are bikers, really no different then bloodclaw bikers. They have wounds, toughness, and a full profile in general just like a space marine. They are not vehicles anymore than bikers are. And yes I know the dangers of putting common sense into the mix sometimes but frankly it seems to me that as they are marine bikes they can be lead by a WGPL on a marine bike.... just like if they were say bloodclaws on a bike.

 

I can see how this one could be read either way. I guess we'll just have to wait for an official FAQ or - no, I wont even say it :D

yeah sorry durfast, I think this thread just caught me at a bad time. Sorry if I offended anyone with the nazism comment.

 

I don't like people who cheat either, but I don't like people who play the game like chess. They just see it as a strategic war, without thinking about the story behind it all. People who go by every single tiny thing in the rulebook. Who follwo the rules to teh letter and allow no room for itnerpretation. I'd rather play against someone who does something completely stupid because it will be cool ar fit fluff. That's why i adore Inquisitor so much and think it is one of the best games GW ever made.

 

On topic, it's teh same thing here. I think that using fluff to interpret rules is perfectly acceptable. Like I already said, SWs are organised into packs, and I personally would consider ABs a pack, therefore allowing WGBL. Think about it, if a blood claw becomes a biker adn therefore joins a blood claw bike pack, where does he go when he has elevated beyond being a BC but still wants to ride around on a harley? Int eh same way teh blood claws -> grey hunter -> long fangs, i see it as blood claw biker-> attack biker. He still stays in a pack. Y ou can of course interpret the rules anf fluff differently, but remember there are some massive and obvious holes and blunders left by GW in teh fluff department, adn it woulsn't surprise me if tehy missed this bit alltogether.

 

And my number 1 rule when playing;

HAVE FUN!!

I don't know about the WGPL, But my command squad that I am putting the finishing touches on is the Wolf Lord Keerik Bloodfang w/Storm Shield & Frostblade (aka Big freakin AXE) on a Trike attached to a PACK of 2 Attack Bikes with HB's & Flamers. The people in my gaming group love the idea and cannot wait to see them. Will post pics on here so my fellow Wolves can see them as soon as their done.

Rune priest - with BC

combi melta

thunder hammer

Runic charm

 

Wolf priest - with bikes

bike

bolt pistol

frost blade

Runic charm

healing potions and balms

 

2 bikes

multi meltas

 

landspeeder

multi melta

 

5 bikers

melta gun

2 power fists

 

11 blood claws

3 power fists

melta gun

++

drop pod

 

 

10 grey hunters

plasma gun

2 plasma pistols

2 power fists

Bolter + ccw

++

wolf guard

combi melta

power sword

runic charm

++

Drop pod

 

9 grey hunters

plasma gun

2 plasma pistols

Power fist

Power sword

Bolter + ccw

++

Rhino

 

 

This will be the list ill use next game. So i'll let you know how it goes. [1498 points]

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.