My buddy Nuclear on our local boards pointed out to me something that I read as correct. I wanted to see if there was any argument here against it.

I did a search, found nothing but I am assuming someone already spotted this.

Anyway.

Master of Ordnance in a CCS with a mortar. Place the mortar closer to the enemy than the master of ordnance. Fire the mortar, scatter the MoA off of the mortar shell to get around his huge scatter.

I read this as accurate by the barrage rules, what say yee dakkites that live for this kind of thing?

The only two possible points of contention that I see that may arise:

1) The Master of Ordnance's Artillery Bombardment is an Ordnance Barrage instead of a normal Barrage.

2) The Artillery Bombardment's rules may override those for normal Barrage weapons without any additional rules.

I'm not entirely sure either of those would be a valid argument, but they're the only two counters that I can see.

Yeah, I thought so too, but I looked up the rules for ordnance barrages and it states that they fire like normal barrages. I saw nothing to undermine this tactic.

All of a sudden, both he and the mortar are worthwhile. Stick them in a chimera and you have a nice little unit.

Check that, it says nothing about multiple ordnance barrages. I think this is a gray area, the only rules that I can see that pertain are those for multiple barrages which are very clear on the point.

I think this is legit. I see nothing to undermine it.

Reecius wrote:Yeah, I thought so too, but I looked up the rules for ordnance barrages and it states that they fire like normal barrages.

Actually it doesn't say that they fire like a normal barrage according to the rules on page 58. Their rules are actually a little on the vague side.

Besides the obvious wrongness of it you mean?

I'll ask some tournament organizers how they'd rule it. Seriously, it's a very solid rules as written argument, but completely ridiculous that a mortar can aide an orbital strike.

Yes I agree, especially when my CCS will be doing it from the comfy confines of their Chimera, sipping on hot tea!

Definite grey area of the rules because although the orbital strike is resolved like an orbital barrage it has additional rules. There simply is no clear way to decipher what should happen regarding those special rules if the weapon is fired as part of a battery.

yakface wrote:
Definite grey area of the rules because although the orbital strike is resolved like an orbital barrage it has additional rules. There simply is no clear way to decipher what should happen regarding those special rules if the weapon is fired as part of a battery.

I think this is correct. The rules here are very messy. It's very clear that when the 5th Ed. rules were written, GW was not envisioning multiple Ordinance barrages coming out of a single unit.

Doesnt the specific scatter rule in the codex trumph the general scatter rule in the rulebook?

Steelmage99 wrote:Doesnt the specific scatter rule in the codex trumph the general scatter rule in the rulebook?

Exactly correct. The problem is that there is no clear way of how the codex rules would function along with the rules for firing multiple barrage weapons.

I personally see no problem, it's a bit wierd but it seems legitimate enough that if you were following the rules the end result would be the mortar could be the ranging shot for the master of ordnance.

The only strange thing to me is whether or not a hit means you get to choose where to place the master of ordnance template or if it goes in the direction of the arrow on the hit side of the scatter dice.

Just as a note it seems this would be the same as using a gryphon to shoot the ranging shot for other artillery, and I haven't seen anyone have a problem with this, the relative rules are almost exactly the same.

If a direct hit was scored after using the barrage rules, I don't think it would scatter. It would follow the multiple barrage rules in the rule book, and nothing in the IG codex overwrites the multiple barrage rules.

As a tourney organizer, I'd laugh my ass off at this one. I

t's cute, it's clever, but actually trying to get away with it? Hell no.

Someone pulling crap like this just makes tournaments degenerate down to half a dozen guys trying to out-loophole each other, and everyone else quits showing up. You have to work to make this stand up good as a RAW arguement, and then it just becomes a good example of why you shouldn't always drink the RAW flavored kool-aid.

Just as a note it seems this would be the same as using a gryphon to shoot the ranging shot for other artillery, and I haven't seen anyone have a problem with this, the relative rules are almost exactly the same.

I was just about to say this. It works under the same principles. To say one is OK, and the other not is totally arbitrary.

I don't see how you can even argue this, really. The rules are quite clear. The only vague area is that there are no rules for ordnance barrages specifically, but there are for barrages. If you were to argue that this were exclusionary then no Imperial Guard artillery battery would be able to fire as a group, either.

If someone said no you can't do it, they have no way of backing it up at all.

mikhaila wrote: You have to work to make this stand up good as a RAW arguement, and then it just becomes a good example of why you shouldn't always drink the RAW flavored kool-aid.

I agree with your outcome, but I disagree with your conclusion that following the RAW is a bad strategy. The fact that you have to fight so hard to have the main rules trump the special rule in order to win your RAW argument means you don't actually have a RAW argument, since the RAW is unclear. And at that point, the rules of common sense or RAI kicks in.

So this isn't an example of how "RAW is bad" because it's not a RAW v. RAI issue. But imagine the MOO have the following rules for scatter:

"The MOO blast can not roll a "hit," and always scatters in the direction indicated by the large arrow on the hit dice. For the purpose of firing his Ordinance shot, the MOO is assumed to have a Ballistic Skill of 0."

If it was worded like that, using a Mortar to spot would be ok under the RAW, even though it would still seem to violate the clear intent of the rule, which is to have a highly inaccurate blast. In that case, I think it would be unreasonable for tournament organizers to outlaw a clearly-legal combo while allowing other more "accepted" broken-but-legal combos to flourish.

But, as I said, this is all academic, since the rule isn't clear.

RAW: perhaps

Would I let an opponent do it? No, because it's silly.

Then you, my good man, would be cheating.

Reecius wrote:Then you, my good man, would be cheating.

You yourself said this was a grey area. If so, why would Brian P be cheating. Would my friends and I play it the way it is written? Probably not, because it is a bit silly. Would I push it at a tournament? No, because even though it is illogical, it is not against the rules. This is just another case of GW handing loopholes out on a silver platter. I mean, people have been talking about this strategy for a week or two on Dakka, and a guarantee they weren't even looking for an unfair advantage on this one. It just jumped off the page, it was such an obvious oversight.

Or maybe I am underestimating GW and it wasn't an oversight at all. Though, in that case, I'm not sure if that's an underestimation or not.

Reecius wrote:Then you, my good man, would be cheating.

I think calling someone a cheater for choosing one side of a messy RAW ruling is a bit much. Especially for a ruling that makes as little common sense as this.

I hear what you are saying, and I was saying what I did to make a point.

If he can tell me I can't do something because he thinks its silly, could I then say his models can't fire at me because I think that is silly?

Hose rules are one thing, but arbitrarily undermining something that is supported by RAW, is making up rules, which is cheating.

It is only a gray area because there is no rule specifically addressing the situation or mixed multiple ordnance and normal barrages (or even all ordnance multiple barrages).

But there are rules that apply to barrage weapons, which these weapons are. What other rules would use use to fire them than those provided for barrage weapons?

And in all fairness to GW, try writing rules yourself sometime, it is a lot harder than it appears when looking at it from the point of view of a discovered loophole. Even professional and very intelligent (most of the time!) law makers with years of experience create rules that have loopholes in them.

I personally don't think there is any argument against this and I honestly don't even think its all that great.

To stop it, just shoot a squishy IG squad. That is not all that hard to accomplish.

Rated G wrote:[Or maybe I am underestimating GW and it wasn't an oversight at all. Though, in that case, I'm not sure if that's an underestimation or not.

I think our (legitimate) displeasure with GW's poor rules writing often leads us to cynically assume that ambiguities will end up being resolved in the most broken and unintended way.

GW is bad at writing rules, and it's certainly easy to imagine a situation where the RAW leads to unintended (and broken) consequences, but this isn't one of those situations. It's genuinely ambiguous, and ambiguous situations should be resolved in the fairest and least broken way possible. So GW passes this particular test, but loses lots of points for sloppy writing that necessitated these long and uncertain discussions. Clear writing would have made this so much simpler.

Reecius wrote:But there are rules that apply to barrage weapons, which these weapons are. What other rules would use use to fire them than those provided for barrage weapons?

Counterargument: We would use the specific special rule in the IG Codex for scattering a MOO shot. Since the general assumption is that the Codex overrides the main rules, the specific rule for extra-long scatter would be used instead of the general rules for barrage weapons. Thus, it's a gray area, not a RAW area. And most people agree that RAI shouldn't be used to intentionally break things.

If this was a RAW issue, then broken outcomes would have to be accepted (ie, spore mines counting as kill points) but this isn't a RAW issue.

Now that is the first logical argument against it I have heard, that holds water.

True, the codex over rides the BGB.

But, stating that someone can't do something in a game because its silly, isn't the best strategy for winning a rules debate.

As far as GW rules go, you think that they could hire a technical writer, or a law student intern to go over the rules to make sure they are not missing loopholes.

But then, no one can tell the future and issues like this often come up when things have changed or in really obscure situations that can only be found through lots of play testing.

Reecius wrote:And in all fairness to GW, try writing rules yourself sometime, it is a lot harder than it appears when looking at it from the point of view of a discovered loophole. Even professional and very intelligent (most of the time!) law makers with years of experience create rules that have loopholes in them.

