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.

rigeld2 wrote:
The rules in question do not conflict.
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.

The rules do conflict. The above posters continue to cite why they do and you continue to dismiss their arguments. Codex Tau gives you permission to fire an additional weapon vs. Ordnance rule that says you cannot.

Please state where the BRB or FAQ says "This is a permissive rule set". Also, please state where there is a definition of general vs. specific rules in the BRB. The only ones that are defined that I know of are Basic, Advanced, and Codex.

How about some slightly different situations:

If you are immobilised, but have an ability that lets you move an additional inch, can you move?
If you are prevented from attacking, but you have wargear which lets you make an additional attack, how many attacks do you have?
If you are in combat and cannot shoot, but you have wargear which lets you fire an additional weapon, how many weapons can you fire?

The word *cannot* is the same for not being able to shoot while in combat, and for not being able to shoot other weapons after shooting ordnance. The same end result applies. 'Cannot' is the strongest word in a permissive rule set, and only conflicts with 'must'.

 thejughead wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The rules in question do not conflict.
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.

The rules do conflict. The above posters continue to cite why they do and you continue to dismiss their arguments. Codex Tau gives you permission to fire an additional weapon vs. Ordnance rule that says you cannot.

Please state where the BRB or FAQ says "This is a permissive rule set". Also, please state where there is a definition of general vs. specific rules in the BRB. The only ones that are defined that I know of are Basic, Advanced, and Codex.

It is a permissive ruleset because all games are. Otherwise people could jump up and down on your models screaming "IT DOESN'T SAY I CAN'T" at you. If you are going to pretend it isn't a permissive ruleset, the game falls apart.

Trasvi wrote:
How about some slightly different situations:

If you are immobilised, but have an ability that lets you move an additional inch, can you move?
If you are prevented from attacking, but you have wargear which lets you make an additional attack, how many attacks do you have?
If you are in combat and cannot shoot, but you have wargear which lets you fire an additional weapon, how many weapons can you fire?

The word *cannot* is the same for not being able to shoot while in combat, and for not being able to shoot other weapons after shooting ordnance. The same end result applies. 'Cannot' is the strongest word in a permissive rule set, and only conflicts with 'must'.

we change to a different situation, same wording.

A model

If you are immobilised, but have an ability that lets you move an additional inch, can you move? No conflict here because you could not move in the first place. To get the additional inch you would have to allowed to move.

If you are prevented from attacking, but you have wargear which lets you make an additional attack, how many attacks do you have? If the model is prevented from making even one attack then yes you cannot attack. Not the case in dispute where the model has already fired a weapon that restricts another and conflicts with a wargear that allows another to be fired.

If you are in combat and cannot shoot, but you have wargear which lets you fire an additional weapon, how many weapons can you fire? No conflict here either. In combat suggests the assault phase and not shooting.

if all a model needed to fire ordanace + another weapon was permission to shoot more then one gun at a time,
then EVERY monster and tank can fire ordanance + other weapons, since they have permission to fire more then one weapon.

but we all know this is not the case, as being allowed to shoot 2, 3, 4 or even a million weapons, does not overide that if you shoot ordinance, you dont get to shoot other weapons.

there are specific rules about ordinance (ie heavy vehicles) that get around this, and they make very specific reference to ordinance, which multi tracker does not.

every single vehicle can fire more then one weapon, adding one more allowable weapon to that # does not overide the ordinance rules, otherwise every vehicle can fire ordinance and other weapons, simply because it can fire more then one weapon already.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 thejughead wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The rules in question do not conflict.
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.

The rules do conflict. The above posters continue to cite why they do and you continue to dismiss their arguments. Codex Tau gives you permission to fire an additional weapon vs. Ordnance rule that says you cannot.

Please state where the BRB or FAQ says "This is a permissive rule set". Also, please state where there is a definition of general vs. specific rules in the BRB. The only ones that are defined that I know of are Basic, Advanced, and Codex.

It is a permissive ruleset because all games are. Otherwise people could jump up and down on your models screaming "IT DOESN'T SAY I CAN'T" at you. If you are going to pretend it isn't a permissive ruleset, the game falls apart.

