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.

Trekari wrote: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.

I think IMHO that if the vehicle in question were a Rhino you'd still find a way to argue the point. Personally, as long as the vehicle doesn't move if my opponent wants to use his one use "ability"(Not weapon).......Then its cool with me. I'll still find a way to pop that can and get those KPs.

Spetulhu wrote:GBF just pointed out that some rules are there to support the fluff, not the other way around.

Key word here is 'support', not 'replace'.

I never said they are to replace the the rules. The thing is people get so wrapped up trying to find new ways to exploit the rules they forget everything is based on fluff and an attempt at balance. The sentence in the rule for genestealers using feeder tendrils is a classic case to me... it specifically says genestealers can use this against their preferred enemy but here this is considered a fluff statement.

G

focusedfire wrote:

Trekari wrote: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.

I think IMHO that if the vehicle in question were a Rhino you'd still find a way to argue the point. Personally, as long as the vehicle doesn't move if my opponent wants to use his one use "ability"(Not weapon).......Then its cool with me. I'll still find a way to pop that can and get those KPs.

Watch how simple this is to prove you wrong:

A Rhino has Fire Points, therefore the CM can use Orbital Bombardment provided 1) The Rhino didn't move, and 2) He is one of the two models firing from the Fire Points.

It counts as firing a ranged weapon, which you cannot do from inside a vehicle that doesn't have Fire Points. I'm sorry about your opinion being wrong.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I think it is open to debate but the conservative approach is to use LOS until it has been FAQd.

G

It's a barrage weapon, you don't need LOS...

*air

"...otherwise counts as firing a ranged weapon and uses the following profile"

The profile for the weapon is mentioned after stating that it otherwise counts as firing a ranged weapon, so it is not referencing the shooting rules for barrage.

Reading the paragraph properly: Other than not being allowed to move in the preceding movement phase, being usable only once per game, and being allowed to assault afterwards, calling down an Orbital Bombardment counts as firing a ranged weapon.

You made a bold statement that assumed I would argue about a Rhino. Perhaps in the future you won't assume what someone will and will not argue about.

Rules support my position. I'm sorry - what exactly supports yours?

I made a bold statement hoping to lock you in on at least its ok for the Chapter Master to be mounted. A lock which you so kindly gave me.

The otherwise & counts as may be reffering in support of the fact that the BS is not modified.

Just cause you say your reading it correctly doesn't make it so.

The rules and precedent of remote firing support my position.

What is so important about this that it can't wait for a FAQ. What is so game changing about this that its got you so upset. My friends and I, when there's a question like this, just take turns playing it both ways until we get word. If your at a tourny then have the judge make the call.

I'm not saying that I'm right, Just that a ruling wouldn't hurt.

If it is an ability rather than a weapon, how about using it while locked in assault?

Focusedfire, your homework for the day is to read pg. 66 of the BRB and then answer the following question:

Can a model shoot from inside of a transport that does not have a fire point?

Ignorance is not a valid defense when someone explains the meaning of a sentence to you.

FFS, it "counts as firing a ranged weapon" that cannot be used if you have moved in the movement phase.

Replace 'orbital bombardment' with bolt pistol, then ask yourself "Can I normally fire a bolt pistol in this situation?"

If the answer is yes, you can probably use the OB provided you haven't moved in the prior movement phase. As a happy bonus, it's got an unlimited range and doesn't require Line of Sight because it's a barrage weapon.

That's all the more thought that you have to put into it.

*air

Green Blow Fly wrote:I never said they are to replace the the rules. The thing is people get so wrapped up trying to find new ways to exploit the rules they forget everything is based on fluff and an attempt at balance.

However people also try to use the fluff to completely ignore the rules. You play the game according to the rules, not the fluff. It's up to the writers to insure that the fluff and the rules match, not the players.

focusedfire wrote:I can see your point and I'm willing to see both sides. Your not. All I'd like is a FAQ

This is not an instance where I need to see your side of the argument. For one, the language used is not debatable. "Otherwise" is used as a conjunctive adverb here, but let's assume for a moment that I'm wrong, and "otherwise" is referencing something that isn't even mentioned in the same paragraph like you claim.

I've asked you before if you are allowed to fire from inside a vehicle that doesn't have a Fire Point. The answer is "no" here as well. You can't fire any kind of weapon without a Fire Point while embarked in a transport.

Ghaz wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I never said they are to replace the the rules. The thing is people get so wrapped up trying to find new ways to exploit the rules they forget everything is based on fluff and an attempt at balance.

However people also try to use the fluff to completely ignore the rules. You play the game according to the rules, not the fluff. It's up to the writers to insure that the fluff and the rules match, not the players.

I agree with you Ghaz. We all know what happens when people try to play the game the way they think it should be. That is the beauty of RAW when it works. I do understand why this rule is in dispute, but after reading this particular set of rules I would play it to the strict interpretation. OB is still very powerful.

G

Referenced same paragraph, preceeding sentence. Read it slowly maybe you'll see it. Next, Fire yes need fire point, ability no do not need fire point.

I will leave you now to argue with air.

Behaving in a condescending manner only works when you're right, focusedfire.

Using Orbital Bombardment counts as firing a ranged weapon, with certain restrictions on when you can use it and allowing assaults afterwards, along with modifications to the scatter results.

First you said "otherwise" referenced the scatter roll, which is not in the same paragraph, then you changed your stance to say it referenced the ability to assault. Neither of these change the fact that it counts as firing a ranged weapon.

I am absolutely amazed people are arguing the fire point thing.

Well the chapter master can definitely fire from inside a landspeeder storm.

G

*

*

Green Blow Fly wrote:Well the chapter master can definitely fire from inside a landspeeder storm.

G

Actually he can't as the Land Speeder Storm can only carry scouts

You are correct.

Merry Christmas!

G