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.

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.