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.

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?

if you were referring to a mathematical story problem, yes.

In English common usage, no as its improper grammar as exampled above.

This obviously needs a FAQ. But I'd say HJ quoting Yakface is not appropriate in YMtC. Personally I'd prefer HJ to be correct since I play Orks, but rules quotes seem to be in SW's favor. Arguing rhetorically regarding this game (YF/HJ) is pointless as it is a rule set not based solely on logic or whether its "permissive" or "specific>general". However "codex > BRB" is on page 7. Arguing against page 7 needs to at least be accompanied by a similar example from other 6th Ed (ie Daemon, CSM, Tau, Eldar) codices... Not rhetoric, other posts (regardless of their eloquence), or theory. Page numbers, please.

Righto, I suppose that's fair enough.

I think I've changed my viewpoint on this whole subject now that's been clarified.

 doktor_g wrote:
This obviously needs a FAQ. But I'd say HJ quoting Yakface is not appropriate in YMtC. Personally I'd prefer HJ to be correct since I play Orks, but rules quotes seem to be in SW's favor. Arguing rhetorically regarding this game (YF/HJ) is pointless as it is a rule set not based solely on logic or whether its "permissive" or "specific>general". However "codex > BRB" is on page 7. Arguing against page 7 needs to at least be accompanied by a similar example from other 6th Ed (ie Daemon, CSM, Tau, Eldar) codices... Not rhetoric, other posts (regardless of their eloquence), or theory. Page numbers, please.

Being I'm a nice guy and all... I'll trade you "Firing Ordnance+1" for a 3rd weapon system to make Monstrous Creature+Multi-Tracker make more sense? hehe

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Ordnance is a weapon system. Which is why it fits the above description he's tryin to state about "additional".

If I have zero dollars, you don't say to me "I'm going to give you an additional dollar" as I don't have any to begin with.

If I have one dollar, you CAN say "I'm going to give you an additional dollar."

Firing an ordinance weapon, you ARE already shooting one weapon system. Multi tracker says you can fire one additional.


Codex trumps.

You have it incorrect, it is not a blanket "Codex trumps" it is: Codex only trumps when there is a conflict.

There is no conflict here, and you seem to be misunderstanding that.

There is a conflict in Pinpoint vs Snap Shots, and in that case codex trumps because there is a conflict. The codex specifically says you can increase the BS of a snap shot when the BRB says you can not.

You really need to re-read the post about specific Vs. General:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/520554.page#5505107

One of the thing I would like you to all remember is how the Riptide gets the multi-tracker. It isn't granted specifically by name but as part of a larger ruleset: Battlesuits. The Battlesuit rules grant a few additional things as well, much of which do benefit the Riptide. This makes it completely plausible that the multi-tracker is not meant to do anything for the riptide, it's granting was a side effect of a larger rules that was designed for non-monstrous creatures as well. Looking at the whole rule, where it comes from and whom else gets it, grants you a better context to judge these matters.

It isn't a unique situation either as other units have rules which do nothing for them, granted simply because are default rules for multiple units of which some do benefit.

Also want to point out that codex greater then BRB does not always work. Smash is a very good example of this, as it can never be applied if codex beats rulebook. Smash grants the ability to change the AP of a weapon to 2, but all weapon rules are 'advanced rules.' For page 7 to be applied every time smash would be forbidden to change the AP of any weapon found in the codex. This gets even more complicated as nothing in the basic rule book grants permission for a basic rule book advanced rule to over-write another advanced rule found in said rulebook. Therefore Smash would never be able to change the AP of any weapon, but it clearly is meant to do so because it states it does so!

This is why we where at DakkaDakka require a rule to be in direct conflict before page 7 comes into play and not just indirect conflicts like this one here.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Ordnance is a weapon system. Which is why it fits the above description he's tryin to state about "additional".

If I have zero dollars, you don't say to me "I'm going to give you an additional dollar" as I don't have any to begin with.

If I have one dollar, you CAN say "I'm going to give you an additional dollar."

