greatcrusade08 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 but that argument that its one or the other holds no weight, becuase as i have said repeatedly (and no-one has countered) a sergeant has a finite amount of upgrades and the AGL is missing from that list. furthermore, the previous examples of situations that allow for every member of the squad to be upgraded (sergeant included) uses the term "any model".. not bikers/scouts/marines etc. using your argment SM biker sergeants can have meltaguns, flamers and plasmaguns, i can put cyclones on a terminator sergeant (hey hes a terminator after all) and the list goes on. bottom line is this: all stat lines are unique within a unit for wargear purposes, the term "biker" is too looose to use properly in this context, using a dictionary wont help when defining what GW wanted the word to convey. The assumption that the sergeant is included is just that, an assumption and isnt strong enough to argue for putting an AGL on a bike. as people have said before, if your playing a game and your opponent says "you cant have an AGL on your biker sergeant".. whats your reply gunna be "hes on a bike, therefore hes a biker, therefore i get an AGL" its flimsy, very flimsy we all know what GW meant here, i think people are being intentionally difficult for no reason.. this isnt a discussion about RAW, becuase in that case no model may have an AGL. this is about finding the truth.. 2) Scout bikers and Scout biker sergeants are bikers and get them. 1) makes no sense, so by RAW it must be 2. Which can only be true if we assume the term 'biker' covers sergeants.. and weve no proof to back this up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Priest Haelaeif Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 That the sergeant has his own list is not a valid argument, since then a vanguard sergeant would be confined to that, too. In the vanguard entry, it says 'any model', in the biker entry it says 'up to X bikers'. Since 'bikers' must either be a specific term or an unspecific one, and if it were a specific one, nobody would get the AGL, it must be an unspecific one, and then if among a squad consisting only of bikers (people riding a bike) any biker may have something, then that is the same as saying 'any model'- There. I still agree that it was probably intended to not include the sergeant. But it still stands that none of your reasoning is actual proof of that, but only indications. Nobody is being intentionally (or unintentionally) difficult, they are just of different opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekLee688 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Both arguments are valid as there is not enough non-ambigous language to disprove either. Saying the poor wording supports/disproves either would be "flimsy" at best. Seeing as neither side will back down, you can take both arguments around full circle again or petition GW to make a FAQ in another 4-5 months. Do whichever is more fun to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Priest Haelaeif Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 @Derek: the funny thing is, that is just my point, I am not even trying to prove that the sergeant may have that launcher, just that it is not clear enough to say he may not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 @Derek: the funny thing is, that is just my point, I am not even trying to prove that the sergeant may have that launcher, just that it is not clear enough to say he may not. This is my opinion as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Juan Juarez Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 @Derek: the funny thing is, that is just my point, I am not even trying to prove that the sergeant may have that launcher, just that it is not clear enough to say he may not. This is my opinion as well. I just like to argue :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 That the sergeant has his own list is not a valid argument, since then a vanguard sergeant would be confined to that, too. In the vanguard entry, it says 'any model', in the biker entry it says 'up to X bikers'. i think you may be confusing my point.. the fact it states "any model" allows the vanguard sergeant to take other options apart from his own, in the scout biker entry there is no wargear entry for "any model" therfore he can only take his own options.. using the vanguard as a template for this example: the vanguard sergeant may take his options, and he may have any options that are available to any model.. becuase its specific, it covers every model in the unit, he is in the unit.. you get the point. the scout biker sergeant also has his own upgrades, but there is no upgrades that state "any model".. by RAW the unit type "biker" doesnt exit therefore he cant have an AGL (nor can anyone else) It is an assumption to presume the term biker means scout biker (but a reasonable assumption to make), however the assumption that it includes the sergeant is completely unfounded.. just becuase he rides a bike doesnt mean hes the same as a standard scout biker... we have already stated that the sergeant is a different 'type' even though hes on a bike too. If it were meant