I have 2 questions regarding this.

1. If the Land Raider moves can someone inside call down an orbital bombardment?

2. If the land raider has bo fire points regardless of wether it moved or not can someone inside call in orbital bombardment?

Orbital bombardment counts as firing a ranged weapon, which can be loosely taken to mean as follows the rules for shooting.

Since there's no firing points in a land raider, it can't be done.

Okay and does the person calling it down need LOS to the point he's targeting.

As there is no indirect fire allowance for OB, yes he still needs LOS.

Thamkks that cleears some things up.

If the model is in terminator armor it can move and call down an OB.

G

No, it cannot.

Orbital Bombardments specifically say that they cannot be used if the model moved prior to its shooting phase. The Terminator Relentless USR would not override this.

No it Cannot Green Blow Fly, the rules are quite clear on this.

"This ability can be used once per game in his Shooting phase, providing that the Chapter Master did not move in the preceding Movement phase... Calling down an orbital bombardment otherwhise counts as firing a ranged weapon"

While it counts as a ranged weapon in other regards, it's own special rules are applied on top and they require that the chapter master is stationary, without making an allowance for terminator armour. This is because of the specific use of the word "otherwhise" which makes the prior rules override any normal shooting rules.

sourclams wrote:As there is no indirect fire allowance for OB, yes he still needs LOS.

The allowance is in the fact the OB is classed as a barrage weapon, which have rules in the core rule book allowing them to be used indirectly, In fact, because the orbital bombardment scatters 2d6 and ignores the chapter master's BS anyway, there is absolutely no penalty for using it on a unit that you cannot draw line of sight to since ignoring the users BS is the normal disadvantage.

Drunkspleen wrote:The allowance is in the fact the OB is classed as a barrage weapon, which have rules in the core rule book allowing them to be used indirectly, In fact, because the orbital bombardment scatters 2d6 and ignores the chapter master's BS anyway, there is absolutely no penalty for using it on a unit that you cannot draw line of sight to since ignoring the users BS is the normal disadvantage.

You're right, sir. My bad for not having the codex on hand while quoting rules from memory.

So... It can or can't be used in a LR?

Cannot.

You don't need LOS as you can fire indirectly but you still need a Fire Point to use shooting weapons while embarked in a vehicle, even when LOS doesn't matter.

Land Raiders have no Fire Points so it can't be done.

are you sure? I think the 5th ed core rules FAQ disagrees with this.

I think you CAN use it.

frgsinwntr wrote:are you sure? I think the 5th ed core rules FAQ disagrees with this.

I think you CAN use it.

I can only assume you are basing this on the FAQ that states that psychic abilities that do not require line of sight can be used from a vehicle without fire points. Unfortunately, this is not a psychic ability, but is rather the act of shooting a weapon for all intents and purposes. Think of it like using a mortar, you couldn't fire a mortar from inside a tank with no fire points just because "it doesn't require line of sight" so the same applies to the Force Commander.

frgsinwntr wrote:arf arf you sure? I think the 5th ed core rules FAQ disagrees with this.

I think you CAN use it.

I agree with you frg. I think more research is needed. I don't agree on the rules overriding relentess either... a WGBL with a heavy in TDA can move and shoot while the rule for heavy weapons forbids it.

G

The ability states that he has to not have moved. That is why I believe it overrides Relentless.

Codex > Rulebook. So the codex rule "did not move" trumps the rulebook rule "relentless".

In the case of the WGBL, you have one rulebook rule (relentless) providing an exemption from another rulebook rule (heavy weapons). So this is not a comparison of like things.

This has nothing to do with Codex>rulebook.

Relentless is very specific, it *only* helps with Rapid Fire or Heavy weapons.

Orbital Bombardment is neither.....

Relentless has no effect.

what is your basis for that interpretation? I am open to this.

G

coredump wrote:This has nothing to do with Codex>rulebook.

Relentless is very specific, it *only* helps with Rapid Fire or Heavy weapons.

Orbital Bombardment is neither.....

Relentless has no effect.

Very true.

G

OK from what i've gathered revolving the main questioons of this thread is that...

1. The tank may move so losg as the Chapter Master doesn't the bombardment may still be used.

2. Their must be fire points if it's done from a vehicle.

3. No LOS is needed.

Correct?

What is the point of one, since if the vehicle moves the chapter master also counts as moving?