Firing an ordinance weapon, you ARE already shooting one weapon system. Multi tracker says you can fire one additional.


Codex trumps.

You have it incorrect, it is not a blanket "Codex trumps" it is: Codex only trumps when there is a conflict.

There is no conflict here, and you seem to be misunderstanding that.

There is a conflict in Pinpoint vs Snap Shots, and in that case codex trumps because there is a conflict. The codex specifically says you can increase the BS of a snap shot when the BRB says you can not.

You really need to re-read the post about specific Vs. General:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/520554.page#5505107

That post, while eloquent and well written, is an opinion.


If Ordinance says you can fire no additional, and Multi Tracker says you can, that IS the definition of a conflict.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Ordnance is a weapon system. Which is why it fits the above description he's tryin to state about "additional".

If I have zero dollars, you don't say to me "I'm going to give you an additional dollar" as I don't have any to begin with.

If I have one dollar, you CAN say "I'm going to give you an additional dollar."

Firing an ordinance weapon, you ARE already shooting one weapon system. Multi tracker says you can fire one additional.


Codex trumps.

You have it incorrect, it is not a blanket "Codex trumps" it is: Codex only trumps when there is a conflict.

There is no conflict here, and you seem to be misunderstanding that.

There is a conflict in Pinpoint vs Snap Shots, and in that case codex trumps because there is a conflict. The codex specifically says you can increase the BS of a snap shot when the BRB says you can not.

You really need to re-read the post about specific Vs. General:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/520554.page#5505107

That post, while eloquent and well written, is an opinion.


If Ordinance says you can fire no additional, and Multi Tracker says you can, that IS the definition of a conflict.

Well that's just your opinion as the more specific rule would say no it cannot.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
That post, while eloquent and well written, is an opinion.

It is actually how a permissive ruleset works.

If you do not understand that then there can be no debate.

Only when multi says "even if ordnance" would it generate a conflict

Lookup assault vehicle vs arriving from reserves, or running. Your method results in you being able to assault after doing these, except we know this isn't true.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Only when multi says "even if ordnance" would it generate a conflict

Lookup assault vehicle vs arriving from reserves, or running. Your method results in you being able to assault after doing these, except we know this isn't true.

Incorrect:

Because we already know in that instance you cannot assault at all. The rules say so.

In the ordinance example we already know the situation allows you to fire as you ARE firing ordnance. It's just whether you can shoot additional. BRB says no, the codex gives you an unrestricted yes. That is the definition of a conflict. The codex wins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
That post, while eloquent and well written, is an opinion.

It is actually how a permissive ruleset works.

If you do not understand that then there can be no debate.

Then explain to the class why "can fire an additional weapon" is actually NOT a permission to do so.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Final post of the night:

You guys can not like the rule all you like.
You can even not play it in your own games.


What you can't do is show up to a debate with no rules, no page numbers, and just a post of a persons opinion on how a permissive rule set works, and claim it directly contradicts rules that ARE written in the BRB and the codex.

You can, just not when you fire Ordnance as you have no specific permission to fire any other weapons.

Pinpoint vs Snap Shots is a conflict and Pinpoint specifically addresses Adjusting Snap Shots even though the BRB says nothing can adjust a snap shot.

But a Signum does not specifically mention snap shots so that can not adjust the BS of a snap shot.


P.S. and what you can't do is show up to a debate but not understand how the permissive ruleset works. as such there can be no further debate until you understand the functions within a permissive ruleset.

Your way of thinking makes you able to arrive from reserve in an assault vehicle, disembark and charge the same turn, which creates an inconsistency within the ruleset and that is a bad thing.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You can, just not when you fire Ordnance as you have no specific permission to fire any other weapons.

Pinpoint vs Snap Shots is a conflict and Pinpoint specifically addresses Adjusting Snap Shots even though the BRB says nothing can adjust a snap shot.

But a Signum does not specifically mention snap shots so that can not adjust the BS of a snap shot.

"You may fire one additional......" IS permission.

