Switch Theme:

Riptide Wing + Ordnance Weapons  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in eu
Plummeting Black Templar Thunderhawk Pilot






Hi guys!

So I have a tournament coming up, and a player has asked a question about Riptide wings + Ordnance Weapons. Basically they are asking if Riptides can fire again during the "second shooting attack" granted by the formation special rules. From the rulebook, the ordnance weapons state:


ORDNANCE WEAPONS
Ordnance weapons are the big guns of the battlefield – cannons so vast they normally
have to be mounted on tanks and artillery.

When shooting, a model with an Ordnance weapon fires the number of times indicated in
its profile after its type. A non-vehicle model carrying an Ordnance weapon cannot fire it
in the Shooting phase if he moved in the preceding Movement phase. Ordnance weapons
cannot fire Snap Shots. Furthermore, if a non-vehicle model fires an Ordnance weapon,
then the massive recoil from the Ordnance weapon means that the model cannot fire
other weapons that phase, nor will it be able to charge in the ensuing Assault phase.


Monstrous Creatures have relentless, but I don't think this would override the above restriction:


Relentless
Relentless models can shoot with Heavy, Salvo or Ordnance weapons, counting
as stationary, even if they moved in the previous Movement phase. They are
also allowed to charge in the same turn they fire Heavy, Ordnance, Rapid Fire
or Salvo weapons.


The only other thing that I think would potentially come into effect is Multi Trackers from the tau book:


Multi Tracker
A model with a Multi Tracker can fire an additional weapon in each shooting phase.


For the sake of allowing players to proceed with list building, i've said that Riptides can double fire without the ordnance restriction, but I think this is still an interesting question. What does the community think?

Please check out my video battle report series! 50 games in 50 weeks!

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF20FCCD695F810C2&feature=edit_ok
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL36388662C07B319B&feature=view_all
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrPdNlJMge2eUv55aJag2cMj4znP8YfOT&feature=view_all
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxrTKHXULnQ&list=PLrPdNlJMge2cN6_lo1RbXvbvFZbto5wXB

=====Begin Dakka Geek Code=====
DQ: 80+S+++G+++MB+I+Pw40k98#+D+++A++++/cWD-R+++T(G)DM+
======End Dakka Geek Code======
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




No, they may not fire other weapons that Phase. Firing twice is still witihn the same phase, so is still restricted.
   
Made in eu
Plummeting Black Templar Thunderhawk Pilot






Does this mean as well that a standard riptide would never be able to fire its SMS and Ion Accelerator (if it went for the ordnance shot)?

Please check out my video battle report series! 50 games in 50 weeks!

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF20FCCD695F810C2&feature=edit_ok
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL36388662C07B319B&feature=view_all
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrPdNlJMge2eUv55aJag2cMj4znP8YfOT&feature=view_all
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxrTKHXULnQ&list=PLrPdNlJMge2cN6_lo1RbXvbvFZbto5wXB

=====Begin Dakka Geek Code=====
DQ: 80+S+++G+++MB+I+Pw40k98#+D+++A++++/cWD-R+++T(G)DM+
======End Dakka Geek Code======
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Yes, of course. A lot of people just assume that vehicle and non vehicle ordnance works the same way, especially as a lot of "you cant fire" situations from older editions are now "snapfire"
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, they may not fire other weapons that Phase. Firing twice is still witihn the same phase, so is still restricted.


They can't fire other weapons. Totally agreed. Ordnance doesn't say you can't fire the same weapon multiple times should some other rule allow it. You just can't fire OTHER weapons.

My take is that you could fire an Ordnance weapon and no OTHER weapons in the first shooting attack and then fire the SAME Ordnance weapon with no OTHER weapons in the second shooting attack. Obeys both the letter of the Ordnance rule and what I assume is the intent of the Riptide Wing rule, i.e. being able to shoot twice with your weapons.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Nothing forces you to use ordnance, if you want to be able to fire twice. Throws intent out the window there

Firing the same weapon twice is firing another weapon, I would argue. Plain English tells you that.
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nothing forces you to use ordnance, if you want to be able to fire twice. Throws intent out the window there

Firing the same weapon twice is firing another weapon, I would argue. Plain English tells you that.


Hmmmm...

oth·er
ˈəT͟Hər/
adjective & pronoun
adjective: other; pronoun: other; pronoun: others

1.
used to refer to a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about.