Of course people make mistakes. I'd mind the mistakes a lot less if they acknowledged those loopholes and then updated their online errata more often. And don't give their line about "but some people don't have the interwebs!" that they like to spout - just seems like a horrible excuse.

... I personaly think this is wrong and not the right way to play ... that said yo-yo hawks any one?

Sounds like they messed up again, but would follow the normal rules for multiple barrages. (since there is nothing to stat that they dont)

Pretty much like for example characters who have special charge rules follow the normal rules when with a squad etc.

Dave47 wrote: I agree with your outcome, but I disagree with your conclusion that following the RAW is a bad strategy. The fact that you have to fight so hard to have the main rules trump the special rule in order to win your RAW argument means you don't actually have a RAW argument, since the RAW is unclear. And at that point, the rules of common sense or RAI kicks in.

.

Didn't say it was a bad strategy. Said it wasn't alway a good reason to use RAW. Key words in bold. Many people start their arguements with the assumption tha everyone must use RAW. I don't.

My "silly" argument works because my opponents are generally sensible, even-minded gamers who don't want to win by exploiting rules that don't work quite right. If a RAW argument falls on the side of "stupid" they understand why without any debate.

At a tournament I would fully expect to run into the other side of that coin. It goes with the territory and I don't get upset over it.

Dave47 wrote:

Reecius wrote:But there are rules that apply to barrage weapons, which these weapons are. What other rules would use use to fire them than those provided for barrage weapons?

Counterargument: We would use the specific special rule in the IG Codex for scattering a MOO shot. Since the general assumption is that the Codex overrides the main rules, the specific rule for extra-long scatter would be used instead of the general rules for barrage weapons. Thus, it's a gray area, not a RAW area. And most people agree that RAI shouldn't be used to intentionally break things.

If this was a RAW issue, then broken outcomes would have to be accepted (ie, spore mines counting as kill points) but this isn't a RAW issue.

Even your counter argument only holds water up to a point. The Codex vs Main rules dichotomy here isn't an apples and apples argument. You'd be correct if we were talking about rules for scattering a single barrage template in both cases, but we're not. The barrage rules replace the scatter rules for second and subsequent barrages fired out of the same unit. The fact that one of those barrages has a unique set of scatter rules doesn't in and of itself obviate the Multiple Barrage rules. Essentially, the Multiple Barrage rules replace "Scatter rule X" for the second and susequent barrage templates.

Let's put it this way, normal barrages have a clear set of rules for how they scatter, and those rules are voided when that template is fired as part of a multiple barrage. Rule A is replaced by rule B. The MOO fires a barrage, which is governed by rule C for it's scatter. There's a clear precedent for replacing scatter A with scatter B in a multiple barrage, but there's no precendent at all for excluding a barrage from the multiple barrage rules. In this case I think, as a RAW argument, the fact that the MOO fires a barrage trumps the fact that his specific barrage has different scatter rules.

Obviously the whole idea is silly, but that doesn't mean it's not RAW. I'd never let someone do it in a friendly game, but the tourney circut, as someone mentioned, has a very different set of expectations about RAW. My argument above probably isn't even close to watertight, but it's closer to RAW by a mile than excluding MOO from the multiple barrage rules even though he fires a barrage and the Multiple Barrage rules affect 'Barrages' in general. Even if the idea does make me throw up a little.

My "silly" argument works because my opponents are generally sensible, even-minded gamers who don't want to win by exploiting rules that don't work quite right. If a RAW argument falls on the side of "stupid" they understand why without any debate.

At a tournament I would fully expect to run into the other side of that coin. It goes with the territory and I don't get upset over it.

Sorry, Brian, i didn't mean that as a personal attack. It is silly, I just meant that that is not the best way to jump into a rules debate as it is pretty irrelevant.

I agree Fenris-77, it is a tough call because you can argue it either way. I have not played in a tourny in ages anyway (although I am this weekend, first in a long time!), so it is a bit moot for me personally. I think it will come down to house ruling with your local buddies and hopefully it will be addressed in a FAQ, if not the Adepticon FAQ.

I am leaning towards the specific rules for the MoO override the general barrage rules, though.

The main problem I can make out is because when the rules were written I do not believe there was a way to but different Barrage weapons in a single unit, hence the lack of any sort of clarification.

As such, according to strict RaW, the Mortar does indeed act as a "Spotter" for the rest, as does a Griffon with 2 Basilisks for example.

This might not be the intent, though we cannot know that for sure. The only solution until GW fixes this is to clarify with your opponent.

Personally, until GW does clarify this (I laugh even thinking about GW clarifying anything) I would play it that the multiple barrage rules only affect barrages from the same weapon, so that if, for example, you have a unit with MoO and a Mortar, you resolve each one separately or of you had a Griffon and 2 Basilisks, you would resolve the Griffon normally, then resolve the Basilisks as a Multiple Barrage.

Sheesh, all GW would have to do is post a beta version online, let the intrawebz tear it up for a week or so, and then fix the loopholes and exploitations. No extra money spent on play testers, no extra effort in looking at the rules with a microscope (heaven forbid), just a bit more time monitoring internet rumblings. 6 months later, voila we've got a codex we all helped make a little bit better. This wouldn't even have to be an issue of point values. I'm less concerned about that than I am reliable rules. Nobody is going to agree on what a unit is worth. But we can all agree on a rule that seems very ambiguous and needs to be tightened up for the betterment of the game.

Edit: Granted, this would require GW to know exactly what they are putting out 1.5-2 years in advance.

Gwar! wrote: I would play it that the multiple barrage rules only affect barrages from the same weapon, so that if, for example, you have a unit with MoO and a Mortar, you resolve each one separately or of you had a Griffon and 2 Basilisks, you would resolve the Griffon normally, then resolve the Basilisks as a Multiple Barrage.

I absolutely agree with this. This is how I would play it too.

gwar, please stop making sense!

This is definitely a fuzzy one. The rules are just vague. At first I thought it was pretty damn clear, but since there are specific rules for the way you fire the MoO, and the specific overrides the general rule, I would have to say that I would ask my opponent not to play it that way, and I would not play it that way myself.

And Rated G, you are absolutely correct. A beta would avoid all of this nonsense, or at least a lot of it.

Yeah, sticky about covers it. A basic "specific over rides general" statement doesn't really fix anything though. The scatter rules for the MOO are specific, but the multiple barrage rules aren't a more general version of the same thing. The way scatter is handled by a multiple barrage is pretty clear. Meh. Bunch of friggin' amateurs getting paid solid bucks to write crappy rules.

I'd love a really good FAQ once and a while too. Pity it won't happen. Unfortunately, I like tourney play too much to ignore the RAW entirely.

I agree Fenris, I believe you have to follow the RAW even if it is illogical or overpowering as anything else is by definition of the word, cheating.

House rule stuff that you don't like, but in a pick up game or a tournament, you must follow RAW unless all players know of a rules judgment before hand.

In this specific case I think that sens the firing of the MoO is spelled out, it overrides the barrage rules, but it is debatable for sure.

The Griffon in a Ordnance Barrage though I feel should fire as one, as they all follow the same rules for firing. So long as the Griffon fires first and is the closest to the enemy, other shots should scatter off of his per the rules, IMO.

As a RAI argument it could be justified that the mortar is used as a spotting round for the heavier gauge further back.

Just seems like lawering to me though. Then again, it is just another loophole. + another 1 for mister cavatorre hmm?

Wouldn't they have to be the same weapon for them to be a barrage? I don't think I've seen anyone do this with a grenade launcher and a mortar, or off of a baneblade. You only see it on heavy weapon squads with all mortars/missle/plasma.

Durandal wrote:Wouldn't they have to be the same weapon for them to be a barrage? I don't think I've seen anyone do this with a grenade launcher and a mortar, or off of a baneblade. You only see it on heavy weapon squads with all mortars/missle/plasma.

The Multiple Barrage rule, which is what allows the Mortar to 'range' for the MOO, only applies to Barrage weapons. Not blast weapons mind you, just barrage weapons (i.e that shoot indirect). The only thing you list in your post that uses these rules is a squad of mortars,

I didn't read the whole thread, just a buuuunch of inaccurate posts on the FIRST page, so hopefully i'm not restating.


MOO fires an ARTILLERY BOMBARDMENT, not an ORBITAL bombardment. Therefore, the mortar as a ranging shot is prefectly logical. The MOO is ordering guns off the board to fire, not from outer space.

Also, how is this silly? Ranging Shots are used all the time in warfare (moreso before targeting systems were invented). Look at catapults, howitzers, trebuchets, gastraphetes, the ballista . . .

The list goes on

apwill4765 wrote:Also, how is this silly? Ranging Shots are used all the time in warfare (moreso before targeting systems were invented). Look at catapults, howitzers, trebuchets, gastraphetes, the ballista . . .

The list goes on

Fluff aside it's a thing that the game designer(s) did not think of when writing the rule and therefore against the spirit of the rules.

Webbe wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Also, how is this silly? Ranging Shots are used all the time in warfare (moreso before targeting systems were invented). Look at catapults, howitzers, trebuchets, gastraphetes, the ballista . . .

The list goes on

Fluff aside it's a thing that the game designer(s) did not think of when writing the rule and therefore against the spirit of the rules.

