Astartes grenade launchers

[greatcrusade08]

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.

In the english version (which trumps any translation based on it) the two are defined as biker sergeant and space marine biker,

the upgrade options show that "any up to two bikers may take the following"

Again the biker sergeant has his own upgrade options.

 

this same template is used for scout bikers, you have entries for the scoutbiker sergeant and then seperate upgrade options for bikers.

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

Then that is indeed fishy. I think it could be interpreted both ways, still, but I tend to interpret it the way you do.

 

That the original version trumps any other need not be argued. I will rarely have access to them, though, since I buy my rulebooks in german - and my opponents will probably do the same, so since the german version pretty clearly allows the sergeant to take one, I could do that without any argument ensuing. And that is amusing. B)

[pingo]

Wow, I didn't expect to provoke such debate. Very interesting, thanks everyone.

 

Looking at all the arguments, it seems to me that this is too ambiguous to properly resolve.

 

So I think we need to look at what is certain, and what is certain is that the term 'bikers' must at least refer to the Scout Bikers. Else it would be impossible to take 3 grenade launchers.

 

In the interest of safety, and to prevent any rules debate in games, I think I shall opt not to equip the sergeant with a grenade launcher. I know this may very well be legal, but it also may very well be not. I also suppose very few outside of the most competitive gamers would care if I did one or the other.

 

However, with such uncertainty looming over this issue, I think I would have a twinge of guilt in giving the sergeant a grenade launcher. I'd prefer to equip units in a way that is definitely legal, rather than probably or possibly legal.

 

Although, I'm still prepared to be totally convinced one way or the other if the right evidence comes up :)

[Iron Father Rik]

I don't think this can be resolved without clarification in the form of an FAQ or some such from Games Workshop quite frankly. I can see both sides of the debate, and I understand both viewpoints, but I am not convinced that the other side is correct. I don't think either side will be convinced, or the discussion settled, until it is officially clarified.

 

I am a tournament player, and I wouldn't be bothered if you had a grenade launcher on your sergeant quite frankly, but then I know some people might be.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

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..

 

Well no, because really you're supposed to play the rules as they are written - discounting the fact that some may be ambiguous or just plain stupid - so that interpretation is really the only one that should matter :)

[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..

 

Well no, because really you're supposed to play the rules as they are written - discounting the fact that some may be ambiguous or just plain stupid - so that interpretation is really the only one that should matter :)

 

ok thats fine.. in that case no-one gets to use AGL.. becuase it doesnt state scout bikers, merely bikers

[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..

 

Well no, because really you're supposed to play the rules as they are written - discounting the fact that some may be ambiguous or just plain stupid - so that interpretation is really the only one that should matter :)

 

ok thats fine.. in that case no-one gets to use AGL.. becuase it doesnt state scout bikers, merely bikers

 

Uhm... not quite, since they all ride bikes and thus are all bikers, and the point he is referring to says that all bikers - which are people who ride bikes - can take them.

 

I am not meaning to re-open this discussion about the word "biker" here, which I was happy had concluded that we have to agree to disagree and hope we get GW clarification. I merely intend to point out that your arguement doesn't take into account what Captain Juan Juarez is referring to - my point about the definition of what a "biker" is.

[greatcrusade08]

they are scout bikers, not bikers.. the clue is in the title.. anyone wanting to argue 'wording' here is gunna hot a brick wall with that one

[Iron Father Rik]

"Scout" bikers is simply a type of biker. And arguing that the sergeant isn't classed as a "biker" is ludicrous. If he is not a biker, then what is he? Just running really really fast to keep up with the squad?

[Captain Juan Juarez]

they are scout bikers, not bikers.. the clue is in the title.. anyone wanting to argue 'wording' here is gunna hot a brick wall with that one

 

I disagree, but does the Codex actually state "normal" bikers as "bikers" or is a different term used? Don't have mine handy to check.

 

In my opinion if they ride a bike they are a biker.. But obviously common sense =/= GW.

[greatcrusade08]

considering ive been arguing for common sense and you guys want RAW.. you cant then argue it yourselves.. its a little hypocritical dont you think?

 

normal bikers are called space marine bikers, scout bikers are called ironically scout bikers...