If we're talking about a specific Ordnance weapon, then the "other" weapon would have to be different or distinct from the Ordnance weapon in question.

Firing the same weapon twice is definitely not the same as firing a weapon once and then subsequently firing a different or distinct weapon. Ordnance restricts the latter, but not the former.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




So you believe that a weapon that is so massive non vehicles can fire no other weapons , can fire that same massive weapon Twice? That makes some kind of sense ?
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Why not fire different guns and then the ordinance for the second shot?


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Lance845 wrote:
Why not fire different guns and then the ordinance for the second shot?

A) ordnance. Different word

B) so for "that phase" have you a) fired or b) not fired other weapons? If you answer a), have you complied with the quoted rule?
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you believe that a weapon that is so massive non vehicles can fire no other weapons , can fire that same massive weapon Twice? That makes some kind of sense ?


I'm not interpreting what seems realistic. I'm interpreting the rules.

I have about the same opinion of a big weapon firing twice as I do a group of billion year old metal skeletons climbing out of the ground and attacking a bunch of genetically engineered superhumans.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in us
Frenzied Juggernaut





Colorado

So what is the conclusion to this thread?

Yay or nay on double ord shooting?

37,500 pts Daemon Army of the Gods

35,000 pts - X - Iron Tenth

15,000pts - Firehawks

7,000 pts - Nighthaunt

Dkok - 1850
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




If you count the same weapon firing a second time ad an"other" weapon, no double shooting. It fits with the fluff of ordnance as well.
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:
So what is the conclusion to this thread?

Yay or nay on double ord shooting?


It all comes down to how you read "other". If you read "other" as "same", then no, you can't double fire. If instead you use the English definition to mean a different weapon, then yes. You can fire the Ordnance weapon twice. You just can't fire other weapons.

Nos is reading other to mean the same... which isn't supported by the dictionary.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Kriswall wrote:
 xSoulgrinderx wrote:
So what is the conclusion to this thread?

Yay or nay on double ord shooting?


It all comes down to how you read "other". If you read "other" as "same", then no, you can't double fire. If instead you use the English definition to mean a different weapon, then yes. You can fire the Ordnance weapon twice. You just can't fire other weapons.

Nos is reading other to mean the same... which isn't supported by the dictionary.


No, hes reading other as in other attacks, and since the rule states the second attack is separate, it fits fine.

.... Carry out the attacks separately, one after the other.


If you cannot fire other weapons after firing Ordnance, how can you fire a second attack ?
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

Fragile wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
 xSoulgrinderx wrote:
So what is the conclusion to this thread?

Yay or nay on double ord shooting?


It all comes down to how you read "other". If you read "other" as "same", then no, you can't double fire. If instead you use the English definition to mean a different weapon, then yes. You can fire the Ordnance weapon twice. You just can't fire other weapons.

Nos is reading other to mean the same... which isn't supported by the dictionary.


No, hes reading other as in other attacks, and since the rule states the second attack is separate, it fits fine.

.... Carry out the attacks separately, one after the other.


If you cannot fire other weapons after firing Ordnance, how can you fire a second attack ?


The rule doesn't prohibit making other ATTACKS. It prohibits firing other WEAPONS. He's reading it wrong. There is no prohibition against firing the same weapon twice. You just can't fire the Orndance weapon and then fire an OTHER weapon... which has been established via English definition as a distinct or different weapon, i.e. NOT the same weapon.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in us
Ship's Officer





Dallas, TX

I don't know why this is being debated, the multi tracker allows the model to fire a 2nd weapon each shooting phase; codex trumps BRB, the conflict between multi tracker and ordinance is won by the multi tracker.
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

Kriswall wrote:The rule doesn't prohibit making other ATTACKS. It prohibits firing other WEAPONS. He's reading it wrong. There is no prohibition against firing the same weapon twice. You just can't fire the Orndance weapon and then fire an OTHER weapon... which has been established via English definition as a distinct or different weapon, i.e. NOT the same weapon.

There is a general prohibition against firing the same weapon twice from the simple fact that you can only fire its maximum available rate, and once fired, it cannot be selected again that Phase.

IF firing the weapon from said unit a second time counts as firing another Weapon than it would. Say you fire Ordnance (1), and then fire Ordnance (2), it would be affected.

However, if the double shooting is considered "Ordnance 2X", than there is no way it could affect itself from shooting twice.

Big Mac wrote:I don't know why this is being debated, the multi tracker allows the model to fire a 2nd weapon each shooting phase; codex trumps BRB, the conflict between multi tracker and ordinance is won by the multi tracker.

