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.

So, if a Chapter Master joins a Thunderfire Cannon, how exactly do they use the Barrage rule if the CM fires his Orbital Bombardment? Does firing the OB second bypass its lack of accuracy, simply rolling the direction die? Do they fire separately, ignoring the "Barrage" USR? Seriously, what the heck?

The orbital bombardment is a seperate shooting attack, somewhat like a different gun, it comes from orbit not the thunderfire canon. So you would use the profile it provides.

So, you are saying that you completely disregard the "Multiple Barrages" rule? It just says more than one barrage weapon from the same unit, which fits this situation.

Although not RAW, I would use the IG FAQ for the MoO. Which states not to use Multiple Barrage.

 magodedisco wrote:
So, if a Chapter Master joins a Thunderfire Cannon, how exactly do they use the Barrage rule if the CM fires his Orbital Bombardment? Does firing the OB second bypass its lack of accuracy, simply rolling the direction die? Do they fire separately, ignoring the "Barrage" USR? Seriously, what the heck?

No. RAW There is a direct conflict between the Orbital rule and multiple barrages. You cannot scatter the full 2d6 if you do not roll the 2d6. The codex will supersede the BRB in this case and you will not be able to use the multiple barrage rule. You don;t have permission to spit the fire so both weapons must still target the same unit.

As Happyjew pointed out, the IG codex has the exact same conflict, and the FAQ for that codex supports this reasoning.

Ah, thanks. I was not aware of the IG faq. It is surely an ideal precedent.