I'm clarifying that the vehicle can move but the chapter master can still use it.

No, he can not if the vehicle moves.

yermom wrote:I'm clarifying that the vehicle can move but the chapter master can still use it.

No the core rules say, "Models firing from a vehicle count as moving if the vehicle moves" and since the Orbital Bombardment rules say that using it "counts as firing a ranged weapon" then the chapter master using the Orbital Bombardment from a moving vehicle would count as moving and be unable to use it.

Okay thank you for clearing that up aswell.

Why do you not need LOS for this power?

yea... thats what I was thinking. I think you can use it from a LR that doesn't move. Albeit cheesy

Someone told me you don't need LOS and I was to lazy to read the rules in the Codex but how can an IC target something that isn't in LOS. I'm talking total lose of LOS. Not on the other side of a building but you can still see the model through a window.

From a fluff point of view there is no need for LOS.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:From a fluff point of view there is no need for LOS.

G

From a fluff point of view Pariahs should actually be good, and a handful of Space Marines should be able to take on an entire Ork horde.

Wow, the litany of incorrect things in this string are scary.

Here's how the rules work:
1. If the vehicle moves, the embarked models count as moving, therefore no Orbital Bombardment.
2. Orbital Bombardment is not an Indirect Fire weapon, even though it should be.
3. You need LOS, so models in an LR cannot fire it.
4. You cannot use the Orbital Bombardment and fire another weapon (this wasn't asked, but I thought it makes sense to include int he rules roundup) since you cannot fire two weapons (with certain exceptions - see cyclone ML, for instance)
5. Orbital Bombardment has special and specific rules, it is not a move-or fire weapon or a heavy weapon but a different classification altogether. Therefore, Relentless does not matter.

I think that covers it.

can you quote the rule for orbital bombardment for me?

Antonin wrote:
2. Orbital Bombardment is not an Indirect Fire weapon, even though it should be.
3. You need LOS, so models in an LR cannot fire it

Here is where I disagree an orbital bombardment has barrage in its profile. Barrage weapons do not require LOS but, when they fire in this way they have a penalty on the scatter. Anyways since it counts as a barrage weapon why does it require LOS?

Agree with yermom, Orbital Bombardment is Indirect Fire, ie Barrage and does not need LOS.
Sounds to me like you can fire it from inside a Land Raider, so long as the vehicle has not moved.

*air

focusedfire wrote:Is the bombardment a barrage? If so then no LOS needed. If vehicle moves then the character has moved so no ordinance.

Well, he might be able to lay down the law (ordinance) but he cannot Indirect Fire any Ordnance. Althooooo............ hmmmmm, therre is the bit in the rules now about being able to direct fire Ordnance Barrage weaponry if you move. Fortunately the OB rules themselves close that loophole!!

*air

focusedfire wrote:I thought all barrages are pretty much indirect these days.

And? Not sure where you're going with that.

Yes, Barrage weapons have the ability to fire Indirect, ie at a target to which you have no LOS. They can also fire Barrage onto a target to which you do have LOS. They may also move and fire direct, ignoring any range restrictions.

Looks like Don Mondo and I see eye to eye on this.

*air

No, it's not an "ordinance barrage", no such thing in the game that I'm aware of. That would probably be in the Judge Dredd game, where he's able to fire a LAW Blast Marker. (Yeah, I'm gonna keep making fun of people until they spell it correctly). But it is Ordnance and it is Barrage.

As for Ordnance Barrage weapons following Barrage rules, yes, they do, with the exception that a vehicle with an Ordnance Barrage weapon can move and fire it directly instead of using the Barrage capability, while non-vehicular Barrage weapons (IG Mortars, Eldar something) cannot do so.

pg. 58

Ordnance Barrage: (paraphrase) Can fire directly *or* as a barrage (follow barrage rules). Cause Pinning tests at a -1 Ld. But remember, OB rules specifically state that you must not have moved and scatter full 2d6.


pg. 32
Barrage: (paraphrase) Can fire at targets out of LOS. Cover is determined from center of hole.



Basically, think of it as your Chapter Master is firing a really big mortar with unlimited range. If you were in a vehicle could you fire the mortar? Only if there was a way to fire out of a vehicle. It is still a shooting weapon and therefore is bound by those rules (until faq).

don_mondo wrote:Agree with yermom, Orbital Bombardment is Indirect Fire, ie Barrage and does not need LOS.
Sounds to me like you can fire it from inside a Land Raider, so long as the vehicle has not moved.

