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.

If you'd read the whole thread you'd have seen that the decision was made early on that the vague nature of the MoOs 'special ability' is what prevents a solid ruling either way here. All I've done above is outline the rules for Multiple barrage weapons and tack on the MoO rules (from the permissive side of the fence).

The general response to your ojection is to ask "what does the shot do?" to which the only answer is "it's an Ordinance Barrage with rules X attached". It's an Ordinance Barrage whether you like it or not really. Not that fact proves anything, but that's what it is.

Can we all just wait for the FAQ now?

NEVHURRR!!!

Sure, it's fired like an ordnance barrage.

It just isn't coming from a weapon, and thus doesn't combine with the mortar.

The only requirement is that multiple barrages are fired by the same unit. Unless you are arguing he doesnt 2fire" the special barrage?

Spellbound wrote:Sure, it's fired like an ordnance barrage.

It just isn't coming from a weapon, and thus doesn't combine with the mortar.

I understand what you're saying (and up to a point I agree) but this is essentially a fluff answer and has no real bearing on the rules. The fact of the matter is that the shot is an Ordinance Barrage.

Fenris-77 wrote:
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)

This is wrong. Nowhere does it state that Ordinance Barrage uses Barrage rules. There are a few problems with this argument:

1. The rules presented in the Ordinance Barrage sections actually outline how they are different than a Ordinance Weapon, not a Barrage, and Ordinance weapons have a section in the Weapons section that just defer the player to another page.
2. You do not need to refer back to the Barrage section to determine how an Ordinance Barrage works, the rules are all in the Ordinance Barrage section.
3. If something isn't written down as a rule, then it isn't a rule and is disallowed, otherwise this is exactly a "Well, it doesn't say that I can't" argument.
4. You are assuming and you admit to it.

Fenris-77 wrote:
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.

The Multiple Barrage section explicitly states Barrage weapons, and Barrage weapons alone. There is no mention of Ordinance Barrage. This is another "Well it doesn't say I can't" point.

Brian P wrote:My "silly" argument works because my opponents are generally sensible, even-minded gamers who don't want to win by exploiting rules that don't work quite right. If a RAW argument falls on the side of "stupid" they understand why without any debate.

At a tournament I would fully expect to run into the other side of that coin. It goes with the territory and I don't get upset over it.

Yes, and some would argue that people who play armies that are absolutely out-of-line with the fluff are doing something similar. Where do YOU draw that line?
Nidzilla anyone??

*sigh* In fact, what page 58 of the BGB outlines is not at all as you seem to suggest. The rules state first that the weapons may be fired directly, as normal Ordinance weapons. Then the book read "or alternatively they may be fired as an ordinance barrage...". The actual rules start in the next paragraph, which begins with the following phrase "just like normal barrages".

That last statement clearly connects the two.

Moreover, the vehicle squadron rules state that a squadron of vehicle fires all it's available weaponry at a single enemy target. The rules for doing this with Barrage weapons are found in the Multiple Barrage rules.

The thing you're forgetting here is that the Weapon types and rules section is not limited to infantry, and all the rules there apply to vehicle mounted versions of the same weapon. The description of barrgage is pretty clearly applied to weapons with barrage in the type. It's exactly the same as how normal Ordinance Blast weapons follow the generic blast template weapon rules, modified by the additional rules found in the vehicle section.

An ordinance blast is still a blast, and an Ordinance Barrage is still a Barrage.

My best point is saved for last though. Here's the actual quote form the Ordinance Barrage weapons entry from page 58 of the BGB...

Differently from other unit types, vehicles carrying ordinance barrage weapons can chose to fire them either directly, or as a barrage - declare before you fire.

I can only assume you read this section before you posted, so why don't you tell me how "fire ... as a barrage" can possibly be misinterpreted?

Anyway, back to you GG.

Grinning Goblin wrote:This is wrong. Nowhere does it state that Ordinance Barrage uses Barrage rules.

Ok, first of all you are wrong. So wrong that the immense wrongness of that statement causes a rip in space time, that is how wrong you are.

I direct you ladies and gentlemen, to the first flipping sentence of the Ordnance Barrage Rules:

Page 58 wrote:Differently from other unit types, vehicles carrying ordnance barrage weapons can choose to fire them either directly or as a barrage - declare before you fire.

So yes, Ordnance Barrage weapons follow all the rules for Barrage weapons as well as the additional ones in the Ordnance Barrage Section. Not to mention that if they didnt, things like "Pinning tests caused by ordnance barrages are taken with a -1 Ld modifier" would make no sense.

Seriously, There is Wrong, then there is just Horribly Wrong.

Edit: It seems Fenris got there before me. My Point still stands.

Grinning Goblin wrote:

Fenris-77 wrote:
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)

This is wrong. Nowhere does it state that Ordinance Barrage uses Barrage rules. There are a few problems with this argument:

1. The rules presented in the Ordinance Barrage sections actually outline how they are different than a Ordinance Weapon, not a Barrage, and Ordinance weapons have a section in the Weapons section that just defer the player to another page.
2. You do not need to refer back to the Barrage section to determine how an Ordinance Barrage works, the rules are all in the Ordinance Barrage section.
3. If something isn't written down as a rule, then it isn't a rule and is disallowed, otherwise this is exactly a "Well, it doesn't say that I can't" argument.
4. You are assuming and you admit to it.

Fenris-77 wrote:
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.

The Multiple Barrage section explicitly states Barrage weapons, and Barrage weapons alone. There is no mention of Ordinance Barrage. This is another "Well it doesn't say I can't" point.

