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.

Skinnattittar wrote: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.

It doesn't have to clarify, because it is covered in the rules. Don't forget the rules are restrictive. You cannot say "oh it doesn't say I can't", it has to say you can.

Skinnattittar wrote: Are you insinuating that you can't do what it says?

No I am insinuating you can't do it because the rules do not say you can. Also, your attempts to (once again) make personal attacks in order to provoke a thread locking response are once again laudable. I wont be taking the bait however.

Skinnattittar wrote: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

Ok, first of all, the Tactical Expertise is not an Order. Second of all, yes, if you want you can say that those 40 men are coming on from my edge and that one squad is outflanking, and once they deploy onto the board they are combining into one squad. That is fine. Just enjoy spending the rest of the game moving them back into coherency. However, if they have a Chimera, they are not deploying directly, the Chimera is (with them inside) so they cannot Deploy with the combined squad, but instead deploy embarked on the Chimera.

Skinnattittar wrote:.... 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.

yakface wrote:
Words

Well, the point I was trying to bring up is that people try to use rules to ignore other rules. Both instances, of forcing 50 guardsmen into a Chimera when Outflanking and using a Mortar to help pick out a target for a MoO are ignoring rules by using other rules. It would be nice if GW put out something saying that if a paradoxical situation comes up or a rule is being used to ignore another rule that the situation just simply isn't allowed. And this thread is a far cry from "Rules Clarification" and moves completely into the direction of "Hey, I broke the game and here is how to do it". People have to know that there is something wrong with using a Mortar guide a MoO. People know it is wrong, and GWAR isn't helping anyone by defending it. If anything, using a mortar in that way just makes you "That Guy". You know, "That Guy" who will just win at any cost, even if people don't want him around anymore. He just becomes the person who using incredible mental acrobatics to convince himself that people don't want to play with him because he is just that good instead of the fact that no one wants to play with him because he sperg's out over rule lawyering in favor of some ridiculous situation instead of just having fun playing a game.

Grinning Goblin wrote:

yakface wrote:
Words

People know it is wrong, and GWAR isn't helping anyone by defending it.

Slander and Lies! I am not defending putting 50 men in a chimera you dolt. I am saying that it cannot happen at all. Please read my posts before you make such slanderous comments!

And as for the mortar + MoO thing, it is fact that the rules for Multiple barrage do not give an exception for Barrages of different types, so one way of reading the RaW is that the mortar acts as a Spotter. Another, equally valid RaW reading is that the Codex > Rulebook so it always scatters. As I said, it needs to be errata'd

Grinning Goblin wrote:

yakface wrote:
Words

Well, the point I was trying to bring up is that people try to use rules to ignore other rules. Both instances, of forcing 50 guardsmen into a Chimera when Outflanking and using a Mortar to help pick out a target for a MoO are ignoring rules by using other rules. It would be nice if GW put out something saying that if a paradoxical situation comes up or a rule is being used to ignore another rule that the situation just simply isn't allowed. And this thread is a far cry from "Rules Clarification" and moves completely into the direction of "Hey, I broke the game and here is how to do it". People have to know that there is something wrong with using a Mortar guide a MoO. People know it is wrong, and GWAR isn't helping anyone by defending it. If anything, using a mortar in that way just makes you "That Guy". You know, "That Guy" who will just win at any cost, even if people don't want him around anymore. He just becomes the person who using incredible mental acrobatics to convince himself that people don't want to play with him because he is just that good instead of the fact that no one wants to play with him because he sperg's out over rule lawyering in favor of some ridiculous situation instead of just having fun playing a game.

Again, what is wrong about a ranging shot. No one has said anything about WHY it is wrong, just that it negates the special scatter. Keep in mind, ARTILLERY, not orbital, bombardment.


What specifically in fluff or rules makes this "wrong"

I want an answer that says "This is ridiculous / wrong because. . ."

apwill4765 wrote:I want an answer that says "This is ridiculous because. . ."

