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.

ChrisCP wrote:

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.

with permission to do so with the spearhead rule

the BRB provides the rule for normal play - Spearhead is NOT normal play and when playing a Spearhead game the Spearhead rules override normal rules

that how i interperate it and thats how i feel it should be played

Catachan_Devil wrote:with permission to do so with the spearhead rule

Spearhead allows you to fire one more weapon than normally allowed.

In order for that rule to do anything, you still need to be allowed to fire weapons.



Once again, the Ordnance rule doesn't allow you to fire a set number of additional weapons. It restricts you from firing anything else.

So allowing 'one more than normal' doesn't over-ride that... because you don't have a normally allowed number. You're not allowed to fire any.

And we are trying to explain to you that your interpretation is flawed as one is not allowed to ignore the letter of either rule. Ie, one may fire normal allotment +1 due to spearhead but this isn't permission to fire Ordnance and another weapon. We are in fact explictly told "so no other weapons may be fired that turn".

special rules are always going to be breaking normal rules.. otherwise they wouldn't be shpecial

moving at combat speed states you are ONLY allow to fire one weapon + defensive weapons (sounds pretty specific to me) - spearhead cannot override that rule either


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the way is see it ordinance + 1 is playing within the limit of the special rule

the special rule override the normal conditions of the BRB rules

Except it doesnt.

Ordnance states "you may not fire any other weapons" - that isnt "you can fire ordnance +0", that is "once you fire ordnance you cannot fire any other weapon"

So Spearhead has to more specifically override this rule, which would require it mentioning "even if you fire Ordnance", or similar.

If you wish to see where your "special rules override BRB general rules" is wrong, look at Sweeping Advance and WBB.

Catachan_Devil wrote:special rules are always going to be breaking normal rules.. otherwise they wouldn't be shpecial

Yes, of course. But that's not the issue.

We have two different special rules (Firing Ordnance weapons, and Spearhead) which do opposite things. The trick is to determine which takes precedence.


So, there's two ways to break it down:

In a Spearhead game, Spearhead applies to all vehicles with the Spearhead rule.
In that same game, the Ordnance rules only apply to those specific vehicles with Ordnance weapons.

Or, to put it all together: The Spearhead rules apply to all vehicles in a Spearhead. Within that group, the Ordnance rules apply to all Spearhead vehicles with Ordnance weapons.

So the Ordnance rules are more specific, and so take precedence.



The other way to look at it is to see look at what you have permission to do, and what you are restricted from doing.


The Spearhead rule allows you to fire one more weapon than normally allowed.
The Ordnance rule forbids you from firing any other weapon when firing Ordnance.


Being forbidden from doing something is not the same as being allowed to do '0' instances of it. If I tell you you aren't allowed to have a cookie, that doesn't mean you are allowed to not have a cookie... Being 'allowed' imposes an option: You may choose to do it, or you may choose to not. The outcome of the choice in this case is the same (either way you don't get any cookies)... but the permission does grant that choice.

There is no such choice in being forbidden to take any cookies... you simply can't have any.


SO, in the same vein, being forbidden from firing a weapon is not the same as being allowed to fire '0' weapons. You are simply not allowed to fire any weapons.

So being allowed to fire one more than normal doesn't grant you an extra weapon, because none are allowed. You would need to be allowed to fire weapons (even if that allowance was '0') in order to be able to fire one more than allowed. If you're not allowed, there is no 'allowed' value to add one to.

Returning to the cookie analogy, if you have a special rule that says on Mondays you can have one more cookie than normal, but then I forbid you from having any cookies, you don't get any cookies. The 'one more than normally allowed' just doesn't kick in, because you're not allowed any number.



