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.

frgsinwntr wrote:yea... thats what I was thinking. I think you can use it from a LR that doesn't move. Albeit cheesy

You can't fire any shooting weapon when embarked in a transport without a Fire Point, there are no rules for it. So even if you don't need LOS for your shooting weapon and it logically would seem possible it's not allowed by the rules.

Look at the DH and WH codices for precedence. They both have orbvital bombardment and neither require LOS.

G

DH and WH orbital bombardments are not the same thing as the SM one. For one thing, the Inquisition's is a heavy support choice in its own right. It's not shot by any model on the board.

and the new SM one is better :p

As has already been hashed out, SM OB counts as a barrage shooting weapon. To use a shooting attack while being transported in a vehicle you need:

1) LOS
2) A Fire Point

The Barrage rule exempts a model from needing LOS when shooting. It does not exempt a model from needing a Fire Point. Therefore, a model transported in a vehicle may not fire a barrage weapon if the vehicle lacks a fire point.

I have heard of RAW. I have heard of RAI. But Rules as Fluff? RAF? Come on.

I'm going to make one statement. Fluff does not equal rules. So please no mentioning of fluff and rules. They are two different things.

wyomingfox wrote:The Barrage rule exempts a model from needing LOS when shooting. It does not exempt a model from needing a Fire Point. Therefore, a model transported in a vehicle may not fire a barrage weapon if the vehicle lacks a fire point.

It strikes me as a bit silly, but it is the rules. I'd think anyone wanting to use this attack from a Land Raider had better do some talking with their opponent before the game. Perhaps an exchange of exceptions to things that seem silly can be worked out?

wyomingfox wrote:I have heard of RAW. I have heard of RAI. But Rules as Fluff? RAF? Come on.

Heh, Fluff As Rules - that's a pretty FAR stretch.

MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:I'm going to make one statement. Fluff does not equal rules. So please no mentioning of fluff and rules. They are two different things.

Rules are often based upon fluff. Isn't that novel?

G

What's novel is that rules are in the rules section and the fluff is in the beginning. They are not to be mixed together.

Let me tell you a story. Someone at the store said that they could jump on top of a building because they have leaping. I explained to them that buildings are vehicles in 5E. They didn't like the rule and wanted to roll a dice for a ruling on if he could do it. He said fluff allowed him to.

I explained to him that rules are rules and fluff is not roleable.

Are you saying that you want to role for a ruling on fluff GBF? Because if you are then why play a game with rules?

GBF just pointed out that some rules are there to support the fluff, not the other way around. Marines have ATSKNF now because stories have portrayed them that way. They're the knightly defenders of humanity because the fluff likes it. In Rogue Trader marines were criminals deemed too useful to execute, brainwashed and cyber-enhanced to serve in the army until death.

Where do you draw the line, then? If you can ignore a land raider's absence of firing points to drop an orbital bombardment via fluff, I should be able to give all my tactical marines chainswords in addition to their normal equipment because of fluff.

Janthkin wrote:

Marius Xerxes wrote:Sadly, Fluff is nice.. but shouldnt be used as a basis for rules interpretation beyond whats written within the rule itself.

If Psychic Shooting Attacks from Eldar that require no LOS (IIRC they have some? Could be wrong..I dont have the Codex at work) have been accecpted as being able to fire from a Falcon with no fire points, where is the precident to say that a Special Rule (Orbital Bombardment) cannot also be used from inside a vehicle with no fire points, as it also requires no LOS.

Both follow all the rules for shooting if IIRC (except needing LOS) so why allow one but not the other if no LOS is the only exception given to the normal rules for shooting?

Beware the man of straw!

The Eldar FAQ does not exempt any of the Eldar "shooting" psychic powers from needing a fire point; the shooting powers include Destructor, Mind War, and Eldritch Storm.

The main rulebook FAQ allows NON-psychic shooting attack powers to be used from inside a vehicle:

FAQ wrote:
Q. Can a model use a psychic power that is not a Psychic Shooting Attack if it is embarked in a transport vehicle?

A. Yes. If the power requires line of sight, this is still worked out from the vehicle’s fire points (this will count as one model shooting through that fire point if the power is used in the
Shooting phase).

If the psychic power does not require line of sight and has a range or an area of effect that is normally measured from the model using it, these are measured from the vehicle’s hull, as explained in the Embarking section on page 66.

Not a straw man arguement when my position is openly in my post said with the rules of other areas not fully remembered due to the Codeci not being at my work. Obviously I didnt recall properly, which knowing that now I dont claim anything i said as ground to stand on. Figure you can go a better route about this rather then linking to a wikipedia page about what a straw man argument is.

I agree that between FAQ and main rules, with no other precident saying otherwise, you cannot use it from inside any transport vehicle that doesnt have fire points or isnt open topped.

People play that genestealers can use preferred enemy against any race because one sentence embedded in the rules has been classified as fluff.