"... I'm the love-child of Cavatore and Jervis and my Daddies say this is how it works." That work for ya?

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:I want an answer that says "This is ridiculous because. . ."

"... I'm the love-child of Cavatore and Jervis and my Daddies say this is how it works." That work for ya?

GWAR! can be very insightful. I admire his candor and find it refreshing at times.



for the quote list =D

Sorry mate, GBF got there before you

apwill4765 wrote:

Grinning Goblin wrote:

yakface wrote:
Words

Well, the point I was trying to bring up is that people try to use rules to ignore other rules. Both instances, of forcing 50 guardsmen into a Chimera when Outflanking and using a Mortar to help pick out a target for a MoO are ignoring rules by using other rules. It would be nice if GW put out something saying that if a paradoxical situation comes up or a rule is being used to ignore another rule that the situation just simply isn't allowed. And this thread is a far cry from "Rules Clarification" and moves completely into the direction of "Hey, I broke the game and here is how to do it". People have to know that there is something wrong with using a Mortar guide a MoO. People know it is wrong, and GWAR isn't helping anyone by defending it. If anything, using a mortar in that way just makes you "That Guy". You know, "That Guy" who will just win at any cost, even if people don't want him around anymore. He just becomes the person who using incredible mental acrobatics to convince himself that people don't want to play with him because he is just that good instead of the fact that no one wants to play with him because he sperg's out over rule lawyering in favor of some ridiculous situation instead of just having fun playing a game.

Again, what is wrong about a ranging shot. No one has said anything about WHY it is wrong, just that it negates the special scatter. Keep in mind, ARTILLERY, not orbital, bombardment.


What specifically in fluff or rules makes this "wrong"

I want an answer that says "This is ridiculous / wrong because. . ."

It is wrong because using the mortar to guide the MoO's blast ignores one set of rules(The specific ruling in the codex) in favor of another(The general ruling of multiple barrages). Unfortunately the converse of the situation is also true, because firing both weapons separately breaks the rules for multiple barrages in a single unit. If you want to go with the new overwrites the old however, then you would have to fire them seperately. This has been brought up before in this thread as well, on the very first page too. And once again, the attitude of this thread suggests that this is not about clearing up a misunderstanding, but a clear attempt to exploit the rules. Another possible "RAW" ruling is that Barrage Weapons can only be fired with other Barrage Weapons and not Ordinance Barrage Weapons, as they are different and have different rulings associated with them.

Actually, the Ordinance Barrage rules are more in the way of an extension of the ormal Barrage rules, not so much a seperate set of rules. I'm not suggesting that things are clear cut, but to simply say that firing the MOO in a multiple Barrage 'ignores one set of rules' doesn't really work. The MB rules replace the scatter rules for the wepons they cover, and so suggesting that they also replace the scatter rules for the MOO (which is a barrage weapon) isn't ignoring a rule at all, at least not in the way you suggest.

The grey area here isn't going to go away short of an FAQ.

Fenris-77 wrote:Actually, the Ordinance Barrage rules are more in the way of an extension of the ormal Barrage rules, not so much a seperate set of rules. I'm not suggesting that things are clear cut, but to simply say that firing the MOO in a multiple Barrage 'ignores one set of rules' doesn't really work. The MB rules replace the scatter rules for the wepons they cover, and so suggesting that they also replace the scatter rules for the MOO (which is a barrage weapon) isn't ignoring a rule at all, at least not in the way you suggest.

The grey area here isn't going to go away short of an FAQ.

It very much ignores the MoO's specific rules on how it scatters. I'm not familiar with the MB though so I can't comment on that.

Here is the answer for why ranging the MOO with a Mortar is wrong...spelled out in 4 easy steps

1.The MOO has a Codex specific rule about scattering.