We can't know what the designers were thinking when they wrote the rules, so I don't think that this is a very good counter argument. This is why if RAW is clear RAI shouldn't be followed.

apwill4765 wrote:

Webbe wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Also, how is this silly? Ranging Shots are used all the time in warfare (moreso before targeting systems were invented). Look at catapults, howitzers, trebuchets, gastraphetes, the ballista . . .

The list goes on

Fluff aside it's a thing that the game designer(s) did not think of when writing the rule and therefore against the spirit of the rules.

We can't know what the designers were thinking when they wrote the rules, so I don't think that this is a very good counter argument. This is why if RAW is clear RAI shouldn't be followed.

I think it is pretty obvious that this is out of place. I mean, you guys just kind of circle around and complain that the rules are broken, then completely stick to the broken rules.

Like, for example, my favorite thing in the new IG Codex is how broken the Combined Squads are:

1. Take Creed.
2. Take a Platoon with 5 Infantry Squads and give them all Chimeras.
3. During Deployment, Combine them all, and give that unit the Scouting rule from Creed, and declare that they will be outflanking.
4. Outflanking rules say that if a Unit is coming in and has a dedicated transport, it MUST deploy with the squad embarked on the Transport, but the Transport capacity of a Chimera is only 12, and there are 50 models in that squad, let alone, 5 Chimeras!

Which Chimera do you use? Does the Chimera have to be modeled as a clown car? Why didn't the Codex just disallow units with a Chimera to combine? How fast would you punch someone in the mouth if they tried this in a game? Does Creed's tactical genius override physics?

Grinning Goblin wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Webbe wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Also, how is this silly? Ranging Shots are used all the time in warfare (moreso before targeting systems were invented). Look at catapults, howitzers, trebuchets, gastraphetes, the ballista . . .

The list goes on

Fluff aside it's a thing that the game designer(s) did not think of when writing the rule and therefore against the spirit of the rules.

We can't know what the designers were thinking when they wrote the rules, so I don't think that this is a very good counter argument. This is why if RAW is clear RAI shouldn't be followed.

I think it is pretty obvious that this is out of place. I mean, you guys just kind of circle around and complain that the rules are broken, then completely stick to the broken rules.

Like, for example, my favorite thing in the new IG Codex is how broken the Combined Squads are:

1. Take Creed.
2. Take a Platoon with 5 Infantry Squads and give them all Chimeras.
3. During Deployment, Combine them all, and give that unit the Scouting rule from Creed, and declare that they will be outflanking.
4. Outflanking rules say that if a Unit is coming in and has a dedicated transport, it MUST deploy with the squad embarked on the Transport, but the Transport capacity of a Chimera is only 12, and there are 50 models in that squad, let alone, 5 Chimeras!

Which Chimera do you use? Does the Chimera have to be modeled as a clown car? Why didn't the Codex just disallow units with a Chimera to combine? How fast would you punch someone in the mouth if they tried this in a game? Does Creed's tactical genius override physics?

What you just said makes perfect sense, and I agree with you. However, there is a huge HUGE HUGE difference between fitting 50 guardsmen into a chimera with a maximum capacity of 12 models, and taking a ranging shot to help guide ordnance.

to recap:

1. 50 guardsmen in 1 chimera does not make sense
2. MOO using a mortar as ranging shot does make sense

apwill4765 wrote:
Fluff aside it's a thing that the game designer(s) did not think of when writing the rule and therefore against the spirit of the rules.

We can't know what the designers were thinking when they wrote the rules, so I don't think that this is a very good counter argument. This is why if RAW is clear RAI shouldn't be followed.

I think you, Yakface, just answered your own question, really, and it seems that it is more of an issue of Games Workshop leaving out clarifying details on their rules or failing to impart an exception. This reminds of a similar situation with Incoming and Get Back in the Fight. At the end of Incoming there is a "Note" about "go to ground." Is said note cementing Incoming as not being able to be removed by Get Back in the Fight? Or is it merely a reminder about Go to Ground?

I would love for someone to pull that trick with Creed. Have fun trying to deploy 50 guardsmen within 2" of the rear access point when it is destroyed.

Oh, you can't? Enjoy being autopinned.

First off, as has already been pointed out, there are no rules for combining "barage" and "ordnance barage" weapons in the rule book, so by RAW it really isn't even allowed.

Second, there is no specific rule saying that you would be allowed to use the mortar first, then have the MOO shot placed beside it...if fact doing so would break the MOO's own special rules. The MOO has specific rules for scattering in the codex and Codex>BRB. This means that even if you could combine them, it seems that you must fire the MOO first (since he has specific scatter rules), then place the Mortar shot next to it.

Because of these 2 reaosns, I see no RAW or RAI that would allow the Mortar to spot for the MOO. You might be able to stretch it for the MOO to be a lousy spotter for the mortar, but not the other way around, due to the codex specific MOO rule.

If I were to be the one to correct that, I would say that all the Chimeras would have to act as a squadron and all the units deploy simultaneously and immediately move towards each other, and may not do anything until they all combine. But this, I'm sure has its holes (some obvious), and people could figure out how to exploit it, but the simplest solution is probably just not to allow it.

Skinnattittar wrote:but the simplest solution is probably just not to allow it.

You mean, just like the rules (i.e. the one that says you cannot put more than the transport capacity inside it) say?

Danny Internets wrote:I would love for someone to pull that trick with Creed. Have fun trying to deploy 50 guardsmen within 2" of the rear access point when it is destroyed.

Oh, you can't? Enjoy being autopinned.

Forget the access point, can you even fit 50 guardsmen within 2" of the hull??? If not, enjoy being auto-destroyed

If it came to 50 Guardsmen within 2" of an access point and they are not being forced out and restricted by enemy troops or terrain, I would say the solution would be to allow the troops to deploy, but must deploy as close to the vehicle as possible without being in base-to-base contact of an enemy model. This is, of course, ignoring a troops capacity, if that is even an issue (in the case of 50 Guardsmen in a 12 troop capacity vehicle, I think it would be).

@ Gwar : No, that's ignoring the context of the rest of that paragraph.

yakface wrote:1. Take Creed.
2. Take a Platoon with 5 Infantry Squads and give them all Chimeras.
3. During Deployment, Combine them all, and give that unit the Scouting rule from Creed, and declare that they will be outflanking.
4. Outflanking rules say that if a Unit is coming in and has a dedicated transport, it MUST deploy with the squad embarked on the Transport, but the Transport capacity of a Chimera is only 12, and there are 50 models in that squad, let alone, 5 Chimeras!

I hate to say it, but this cannot work. You say they are blobbing up "at Deployment." There are a grand total of two (2) times when a Unit deploys, at the start of the game and when they move on from reserves. This means a Blobbed up squad can never outflank, since you can only give 1 unit scout, and as they cannot blob up in reserves, only one 10 man squad can outflank with their Chimera, so the whole situation just cannot happen.

Alerian wrote:First off, as has already been pointed out, there are no rules for combining "barage" and "ordnance barage" weapons in the rule book, so by RAW it really isn't even allowed.

Climb down off your high horse hoss. It's really not that simple. The book identifies Barrage weapons in the shooting section, and then in the vehicle section identifies Ordinance Barrage weapons as a subset of those. The language clearly links the two.

Alerian wrote:
Second, there is no specific rule saying that you would be allowed to use the mortar first, then have the MOO shot placed beside it...if fact doing so would break the MOO's own special rules. The MOO has specific rules for scattering in the codex and Codex>BRB. This means that even if you could combine them, it seems that you must fire the MOO first (since he has specific scatter rules), then place the Mortar shot next to it.

Hmm. I diagree. The Multiple Barrage rule applies covers 'Barrage' weapons, not 'normal Barrrage' or 'Ordinance Barrage' weapons (the two phrases used to identify the two in the vehicle section. Since it covers Barrages in general then it covers both types. Not only isn't it a stretch, but it even makes sense (even though I don't like the idea). So, contrary to your above statement there is indeed a specific rule that would allow this to happen. The fine detail about how that might work (or not) is what this thread is about. If the MOO fired a normal ordinance Barrage this wouldn't even be a question. TGhe only issue is the special MOO scatter rules. So do the thread a favour and don't suppose that every here but you is a moron.

It's not a case of the specific (or Codex) overriding the BGB either. There's a fairly convincing argument to the contrary (which even appears in this thread, isn't that service). There's not really a cut and dried answer either way, but you haven't really added anything to either argument.

As for the blobs, that sounds like it's own thread, and IMO the one discussion has zero bearing on the other.

[In retrospect, the above seems harsh, so just to clarify I was going for jovial, not condecending ]

Cheers

Based on what, Gwar? There is nothing in the Rulebook or the Codex that says such a thing. It does say that BEFORE deployment you have to decide which units will join up, not "you can not choose which units will join together in reserves."

Skinnattittar wrote:Based on what, Gwar? There is nothing in the Rulebook or the Codex that says such a thing. It does say that BEFORE deployment you have to decide which units will join up, not "you can not choose which units will join together in reserves."