to cover both the unit and sergeant it would have said "any model" as it does in every other instance in the dex to allow all models to use the same upgrades.. scouts vanguard etc.. all use "any model may".. the fact that it doesnt gives more credence to which way to interpret the term 'biker'. your assuming that the term bikers covers the sergeant, your then assuming aswell that GW would use the term bikers instead of the term "any model" (which it has used in every other instance) in order to take an AGL.. my point is that you cant use assumptions to build your list.. nor can you use assumptions when dealing with RAW.. strict RAW states no-one gets AGL.. if you want to discuss RAI, then all this stuff is relevant. show me some precedant for why we should except your interpretation? this "a biker is someone on a bike" is nonsense in game terms otherwise i could say my space marine sergeant is a space marine and can therefore carry a heavy weapon. put it this way, the onus is on you guys to prove your allowed these upgrades.. which you cant do without making assumptions. it is for this reason why we have to say he cant have an AGL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 That the sergeant has his own list is not a valid argument, since then a vanguard sergeant would be confined to that, too. In the vanguard entry, it says 'any model', in the biker entry it says 'up to X bikers'. i think you may be confusing my point.. the fact it states "any model" allows the vanguard sergeant to take other options apart from his own, in the scout biker entry there is no wargear entry for "any model" therfore he can only take his own options.. using the vanguard as a template for this example: the vanguard sergeant may take his options, and he may have any options that are available to any model.. becuase its specific, it covers every model in the unit, he is in the unit.. you get the point. the scout biker sergeant also has his own upgrades, but there is no upgrades that state "any model".. by RAW the unit type "biker" doesnt exit therefore he cant have an AGL (nor can anyone else) It is an assumption to presume the term biker means scout biker (but a reasonable assumption to make), however the assumption that it includes the sergeant is completely unfounded.. just becuase he rides a bike doesnt mean hes the same as a standard scout biker... we have already stated that the sergeant is a different 'type' even though hes on a bike too. If it were meant to cover both the unit and sergeant it would have said "any model" as it does in every other instance in the dex to allow all models to use the same upgrades.. scouts vanguard etc.. all use "any model may".. the fact that it doesnt gives more credence to which way to interpret the term 'biker'. your assuming that the term bikers covers the sergeant, your then assuming aswell that GW would use the term bikers instead of the term "any model" (which it has used in every other instance) in order to take an AGL.. my point is that you cant use assumptions to build your list.. nor can you use assumptions when dealing with RAW.. strict RAW states no-one gets AGL.. if you want to discuss RAI, then all this stuff is relevant. show me some precedant for why we should except your interpretation? this "a biker is someone on a bike" is nonsense in game terms otherwise i could say my space marine sergeant is a space marine and can therefore carry a heavy weapon. put it this way, the onus is on you guys to prove your allowed these upgrades.. which you cant do without making assumptions. it is for this reason why we have to say he cant have an AGL @Derek: the funny thing is, that is just my point, I am not even trying to prove that the sergeant may have that launcher, just that it is not clear enough to say he may not. This is my opinion as well. 40k is permissive, its not about "it doesnt say i cant do this" .. its about what you can do. It doesnt state that you can take an AGL, without that statement you cant tbh the whole "it doesnt say i cant do this attitude" doesnt belong in this hobby.. it doesnt state i cant throw my BRB at my opponents face, doesnt mean i can do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 @Derek: the funny thing is, that is just my point, I am not even trying to prove that the sergeant may have that launcher, just that it is not clear enough to say he may not. This is my opinion as well. 40k is permissive, its not about "it doesnt say i cant do this" .. its about what you can do. It doesnt state that you can take an AGL, without that statement you cant I disagree. I'm not trying to say "it doesn't say I can't". I'm trying to say it says someone (Bikers) can. The RAW question is entirely on the definition of bikers. Bikers are allowed GLs, who are Bikers? Everyone, no one, the non-sergeant guys? By RAW, it appears to be no one, but that makes no sense. An option wouldn't be put in that was illegal. So, we clearly have bad wording or a typo. The RAI question I entirely agree with you. But I think the wording is unclear enough that it can't be unilaterally decided (by RAW) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Priest Haelaeif Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 