Gnight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quote a page number and paragraph for "permissive rule set" please....... I'll wait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To use you assault example:

If there was a piece of wargear that said "you can assault an additional 6" in your assault phase" and you arrived from reserve, you could not assault as you are not allowed to assault at all.

In the case of ordnance and additional weapon, we know shooting is permitted, or else you couldn't shoot the ordinance. So yes you have permission to fire. Ordinance says you can't fire anything else, but the Tau codex multi tracker does give you permission to. BRB denying permission, codex granting it....pg 7 says the codex wins.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You can, just not when you fire Ordnance as you have no specific permission to fire any other weapons.

Pinpoint vs Snap Shots is a conflict and Pinpoint specifically addresses Adjusting Snap Shots even though the BRB says nothing can adjust a snap shot.

But a Signum does not specifically mention snap shots so that can not adjust the BS of a snap shot.

"You may fire one additional......" IS permission.

Gnight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quote a page number and paragraph for "permissive rule set" please....... I'll wait.

Show me a page # where you can move your models with your fingers.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


Show me a page # where you can move your models with your fingers.

Doesn't that logic actually go against the permissive ruleset idea?
Rule says you can move models "x" inches. So you assume that because it's a general statement you can move them however you want within the restrictions given, i.e. the "x" inches.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You can, just not when you fire Ordnance as you have no specific permission to fire any other weapons.

Pinpoint vs Snap Shots is a conflict and Pinpoint specifically addresses Adjusting Snap Shots even though the BRB says nothing can adjust a snap shot.

But a Signum does not specifically mention snap shots so that can not adjust the BS of a snap shot.

"You may fire one additional......" IS permission.

You need specific permission to override a restriction, Therefore "You may fire one additional......" iIS NOT permission

Good day sir.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Quote a page number and paragraph for "permissive rule set" please....... I'll wait.

The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You can, just not when you fire Ordnance as you have no specific permission to fire any other weapons.

Pinpoint vs Snap Shots is a conflict and Pinpoint specifically addresses Adjusting Snap Shots even though the BRB says nothing can adjust a snap shot.

But a Signum does not specifically mention snap shots so that can not adjust the BS of a snap shot.

"You may fire one additional......" IS permission.

Gnight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quote a page number and paragraph for "permissive rule set" please....... I'll wait.

Show me a page # where you can move your models with your fingers.

Thanks for proving my side.

If it was a strict "permissive rule set" you couldn't move your models with your fingers because you don't have permission to.

Swing and a miss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You can, just not when you fire Ordnance as you have no specific permission to fire any other weapons.

Pinpoint vs Snap Shots is a conflict and Pinpoint specifically addresses Adjusting Snap Shots even though the BRB says nothing can adjust a snap shot.

But a Signum does not specifically mention snap shots so that can not adjust the BS of a snap shot.

"You may fire one additional......" IS permission.

You need specific permission to override a restriction, Therefore "You may fire one additional......" iIS NOT permission

Good day sir.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Quote a page number and paragraph for "permissive rule set" please....... I'll wait.

The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

Page number and paragraph.

Opinion, hypotheticals, and conjecture will no longer be commented on.

If you can't site rules in the book, you have no argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In other words. What page describes what can and can't over ride a restriction? Page number?

There is no page number because being a permissive rule set is how the game is written in order to function without a huge rulebook. It is written this way because in a restrictive ruleset they would need a Rulebook that is three hundred thousand pages long just to restrict you from all of the various things you can not do. Such as: you many not move a model more than 6 inches. you may not throw a model more than 6 inches, you may not use a pencil to move a model more than 6 inches, you may not use the moon to move a model more than 6 inches... Etc.

You seem to have a clear misunderstanding of a permissive ruleset so I do not think there can be a reasonable debate.

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is no page number because being a permissive rule set is how the game is written in order to function without a huge rulebook. It is written this way because in a restrictive ruleset they would need a Rulebook that is three hundred thousand pages long just to restrict you from all of the various things you can not do. Such as: you many not move a model more than 6 inches. you may not throw a model more than 6 inches, you may not use a pencil to move a model more than 6 inches, you may not use the moon to move a model more than 6 inches... Etc.