Actually, no It doesn't. Stop Posting if you are not going to bother reading the rules. The rules state:

Page 37 wrote:The decision to form Combined Squads must be made at deployment. [...] For example, an Infantry Platoon consisting of [...] three ten-man infantry squads can instead choose to deploy as [...] a single thirty man squad or a [...] ten-man squad and a twenty-man squad. Combined Squads may not embark on vehicles that have insufficient transport capacity to carry the entire Combined Squad

Parts referencing the PCS removed for clarity. Bold for Emphasis. As shocking as this may be, I do read the rules before making my claims. Note that the Rule for not being able to embark is not a "Note this is how it is" but a whole new part of the rule. Codex > Rulebook, therefore even if you could blob up in reserves, you would be stopped from outflanking by this rule.

My mistake, it isn't "before" it is during. So can you clarify where it states you can't decide to join up your squads during deployment from reserves? I'm sorry, but I'm not following your line of thought. Are you insinuating that you can't do what it says? Or that Creed's order could only be issued to one of those squads, but then if the other squads join together wouldn't that order not carry to them all, as they are now a single unit and that's how orders are sent.... Actually, before we go any further, we really should start a thread just about this argument as this thread is supposed to be for the Master of Ordinance and a Mortar.

Skinnattittar wrote:My mistake, it isn't "before" it is during. So can you clarify where it states you can't decide to join up your squads during deployment from reserves? I'm sorry, but I'm not following your line of thought.

It doesn't have to clarify, because it is covered in the rules. Don't forget the rules are restrictive. You cannot say "oh it doesn't say I can't", it has to say you can.

Skinnattittar wrote: Are you insinuating that you can't do what it says?

No I am insinuating you can't do it because the rules do not say you can. Also, your attempts to (once again) make personal attacks in order to provoke a thread locking response are once again laudable. I wont be taking the bait however.

Skinnattittar wrote:Or that Creed's order could only be issued to one of those squads, but then if the other squads join together wouldn't that order not carry to them all, as they are now a single unit and that's how orders are sent

Ok, first of all, the Tactical Expertise is not an Order. Second of all, yes, if you want you can say that those 40 men are coming on from my edge and that one squad is outflanking, and once they deploy onto the board they are combining into one squad. That is fine. Just enjoy spending the rest of the game moving them back into coherency. However, if they have a Chimera, they are not deploying directly, the Chimera is (with them inside) so they cannot Deploy with the combined squad, but instead deploy embarked on the Chimera.

Skinnattittar wrote:.... Actually, before we go any further, we really should start a thread just about this argument as this thread is supposed to be for the Master of Ordinance and a Mortar.

yakface wrote:
Words

Well, the point I was trying to bring up is that people try to use rules to ignore other rules. Both instances, of forcing 50 guardsmen into a Chimera when Outflanking and using a Mortar to help pick out a target for a MoO are ignoring rules by using other rules. It would be nice if GW put out something saying that if a paradoxical situation comes up or a rule is being used to ignore another rule that the situation just simply isn't allowed. And this thread is a far cry from "Rules Clarification" and moves completely into the direction of "Hey, I broke the game and here is how to do it". People have to know that there is something wrong with using a Mortar guide a MoO. People know it is wrong, and GWAR isn't helping anyone by defending it. If anything, using a mortar in that way just makes you "That Guy". You know, "That Guy" who will just win at any cost, even if people don't want him around anymore. He just becomes the person who using incredible mental acrobatics to convince himself that people don't want to play with him because he is just that good instead of the fact that no one wants to play with him because he sperg's out over rule lawyering in favor of some ridiculous situation instead of just having fun playing a game.

Grinning Goblin wrote:

yakface wrote:
Words

People know it is wrong, and GWAR isn't helping anyone by defending it.

Slander and Lies! I am not defending putting 50 men in a chimera you dolt. I am saying that it cannot happen at all. Please read my posts before you make such slanderous comments!

And as for the mortar + MoO thing, it is fact that the rules for Multiple barrage do not give an exception for Barrages of different types, so one way of reading the RaW is that the mortar acts as a Spotter. Another, equally valid RaW reading is that the Codex > Rulebook so it always scatters. As I said, it needs to be errata'd

Grinning Goblin wrote:

yakface wrote:
Words

Well, the point I was trying to bring up is that people try to use rules to ignore other rules. Both instances, of forcing 50 guardsmen into a Chimera when Outflanking and using a Mortar to help pick out a target for a MoO are ignoring rules by using other rules. It would be nice if GW put out something saying that if a paradoxical situation comes up or a rule is being used to ignore another rule that the situation just simply isn't allowed. And this thread is a far cry from "Rules Clarification" and moves completely into the direction of "Hey, I broke the game and here is how to do it". People have to know that there is something wrong with using a Mortar guide a MoO. People know it is wrong, and GWAR isn't helping anyone by defending it. If anything, using a mortar in that way just makes you "That Guy". You know, "That Guy" who will just win at any cost, even if people don't want him around anymore. He just becomes the person who using incredible mental acrobatics to convince himself that people don't want to play with him because he is just that good instead of the fact that no one wants to play with him because he sperg's out over rule lawyering in favor of some ridiculous situation instead of just having fun playing a game.

Again, what is wrong about a ranging shot. No one has said anything about WHY it is wrong, just that it negates the special scatter. Keep in mind, ARTILLERY, not orbital, bombardment.


What specifically in fluff or rules makes this "wrong"

I want an answer that says "This is ridiculous / wrong because. . ."

apwill4765 wrote:I want an answer that says "This is ridiculous because. . ."

"... I'm the love-child of Cavatore and Jervis and my Daddies say this is how it works." That work for ya?

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:I want an answer that says "This is ridiculous because. . ."

"... I'm the love-child of Cavatore and Jervis and my Daddies say this is how it works." That work for ya?

GWAR! can be very insightful. I admire his candor and find it refreshing at times.



for the quote list =D

Sorry mate, GBF got there before you

apwill4765 wrote:

Grinning Goblin wrote:

yakface wrote:
Words

Well, the point I was trying to bring up is that people try to use rules to ignore other rules. Both instances, of forcing 50 guardsmen into a Chimera when Outflanking and using a Mortar to help pick out a target for a MoO are ignoring rules by using other rules. It would be nice if GW put out something saying that if a paradoxical situation comes up or a rule is being used to ignore another rule that the situation just simply isn't allowed. And this thread is a far cry from "Rules Clarification" and moves completely into the direction of "Hey, I broke the game and here is how to do it". People have to know that there is something wrong with using a Mortar guide a MoO. People know it is wrong, and GWAR isn't helping anyone by defending it. If anything, using a mortar in that way just makes you "That Guy". You know, "That Guy" who will just win at any cost, even if people don't want him around anymore. He just becomes the person who using incredible mental acrobatics to convince himself that people don't want to play with him because he is just that good instead of the fact that no one wants to play with him because he sperg's out over rule lawyering in favor of some ridiculous situation instead of just having fun playing a game.

Again, what is wrong about a ranging shot. No one has said anything about WHY it is wrong, just that it negates the special scatter. Keep in mind, ARTILLERY, not orbital, bombardment.


What specifically in fluff or rules makes this "wrong"

I want an answer that says "This is ridiculous / wrong because. . ."

It is wrong because using the mortar to guide the MoO's blast ignores one set of rules(The specific ruling in the codex) in favor of another(The general ruling of multiple barrages). Unfortunately the converse of the situation is also true, because firing both weapons separately breaks the rules for multiple barrages in a single unit. If you want to go with the new overwrites the old however, then you would have to fire them seperately. This has been brought up before in this thread as well, on the very first page too. And once again, the attitude of this thread suggests that this is not about clearing up a misunderstanding, but a clear attempt to exploit the rules. Another possible "RAW" ruling is that Barrage Weapons can only be fired with other Barrage Weapons and not Ordinance Barrage Weapons, as they are different and have different rulings associated with them.

Actually, the Ordinance Barrage rules are more in the way of an extension of the ormal Barrage rules, not so much a seperate set of rules. I'm not suggesting that things are clear cut, but to simply say that firing the MOO in a multiple Barrage 'ignores one set of rules' doesn't really work. The MB rules replace the scatter rules for the wepons they cover, and so suggesting that they also replace the scatter rules for the MOO (which is a barrage weapon) isn't ignoring a rule at all, at least not in the way you suggest.

The grey area here isn't going to go away short of an FAQ.

Fenris-77 wrote:Actually, the Ordinance Barrage rules are more in the way of an extension of the ormal Barrage rules, not so much a seperate set of rules. I'm not suggesting that things are clear cut, but to simply say that firing the MOO in a multiple Barrage 'ignores one set of rules' doesn't really work. The MB rules replace the scatter rules for the wepons they cover, and so suggesting that they also replace the scatter rules for the MOO (which is a barrage weapon) isn't ignoring a rule at all, at least not in the way you suggest.

The grey area here isn't going to go away short of an FAQ.

It very much ignores the MoO's specific rules on how it scatters. I'm not familiar with the MB though so I can't comment on that.

Here is the answer for why ranging the MOO with a Mortar is wrong...spelled out in 4 easy steps

1.The MOO has a Codex specific rule about scattering.

