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.

So, I find the wording a bit difficult to interpret on the rules for barrage.

Book says on page 34:
"Barrage weapons can fire
indirectly. This means they can fire
at a target that they do not have
line of sight to and/or a target that
is within the weapon's minimum
range (if it has one)."

Does that mean that a Basilisk can shoot at a target which is closer than 36", if it fires indirectly (does not subtract BS)?
(The range on the Basilisk is listed as 36"-240".)

Yes - that is the "and or" part

So does this mean that a weapon with the barrage special rule can choose not to use it? And if it can/does not fire as barrage then it is just ordnance?

Barrage does not mean you are ordnance; they are separate rules.

You have no allowance to not use the rule any longer; this is covered by the allowance to fire within minimum range

The wording for barrage is terrible. It says that it follows all the rules for blast weapons, then it says in addition (then proceeds to outline indirect firing). But when you look at rules for blast weapons it says place the marker anywhere within line of sight AND MAXIMUM range. Minimum range is never mentioned as a requirement for placing the blast marker, and minimum range is not mentioned anywhere else other than the section for barrage. It is only implied that you cant fire within minimum range without following the barrage rules, but never explicitly stated.

Now I know what the rules are supposed to be, but I also think that if we start playing 40 based only on implications, then God help us. GW dropped the ball and it desperately needs to be Errata'd

It says within minimum, not less than minimum can you fire indirectly. Meaning if you fire indirectly from 36"-240".

draegen wrote:
It says within minimum, not less than minimum can you fire indirectly. Meaning if you fire indirectly from 36"-240".

I can see that interpretation, however the other argument is this:

Minimum range = 36"

Therefore, "within minimum range" is equivalent to saying "within 36"".

If they meant otherwise, surely they could have said "within the limits of minimum and maximum range"...or they could have not mentioned it at all.

Of course, if something is to close for your minimum range, it is not within range I guess.

But yes, while worded badly, it is clearly meant that the minimum range only goes in effect if you choose to fire indirectly. If you choose to fire directly, you can effectively ignore the minimum range.

 Redemption wrote:
But yes, while worded badly, it is clearly meant that the minimum range only goes in effect if you choose to fire indirectly. If you choose to fire directly, you can effectively ignore the minimum range.

That's the opposite of what it means. If you fire indirectly, you can fire within minimum range (but can't substract BS); if you do not fire indirectly, then you cannot fire within minimum range at all.

Actually ou do not get to choose to fire indirectly. If you fire at a unit between min and max range and within LOS you fire directly. If you fire at a unit that is within min range or out of LOS then you fire indirectly.