G

I was wrong about this rule. As has been pointed OB is clearly defined as an attack that counts as a ranged weapon and there is no getting around that. I do think however that a chapter master not embarked in a vehicle with no fire points but wearing a suit of tactical dreadnaught armor or mounted on a bike can move an call down an OB. If my opponent was against this interpretation I would concede the point.

G

GW is against your interpretation GBF, but I suppose there's nothing wrong with an agreement between players, especially since you seem to concede that yours is the less supported stance.

What I would like to touch on is your comment about Genestealers, I don't see why the fluff would suggest genestealers wouldn't be preferred enemy against any race with feeder tendrils, or atleast, they would have preferred enemy against the enemy they are fighting (and tasting) at any given time.

Green Blow Fly wrote:From a fluff point of view there is no need for LOS.

Maybe so, but hes still not going to get any signal on his mobile phone inside the tank so he'll have to go outside to call the Strike Crusier...

More seriously, calling an OB counts as firing a weapon. You cannot fire a weapon from inside a vehicle with no firepoints. Ergo you cannot call an OB while inside a vehicle with no firepoints. Unless you have any evidence to the contary then I don't think your argument is going anywhere.

I do think however that a chapter master not embarked in a vehicle with no fire points but wearing a suit of tactical dreadnaught armor or mounted on a bike can move an call down an OB.

You're more than welcome to play games by any house rule you and your opponent agree to. But thats not what it says in the book, Relentless is very specifc in what bonus it provides, and none of them include orbital bombardments.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I was wrong about this rule. As has been pointed OB is clearly defined as an attack that counts as a ranged weapon and there is no getting around that. I do think however that a chapter master not embarked in a vehicle with no fire points but wearing a suit of tactical dreadnaught armor or mounted on a bike can move an call down an OB. If my opponent was against this interpretation I would concede the point.

G

I agree there is absolutely no wiggle room on relentless vs. Orbital Bombardment.

Orbital Bombardmen is not listed as a heavy weapon in its characteristics and the Relentless special rule specifically says that the model counts as being stationary when firing rapid fire and heavy weapons, not any kind of weapon.

So as it stands, the rules are very clear: The model has to actually remain stationary in the movement phase in order to call down an orbital bombardment.

Why does everyone keep saying that you need LOS?! It is a *Barrage* weapon, you don't need line of site!

However, if you want to fire *any* shooting weapon from *inside* a transport you *need* a fire point. The LR has none, so therefore, even though you don't need LOS, you still can *not* fire OB from inside a LR!

If you are outside a LR (and assuming you didn't move) you can fire any where on the table w/out LOS.

Kk here is how it works.

You may not fire a orb out of a land raider as it has no firing points so he may not shoot out of the vehicle. *hate to hate but green blow shut up, fluff has no precedence over rules regardless of what you think, the rules are the rules, either play with them or not at all.*

It is an orb barrage so you can fire it without line of sight. The rule stats that if you do you cannot use your bs to fix the shot, he cant anyways so it doesn't matter.

Line of sight is from the mid of the template.

If the vehicle he is moving in moves he cannot fire it as he counted as moving.

He may not fire any other weapons that turn but he may assault.

End of discussion those are the rules as printed.

(in hindsight Everything has already being said, gbf just annoys me because he keeps trying to work around obvious rules so he gets what he wants.)

Golgo did you read what I said in my last post? You come across as quite pretentious when you post at times.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I was wrong about this rule. As has been pointed OB is clearly defined as an attack that counts as a ranged weapon and there is no getting around that. I do think however that a chapter master not embarked in a vehicle with no fire points but wearing a suit of tactical dreadnaught armor or mounted on a bike can move an call down an OB. If my opponent was against this interpretation I would concede the point.

G

So you are saying you'd cheat unless someone called you on it?

Green Blow Fly wrote:Golgo did you read what I said in my last post? You come across as quite pretentious when you post at times.

G

I nearly spit coffee out of my nose reading this.......

MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I was wrong about this rule. As has been pointed OB is clearly defined as an attack that counts as a ranged weapon and there is no getting around that. I do think however that a chapter master not embarked in a vehicle with no fire points but wearing a suit of tactical dreadnaught armor or mounted on a bike can move an call down an OB. If my opponent was against this interpretation I would concede the point.

G

So you are saying you'd cheat unless someone called you on it?

You are so funny!

Anyways our fearless leader cleared this one up... OB does not count as a heavy weapon so no move and shoot unfortunately.

G

Not that it mattered in most cases in gw.

Groovy avatar there.

G

And even if he was firing. Barrages DON'T "need" LOS. Don't know which rulebook your reading. The rules says, Calling down an orbital bombardment otherwise "counts as"(The dreade words)a ranged weapon.
And due to very poor sentence structure it leaves a certian level of ambiguity.

This needs a FAQ

It doesn't need a damn FAQ!

What part of not being allowed to fire from the inside of a vehicle that doesn't have a Fire Point do you not understand?

You don't NEED LOS.

You DO NEED a Fire Point.

Until I read the rules last night I was ignoring the part about counts as a ranged weapon. I think it is open to debate but the conservative approach is to use LOS until it has been FAQd.

G