Agreed 100%!

Score another one for the power armor.



"handful of Space Marines should be able to take on an entire Ork horde."

Tell that to any self respecting warboss.

G

Read the fluff. Hell, in Iron Snakes a Marine goes blind and still kills a dozen orks with his bolter. And in Iron Hands a Marine with an autocannon explodes a truck, also goes blind, and kills the entire squad with gunfire.

Obviously, Marines can kill Ork hordes with their eyes closed.

Hello! THERE IS NO FIRE POINT IN A LAND RAIDER!! it does not matter if the strike requires line of sight or not. There is no fire point in a land raider. If a chapter master is in a rino that does not move can he fire the orbital strike? Absolutly. Chimera? Sure, but not out of a land raider.

You dont think a Chapter Master in a landraider is not going to have visual display of what is happening outside his pimp ride?

There is plenty of fluff where big orks mashed beekies... it just depends on which codex you are reading really.

G

I am not understanding why people think you can fire inside a LR... It has no Fire Points...

Could I fire a mortar out of a LR, no. So can I fire OB? No.

The bombardment comes from a battle cruiser, not the landraider and certainly not the Chapter Master.

G

Sadly, Fluff is nice.. but shouldnt be used as a basis for rules interpretation beyond whats written within the rule itself.

If Psychic Shooting Attacks from Eldar that require no LOS (IIRC they have some? Could be wrong..I dont have the Codex at work) have been accecpted as being able to fire from a Falcon with no fire points, where is the precident to say that a Special Rule (Orbital Bombardment) cannot also be used from inside a vehicle with no fire points, as it also requires no LOS.

Both follow all the rules for shooting if IIRC (except needing LOS) so why allow one but not the other if no LOS is the only exception given to the normal rules for shooting?

Green Blow Fly wrote:The bombardment comes from a battle cruiser, not the landraider and certainly not the Chapter Master.

G

Chapter Master has to hold the laser steady or else the cruiser will shoot him by accident. I mean, if we're going to bring "real world" arguments into this, you've got a space ship run by brainless computer zombies, in orbit, firing a gun the size of a schoolbus at a spot a little bit over 30 meters away from you. Considering the occasional breathless lack of sophistication of Imperial tech, that schoolbus could be aimed by a telescope with a cross drawn on it, for all you know.

Yeah, I'd hold still if I was pointing the laser, too. Wouldn't stop me from crapping my pants, though.

Marius Xerxes wrote:Sadly, Fluff is nice.. but shouldnt be used as a basis for rules interpretation beyond whats written within the rule itself.

If Psychic Shooting Attacks from Eldar that require no LOS (IIRC they have some? Could be wrong..I dont have the Codex at work) have been accecpted as being able to fire from a Falcon with no fire points, where is the precident to say that a Special Rule (Orbital Bombardment) cannot also be used from inside a vehicle with no fire points, as it also requires no LOS.

Both follow all the rules for shooting if IIRC (except needing LOS) so why allow one but not the other if no LOS is the only exception given to the normal rules for shooting?

Beware the man of straw!

The Eldar FAQ does not exempt any of the Eldar "shooting" psychic powers from needing a fire point; the shooting powers include Destructor, Mind War, and Eldritch Storm.

The main rulebook FAQ allows NON-psychic shooting attack powers to be used from inside a vehicle:

FAQ wrote:
Q. Can a model use a psychic power that is not a Psychic Shooting Attack if it is embarked in a transport vehicle?

A. Yes. If the power requires line of sight, this is still worked out from the vehicle’s fire points (this will count as one model shooting through that fire point if the power is used in the
Shooting phase).

If the psychic power does not require line of sight and has a range or an area of effect that is normally measured from the model using it, these are measured from the vehicle’s hull, as explained in the Embarking section on page 66.

So why does OB require LOS?

G

*air

Frgsinwntr, there is no fire point on a LR, so you cannot use it from inside.

The Orbital Bombardment is listed as Barage Ordnance and in the rule book it says Ordnance can be fire with no line of sight so you can fire it from a Land Raider. Also why would you need a fire point as the bombardment comes from a ship somewhere and not the Land Raider?