I can accept that as valid for complete chaos purposes, but general vs. specific is nowhere to be found except in opinions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
if all a model needed to fire ordanace + another weapon was permission to shoot more then one gun at a time,
then EVERY monster and tank can fire ordanance + other weapons, since they have permission to fire more then one weapon.

but we all know this is not the case, as being allowed to shoot 2, 3, 4 or even a million weapons, does not overide that if you shoot ordinance, you dont get to shoot other weapons.

there are specific rules about ordinance (ie heavy vehicles) that get around this, and they make very specific reference to ordinance, which multi tracker does not.

every single vehicle can fire more then one weapon, adding one more allowable weapon to that # does not overide the ordinance rules, otherwise every vehicle can fire ordinance and other weapons, simply because it can fire more then one weapon already.

I dont think that was the argument. MC can fire 2 because the rule in the BRB. Ordnance disallows another weapon in the BRB. Both rules conflict but they are in the BRB and Ordnance wins. Multitracker grants another weapon in the Codex. If Codex > BRB and these rules conflict is the argument.

Trasvi wrote:
How about some slightly different situations:

If you are immobilised, but have an ability that lets you move an additional inch, can you move?
If you are prevented from attacking, but you have wargear which lets you make an additional attack, how many attacks do you have?
If you are in combat and cannot shoot, but you have wargear which lets you fire an additional weapon, how many weapons can you fire?

The word *cannot* is the same for not being able to shoot while in combat, and for not being able to shoot other weapons after shooting ordnance. The same end result applies. 'Cannot' is the strongest word in a permissive rule set, and only conflicts with 'must'.










we change to a different situation, same wording.

A model

This.

Ordnance doesn't reduce you to 0, it forbids firing another weapon altogether. To create a conflict that favors the codex, you need direct reference such as:

Snap shots may never be modified above bs1, pinpoint rule allows increasing snapshot bs. Specific conflict of the BRB allows codex to win out. Otherwise, auspex, Telion, and any other modifier in a codex would modify snap shots "just because codex > BRB". You need a verbal conflict which multi-tracker lacks. If it said "one additional weapon, including when firing ordnance" then there would be a conflict favoring the codex.

Units arriving from reserves may not assault, ymgarl's dormant rule specifically allows them to assault when they arrive. Verbal conflict favoring the codex. Without this, assault ramps and open topped vehicles in a codex would allow units to assault out of reserves "just because codex > BRB". You need a verbal conflict which multi-tracker lacks. If it said "one additional weapon, including when firing ordnance" then there would be a conflict favoring the codex.

People stating that "+1 weapon" overrides the ordnance ban would create more problems then those being solved.

 thejughead wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 thejughead wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The rules in question do not conflict.
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.

The rules do conflict. The above posters continue to cite why they do and you continue to dismiss their arguments. Codex Tau gives you permission to fire an additional weapon vs. Ordnance rule that says you cannot.

Please state where the BRB or FAQ says "This is a permissive rule set". Also, please state where there is a definition of general vs. specific rules in the BRB. The only ones that are defined that I know of are Basic, Advanced, and Codex.

It is a permissive ruleset because all games are. Otherwise people could jump up and down on your models screaming "IT DOESN'T SAY I CAN'T" at you. If you are going to pretend it isn't a permissive ruleset, the game falls apart.

I can accept that as valid for complete chaos purposes, but general vs. specific is nowhere to be found except in opinions.

If you cannot accept a basic premise for the rules to be allowed to work, then please don't participate further. I'm not asking that to be insulting - I'm asking because it's literally impossible to have a proper debate without that basic knowledge.

 thejughead wrote:
I can accept that as valid for complete chaos purposes, but general vs. specific is nowhere to be found except in opinions.

General vs. Specific is another feature of all permissive rulesets. For example, I have a pinned unit. I then attempt to move it 6", because "the rulebook says all units can move 6" in the movement phase". If we didn't have specific vs. general, we would have no way to resolve normal movement vs. pinned (ie no movement).

I also have an example akin to the original argument:
An ork vehicle with a red paint job (may move an additional 1" in the movement phase).
Ork vehicle moves 3", hits dangerous terrain, fails test, is immobilised. According to you it can then move another 1".

Trasvi wrote:
How about some slightly different situations:

If you are immobilised, but have an ability that lets you move an additional inch, can you move?

I think this is the best analogy.

An Ork trukk with red paint job is immobilized. It can move an additional inch without counting as moving an additional inch. Yet, since it is immobilized, it still can not move at all - even that inch that doesn't count as an inch.

When you fire ordinance as a non-vehicle, regardless of how many other weapons you would normally be able to fire, you are restricted from firing any other weapons.

The game system does not work at all if codex always trumps rulebook in every instance (without direct conflict). This is easy to demonstrate. In my Codex: Space Marines, a Space Marine has a 3+ armour save. If you shoot it with a plasmagun (ap2) it does not get an armour save. However, since my Codex says I get a 3+ armour save, under the mistaken reading of the rules I would still get that 3+ because its in the Codex.

