Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Now, I for one was absolutely Certain Demolisher Cannons were Blast Weapons, but Looking through my SM, SW, BA and IG Codexes, I see that in the BA and SM codexes, they are listed only as Ordnance 1, while in the SW and IG Codexes they are listed as Ordnance 1, Large Blast, while the Errata for the SM makes it Large Blast again.

The rules in the BRB only say that Ordnance BARRAGE are always Large Blasts, not Ordnance.

So, there you have it, if you play BA, Demolisher Cannons are not Blast. Makes all that scare about Fast Vindicators a bit silly now doesn't it!

All I can say is, What the hell GW? Do you not learn from the mistakes of past codexes? This is the 2nd mistake Copypasted from the SM Codex, the 1st being the Hellfire Rounds Strength X rather than S1. -Sigh- Makes me loose what little faith I had in GW.

BRB pg 58

Unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:BRB pg 58

Unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker.

The BA Codex does not say Ordnance 1, Blast. It says Ordnance 1. So does the SM Codex, and that has an Errata to make it Ordnance 1, Large Blast.

Therefore, RaW, BA Demolisher Cannon are not Blast.

Gwar! wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:BRB pg 58

Unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker.

The BA Codex does not say Ordnance 1, Blast. It says Ordnance 1. So does the SM Codex, and that has an Errata to make it Ordnance 1, Large Blast.

Therefore, RaW, BA Demolisher Cannon are not Blast.

I think your argument is kinda weak Gwar, while I agree it is odd, I think RaW we need to assume that the BA Codex abides by the rules on P 58 which states that "Unless their profile specifies
otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker." Kinda silly how GW posted an Errata to the SM codex to reinforce the RAW on P58.

visavismeyou wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:BRB pg 58

Unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker.

The BA Codex does not say Ordnance 1, Blast. It says Ordnance 1. So does the SM Codex, and that has an Errata to make it Ordnance 1, Large Blast.

Therefore, RaW, BA Demolisher Cannon are not Blast.

I think your argument is kinda weak Gwar, while I agree it is odd, I think RaW we need to assume that the BA Codex abides by the rules on P 58 which states that "Unless their profile specifies
otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker." Kinda silly how GW posted an Errata to the SM codex to reinforce the RAW on P58.

And again, the BA codex DOES NOT SAY ORDNANCE BLAST. If it did, nothing would be wrong.

It says, and I quote, "Ordnance 1". No mention of Blast Whatsoever. This is the case with those Valkyrie Missile things that no-one uses, that are Ordnance 1. They too are not blast.

Editor position at GW has been filled. To bad the applicant hired was applying for Janitor. It is a very clean Codex however and has a nice pine scent.

So page 58 doesnt Count as Part of the rules then?
Rather crappy Argument.

Teeef wrote:Editor position at GW has been filled. To bad the applicant hired was applying for Janitor. It is a very clean Codex however and has a nice pine scent.

Sorry, but Gwar! is right. There is a distinct different between Ordnance and Ordnance Blast, or else one or the other would not exist.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2250129_FAQ_SpaceMarines_Nov2009

The FAQ covers this.

"Page 80 and 144. The profile of the demolisher
cannon will be changed to Type Ordnance 1,
Large Blast."

Gwar! wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:BRB pg 58

Unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker.

The BA Codex does not say Ordnance 1, Blast. It says Ordnance 1. So does the SM Codex, and that has an Errata to make it Ordnance 1, Large Blast.

Therefore, RaW, BA Demolisher Cannon are not Blast.

I think your argument is kinda weak Gwar, while I agree it is odd, I think RaW we need to assume that the BA Codex abides by the rules on P 58 which states that "Unless their profile specifies
otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker." Kinda silly how GW posted an Errata to the SM codex to reinforce the RAW on P58.

And again, the BA codex DOES NOT SAY ORDNANCE BLAST. If it did, nothing would be wrong.

It says, and I quote, "Ordnance 1". No mention of Blast Whatsoever. This is the case with those Valkyrie Missile things that no-one uses, that are Ordnance 1. They too are not blast.

True but the Subsection Header (the bold font) on p58 does not say "blast" it says "Ordnance Weapons". I completely agree with you that it is terribly written, but the rule is quite clearly speaking about "Ordnance weapons". Also, there arn't any rules which cover "Ordnance Weapons" other than that paragraph so if you're right then all vehicles which have Ordnance weapons cannot shoot that weapon because there is no rule to cover them.

