Astartes grenade launchers

[pingo]

In C:SM, the Scout Bike Squad listings say:

 

Up to three Bikers can replace their bike's twin-linked bolters with an Astartes grenade launcher

 

Now, the unit consists of up to nine 'Scout Bikers' and one 'Scout Biker Sergeant', so who can be given a grenade launcher? It says 'Bikers' can, so does that include the sergeant?

 

Seems like giving him one would be much better than giving one to a normal guy due to the better BS. But paying the same points for it seems odd.

 

So, can the sergeant take a grenade launcher?

[Iron Father Rik]

Yes. Quite simply yes he can, because it doesn't specify otherwise.

[greatcrusade08]

Yes. Quite simply yes he can, because it doesn't specify otherwise.

 

actully IMO this is incorrect, a scout is defined by his statline, for scout bikers there are two distinct stat lines with two distinct names.. the first being a scout biker, the second being the scout biker sergeant.

 

note in the codex that the sergeant has his own seperate upgrade options, the same as if your taking a tac squad or assult squad... its even the same argument as apothecaries in command squads.

now i realise the wording is rubbish and it simply says "biker", but given a little common sense we should realise it means scout biker..

after all the other guy is a biker sergeant :( not a biker

[Decoy]

now i realise the wording is rubbish and it simply says "biker", but given a little common sense we should realise it means scout biker..

 

Unfortunately, common sense does not matter in rules disputes.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

actully IMO this is incorrect, a scout is defined by his statline, for scout bikers there are two distinct stat lines with two distinct names.. the first being a scout biker, the second being the scout biker sergeant.

 

And were this true you'd have to assign wounds to a terminator assault sargeant seperately which we all know people around here don't like. :lol:

[pingo]

now i realise the wording is rubbish and it simply says "biker", but given a little common sense we should realise it means scout biker..

after all the other guy is a biker sergeant :lol: not a biker

 

But this is the confusing thing. The regular guys are not even 'bikers' but 'scout bikers', as per their profile.

 

I'm starting to wonder whether the term 'biker' is being used as a catch-all term to describe both the scout sergeant biker and the scout bikers. 'Biker' is non-specific, and both unit types are described as bikers. If it was meant to be specific, would it not say 'Scout biker'?

 

But then ... loose wording is par for the course, and I'm pretty unsure on this. Which is annoying as I would want to give the sergeant a grenade laucher for his better shooting.

[pingo]

actully IMO this is incorrect, a scout is defined by his statline, for scout bikers there are two distinct stat lines with two distinct names.. the first being a scout biker, the second being the scout biker sergeant.

 

And were this true you'd have to assign wounds to a terminator assault sargeant seperately which we all know people around here don't like. :lol:

I'm not sure on that: you assign wounds based on whether models are different in game terms, not whether they have a different name on their profile, but their profile and wargear are the same nonetheless.

[Iron Father Rik]

They are all "bikers". The other terms of "scout" and "sergeant" are merely ranks to differentiate them from initiate bikers or attack bikers. If the rule says that any "biker" can take it, but says nothing about which rank of biker can take them, then anyone in the unit can take them. They all ride bikes, and thus they are all bikers.

[greatcrusade08]

They are all "bikers". The other terms of "scout" and "sergeant" are merely ranks to differentiate them from initiate bikers or attack bikers. If the rule says that any "biker" can take it, but says nothing about which rank of biker can take them, then anyone in the unit can take them. They all ride bikes, and thus they are all bikers.

 

i understand you have a case by RAW, but there are other interpretations of equal merit.. given other examples of poor wording throught the codex i think we have set precedents to work from.

it would mean that the sergeant gets a better weapon for the same cost.. such a thing is unbalanced and therefore we have to say probably not

[Iron Father Rik]

They are all "bikers". The other terms of "scout" and "sergeant" are merely ranks to differentiate them from initiate bikers or attack bikers. If the rule says that any "biker" can take it, but says nothing about which rank of biker can take them, then anyone in the unit can take them. They all ride bikes, and thus they are all bikers.

 

i understand you have a case by RAW, but there are other interpretations of equal merit.. given other examples of poor wording throught the codex i think we have set precedents to work from.

it would mean that the sergeant gets a better weapon for the same cost.. such a thing is unbalanced and therefore we have to say probably not

 

I respectfully disagree. It's more a case of the English language. The term "biker" refers to someone who rides a bike. The codex states that any 3 bikers can take grenade launchers, therefore it's anyone originally in the unit (i.e. bought as a member of the unit, not an attached character) who rides a bike that can take a grenade launcher.

[greatcrusade08]

i agree the term biker gives us the wrong impression and can lead to RAW saing the sergeant can have a GL.

however i would also refer to p67 of the codex under astartes greande launcher where it states scout bikers can employ grenade launchers.. not scout bike sergeants.