It is an assumption to presume the term biker means scout biker (but a reasonable assumption to make), however the assumption that it includes the sergeant is completely unfounded.. just becuase he rides a bike doesnt mean hes the same as a standard scout biker... If 'biker' can mean a scout biker, it must be an unspecific, ie non-legal, but dictionary-defined term, and thus must mean the sergeant as well, because by virtue of riding a bike, he is a biker as per any dictionary definition. If it is not meant to mean scout bikers, the entry is useless. There is no way a term can be legally defined at the same time as not. By assuming 'biker' in this case means scout bikers, we must assume it means scout biker sergeants, too, simply because it is not a legally (ie rules-legally) defined term in that case. Nothing in your reasoning proves the sergeant cannot have it, and nothing can prove he is meant to have it. If you cannot back down and agree to disagree, we can keep arguing this. But the facts will not change. It is too unclear to prove the sergeant cannot have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Nothing in your reasoning proves the sergeant cannot have it, and nothing can prove he is meant to have it. If you cannot back down and agree to disagree, we can keep arguing this. But the facts will not change. It is too unclear to prove the sergeant cannot have one. then he cant have it full stop.. its permissive.... i dont have to prove he cant have it, becuase no-one can prove he can have it.. this is my point. without proof he can have it, he simply cant, its that simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Priest Haelaeif Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 No, it isn't. Yes, it is a permissive ruleset, but the entry can be read as permitting it. It just cannot be proven that this is the way it was intended. But the matter of intention is not a permissive ruleset, it is a matter of interpretation. That interpretation is possible both ways in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 No, it isn't. Yes, it is a permissive ruleset, but the entry can be read as permitting it. no it cant becuase there is no such thing as a "biker" in the unit entry, your assuming it is permissive and calling it an interpretation.. when its clearly not. i dont have to prove he cant have it, you guys have to prove he can have it... you need solid facts, again when your opponent asks for proof what are you going to say "oh hes a biker"... no hes a scout biker sergeant thats different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 No, it isn't. Yes, it is a permissive ruleset, but the entry can be read as permitting it. no it cant becuase there is no such thing as a "biker" in the unit entry, your assuming it is permissive and calling it an interpretation.. when its clearly not. i dont have to prove he cant have it, you guys have to prove he can have it... you need solid facts, again when your opponent asks for proof what are you going to say "oh hes a biker"... no hes a scout biker sergeant thats different So what do you say when an opponent ask for proof your non-sergeant bikers can get them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 So what do you say when an opponent ask for proof your non-sergeant bikers can get them? ill answer even though it has no bearing on the current discussion (i.e off topic, you naughty mod you :) ) its never happened yet becuase everyone knows they can take them, but if someone DID ask me for proof and wouldnt accept my assumption that biker means scout biker, id have no issues taking them off the board and replacing them with bolters.. like i said 40k is a permissive ruleset, i understand the point you guys are trying to make, but assuming your allowed to do something is a far cry from actually being allowed to do it. without a wargear entry specifically stating the sergeant or "any model" in the unit can have an AGL, he cant have one.. its that simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingo Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 GC08, your interpretation is very likely to be as the rule was intended. The problem is interpretation is not proof. I think that's the point everyone is making. No one's arguing that the sergeant can take a grenade launcher, because no one can prove he can. But by the same token, no one can prove he can't. Just because something cannot be proved to be true does not mean it is necessarily false. Especially when it also cannot be proved it is false. So, there is no way to prove either side of the argument. Surely we can all agree there is not a shed of conclusive, watertight, proof in this discussion. Which means we're left with interpretation. This is where GC08 has more or less nailed it. Besides, it all boils down to what we can know, or reasonably assume. I've said it earlier, but will repeat it know. In the rule 'Bikers' must at least refer to Scout Bikers as otherwise it is impossible for the squad to contain 3 grenade launchers. However we cannot say it only refers to Scout Bikers. To use somewhat logical terms, there exists a 'possible world' in which 'Bikers' could refer also to the Sergeant. So what is one to