2. Using a Mortar to spot for the MOO (by way of the BGB barrage rules) would break the MOO's Codex specifc rule.

3.Codex>BGB

4. The scatter rule for the MOO will always > the BGB barrage rules...period. There is no legal way of getting around it.

Grinning Goblin wrote:
It very much ignores the MoO's specific rules on how it scatters. I'm not familiar with the MB though so I can't comment on that.

Actually, it doesn't, hence the grey area. MB replaces (or would replace if the rules were clear) the scatter rules for all second and subsequent barrages from the same unit. One of the main reasons there's an argument about this at all is this replacement. It migth seem like a finely split hair, but legitimately replacing the MOOs scatter rules via the MB rule isn't the same as ignoring the MOOs scatter rules, just as the MB rules aren't 'ignoring' the normal scatter rules. Like I said, grey area.

Dude, it's not a codex vs BGB argument, so your 4 easy steps get you nowhere fast.

Dude, it's not a codex vs BGB argument, so your 4 easy steps get you nowhere fast.

Actually it is EXACTLY a Codex>BGB arguement.

One side keeps pointing out BGB Barrage rules for why the mortar ranging is legal, while the other keeps pointing to a a Codex specific rule for why it is illegal...a rules arguement doesn't get anymore Codex Vs. BGB than that...

Fenris-77 wrote:

Grinning Goblin wrote:
It very much ignores the MoO's specific rules on how it scatters. I'm not familiar with the MB though so I can't comment on that.

Actually, it doesn't, hence the grey area. MB replaces (or would replace if the rules were clear) the scatter rules for all second and subsequent barrages from the same unit. One of the main reasons there's an argument about this at all is this replacement. It migth seem like a finely split hair, but legitimately replacing the MOOs scatter rules via the MB rule isn't the same as ignoring the MOOs scatter rules, just as the MB rules aren't 'ignoring' the normal scatter rules. Like I said, grey area.

Dude, it's not a codex vs BGB argument, so your 4 easy steps get you nowhere fast.

Oh, I thought MB meant Monolith Bearer when I moused over and got confused and didn't know that you meant Multiple Barrage. But even then, it can be argued that Ordinance Barrage and Barrage are two separate rules, as one causes a leadership penalty while the other does not, which is more of a reason to separate the two. They even have two separate entries and honestly, there is nothing that says that Barrage can link up with Ordinance Barrage, or anything that even suggests it.

Grinning Goblin wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Grinning Goblin wrote:

yakface wrote:
Words

Well, the point I was trying to bring up is that people try to use rules to ignore other rules. Both instances, of forcing 50 guardsmen into a Chimera when Outflanking and using a Mortar to help pick out a target for a MoO are ignoring rules by using other rules. It would be nice if GW put out something saying that if a paradoxical situation comes up or a rule is being used to ignore another rule that the situation just simply isn't allowed. And this thread is a far cry from "Rules Clarification" and moves completely into the direction of "Hey, I broke the game and here is how to do it". People have to know that there is something wrong with using a Mortar guide a MoO. People know it is wrong, and GWAR isn't helping anyone by defending it. If anything, using a mortar in that way just makes you "That Guy". You know, "That Guy" who will just win at any cost, even if people don't want him around anymore. He just becomes the person who using incredible mental acrobatics to convince himself that people don't want to play with him because he is just that good instead of the fact that no one wants to play with him because he sperg's out over rule lawyering in favor of some ridiculous situation instead of just having fun playing a game.

Again, what is wrong about a ranging shot. No one has said anything about WHY it is wrong, just that it negates the special scatter. Keep in mind, ARTILLERY, not orbital, bombardment.


What specifically in fluff or rules makes this "wrong"

I want an answer that says "This is ridiculous / wrong because. . ."