 

the term bikers doesnt exist, its only used in the wargear sections of each specific entry t donate the standard biker of that unit.. the sergeant is always referred to as the biker sergeant or scou biker sergeant depending on the unit

[Captain Juan Juarez]

considering ive been arguing for common sense and you guys want RAW.. you cant then argue it yourselves.. its a little hypocritical dont you think?

 

Nope, I don't.

 

How things should be played and how I would prefer to play them are two different things.

Rules should be played as written, but I'd prefer them to make sense first.

 

the term bikers doesnt exist, its only used in the wargear sections of each specific entry t donate the standard biker of that unit.. the sergeant is always referred to as the biker sergeant or scou biker sergeant depending on the unit

 

Then they are all bikers, in terms of "basic" unit member.. Because otherwise, none of them get it because none of them are actually called "Bikers".

[greatcrusade08]

Then they are all bikers, in terms of "basic" unit member.. Because otherwise, none of them get it because none of them are actually called "Bikers".

 

by jove i think your getting it... RAW means no-one gets the AGL because no-one is actually called a 'biker'.

In terms of the codex what does biker mean in this instance.. your making a huge assumption by saying it covers the sergeant aswell.

we also know from other scout units that if weapons were meant to be used by the sergeant aswell as line trooper they would use the wording "any model may have".

 

as they didnt use this wording, the only intepretation is that by 'biker' they are referring to scout biker.. this is further supported by the generic SM bike entry where they also call the regular bikers 'bikers'.

 

tbh i cant see where the issue is here.. its pretty easy to see whats going on.. the sergeant has a list of upgrades, AGL isnt there... thats the bottom line.

 

How things should be played and how I would prefer to play them are two different things.

Rules should be played as written, but I'd prefer them to make sense first.

you specifically argued against my point based on an interpretation of RAW

Well no, because really you're supposed to play the rules as they are written - discounting the fact that some may be ambiguous or just plain stupid - so that interpretation is really the only one that should matter

 

you cant discount my common sense argument and then later on use your own.. it is hypocritical.. one rule for everyone or not at all.

 

in this case RAW is useless, we have no choice but to use 'common sense'

[Hfran Morkai]

Well no, because really you're supposed to play the rules as they are written - discounting the fact that some may be ambiguous or just plain stupid - so that interpretation is really the only one that should matter :unsure:

 

Actually you're meant to play the rules in a mutually agreeable manner between all parties involved in the game, coming from GW's own mouths :)

 

The rules they provide us with are simply for convenience and an attempt at balancing things but they heartily encourage gamers to develop their own rules.

[greatcrusade08]

thats a better retort than my own fumbled attempt.. i often struggle to find the right words :unsure:

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

Well no, because really you're supposed to play the rules as they are written - discounting the fact that some may be ambiguous or just plain stupid - so that interpretation is really the only one that should matter

 

you cant discount my common sense argument and then later on use your own.. it is hypocritical.. one rule for everyone or not at all.

 

in this case RAW is useless, we have no choice but to use 'common sense'

 

He can,* because common sense is a misleading term, since it is not common. That is not to say you had no common sense, but that yours is different from his, or from mine, and it therefore is not really common. So if we have to use common sense, your reasoning is valid, but his is, too. Let me try and put both reasonings into a more simple format.

 

What you are saying is:

 

- in the normal scout bike squad entry, it says bikers may have an AGL.

- this cannot mean the sergeant, because he has his own list of options and is referred to specifically.

- the term 'bikers' must mean the standard squad members as opposed to the special sergeant model, because it is also used in the other bike entry, where it is equally supposed to mean the standard squad members.

 

The two assumptions you make is that the term biker in the space marine bike squad refers to only the normal bikers, not the sergeant (this is not proven, as it could also be read to mean both, only nobody would give the sergeant a special weapon as it is ineffective) and that the fact that he has his own list of options would exclude him from using the options available to all others (which could be argued against because it does happen in other units like vanguard, where the sergeant may also take items from the "any model" list. That there is no "any model" in the scout biker entry is not important, as the vanguard entry is simply precedent that a model can have his own specific list and still have access to another list of options). Both assumptions could be argued for or against.

 

His reasoning is:

 

- it says biker

- every model on a bike is a biker

- the sergeant is on a bike

- the sergeant is a biker

- the sergeant may have an AGL.