You are either braindead or trolling if you are suggesting that ordnance barrage weapons can't fire a multiple barrage. Please stop troling or seek medical attention, depending on which applies to you

Fenris-77 wrote:*sigh* In fact, what page 58 of the BGB outlines is not at all as you seem to suggest. The rules state first that the weapons may be fired directly, as normal Ordinance weapons. Then the book read "or alternatively they may be fired as an ordinance barrage...". The actual rules start in the next paragraph, which begins with the following phrase "just like normal barrages".

That last statement clearly connects the two.

"ordinance barrages have a minimum range,(see their profile), they cause Pinning tests, and their targets work out their cover saves as if the shot came from the center of the blast marker." I helped you finish that sentence. So, there, the connection ends with those similarities.

Fenris-77 wrote:Moreover, the vehicle squadron rules state that a squadron of vehicle fires all it's available weaponry at a single enemy target. The rules for doing this with Barrage weapons are found in the Multiple Barrage rules.

This is rather irrelevant. Even then, it doesn't indicate multiple Ordinance Barrage weapons, and if anything, the rules for Ordinance Barrage are found in that heading.

Fenris-77 wrote:The thing you're forgetting here is that the Weapon types and rules section is not limited to infantry, and all the rules there apply to vehicle mounted versions of the same weapon. The description of barrgage is pretty clearly applied to weapons with barrage in the type. It's exactly the same as how normal Ordinance Blast weapons follow the generic blast template weapon rules, modified by the additional rules found in the vehicle section.

Actually, all Ordinance weapons found in a codex use "Ordinance X, (Large) Blast", where X is a number. Or they all use some form of that. There are no "Ordinance Blast" weapons.

Fenris-77 wrote:My best point is saved for last though. Here's the actual quote form the Ordinance Barrage weapons entry from page 58 of the BGB...

Differently from other unit types, vehicles carrying ordinance barrage weapons can chose to fire them either directly, or as a barrage - declare before you fire.

I can only assume you read this section before you posted, so why don't you tell me how "fire ... as a barrage" can possibly be misinterpreted?

Anyway, back to you GG.

If the rulebook simply said that and then went to say "Refer to the Barrage Rules when firing indirectly, also Ordinance Barrage Weapons give a -1 to the Pinning Test", then I would have left it at that. But it doesn't, and if you read the rest of the sentence, it states that you are declaring how you are firing the weapon. "I am firing these weapons as a barrage", or "I am going to fire these weapons directly" then the rules go into detail as to how they are fired for each. If they are fired directly, then it says they are fired exactly like a normal Ordinance weapon. If it fires as a barrage though, it doesn't say that they are fired exactly as a Barrage weapon, it goes into detail, lists the similarities it has with barrage weapons, adds a rule, and ends there.

GG, seriously, stop embarrassing yourself. You are wrong, but are not man enough to admit it imo.

Gwar! wrote:GG, seriously, stop embarrassing yourself. You are wrong, but are not man enough to admit it imo.

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.

Page 58 wrote:Differently from other unit types, vehicles carrying ordnance barrage weapons can choose to fire them either directly or as a barrage - declare before you fire.

There is your answer.

Gwar! wrote:GG, seriously, stop embarrassing yourself. You are wrong, but are not man enough to admit it imo.

Gwar, for a change can you try to contribute and communicate effectively.

By effectively, I mean in a way that others can see your point, and not get caught up in all of the high-horse antics.
I have seen little else out of you in my stay at Dakka thus far.

You have solid knowledge, pass it on in a way that it can be received well.

Che-Vito wrote:

Gwar! and Fenris have already answered this question correctly.

If I were Gwar!, I would be irritated trying to explain that "As a barrage" means "As a barrage".

@ GG: As usual, Gwar! is right.

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Gwar! and Fenris have already answered this question correctly.

If I were Gwar!, I would be irritated trying to explain that "As a barrage" means "As a barrage".

@ GG: As usual, Gwar! is right.

If they believed that they have explained the point correctly, then they have no further need to assert themselves in the thread. It is no obligation on their part, so if they get irritated, then they can walk away. This is an online forum about wargaming, not a place to vent once sardonic side onto others.

Nuff' said.

It should be noted that the MoO firing rules actually DOESN'T invent some new rule that is not covered in the core rule book. Page 2 Scatter Die. His ability simply calls it out.

That being said his 'new special rule' wouldn't trump a rule that already exists...because its an OLD RULE

Che-Vito wrote:
yet more

So they shouldnt respond to the post to correct someone who is clearly wrong? Just leave the thread with the last post being clearly and unutterably incorrect?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:
yet more

So they shouldnt respond to the post to correct someone who is clearly wrong? Just leave the thread with the last post being clearly and unutterably incorrect?

Um yeah not following that ramble

How is one line (2 sentences) a ramble? :rolleyes: or do you have something to contribute?

Essentially: if the last post is clearly and demonstably incorrect, with someone having the cheek to suggest they will change their mind if shown proof yet having not done so, should they not respond and correct the situation?

It is clearly a barrage as it states so in the rules, yet one person tries to say it isnt....

Sorry, 'ramble' as in I wasn't following the original comment, that one was much clearer thanks

nosferatu1001 wrote:How is one line (2 sentences) a ramble? :rolleyes: or do you have something to contribute?

Essentially: if the last post is clearly and demonstably incorrect, with someone having the cheek to suggest they will change their mind if shown proof yet having not done so, should they not respond and correct the situation?

It is clearly a barrage as it states so in the rules, yet one person tries to say it isnt....

I'll put it simply. If they have answered the question correctly, they can walk away.
If they turn it into an issue of pride...which some clearly have...then forget acting like adults! Petty arguements are much better!