It is wrong because using the mortar to guide the MoO's blast ignores one set of rules(The specific ruling in the codex) in favor of another(The general ruling of multiple barrages). Unfortunately the converse of the situation is also true, because firing both weapons separately breaks the rules for multiple barrages in a single unit. If you want to go with the new overwrites the old however, then you would have to fire them seperately. This has been brought up before in this thread as well, on the very first page too. And once again, the attitude of this thread suggests that this is not about clearing up a misunderstanding, but a clear attempt to exploit the rules. Another possible "RAW" ruling is that Barrage Weapons can only be fired with other Barrage Weapons and not Ordinance Barrage Weapons, as they are different and have different rulings associated with them.

No where does it say that Barrage weapons and Ordinance barrages cannot be fired together. In fact, it is implied they can be fired together as they are both listed as barrage weapons. As stated before the distinction isn't made until vehicles are mentioned, and vehicles the MoO and a mortar are not.

I also disagree that this is any kind of attempt to exploit or get around the rules. Griffons are used to reduce the scatter of other artillery all the time, and I don't see the difference here (griffon has special scatter rules as well).

Alerian wrote:Here is the answer for why ranging the MOO with a Mortar is wrong...spelled out in 4 easy steps

1.The MOO has a Codex specific rule about scattering.

2. Using a Mortar to spot for the MOO (by way of the BGB barrage rules) would break the MOO's Codex specifc rule.

3.Codex>BGB

4. The scatter rule for the MOO will always > the BGB barrage rules...period. There is no legal way of getting around it.

Yea this is a bunch of crap. Everything scatters in a specific way until made part of a multiple barrage. Once the multiple barrage is applied, a different set of scatter rules is applied. This is no different

apwill4765 wrote:

Grinning Goblin wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Grinning Goblin wrote:

yakface wrote:
Words

Well, the point I was trying to bring up is that people try to use rules to ignore other rules. Both instances, of forcing 50 guardsmen into a Chimera when Outflanking and using a Mortar to help pick out a target for a MoO are ignoring rules by using other rules. It would be nice if GW put out something saying that if a paradoxical situation comes up or a rule is being used to ignore another rule that the situation just simply isn't allowed. And this thread is a far cry from "Rules Clarification" and moves completely into the direction of "Hey, I broke the game and here is how to do it". People have to know that there is something wrong with using a Mortar guide a MoO. People know it is wrong, and GWAR isn't helping anyone by defending it. If anything, using a mortar in that way just makes you "That Guy". You know, "That Guy" who will just win at any cost, even if people don't want him around anymore. He just becomes the person who using incredible mental acrobatics to convince himself that people don't want to play with him because he is just that good instead of the fact that no one wants to play with him because he sperg's out over rule lawyering in favor of some ridiculous situation instead of just having fun playing a game.

Again, what is wrong about a ranging shot. No one has said anything about WHY it is wrong, just that it negates the special scatter. Keep in mind, ARTILLERY, not orbital, bombardment.


What specifically in fluff or rules makes this "wrong"

I want an answer that says "This is ridiculous / wrong because. . ."

It is wrong because using the mortar to guide the MoO's blast ignores one set of rules(The specific ruling in the codex) in favor of another(The general ruling of multiple barrages). Unfortunately the converse of the situation is also true, because firing both weapons separately breaks the rules for multiple barrages in a single unit. If you want to go with the new overwrites the old however, then you would have to fire them seperately. This has been brought up before in this thread as well, on the very first page too. And once again, the attitude of this thread suggests that this is not about clearing up a misunderstanding, but a clear attempt to exploit the rules. Another possible "RAW" ruling is that Barrage Weapons can only be fired with other Barrage Weapons and not Ordinance Barrage Weapons, as they are different and have different rulings associated with them.

No where does it say that Barrage weapons and Ordinance barrages cannot be fired together. In fact, it is implied they can be fired together as they are both listed as barrage weapons. As stated before the distinction isn't made until vehicles are mentioned, and vehicles the MoO and a mortar are not.