 

also note if the scout sergeant was permitted a AGL it would have stated so in his upgrade section, it does not.. the scout segreants upgrade list is exhaustive, "if its not on the list it aint coming in"

the section below the sergeants upgrades are unit wide upgrades, in every other unit choice this doesnt include the sergeant, but becuase of poor wording it does in this case?

i dont buy it...

the counter 'RAW' argument only works in a vacuum, taking all these things into account, its easy to come up with a different interpretation/meaning of the rules

 

I guess this is something i would like cleared up properly as the current RAW argument doesnt sit well with me.. simply put that by allowing the upgrade to the sergeant your essentially giving a free bonus, something that should never happen IMO

 

edit: as an afterthought forget the p67 argument, its fluff material and doesnt stand.. however id like to further my main point of discussion by saying that if they meant for the GL to be options for the sergeant they would have used the term "any model may take".. which is what they do elsewhere within the same dex

[shatter]

I think it's as simple as it appears in this example. Both types of scouts are bikers.

 

If the rules had sincerely meant for either to be able to carry the AGL, what would have been a better way to say it?

Any model? That's the same as any biker, isn't it?

[maturin]

Ya know, Pingo - as much as I would like to agree with Greatcrusade08, I think RAW is sufficiently fuzzy that you could get away with it. But I would advise you against doing so, because you:

 

1) will have to make this argument to each player you play against.

 

2) won't make any friends while doing so. For the very same reason you'd like to do it - your opponents won't appreciate your getting something for nothing. Be a sport - and don't abuse a loophole.

[pingo]

Ya know, Pingo - as much as I would like to agree with Greatcrusade08, I think RAW is sufficiently fuzzy that you could get away with it. But I would advise you against doing so, because you:

 

1) will have to make this argument to each player you play against.

 

2) won't make any friends while doing so. For the very same reason you'd like to do it - your opponents won't appreciate your getting something for nothing. Be a sport - and don't abuse a loophole.

Well, since I asked this question in the first place for precisely these reasons, I'm inclined to agree with you.

 

I guess at the end of the day giving a launcher to the sergeant only results in an extra 1/6 hits. Maybe I'll have a think about combi-weapons for him.

[Decoy]

I dunno, Pingo. There's no real loophole to abuse here. The rules are very clear in what, exactly, can get a AGL: Any Biker. Sergeants are Bikers, therefore they get AGLs.

 

This is no different than the Wolf Guard entry: "A Wolf Guard may... " replace "whatever" with "Whatever". Is the model in the Wolf Guard unit a Wolf Guard? Yes? Then he can do it, unless very specific rules state otherwise. From this RAW whore's point of view, the answer is clear as crystal; Bikers can take 'em. The entire unit, Sarge inclusive, are Bikers. Honestly, were I playing against you and found you with an entire squad of 'em -except- the Sarge, I'd be inclined to ask why your Sarge got left out of the mission briefing.

 

Playing RAW is not "getting something for nothing." Don't ever make that mistake; it is playing the rules as they are written. It's when you get into "Rules As Intended" (which really have no place in rules discussion anyways) that the moral ground gets a bit fuzzy, inclusive of such things as gaming for advantage (See Counts As debates for reference material, specifically "powergaming" aspects of it.) Interestingly, to go directly against what Maturin said, the loophole abuse here is in trying to find a way to make a biker NOT a biker, and is the stance of a player seemingly set on denying an opponent a legitimate use of a legal strategy simply because they don't think it's "Fair".

 

I wouldn't worry too much about using the AGLs, mate. They're good weapons, but not gamebreaking. Have fun with 'em.

[greatcrusade08]

people have conveniently ignored my main argument..

the sergeant has a list of possible upgrades, are the grenade launchers on that list?

 

although it does say 'bikers' (which makes RAW very fuzzy... could mean all or could mean none, after all they are scout bikers, not bikers), in every other unit tyoe they use the term "any model".. becuase it creates confusion otherwise.

also note every other unit has a seperate list for the sergeant and for the unit, we all know GW seperates the sergeant from the unit as a different model in terms of wargear.. but people are blinding themselves to this stuff in order to get away with a RAW argument.

 

does RAW say he can use GL's... sure, but only if we ignore the rest of the dex... its silly and lacks and common sense.

surely you can all see this.

we can sit back and rely on the RAW argument to win this argument/thread, but the point of thes discusssions is to find the truth, not to pat our egos.

[maturin]

@ Decoy - the point isn't whether or not you're playing RAW or RAI - it's whether or not the majority of your opponents think you're trying to "pull a fast one" by being strict "RAW" or "RAI" with any point. If you want to have fun, be a good sport, and not take things too seriously over a very small potential benefit - then you should stick with BS3 grenade launchers. Having to pull out your codex and quote a rule, and then potentially argue RAW vs RAI, with every new opponent....well, again, you won't be the most popular player wherever you are.