You seem to have a clear misunderstanding of a permissive ruleset so I do not think there can be a reasonable debate.

Then quit while you are not ahead.

I have permission to fire or I could not fire ordnance.
I have permission to fire one additional weapon.

I have a rule and pg number that says which takes precedence.

Pg number of the rule that denies the above permissions?

You have permission to fire Ordnance and no other weapons.

A model could have a piece of wargear that says "this model may fire two thousand weapons in the shooting phase" and firing Ordnance would still not allow it to fire anything else.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is no page number because being a permissive rule set is how the game is written in order to function without a huge rulebook. It is written this way because in a restrictive ruleset they would need a Rulebook that is three hundred thousand pages long just to restrict you from all of the various things you can not do. Such as: you many not move a model more than 6 inches. you may not throw a model more than 6 inches, you may not use a pencil to move a model more than 6 inches, you may not use the moon to move a model more than 6 inches... Etc.

You seem to have a clear misunderstanding of a permissive ruleset so I do not think there can be a reasonable debate.

Then quit while you are not ahead.

I have permission to fire or I could not fire ordnance.
I have permission to fire one additional weapon.

I have a rule and pg number that says which takes precedence.

Pg number of the rule that denies the above permissions?

I know it's difficult to understand. It's not like they make things simple.
However you do not have permission to break the ordnance rules.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You have permission to fire Ordnance and no other weapons.

A model could have a piece of wargear that says "this model may fire two thousand weapons in the shooting phase" and firing Ordnance would still not allow it to fire anything else.

What page is this rule on, because page 7 says this is not true. What page says it is?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is no page number because being a permissive rule set is how the game is written in order to function without a huge rulebook. It is written this way because in a restrictive ruleset they would need a Rulebook that is three hundred thousand pages long just to restrict you from all of the various things you can not do. Such as: you many not move a model more than 6 inches. you may not throw a model more than 6 inches, you may not use a pencil to move a model more than 6 inches, you may not use the moon to move a model more than 6 inches... Etc.

You seem to have a clear misunderstanding of a permissive ruleset so I do not think there can be a reasonable debate.

Then quit while you are not ahead.

I have permission to fire or I could not fire ordnance.
I have permission to fire one additional weapon.

I have a rule and pg number that says which takes precedence.

Pg number of the rule that denies the above permissions?

I know it's difficult to understand. It's not like they make things simple.
However you do not have permission to break the ordnance rules.

The codex disagrees.

Cite a rule that says the codex does not over rule the BRB.

Hm, that is really an interesting discussion.

My Opinion is that "Multitracker" doesn't grant an additional weapons usage.

Why?

First Ordnance Rule disallow it for Non-vehicle (like mentioned in the thread)
Second there is only one exception for this in the BRB. Its in the Vehicle section: Vehicles that firing Ordnance can fire all other Weapons with BS1

This is an Exception to the Ordnance Rule.
Multitracker is not an exception, its an addition to normal shooting,

Both rules are permisions but only the ordnance rule is an exception to the normal rules.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You have permission to fire Ordnance and no other weapons.

A model could have a piece of wargear that says "this model may fire two thousand weapons in the shooting phase" and firing Ordnance would still not allow it to fire anything else.

What page is this rule on, because page 7 says this is not true. What page says it is?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is no page number because being a permissive rule set is how the game is written in order to function without a huge rulebook. It is written this way because in a restrictive ruleset they would need a Rulebook that is three hundred thousand pages long just to restrict you from all of the various things you can not do. Such as: you many not move a model more than 6 inches. you may not throw a model more than 6 inches, you may not use a pencil to move a model more than 6 inches, you may not use the moon to move a model more than 6 inches... Etc.

You seem to have a clear misunderstanding of a permissive ruleset so I do not think there can be a reasonable debate.

Then quit while you are not ahead.

I have permission to fire or I could not fire ordnance.
I have permission to fire one additional weapon.

