(Heretic/Loyalist)Space Marine Bike's Gun.

[Brother Darklight]

Hey all.  

 

A friend of mine is trying to convince me that a Bike's TL Boltgun counts as a character's weapon when it comes to swapping a weapon for another.  

Ex:  Let's say an SM character pays for a Bike, and he then swaps his Chainsword for a Powerfist,  his Bolt Pistol, for a Lightning Claw.  What he tries to argue is that he may also take, let's say a Combi-Plasma, to replace the TL boltgun on the bike because he "counts it as one of his weapons." 

He's pointed me to a thread on Dakka where people try to argue that you can or cannot do that (they're quite torn).  But I still think that sounds like a real stretch.

 

What do all of you guys think?

 

Bonus points: I also think some would try to argue that you can swap the weapons provided by a Techmarine Servo-harness using the same loophole, which would allow him to take like 5 weapons from the Melee/Ranged/Relics lists. 

[Grotsmasha]

If that were possible, it would be listed as an upgrade option for the bike, so no, RAW it isn't possible.

 

Jono

[RazorDaemon]

No rules lawyering will get you that one. A bike is a vehicle, it has it's own separate entry, therefore you can't even try to bend that one. That is like someone saying a Tactical Squad can take the Drop Pod's Deathwind Launcher with them "because it was bought for the squad". Don't know about the Dakka thread, or maybe if it is worded differently in a different or older Codex, but with the current Space Marine Codex, you can't even argue that.

 

*Disclaimer* This part is just an opinion

May just be paranoia talking, after having played Rule Benders in the past, but I would personally check over his entire army list to see if he decided on his own there was a loophole without checking to validate it first.

[Disruptor_fe404]

For Codex: Space Marines, the bike's twin-linked boltgun is neither a boltpistol nor a close combat weapon, so it can't be swapped for anything in the Ranged Weapons or Melee Weapons list.

 

Dunno what the wording is for Codex: Chaos Space Marines, but my gut tells me that they went with the older 'exchange a weapon' wording. Even then, it would be an upgrade for the bike (the same way that flakk missiles are an upgrade for the missile launcher, and yes I realise the flakk missiles don't replace anything).

[Imperialis_Dominatus]

You know, I have wanted to do this since the Daemons Codex came out. That throne-cannon-bike thing looks awesome to use this way, as I'll get down to later. But if you want to get down to brass tacks, the sections relevant to the inevitable forthcoming argument are:

Chaos Armory, under Ranged and Artefact: A model may replace one weapon with one of the following (unless it doesn't replace a weapon, but I digress).

Wargear, Chaos Bikes: Models with a Chaos bike change their unit type to Bike... A Chaos bike is fitted with a single twin-linked boltgun.

Fast Attack, Chaos Bikers: ...up to two Chaos Bikers may replace either their close combat weapon or their bike's twin-linked boltgun with one of the following...

Warhammer 40k Rulebook, page 12: During the shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy... can be nominated to make shooting attacks.

Warhammer 40k Rulebook, page 51, More Than One Weapon: ...if a model has more than one shooting weapon, he must choose which one to shoot...

To sum up the two sides, for and against replacing the bike's weapon:

For:

The wargear section clearly states "replace one weapon," when a model gets a bike the twin-linked bolter must be his else he wouldn't be able to shoot it, precedence for Chaos Bikes to do so from the Biker entry.

Against:

 

All wargear is bought simultaneously and the model therefore doesn't have the twin-link bolter to replace it (citation needed), the wargear entry for bikes doesn't list the option to replace the twin-linked bolter (which seems irrelevant, given that the option is implicitly given in the Ranged/Artefact section with no specification), if Chaos Bikes are allowed to do this, any Wargear list that says "weapon" instead of (ex) "bolt pistol or close combat weapon" may also do so, and Emperor forbid we allow people options that they pay points for (you can only use one at a time in most cases, so I don't really care; the model ends up being an expensive Swiss Army knife).