Gwar, dont you long for the days of MTG's rule clarity?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MekanobSamael wrote:http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2250129_FAQ_SpaceMarines_Nov2009

The FAQ covers this.

"Page 80 and 144. The profile of the demolisher
cannon will be changed to Type Ordnance 1,
Large Blast."

yea but that is the FAQ for the SM codex, not the BAs, not to mention, the Errata is redundant, the RAW already covers it (in my opinion anyway)

1hadhq wrote:So page 58 doesnt Count as Part of the rules then?
Rather crappy Argument.

Firstly, there is no need for your Rudeness. Page 58 is part of the rules, but it only applies to Ordnance Blast Weapons, which a Blood Angels Demolisher Cannon is not.

MekanobSamael wrote:http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2250129_FAQ_SpaceMarines_Nov2009

The FAQ covers this.

"Page 80 and 144. The profile of the demolisher
cannon will be changed to Type Ordnance 1,
Large Blast."

That is not a Blood Angels Errata... and in the BA codex it is found on pages 60 and 96. While it applies nicely to the SM codex, I am not talking about the SM Codex.

Nightwatch wrote:

Teeef wrote:Editor position at GW has been filled. To bad the applicant hired was applying for Janitor. It is a very clean Codex however and has a nice pine scent.

Sorry, but Gwar! is right. There is a distinct different between Ordnance and Ordnance Blast, or else one or the other would not exist.

Ordnance blast doesn't exist... What weapon is Ordnance blast? There are barrage weapons, but not blast... Its just poorly written.

I believe what Gwar is keying in on, is that the BRB specifically states ordnance BLAST; while the codex only says ordnance. There is no blast after ordnance.

Leaving out that key word just makes the weapon ordnance, not an ordnance blast weapon.

visavismeyou wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:

Teeef wrote:Editor position at GW has been filled. To bad the applicant hired was applying for Janitor. It is a very clean Codex however and has a nice pine scent.

Sorry, but Gwar! is right. There is a distinct different between Ordnance and Ordnance Blast, or else one or the other would not exist.

Ordnance blast doesn't exist... What weapon is Ordnance blast? There are barrage weapons, but not blast... Its just poorly written.

There are plenty of Ordnance Blast Weapons. Look in the IG Codex, you will find lots of Ordnance 1, Large Blast Weapons, and the Vindicator in the SM Codex is Ordnance 1, Large Blast. The Monolith's Particle Whip is also Ordnance 1, Blast.

Would you like more examples?

visavismeyou wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:

Teeef wrote:Editor position at GW has been filled. To bad the applicant hired was applying for Janitor. It is a very clean Codex however and has a nice pine scent.

Sorry, but Gwar! is right. There is a distinct different between Ordnance and Ordnance Blast, or else one or the other would not exist.

Ordnance blast doesn't exist... What weapon is Ordnance blast? There are barrage weapons, but not blast... Its just poorly written.

Let me recant that, the Space Wolves does say "Ord. 1/Blast"

God damn you GW... Please... hire me and Gwar... I only ask for 15/hr and one box of my choice of Warhammer 40k miniatures per month... Not much... Oh and health care with dental.... Please!? Get some competent rules writers/editors!!!

visavismeyou wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:

Teeef wrote:Editor position at GW has been filled. To bad the applicant hired was applying for Janitor. It is a very clean Codex however and has a nice pine scent.

Sorry, but Gwar! is right. There is a distinct different between Ordnance and Ordnance Blast, or else one or the other would not exist.

Ordnance blast doesn't exist... What weapon is Ordnance blast? There are barrage weapons, but not blast... Its just poorly written.

Let me recant that, the Space Wolves does say "Ord. 1/Blast"

God damn you GW... Please... hire me and Gwar... I only ask for 15/hr and one box of my choice of Warhammer 40k miniatures per month... Not much... Oh and health care with dental.... Please!? Get some competent rules writers/editors!!!

I'll do it for a name in the credits and a Dr. Pepper!

Just to put this out before it gets nasty: I Would not ever make someone play this way. I would, however, if Asked by my opponent, play it this way (if I played BA) as he has a right to play the game by the Rules if he wants.