2. Using a Mortar to spot for the MOO (by way of the BGB barrage rules) would break the MOO's Codex specifc rule.

3.Codex>BGB

4. The scatter rule for the MOO will always > the BGB barrage rules...period. There is no legal way of getting around it.

Grinning Goblin wrote:
It very much ignores the MoO's specific rules on how it scatters. I'm not familiar with the MB though so I can't comment on that.

Actually, it doesn't, hence the grey area. MB replaces (or would replace if the rules were clear) the scatter rules for all second and subsequent barrages from the same unit. One of the main reasons there's an argument about this at all is this replacement. It migth seem like a finely split hair, but legitimately replacing the MOOs scatter rules via the MB rule isn't the same as ignoring the MOOs scatter rules, just as the MB rules aren't 'ignoring' the normal scatter rules. Like I said, grey area.

Dude, it's not a codex vs BGB argument, so your 4 easy steps get you nowhere fast.

Dude, it's not a codex vs BGB argument, so your 4 easy steps get you nowhere fast.

Actually it is EXACTLY a Codex>BGB arguement.

One side keeps pointing out BGB Barrage rules for why the mortar ranging is legal, while the other keeps pointing to a a Codex specific rule for why it is illegal...a rules arguement doesn't get anymore Codex Vs. BGB than that...

Fenris-77 wrote:

Grinning Goblin wrote:
It very much ignores the MoO's specific rules on how it scatters. I'm not familiar with the MB though so I can't comment on that.

Actually, it doesn't, hence the grey area. MB replaces (or would replace if the rules were clear) the scatter rules for all second and subsequent barrages from the same unit. One of the main reasons there's an argument about this at all is this replacement. It migth seem like a finely split hair, but legitimately replacing the MOOs scatter rules via the MB rule isn't the same as ignoring the MOOs scatter rules, just as the MB rules aren't 'ignoring' the normal scatter rules. Like I said, grey area.

Dude, it's not a codex vs BGB argument, so your 4 easy steps get you nowhere fast.

Oh, I thought MB meant Monolith Bearer when I moused over and got confused and didn't know that you meant Multiple Barrage. But even then, it can be argued that Ordinance Barrage and Barrage are two separate rules, as one causes a leadership penalty while the other does not, which is more of a reason to separate the two. They even have two separate entries and honestly, there is nothing that says that Barrage can link up with Ordinance Barrage, or anything that even suggests it.

Grinning Goblin wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Grinning Goblin wrote:

yakface wrote:
Words

Well, the point I was trying to bring up is that people try to use rules to ignore other rules. Both instances, of forcing 50 guardsmen into a Chimera when Outflanking and using a Mortar to help pick out a target for a MoO are ignoring rules by using other rules. It would be nice if GW put out something saying that if a paradoxical situation comes up or a rule is being used to ignore another rule that the situation just simply isn't allowed. And this thread is a far cry from "Rules Clarification" and moves completely into the direction of "Hey, I broke the game and here is how to do it". People have to know that there is something wrong with using a Mortar guide a MoO. People know it is wrong, and GWAR isn't helping anyone by defending it. If anything, using a mortar in that way just makes you "That Guy". You know, "That Guy" who will just win at any cost, even if people don't want him around anymore. He just becomes the person who using incredible mental acrobatics to convince himself that people don't want to play with him because he is just that good instead of the fact that no one wants to play with him because he sperg's out over rule lawyering in favor of some ridiculous situation instead of just having fun playing a game.

Again, what is wrong about a ranging shot. No one has said anything about WHY it is wrong, just that it negates the special scatter. Keep in mind, ARTILLERY, not orbital, bombardment.


What specifically in fluff or rules makes this "wrong"

I want an answer that says "This is ridiculous / wrong because. . ."

It is wrong because using the mortar to guide the MoO's blast ignores one set of rules(The specific ruling in the codex) in favor of another(The general ruling of multiple barrages). Unfortunately the converse of the situation is also true, because firing both weapons separately breaks the rules for multiple barrages in a single unit. If you want to go with the new overwrites the old however, then you would have to fire them seperately. This has been brought up before in this thread as well, on the very first page too. And once again, the attitude of this thread suggests that this is not about clearing up a misunderstanding, but a clear attempt to exploit the rules. Another possible "RAW" ruling is that Barrage Weapons can only be fired with other Barrage Weapons and not Ordinance Barrage Weapons, as they are different and have different rulings associated with them.

No where does it say that Barrage weapons and Ordinance barrages cannot be fired together. In fact, it is implied they can be fired together as they are both listed as barrage weapons. As stated before the distinction isn't made until vehicles are mentioned, and vehicles the MoO and a mortar are not.

I also disagree that this is any kind of attempt to exploit or get around the rules. Griffons are used to reduce the scatter of other artillery all the time, and I don't see the difference here (griffon has special scatter rules as well).

Alerian wrote:Here is the answer for why ranging the MOO with a Mortar is wrong...spelled out in 4 easy steps

1.The MOO has a Codex specific rule about scattering.

2. Using a Mortar to spot for the MOO (by way of the BGB barrage rules) would break the MOO's Codex specifc rule.

3.Codex>BGB

4. The scatter rule for the MOO will always > the BGB barrage rules...period. There is no legal way of getting around it.

Yea this is a bunch of crap. Everything scatters in a specific way until made part of a multiple barrage. Once the multiple barrage is applied, a different set of scatter rules is applied. This is no different

apwill4765 wrote:

Grinning Goblin wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Grinning Goblin wrote:

yakface wrote:
Words

Well, the point I was trying to bring up is that people try to use rules to ignore other rules. Both instances, of forcing 50 guardsmen into a Chimera when Outflanking and using a Mortar to help pick out a target for a MoO are ignoring rules by using other rules. It would be nice if GW put out something saying that if a paradoxical situation comes up or a rule is being used to ignore another rule that the situation just simply isn't allowed. And this thread is a far cry from "Rules Clarification" and moves completely into the direction of "Hey, I broke the game and here is how to do it". People have to know that there is something wrong with using a Mortar guide a MoO. People know it is wrong, and GWAR isn't helping anyone by defending it. If anything, using a mortar in that way just makes you "That Guy". You know, "That Guy" who will just win at any cost, even if people don't want him around anymore. He just becomes the person who using incredible mental acrobatics to convince himself that people don't want to play with him because he is just that good instead of the fact that no one wants to play with him because he sperg's out over rule lawyering in favor of some ridiculous situation instead of just having fun playing a game.

Again, what is wrong about a ranging shot. No one has said anything about WHY it is wrong, just that it negates the special scatter. Keep in mind, ARTILLERY, not orbital, bombardment.


What specifically in fluff or rules makes this "wrong"

I want an answer that says "This is ridiculous / wrong because. . ."

It is wrong because using the mortar to guide the MoO's blast ignores one set of rules(The specific ruling in the codex) in favor of another(The general ruling of multiple barrages). Unfortunately the converse of the situation is also true, because firing both weapons separately breaks the rules for multiple barrages in a single unit. If you want to go with the new overwrites the old however, then you would have to fire them seperately. This has been brought up before in this thread as well, on the very first page too. And once again, the attitude of this thread suggests that this is not about clearing up a misunderstanding, but a clear attempt to exploit the rules. Another possible "RAW" ruling is that Barrage Weapons can only be fired with other Barrage Weapons and not Ordinance Barrage Weapons, as they are different and have different rulings associated with them.

No where does it say that Barrage weapons and Ordinance barrages cannot be fired together. In fact, it is implied they can be fired together as they are both listed as barrage weapons. As stated before the distinction isn't made until vehicles are mentioned, and vehicles the MoO and a mortar are not.

I also disagree that this is any kind of attempt to exploit or get around the rules. Griffons are used to reduce the scatter of other artillery all the time, and I don't see the difference here (griffon has special scatter rules as well).

The special rule about the Griffon is a reroll and is self contained in Ordinance Barrage. The ruling involving a MoO is a completely different way on how to scatter the shot, and you are mixing Barrage with Ordinance Barrage, which are separate. You admit yourself that there is nothing that explicitly states that Barrage and Ordinance Barrage can fire together and use the Multiple Barrage rules with each other, correct? So then it wouldn't be RAW, which is what we are arguing now, right?

Actually I said that the relationship is implied, as there is NO distinction made between ordnance barrage and barrage until the vehicles section, and both are listed in BGB as barrage weapons. At this point there is one set of rules given for firing barrage weps

Ordnance barrage weapons fire as normal barrage weapons except for the exceptions found on page 58. If you are infering that they cannot thn shouldn't a Griffion + 2 Balsaliks not work either? Does this work the same with Large blast templates? I mean there is no rule on mutiple large blat templats, but there is a mutiple blast template rule.

Grinning Goblin wrote:
The special rule about the Griffon is a reroll and is self contained in Ordinance Barrage.

Actually, no, the re-roll for the Griffon is on top of the scatter. A modification of the normal scatter if you will. Just like the MOO (mostly ). We can stop discussing the Griffon now.

Grinning Goblin wrote:
The ruling involving a MoO is a completely different way on how to scatter the shot, and you are mixing Barrage with Ordinance Barrage, which are separate. You admit yourself that there is nothing that explicitly states that Barrage and Ordinance Barrage can fire together and use the Multiple Barrage rules with each other, correct? So then it wouldn't be RAW, which is what we are arguing now, right?