Obviously I'm biased, but I think I've summed up the arguments and it's been hashed out repeatedly to no concession by either side. It comes down to convention, and if you think your enemy will have a problem with it, talk it over beforehand.

I just think a woefully impractical World Eater Lord on a Blood Throne of Khorne, modified to still have the cannon, with a lightning claw and powerfist and flames belching out of the skull cannon, sounds wonderful. Or a Slaaneshi Lord on an Attack Bike modified to look especially Chaosy with a massive flamer in the sidecar. Or, you know, just letting people do what they want with their models and not playing them if you think a 200+pt model that can get blown off the board by ordnance is too much.

The other problem with the RAW that allows this is that it allows grenades to be exchanged, since they are also weapons. But, no FAQ, no apparent solution.

 

[Disruptor_fe404]

The other problem with the RAW that allows this is that it allows grenades to be exchanged, since they are also weapons. But, no FAQ, no apparent solution.

I like it.

Yeah, this is very much a Chaos question, given that Codex: Space Marines uses "boltpistol or close combat weapon".

Though I will say that wargear choices aren't necessarily simultaneous, given that the only way a Space Marine biker can take anything from the Special Weapons list is by first swapping their boltpistol for a close combat weapon.

[Brother Darklight]

Good answers guys, thanks.  I personally didn't think he'd be allowed to do that, but I had no real reason for thinking that way, other than it felt like it was purely a cheesy way of getting another weapon.

 

@RazerDaemon Honestly, his lists are about as legal as they come.  The reason this came up was because in a game against another friend of mine he said he'd had a LC, PF and that Brand of *gibberish*, and that struck me as odd since relics need a weapon swapped in the SM codex.  I grabbed his Chaos book and what he'd done was an honest mistake.  He hadn't noticed the sentence above the Artefacts said you needed to replace a weapon as well, and the Melee/Ranged ones say right in the Lord's entry.  A few days later he brought up the issue with the Bike's boltgun.  

[Leonaides]

PLease note that chaos bikers have specific permission to upgrade their bike bolters, other units do not.

[Garath]

That's not possible to switch wargear like that.

 

Here's why:

 

 The rules say :"Replace xy with z for (example) 5 pts"

 

 Now you look at the entery of the model under Wargear and replace xy that's there with z .

 

 You can also buy a bike for  n pts.  That adds "CSM bike" to the IC wargear section...and doesn't add the bolter.

 

  Bolter is on the bike, but it isn't listed in the section, so it cannot be replaced

[Imperialis_Dominatus]

Here's the thing. If you go by the rules (the actual text quoted), models on bikes are not armed with the weapons on their bikes and thus may not fire them. The wargear item Chaos Bike is "fitted" (again, quoting) with a twin-linked bolter, but nowhere in the Bike section of the Rulebook does it state that models are armed with those weapons, and the Shooting section clearly states that models "armed with ranged weapons may be nominated to make shooting attacks" and the section on being armed with multiple weapons states that the model must choose from amongst those weapons with which it is armed. Since you could hardly argue that a model armed with a single weapon may choose from weapons with which it is not armed, it is governed by the same principle. Ergo, having taken a bike on which there is a twin linked bolter, a rider may fire weapons with which he is armed but may not fire the twin linked bolter, because he has never been armed with it. Hold on before you slam that reply button.

Now, this is where everyone (literally, everyone in the game, except the one guy who noone will play with because he will take my post utterly seriously because his army has no bikes) throws their hands up in the air and plays by convention that a model is armed with the weapons on its bike, if they even reach this point of logic (which I honestly have only been driven to by stubbornness and exacting technical reading); but there's no FAQ to this issue because it is simply assumed by all (except that guy I mentioned, but let us not dwell on him lest he grow in power) that a model on a Bike is armed with the weapons on that Bike. It's thoroughly ludicrous to follow the rules to this degree, but it is also ludicrous to claim that what is essentially your convention is supported by rules (it's not, you can't quote them) to settle this debate.

By the logic of Leonaides' "specific permission" convention, general permission is given to the character by the Ranged/Artefact wording I quoted.

