S.K.Ren wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Soooo: "May fire one additional weapon..." actually is NOT permission to fire one additional weapon now? Is that the current argument?

It has nothing to do with "How many weapons can I fire in addition to an Ordnance weapon?". Its a matter of "Can I fire any weapons at all in addition to an Ordnance Weapon?"

If this were a line of code an X was the variable for the number of shots you would get, X wouldn't be '0', it would be 'nil'

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
The rules are permissive. This is the only way to play a game. In order for somebody to do something they must have permission. On occasion, a model is restricted from doing something it normally has permission to do. In order to override a restriction, you must have specific permission to override the restriction. Examples include:
Skyfire vs Hard to Hit
Pinpoint vs Snap Shots
Assault Vehicle vs charging after disembarking
ATSKNF vs Sweeping Advance
Relentless vs moving and charging in the same turn as firing ordnance weapons.

In every situation, the permission to override the restriction is specifically mentioned. Where is the specific permission to override the 1 weapon restriction from ordnance weapons?

Soooo: "May fire one additional weapon..." actually is NOT permission to fire one additional weapon now? Is that the current argument?

Hey why didn't anyone tell me it was TROLLOLL season...

Mr. Shine wrote:

Except the rules for Multi-tracker state without restriction that an additional weapon may be fired, thus creating a conflict, and as per pg. 7 of the BRB, Codex > BRB.

Mr. Shine wrote:
Except that by running or it being the enemy player's shooting phase you do not make any shooting attacks at all. Something cannot be in addition to nothing.

 S.K.Ren wrote:

Mr. Shine wrote:

Except the rules for Multi-tracker state without restriction that an additional weapon may be fired, thus creating a conflict, and as per pg. 7 of the BRB, Codex > BRB.

Oh? So the rule book explicitly states "...without exception..."? Can we get the full rule quoted for us non Tau? And Im afraid I must return to my example questions.

"How many weapons can I fire in addition to an Ordnance weapon?" is quantitative. It asks for a number. It is not a permissive question.

"Can I fire any weapons at all in addition to an Ordnance Weapon?" is permissive. It asks a yes or no question. You need to find a rule that explicitly says yes to this question before the first one is even valid for consideration.

The Ordnance rule doesn't say you can't fire any more weapons it says you cannot fire any other weapons. More would indicate a value, in this case of 1 or 0 depending on whether you count the Ordnance weapon. Other indicates a complete encompassing of all other weapons. It is not a number of weapons, it is not a group of weapons, it is all weapons. And all weapons are forbidden from firing in addition to an Ordnance weapon fired by a non Vehicle model.

 Happyjew wrote:
If the Multi-tracker said

A model with a multi-tracker can fire an additional weapon in each Shooting phase, even if it fired an Ordnance weapon

then there would be a conflict in which the codex wins.
However,

 yakface wrote:
3) Specific overrides general, although remembering that restrictions still override permissions.


Its very simple, when two rules contradict each other, the one that is more specific must take precedence. When GW talks about advanced rules taking precedence over basic rules, this simply means something like: the basic rules for movement say that models move 6" in the movement phase. But then in the advanced rules they'll say stuff like: 'models using a jump pack in the movement phase move 12 inches'.

If the advanced rules didn't take precedence over the basic rules, then all models would move 6 inches in the movement phase, as advanced rules would be unable to override this basic tenant no matter what. In other words, 'advanced' really just means 'specific', while 'basic' really just means 'general'.

However, this does not mean that advanced rules always override basic rules, as restrictions still take precedence over permissions. For example, an advanced rule may say: 'models with jump packs are able to move 12" in the movement phase', but if a model has gone to ground, then the basic rules restriction against a model being able to move in the movement phase still overrides the advanced rules permission that the model can move 12" in the movement phase.

It is also even possible for a 'basic' rule to be specific enough to override an 'advanced' rule. For example, an advanced rule may say that jump pack models can move 12" in the movement phase, but if there happened to be a 'basic' rule which actually spelled out that jump pack models can only move 6" when moving into difficult terrain (just an imaginary example here), then that 'basic' rule would still take precedence over the 'advanced' rule because it was specific enough to actually mention that it applies to jump pack models.

Finally, when GW says that codexes take precedence over the rulebook, again this is a case of generally speaking, the codexes being more 'advanced' than the advanced rules in the rulebook. Meaning, if the advanced rules in the rulebook say that Jump Pack models move 12" in the movement phase but a codex says that a special unit moves like a Jump Pack model, but up to 18", then clearly the codex rule has to take precedence over the rulebook for the whole thing to work.

But just as before, restrictions still override permissions (even if the restriction is in the rulebook and the permission is in a codex) and it is possible for rules in the rulebook to be more specific than even a codex and therefore take precedence over the codex rules.


So please, please, please do not parrot the terms: 'codex > rulebook' and 'advanced > basic' without understanding that these concepts are not absolute. They ONLY apply when the rules between two sources actually contradict, not when one is a permission and the other is a restriction.

 Miri wrote:
"... may fire an additional weapon during its shooting phase"

HawaiiMatt wrote:


Not that I disagree, but everything in that quote seems to be lacking a page number.

As for the riptide firing 3 weapons; easy.
Park it next to the aegis defensive line and man the Quad Gun.