TL : DR - You need an allowed number of weapons in order to be able to add one to the number of allowed weapons you can fire. If you don't have a numerical value for the number of weapons, you simply can not add to it.

normally you cannot have a cookie

but on special occasions (ie: spearhead) you are allowed to have 1 cookie


Automatically Appended Next Post:
notice how the first remark forbids you from having a cookie

but the second remark provides a situation where it is permitted

anybody else hungry

Catachan_Devil wrote:normally you cannot have a cookie

but on special occasions (ie: spearhead) you are allowed to have 1 cookie


Automatically Appended Next Post:
notice how the first remark forbids you from having a cookie

but the second remark provides a situation where it is permitted

anybody else hungry

I take it from your incomplete metaphor an casual aside that you are not going to address the fact that to follow your interpretation is to break a rule.
One the topic of you metaphor - it's already been done to completion in this thread, two parents both allow you to have 'one more cookie with dinner than normal', and then mommy cried for an hour because you took two, while your father went to his desk and made a mantra out of "there's always sports, there's always sports....."

But to use one closer to the situation at hand - someone is diabetic, this means they can never eat sugar after dinner. Now they ate dinner (fired ordnance, wink wink), this was a dinner at his mates place – they’re always allowed to have a cookie after dinner... now guess whose foot will fall off if they eat a cookie after dinner.

If we followed your interpretation you'd be giving me permission to Deepstrike my Warboss with Zagstruk. As I must deploy the squad via deep strike (while quietly ignoring the fact that I'm breaking a rule to bring the WB along.)

Edit: Their, there, they’re - a thousand times - Their, there, they’re, Their, there, they’re…

Catachan_Devil wrote:normally you cannot have a cookie

but on special occasions (ie: spearhead) you are allowed to have 1 cookie

Except that Spearhead doesn't allow you to have 1 cookie. It allows you to have one more than you would otherwise be allowed.


If you're not allowed cookies, you can't have one more... You simply can't have cookies.

if you are normally not allowed to have cookies = you are allowed to have 0 cookies.. it doesn't matter how you try to twist the english language you can alway put a numerical figure to the equation

having one more than you would normally be allowed is one

if i ask anyboby how many weapons i can normally fire in addition to an Ordinance weapon the answer will always be none/zero


Automatically Appended Next Post:
going by your rules the only vehicles that are able to utilise the spearhead rule at crusing speed are fast vehicles

because non-fast vehicles are not permitted to fire any weapons at cruising speed you cannot add 1 to nothing

Okay how about this then if you want to do math...

Normally you can fire from the following set of numbers (or have the following set of numbers)

{ 0 } This is a set of 1 number, the number being zero and applies to situations when you move at cruising speed or are shaken. However, when you fire Ordinance you can fire additional weapons from this set of numbers{ } This is the null or empty set. When you can figure out how to add { } + 1, you can fire an additional weapon.

Edit: Fixed wording, also if you can add those two feel free to pick up your nobel prize for mathematics.

so why is it when you move at cruising speed it is {0}

but when you fire ordinance it is {}

if there is no value it is 0 - since when is nothing not 0 when we are talking about amounts or numbers??

You are still changing "not allowed to fire any weapons" into "alllowed to fire 0" - you are not only adding a number into an undefined amount ("any") but changing a prohibition into an allowance.

so by your rules a tank moving at cruising speed cannot use the spearhead rule to fire a weapon

Erm... So assuming I take 3 Leman Russ Battle Tanks as a Spearhead. Does this mean I can move them 6" and proceed to fire my Battlecannon and 2 sponson weapons/1 sponson + hull weapon per Leman Russ Battle Tank?

Jay - yes, as normally you could fire 1 primary, all defensive plus (due to the special rule LB) the Turret weapon. You are then allowed to fire an additional weapon as per the spearhead rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are still changing "not allowed to fire any weapons" into "alllowed to fire 0" - you are not only adding a number into an undefined amount ("any") but changing a prohibition into an allowance.

Cruising speed states you are not allowed to fire any weapons, as well. It does not say "0".

Kevin949 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are still changing "not allowed to fire any weapons" into "alllowed to fire 0" - you are not only adding a number into an undefined amount ("any") but changing a prohibition into an allowance.

