Astartes grenade launchers

[greatcrusade08]

Make him a special gun, half bolter, half grenade launcher, but you won't know what it is until GW makes a ruling.

 

:)

personally even if its ruled he can have one i wouldnt anyway, i prefer using frag grenades and the extra BS makes little difference.. ill stick with his bolters.

 

thanks to everyone for keeping this polite, i enjoy a good clean scrap from time to time ;)

[Algesan]

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.

 

Especially if we cannot understand how to reference and cross reference things rationally.

 

Correct, the C:SM says on page 141 that "up to three Bikers" may take the "Astartes grenade launcher".

 

Okay, WTH is an "Astartes grenade launcher" and why do I want one? Okay, lets go to the Wargear section and see what it says. So, going to page 97 under the entry "Astartes Grenade Launcher" I see: "See the Scout Bikers entry on page 67."

 

...<grumble, grumble, lazy buggers>...

 

Page 67, the entry on Scout Bikers, now what does it say?

 

"Scout Bikers can employ grenade launchers."

 

Oh, RF grenade launcher? Cool.

 

Anyway, it fairly clearly says that "Scout Bikers" are the ones that can use them. Although a case can be made that a SB Sgt is also a SB a quick tour around a number of other units as well as the specific phrasing everywhere except on page 141 under that specific entry, it is fairly clear that the Sgt doesn't get one.

 

Otherwise I'd get to argue that if you take a minimum squad under the Assault Marine entry that if you take a plasma pistol under the second bullet option for "one in every five Marines" that you cannot take another one with your Sgt there under the third bullet option, since one of the Marines already has one...

 

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.

 

Except there is almost always a primary interpretation, which is the one that should be followed unless otherwise specified. Just because one can "make a case" doesn't mean the "case" somehow tosses a rule or introduces a valid "alternate interpretation".

 

I've seen far too many people calling on fluff, RL examples, other codices, older editions of the same codex, earlier editions of the core rules, previous editions of other codices, emotional appeals, the way their Aunt Susy ran a tournament two decades ago, different sections of the core rules that have no application to the specific question at hand and all manner of other illegitimate BS tricks to "make a case". Then jump up and down claiming they have "made a case" so they win.

 

Leave that to juries that award big bucks to an absolute moron who some how "didn't know" that coffee is hot and didn't recheck the lid on the cup, so it was really the fault of the people who handed her the coffee that she had a wreck.

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

And you could not possibly have posted that 3 pages ago? It indeed never occurred to me to check the scout biker/AGL description. Then again, might be debatable whether that has any influence on the actual army list, might it not?

[Algesan]

And you could not possibly have posted that 3 pages ago? It indeed never occurred to me to check the scout biker/AGL description. Then again, might be debatable whether that has any influence on the actual army list, might it not?

 

Sorry, just noticed it and I had some free time, so I was browsing, I don't run bikers. I edited my post above to cover what I consider some of the problems with "rules interpretations" in this and other "official rules" forums.

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

In general, I agree with what you edited in (and I was joking about why you did not post earlier). The primary interpretation, from where I am coming from, however, is that the sergeant does get it - and gc's primary was the opposite. I stated very early that, given the original english version of the entry, I, too, would consider it to mean the sergeant should not get it.

 

I still think he probably shouldn't, but I also still know it cannot be proven based on the entry in the armylist alone, because by RAW and logic in that entry, he does get it. Adding the wording of the entry on page 67, it is solvable I think, though I now lack motivation to look at it more closely again.

 

In the german version, it is still very clearly possible to give the AGL to the sergeant. :)

[Meatman]

people have conveniently ignored my main argument..

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

 

 

Bigger nail in the coffin is that it uses the same wording for upgrading regular marine bikers.

 

"Up to 2 bikers may replace their bolt pistols with:

- a flamer ...

- a melta ...

- a plasmagun ..."

 

The sergeant is a "Biker sergeant" and the bikers are "Space marine bikers"

 

So why would you buy your sergeant a combi-melta or flamer if you could buy the real one for the same or less cost?

[greatcrusade08]

@meatman i addressed that already, the two had become linked in terms of any final meeting of the minds..

also note

@Algesan i did infact argue that we should look at pg67, but quickly retracted after i read the whole page, the paragraph above the grenade launcher section is teleport homers and it states that scouts use them too.. but they dont its the scout sergeants.

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.

 

As much as id love to add that argument to my list (believe me i would love too), it wouldnt hold up under scrutiny

[Isiah]

Yes this is an interesting one.