Well the Multitracker states, "A model with a multi-tracker can fire an additional weapon in each Shooting phase." Which means Infantry can shoot two weapons, and Monstrous Creatures can shoot three.

Ordnance states, "Furthermore, if a non-vehicle model fires an Ordnance weapon, then the massive recoil from the Ordnance weapon means that the model cannot fire other weapons that phase, nor will it be able to charge in the ensuing Assault phase." In most cases, non-Vehicle Ordnance is already dealing with a model firing one weapon.

So, it looks like Ordnance basically prevents you from going to "Choose another weapon". However, it is not literally stated as such. And literally speaking, it looks like firing the same weapon is not prevented. very interesting.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Ship's Officer





Dallas, TX

The word 'can' from the MT still trump the word 'cannot' from ordinance, in addition the riptide can choose not to fire the 2nd weapon, what is the problem?
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




It doesn't provide specific permission to fire an additional weapon even though you have been specifically prohibited from doing so by a very specific rule.
   
Made in us
Ship's Officer





Dallas, TX

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It doesn't provide specific permission to fire an additional weapon even though you have been specifically prohibited from doing so by a very specific rule.


The word 'can' in MT is universal, meaning every instance, regardless of a specific one, such as the one in ordinance.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




"Ordnance"

So a unit can assault from an assault vehicle, even though it's only overriding the no assault in disembark rule? Or is that not actually how the game is actually constructed? I'll go with the latter. Specific vs general.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Big Mac wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
It doesn't provide specific permission to fire an additional weapon even though you have been specifically prohibited from doing so by a very specific rule.


The word 'can' in MT is universal, meaning every instance, regardless of a specific one, such as the one in ordinance.


The opposite is quite true. The Ordnance rule is more specific.
   
Made in us
Ship's Officer





Dallas, TX

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Ordnance"

So a unit can assault from an assault vehicle, even though it's only overriding the no assault in disembark rule? Or is that not actually how the game is actually constructed? I'll go with the latter. Specific vs general.


normally yes, I would go specific over general, but the general in this case is from the tau codex, which trumps over BRB. if both were from the BRB, then I totally agree with you assessment.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




How is ther codex rule more specific? It lacks anything about ordnance
   
Made in us
Ship's Officer





Dallas, TX

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How is ther codex rule more specific? It lacks anything about ordnance


I'm referring to codex rule > BRB when there is a conflict. The Multi tracker rule 'can fire a second weapon' does not need to be specific as it apply to every scenario.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Big Mac wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
How is ther codex rule more specific? It lacks anything about ordnance


I'm referring to codex rule > BRB when there is a conflict. The Multi tracker rule 'can fire a second weapon' does not need to be specific as it apply to every scenario.



It helps if you actually read the rule your trying to claim works.

Multi-Tracker

A model with a multi-tracker can fire an additional weapon in each Shooting phase.



Nothing in that rule applies to the Ordnance rule or how the Ordnance rule applies to the additional weapon.
   
Made in us
Ship's Officer





Dallas, TX

Fragile wrote:
 Big Mac wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
How is ther codex rule more specific? It lacks anything about ordnance


I'm referring to codex rule > BRB when there is a conflict. The Multi tracker rule 'can fire a second weapon' does not need to be specific as it apply to every scenario.



It helps if you actually read the rule your trying to claim works.

Multi-Tracker

A model with a multi-tracker can fire an additional weapon in each Shooting phase.



Nothing in that rule applies to the Ordnance rule or how the Ordnance rule applies to the additional weapon.


do you not understand ENGLISH? if this was a problem, it would have been brought up when 7th ed came along, and its been a while...
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Yes, it's been a problem since rt were around. Ordnance in 6th was the same...

Oh and reported.

ThEre is no conflict, as the rulebook is more specific and so wins it. MT must state it overrides restrictions such as ordnance otherwise t doesn't get to do so.
   
Made in us
Ship's Officer





Dallas, TX

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, it's been a problem since rt were around. Ordnance in 6th was the same...

Oh and reported.

ThEre is no conflict, as the rulebook is more specific and so wins it. MT must state it overrides restrictions such as ordnance otherwise t doesn't get to do so.


Proof? Links? I've backed up my argument by saying MT is from the codex and its general 'can' trumps ordinances specific 'cannot' in the BRB; where is your backing?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: