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:

 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?

Ahh well maybe once you are able to understand the language better you'll understand.....

We can do without comments of this nature.

Thank you.

It really boils down to this:

Until you get a FAQ to say otherwise, like in most of the examples sited, the codex wins.

There is no place the rule book lists when the codex does not over rule the BRB. Half of the examples beople come up with are irrelevant because they fail to use "additional" properly.

The running and firing? Cant happen. In order to fire an "additional" weapon, you would have to fire a weapon in the first place.

The closest example that does work is the red paint job and the immobilized result. In this example, at least you were allowed to move in the first place, yet something stopped you. Ignoring common sense, this would be the same argument rules wise.

My codex says my marines have a 3+ save, so that overrules the rulebook saying ap2 ignores armour saves?

edit: This is an extension of the way you are interpreting codex > rulebook. Once you understand why you still don't get the 3+ armour save against AP2 despite the rulebook and codex telling you seemingly different things, you will see why multitrackers don't overrule Ordinance.

edit2: Also note that Tau are my primary army right now, and i use a riptide. I have skin in this game, and its on the opposite side to the one that I see as being correct.

GW has an established track record of breaking its own rules in FAQs which wouldn't be possible if the darn rules actually said what was meant.

Like the rumor thread, someone should keep track of how GW rules on some of these contentious issues just to see how consistent they are.

 Dracos wrote:
My codex says my marines have a 3+ save, so that overrules the rulebook saying ap2 ignores armour saves?

edit: This is an extension of the way you are interpreting codex > rulebook. Once you understand why you still don't get the 3+ armour save against AP2 despite the rulebook and codex telling you seemingly different things, you will see why multitrackers don't overrule Ordinance.

Except for AGAIN:

AP2 vs 3+ implies you get zero armor saves at all.


You are already firing a weapon when you fire ordinance, you have not been disallowed from firing at all, you just cant fire any more. Which the Tau rule directly contradicts. If you were in a situation where something was saying you could not fire anything at all, and were trying to use the multi tracker to fire 1, your example would be correct, and you wouldn't be allowed to do it. But thats not the case.

I'm sorry I can't help you understand. I tried.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
It really boils down to this:

Until you get a FAQ to say otherwise, like in most of the examples sited, the codex wins.

Codex only wins if there is a conflict.

There is no direct conflict.

The Multi-tracker would need to say: Even when firing ordnance, for there to be a conflict.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
It really boils down to this:

Until you get a FAQ to say otherwise, like in most of the examples sited, the codex wins.

Codex only wins if there is a conflict.

There is no direct conflict.

The Multi-tracker would need to say: Even when firing ordnance, for there to be a conflict.

This a million times.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
It really boils down to this:

Until you get a FAQ to say otherwise, like in most of the examples sited, the codex wins.

Codex only wins if there is a conflict.

There is no direct conflict.

The Multi-tracker would need to say: Even when firing ordnance, for there to be a conflict.

Thats not the rule thats written, and there is no written rule about "direct" conflict.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
It really boils down to this:

Until you get a FAQ to say otherwise, like in most of the examples sited, the codex wins.

There is no place the rule book lists when the codex does not over rule the BRB. Half of the examples beople come up with are irrelevant because they fail to use "additional" properly.

The running and firing? Cant happen. In order to fire an "additional" weapon, you would have to fire a weapon in the first place.

The closest example that does work is the red paint job and the immobilized result. In this example, at least you were allowed to move in the first place, yet something stopped you. Ignoring common sense, this would be the same argument rules wise.

So, rules wise, you're able to shoot an infinite amount of times yet something stops you.
Unless you're saying that RPJ allows an immobilized vehicle to move 1"/turn.

Still no actual rules cited. Still showing a misunderstanding of a permissive rules set and how they work. Still not understanding how specific vs general actually works.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
It really boils down to this:

Until you get a FAQ to say otherwise, like in most of the examples sited, the codex wins.

There is no place the rule book lists when the codex does not over rule the BRB. Half of the examples beople come up with are irrelevant because they fail to use "additional" properly.

The running and firing? Cant happen. In order to fire an "additional" weapon, you would have to fire a weapon in the first place.

The closest example that does work is the red paint job and the immobilized result. In this example, at least you were allowed to move in the first place, yet something stopped you. Ignoring common sense, this would be the same argument rules wise.

So, rules wise, you're able to shoot an infinite amount of times yet something stops you.
Unless you're saying that RPJ allows an immobilized vehicle to move 1"/turn.

Still no actual rules cited. Still showing a misunderstanding of a permissive rules set and how they work. Still not understanding how specific vs general actually works.

Do you have permission to fire? Yes... If no you wouldnt be firing ordinance.
Do you have permission to fire additional weapon?
BRB says No
Codex says Yes.


You know the rest, you got nothing to fall back on.

So then my marines still get their 3+ armour save against AP2?

Codex says they do, rulebook says they don't.

This is the key that you are missing.

*I will not respond to any other comments made as I can tell this is a heated discussion, I just wanting to give my POV.*

I am on the Ordnance + 1 side.

The way I see it the Ordnance rule is a general rule for that weapon type and does reduce the number of shots down to just the Ordnance weapon. The MT is more specific as it is from the Tau book and clearly states that you may fire one additional weapon.

So we go from BRB saying 1, to the Codex saying +1 (with no exceptions given).

If the MT was not meant to work with an Ordnance weapon it would need to say "except when firing ordnance" and not have the blanket statement of shooting one additional weapon without any restrictions given.

Actually, if the multi-tracker rule contained verbiage stating the additional weapon ignored the ordnance restriction, there would be no conflict due to specific rules overriding general rules. The conflict in this case is that more specific verbiage is missing, not that more specific verbiage should be included.

Personally, I believe the side that says Ordnance takes precedence over multi-tracker is correct, however, the other side has a legitimate rules based argument.

SJ

 Dracos wrote:
So then my marines still get their 3+ armour save against AP2?

Codex says they do, rulebook says they don't.

This is the key that you are missing.

I've already demonstrated why the two are not even comparable, and why they are not valid comparisons.

The RPJ example is the only one that compares the same rules wise, even if it paints an absurdity

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
You know the rest, you got nothing to fall back on.

How about the actual rules? How about you quote the rule on page 7 and for once in this thread cite the conflict.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Actually, if the multi-tracker rule contained verbiage stating the additional weapon ignored the ordnance restriction, there would be no conflict due to specific rules overriding general rules. The conflict in this case is that more specific verbiage is missing, not that more specific verbiage should be included.

Personally, I believe the side that says Ordnance takes precedence over multi-tracker is correct, however, the other side has a legitimate rules based argument.

SJ

Rules as intended I could honestly see it going either way. As written I think its the +1.

Either way its not likely to be a groundbreaking difference...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
You know the rest, you got nothing to fall back on.

How about the actual rules? How about you quote the rule on page 7 and for once in this thread cite the conflict.

/ignored

In what way is it different? You have made no such demonstration.

How about this, change the AP to AP3 - AP3 stil allows some armour saves thus fulfilling your "it must be sometimes still permitted".

AP3 does still allow armour saves to be taken, with the exclusion of some armour saves. My marines say they get armour saves in the codex, which contradicts the AP3 saying you don't get an armour save if it is 3+.

This is analogous as far as the application of codex > rulebook goes.

 Dracos wrote:
In what way is it different? You have made no such demonstration.

How about this, change the AP to AP3 - AP3 stil allows some armour saves thus fulfilling your "it must be sometimes still permitted".

AP3 does still allow armour saves to be taken, with the exclusion of some armour saves. My marines say they get armour saves in the codex, which contradicts the AP3 saying you don't get an armour save if it is 3+.

This is analogous as far as the application of codex > rulebook goes.

Follow the permissive ruleset you guys keep saying I dont get.

In your example:
-You get hit by an AP 2 or 3 weapon... Sure
-You have a 3+ save... why not?
-Do you have permission to make a 3+ save against AP2 or 3? no..... not at all.

In the Ordinance example:

You are wanting to fire ordnance... sure
Do you have permission to fire ordinance? yes (assuming you didnt do something that denies shooting....like running in previous examples.)
Do you have permission to fire any additional?
No.. per the ordinance rule. p51?
Yes per the Tau rule p.69 (Unless the debate is going to move back to the argument "may fire one additional" is not in actuality a permission)

Per p7 of the BRB, in the situation where the codex and BRB conflict. You go with the codex.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
-Do you have permission to make a 3+ save against AP2 or 3? no..... not at all.

Really? My codex says I have a 3+ save. That's a conflict I guess - according to you.

another example of this absurd theory that the tau get to ignore ordinance rules is nemisis force weapons,

my codex says I must simply make a psychic test, it does not tell me to expend a warp charge.

even though the BRB says I do expend a charge, my codex does not, it just tells me to test and activate if passed.

ergo my GK's get to activate nemisis' without expending a charge according to your interpretation of codex vs BRB

 easysauce wrote:
another example of this absurd theory that the tau get to ignore ordinance rules is nemisis force weapons,

my codex says I must simply make a psychic test, it does not tell me to expend a warp charge.

even though the BRB says I do expend a charge, my codex does not, it just tells me to test and activate if passed.

ergo my GK's get to activate nemisis' without expending a charge according to your interpretation of codex vs BRB

Your codex is not telling you not to expend a warp charge..

no conflict to resolve. failed example.