 

There was a very similar issue way back when 4th Ed DA Codex came out: was a "Scout Sergeant" a "Scout" and could he therefore take a sniper rifle?

 

The result in a subsequent FAQ was: yes he was a "Scout" and therefore yes he can take a sniper rilfe.

 

OK I know different Codexes and all that -- but the principle (if one could call it such) is there. The term "Bikers" in this topic is probably a generic term referring to anyone in the squad riding a bike -- and not a reference to the very specific "Scout Biker" as opposed "Scout Biker sergeant" in the Scout biker's army list entry. So working on that basis then yes the sarge can have grenade launcher too.

 

 

 

But....

 

 

... to my mind this flies in the face of all things sensible that we know from our army list weapon selecting and would open up the prospect of a "Space Marine Sergeant" in a Tactical squad taking a heavy weapon upgrade (normally) only allowed on to "one Space Marine".

 

Or, the "Terminator Sergeant" taking an assault cannon meant for "one Terminator".

 

On balance, I'd say the grenade launcher can't be taken by a Biker Sergeant, only by his Biker squad members.

 

Cheers

I

[JamesI]

I looked in Codex BA to see if the wording was any better, and sadly its not. In fact its worse as I can't find the stuff Algesan posted at all.

[CaptinLoken]

I am on the fence on this ... GS Crusade I like your point with the Sterngarud and I'm trying to find other cases of where "any model" is actually the Differ ... The command squad says Any Veteran, in addition to other units with Any Attack bike, Standard Terminator squad Any terminator plus the two biker references

 

... BUT ... Now Scouts themselves (troops) Any model as well Vanguard also say model and .. Terminator Assault squad say model ... Honour Guard also says model.

 

(just added VVVV)

Standard Terminator squad Any terminator but specifically mention that the Sargent and squad are differ. It is a odd case where the sargent can't upgrade at all and the unit can take on other options.

 

It split 50/50ish

I think the interesting thing here is with Logic saying biker is where GW Screwed up...

 

There is two forms of who can have a weapon ... Any model or a specific member in the squad can... This is really plain forward in every other case in the codex

...examples UP TO TWO ... or Two OF ... such type of model can have special weapons in the unit.

 

Now with a flip page comment Both Space Marine Bike squads Use Bikers which is the same error of understanding. We are still left with the idea that who is the bikers and who is not? I'm still on the fence on this one but with the way the wording presents with normal Marine bikers they are replacing bolt pistols with a certain special weapon ...The same squad Sargent is trading his bolt pistol for other gear... does he also have choice for the squads Special weapons? I can't say certainty that he can but with the cases above the are really plain forward approach of any specified member of the squad I'm tempted us use Biker as ... any Biker in the squad for both units of scouts or full marines. I can't see how it would be useful for a Sargent full marine biker to wield the Plasma gun over his squad members but in the say both units say it ... They both have a common trend and as much as I have already built my Scout Sargent... I back on the fence.

 

Biker is only a reference to the type of model... Similar to terminator or Veteran it isn't the full name used like the rest of the units but ... its a lean... If you dig in the codex it actually ... I'm tempted to say YES they can but ... I'm trying to be on both sides because It isn't full out Why didn't they use model... but that Is GW.

 

So can the biker reference follow the trend of other units with biker being used over full name who can used it? ... I'm unsure ... maybe yes positive?

 

I think the only no to this pool of info is that since there is a mention specific unit type that there is an intended group of models excluded from the bunch of the majority of a squad. Short thought Since there is not a wide use of any model specifically saying any model that there is therefore a intended model not suppose to wield a weapon. Gosh... This FENCE ... I am on... I do think over the idea of excluded Models are implicated with the word model is not used. As the cases above do word it in such a manner that the Termy Sargent doesn't get any options as well few others. That the only exception to this trend is in attack bikes which opens a can of worms as well... LAST EDIT...

[shatter]

The assumption that as the scout sergeant has a busy list of personal upgrades possible, he is precluded a shared wargear list of one, the AGL, is flawed.

There are instances of a small, often just one item wargear lists, being shared between upgrade characters and their squads.

 

Jump packs are particularly a prevalent wargear option shared by the whole squad.

 

But that doesn't matter really. I think each entry is to be considered separate. The scout biker entry should be able to stand alone and looking at it simply, anyone with a bike is on a list for 3 AGLs. It's not remotely ambiguous, and at worst, only a little uncommon or strange. *shrug*

 

It's not like a C:BA honour guard problem where people would like to customise Champions or Novitiates when the list of upgrades applies to honour guard models when there is a specific stat-line named Honour Guard.