This needs to be faqed just liked the nob biker and feels no pain.

Without a Fire Point, no model may fire from the inside of a vehicle, unless it is open-topped.

There is no need for a FAQ to answer what is clearly answered in the rulebook already.

The Chapter Master isn't firing the gun on the space ship is.

"Calling down an orbital bombardment otherwise counts as firing a ranged weapon.."

Seems that the rules disagree with your opinion.

I'm gonna go with the rules.

I don't get it, do people not read the whole thread before posting, just the most recent post in it, thankfully Trekari ducked in and sorted out this massive mess.

Everyone keeps claiming it's a power, it may well be, but the rules tell you that it functions EXACTLY like firing a weapon, forget that it's coming from a ship in orbit, forget that it's an ability, when it comes to using it on someone the rules tell you you are effectively firing a mortar.

Because you are firing a weapon, you will need a fire point to use it from inside a vehicle, you will count as moving for the purpose of firing it if the vehicle moves.

frgsinwntr wrote:yea... thats what I was thinking. I think you can use it from a LR that doesn't move. Albeit cheesy

You can't fire any shooting weapon when embarked in a transport without a Fire Point, there are no rules for it. So even if you don't need LOS for your shooting weapon and it logically would seem possible it's not allowed by the rules.

Look at the DH and WH codices for precedence. They both have orbvital bombardment and neither require LOS.

G

DH and WH orbital bombardments are not the same thing as the SM one. For one thing, the Inquisition's is a heavy support choice in its own right. It's not shot by any model on the board.

and the new SM one is better :p

As has already been hashed out, SM OB counts as a barrage shooting weapon. To use a shooting attack while being transported in a vehicle you need:

1) LOS
2) A Fire Point

The Barrage rule exempts a model from needing LOS when shooting. It does not exempt a model from needing a Fire Point. Therefore, a model transported in a vehicle may not fire a barrage weapon if the vehicle lacks a fire point.

I have heard of RAW. I have heard of RAI. But Rules as Fluff? RAF? Come on.

I'm going to make one statement. Fluff does not equal rules. So please no mentioning of fluff and rules. They are two different things.

wyomingfox wrote:The Barrage rule exempts a model from needing LOS when shooting. It does not exempt a model from needing a Fire Point. Therefore, a model transported in a vehicle may not fire a barrage weapon if the vehicle lacks a fire point.

It strikes me as a bit silly, but it is the rules. I'd think anyone wanting to use this attack from a Land Raider had better do some talking with their opponent before the game. Perhaps an exchange of exceptions to things that seem silly can be worked out?

wyomingfox wrote:I have heard of RAW. I have heard of RAI. But Rules as Fluff? RAF? Come on.

Heh, Fluff As Rules - that's a pretty FAR stretch.

MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:I'm going to make one statement. Fluff does not equal rules. So please no mentioning of fluff and rules. They are two different things.

Rules are often based upon fluff. Isn't that novel?

G

What's novel is that rules are in the rules section and the fluff is in the beginning. They are not to be mixed together.

Let me tell you a story. Someone at the store said that they could jump on top of a building because they have leaping. I explained to them that buildings are vehicles in 5E. They didn't like the rule and wanted to roll a dice for a ruling on if he could do it. He said fluff allowed him to.

I explained to him that rules are rules and fluff is not roleable.

Are you saying that you want to role for a ruling on fluff GBF? Because if you are then why play a game with rules?

GBF just pointed out that some rules are there to support the fluff, not the other way around. Marines have ATSKNF now because stories have portrayed them that way. They're the knightly defenders of humanity because the fluff likes it. In Rogue Trader marines were criminals deemed too useful to execute, brainwashed and cyber-enhanced to serve in the army until death.

Where do you draw the line, then? If you can ignore a land raider's absence of firing points to drop an orbital bombardment via fluff, I should be able to give all my tactical marines chainswords in addition to their normal equipment because of fluff.

Janthkin wrote:

Marius Xerxes wrote:Sadly, Fluff is nice.. but shouldnt be used as a basis for rules interpretation beyond whats written within the rule itself.

If Psychic Shooting Attacks from Eldar that require no LOS (IIRC they have some? Could be wrong..I dont have the Codex at work) have been accecpted as being able to fire from a Falcon with no fire points, where is the precident to say that a Special Rule (Orbital Bombardment) cannot also be used from inside a vehicle with no fire points, as it also requires no LOS.