This is not how the rules work. Only if my codex said something to the effect of "may take armour saves even against weapons which would normally ignore it" would the rulebook be overridden.

This has been pointed out by many posters here. I feel like those arguing that Riptides can fire ordinance plus another weapon are really just not trying to understand what others are saying - its quite clear how this works.

rigeld2 wrote:

 thejughead wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 thejughead wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The rules in question do not conflict.
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.

The rules do conflict. The above posters continue to cite why they do and you continue to dismiss their arguments. Codex Tau gives you permission to fire an additional weapon vs. Ordnance rule that says you cannot.

Please state where the BRB or FAQ says "This is a permissive rule set". Also, please state where there is a definition of general vs. specific rules in the BRB. The only ones that are defined that I know of are Basic, Advanced, and Codex.

It is a permissive ruleset because all games are. Otherwise people could jump up and down on your models screaming "IT DOESN'T SAY I CAN'T" at you. If you are going to pretend it isn't a permissive ruleset, the game falls apart.

I can accept that as valid for complete chaos purposes, but general vs. specific is nowhere to be found except in opinions.

If you cannot accept a basic premise for the rules to be allowed to work, then please don't participate further. I'm not asking that to be insulting - I'm asking because it's literally impossible to have a proper debate without that basic knowledge.

I am free to voice my opinion in this forum. If you do not like it the you can "ignore" me. Is that permissive enough.

Riptide can fire 2 weapons for being a monstrous creature.

Fires ordinance, so it only permitted to fire that one weapon.

However multitracker says one more weapon than normally permitted can be fired. Thus a contradiction in rules, ordinance says permitted no other weapons can be fired, multitracker allows more more than normally permitted to be fired.

If you are normally permitted to fire only the ordinance weapon because of ordinance rules, it seems that 1 + 1 = 2, no?

I fail to see how the cannot be a contradiction. Permitted 1 in BRB, permitted one extra than normal in codex.

 thejughead wrote:
No conflict here because you could not move in the first place. To get the additional inch you would have to allowed to move.

And you have an actual rules quote to back up that claim, or is it just supposition on your part?

Mr. Shine has the same problem with his argument against the multi-tracker and running. The rules for the multi-tracker do not say that you can only fire an additional weapon if you can fire a weapon in the first place, so why the restriction that does not exist? 0+1=1.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 thejughead wrote:
I can accept that as valid for complete chaos purposes, but general vs. specific is nowhere to be found except in opinions.

General vs. Specific is another feature of all permissive rulesets. For example, I have a pinned unit. I then attempt to move it 6", because "the rulebook says all units can move 6" in the movement phase". If we didn't have specific vs. general, we would have no way to resolve normal movement vs. pinned (ie no movement).

I also have an example akin to the original argument:
An ork vehicle with a red paint job (may move an additional 1" in the movement phase).
Ork vehicle moves 3", hits dangerous terrain, fails test, is immobilised. According to you it can then move another 1".

Thank you. I appreciate the walk through. I have to lean towards disallowing it then.

DiabloSpawn33 wrote:
Riptide can fire 2 weapons for being a monstrous creature.

Fires ordinance, so it only permitted to fire that one weapon.

However multitracker says one more weapon than normally permitted can be fired. Thus a contradiction in rules, ordinance says permitted no other weapons can be fired, multitracker allows more more than normally permitted to be fired.

If you are normally permitted to fire only the ordinance weapon because of ordinance rules, it seems that 1 + 1 = 2, no?

I fail to see how the cannot be a contradiction. Permitted 1 in BRB, permitted one extra than normal in codex.

PoTMS has similar wording, yet you are not allowed to use it to "fire one additional weapon" in situations where firing is forbidden altogether.

In the same way that the rulebook says Ap2 ignores armour, but my Codex space marines says I get a 3+ armour. IF that is a conflict (its not) then codex > rulebook and I get the 3+ anyways.

 Ghaz wrote:

 thejughead wrote:
No conflict here because you could not move in the first place. To get the additional inch you would have to allowed to move.

And you have an actual rules quote to back up that claim, or is it just supposition on your part?

Mr. Shine has the same problem with his argument against the multi-tracker and running. The rules for the multi-tracker do not say that you can only fire an additional weapon if you can fire a weapon in the first place, so why the restriction that does not exist? 0+1=1.