 

There is no specific division of wargear here based on statline with regard to AGL. Instead, a different label is used.

To me the only reason, assuming it's printed as intended (which we MUST assume), is GW intended for AGLs to not be associated by statline.

 

I think this is irrevocably proven by the fact that C:BA scout bike squads can have a total squad size of... 3 models which happens to be the maximum number of AGLs the squad can take.

[pingo]

I think this is irrevocably proven by the fact that C:BA scout bike squads can have a total squad size of... 3 models which happens to be the maximum number of AGLs the squad can take.

 

This is also true of the entry in C:SM.

 

But 'irrevocably proven' is a massive overstatement of this case. Sure, it can be seen to shed light on GW's intent, but it remains a possibility that this was not GW's intent after all.

 

To prove something, you need to totally eliminate the possibly of it being false. We can't do that until GW FAQ this.

[captain sox]

My big question is why would you even want one on the Sergeant? BS 4? Wouldn't you rather use that with a Combi-Melta or Plasma Pistol?

 

Adding the Points for the AGL plus points for a Combi or for a Plasma Pistol and also the for a Melta Bomb makes for an expensive, 1 wound 4+ Cover save model. If you put the AGL on it with a Powerfist you are really paying a price....

 

also, the one thing that intrigues me is the wording in the AGL entry:

 

Up to three Bikers may replace their bike's Twin Linked Boltgun for an Astartes Grenade Launcher............................ + xx Pts

 

now is this INTENDED to be XX Pts per Biker or XX Pts for the cost of the upgrade? (you can argue that it's 10 Pts for the upgrade and up to 3 bikes can have them, or you can argue that it's 10 Pts per model.)

 

 

in some entries it specifically mentions Points Per Model, and some entries (like the one above) it lumps them all together and does not mention 'Per Model'.

 

 

 

:)

[greatcrusade08]

The assumption that as the scout sergeant has a busy list of personal upgrades possible, he is precluded a shared wargear list of one, the AGL, is flawed.

There are instances of a small, often just one item wargear lists, being shared between upgrade characters and their squads.

 

as explained, in every instance where a sergeant can take upgrades outside of his list the term "any model" is used.

it isnt the case here, so how can we assume its meant to mean the same..

 

answer= we cannot

[shatter]

Err... except bikers, obviously.

 

Have you not been paying attention?

 

(I kid! Don't hate!)

 

"I think 'model' doesn't work so comfortably with bikes as they're a two-piece kinda thing. If 'model' normally refers to the space marine himself, will the monkeys get confused?"

"Biker is a man, not machine and man... this will confuse them too I think."

"Dunno man, awww... they'll cope... yeah we'll go with biker as it will serve to remind them they're different with special rules an' stuff"

"Like terminators?"

"Well, yeah a bit... but still multiple model pieces"

 

'Biker' seems to be a consistent and all-encompassing label substituted for 'model' as it appears pan-codex.

 

 

The real problem here is perception I reckon.

Using them as described as if their intention is as simple as described is the only way. Folks have to stop thinking of intent because a guess in the dark is an insane method of proving GW didn't write the rules to play as they read.

It is no proof.

None at all.

Stop it.

 

And, once one does that and accepts that GW wrote it the way it reads... which they did... the rest makes a lot more sense (min squad size = 3, AGL max = 3.)

 

'My' method requires no guesswork. Yours does.

[greatcrusade08]

And, once one does that and accepts that GW wrote it the way it reads... which they did... the rest makes a lot more sense (min squad size = 3, AGL max = 3.)

 

'My' method requires no guesswork. Yours does.

 

except your methods requires you to assume biker = sergeant and that the wargear choice of 3 AGL per unit is linked to the min squad size.. which is the same as regular biker btw..

if assumptions are not classed as guesswork then this argument could go on for some time.

 

without proof that the sergeant is classified as a 'biker', then you have no right/RAW support to take an AGL on him.. i guess thats the bottom line, that my argument and requires no guesswork as you suggested

 

Err... except bikers, obviously.

well not quite, that was established early on, this argument covers both these units, and as to what they mean by 'biker'.. thats not a supporting argument im afraid

[raven guard 1369]

i realize its a miserable argument but you cant give the sergeant an AGL if your using army builder. seeing as i'm too lazy to write it out i just use army builder at my local store when I make a new list

[Aegnor]

On re reading, I felt it seemed pretty clear that the Sgt isn't meant to be able to take the GL. That's how I've now modeled mine and will play it.