Both follow all the rules for shooting if IIRC (except needing LOS) so why allow one but not the other if no LOS is the only exception given to the normal rules for shooting?

Beware the man of straw!

The Eldar FAQ does not exempt any of the Eldar "shooting" psychic powers from needing a fire point; the shooting powers include Destructor, Mind War, and Eldritch Storm.

The main rulebook FAQ allows NON-psychic shooting attack powers to be used from inside a vehicle:

FAQ wrote:
Q. Can a model use a psychic power that is not a Psychic Shooting Attack if it is embarked in a transport vehicle?

A. Yes. If the power requires line of sight, this is still worked out from the vehicle’s fire points (this will count as one model shooting through that fire point if the power is used in the
Shooting phase).

If the psychic power does not require line of sight and has a range or an area of effect that is normally measured from the model using it, these are measured from the vehicle’s hull, as explained in the Embarking section on page 66.

Not a straw man arguement when my position is openly in my post said with the rules of other areas not fully remembered due to the Codeci not being at my work. Obviously I didnt recall properly, which knowing that now I dont claim anything i said as ground to stand on. Figure you can go a better route about this rather then linking to a wikipedia page about what a straw man argument is.

I agree that between FAQ and main rules, with no other precident saying otherwise, you cannot use it from inside any transport vehicle that doesnt have fire points or isnt open topped.

People play that genestealers can use preferred enemy against any race because one sentence embedded in the rules has been classified as fluff.

G

I was wrong about this rule. As has been pointed OB is clearly defined as an attack that counts as a ranged weapon and there is no getting around that. I do think however that a chapter master not embarked in a vehicle with no fire points but wearing a suit of tactical dreadnaught armor or mounted on a bike can move an call down an OB. If my opponent was against this interpretation I would concede the point.

G

GW is against your interpretation GBF, but I suppose there's nothing wrong with an agreement between players, especially since you seem to concede that yours is the less supported stance.

What I would like to touch on is your comment about Genestealers, I don't see why the fluff would suggest genestealers wouldn't be preferred enemy against any race with feeder tendrils, or atleast, they would have preferred enemy against the enemy they are fighting (and tasting) at any given time.

Green Blow Fly wrote:From a fluff point of view there is no need for LOS.

Maybe so, but hes still not going to get any signal on his mobile phone inside the tank so he'll have to go outside to call the Strike Crusier...

More seriously, calling an OB counts as firing a weapon. You cannot fire a weapon from inside a vehicle with no firepoints. Ergo you cannot call an OB while inside a vehicle with no firepoints. Unless you have any evidence to the contary then I don't think your argument is going anywhere.

I do think however that a chapter master not embarked in a vehicle with no fire points but wearing a suit of tactical dreadnaught armor or mounted on a bike can move an call down an OB.

You're more than welcome to play games by any house rule you and your opponent agree to. But thats not what it says in the book, Relentless is very specifc in what bonus it provides, and none of them include orbital bombardments.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I was wrong about this rule. As has been pointed OB is clearly defined as an attack that counts as a ranged weapon and there is no getting around that. I do think however that a chapter master not embarked in a vehicle with no fire points but wearing a suit of tactical dreadnaught armor or mounted on a bike can move an call down an OB. If my opponent was against this interpretation I would concede the point.

G

I agree there is absolutely no wiggle room on relentless vs. Orbital Bombardment.

Orbital Bombardmen is not listed as a heavy weapon in its characteristics and the Relentless special rule specifically says that the model counts as being stationary when firing rapid fire and heavy weapons, not any kind of weapon.

So as it stands, the rules are very clear: The model has to actually remain stationary in the movement phase in order to call down an orbital bombardment.

Why does everyone keep saying that you need LOS?! It is a *Barrage* weapon, you don't need line of site!

However, if you want to fire *any* shooting weapon from *inside* a transport you *need* a fire point. The LR has none, so therefore, even though you don't need LOS, you still can *not* fire OB from inside a LR!

If you are outside a LR (and assuming you didn't move) you can fire any where on the table w/out LOS.

Kk here is how it works.