-Matt

 S.K.Ren wrote:

 Miri wrote:
"... may fire an additional weapon during its shooting phase"

I don't see '...without exception...' in there, which is my point. You say "... may fire an additional weapon", does it specify what kind? No? Then its a general rule indicating that you can fire up to your normal limit +1 under normal circumstances.

Ordnance weapon has a specific restriction to fire that type of weapon. Unless Multi-tracker specifically says that it ignores the firing restrictions of Ordnance or something along those lines, Ordnance is more specific than Multi-tracker and its rules take precedence.

 S.K.Ren wrote:
There fixed. I'm sorry, its Basic and Advanced but they're defined the same anyways


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Multi-tracker does not call out any specific unit, model, rule or piece of wargear and is thusly NOT an Advanced rule

 S.K.Ren wrote:

 Miri wrote:
"... may fire an additional weapon during its shooting phase"

I don't see '...without exception...' in there, which is my point. You say "... may fire an additional weapon", does it specify what kind? No? Then its a basic(BRB pg 7) rule indicating that you can fire up to your normal limit +1 under normal circumstances.

Ordnance weapon has a specific restriction to fire that type of weapon. Unless Multi-tracker specifically says that it ignores the firing restrictions of Ordnance or something along those lines, Ordnance is more advanced(BRB pg 7) than Multi-tracker and its rules take precedence.

 S.K.Ren wrote:
Oh ffs GW needs to get off its f****** a** and write some new FAQs. We can argue this till we're blue in the face but unless you play together, what 'we' say doesn't really matter as we'll either defer to HIWPI or TO verdict.

 Ghaz wrote:
And by firing ordnance you can not fire any other weapons. Likewise something cannot be in addition to nothing yet you insist it can.

 S.K.Ren wrote:
I don't see '...without exception...' in there, which is my point. You say "... may fire an additional weapon", does it specify what kind? No? Then its a basic(BRB pg 7) rule indicating that you can fire up to your normal limit +1 under normal circumstances.

Ordnance weapon has a specific restriction to fire that type of weapon. Unless Multi-tracker specifically says that it ignores the firing restrictions of Ordnance or something along those lines, Ordnance is more advanced(BRB pg 7) than Multi-tracker and its rules take precedence.

 Ghaz wrote:
It's no worse than you saying 0+1=0 when its clearly 1. So which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can either fire the additional weapon in both instances or neither.

 Ghaz wrote:
And so you decide to ignore one restriction (you can't fire another weapon if you fire an ordnance weapon) yet you enforce another one (you have to give up firing if you run). 0+1=1, not 0. Your statements say that there are no restrictions on when the additional weapon can be used according to the codex, so why are you keeping the restriction placed on shooting when you run from the BRB?

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Except that the multi-tracker specifies your shooting phase.

 Ghaz wrote:
And so you decide to ignore one restriction (you can't fire another weapon if you fire an ordnance weapon) yet you enforce another one (you have to give up firing if you run). 0+1=1, not 0. Your statements say that there are no restrictions on when the additional weapon can be used according to the codex, so why are you keeping the restriction placed on shooting when you run from the BRB?

 Savageconvoy wrote:
It's completely different argument though. It's like arguing why you can't make CC attacks when you're not in CC.

 davou wrote:
More, the multitracker says a model May fire one additional weapon... So firing a single weapon is still an option to the player.

When you fire ord, it says you may only fire one....

Put those two sentences together and you get: "You may fire one or two weapons, but you may only fire one." The only way to have no conflict there, is to fire one weapon.

 Ghaz wrote:
No. You're missing the point. 0+1=1. One in addition to zero is still one. It is not zero.

 Ghaz wrote:
No. You're missing the point. 0+1=1. One in addition to zero is still one. It is not zero.

MerkQT wrote:
I understand where Ghaz is coming from. You can always plus one onto something unless the value is null. (In which case you would have conceded your point about being able to fire ordnance and an additional weapon)

For example; The rule for running is that you cannot fire weapons after running. So the value for firing weapons is null. You simply can't do it and you certainly can't add an additional weapon. The same happens with ordnance.

However, what Ghaz is trying to make everyone understand is, they are currently viewing it as a zero. In which case, you CAN plus one to it. So he brings up the question; "If you are allowing yourself to shoot ordnance with an additional weapon, are you allowing yourself to run and then shoot a weapon?"

To do the sequence (as I understand it)

-You have multitracker. You may fire 2 shots at this point.
-You fire ordnance.
-Ordnance rule comes into effect changing the weapons allowed to fire value to a null value.
-Multi-tracker attempts to bring this back up to one, however as it is now a null value it cannot do this.

But the comparison doesn't work for the reasons I've stated. The wording is important, and you do not describe things as being additional to nothingness. Thus when you may not shoot a weapon to begin with (such as when running, or in the enemy shooting phase) there is nothing upon which you can add another weapon.

It is not a matter of one rule being invoked before or after the other. They are invoked simultaneously and thus conflict with one another. The Multi-tracker takes precedence as a Codex rule.

MerkQT wrote:
Sure they can. To use another (somewhat stupid) analogy is that there is a cake at a party. You have none, but the host says you can have an additional piece if you want. So 0 + 1 = 1.
However, if there was no cake to begin with, it's impossible to take a piece. (Sorry that sounds pretty derpy.)

MerkQT wrote:
Correct me if i'm wrong, but if I have a value of zero and I give an additional numerical value of one. Does that not equal one?