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.

The answer would be the same - without a rule overriding the Ordnance rule, you may not fire any weapons in addition to an Ordnance weapon.

To correct a misnomer: the LR Helios has been around since IA2 (iirc...) and that has never been able to fire Ordnance plus another weapon. The Ares is a lot more recent...

Fling - "may not fire any" is not equivalent to "may fire 0" - which your 0+1 maths would require. It is neitehr equivalent in language nor in mathematics (as "any" is an undefined number), therefore does nto work.

All vehicles that are part of a spearhead have the spearhead rule. This is provably less than the number of vehicles with Ordnance that are part of a spearhead. One is provably, when you use the correct context, more specific than the other.

Any vehicle that fits into that category gains a rule allowing it to fire one more weapon than normal.
Within the group comprised of 'vehicles subject to the Spearhead rule' you will have some vehicles with Ordnance weapons. Not all vehicles have Ordnance weapons, nor does the Spearhead rule apply only to or specifically to vehicles with Ordnance weapons.

So vehicles with Ordnance weapons are a more specific group than vehicles with the Spearhead rule.

This is the circular logic I've already addressed. Use your same wording but instead of considering the group of spearhead vehicles first consider the group of ordnance firing vehicles of that set the vehicles that are in a spearhead is more specific using the same logic.

The Ordnance rules do not grant permission to fire 'x' number of weapons. They forbid you from firing any other weapons.

This coupled with Nos' post over the page has convinced me. Though I still maintain a rule for ordnance weapons is not mroe specific than a rule for spearhead vehicles by default as you've argued (using the rule to prove itself). But yes reading it in that light it does indeed to be not a Ordanance + no other weapons, but more a strick forbiddance on firing any other weapons.

FlingitNow wrote:This is the circular logic I've already addressed. Use your same wording but instead of considering the group of spearhead vehicles first consider the group of ordnance firing vehicles of that set the vehicles that are in a spearhead is more specific using the same logic.

But it doesn't work that way around, because Spearhead doesn't just apply to Ordnance weapons.

One rule allows you to fire any weapon.
One rule applies to a specific type of weapon.

One specific type of weapon is more specific than any type of weapon.

This coupled with Nos' post over the page has convinced me. Though I still maintain a rule for ordnance weapons is not mroe specific than a rule for spearhead vehicles by default as you've argued (using the rule to prove itself). But yes reading it in that light it does indeed to be not a Ordanance + no other weapons, but more a strick forbiddance on firing any other weapons.

Good-o.

I don't agree with the argument of going the route of breaking no rules because the spearhead rule by definition is breaking another rule, as do many special rules in the game.

Yes it does and it tells you which rules you can break, the same as PotMS does.

Since it doesn't give you an exemption to break the ordnance rules you have to follow them. You can only break a rule if another rule specifically allows you to do so.

But what if something moves at cruising speed, and has PotMS? it could still fire one weapon, right? so what's the difference?

Well, monolith can't move at cruising speed so that's the difference.

I still don't agree with what people are saying here.

What about the Gauss Flux arcs then, would the lith be able to fire those twice?

Deepstrike.

kirsanth wrote:Deepstrike.

Ah, yes.

But then the debate of "it says it can still move and shoot" comes into play with that. And whether it is cruising or combat speed, movement is movement.

Klawz wrote:But what if something moves at cruising speed, and has PotMS? it could still fire one weapon, right? so what's the difference?

The difference is that PotMS says you can ignore the cruising speed restriction. It does not say you can ignore the ordnance weapon restriction.

Spearhead says the same about cruising and combat speed.

Does PotMS let you fire the same weapon twice (forgoing this ordnance argument for this question)?

Kevin949 wrote:Does PotMS let you fire the same weapon twice (forgoing this ordnance argument for this question)?

No. It says you can fire an additional weapon, not a single weapon twice.

insaniak wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Does PotMS let you fire the same weapon twice (forgoing this ordnance argument for this question)?

No. It says you can fire an additional weapon, not a single weapon twice.