Gwar! wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:

Teeef wrote:Editor position at GW has been filled. To bad the applicant hired was applying for Janitor. It is a very clean Codex however and has a nice pine scent.

Sorry, but Gwar! is right. There is a distinct different between Ordnance and Ordnance Blast, or else one or the other would not exist.

Ordnance blast doesn't exist... What weapon is Ordnance blast? There are barrage weapons, but not blast... Its just poorly written.

There are plenty of Ordnance Blast Weapons. Look in the IG Codex, you will find lots of Ordnance 1, Large Blast Weapons, and the Vindicator in the SM Codex is Ordnance 1, Large Blast. The Monolith's Particle Whip is also Ordnance 1, Blast.

Would you like more examples?

Well my point was that I had never noticed specifically "Ord. 1, Blast" specifically, I have now... and I'm pissed lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:I'll do it for a name in the credits and a Dr. Pepper!

well if the current writers / editors are getting paid more than what you're asking for they need a dramatic pay cut!

Gwar! wrote:

1hadhq wrote:So page 58 doesnt Count as Part of the rules then?
Rather crappy Argument.

Page 58 is part of the rules, but it only applies to Ordnance Blast Weapons, which a Blood Angels Demolisher Cannon is not.

page 58 did not contain ordnance blast , just ordnance.
Please stop adding words.

1hadhq wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

1hadhq wrote:So page 58 doesnt Count as Part of the rules then?
Rather crappy Argument.

Page 58 is part of the rules, but it only applies to Ordnance Blast Weapons, which a Blood Angels Demolisher Cannon is not.

page 58 did not contain ordnance blast , just ordnance.
Please stop adding words.

I am not adding words. I shall Quote the entire Paragraph:

Page 58 wrote:Firing a massive ordnance weapon requires the attention of all the gunners of the vehicle, so no other weapons may be fired that turn (not even defensive weapons!). In return, they are better at penetrating armour (see page 60). Unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker.

There. I am not adding words at all.

Im totally going to try this out sometime on the next jerk I play against.

Teeef wrote:Editor position at GW has been filled. To bad the applicant hired was applying for Janitor.

LOL!

I about died laughing.

Sig worthy!

I think we should just sweep this one under the rug.

RAW rules aside, why would a vindicater cannon for one version of space marines, use a diffrent shell then the same weapon from a diffrent space marine? ie SM army version/variant A has vindicater w/ ord/1 blast..... but sm variant B has a vindicater w/ord 1 not blast? its the same friggen weapon for the same friggen race.....(SM are SM. they all follow simaler doctrine, have the same models, fight for the same dead guy and have the same basic heiarchy)

CLEARLY this is a type-o or failure to edit properly, and the fact that there is a FAQ clarifying the same problem for another race (another SM even..), it would seem common sense to think that the BA vindicater uses the large blast templete, just like every single other version of the vindicater. to claim/insist otherwise imho would be grounds for badging of tfg. lets have some common sense on this please....?

DarthSpader wrote:RAW rules aside, why would a vindicater cannon for one version of space marines, use a diffrent shell then the same weapon from a diffrent space marine? ie SM army version/variant A has vindicater w/ ord/1 blast..... but sm variant B has a vindicater w/ord 1 not blast? its the same friggen weapon for the same friggen race.....(SM are SM. they all follow simaler doctrine, have the same models, fight for the same dead guy and have the same basic heiarchy)

CLEARLY this is a type-o or failure to edit properly, and the fact that there is a FAQ clarifying the same problem for another race (another SM even..), it would seem common sense to think that the BA vindicater uses the large blast templete, just like every single other version of the vindicater. to claim/insist otherwise imho would be grounds for badging of tfg. lets have some common sense on this please....?

Dæmonhunters Assault Cannons on their Land Raider Crusaiders have different rules.

Dark Angel Storm Shields have Different Rules.

Black Templar Terminator Armour has different rules.

So no, it is not uncommon for the same wargear to have different rules.

DarthSpader wrote:RAW rules aside, why would a vindicater cannon for one version of space marines, use a diffrent shell then the same weapon from a diffrent space marine?