Tactical Genius and Dracos both gave examples where that falls apart.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

Snap shots may never be modified above bs1, pinpoint rule allows increasing snapshot bs. Specific conflict of the BRB allows codex to win out.

This is not a conflict, this is an example of a specific explicit permission to alter or ignore the BRB rule. If this was always required then there would be no conflicts, as it'd be explicitly stated what the result should be.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

Otherwise, auspex, Telion, and any other modifier in a codex would modify snap shots "just because codex > BRB".

And until the FAQ disallowing these, they did have a conflict that was overridden by Codex > BRB. However, it’s the FAQ ruling that really changed these, not the lack of any specific text.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

You need a verbal conflict which multi-tracker lacks. If it said "one additional weapon, including when firing ordnance" then there would be a conflict favoring the codex.

Where is the text calling for the verbal conflict? This is the section that states Codex > BRB when a conflict arises. It does not define or restrict what a conflict is, nor does it require specific text in the codex rules to create a conflict.

BASIC VERSUS ADVANCED [BRB pg 7, 4th paragraph]: On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence.

So, the Multi-Tracker does not need to specifically mention the ordnance rule to have a conflict with it.

The problem is that with your application of that rule, as have many people demonstrated, the rules cease to function at all.

It simply doesn't work that way.

I would agree with the sentiment if it were forbidding firing all together, however you are still allowed to fire something, the ordinance weapon in question, just no more.

Since you still have permission to fire weapons, and the special rule of ordinance is preventing you from firing further weapons, you should still be able to fire an additional weapon with multitracker as it directly contradicts that rule.

Although in cases where you cannot fire at all (locked in combat, etc.) then I agree multitracker does nothing.

 thejughead wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 thejughead wrote:
No conflict here because you could not move in the first place. To get the additional inch you would have to allowed to move.

And you have an actual rules quote to back up that claim, or is it just supposition on your part?

Mr. Shine has the same problem with his argument against the multi-tracker and running. The rules for the multi-tracker do not say that you can only fire an additional weapon if you can fire a weapon in the first place, so why the restriction that does not exist? 0+1=1.

Tactical Genius and Dracos both gave examples where that falls apart.

And I'm showing you why your specific argument that you presented there falls apart, just as Mr. Shines argument falls apart. If you allow the additional weapon to be fired with ordnance then you have to allow it to be fired while running because there's nothing saying that you can only fire the additional weapon if you could fire in the first place. It's a restriction which doesn't exist and thus invalidates their entire position.

If you read the rest of the thread you'll notice that I agree with those saying that the multi-tracker does not allow you to fire another weapon with an ordnance weapon.

quirthanon wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

Snap shots may never be modified above bs1, pinpoint rule allows increasing snapshot bs. Specific conflict of the BRB allows codex to win out.

This is not a conflict, this is an example of a specific explicit permission to alter or ignore the BRB rule. If this was always required then there would be no conflicts, as it'd be explicitly stated what the result should be.

Actually it's the definition of a conflict.
You have two rules that cannot both be applied. How do you resolve that? Please do so without referencing anything like specific overrides general, or the rules on page 7. Please use rules support and don't fall back on "common sense".

Once you understand how a permissive rules set must work, you'll understand why the situation in the quote is a conflict and the Multi-Tracker vs Ordnance is not.

quirthanon wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

Snap shots may never be modified above bs1, pinpoint rule allows increasing snapshot bs. Specific conflict of the BRB allows codex to win out.

This is not a conflict, this is an example of a specific explicit permission to alter or ignore the BRB rule. If this was always required then there would be no conflicts, as it'd be explicitly stated what the result should be.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

Otherwise, auspex, Telion, and any other modifier in a codex would modify snap shots "just because codex > BRB".

And until the FAQ disallowing these, they did have a conflict that was overridden by Codex > BRB. However, it’s the FAQ ruling that really changed these, not the lack of any specific text.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

You need a verbal conflict which multi-tracker lacks. If it said "one additional weapon, including when firing ordnance" then there would be a conflict favoring the codex.

Where is the text calling for the verbal conflict? This is the section that states Codex > BRB when a conflict arises. It does not define or restrict what a conflict is, nor does it require specific text in the codex rules to create a conflict.

BASIC VERSUS ADVANCED [BRB pg 7, 4th paragraph]: On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence.

So, the Multi-Tracker does not need to specifically mention the ordnance rule to have a conflict with it.

So:

Ork vehicle upgrade RPJ allows the vehicle to move +1". BRB mission The Relic forbids an embarked unit from moving more than 6". In your view an embarked unit carrying the relic on a RPJ trukk can move 7"?

