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.

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.