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

Monstrous creature with ordnance weapon _____ Mc can fire 2 weapons....can they fire both a ordnance weapon and some other weapon?
They are not vehicles so(only vehicles need to stay focused and may fire just the ordnance weapon ) BUT MC ???
Mc are also relentless

what do you thinK?

What monstrous creatures with ordnance weapons?

If this is a question about Ku'gath, his weapon has been errata'd to be 'Heavy' rather than Ordnance.

in general I mean..yes ku gath is heavy i know

There are no restrictions on moving and firing other weapons if you are not a vehicle - only vehicles have these restrictions. So MC are relentless and can fire Ordnance (if they have it) along with any other weapon - as they are allowed to fire and are not otherwise restricted.

But there is no 'in general' to talk about. Monstrous creature rules don't address ordnance weapons, and ordnance only addresses being fired by vehicles. It's a bit like talking about how the rules would interact if there were a vehicle with 'Fast, Skimmer, Walker' -- the proper solution is to not mix the rules in that manner without issuing a rulebook errata, or including a rule with the unit to explain the interaction.

Except you are told you can fire weapons, and Ordnance does not have any interaction with the rules for infantry firing weapons. So there IS an "in general" - the rule for firing weapons.

What MC can fire ordnance?

I'm not too sure, the only one off the top of my head is the Tyrannofex

I think.

S_P

Space_Potato wrote:I'm not too sure, the only one off the top of my head is the Tyrannofex

I think.

S_P

Nope. He can't. All Tyranid weapons are assault.

Space_Potato wrote:I'm not too sure, the only one off the top of my head is the Tyrannofex

Not according to my codex...

Edit: Ninja'd by a fraction of a second. Well played sir.

Nos, relentless models can only fire rapid and heavy to full effect while on the move, and still assault when firing such weapons. No mention of ordnance weapons is ever given.

No a MC with an Ordnance weapon cannot fire it and another weapon without further special rules, of course it cannot even fire the ordnance weapon without further special rules either as Ordnance is Vehicle or special rule only.

Um yeah, there is no MCs with ordinance weapons so this is a complete pointless question. Blast weapons are not "ordinance" special rule.

Komissar Kel - wrong.


1)The MC is allowed to fire two weapons

2) Ornance is one of them

3) What does Ordnance have to say about non-vehicle firing them? Nothing?

C) See 1 & 2: you can fire both an ordnance and another weapon if you are an MC, and do so on the move, as Ordnance RESTRICTIONS on firing only affect Vehicles. Ordnance does not require you to be sstationary, nor does it state only vehicles can fire Ordnance.

Yep, nos is spot on.

If GW was stupid enough to give an ordance weapon to a non-vehicle (wouldn't put it past them) then we'd have a gaping void in the rules as the rules for ordnance weapons are all for vehicles firing them.

Since they've given invulnerable saves (which only work against wounds) to vehicles it's probably only a matter of time.....

Scott-S6 wrote:If GW was stupid enough to give an ordance weapon to a non-vehicle (wouldn't put it past them) then we'd have a gaping void in the rules as the rules for ordnance weapons are all for vehicles firing them.

They already did, in the Dæmons Codex, and it took them 2 years to Errata.

Note that in the only other 2 Cases where this actually happens, the SAG and a Chapter Masters Orbital Bombardment, the special rules clearly cover how the model is supposed to fire.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Komissar Kel - wrong.


1)The MC is allowed to fire two weapons

2) Ornance is one of them

3) What does Ordnance have to say about non-vehicle firing them? Nothing?

C) See 1 & 2: you can fire both an ordnance and another weapon if you are an MC, and do so on the move, as Ordnance RESTRICTIONS on firing only affect Vehicles. Ordnance does not require you to be sstationary, nor does it state only vehicles can fire Ordnance.

I am sorry Nos but you are still dead wrong.

1)Ordnance rules on the weapons type page specifically says they must be mounted on vehicles, and give no rules for how non-vehicles firing them works.

2)There are 3(sorry Gwar you forgot the Master of Ordnance) non-vehicle models with Ordnance weapons available to them, all 3 have the requisite special rules to allow them to fire said weapons, and detail how they work

3)As the Ordnance rules say nothing about how a non-vehicle model fires them, then there must be special rules for the individual weapon or model in place in order for them to be fired. Otherwise the questions come up; can my non-vehicle move first? Can my non-vehicle assault after? And Can I fire it and another weapon? None of these can be answered without special rules for the weapon or model.

4)You are starting to waffle; You had originally said that a MC can fire on the move because it has relentless(which does not include Ordnance as one of the move and fire)

5) Remember this is a permissive ruleset, and we do not have general rules about how a non-vehicle model fires ordnance weapons; we only have special rules for the individual models that currently can.

6)If GW does make a MC with an Ordnance weapon they will likely detail how that weapon works and whether they can fire it and another weapon, and whether it can move and fire it when the creature and the weapon comes out. Right now we are arguing semantics.

3) Incorrect, none of these are needed.

The gGENERAL firing rules state you may fire. "Ordnance" on a non-vehicle does not list any restrictions.

I have shown MY permission to fire Ordnance weapons, p[lease show a restriction on non-vehicles firing.

You are the one waffling...

nosferatu1001 wrote:3) Incorrect, none of these are needed.

The gGENERAL firing rules state you may fire. "Ordnance" on a non-vehicle does not list any restrictions.

Wrong Nos. Sorry. The General rules say you may fire... Pistol, Assault, Rapid Fire or Heavy Weapons. It does not say you can fire Ordnance Weapons, so you cannot.

