Kayvaan + Korsarro + Termy Assault Sqd + DT LR = OK?

[DarkGuard]

Infantry is anything that isn't a Monstrous Creature, Jump Infantry, a Bike, Beast and Cavalry, or Artillery. The entire rulebook is written in the view of an infantry model, with additional rules then layered on for those other models.

 

The transport section says that only infantry can embark transport vehicles. Bikers are not infantry. It seems common sense to me that once you give an infantry model a bike, where the rules for it says you follow the rules for bikes, then that model is a bike, and as a consequence cannot be transported. It is common sense, and it occurs to me that GW were probably hoping that we would use common sense for such situations. Unfortunately, some people seem to eschew common sense in favour of long winded, RAW rules lawyer arguments whose sole purpose is to exploit every little uncovered hole in the rules.

 

I know the OP has said something like it's just a RAW argument, postulating what would happen. But common sense dictates it will not happen, so therefore this isn't needed.

[Meatman]

of course the whole argument assumes that some things need to be stated, if a SM rides a bike hes a biker..

people are free to argue some weird RAW long winded argument about unit types and wargear upgrades but it will never fly over the tabletop.

 

people shouldnt argue these things unless they are playable and practical, being correct is not the same as being right

 

It is not RAW that bikes cannot go in transports

actually it kinda is, whichever way you view the issue only infantry can embark, so bikers couldnt..

i dont have my rulebook with me which is preventing me from quoting actual rules, which is why my arguments are somewhat vague.

 

can someone please quote the part of the BRB that defines what infantry is

 

 

 

It isn't, unfortunately. This is the best you get on page 4

 

"Infantry units are all types of foot soldiers, whether human or alien"

 

Other types of unit are "jump infantry" and "Bikes and jetbikes".

 

You upgrade Khan with a biker, I guess he fits under "Bikes and jetbikes" by default. It clearly states on page 66 that only infantry (but not jump infantry) can be transported. Therefore no bikes.

 

 

If you (dizzy-xc) are really going to try this despite the obvious intention that this is not possible, then I would be very happy not to play you. Just because you can manipulate several rules to give yourself an unfair (and in the opinion of everyone else in this thread, gamewise illegal) advantage at the cost of other players, does not mean you should. Thought this thread was a joke at first till your second post. Now I'm laughing even harder at your thoughts that this is possible. Well done, you actually made me "lol" :)

[dizzy-xc]

So the bottom line is that RAW SM Codex HQ Independent Characters and Command Squads that have wargear Bike options like Korsarro Khan do not change their Unit Type when using Bikes, therefore are still Infantry and are allowed to embark into vehicles.

 

That is ridiculous and insane and apparently very legal.

[greatcrusade08]

So the bottom line is that RAW SM Codex HQ Independent Characters and Command Squads that have wargear Bike options like Korsarro Khan do not change their Unit Type when using Bikes, therefore are still Infantry and are allowed to embark into vehicles.

 

That is ridiculous and insane and apparently very legal.

 

I still debate that using common sense.. sure it doesnt state the unit types change, but a good look through the rules on unit types will tell you that bikes are not basic infantry.. once you put an infantry model on a bike he ceases to be an infantry model.

it may not be laid out neatly by RAW but its there if you want to see it.

I would go as far as to say its an argument that can be supported by a long winded interpretation of the rules, but again it would never pass the common sense litmus test

 

edit: poor spag

[dizzy-xc]

Well done, you actually made me "lol" :whistling:

 

Thanks, not exactly what I was going for, but I'll take a laugh for all the effort here. Now imagine my enemy's surprise when Korsarro Khan and a Chapter Master along with their command squad disembark from their rhino all riding Bikes, lol. RAW!

 

I'm tickled that I now have a ridiculous frame of reference to go to when trying to argue against other less ostentatious interpretations of common sense some try using in this game. Don't worry, you won't see my Khan assailing forth upon Moondrakken from the dark vengeful maw of a Land Raider anytime soon. You'll have to wait at least 30,000 years for that, BWUHHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Something Wycked]

dizzy, reread this:

 

...on page 4

 

"Infantry units are all types of foot soldiers, whether human or alien"

 

Other types of unit are "jump infantry" and "Bikes and jetbikes".

 

You upgrade Khan with a biker ... he fits under "Bikes and jetbikes" by default. It clearly states on page 66 that only infantry ... can be transported. Therefore no bikes.

A unit on a bike is not infantry and cannot be transported.

 

And that is RAW. Khan's entry does not have to state that his unit type changes from "Infantry (Character)" to "Bike." It automatically changes when he is mounted on a bike.

