Black Knights also have twin linked bolters!

[FarFromSam]

Just got my limited edition codex today. I reached the special issue wargear section on page 64, and read the entry for bikes. Specifically "Space Marine bikes are fitted with a twin-linked boltgun."

 

I double checked the black knights profile and it does not say the plasma talons replace the boltgun. The profile does include "bike." (which again is where bikes gain the Bolter) So, I ask you brothers. Do the knights have the bolt gun?

 

it may be a stretch, but could be extremely useful for armies taking the banner of devastation, against lightly armored foes. It also adds a weapon to use on foes out side of eighteen inches

 

Thanks, far from Sam

[facmanpob]

The plasma Talon replaces the boltguns on the bike - the model should be enough of a clue ;)

 

If that's not enough, look at the wargear for the Ravenwing Attack Squadron, which states TL Boltgun, and then the Black Knights, which states plasma talon but no TL boltgun.

[elphilo]

So this is located in the fluff part of the Plasma Talon Description, page 60, but I think it's the reason people will say no to your idea.

 

Raven-pattern bikes have their twin-linked boltguns replaced with a weapon unique to the Unforgiven Chapters, the plasma talon. With a range inbtween the plasma pistol and plasma gun, the plasma talon gives the Black Knights a significant boost in firepower

 

So I would say no, you don't get both. They replace their bolters with plasma talons.

[FarFromSam]

I agree that the boltgun was never intended to included for the knights. (plenty of obvious, and sound reasons) It's most likely a typo. hopefully much like Asmodai lacking his modeled BP. And I agree with the fluff argument, but it's hard to make a rules argument using it.

 

However, as read, they might have the Bolter. That is until they (hopefully soon) faq it. The question is, will you allow it? Drugs from knee surgery are kicking in. Apologies if I come off abrasive, and loopy. (odd)

[Harleqvin]

I know this is dumb but it's clear that it's "intended" (RAI,) to replace the TL Bolters which then makes it not legal to have both TLBolters and PlasmaTalons.

 

Either case I sent in an email with it and a couple of other things just now to the GW FAQ guys.

[First0f0ne]

This most recent book is the most error filled crap I've even seen.

 

With the prices GW charges we should be able to expect some eiting and play testing....

 

Sorry DA guys...

[Harleqvin]

It happens. sadly though this SMB stock TLBolters is actually everywhere. It's just that this is one of the first times it's ever been brought up. I am surprised that this hasn't happened with C:SM and others for the Scout bikes with grenade Launcher as with this RAW the grenade Launcher would replace the TWBolters in the Weapons section on the unit entry but not the SMB's stock TLBolters....................

This RAW would mean Attack Bikes can shoot a second TLBolters instead of the Heavy Weapon if they wanted too. Why you would do that if you had a heavy weapon that you can still fire instead, if you happen to use RAW instead of RAI, I do not know, maybe have a second shot over one MM shot instead......

[Isiah]

Well, p60 on the Plasma Talon entry clearly states that the bikes have their tl-boltguns replaced by the talons. And, on the Knights entry on p101 there are no tl-boltguns in their wargear section. Compare that with the RW Attack Squadron entry where tl-boltguns are included.

 

No confusion and no FAQ required here.

 

Cheers

I

[Harleqvin]

Sadly with RAW. you dont take Fluff into account for rules nor do you take pictures. I mean Asmodai has a pistol on his model but does not have a pistol in game.....

[MadDoc]

Well since RW units don't have Space Marine Bikes listed under their wargear then RAW, the Space Marine Bike wargear entry's mention of twin-linked bolters is irrelevant to RW units as they don't have/use it (they're Unit Type Bikes and Toughness 5 thanks to their unit entry not some piece of wargear).

[Isiah]

Sadly with RAW. you dont take Fluff into account for rules nor do you take pictures. I mean Asmodai has a pistol on his model but does not have a pistol in game.....

 

 

So then why aren't tl-boltguns specifically mentioned in the RW Knights' entry on p101 as being part of their wagear?

[Harleqvin]

Because they are part of the Space Marine Bike.... Did you not read any of what this post is about? The reading of RAW on Space Marine Bike.