I also disagree that this is any kind of attempt to exploit or get around the rules. Griffons are used to reduce the scatter of other artillery all the time, and I don't see the difference here (griffon has special scatter rules as well).

The special rule about the Griffon is a reroll and is self contained in Ordinance Barrage. The ruling involving a MoO is a completely different way on how to scatter the shot, and you are mixing Barrage with Ordinance Barrage, which are separate. You admit yourself that there is nothing that explicitly states that Barrage and Ordinance Barrage can fire together and use the Multiple Barrage rules with each other, correct? So then it wouldn't be RAW, which is what we are arguing now, right?

Actually I said that the relationship is implied, as there is NO distinction made between ordnance barrage and barrage until the vehicles section, and both are listed in BGB as barrage weapons. At this point there is one set of rules given for firing barrage weps

Ordnance barrage weapons fire as normal barrage weapons except for the exceptions found on page 58. If you are infering that they cannot thn shouldn't a Griffion + 2 Balsaliks not work either? Does this work the same with Large blast templates? I mean there is no rule on mutiple large blat templats, but there is a mutiple blast template rule.

Grinning Goblin wrote:
The special rule about the Griffon is a reroll and is self contained in Ordinance Barrage.

Actually, no, the re-roll for the Griffon is on top of the scatter. A modification of the normal scatter if you will. Just like the MOO (mostly ). We can stop discussing the Griffon now.

Grinning Goblin wrote:
The ruling involving a MoO is a completely different way on how to scatter the shot, and you are mixing Barrage with Ordinance Barrage, which are separate. You admit yourself that there is nothing that explicitly states that Barrage and Ordinance Barrage can fire together and use the Multiple Barrage rules with each other, correct? So then it wouldn't be RAW, which is what we are arguing now, right?

My answer is, so what? On both counts. The MOO scatter rule doesn't prevent anything because the scatter rules are being replaced by the MB rules (when he's the second + template), and there's nothing in the multiple barrage rules that makes it apply to only one kind of barrage. The MB rule is only in the BGB once by the way, in the first section about barrages, and it applies equally to Ordinance Barrages and normal Barrages. There's nothing in the rule that says it doesn't apply to this Barrage, or that Barrage, or anything like that, nor does it limit the kinds of Barrage that can be fired together. All it says is that Multiple Barrages from the same unit use rules set X to determine the scatter of second and subsequent Barrages from that unit.

It's also not, I repeat NOT, a codex vs BGB argument. Of course the MOO has his own rules for scatter, that's not the issue. The issue is that those rules would be suspended if he were part of a MB, just as would be the case with any other Barrage weapon in the game, some of which also have seperate or ancilliary rules for scatter. THE MB rules replace the individual scatter rules for all except the first Barrage fired.

As I've noted previously, this is not a cut and dried issue. A full page and a half ago it was apparent that there was no water-tight resolution here short of an FAQ. Why? Because it just isn't clear. I've been holding up the permissive side of the argument here, but only because that's what needed propping up. I guess you can go ahead and beat a dead horse if you like, but there's nothing to see and the e-cred bank is empty on this one.

Fenris-77 wrote:

Grinning Goblin wrote:
The special rule about the Griffon is a reroll and is self contained in Ordinance Barrage.

Actually, no, the re-roll for the Griffon is on top of the scatter. A modification of the normal scatter if you will. Just like the MOO (mostly ). We can stop discussing the Griffon now.

Grinning Goblin wrote:
The ruling involving a MoO is a completely different way on how to scatter the shot, and you are mixing Barrage with Ordinance Barrage, which are separate. You admit yourself that there is nothing that explicitly states that Barrage and Ordinance Barrage can fire together and use the Multiple Barrage rules with each other, correct? So then it wouldn't be RAW, which is what we are arguing now, right?