[dizzy-xc]

And that is RAW. Khan's entry does not have to state that his unit type changes from "Infantry (Character)" to "Bike." It automatically changes when he is mounted on a bike.

 

No that is NOT what it says. It does NOT say anywhere that the unit entry's 'Unit Type' is changed or altered in any way shape or form when upgrading wargear. Sorry, but you are inferring. And the inferrence of rules isn't ever RAW, merely one laypersons RAI.

 

Its an unfortunate truth, the "bike" wargear does not change the unit type to bike, ...

<SNIP>

 

Frosty the Pyro says it best here, but I'd read his post in its entirety for the best explanation.

[Something Wycked]

No that is NOT what it says. It does NOT say anywhere that the unit entry's 'Unit Type' is changed or altered in any way shape or form when upgrading wargear.

Heh, I didn't say anything is said anywhere- all I said is what is not stated in Khan's entry. But I'll go over it again.

 

A model equipped with a Space Marine Bike is a Biker. A model walking on his own two feet is Infantry. The BRB differentiates between these two types of units and gives each of them their own rules for each of the phases of the game turn.

 

Restated with emphasis: Khan's entry does not have to state that his unit type changes from "Infantry (Character)" to "Bike." It automatically changes when he is mounted on a bike because that is how the BRB defines each unit type.

 

Edit: Said another way, if you insist on embarking Khan and his Command Squad into a Land Raider, all of them equipped with Bikes, I will insist that they move like Infantry and not Bikes, and they have their normal Toughness instead of the Bike's improved value. You can keep the twin-linked Bolter, though. I won't contest that piece of it :lol:

[dizzy-xc]

Restated with emphasis: Khan's entry does not have to state that his unit type changes from "Infantry (Character)" to "Bike." It automatically changes when he is mounted on a bike because that is how the BRB defines each unit type.

 

And I'll restate for emphasis that no where does it say that the unit type changes when adding this wargear. NO WHERE. So you are inferring. As Frosty said earlier, "the "bike" wargear does not change the unit type to bike". So if it doesnt change, then how is he a unit type of bike? What you are arguing is akin to apples and oranges. They have no relation.

 

But I do see where you are coming from... Pages 4-5 of BRB is talking about 'units are riders mounted on a bike' as in a fast attack biker squad. That unit type is bike. I get that. But what it DOESNT say is infantry that have bike wargear BECOME bike unit type. Sorry that isnt there. That isnt RAW. You are just saying they magically become something they arent. If you want a clear cut GW RAW where a unit type changes, look at Dedicated Transport under the Assault Squad Entry on page 139. 'The squad may remove its Jump Packs to count as infantry.'

 

There ya go. I cant point out any clearer how you are inferring the unit type changes when no where in the BRB or Codex does it say it does. So again, if the unit type doesnt change, then they cannot be bike unit type and may therefore embark into a transport RAW.

[Something Wycked]

Your example is a little off. Count as Infantry =/= Infantry. Their unit type doesn't actually change, but you treat them as if it had.

 

Similarly, if a unit is equipped with a Space Marine Bike it might still be Infantry, but you'd damn sure better treat it as a Bike or you're just cheating.

[greatcrusade08]

But I do see where you are coming from... Pages 4-5 of BRB is talking about 'units are riders mounted on a bike' as in a fast attack biker squad. That unit type is bike. I get that. But what it DOESNT say is infantry that have bike wargear BECOME bike unit type. Sorry that isnt there. That isnt RAW. You are just saying they magically become something they arent. If you want a clear cut GW RAW where a unit type changes, look at Dedicated Transport under the Assault Squad Entry on page 139. 'The squad may remove its Jump Packs to count as infantry.'

 

so a unit that rides bikes are bikers, but a character that rides a bike isnt?

your making that distinction based on pre-upgrade terms, thier upgrades have an effect on the game and your discounting that.

a captain has the option for a jump pack, but it doesnt state his unit type changes in the dex, in fairness it does say so in the BRB. But given the unit type section is all handled as one big 'lump' (i.e what is and isnt infantry) then we can easily make a case for precedence amid the same section..

they show in the case of jump packs that once you give them wargear thier unit type changes to reflect this.

 

read the section, it clearly shows its the upgrade option that has the effect, becuase unit type is all one section, whats true for one must be true for another.

give him TDA, he gains TDA rules, give him jump pack, hes jump infantry, give him a bike, hes a biker..

[Something Wycked]

Ok, problem solved now that I'm home and can quote things at you.

 

Kor'sarro Khan's unit entry, page 94 of C:SM: "Moondrakkan is a Space Marine Bike."