Where does it say this? All the "ordnance" rules state is that they must be fitted to vehicles, however ity is still a type within the Infantry section.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Where does it say this? All the "ordnance" rules state is that they must be fitted to vehicles, however ity is still a type within the Infantry section.

And?

Read the rules for ordnance.

"Ordnance weapons are so huge and powerful that they cannot be physically carried by infantry, but must be mounted onto a vehicle or be built into the structure of a bunker or fortress."

Compare this to:
"Models armed with a rapid fire weapon can move and fire two shots at targets up to 12" away."
"Models carrying assault weapons can fire them in the Shooting phase and still assault into close combat in the Assault phase."
etc. ect.

That means non vehicle weapons cannot even HAVE ordnance weapons, let alone fire them, unless some special rule allows them to.

In any case, this is a moot point. No non-vehicles HAVE Ordnance weapons, and the 3 (sorry MoO!) that have Ordnance "Weapons" have special rules allowing them to "fire".

That only describes how they must be mounted, not what can fire them. Which was the point - the rules for ordnance only state they must be mounted. Kugath, pre errata, was not a vehicle therefore was an exception.

You should really look up the definition for the term "Waffling" I have held the same Consistent argument; that without Special rules no non-vehicle model has any general rules for firing ordnance weapons. You on the other hand originally stated that because MC's are relentless they can move and fire ordnance weapons, and now are claiming that as Ordnance weapons have no rules for non-vehicles any model with them is free to move as it likes and fire them and any other weapon available(which is the same as the Age-old "there is no rule stating I cannot punch you in the face and declare myself the winner")

Yes the General Rules state you may fire a weapon; it then describes in detail each weapon, when you get to ordnance it says "Ordnance weapons are so huge and powerful that they cannot be physically carried by infantry, but must be mounted onto a vehicle or be built into the structure of a bunker or fortress. Their rules are covered in the Vehicle section on pages 58 and 60."

Page 29 Clearly states that in General Infantry cannot fire Ordnance weapons, The MC rules on Page 51 Do not grant them any extra ability to fire or carry Ordnance weapons.

I am going to plainly restate(for the umpteenth time) my Point: Non-vehicle units need special rules in order to fire ordnance weapons.

So when is Yak gonna rename this section "You Make Da Pointless Argument"?

nosferatu1001 wrote:That only describes how they must be mounted, not what can fire them. Which was the point - the rules for ordnance only state they must be mounted. Kugath, pre errata, was not a vehicle therefore was an exception.

No, he was a black hole in the rules, since he was not even permitted to HAVE an Ordnance weapon, let alone fire it. He had no special rules allowing him to fire it, so he couldn't.

As I said, it's a Moot Point, as this doesn't actually apply to anything, and GW will more than likely remember not to do it again (though the BA Codex kind of suggest otherwise with it's Hellfire Rounds and Demolisher Cannon. )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:So when is Yak gonna rename this section "You Make Da Pointless Argument"?

The same time he renames 40k General as "40k Ignore the Stickies and ask rules questions here" and Off Topic as "Pointless +1 Posts".

KK - you are confusing a resteriction on owning from a restriction on firing; simply owning the weapon is sufficient to override that restriction.

IN other words you are waffling as you are conflating "own" with "fire".

Gwar - see above. By HAVING the weapon he is grranted tpermision to own it, and there were no restrictions on him firing it.

And my point is, he is not meant to have it at all, sine the rules say Ordnance MUST be on vehicles.

Yet the codex stated he had an Ordnance weapon -so the *general* rules state they must be vehicle mounted, Kugath *specific* rule (pre errata) stated that he had it.

There were still no rules on How he fired it, the rules in infantry weapon types state they may not Have an ordnance and therefore do not go into any detail on how they can fire it therefore they cannot fire it. Weapon types detail how weapons are fired in relation to movement and assault, the lack of these rules for infantry and ordnance means that they cannot be fired at all.

Or do you just say; well there is no rules governing how they work so i guess I can Move fire at full range or twice at 12", then assault and heck withit lets throw the pistol rule in and have it grant me +1 attack when paired with a CCW?

No rules means just that; the rules for how the specific weapon is fired by the model type does not exist in the general sense so the weapon that cannot be carried by non-vehicles also cannot be fired by non-vehicles. Again barring Special rules that detail these things(such as with the 3 models that do "carry" Ordnance weapons).

Sigh.

No, because you have no rules telling you to fire twice. You just have the profil e of the weapon, and general ypermission from the firing rules to fire any weapon you have.

So, you have permission to fire generally, you have the weapon thereofre are a specific exception ot the "non vehcles cannot have this weapon" rule (not "may not FIRE the weapon, whic h you were "confused" about) so you may fire unless told otherwise.

So, show where it states tehy cannot FIRE the weapon? Oh wait, you cannot. Again.

Well, if you are going RAW, then a infantry model (one listed as infantry) could not carry the weapon. Monstrous Creatures are not infantry (29).

Monstrous Creatures automatically have relentless, as well as the ability to fire two weapons (51).

Ordinance weapons cannot be fired with any other weapon (pg 58).

Relentless models allow you to fire rapid fire and heavy weapons while counting as stationary, however does not list ordinance (pg 76).

So, the model cannot be infantry, it cannot fire more than the ordinance weapon, and relentless is pointless and has no bearing on the argument as nowhere is it stated that you cannot move and fire ordinance nor is ordinance a heavy or rapid fire weapon. You wouldn't gain +1 attack for having it, as the only ranged weapon to give this is a pistol.