 

The assumption here is that GW actually use words correctly. This can also be argued for or against (because they sometimes do, and sometimes don't).

 

Both reasonings use common sense, yours uses a comparison with similar entries, his uses simple logic based on clearly defined words. None is per se invalid.

 

Which is why I think you can only agree to disagree, since none of you will be able to produce any argument that actually decides the case.

 

*Discounting your common sense argument for being a common sense argument and then posting his own common sense argument would be hypocritical, but discounting your common sense argument because he is of the opinion that his common sense argument is right while yours is wrong is valid. I was too lazy to check which he did. :unsure:

[greatcrusade08]

That there is no "any model" in the scout biker entry is not important, as the vanguard entry is simply precedent that a model can have his own specific list and still have access to another list of options). Both assumptions could be argued for or against.

 

Ah but here is the flaw in your very well summarised post.. every unit entry that allows every member of that unit to take identical wargear, despite having different statlines and upgrade options specifically uses the "any model" statement.

If its not used here then it doesnt apply here, adding more weight to my argument.

what we have here is not only a set precedant, its an established unit entry template.. to ingore it would be silly in this case

 

*Discounting your common sense argument for being a common sense argument and then posting his own common sense argument would be hypocritical, but discounting your common sense argument because he is of the opinion that his common sense argument is right while yours is wrong is valid. I was too lazy to check which he did. :D

It was the former.

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

That there is no "any model" in the scout biker entry is not important, as the vanguard entry is simply precedent that a model can have his own specific list and still have access to another list of options). Both assumptions could be argued for or against.

 

Ah but here is the flaw in your very well summarised post.. every unit entry that allows every member of that unit to take identical wargear, despite having different statlines and upgrade options specifically uses the "any model" statement.

If its not used here then it doesnt apply here, adding more weight to my argument.

what we have here is not only a set precedant, its an established unit entry template.. to ingore it would be silly in this case

 

 

You say they would simply had used the "any model" wording if it was intended to mean that. Now that is a valid argument, but can be countered by the equally valid argument that they would simply have written "scout biker" (or "space marine biker" respectively) if they meant only those, and not every model that could be considered a biker as via the other reaonsing shown in the above post. The wording argument goes both ways, which is why there are different ways to interpret it in the first place.

[greatcrusade08]

You say they would simply had used the "any model" wording if it was intended to mean that. Now that is a valid argument, but can be countered by the equally valid argument that they would simply have written "scout biker" (or "space marine biker" respectively) if they meant only those, and not every model that could be considered a biker as via the other reaonsing shown in the above post. The wording argument goes both ways, which is why there are different ways to interpret it in the first place.

 

i fail to see how it counters my argument, merely raises a different point on whether scout bikers are allowed the AGLs at all.. given that the "any model" wording wasnt used and the sergeant has a set upgrades list, he cannot take AGLs.

no interpretation is required, he simply cannot have them

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

It counters your argument because while some things may be arguable, that scout bikers may take AGLs certainly is not, reasonably, arguable. If you accept that, it then becomes the matter whether "biker" refers to, as simple logic (based on the assumption that GW uses words correctly) dictates, anyone riding a bike, or to a specific model type that has a different full name, the scout biker.

 

If you say that GW has probably not used the word correctly, that also means that there is a mistake. If there is a mistake, a lack of cross-referencing, then it is just a likely that they mean "any model" as that they mean "scout biker".

 

Which, as I hope you can see, is the basic problem.

 

Now, I still think this issue cannot be resolved based on what's in the codex. It simply is and remains unclear until GW clarifies it in an FAQ.

[greatcrusade08]

It counters your argument because while some things may be arguable, that scout bikers may take AGLs certainly is not, reasonably, arguable. If you accept that, it then becomes the matter whether "biker" refers to, as simple logic (based on the assumption that GW uses words correctly) dictates, anyone riding a bike, or to a specific model type that has a different full name, the scout biker.

 

If you say that GW has probably not used the word correctly, that also means that there is a mistake. If there is a mistake, a lack of cross-referencing, then it is just a likely that they mean "any model" as that they mean "scout biker".

 

Which, as I hope you can see, is the basic problem.

 

i dont agree.. and heres why:

whether scout bikes can take AGLs at all is open for debate.. becuase the wording is poor. i agree on this..

but this whole debate is about whether or not scout biker sergeants may take AGLs, not scouts themselves..