 

As an example of a potential argument you'll get: if you adhere to super-strict RAW with NO RAI at all, then scout bikers can't take any AGL's. Because there's no such unit as a "Biker" listed in the unit. Only "Scout Bikers" and "Scout Biker Sargeants". To then say that they're both "bikers' gets into RAI, not RAW. ^_^

 

 

I support GC08's common sense approach to reading the codex.

[Iron Father Rik]

I wish to point out a flaw in gc08's argument here. Every other unit does have a section in the wargear list that is specifically for the sergeant, but in many of the units the sections for the "other models" simply says "any model may take". Would you deny a regular scout sergeant from taking a shotgun, combat blade or sniper rifle? Would you deny a vanguard veteran sergeant meltabombs? Or a storm shield, when that specifically states "any model may take"? The term "any model may take" is exactly the same as "any biker may take".

 

I believe if you are going to claim RAI you have to consider that it was intended that the sergeant could take an AGL so that you can take a squadron of just three bikers - the minimum unit size - and have all three equipped with AGL. That, I believe, is also RAI.

 

Also if you are going to be as pedantic to say that because the scout biker sergeant is titled as "scout biker sergeant" and therefore wargear entries for "any biker" do not apply to him, because he isn't just titled as "biker", then you have to also accept that the regular scout bikers are titled "scout biker" and not merely "biker" and so the option to take AGLs does not apply to them either. This is the same for every other unit, where the model title is not the shortened version they use in the wargear list.

[greatcrusade08]

Rik, your arguing my points here, but giving them your own spin

 

I wish to point out a flaw in gc08's argument here. Every other unit does have a section in the wargear list that is specifically for the sergeant, but in many of the units the sections for the "other models" simply says "any model may take". Would you deny a regular scout sergeant from taking a shotgun, combat blade or sniper rifle? Would you deny a vanguard veteran sergeant meltabombs? Or a storm shield, when that specifically states "any model may take"? The term "any model may take" is exactly the same as "any biker may take".

This is right, if it says "any model", it means any model (including sergeant).. but in this case it doesnt say any model, it says biker... hmmm, very strange that they have a set precedant and they arent using it..

 

I believe if you are going to claim RAI you have to consider that it was intended that the sergeant could take an AGL so that you can take a squadron of just three bikers - the minimum unit size - and have all three equipped with AGL. That, I believe, is also RAI.

based on what, my arguments are coming from set precedants with other unit types.. this has no supporting evidence and cannot be RAI, merely 'your opinion'

 

Also if you are going to be as pedantic to say that because the scout biker sergeant is titled as "scout biker sergeant" and therefore wargear entries for "any biker" do not apply to him, because he isn't just titled as "biker", then you have to also accept that the regular scout bikers are titled "scout biker" and not merely "biker" and so the option to take AGLs does not apply to them either. This is the same for every other unit, where the model title is not the shortened version they use in the wargear list.

/this is what we are arguing too.. RAW could be interpreted to mean no scout gets the AGL.. what we are saying is in this case we have RAW telling us two different things, so we need to look at the matter in more depth

[Iron Father Rik]

Rik, your arguing my points here, but giving them your own spin

 

I wish to point out a flaw in gc08's argument here. Every other unit does have a section in the wargear list that is specifically for the sergeant, but in many of the units the sections for the "other models" simply says "any model may take". Would you deny a regular scout sergeant from taking a shotgun, combat blade or sniper rifle? Would you deny a vanguard veteran sergeant meltabombs? Or a storm shield, when that specifically states "any model may take"? The term "any model may take" is exactly the same as "any biker may take".

This is right, if it says "any model", it means any model (including sergeant).. but in this case it doesnt say any model, it says biker... hmmm, very strange that they have a set precedant and they arent using it..

 

The sergeant is a biker, is he not?

 

I believe if you are going to claim RAI you have to consider that it was intended that the sergeant could take an AGL so that you can take a squadron of just three bikers - the minimum unit size - and have all three equipped with AGL. That, I believe, is also RAI.

based on what, my arguments are coming from set precedants with other unit types.. this has no supporting evidence and cannot be RAI, merely 'your opinion'

 

They put a minimum unit size of three, then say any model may take certain wargear. If you want a set precedence, look at the Tactical Squad, the crux of any Space Marine army. That unit has a minimum unit size of 5, but specifically states that you can only take certain wargear once you make the unit reach a unit size of 10. Such a requirement is not made in the Scout Biker unit entry.

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

I think Rik is right. It says 'any biker' (in the german version, it even says 'any bike', but translations are, I admit, no basis for a rules argument). Both the scouts and the scout sergeant are bikers. There is no arguing that the sergeant rides a bike, so he is a biker. If he is a biker, he may take an AGL.