By the logic of Garath's wargear replacement and listing formula convention (actually supported by the Chaos Space Marine Bikers entry, no model is listed as having a twin-linked bolter in their wargear), we run into the same issue I presented in my first paragraph herein, where I note that no model on a bike is armed with the weapons on it and thus may not fire that weapon.

And if we take the convention (not a rule, unless you can quote it) that the model is armed with the twin-linked bolter (a convention that makes the game actually function), then a model armed with that twin-linked bolter may replace it as described in the Armory. We're only arguing degrees of conventionality, where I make the fewest conventions necessary to make the game work (and yes, allow me to make the models I described WYSIWYG), and others make further conventions on top of the almost universally agreed-upon one (except He Who Shall Not Be Played With) to make the game work how they want it to.

Again, unless you can quote rules proving me incorrect, we're arguing nothing less than degrees of "what my group does," which is a reasonable debate, but we're in *checks top of page* Official Rules. So we argue rules. And by official rules, yeah, you guys are right, but only because no one is armed with the weapons on the bike and thus no one may make any use of them whatsoever.

 

[Garath]

....click....

 

While literally everyone will not question the basic fundamentals of the game (a model may fire the weapons it has equipped) , I found that pointing out text phrases will be of greatest help when resolving such matters. No amount of plain logic often works in 40k.

 

You may want to starrt treating this individual as a child - as his behaviour suggests it.

 

Take the 2 books and show him this:

 

"Models with a Chaos bike change their unit type to Bike, as

described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. A Chaos bike

is fitted wnh a single twin-linked boltgun."

 

2 things to note: a) the unit type changes to bikes, bike has a twin linked boltgun

 

Then brb under bike weapons:

 

 

"Each Bike or Jetbike in a unit can fire

with one weapon for each rider on the

Bike. "

 

Also note that no bike unit in the game has the bike's weapons listed under wargear.

[Imperialis_Dominatus]

Ah, but in every other case in the unit type sections, the unit's type (Jump Infantry, Jet Pack Infantry, Monstrous Creature, etc.) refers not to its wargear, but to the unit type. Artillery and jump infantry/jump-or-jet packs refer to the wargear and the crew/bearer separately. Infantry, Cavalry, Beasts, and Monstrous Creatures are fully synonymous with their unit type. Bikes are weird because 40k is still reconciling them into one unit from when the bike used to be a vehicle the rider, well, rode.

 

So either we take the convention that in this lone instance among all unit types, the term Bike refers to the wargear item, and not the rider (whose unit type is synonymous with the wargear and to whom the paragraph would address in continuum with all other such entries), using the rider's Ballistic Skill (an unusual mechanic, the wargear using the wielder) to fire a weapon (with which it is fitted, not armed), or we can make the drastically simpler convention that the Bike (rider unit type) is armed with the weapons fitted on his Bike (wargear) and may thus fire them in accordance with the rules of shooting, with all that that entails.

 

I'm boiling it down this far to illustrate that the entire premise of using a Bike's weapons is built on convention, not rules, and thus any discussion about this matter must be based more around whether you prefer a simple convention that lines things up with how the rest of the rules work (despite the lack of attention to detail by the designers), or a more roundabout convention designed entirely to restrict me from converting a thoroughly overpointed and suboptimal, but cool-looking, model.

 

The individual in question was a rhetorical farce designed to aid the illustration and provide a bit of humor.

[Cactus]

Imperialis_Dominatus, you say a bike model can't fire the twin-linked boltguns because the rules for the bike wargear don't use the word "armed". Can you demonstrate the rule that proves any other model is "armed" with their weapons, rather than merely equipped with or carrying them?

[Imperialis_Dominatus]

Easy. Diagram for picking units in every Codex. Page 90 in Chaos Space Marines, "5. Wargear: this section details the weapons and equipment the models in the unit are armed with."

 

Puts us in the same loops that start and end with the "models are armed with the weapons fitted on their bikes" convention or whatever more labyrinthine convention you prefer.