And the Tau codex does not tell you do ignore the Ordinance restriction. No conflict to resolve.

Reading through that gave me a headache.
Was like deja vu with every page.


People seem hung up because it has the multi-tracker, so assume it is there to do something.
Its not a direct upgrade to the riptide, its a piece of kit that ALL battlesuits have per P.70.

Also, for those who still seem pissed about it, read P.100.
Stealth suits only have a burst cannon, thus no ability to fire a second weapon via the tracker due to not having one.
Oh look, that bit of kit again has no use.

Forget that argument.
Just because something has a special rule or piece of kit does not mean it has any use.



A MC can fire 2 weapons.
The tracker (which is of no use here) boosts this to 3.
Ordnance rules then push this down to just the cannon.

Ordnance rulings are quite clear when they state you cannot fire any other weapons.
There is no mod. in shots there, its a straight up end of shooting once its fired.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.
Multi-tracker is a general rule that allows an extra shot (useful to crisis and broadsides)

Ordnance is a special rule on weapons that allows no other weapons to be fired if it is used that turn.

 Dracos wrote:
And the Tau codex does not tell you do ignore the Ordinance restriction. No conflict to resolve.

It doesn't need to.

The wording of the rule over rides it.

Unless you can site a page number stating that codex rules need to specifically mention every BRB rules they ever rule. Red Paint Job does not SPECIFICALLY state that it over rules the restriction on disembarking (i dont own orks) yet it does over rule it.


I mean there is p.7....... but we all know how that looks for your argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jackal wrote:
Reading through that gave me a headache.
Was like deja vu with every page.


People seem hung up because it has the multi-tracker, so assume it is there to do something.
Its not a direct upgrade to the riptide, its a piece of kit that ALL battlesuits have per P.70.

Also, for those who still seem pissed about it, read P.100.
Stealth suits only have a burst cannon, thus no ability to fire a second weapon via the tracker due to not having one.
Oh look, that bit of kit again has no use.

Forget that argument.
Just because something has a special rule or piece of kit does not mean it has any use.



A MC can fire 2 weapons.
The tracker (which is of no use here) boosts this to 3.
Ordnance rules then push this down to just the cannon.

Ordnance rulings are quite clear when they state you cannot fire any other weapons.
There is no mod. in shots there, its a straight up end of shooting once its fired.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.
Multi-tracker is a general rule that allows an extra shot (useful to crisis and broadsides)

Ordnance is a special rule on weapons that allows no other weapons to be fired if it is used that turn.

Site a page number defining the terms in red.

I think at this point the conversation has circled the drain a few times, lets let it go down.

You are entitled to play any way you want, but I think most posters can see why the rule you are quoting (codex > rulebook) can't be applied in the way you want.

Happy gaming everyone.

 Dracos wrote:
I think at this point the conversation has circled the drain a few times, lets let it go down.

You are entitled to play any way you want, but I think most posters can see why the rule you are quoting (codex > rulebook) can't be applied in the way you want.

Happy gaming everyone.

And the ones claiming what you claim cant site ANY rule....at all.

Happy Gaming.

Okay then, explain this one:
Smash on the Black Mace.

Smash is a basic rule that adjusts the armour penetration of a weapon as it's primary function. It isn't the only function, of course, but the multi-tracker in the battlesuit ruleset isn't the only function of that rule either. Without going into very detail description on what a rule dues, lets just say that smash is designed to allow all models to ignore armour saves during close combat, granted they have this rule of course.

The Black mace states it uses a set armour piercing, like all other weapon profiles.

By the logic that codex trumps Base Rule book in any conflict, the black mace can never benefit from Smash. We have two different advanced rules, one that governs weapon profiles and one that governs smash. Both rules are giving us different numbers to use, and therefore they would be 'in conflict' any such situation leads to conflict. A codex is telling you to use a set armour piercing while the rulebook is telling you to use another, therefore the codex wins.

Then take this to the logical extension:
Does smash do anything at all?

Nothing in the base rule book informs us what to do when there is a conflict between two advanced rules in the same codex or within the base rule book. All weapon profiles provide an armour piercing value to use, therefore all weapon profiles are in conflict with Smash by Steel-Wolf's logic. With no rule telling us we have permission to resolve the conflict one way or another, we are left with no guidance on how to proceed in these situations. Therefore Smash can never change an armour piercing value, even though it is very clear the intent is to allow smash models to ignore armour within close combat, because permission hasn't been granted for Smash advanced rule to overcome the weapon advanced rules!

You have 85 posts on Dakka, and over 50 of them are in this thread alone. Perhaps it's time to take a step back and listen to others, instead of only talking.