 

All other entries where options available to the squad are not available to a specific model (like the command squad and its apothecary) have it stated very clearly who may take what. If the intention were that only scouts may take the AGL, it would say "scouts" not "bikers".

 

I do not think it has got anything to do with squad size, though, Rik. If you could buy 5 AGLs per squad, you could not do that when the squad has only 3 bikers.

[greatcrusade08]

The sergeant is a biker, is he not?

Is a terminator sergeant a terminator or a space marine sergeant a space marine.. in terms of wargear the codex defines them to be seperate..

 

I believe if you are going to claim RAI you have to consider that it was intended that the sergeant could take an AGL so that you can take a squadron of just three bikers - the minimum unit size - and have all three equipped with AGL. That, I believe, is also RAI.

based on what, my arguments are coming from set precedants with other unit types.. this has no supporting evidence and cannot be RAI, merely 'your opinion'

 

They put a minimum unit size of three, then say any model may take certain wargear. If you want a set precedence, look at the Tactical Squad, the crux of any Space Marine army. That unit has a minimum unit size of 5, but specifically states that you can only take certain wargear once you make the unit reach a unit size of 10. Such a requirement is not made in the Scout Biker unit entry.

 

thats along way from being supporting evidence.. where does it sho the sergeant is allowed to use a GL?

Sm bikes have the same limits on numbers, it doesnt point to anything

 

let me put it another way, the codex entry for scout bikes shows upgrade options for a scout biker sergeant.. giving him his full name

my belief is they meant to use the word scout bikers instead of the word bikers.. and it is this typo that is causing the issues..

if this upgrade option was meant to include the sergeant it would use the words any model as it does in the normal scout entry

 

edit: if you lookat the entry for normal SM bikers it sas the same thing, are you now arguing that the sergeant may carry a meltagun?

again show me in the scout biker sergeants upgrade options where is says he may take a GL

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

So you are assuming there was a typo. You cannot base a rules argument on the possibility of a typo - otherwise I'm going to say my captain was probably meant to have 8 wounds, it was just a typo. That just doesn't work.

 

And even though I do think RAI is a better approach than RAW, assuming typos takes that too far.

 

The normal bike squad entry titles the specific models specifically, the scout bike entry does not. It says biker. Both are bikers. Both can take an AGL. That's all evidence there is, and I see no grounds for any other intention to be read out of it.

[greatcrusade08]

The normal bike squad entry titles the specific models specifically, the scout bike entry does not. It says biker. Both are bikers. Both can take an AGL. That's all evidence there is, and I see no grounds for any other intention to be read out of it.

 

incorrect it says biker too... even though they are clearly space marine biker.. it also shows a precedant that a biker and a biker sergeant are different entities.

As explained above RAW doesnt work here, so you have to drop this mindset that theres nothing more to discuss.

 

AGAIN!!! show me the entry in the scout biker sergeants wargear options that allows him an AGL....

 

as for the typo comment it was a passing comment, which after looking at the SM bikers i found was worng.. it doesnt somehow invalidate my argument that a biker and biker sergeant are different entities, otherwise im gunna start putting heavy weapons and chainfists on my terminator sergeant

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

incorrect it says biker too... even though they are clearly space marine biker.. it also shows a precedant that a biker and a biker sergeant are different entities.

As explained above RAW doesnt work here, so you have to drop this mindset that theres nothing more to discuss.

 

And what is the model called in its statline? Biker or Space Marine Biker? If the latter, I can see where you are coming from. In the german version, it is specifically saying that any Space Marine Biker may have one of the following, so there I see clearly that the sergeant may not. In the scout bike entry it says "any bike", which would include that of the sergeant.

 

But if the original version uses the same word in the normal bike squad entry, it really is a matter of discussion. However, in that case it would probably make more sense to ask GW for clarification, since it could be read both ways.

 

And it could also be interpreted to mean that a normal bike sergeant may have a meltagun, even though I do agree that is probably not intended. But since he has better options, this would not really matter in this case, so they might have written it that way to allow it because it wouldn't make a difference.

 

So to avoid this argument with an opponent, I'd just not give the sergeant one, except I am from germany and have the german codex, which clearly says that any bike may have one. B)

 

AGAIN!!! show me the entry in the scout biker sergeants wargear options that allows him an AGL....

 

as for the typo comment it was a passing comment, which after looking at the SM bikers i found was worng.. it doesnt somehow invalidate my argument that a biker and biker sergeant are different entities, otherwise im gunna start putting heavy weapons and chainfists on my terminator sergeant

 

It doesn't invalidate your other arguments, no. Still, I think we should avoid assuming typos, as it makes it just too easy to interpret rules the way they benefit us and also makes it impossible to resolve the rules argument via logic.