My answer is, so what? On both counts. The MOO scatter rule doesn't prevent anything because the scatter rules are being replaced by the MB rules (when he's the second + template), and there's nothing in the multiple barrage rules that makes it apply to only one kind of barrage. The MB rule is only in the BGB once by the way, in the first section about barrages, and it applies equally to Ordinance Barrages and normal Barrages. There's nothing in the rule that says it doesn't apply to this Barrage, or that Barrage, or anything like that, nor does it limit the kinds of Barrage that can be fired together. All it says is that Multiple Barrages from the same unit use rules set X to determine the scatter of second and subsequent Barrages from that unit.

It's also not, I repeat NOT, a codex vs BGB argument. Of course the MOO has his own rules for scatter, that's not the issue. The issue is that those rules would be suspended if he were part of a MB, just as would be the case with any other Barrage weapon in the game, some of which also have seperate or ancilliary rules for scatter. THE MB rules replace the individual scatter rules for all except the first Barrage fired.

As I've noted previously, this is not a cut and dried issue. A full page and a half ago it was apparent that there was no water-tight resolution here short of an FAQ. Why? Because it just isn't clear. I've been holding up the permissive side of the argument here, but only because that's what needed propping up. I guess you can go ahead and beat a dead horse if you like, but there's nothing to see and the e-cred bank is empty on this one.

Fenris-77 wrote:

Grinning Goblin wrote:
The special rule about the Griffon is a reroll and is self contained in Ordinance Barrage.

Actually, no, the re-roll for the Griffon is on top of the scatter. A modification of the normal scatter if you will. Just like the MOO (mostly ). We can stop discussing the Griffon now.

Grinning Goblin wrote:
The ruling involving a MoO is a completely different way on how to scatter the shot, and you are mixing Barrage with Ordinance Barrage, which are separate. You admit yourself that there is nothing that explicitly states that Barrage and Ordinance Barrage can fire together and use the Multiple Barrage rules with each other, correct? So then it wouldn't be RAW, which is what we are arguing now, right?

My answer is, so what? On both counts. The MOO scatter rule doesn't prevent anything because the scatter rules are being replaced by the MB rules (when he's the second + template), and there's nothing in the multiple barrage rules that makes it apply to only one kind of barrage. The MB rule is only in the BGB once by the way, in the first section about barrages, and it applies equally to Ordinance Barrages and normal Barrages. There's nothing in the rule that says it doesn't apply to this Barrage, or that Barrage, or anything like that, nor does it limit the kinds of Barrage that can be fired together. All it says is that Multiple Barrages from the same unit use rules set X to determine the scatter of second and subsequent Barrages from that unit.

It's also not, I repeat NOT, a codex vs BGB argument. Of course the MOO has his own rules for scatter, that's not the issue. The issue is that those rules would be suspended if he were part of a MB, just as would be the case with any other Barrage weapon in the game, some of which also have seperate or ancilliary rules for scatter. THE MB rules replace the individual scatter rules for all except the first Barrage fired.

As I've noted previously, this is not a cut and dried issue. A full page and a half ago it was apparent that there was no water-tight resolution here short of an FAQ. Why? Because it just isn't clear. I've been holding up the permissive side of the argument here, but only because that's what needed propping up. I guess you can go ahead and beat a dead horse if you like, but there's nothing to see and the e-cred bank is empty on this one.

QFT, I'll be avoiding this topic until FAQ

Fenris-77 wrote:
My answer is, so what? On both counts. The MOO scatter rule doesn't prevent anything because the scatter rules are being replaced by the MB rules (when he's the second + template), and there's nothing in the multiple barrage rules that makes it apply to only one kind of barrage. The MB rule is only in the BGB once by the way, in the first section about barrages, and it applies equally to Ordinance Barrages and normal Barrages. There's nothing in the rule that says it doesn't apply to this Barrage, or that Barrage, or anything like that, nor does it limit the kinds of Barrage that can be fired together. All it says is that Multiple Barrages from the same unit use rules set X to determine the scatter of second and subsequent Barrages from that unit.

Well, first off, "It doesn't say that I can't" isn't a very good argument at all. The whole point of this is to find out the ruling for RAW, not Rules Not Written. If anything, the ruling is quite clear and perhaps you can't have Multiple Ordinance Barrages at all. In fact, nothing in the Ordinance Barrage section even indicates that they use any Barrage rules at all. Read the section on page 58 starting at the top of the second column. They shoot just like any Ordinance weapon except that they can shoot at targets that are not in LOS and that they have a minimum range when firing as a Barrage, and if the target isn't in LOS, they can't reduce the distance with their BS. Maybe it would be different if the weapon said "Large Blast, Barrage 1", but it doesn't.

apwill4765 wrote:
QFT, I'll be avoiding this topic until FAQ

Given the quality of recent FAQs, I wouldn't count on GW addressing it in the FAQ.

Grinning Goblin wrote:

Fenris-77 wrote:
My answer is, so what? On both counts. The MOO scatter rule doesn't prevent anything because the scatter rules are being replaced by the MB rules (when he's the second + template), and there's nothing in the multiple barrage rules that makes it apply to only one kind of barrage. The MB rule is only in the BGB once by the way, in the first section about barrages, and it applies equally to Ordinance Barrages and normal Barrages. There's nothing in the rule that says it doesn't apply to this Barrage, or that Barrage, or anything like that, nor does it limit the kinds of Barrage that can be fired together. All it says is that Multiple Barrages from the same unit use rules set X to determine the scatter of second and subsequent Barrages from that unit.

Well, first off, "It doesn't say that I can't" isn't a very good argument at all. The whole point of this is to find out the ruling for RAW, not Rules Not Written. If anything, the ruling is quite clear and perhaps you can't have Multiple Ordinance Barrages at all. In fact, nothing in the Ordinance Barrage section even indicates that they use any Barrage rules at all. Read the section on page 58 starting at the top of the second column. They shoot just like any Ordinance weapon except that they can shoot at targets that are not in LOS and that they have a minimum range when firing as a Barrage, and if the target isn't in LOS, they can't reduce the distance with their BS. Maybe it would be different if the weapon said "Large Blast, Barrage 1", but it doesn't.

This isn't an "it doesn't say I can't" argument though. In fact, the multiple barrage rules specifically say I can. The only hold up is the special scatter, which isn't specifically allowed for one way or the other. The basic mechanic though is straight from the BGB. Ordinance Barrages are still barrages, they're covered by the MB rules, and the MoO fires an Ordinance barrage. None of that is even in the slightest way in question here. The only sticky point is the special scatter, which isn't covered either way and can (and has been) argued well as both possible to include in a MB and not. That's the only question.

Feel free to proceed with the false dichotomies if you like, but nothings going to change. The basic mechanic works, and the specific mechanic is unclear. That's where this argument is at and that's where it's going to stay short of a GW or Tourney FAQ.

Multiple Barrage weapons are clearly covered in the main rulebook. Codices have precedence over the main rulebook. Codex : Imperial Guard has a special rule for the Master of Ordinance, the special rule does NOT make any statements towards Multiple Barrages, only about how far it scatters. Since there is not information on intent in the case of Multiple Barrages, I would have to say that it either was never even considered, or that it was intentionally left out.

In practice, I feel this argument is moot. Consider; the Master of Ordinance conducts a munition with infinite range. The mortar has a maximum range of 48". As a member of the squad with the mortar, they must fire upon the same target at all times. So, the Master of Ordinance must be considered as having paid for an infinite range Earthshaker shot. By performing this action, he must reduce this infinite range shot to 48" of range, if not, if you fire with infinite range, or greater than 48", then you lose the use of the mortar. This seems like a rather fair trade. You pay for the MoO's infinite, you pay for the mortar, you either have to lose the mortar shot to take advantage of the infinite range or lose what you paid for to have infinite range, but gain marginally better accuracy. Seems rather fair, even if it isn't 1oo% kosher and proper, the fact that it is within the structure of the rules makes it all reasonable.

Bollocks. The range and how you read the fluff from there means nada. I happen to agree with you, but that doesn't change the RAW. From a balance standpoint I think you're correct, the tradeoff is about right.

You're comments about the MoO not mentioning the MB rules are moot too. Most Barrage weapon in most books do not directly reference the MB rules. I fail to see how this makes the MoO unique (it doesn't). Let it go man, just let it go.

*edit for clarity*

Fenris-77 wrote:Bollocks. The range and how you read the fluff from there means nada. I happen to agree with you, but that doesn't change the RAW. From a balance standpoint I think you're correct, the tradeoff is about right.

You're comments about the MoO not mentioning the MB rules are moot too. Most Barrage weapon in most books do not directly reference the MB rules. I fail to see how this makes the MoO unique (it doesn't). Let it go man, just let it go.

*edit for clarity*

I do not think I understand you comments... what are you saying that I am corrupting? Mortar/MoO is valid by RAW, RAI is up in the air, and I personally don't see it clearly for either side, and once you factor in that it is a reasonably balanced trade off then there looks to be no point to contesting RAW. I am simply stating how I feel about all the sides of the current argument. In summary, I vote for RAW and that RAW has nothing on preventing the two shots being fired Multiple Barrage.