I have a rule and pg number that says which takes precedence.

Pg number of the rule that denies the above permissions?

I know it's difficult to understand. It's not like they make things simple.
However you do not have permission to break the ordnance rules.

The codex disagrees.

Cite a rule that says the codex does not over rule the BRB.

The rule that says when there is a conflict codex>BRB.
There is no conflict here, so there is no need.

I think the argument for specific permission > restriction alongside advanced > basic is compelling and I certainly cannot disagree with using it in practice, though I won't argue for it as a basis of what the rules say.

When you have one side arguing on how a rule should be interpreted versus the other arguing on following what the rules say you may be hard-pressed to find agreement

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

To use you assault example:

If there was a piece of wargear that said "you can assault an additional 6" in your assault phase" and you arrived from reserve, you could not assault as you are not allowed to assault at all.

You can fire one additional weapon except you're not allowed to fire any weapons at all (once you've fired Ordnance).
You still don't understand how a permissive rules set works (which is doubly demonstrated by demanding a page number), you still haven't shown a conflict (like Relentless and Ordnance, or Vanguard Vets and assaulting after Reserves).

You've failed to show a conflict since page 1 of this thread - instead you keep quoting a rule that literally does not apply and show that you do not understand one of the basic requirements for rules for a game to work.
It seems like you're getting worked up about this situation (insinuating bias, etc). Step back, calm down, and look at everything objectively.

Also, isn't Multi-tracker part of the suit and not optional?

For those stating an ordnance weapon is more specific than a model with a multitracker I ask this: who has multitrackers? Who has ordnance weapons?

Only tau have multitrackers but everyone has ordnance weapons so multitrackers are a more specific codex oriented rule. This thus overrides the amount of shot and creates a direct conflict on how many weapons a model may fire. This is not a stat and thus the order of operations for stats do not apply ... codex vs rulebook applies since the two rules conflict with one another.

Do not apply rules that are for certain things to other things. Stat modifier rules cannot be applied to a codex/rulebook conflict to decide order of operations. If it was a strength or toughness question then it would be allowed but it is not and that is the flaw of the set modifier argument.

rogueeyes wrote:
For those stating an ordnance weapon is more specific than a model with a multitracker I ask this: who has multitrackers? Who has ordnance weapons?

Only tau have multitrackers but everyone has ordnance weapons.

That's not how it works. If it did an Ork Warboss with an Attack Squig (gives him one extra CC attack) could use two grenades in the assault phase since his Codex gives him +1 where BRB grendaes gives him 1 total.

Restrictions must override permissions unless specifically mentioned in order for the system to work at all.

The rules in question do not conflict.

For rules to conflict they have to directly contradict each other (cf Relentless vs Ordnance, any of the Flying Transports vs the Zoom rule, Ymgarls vs assaulting from Reserves, Drop Pods vs mishaps, etc).

There's no contradiction here. I've asked, repeatedly, for it to be shown and been ignored. I've just been told to find the page number for a permissive rules set, that there is a conflict because we're debating (ummm... No), that I'm biased and hate Tau, that somehow a vehicle specific rule that literally spells out how it works with Ordnance and allows Snap Shots is somehow inconsistent with the Multi-tracker rules, that the Multi-tracker is an optional upgrade on the Riptide (when iirc it's part of the Battle Suit rules and therefore not optional)... In other words, a whole lot of other things than showing a conflict. It's not enough to assert there is one, you have to prove it.

It must be fun playing a game with Steel-W0lf definition of conflict between rules. Maybe then my Mark of Slaanesh would be useful.

This additional shot being restricted by a completely independent rule is the same case as assaulting without grenades or even with an unwieldy weapon and having something in your codex that makes you hit at +1 Ini.

By steel standards it seems like you can get to hit axes and PF at I2. Since even thou the BRB says they strike at I1, since my codex wargear gives me a good +1 Initiative and that obviously is in conflict with my initiative sequence my codex wins and I get to strike before other unwieldy bearers... awesome.