Cruising speed states you are not allowed to fire any weapons, as well. It does not say "0".

exactly what i am trying to say.. playing the way that they want prevent a tank from firing an additional weapon after firing an Ordinance weapon..

PotMS and the spearhead rules would not work for vehicles that are:

Shaken
Stunned
non-fast vehicles moving at cruising speeds

as all of these conditions don't allow you to fire any weapons.. instead of allowing you to fire 0 weapons???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JaWzY83 wrote:Erm... So assuming I take 3 Leman Russ Battle Tanks as a Spearhead. Does this mean I can move them 6" and proceed to fire my Battlecannon and 2 sponson weapons/1 sponson + hull weapon per Leman Russ Battle Tank?

if you move at combat speed here is how LB works on a LR

move 6"

pick to fire one of the sponsons or the hull mounted weapon along with any defensive weapons

LB then allows you to fire the turret weapon (regardless if is Ordinance)

spearhead would then allow you to fire another weapon whether it would be the hull mounted or sponson mounted

so yes you would fire the main gun along with 2 other weapons plus defensive weapons

the key in the process is you are actually picking a sponson or hull mounted weapon to fire first in keeping with the wording of LB.. you fire the turret weapon in addition to weapons you can normally fire

because a Leman Russ at combat speed can normally fire 1 weapon + defensive + turret.. spearhead in my mind allows you to fire +1 weapon to that list

I still think it needs to be FAQ'd/Errata'd by GW (not some independent) before a true understanding of the rule can be had.

Wishful thinking, I know.

Until that time though, at least when gaming with my buddy, if we use spearhead formations we have agreed to forgo the spearhead rule entirely.

If I may ask, why would GW FAQing it be any different?

The FAQ Portions of GWs FAQs are, by their own admission, nothing but house rules.

Add to that the fact they don't bother to write them themselves anyway, I am just curious as to why a GW FAQ would be "better" than any other FAQ.

I suppose I'd rather hear an answer endorsed by the maker of the game rather than just general consensus (which there isn't, currently). If the two ended up being the same then so be it, but until then, like I said, I'm just not using the spearhead rule in friendly games to simplify things.

*edit*
Please keep in mind though, I'm not talking about going and asking the fools in the store what they think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And quite honestly, it wouldn't be so difficult for them to just put out a blurb saying "this rule overwrites firing restrictions normally in place and stacks with similar rules." Or "this rule doesn't apply to ordnance and neither does it stack with similar rules."

Or something.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification guys!

Just to point out PotMS works on Cruising speed, because it specifically states it does.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Just to point out PotMS works on Cruising speed, because it specifically states it does.

Gwar! wrote:If I may ask, why would GW FAQing it be any different?

This is borderline trolling, Gwar. You know the answer to this. It's the reason that the FAQ's are accepted as valid sources of rules in the Tenets of YMDC. For most players, the GW FAQs count, whether GW choose to call them their house rules or not.

It isn't trolling at all. I wasn't asking in the context of answering the question (as it has already been answered), I was asking why his personal feeling is that GW themselves need to FAQ it when any other FAQ has the same "weight" when it comes to these things in real life outside of YMDC.

Why Is it whenever I ask a Question I get shouted at for Trolling?

Gwar! wrote:It isn't trolling at all. I wasn't asking in the context of answering the question (as it has already been answered), I was asking why his personal feeling is that GW themselves need to FAQ it when any other FAQ has the same "weight" when it comes to these things in real life outside of YMDC.

Why Is it whenever I ask a Question I get shouted at for Trolling?

Poor Gwar!, here have a metaphorical cookie....

nosferatu1001 wrote:Just to point out PotMS works on Cruising speed, because it specifically states it does.

As does spearhead.

This argument is falling along the same lines of POTMS and popping smoke.

Kevin -no, it sets a restriction (moving UP TO cruising speed) but gives no allowance to fire additional weapons AT cruising speed.

Unlike PotMS.