Ok, where in the Multiple Barrage rules does it mention "Ordinance Barrage"?
Where does it explicitly state in any rule anywhere that you can mix Barrage and Ordinance Barrage weapons in the same Multiple Barrage?
Where does it mention that Ordinance Barrage weapons are treated exactly the same as Barrage?(Hint: The only thing that Barrages and Ordinance Barrages share, according to RAW is that they can have a minimum range, cause pinning, work out cover saves from the center of the blast, and can fire at targets out of LOS)

Please, show me specifically where and I will concede.

Grinning Goblin wrote:Ok, where in the Multiple Barrage rules does it mention "Ordinance Barrage"?
Where does it explicitly state in any rule anywhere that you can mix Barrage and Ordinance Barrage weapons in the same Multiple Barrage?
Where does it mention that Ordinance Barrage weapons are treated exactly the same as Barrage?(Hint: The only thing that Barrages and Ordinance Barrages share, according to RAW is that they can have a minimum range, cause pinning, work out cover saves from the center of the blast, and can fire at targets out of LOS)

Please, show me specifically where and I will concede.

You're going to have to take a couple of deep breaths first. Lets do this in some sort of logical order shall we?

1. The full rules for Barrage weapons are spelled out in the shooting portion of the rules.
2. In the Vehicle section of the rules some additional rules for Ordinance Barrages are layed out, supplemental but not seperate from the core barrage rules.
3. The Multiple barrage rules, as spelled out in the shooting section, govern shooting by multiple Barrage weapons.
4. Since the Ordinance Barrage is not a seperate rule from the normal Barrage, Barrages of this type are also governed by the MB rules.
5. The MoO is an Ordinance barrage and is thus also subject to the MB rules in any situation where they apply.

So, what needs proof? I think 2, 3, and 4 could use some explication so lets proceed, shall we?

2. The only rules presented in the Ordinance Barrage section refer to how they differ from normal Barrages. Specifically, that they have additional restrictions on moving and shooting and that they accrue an additional -1 Ld modifier for affected units testing for pinning. In the absence of a fully articulated set of rules the only option is to refer back to the Barrage rules in the shooting section to determine how they function. Since you need to refer back to the Barrage section to determine the function you must also assume that all the rules presented there affect Ordinance barrages, save those that are supplemented in the Vehicle section. Ergo, Ordinance Barrages are indeed subject to the Multiple Barrage rules in any circumstance where multiple Barrages are fired from a single unit. (that takes care of 3 too)

4. It follows from the above that the rules presented in the BGB for Ordinance Barrages are not seperate from the normal Barrage rules. The lack of a fully articulated rules set in this case makes that more than plain. What's more, the fashion in which these two rules sections interlock makes it plain that there are no restrictions currently placed on what manner of Barrages may be fired in a Multiple Barrage. If there were any such restrictions they would be listed in the Multiple barrage section and there are no such restrictions listed in that section.

Now on to 5...

5. The MoO does indeed fire an Ordinance Barrage, as his rules state. Since he fires an Ordinance Barrage you are forced to refer to the MB rules in any case where the MoO and at least one more Barrage weapon fire from the same unit. Since there are no restrictions placed on what sort of Barrages may be fired in a Multiple Barrage, and since it's plain that Ordinance Barrages are indeed subject to the Multiple Barrage rules, then it follows that a MoO firing a Barrage weapon from a unit that fires at least one more Barrage weapon will use the Multiple barrage rules; and further that should the MoO not be the closest firing model, that his Barrage be treated as described in the Multiple Barrage rules.

Which leads us to the Multiple Barrage rules, which clearly state that there is an alternate scatter mechanism for second and subsequent Barrages fired from the same unit. More specifically, that the normal scatter for the Barrage is replaced by a simple scatter die roll and the placement of the template in question side by side with the first template fired, aligned in the direction indicated by the scatter die.

If that's not clear enough I'll be forced to resort to comprehension through pugilation.

I'd go more along the lines that multiple barrage weapons fire together, but the MoO isn't armed with his barrage - it's a special rule that works like an ordnance barrage, not an actual weapon. Check his equipment list - all he's armed with is a lasgun.

That being said, his Non-weapon special rule barrage thingy works on its own, using its own special rules.


The MoO's barrage is also not listed in the IG weapon summary list. Which makes sense, since it's NOT a weapon, it's just a special ability that, for clarity, uses existing rules to fire like one.

Thus, it can't be combined with a mortar, because only multiple barrage weapons can be combined to fire as a multi-barrage.

If you'd read the whole thread you'd have seen that the decision was made early on that the vague nature of the MoOs 'special ability' is what prevents a solid ruling either way here. All I've done above is outline the rules for Multiple barrage weapons and tack on the MoO rules (from the permissive side of the fence).

The general response to your ojection is to ask "what does the shot do?" to which the only answer is "it's an Ordinance Barrage with rules X attached". It's an Ordinance Barrage whether you like it or not really. Not that fact proves anything, but that's what it is.

Can we all just wait for the FAQ now?

NEVHURRR!!!

Sure, it's fired like an ordnance barrage.

It just isn't coming from a weapon, and thus doesn't combine with the mortar.

The only requirement is that multiple barrages are fired by the same unit. Unless you are arguing he doesnt 2fire" the special barrage?

Spellbound wrote:Sure, it's fired like an ordnance barrage.

It just isn't coming from a weapon, and thus doesn't combine with the mortar.

I understand what you're saying (and up to a point I agree) but this is essentially a fluff answer and has no real bearing on the rules. The fact of the matter is that the shot is an Ordinance Barrage.

Fenris-77 wrote:
2. The only rules presented in the Ordinance Barrage section refer to how they differ from normal Barrages. Specifically, that they have additional restrictions on moving and shooting and that they accrue an additional -1 Ld modifier for affected units testing for pinning. In the absence of a fully articulated set of rules the only option is to refer back to the Barrage rules in the shooting section to determine how they function. Since you need to refer back to the Barrage section to determine the function you must also assume that all the rules presented there affect Ordinance barrages, save those that are supplemented in the Vehicle section. Ergo, Ordinance Barrages are indeed subject to the Multiple Barrage rules in any circumstance where multiple Barrages are fired from a single unit. (that takes care of 3 too)

This is wrong. Nowhere does it state that Ordinance Barrage uses Barrage rules. There are a few problems with this argument:

1. The rules presented in the Ordinance Barrage sections actually outline how they are different than a Ordinance Weapon, not a Barrage, and Ordinance weapons have a section in the Weapons section that just defer the player to another page.
2. You do not need to refer back to the Barrage section to determine how an Ordinance Barrage works, the rules are all in the Ordinance Barrage section.
3. If something isn't written down as a rule, then it isn't a rule and is disallowed, otherwise this is exactly a "Well, it doesn't say that I can't" argument.
4. You are assuming and you admit to it.

Fenris-77 wrote:
4. It follows from the above that the rules presented in the BGB for Ordinance Barrages are not seperate from the normal Barrage rules. The lack of a fully articulated rules set in this case makes that more than plain. What's more, the fashion in which these two rules sections interlock makes it plain that there are no restrictions currently placed on what manner of Barrages may be fired in a Multiple Barrage. If there were any such restrictions they would be listed in the Multiple barrage section and there are no such restrictions listed in that section.

The Multiple Barrage section explicitly states Barrage weapons, and Barrage weapons alone. There is no mention of Ordinance Barrage. This is another "Well it doesn't say I can't" point.

Brian P wrote:My "silly" argument works because my opponents are generally sensible, even-minded gamers who don't want to win by exploiting rules that don't work quite right. If a RAW argument falls on the side of "stupid" they understand why without any debate.

At a tournament I would fully expect to run into the other side of that coin. It goes with the territory and I don't get upset over it.

Yes, and some would argue that people who play armies that are absolutely out-of-line with the fluff are doing something similar. Where do YOU draw that line?
Nidzilla anyone??

*sigh* In fact, what page 58 of the BGB outlines is not at all as you seem to suggest. The rules state first that the weapons may be fired directly, as normal Ordinance weapons. Then the book read "or alternatively they may be fired as an ordinance barrage...". The actual rules start in the next paragraph, which begins with the following phrase "just like normal barrages".

That last statement clearly connects the two.

Moreover, the vehicle squadron rules state that a squadron of vehicle fires all it's available weaponry at a single enemy target. The rules for doing this with Barrage weapons are found in the Multiple Barrage rules.

The thing you're forgetting here is that the Weapon types and rules section is not limited to infantry, and all the rules there apply to vehicle mounted versions of the same weapon. The description of barrgage is pretty clearly applied to weapons with barrage in the type. It's exactly the same as how normal Ordinance Blast weapons follow the generic blast template weapon rules, modified by the additional rules found in the vehicle section.

An ordinance blast is still a blast, and an Ordinance Barrage is still a Barrage.

My best point is saved for last though. Here's the actual quote form the Ordinance Barrage weapons entry from page 58 of the BGB...

Differently from other unit types, vehicles carrying ordinance barrage weapons can chose to fire them either directly, or as a barrage - declare before you fire.