My answer is, so what? On both counts. The MOO scatter rule doesn't prevent anything because the scatter rules are being replaced by the MB rules (when he's the second + template), and there's nothing in the multiple barrage rules that makes it apply to only one kind of barrage. The MB rule is only in the BGB once by the way, in the first section about barrages, and it applies equally to Ordinance Barrages and normal Barrages. There's nothing in the rule that says it doesn't apply to this Barrage, or that Barrage, or anything like that, nor does it limit the kinds of Barrage that can be fired together. All it says is that Multiple Barrages from the same unit use rules set X to determine the scatter of second and subsequent Barrages from that unit.

It's also not, I repeat NOT, a codex vs BGB argument. Of course the MOO has his own rules for scatter, that's not the issue. The issue is that those rules would be suspended if he were part of a MB, just as would be the case with any other Barrage weapon in the game, some of which also have seperate or ancilliary rules for scatter. THE MB rules replace the individual scatter rules for all except the first Barrage fired.

As I've noted previously, this is not a cut and dried issue. A full page and a half ago it was apparent that there was no water-tight resolution here short of an FAQ. Why? Because it just isn't clear. I've been holding up the permissive side of the argument here, but only because that's what needed propping up. I guess you can go ahead and beat a dead horse if you like, but there's nothing to see and the e-cred bank is empty on this one.

QFT, I'll be avoiding this topic until FAQ

Fenris-77 wrote:
My answer is, so what? On both counts. The MOO scatter rule doesn't prevent anything because the scatter rules are being replaced by the MB rules (when he's the second + template), and there's nothing in the multiple barrage rules that makes it apply to only one kind of barrage. The MB rule is only in the BGB once by the way, in the first section about barrages, and it applies equally to Ordinance Barrages and normal Barrages. There's nothing in the rule that says it doesn't apply to this Barrage, or that Barrage, or anything like that, nor does it limit the kinds of Barrage that can be fired together. All it says is that Multiple Barrages from the same unit use rules set X to determine the scatter of second and subsequent Barrages from that unit.

Well, first off, "It doesn't say that I can't" isn't a very good argument at all. The whole point of this is to find out the ruling for RAW, not Rules Not Written. If anything, the ruling is quite clear and perhaps you can't have Multiple Ordinance Barrages at all. In fact, nothing in the Ordinance Barrage section even indicates that they use any Barrage rules at all. Read the section on page 58 starting at the top of the second column. They shoot just like any Ordinance weapon except that they can shoot at targets that are not in LOS and that they have a minimum range when firing as a Barrage, and if the target isn't in LOS, they can't reduce the distance with their BS. Maybe it would be different if the weapon said "Large Blast, Barrage 1", but it doesn't.

apwill4765 wrote:
QFT, I'll be avoiding this topic until FAQ

Given the quality of recent FAQs, I wouldn't count on GW addressing it in the FAQ.

Grinning Goblin wrote:

Fenris-77 wrote:
My answer is, so what? On both counts. The MOO scatter rule doesn't prevent anything because the scatter rules are being replaced by the MB rules (when he's the second + template), and there's nothing in the multiple barrage rules that makes it apply to only one kind of barrage. The MB rule is only in the BGB once by the way, in the first section about barrages, and it applies equally to Ordinance Barrages and normal Barrages. There's nothing in the rule that says it doesn't apply to this Barrage, or that Barrage, or anything like that, nor does it limit the kinds of Barrage that can be fired together. All it says is that Multiple Barrages from the same unit use rules set X to determine the scatter of second and subsequent Barrages from that unit.

Well, first off, "It doesn't say that I can't" isn't a very good argument at all. The whole point of this is to find out the ruling for RAW, not Rules Not Written. If anything, the ruling is quite clear and perhaps you can't have Multiple Ordinance Barrages at all. In fact, nothing in the Ordinance Barrage section even indicates that they use any Barrage rules at all. Read the section on page 58 starting at the top of the second column. They shoot just like any Ordinance weapon except that they can shoot at targets that are not in LOS and that they have a minimum range when firing as a Barrage, and if the target isn't in LOS, they can't reduce the distance with their BS. Maybe it would be different if the weapon said "Large Blast, Barrage 1", but it doesn't.