Eldar jetbikes can move 12" in the assault phase. In your view, they can carry the relic more than 6" also?

 Ghaz wrote:

 thejughead wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 thejughead wrote:
No conflict here because you could not move in the first place. To get the additional inch you would have to allowed to move.

And you have an actual rules quote to back up that claim, or is it just supposition on your part?

Mr. Shine has the same problem with his argument against the multi-tracker and running. The rules for the multi-tracker do not say that you can only fire an additional weapon if you can fire a weapon in the first place, so why the restriction that does not exist? 0+1=1.

Tactical Genius and Dracos both gave examples where that falls apart.

And I'm showing you why your specific argument that you presented there falls apart, just as Mr. Shines argument falls apart. If you allow the additional weapon to be fired with ordnance then you have to allow it to be fired while running because there's nothing saying that you can only fire the additional weapon if you could fire in the first place. It's a restriction which doesn't exist and thus invalidates their entire position.

If you read the rest of the thread you'll notice that I agree with those saying that the multi-tracker does not allow you to fire another weapon with an ordnance weapon.

Ghaz, I meant my argument falls apart.

My thought on the matter :

I have Multitracker : My Riptide can fire 3 weapons in his shooting phase (granted when the list was created and the models fielded).

I choose to fire an Ordnance weapon. Ordnance has now removed the ability to fire any further weapons that shooting phase (allowance to fire +1 weapon granted by multitracker or any other wargear/special ability has been thus removed by a specific ruling).

Multitracker is a piece of wargear. It has an ongoing effect that begins when you field your army. It doesn't come into effect at some later time. Therefore, when Ordnance comes into effect, it strips that allowance.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the OP's question about moving/shooting ordnance with a Riptide;

Yes, the Riptide can move and shoot ordnance in the same turn due to Relentless.

rigeld2 wrote:

quirthanon wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

Snap shots may never be modified above bs1, pinpoint rule allows increasing snapshot bs. Specific conflict of the BRB allows codex to win out.

This is not a conflict, this is an example of a specific explicit permission to alter or ignore the BRB rule. If this was always required then there would be no conflicts, as it'd be explicitly stated what the result should be.

Actually it's the definition of a conflict.
You have two rules that cannot both be applied. How do you resolve that? Please do so without referencing anything like specific overrides general, or the rules on page 7. Please use rules support and don't fall back on "common sense".

Once you understand how a permissive rules set must work, you'll understand why the situation in the quote is a conflict and the Multi-Tracker vs Ordnance is not.

I love the "I'm smart, if only you were not stupid you'd understand" arguments.

They are classy.

1) He did not say that.

2) The permissive ruleset can be tricky and people can miss things.

If my model has a powerfist, boltgun and multitracker can I shoot my powerfist as an additional weapon?

I too see the logic of the ordinance rule. Its really obvious, if you don't see the logic you should really slow down and open your mind to the possibility you are wrong.

So here is the logic, which is good and flows well.


Multi-targeting doohickey allows one ADDITIONAL weapon to be fired.

Ordinance says that no ADDITIONAL weapons can be fired. If the Multi-target doohickey which is described as an additional weapon permitted to shoot, then It may not be fired. It was classified under the explicit clause of the rule of Ordnance to dismantle its ability.

You can't jump over that it says additional in anyway, you can use different words that mean additional, but so can Ordinance. Ordinance catches your rule, you lose your weapon. Sorry rip tide, but if you shoot big you lose your secondary weapons.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

quirthanon wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

Snap shots may never be modified above bs1, pinpoint rule allows increasing snapshot bs. Specific conflict of the BRB allows codex to win out.

This is not a conflict, this is an example of a specific explicit permission to alter or ignore the BRB rule. If this was always required then there would be no conflicts, as it'd be explicitly stated what the result should be.

Actually it's the definition of a conflict.
You have two rules that cannot both be applied. How do you resolve that? Please do so without referencing anything like specific overrides general, or the rules on page 7. Please use rules support and don't fall back on "common sense".

Once you understand how a permissive rules set must work, you'll understand why the situation in the quote is a conflict and the Multi-Tracker vs Ordnance is not.

I love the "I'm smart, if only you were not stupid you'd understand" arguments.

They are classy.

I've never said you were stupid. Ever. I can't recall every saying it to someone on this board - I'm sure I'd have been warned by a mod if I had.
All I said in that quote is that it is obvious the poster did not understand how a permissive rules set works. I gave him a task to help him understand.

Have you come up with a rules argument yet?