do? Well, the only option is to do what we know is a safe option, and that is give launchers only to Scout Bikers. This is simply because whether the sergeant can take one is indeterminate. If something cannot be determined, the only logical course of action is to withhold judgement. Or in this case, not give a launcher to the sergeant. This is merely a safe option, not a proof or an admission the other way is not possible. (EDIT: for clarity) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 So what do you say when an opponent ask for proof your non-sergeant bikers can get them? ill answer even though it has no bearing on the current discussion (i.e off topic, you naughty mod you :) ) its never happened yet becuase everyone knows they can take them, but if someone DID ask me for proof and wouldnt accept my assumption that biker means scout biker, id have no issues taking them off the board and replacing them with bolters.. like i said 40k is a permissive ruleset, i understand the point you guys are trying to make, but assuming your allowed to do something is a far cry from actually being allowed to do it. without a wargear entry specifically stating the sergeant or "any model" in the unit can have an AGL, he cant have one.. its that simple My question wasn't off topic. The entire RAW debate comes down to the definition of Biker, which is at best unclear. It could mean exactly what you say, or it could mean everyone or it could mean no one. This has poor wording. We can't prove anyone can use the GLs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Well, the only option is to do what we know if a safe option, and that is give launchers only to Scout Bikers. This is simply because whether the sergeant can take one is indeterminate. If something cannot be determined, the only logical course of action is to withhold judgement. Or in this case, not give a launcher to the sergeant. at last someone understands my point.. @James, i think the problem here is your arriving late to the party and weve covered the RAW ground which your bringing up.. whether we consider the term bikers to mean scout bikers or not is irrelevant. becasue we cant prove it covers sergeants you cant take an AGL on the sergeant, thats all that matters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 GC08, your interpretation is very likely to be as the rule was intended. The problem is interpretation is not proof. I think that's the point everyone is making. No one's arguing that the sergeant can take a grenade launcher, because no one can prove he can. But by the same token, no one can prove he can't. Just because something cannot be proved to be true does not mean it is necessarily false. Especially when it also cannot be proved it is false. So, there is no way to prove either side of the argument. Surely we can all agree there is not a shed of conclusive, watertight, proof in this discussion. Which means we're left with interpretation. This is where GC08 has more or less nailed it. Besides, it all boils down to what we can know, or reasonably assume. I've said it earlier, but will repeat it know. In the rule 'Bikers' must at least refer to Scout Bikers as otherwise it is impossible for the squad to contain 3 grenade launchers. However we cannot say it only refers to Scout Bikers. To use somewhat logical terms, there exists a 'possible world' in which 'Bikers' could refer also to the Sergeant. So what is one to do? Well, the only option is to do what we know if a safe option, and that is give launchers only to Scout Bikers. This is simply because whether the sergeant can take one is indeterminate. If something cannot be determined, the only logical course of action is to withhold judgement. Or in this case, not give a launcher to the sergeant. A very fair and reasonable conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 A very fair and reasonable conclusion. agreed and a far superior decsription than what ive been able to provide.. he sums up my arguments well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingo Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 A very fair and reasonable conclusion. agreed and a far superior decsription than what ive been able to provide.. he sums up my arguments well Thanks! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 no worries, in dedication to this thread im going to call my scout biker sergeant Schrodinger :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 no worries, in dedication to this thread im going to call my scout biker sergeant Schrodinger :) Make him a special gun, half bolter, half grenade launcher, but you won't know what it is until GW makes a ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Juan Juarez Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 no worries, in dedication to this thread im going to call my scout biker sergeant Schrodinger :) Will he have a Cat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Priest Haelaeif Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I have been saying what pingo summarized all the time. We cannot prove either of both possible interpretations, so there is no final conclusion which was meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.