This isn't an "it doesn't say I can't" argument though. In fact, the multiple barrage rules specifically say I can. The only hold up is the special scatter, which isn't specifically allowed for one way or the other. The basic mechanic though is straight from the BGB. Ordinance Barrages are still barrages, they're covered by the MB rules, and the MoO fires an Ordinance barrage. None of that is even in the slightest way in question here. The only sticky point is the special scatter, which isn't covered either way and can (and has been) argued well as both possible to include in a MB and not. That's the only question.

Feel free to proceed with the false dichotomies if you like, but nothings going to change. The basic mechanic works, and the specific mechanic is unclear. That's where this argument is at and that's where it's going to stay short of a GW or Tourney FAQ.

Multiple Barrage weapons are clearly covered in the main rulebook. Codices have precedence over the main rulebook. Codex : Imperial Guard has a special rule for the Master of Ordinance, the special rule does NOT make any statements towards Multiple Barrages, only about how far it scatters. Since there is not information on intent in the case of Multiple Barrages, I would have to say that it either was never even considered, or that it was intentionally left out.

In practice, I feel this argument is moot. Consider; the Master of Ordinance conducts a munition with infinite range. The mortar has a maximum range of 48". As a member of the squad with the mortar, they must fire upon the same target at all times. So, the Master of Ordinance must be considered as having paid for an infinite range Earthshaker shot. By performing this action, he must reduce this infinite range shot to 48" of range, if not, if you fire with infinite range, or greater than 48", then you lose the use of the mortar. This seems like a rather fair trade. You pay for the MoO's infinite, you pay for the mortar, you either have to lose the mortar shot to take advantage of the infinite range or lose what you paid for to have infinite range, but gain marginally better accuracy. Seems rather fair, even if it isn't 1oo% kosher and proper, the fact that it is within the structure of the rules makes it all reasonable.

Bollocks. The range and how you read the fluff from there means nada. I happen to agree with you, but that doesn't change the RAW. From a balance standpoint I think you're correct, the tradeoff is about right.

You're comments about the MoO not mentioning the MB rules are moot too. Most Barrage weapon in most books do not directly reference the MB rules. I fail to see how this makes the MoO unique (it doesn't). Let it go man, just let it go.

*edit for clarity*

Fenris-77 wrote:Bollocks. The range and how you read the fluff from there means nada. I happen to agree with you, but that doesn't change the RAW. From a balance standpoint I think you're correct, the tradeoff is about right.

You're comments about the MoO not mentioning the MB rules are moot too. Most Barrage weapon in most books do not directly reference the MB rules. I fail to see how this makes the MoO unique (it doesn't). Let it go man, just let it go.

*edit for clarity*

I do not think I understand you comments... what are you saying that I am corrupting? Mortar/MoO is valid by RAW, RAI is up in the air, and I personally don't see it clearly for either side, and once you factor in that it is a reasonably balanced trade off then there looks to be no point to contesting RAW. I am simply stating how I feel about all the sides of the current argument. In summary, I vote for RAW and that RAW has nothing on preventing the two shots being fired Multiple Barrage.

Ok, where in the Multiple Barrage rules does it mention "Ordinance Barrage"?
Where does it explicitly state in any rule anywhere that you can mix Barrage and Ordinance Barrage weapons in the same Multiple Barrage?
Where does it mention that Ordinance Barrage weapons are treated exactly the same as Barrage?(Hint: The only thing that Barrages and Ordinance Barrages share, according to RAW is that they can have a minimum range, cause pinning, work out cover saves from the center of the blast, and can fire at targets out of LOS)

Please, show me specifically where and I will concede.