So if a vehicle stood still and fired all it's weapons, it couldn't use PotMS to fire one additional weapon than normally allowed? Thus obviously being the same for spearhead though the wording is probably slightly different between the two rules, they are essentially exactly the same thing.

*Edit*
Also keep in mind that all this being said in here is making spearhead completely useless for an entire army. The individual formation rules, no (though a few them are pointless for this army).

Kevin949 wrote:So if a vehicle stood still and fired all it's weapons, it couldn't use PotMS to fire one additional weapon than normally allowed?

It would be allowed to fire an additional weapon... it just doesn't have one to fire.

Kevin949 wrote:Also keep in mind that all this being said in here is making spearhead completely useless for an entire army. The individual formation rules, no (though a few them are pointless for this army).

I don't see why - it's intended to keep all your vehicles moving whilst still firing effectively and it seems to do that quite well.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Also keep in mind that all this being said in here is making spearhead completely useless for an entire army. The individual formation rules, no (though a few them are pointless for this army).

I don't see why - it's intended to keep all your vehicles moving whilst still firing effectively and it seems to do that quite well.

So tell me what benefit from the spearhead rule that necrons would gain.

None, apparently.

Except when they deepstrike in - before they could not have fired ANY weapon, now they can fire 1.

They can fire the whip when they deepstrike.

Kevin949 wrote:They can fire the whip when they deepstrike.

Not normally.

Gwar! wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:They can fire the whip when they deepstrike.

Not normally.

Why? It says in the rules for the monolith that it can fire the whip even if it moved. It does not specify combat or cruising speed and both are considered movement, and as the rules go the codex overrules general rules because it is the more specific rule. In many arguments it has been stated that the more specific rule overrules general rules.

Wrong. Specific Overrides general, not "the codex is always more specific"

There is a specific rule stating you may not fire if you have moved cruising speed. Please find the rule stating you can fire even if you have moved at Cruising Speed.

Kevin949 wrote:It does not specify combat or cruising speed

You answered your own question there.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong. Specific Overrides general, not "the codex is always more specific"

There is a specific rule stating you may not fire if you have moved cruising speed. Please find the rule stating you can fire even if you have moved at Cruising Speed.

Gwar! wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:It does not specify combat or cruising speed

You answered your own question there.

I didn't say the codex is always more specific, but the rule specific to the monolith stating that it can fire the particle whip even if it moved would overwrite the general all vehicle rule of not being able to fire if you moved at cruising speed.

Gwar - you didn't address the other half of my post saying that movement is movement regardless to how far it is. So are you telling me that cruising speed isn't movement?

All it says is that it can move and fire.

Woop de do.

it can move, and fire as many weapons as it is allowed. Yippie.

Nothing says it can fire even if it moves Cruising Speed.

Thus begins the circular argument that is not conducive to this thread.

Kevin949 wrote:Thus begins the circular argument that is not conducive to this thread.

It's not circular at all.

The rule lets you move and fire Ordnance.

This is a redundant rule, since ALL vehicles can do this now.
When the rule was written, only the Lith could do this!

It does not let it move Cruising Speed and fire. Compare it with a rule that does, like the PotMS.

Kevin949 wrote:Thus begins the circular argument that is not conducive to this thread.

It isnt circular, it ends.

The codex rule is not more specific as it does not state "CRUISING SPEED", whcih is what it needs to do in order to overwrite the BRB rule.

how many weapons can you NORMALLY fire with an ordinance weapon?? none

how weapons can you fire with the spearhead rule?? one more than is NORMALLY allowed


Automatically Appended Next Post:
really it cannot get any easier than that

Catachan_Devil wrote:how many weapons can you NORMALLY fire with an ordinance weapon?? none
how weapons can you fire with the spearhead rule?? one more than is NORMALLY allowed

insaniak wrote:
The Ordnance rules do not grant permission to fire 'x' number of weapons. They forbid you from firing any other weapons.

And by firing that singular weapon you'll be breaking that rule.