[Isiah]

No need to be rude Harleqvin -- of course I've read it.

 

So, why the need to specifically include tl-bolters then, in the RW Attack Squadron wargear, if they are already part of an SM bike? As I said earlier, compare the Knight's wargear to a basic RW biker's.

[Harleqvin]

Well since RW units don't have Space Marine Bikes listed under their wargear then RAW, the Space Marine Bike wargear entry's mention of twin-linked bolters is irrelevant to RW units as they don't have/use it (they're Unit Type Bikes and Toughness 5 thanks to their unit entry not some piece of wargear).

 

However this would take care of the issue of RAW. If they are not stated as having a Space Marine Bike. Do they state they have Space Marine Bike or not in their entry? I don't have my C:DA on habd to verify this myself.

[MadDoc]

Because they are part of the Space Marine Bike.... Did you not read any of what this post is about? The reading of RAW on Space Marine Bike.

Which fails to take into account the fact that Space Marine Bikes are not actually listed in the wargear of any of the Ravenwing units (including Black Knights), meaning the Space Marine Bike wargear entry saying that they include twin-linked boltguns is irrelevant to Ravenwing Black Knights.

Are people really that desperate to find problems where there are none?

Edit - @ Harleqvin - They do not have Space Marine Bikes listed under their wargear, I wouldn't have said they didn't if they did.

[Harleqvin]

It's because of if Space MArine Bike is listed to them. Because of RAW if Space Marine Bike is there. The RAW of Space Marine Bike has TLBolters as part of the rules for Space Marine Bike.

 

This is only an issue if it has a Spaace Marione Bike listed in it's entry and only because of Space Marine Bike being RAW and that it doesn't state it replaces the the Stock TLBolters that come with the Space Marine bike.

 

MAd Doc has cleared this up. as I had said being more exact a little bit ago that this is only an issue if they had Space Marine Bike.

[Isiah]

Do they state they have Space Marine Bike or not in their entry? I don't have my C:DA on habd to verify this myself.

 

No it doesn't specify 'Space Marine Bike'. It just says they are a 'Bike' unit type, which means they have SM bikes so it amounts to the same thing. The only bike specifically mentioned is the Attack Bike.

[Isiah]

It's because of if Space MArine Bike is listed to them. Because of RAW if Space Marine Bike is there. The RAW of Space Marine Bike has TLBolters as part of the rules for Space Marine Bike.

 

I keep coming back to this. As an SM bike has tl-boltguns, then why list them again in the RW Attack Sqd wargear?

The very fact that they aren't listed in the Knight's entry is because they don't get them - no matter what bikes they are riding.

[MadDoc]

No it doesn't specify 'Space Marine Bike'. It just says they are a 'Bike' unit type, which means they have SM bikes so it amounts to the same thing. The only bike specifically mentioned is the Attack Bike.

Sorry Isiah, but Unit Type Bike doesn't amount to the same thing as having a Space Marine Bike under their wargear. They already have the benefits of a SM Bike included in their Profile, Unit Type and Wargear so they don't need the actual SM Bike listed under their Wargear. What all that basically boils down to is that the theory that Black Knights supposedly have twin-linked boltguns in addition to their plasma talons is a non-starter (as you yourself have already said above).

 

Edit - The Space Marine Bike wargear entry is there specifically for the Bikes that Characters can take, nothing more, nothing less.

[Harleqvin]

Well if somehow they end up with a "Space Marine Bike" this would be an issue, only then.

 

From what Mad Doc is saying, I am going with that it says they are just Bike (Infantry) with no listed type of bike. So there is no issue. Unless it somehow becomes on a "Space Marine Bike" and not a "Space Marine" on a "Bike" there shouldn't be an issue.

 

I will say this done and that there is no issue because of the above current statement.

 

 

So, currently the only issue with this shenanigan is Scout Bike Squads from other Codices with Grenade Launcher maybe. I need to look at that when I get home.

[Isiah]

No it doesn't specify 'Space Marine Bike'. It just says they are a 'Bike' unit type, which means they have SM bikes so it amounts to the same thing. The only bike specifically mentioned is the Attack Bike.