 

Space Marine Bike wargear description, page 100 of C:SM: "Models equipped with Space Marine Bikes follow all the rules for bikes as described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook."

 

Transport Vehicles entry, page 66 of BRB: "A transport may carry a single infantry unit and/or any number of independent characters (as long as they count as infantry), up to a total of models equal to the vehicle's transport capacity."

 

Unit type "Bikes" is not unit type "Infantry." Bikes cannot embark onto a transport vehicle.

[Frosty the Pyro]

Ok, problem solved now that I'm home and can quote things at you.

 

Kor'sarro Khan's unit entry, page 94 of C:SM: "Moondrakkan is a Space Marine Bike."

 

Space Marine Bike wargear description, page 100 of C:SM: "Models equipped with Space Marine Bikes follow all the rules for bikes as described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook."

 

Transport Vehicles entry, page 66 of BRB: "A transport may carry a single infantry unit and/or any number of independent characters (as long as they count as infantry), up to a total of models equal to the vehicle's transport capacity."

 

Unit type "Bikes" is not unit type "Infantry." Bikes cannot embark onto a transport vehicle.

 

the issue is

"follow all the rules for bikes as described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook." =/= is unit type bike. in the same way a chaos lord with wings is not jump infantry. Khan is still infantry, even with the moondrakkan wargear. why? Because GW is sloppy.

[thade]

the issue is

"follow all the rules for bikes as described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook." =/= is unit type bike. in the same way a chaos lord with wings is not jump infantry. Khan is still infantry, even with the moondrakkan wargear. why? Because GW is sloppy.

 

The rules aren't bullet proof; push them enough anywhere, and they (seem to) break. Consider, however, this:

 

HE IS MODELED RIDING A *BIKE*.

 

I don't think I can put it any more clearly than that. If he's on a bike, he's a bike; that's WYSIWYG, flat out. So either you're breaking WYSIWYG - putting him on a bike, getting the benefits, but telling me he's NOT a Bike - OR you are illegally embarking a Bike onto a transport. Either way, you're cheating.

 

If anybody tries to embark a bike into a transport around here, I'll kick them out of the tournament myself. ^_^ And possibly in the shins. C'mon, guys. Two pages on this one? We're all smarter than this. <3 Srsly. Don't make me whip out PotMS through Smoke again.

[dizzy-xc]

I think having Khan with chapter master and a command squad all rolling out the back of a Rhino is pretty cheesy, but within the current RAW. Would your opponent allow it? Probably not. Would it make for an interesting game, oh yes.

 

In the greater scope of the game, I honestly wouldnt have a problem having them take up 2 spaces each in a transport. So sticking them in a LRC/R would let you have all 6 or 7 bikers rolling out depending on the transport. A command squad and attached HQ just wont fit in a rhino and they cant take a LR as a DT. You'd have to burn a Heavy Support choice.

 

I dont think I'd try this more than once, tho. I think that a bike squad that is able to turbo boost is more of a threat as a mobile element than as a shock assault group with less initial mobility. Probably wont find an opponent to test it on tho, hehe. But just imagining a LR ramp dropping down and seeing Moondrakken and a buncha bikers roll out is crazy awesome.

[thade]

I think having Khan with chapter master and a command squad all rolling out the back of a Rhino is pretty cheesy, but within the current RAW...

 

He is MODELED riding a BIKE. (Please see my previous entry.)

 

<3 No hard feelings. I'm just angry at this very idea.

[dswanick]

the issue is

"follow all the rules for bikes as described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook." =/= is unit type bike. in the same way a chaos lord with wings is not jump infantry. Khan is still infantry, even with the moondrakkan wargear. why? Because GW is sloppy.

Here's another example of GW being sloppy and assuming gamers can figure out their rules in a common sense fashion:

Nowhere do the rules state that I must read the die's top face. I can RaW read the die's bottom face, or the side closest to me, etc. Heck I could change from roll to roll how I'm reading the dice, the rules don't specify a "correct" way to read the dice. GW, however "assumed" that a normal person knows how to properly read the dice. Just as they assumed that a a player would conclude that a model mounted on a bike, using all the rules for bikes also can't embark a transport which does not allow bikes to embark.

[thade]

the issue is

"follow all the rules for bikes as described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook." =/= is unit type bike. in the same way a chaos lord with wings is not jump infantry. Khan is still infantry, even with the moondrakkan wargear. why? Because GW is sloppy.