While I would agree that this is most likely an oversight, it's not at all uncommon these days for the same item to have different rules in different codexes. It's even covered in GW's FAQ's (See the Dark Angels FAQ for starters.)

definitly agreed. many races have wargear that is named the same but operates diffrently. in all cases the diffrence in operation is explained fully and to the point to make it clear. as a counter point... bolters all work the same... lazcannons the same... bolt pistols, missle launchers, hev bolters and so on, all follow the same basic set of core rules, unless stated otherwise specifilly in the codex. wich, is usually fully detialed as diffrent. since the BA codex dosent have a special entry for the vind, its logical to assume that it operates the same as other genearic vindicaters, due to the absence of specific rules stating otherwise. and no, i dont think a type-o or obvious misprint/ lack of a 5 letter word qualifies.

DarthSpader wrote:definitly agreed. many races have wargear that is named the same but operates diffrently. in all cases the diffrence in operation is explained fully and to the point to make it clear. as a counter point... bolters all work the same... lazcannons the same... bolt pistols, missle launchers, hev bolters and so on, all follow the same basic set of core rules, unless stated otherwise specifilly in the codex. wich, is usually fully detialed as diffrent. since the BA codex dosent have a special entry for the vind, its logical to assume that it operates the same as other genearic vindicaters, due to the absence of specific rules stating otherwise. and no, i dont think a type-o or obvious misprint/ lack of a 5 letter word qualifies.

Firstly, Grammar, Punctuation and Spellcheck please.

Secondly, what on earth are you talking about? There are no "Generic" Vindicator Rules, there are no "Generic" rules for ANY of the weapons you listed. These "core rules" you talk about simply do not exist.

Thirdly, even IF what you said was true (it isn't) The BA Codex DOES have a special entry for the Demolisher Cannon, on Page 60 to be exact, and it lists it as Ordnance 1, not Ordnance 1, Blast.

Sorry for the grammar issues. I'm not that great at the whole typing thing. Will make effort on improvement.


When I say "Generic rules" I'm referring to the examples listed in the brb. There are numerous examples of different weapons, such as plasma guns, missile launchers, bolt pistols, flamers, lazcannons, boltguns, etc. I'm also going on the basic gamer knowledge that says "Im firing a boltgun at you" = "boltgun is str 4 ap 5 rapid fire, 24" and so on. If there is a special difference, usually one would state: "I'm firing a boltgun at you, that has AP 3, or extra shots or 'X." The vidicaters demolisher cannon is generally taken as a 24" large blast ordnance shot with str 10 ap 2. If this was different or special for any particular race with a weapon of the same name, I would think that it would be specifically mentioned in the codex, and not just a line of print in the reference. I know this is not RAW.... Its more of a RAI I think... but still seems like common sense to me.

Edit: (added after i read last post) If there is a special entry detailing the BA demolisher cannon, can you quote the text please? im referring to any information in the armory that would indicate its diffrent then the norm, as opposed to the ref at the back of the book (or the front as it is in some case)

ive only glanced through the book and didnt see anything special about this, so im going on my general SM knowlege and not actually poring through the codex... so apologies if i come across as such.

"Q. What size blast marker do the Whirlwind
launcher and Orbital bombardment use?
A. They both use the large (5") blast marker. This
is because all Barrage weapons are also Blast
weapons, and all Ordnance Blast weapons use
the large blast marker unless otherwise specified."

This is from the FAQ. Pretty clear to me. But I see the point of assault canons and storm shields. Still seems like a bit of reaching to me.

Byte wrote:"Q. What size blast marker do the Whirlwind
launcher and Orbital bombardment use?
A. They both use the large (5") blast marker. This
is because all Barrage weapons are also Blast
weapons, and all Ordnance Blast weapons use
the large blast marker unless otherwise specified."

This is from the FAQ. Pretty clear to me. But I see the point of assault canons and storm shields. Still seems like a bit of reaching to me.

Ok, For the 5th time:

Blood Angels Vindicators are NOT Ordnance Blast. They are not Ordnance Barrage. They are not Ordnance Large Blast. They are not Ordnance Large Blast Barrage. They are not Ordnance Blast Barrage.

They are just Ordnance. Ordnance 1 to be exact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarthSpader wrote:ive only glanced through the book and didnt see anything special about this, so im going on my general SM knowlege and not actually poring through the codex... so apologies if i come across as such.

Read page 60 of the Blood Angels codex, where it details the rules for a Demolisher Cannon. Specifically, it's "Type".