I can only assume you read this section before you posted, so why don't you tell me how "fire ... as a barrage" can possibly be misinterpreted?

Anyway, back to you GG.

Grinning Goblin wrote:This is wrong. Nowhere does it state that Ordinance Barrage uses Barrage rules.

Ok, first of all you are wrong. So wrong that the immense wrongness of that statement causes a rip in space time, that is how wrong you are.

I direct you ladies and gentlemen, to the first flipping sentence of the Ordnance Barrage Rules:

Page 58 wrote:Differently from other unit types, vehicles carrying ordnance barrage weapons can choose to fire them either directly or as a barrage - declare before you fire.

So yes, Ordnance Barrage weapons follow all the rules for Barrage weapons as well as the additional ones in the Ordnance Barrage Section. Not to mention that if they didnt, things like "Pinning tests caused by ordnance barrages are taken with a -1 Ld modifier" would make no sense.

Seriously, There is Wrong, then there is just Horribly Wrong.

Edit: It seems Fenris got there before me. My Point still stands.

Grinning Goblin wrote:

Fenris-77 wrote:
2. The only rules presented in the Ordinance Barrage section refer to how they differ from normal Barrages. Specifically, that they have additional restrictions on moving and shooting and that they accrue an additional -1 Ld modifier for affected units testing for pinning. In the absence of a fully articulated set of rules the only option is to refer back to the Barrage rules in the shooting section to determine how they function. Since you need to refer back to the Barrage section to determine the function you must also assume that all the rules presented there affect Ordinance barrages, save those that are supplemented in the Vehicle section. Ergo, Ordinance Barrages are indeed subject to the Multiple Barrage rules in any circumstance where multiple Barrages are fired from a single unit. (that takes care of 3 too)

This is wrong. Nowhere does it state that Ordinance Barrage uses Barrage rules. There are a few problems with this argument:

1. The rules presented in the Ordinance Barrage sections actually outline how they are different than a Ordinance Weapon, not a Barrage, and Ordinance weapons have a section in the Weapons section that just defer the player to another page.
2. You do not need to refer back to the Barrage section to determine how an Ordinance Barrage works, the rules are all in the Ordinance Barrage section.
3. If something isn't written down as a rule, then it isn't a rule and is disallowed, otherwise this is exactly a "Well, it doesn't say that I can't" argument.
4. You are assuming and you admit to it.

Fenris-77 wrote:
4. It follows from the above that the rules presented in the BGB for Ordinance Barrages are not seperate from the normal Barrage rules. The lack of a fully articulated rules set in this case makes that more than plain. What's more, the fashion in which these two rules sections interlock makes it plain that there are no restrictions currently placed on what manner of Barrages may be fired in a Multiple Barrage. If there were any such restrictions they would be listed in the Multiple barrage section and there are no such restrictions listed in that section.

The Multiple Barrage section explicitly states Barrage weapons, and Barrage weapons alone. There is no mention of Ordinance Barrage. This is another "Well it doesn't say I can't" point.

You are either braindead or trolling if you are suggesting that ordnance barrage weapons can't fire a multiple barrage. Please stop troling or seek medical attention, depending on which applies to you

Fenris-77 wrote:*sigh* In fact, what page 58 of the BGB outlines is not at all as you seem to suggest. The rules state first that the weapons may be fired directly, as normal Ordinance weapons. Then the book read "or alternatively they may be fired as an ordinance barrage...". The actual rules start in the next paragraph, which begins with the following phrase "just like normal barrages".

That last statement clearly connects the two.

"ordinance barrages have a minimum range,(see their profile), they cause Pinning tests, and their targets work out their cover saves as if the shot came from the center of the blast marker." I helped you finish that sentence. So, there, the connection ends with those similarities.

Fenris-77 wrote:Moreover, the vehicle squadron rules state that a squadron of vehicle fires all it's available weaponry at a single enemy target. The rules for doing this with Barrage weapons are found in the Multiple Barrage rules.

This is rather irrelevant. Even then, it doesn't indicate multiple Ordinance Barrage weapons, and if anything, the rules for Ordinance Barrage are found in that heading.

Fenris-77 wrote:The thing you're forgetting here is that the Weapon types and rules section is not limited to infantry, and all the rules there apply to vehicle mounted versions of the same weapon. The description of barrgage is pretty clearly applied to weapons with barrage in the type. It's exactly the same as how normal Ordinance Blast weapons follow the generic blast template weapon rules, modified by the additional rules found in the vehicle section.

Actually, all Ordinance weapons found in a codex use "Ordinance X, (Large) Blast", where X is a number. Or they all use some form of that. There are no "Ordinance Blast" weapons.

Fenris-77 wrote:My best point is saved for last though. Here's the actual quote form the Ordinance Barrage weapons entry from page 58 of the BGB...

Differently from other unit types, vehicles carrying ordinance barrage weapons can chose to fire them either directly, or as a barrage - declare before you fire.

I can only assume you read this section before you posted, so why don't you tell me how "fire ... as a barrage" can possibly be misinterpreted?

Anyway, back to you GG.

If the rulebook simply said that and then went to say "Refer to the Barrage Rules when firing indirectly, also Ordinance Barrage Weapons give a -1 to the Pinning Test", then I would have left it at that. But it doesn't, and if you read the rest of the sentence, it states that you are declaring how you are firing the weapon. "I am firing these weapons as a barrage", or "I am going to fire these weapons directly" then the rules go into detail as to how they are fired for each. If they are fired directly, then it says they are fired exactly like a normal Ordinance weapon. If it fires as a barrage though, it doesn't say that they are fired exactly as a Barrage weapon, it goes into detail, lists the similarities it has with barrage weapons, adds a rule, and ends there.

GG, seriously, stop embarrassing yourself. You are wrong, but are not man enough to admit it imo.

Gwar! wrote:GG, seriously, stop embarrassing yourself. You are wrong, but are not man enough to admit it imo.

Grinning Goblin wrote:Ok, where in the Multiple Barrage rules does it mention "Ordinance Barrage"?
Where does it explicitly state in any rule anywhere that you can mix Barrage and Ordinance Barrage weapons in the same Multiple Barrage?
Where does it mention that Ordinance Barrage weapons are treated exactly the same as Barrage?(Hint: The only thing that Barrages and Ordinance Barrages share, according to RAW is that they can have a minimum range, cause pinning, work out cover saves from the center of the blast, and can fire at targets out of LOS)

Please, show me specifically where and I will concede.

Page 58 wrote:Differently from other unit types, vehicles carrying ordnance barrage weapons can choose to fire them either directly or as a barrage - declare before you fire.

There is your answer.

Gwar! wrote:GG, seriously, stop embarrassing yourself. You are wrong, but are not man enough to admit it imo.

Gwar, for a change can you try to contribute and communicate effectively.

By effectively, I mean in a way that others can see your point, and not get caught up in all of the high-horse antics.
I have seen little else out of you in my stay at Dakka thus far.

You have solid knowledge, pass it on in a way that it can be received well.

Che-Vito wrote:

Gwar! and Fenris have already answered this question correctly.

If I were Gwar!, I would be irritated trying to explain that "As a barrage" means "As a barrage".

@ GG: As usual, Gwar! is right.

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Gwar! and Fenris have already answered this question correctly.

If I were Gwar!, I would be irritated trying to explain that "As a barrage" means "As a barrage".

@ GG: As usual, Gwar! is right.

If they believed that they have explained the point correctly, then they have no further need to assert themselves in the thread. It is no obligation on their part, so if they get irritated, then they can walk away. This is an online forum about wargaming, not a place to vent once sardonic side onto others.

Nuff' said.

It should be noted that the MoO firing rules actually DOESN'T invent some new rule that is not covered in the core rule book. Page 2 Scatter Die. His ability simply calls it out.

That being said his 'new special rule' wouldn't trump a rule that already exists...because its an OLD RULE

Che-Vito wrote:
yet more

So they shouldnt respond to the post to correct someone who is clearly wrong? Just leave the thread with the last post being clearly and unutterably incorrect?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:
yet more

So they shouldnt respond to the post to correct someone who is clearly wrong? Just leave the thread with the last post being clearly and unutterably incorrect?

Um yeah not following that ramble

How is one line (2 sentences) a ramble? :rolleyes: or do you have something to contribute?

Essentially: if the last post is clearly and demonstably incorrect, with someone having the cheek to suggest they will change their mind if shown proof yet having not done so, should they not respond and correct the situation?

It is clearly a barrage as it states so in the rules, yet one person tries to say it isnt....

Sorry, 'ramble' as in I wasn't following the original comment, that one was much clearer thanks

nosferatu1001 wrote:How is one line (2 sentences) a ramble? :rolleyes: or do you have something to contribute?

Essentially: if the last post is clearly and demonstably incorrect, with someone having the cheek to suggest they will change their mind if shown proof yet having not done so, should they not respond and correct the situation?

It is clearly a barrage as it states so in the rules, yet one person tries to say it isnt....

I'll put it simply. If they have answered the question correctly, they can walk away.
If they turn it into an issue of pride...which some clearly have...then forget acting like adults! Petty arguements are much better!