Here's another example of GW being sloppy and assuming gamers can figure out their rules in a common sense fashion:

Nowhere do the rules state that I must read the die's top face. I can RaW read the die's bottom face, or the side closest to me, etc. Heck I could change from roll to roll how I'm reading the dice, the rules don't specify a "correct" way to read the dice. GW, however "assumed" that a normal person knows how to properly read the dice. Just as they assumed that a a player would conclude that a model mounted on a bike, using all the rules for bikes also can't embark a transport which does not allow bikes to embark.

 

Definitely. GW has a very strongly impiled "What? Are you daft?" rule. One people try to eschew in the name of Grim Dark Shenanigans.

 

This is a very important example you make, actually; no where does it SAY you must read the top face on the die roll. The rules are not written to be as bullet proof as law; they are written as very strong guidelines toward a fair game. The burden of fair is upon us.

[CaptinLoken]

Is there a bike rack on the back of the land raider like a city bus? It is interesting to think... but page 100 of SM:Codex. Under wargear... they follow the rules as bikes. This is that the wargear says you act as a different unit type now. So for me I would bring that up against you if you tried it against me.

 

Further to the point. I can't see a biker being that useful as a unit in a vehicle like that. Besides something in apocalypses ... where maybe a storm raven that holds dreadnoughts/knights ... having bikes being able to arrive that way being awesome. It makes the bikers usual attack range 20" not a huge leap... as you can't run with them.

 

I use Khan on foot and Strike all the time with termies. I have started to refer to them as Briarwood as they some how always sneak up to Tanks and units from the woods.

[Something Wycked]

the issue is

"follow all the rules for bikes as described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook." =/= is unit type bike. in the same way a chaos lord with wings is not jump infantry. Khan is still infantry, even with the moondrakkan wargear. why? Because GW is sloppy.

I don't see the issue, Frosty."Follows all the rules for bikes" makes you count as unit type Bike using different language. That is what "counts as" means; aren't really, but follow all the rules for. Bike is a unit type in the codex. The Bike unit type is separate and distinct from the Infantry unit type. Infantry that counts as Bikes are... Bikes. And follow all the rules for Bikes. It goes around in a circle because its so obvious.

[thade]

the issue is

"follow all the rules for bikes as described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook." =/= is unit type bike. in the same way a chaos lord with wings is not jump infantry. Khan is still infantry, even with the moondrakkan wargear. why? Because GW is sloppy.

I don't see the issue, Frosty."Follows all the rules for bikes" makes you count as unit type Bike using different language.

 

This is actually dodgy and provides the ground this so-called RAW argument works. However, it's disregarding the RAW-element of WYSIWYG and the fact that - if Khan is modeled on the bike - the he's a BIKE and not INFANTRY any longer. Unless of course he only moves 6" and you have no other bikes in your list? Then it might fly. :) Maybe.

[greatcrusade08]

as ive said already, if a jump pack (a piece of wargear) changes a unit type, then the bike does too.. ok so GW didnt write it in.. but do they need to?

are we really trying to substitute common sense to try a RAW rule-beat for tabletop benefit..

 

it wouldnt fly in any torunament, and if anyone tried it in a friendly game they would be ostracised pretty quickly.. that says all i need to know about the rules.

RAW isnt the be all and end all, we always have to consider the practical application of rules over the tabletop

[thade]

as ive said already, if a jump pack (a piece of wargear) changes a unit type, then the bike does too.. ok so GW didnt write it in.. but do they need to?

are we really trying to substitute common sense to try a RAW rule-beat for tabletop benefit..

 

it wouldnt fly in any torunament, and if anyone tried it in a friendly game they would be ostracised pretty quickly.. that says all i need to know about the rules.

RAW isnt the be all and end all, we always have to consider the practical application of rules over the tabletop

 

^ This.

[Something Wycked]

I know we agree, effectively, but how is it dodgy? "Follows all the rules for bikes..." How else can that be interpreted? It does not say "Follows most of the rules for bikes and some of the rules for infantry." You don't get to choose to follow some of the rules for infantry (like embarking transports) and get to keep the benefits of having a bike, too.

 

All of the rules for bikes. Full stop. No infantry there. :)

[thade]

I know we agree, effectively, but how is it dodgy? "Follows all the rules for bikes..." How else can that be interpreted? It does not say "Follows most of the rules for bikes and some of the rules for infantry." You don't get to choose to follow some of the rules for infantry (like embarking transports) and get to keep the benefits of having a bike, too.

 

All of the rules for bikes. Full stop. No infantry there. :)

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure we effectively agree that Khan mounted on a Bike can't embark in any existing transport. ;) We disagree on the semantics as to why. Worst case, we have two cases against this silly camp of bikes somehow not being bikes when transports are involved; SO I agree that we don't really disagree. Solved!

 

/hi5 !