 

given that the wording doesnt state "any model" then whether it means scout bikes or not is irrelevant, becuase without that "any model" statement the sergeant is not permitted to take them.

 

thats my argument in a nutshell, to say the term 'biker' covers the sergeant is an unfounded assumption and cannot be used as an argument to counter the above.

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

The assumption that it does not include the sergeant is just as unfounded.

 

And that scout bikers may take the AGL is certainly not debatable. By RAW, no one may have an AGL, and that is obviously not meant, because it makes no sense at all to include it in the book in that case. If you want to argue that, please find someone else to do so.

 

So RAW does not allow us to answer the question. That is why while the wording is poor, it is debatable whether that poor wording was meant to be an inclusive term that means both scouts and sergeant, or whether that poor wording was meant to be a specific term meaning the scout bikers, but failed at that.

 

You say it is definite, you say it is possible to find out which of the two meanings was intended. I say that is not possible, because it is worded poorly. And just to be absolutely clear, I am not saying the sergeant may definitely take one, I am saying he might be able to take one and we cannot know what the designer meant.

[greatcrusade08]

The assumption that it does not include the sergeant is just as unfounded.

 

yes your right it could be considered an assumption, however thats not a strong enough argument to warrant giving him an AGL, especially when combined with my other very strong arguments about the sergeants wargear opions.

its a permissive rules set, you cant say.

"the term bikers might cover the sergeant so therefore im giving him the upgrade"

 

And that scout bikers may take the AGL is certainly not debatable. By RAW, no one may have an AGL, and that is obviously not meant, because it makes no sense at all to include it in the book in that case. If you want to argue that, please find someone else to do so.

 

Well if no-one may have an AGL why are we discussing this at all.. obviousl the sergeant may not have one..

this is my point and has been from the beginning.. if we go with RAW then no-one gets one.

 

if however we apply some sense to the situation then we can show why the sergeant doesnt get an AGL.

-becuase his upgrade list is exhaustive and doesnt include AGLs.

-becuase previous examples show the wrods "any model" when they include the unit as a whole

-becuase he isnt a biker, hes a scout biker sergeant.

 

the counter argument boils down to "he might be considered a biker"

 

he might be a woman on weekends, but the argument isnt strong enough im afraid

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

Okay, let us look at the term 'biker' again.

 

There are three possible meanings of such a term.

1. a specific, technical term that is defined within the ruleset, and whose meaning within the ruleset can therefore be specific and different from the dictionary definition. For example, the term 'rapid fire weapon', which does not mean a weapon firing rapidly within the context of the ruleset, but a weapon with the rule 'rapid fire' in its statline.

2. an unspecific, general sense term defined by the dictionary. Using this kind of word meaning, a storm bolter can be said to be a rapid fire weapon.

3. neither, because the author did not pay enough attention to make it clear which of the above it is.

 

If 1., then no scout may have an AGL, because 'biker' as a specific term is not defined, therefore being a newly introduced specific term with no clear indication.

If 2., then everyone on a bike may have an AGL, because 'biker' per dictionary is someone riding a bike. Put in the context of the squad, they all are bikers in a general sense.

If 3., then we cannot know, because the wording is poor.

 

I think we can discount 1., because that clearly could not be intended. If it were, the AGL would not be included in the army list entry for scout biker squads, and, since no other squad has access to it, not be included in the codex at all.

 

So it can only be either 2. or 3., so either the scout sergeant has access to it, or we cannot know whether he does. There are no other ways to interpret the word 'biker' than the ones mentioned above. What you are doing is taking it to be 3 (which is not proven), and then comparing to similar entries. That does not provide you with a strong argument, but merely with an indication based on the weak assumption that it might be option 3, an unclear term. Weak not because it is dumb or wrong to assume that, but because we cannot prove it.

[JamesI]

GC08, in terms of what I think GW intended, I think you are right. I think they intended that the sergeant would not be able to get a GL.

 

But, in terms of RAW there are 2 options.

 

1) Bikers get GLs, but not scout bikers or scout biker sergeants. therefore no one gets them.

 

2) Scout bikers and Scout biker sergeants are bikers and get them.

 

1) makes no sense, so by RAW it must be 2.