Sorry Isiah, but Unit Type Bike doesn't amount to the same thing as having a Space Marine Bike under their wargear. They already have the benefits of a SM Bike included in their Profile, Unit Type and Wargear so they don't need the actual SM Bike listed under their Wargear. What all that basically boils down to is that the theory that Black Knights supposedly have twin-linked boltguns in addition to their plasma talons is a non-starter (as you yourself have already said above).

Edit - The Space Marine Bike wargear entry is there specifically for the Bikes that Characters can take, nothing more, nothing less.

Yep you're right on that :). Naughty me for jumping to conclusions

[Harleqvin]

Also sadly I have no idea why I was even arguing about this as I wouldn't play it that way even if it was the case with it having Space Marine Bike.

^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ Is all directed to myself so you all know.

[Ronin_eX]

This most recent book is the most error filled crap I've even seen.

 

With the prices GW charges we should be able to expect some eiting and play testing....

 

Sorry DA guys...

 

Nah, truth be told, GW has done worse than this codex in terms of editing, typos, etc.

 

Back in earlier editions there were loopholes that allowed you to have units riding two bikes or other, odd, occurences that were totally RAW. And this was in a less enlightened age when GW didn't issue FAQs easily or frequently. The miniature wargaming industry (or tabletop industry) as a whole is not well known for quality editing. This is sad, but true. I just hate that people are demonizing the DA book as the nadir of GW editing when I'd still take it over some of the crap that passed muster in 3rd and 4th Edition. I think the main problem is that in ages past GW didn't have three different products for a single language (standard edition, limited edition and eBook) so whatever typos may have crept in to non-english editions were less noticed (but still quite present).

 

I admit that it isn't ideal or even good, and certainly hope GW work on improving the situation. By offering up timely FAQs, they are at least giving the proper levels of support (and in fact, more than some other companies in the industry give). All I can say is, things have improved since the mid/late aughties in terms of service and support after a product is released. It sucks that the book has a lot of typos, but compared to where we were a few years back, I see the timely support to fix mistakes a good sign. No gaming company will produce a perfect book, free of errors. The best we can hope for is good support down the line.

 

So I hope the editing improves in the future, but I applaud their level of support for released products. The time would be that the current 5-day post-release FAQ was the FAQ GW would release for a codex after months of waiting (if at all). And it would just be for that codex (not for several at a time). And you certainly would see extensive updates over the life-cycle of a product (some of these codices have been updated three times now as new questions are asked... frequently). And as someone who complained to hell and high water about that not happening, I am certainly not going to begrudge them for actually releasing FAQs in a timely matter. Their old books needed them and didn't get them, their new books need them but do get them. Until I find a gaming company that doesn't release products for $40-60 with extensive errors, I can't complain about GW doing the same. For me, the important thing is that they exist among the companies that offer extensive support once the product is out the door. That's a good thing.

[The Shadow Guard]

This is what we, in my birth language would call " trying to pull hairs on an egg"...looses the impact in translation...

I would also agree with Ronin X that is Codex is not too bad in terms of typos and errors... and as far as the product goes, given the general eprspective of the Dark Angels Fan..it is an absolute gem! (just my opinion) In their rush to find issues with the Codex everyone appears to have forgotten the fears of an overly powerful warded codex, all sorts of broken units and fear of a complete loss of background.... Really, this Codex has basically held the line in terms of backgrouns, brought in some really good fluffy but powerful units, some great models, some development of the background with more details, a gentle direction change particularly int erms of the flyers and archeotech and finally rules and units that reflect the fluff.....

These are idneed happy days...

SG

[Djulius]

This is another example of how GW are changing the underlying meta-model of how units, wargear and options are listed and specified, allowing them to say "X can choose to take something from this list or that list" rather than explicitly mention each option.

 

Unfortunately they don't (and given issues with this release couldn't) update all codices and main rule book to this new meta-model together, although 6th Ed was clearly designed to support this (definition and choices of Power Weapon for example).

 

Chill, there are bound to be discrepancies, otherwise every other thread on this forum ends up being a heated discussion of interpretations. The basic rule... use common sense... should always apply followed by 'codices published after rule book take precedence'.