You may not fire a orb out of a land raider as it has no firing points so he may not shoot out of the vehicle. *hate to hate but green blow shut up, fluff has no precedence over rules regardless of what you think, the rules are the rules, either play with them or not at all.*

It is an orb barrage so you can fire it without line of sight. The rule stats that if you do you cannot use your bs to fix the shot, he cant anyways so it doesn't matter.

Line of sight is from the mid of the template.

If the vehicle he is moving in moves he cannot fire it as he counted as moving.

He may not fire any other weapons that turn but he may assault.

End of discussion those are the rules as printed.

(in hindsight Everything has already being said, gbf just annoys me because he keeps trying to work around obvious rules so he gets what he wants.)

Golgo did you read what I said in my last post? You come across as quite pretentious when you post at times.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I was wrong about this rule. As has been pointed OB is clearly defined as an attack that counts as a ranged weapon and there is no getting around that. I do think however that a chapter master not embarked in a vehicle with no fire points but wearing a suit of tactical dreadnaught armor or mounted on a bike can move an call down an OB. If my opponent was against this interpretation I would concede the point.

G

So you are saying you'd cheat unless someone called you on it?

Green Blow Fly wrote:Golgo did you read what I said in my last post? You come across as quite pretentious when you post at times.

G

I nearly spit coffee out of my nose reading this.......

MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I was wrong about this rule. As has been pointed OB is clearly defined as an attack that counts as a ranged weapon and there is no getting around that. I do think however that a chapter master not embarked in a vehicle with no fire points but wearing a suit of tactical dreadnaught armor or mounted on a bike can move an call down an OB. If my opponent was against this interpretation I would concede the point.

G

So you are saying you'd cheat unless someone called you on it?

You are so funny!

Anyways our fearless leader cleared this one up... OB does not count as a heavy weapon so no move and shoot unfortunately.

G

Not that it mattered in most cases in gw.

Groovy avatar there.

G

And even if he was firing. Barrages DON'T "need" LOS. Don't know which rulebook your reading. The rules says, Calling down an orbital bombardment otherwise "counts as"(The dreade words)a ranged weapon.
And due to very poor sentence structure it leaves a certian level of ambiguity.

This needs a FAQ

It doesn't need a damn FAQ!

What part of not being allowed to fire from the inside of a vehicle that doesn't have a Fire Point do you not understand?

You don't NEED LOS.

You DO NEED a Fire Point.

Until I read the rules last night I was ignoring the part about counts as a ranged weapon. I think it is open to debate but the conservative approach is to use LOS until it has been FAQd.

G

Trekari wrote:It doesn't need a damn FAQ!

What part of not being allowed to fire from the inside of a vehicle that doesn't have a Fire Point do you not understand?

You don't NEED LOS.

You DO NEED a Fire Point.

I think IMHO that if the vehicle in question were a Rhino you'd still find a way to argue the point. Personally, as long as the vehicle doesn't move if my opponent wants to use his one use "ability"(Not weapon).......Then its cool with me. I'll still find a way to pop that can and get those KPs.

Spetulhu wrote:GBF just pointed out that some rules are there to support the fluff, not the other way around.

Key word here is 'support', not 'replace'.

I never said they are to replace the the rules. The thing is people get so wrapped up trying to find new ways to exploit the rules they forget everything is based on fluff and an attempt at balance. The sentence in the rule for genestealers using feeder tendrils is a classic case to me... it specifically says genestealers can use this against their preferred enemy but here this is considered a fluff statement.

G

focusedfire wrote:

Trekari wrote:It doesn't need a damn FAQ!

What part of not being allowed to fire from the inside of a vehicle that doesn't have a Fire Point do you not understand?

You don't NEED LOS.

You DO NEED a Fire Point.

I think IMHO that if the vehicle in question were a Rhino you'd still find a way to argue the point. Personally, as long as the vehicle doesn't move if my opponent wants to use his one use "ability"(Not weapon).......Then its cool with me. I'll still find a way to pop that can and get those KPs.

Watch how simple this is to prove you wrong:

A Rhino has Fire Points, therefore the CM can use Orbital Bombardment provided 1) The Rhino didn't move, and 2) He is one of the two models firing from the Fire Points.

It counts as firing a ranged weapon, which you cannot do from inside a vehicle that doesn't have Fire Points. I'm sorry about your opinion being wrong.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I think it is open to debate but the conservative approach is to use LOS until it has been FAQd.

G

It's a barrage weapon, you don't need LOS...