Grinning Goblin wrote:Ok, where in the Multiple Barrage rules does it mention "Ordinance Barrage"?
Where does it explicitly state in any rule anywhere that you can mix Barrage and Ordinance Barrage weapons in the same Multiple Barrage?
Where does it mention that Ordinance Barrage weapons are treated exactly the same as Barrage?(Hint: The only thing that Barrages and Ordinance Barrages share, according to RAW is that they can have a minimum range, cause pinning, work out cover saves from the center of the blast, and can fire at targets out of LOS)

Please, show me specifically where and I will concede.

You're going to have to take a couple of deep breaths first. Lets do this in some sort of logical order shall we?

1. The full rules for Barrage weapons are spelled out in the shooting portion of the rules.
2. In the Vehicle section of the rules some additional rules for Ordinance Barrages are layed out, supplemental but not seperate from the core barrage rules.
3. The Multiple barrage rules, as spelled out in the shooting section, govern shooting by multiple Barrage weapons.
4. Since the Ordinance Barrage is not a seperate rule from the normal Barrage, Barrages of this type are also governed by the MB rules.
5. The MoO is an Ordinance barrage and is thus also subject to the MB rules in any situation where they apply.

So, what needs proof? I think 2, 3, and 4 could use some explication so lets proceed, shall we?

2. The only rules presented in the Ordinance Barrage section refer to how they differ from normal Barrages. Specifically, that they have additional restrictions on moving and shooting and that they accrue an additional -1 Ld modifier for affected units testing for pinning. In the absence of a fully articulated set of rules the only option is to refer back to the Barrage rules in the shooting section to determine how they function. Since you need to refer back to the Barrage section to determine the function you must also assume that all the rules presented there affect Ordinance barrages, save those that are supplemented in the Vehicle section. Ergo, Ordinance Barrages are indeed subject to the Multiple Barrage rules in any circumstance where multiple Barrages are fired from a single unit. (that takes care of 3 too)

4. It follows from the above that the rules presented in the BGB for Ordinance Barrages are not seperate from the normal Barrage rules. The lack of a fully articulated rules set in this case makes that more than plain. What's more, the fashion in which these two rules sections interlock makes it plain that there are no restrictions currently placed on what manner of Barrages may be fired in a Multiple Barrage. If there were any such restrictions they would be listed in the Multiple barrage section and there are no such restrictions listed in that section.

Now on to 5...

5. The MoO does indeed fire an Ordinance Barrage, as his rules state. Since he fires an Ordinance Barrage you are forced to refer to the MB rules in any case where the MoO and at least one more Barrage weapon fire from the same unit. Since there are no restrictions placed on what sort of Barrages may be fired in a Multiple Barrage, and since it's plain that Ordinance Barrages are indeed subject to the Multiple Barrage rules, then it follows that a MoO firing a Barrage weapon from a unit that fires at least one more Barrage weapon will use the Multiple barrage rules; and further that should the MoO not be the closest firing model, that his Barrage be treated as described in the Multiple Barrage rules.

Which leads us to the Multiple Barrage rules, which clearly state that there is an alternate scatter mechanism for second and subsequent Barrages fired from the same unit. More specifically, that the normal scatter for the Barrage is replaced by a simple scatter die roll and the placement of the template in question side by side with the first template fired, aligned in the direction indicated by the scatter die.

If that's not clear enough I'll be forced to resort to comprehension through pugilation.

I'd go more along the lines that multiple barrage weapons fire together, but the MoO isn't armed with his barrage - it's a special rule that works like an ordnance barrage, not an actual weapon. Check his equipment list - all he's armed with is a lasgun.

That being said, his Non-weapon special rule barrage thingy works on its own, using its own special rules.


The MoO's barrage is also not listed in the IG weapon summary list. Which makes sense, since it's NOT a weapon, it's just a special ability that, for clarity, uses existing rules to fire like one.

Thus, it can't be combined with a mortar, because only multiple barrage weapons can be combined to fire as a multi-barrage.