*air

"...otherwise counts as firing a ranged weapon and uses the following profile"

The profile for the weapon is mentioned after stating that it otherwise counts as firing a ranged weapon, so it is not referencing the shooting rules for barrage.

Reading the paragraph properly: Other than not being allowed to move in the preceding movement phase, being usable only once per game, and being allowed to assault afterwards, calling down an Orbital Bombardment counts as firing a ranged weapon.

You made a bold statement that assumed I would argue about a Rhino. Perhaps in the future you won't assume what someone will and will not argue about.

Rules support my position. I'm sorry - what exactly supports yours?

I made a bold statement hoping to lock you in on at least its ok for the Chapter Master to be mounted. A lock which you so kindly gave me.

The otherwise & counts as may be reffering in support of the fact that the BS is not modified.

Just cause you say your reading it correctly doesn't make it so.

The rules and precedent of remote firing support my position.

What is so important about this that it can't wait for a FAQ. What is so game changing about this that its got you so upset. My friends and I, when there's a question like this, just take turns playing it both ways until we get word. If your at a tourny then have the judge make the call.

I'm not saying that I'm right, Just that a ruling wouldn't hurt.

If it is an ability rather than a weapon, how about using it while locked in assault?

Focusedfire, your homework for the day is to read pg. 66 of the BRB and then answer the following question:

Can a model shoot from inside of a transport that does not have a fire point?

Ignorance is not a valid defense when someone explains the meaning of a sentence to you.

FFS, it "counts as firing a ranged weapon" that cannot be used if you have moved in the movement phase.

Replace 'orbital bombardment' with bolt pistol, then ask yourself "Can I normally fire a bolt pistol in this situation?"

If the answer is yes, you can probably use the OB provided you haven't moved in the prior movement phase. As a happy bonus, it's got an unlimited range and doesn't require Line of Sight because it's a barrage weapon.

That's all the more thought that you have to put into it.

*air

Green Blow Fly wrote:I never said they are to replace the the rules. The thing is people get so wrapped up trying to find new ways to exploit the rules they forget everything is based on fluff and an attempt at balance.

However people also try to use the fluff to completely ignore the rules. You play the game according to the rules, not the fluff. It's up to the writers to insure that the fluff and the rules match, not the players.

focusedfire wrote:I can see your point and I'm willing to see both sides. Your not. All I'd like is a FAQ

This is not an instance where I need to see your side of the argument. For one, the language used is not debatable. "Otherwise" is used as a conjunctive adverb here, but let's assume for a moment that I'm wrong, and "otherwise" is referencing something that isn't even mentioned in the same paragraph like you claim.

I've asked you before if you are allowed to fire from inside a vehicle that doesn't have a Fire Point. The answer is "no" here as well. You can't fire any kind of weapon without a Fire Point while embarked in a transport.

Ghaz wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I never said they are to replace the the rules. The thing is people get so wrapped up trying to find new ways to exploit the rules they forget everything is based on fluff and an attempt at balance.

However people also try to use the fluff to completely ignore the rules. You play the game according to the rules, not the fluff. It's up to the writers to insure that the fluff and the rules match, not the players.

I agree with you Ghaz. We all know what happens when people try to play the game the way they think it should be. That is the beauty of RAW when it works. I do understand why this rule is in dispute, but after reading this particular set of rules I would play it to the strict interpretation. OB is still very powerful.

G

Referenced same paragraph, preceeding sentence. Read it slowly maybe you'll see it. Next, Fire yes need fire point, ability no do not need fire point.

I will leave you now to argue with air.

Behaving in a condescending manner only works when you're right, focusedfire.

Using Orbital Bombardment counts as firing a ranged weapon, with certain restrictions on when you can use it and allowing assaults afterwards, along with modifications to the scatter results.

First you said "otherwise" referenced the scatter roll, which is not in the same paragraph, then you changed your stance to say it referenced the ability to assault. Neither of these change the fact that it counts as firing a ranged weapon.

I am absolutely amazed people are arguing the fire point thing.

Well the chapter master can definitely fire from inside a landspeeder storm.

G

*

*

Green Blow Fly wrote:Well the chapter master can definitely fire from inside a landspeeder storm.

G

Actually he can't as the Land Speeder Storm can only carry scouts

You are correct.

Merry Christmas!

G