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.

Site a page number defining the terms in red.

I dont need to quote anything.
What i said was simply common sense.

Multi-tracker allows you to fire an extra weapon.
That is a broad statement, making it general rather than specific as it does not go into any detail as to how it works with specific rules.

The Ordnace rule in this case is far more specific as it tells us how it works alongside a MC (the riptide in this case)


General - Widespread, rather vague ruling.
Specific - Tells us how it functions with things (units/weapons etc) and goes into detail about this.


If your entire argument is going to be "It does not say i cant do it" then people can turn that round as a basic counter-argument, but it wont go anywhere except round in circles.

JinxDragon wrote:
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!

To the red: That is a valid argument for a FAQ. RAW would make it ap4? but it does not make sense that it would make ap worse than before... IF I was Chaos, I would play it as ap2 unless someone challenged on it, then I'ld have to go with ap4 .

Blue: And? Has anyone claimed GW has epic no-confusion rule writing skills... Its a great game, but after 6 editions its clear they don't always get things right.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jackal wrote:

Site a page number defining the terms in red.

I dont need to quote anything.
What i said was simply common sense.

Multi-tracker allows you to fire an extra weapon.
That is a broad statement, making it general rather than specific as it does not go into any detail as to how it works with specific rules.

The Ordnace rule in this case is far more specific as it tells us how it works alongside a MC (the riptide in this case)


General - Widespread, rather vague ruling.
Specific - Tells us how it functions with things (units/weapons etc) and goes into detail about this.


If your entire argument is going to be "It does not say i cant do it" then people can turn that round as a basic counter-argument, but it wont go anywhere except round in circles.

So you are faced with page numbers and rules sited, and the counter argument is "I dont need to quote anything...."




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Quark wrote:
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.

Yes, cause post count is relevant.......... errrrr

So you are faced with page numbers and rules sited, and the counter argument is "I dont need to quote anything...."

Seems more like you dont like to either read something, or admit that something is up with your argument.

In that case, please explain what your ideas of "Specific" and "General" are please.

 Col. Dracus wrote:
*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.

So you can run and fire? Or stunned passengers in tranports with MTs can fire ?

So in theory, if a model with a multi-tracker suffers an effect that prohibits it from firing ie: The model is not allowed to fire this turn.

So by your ideas, the tracker would still allow it to fire a weapon.

you are making the same arguement over and over...

BRB says if you run, you can shoot 0 weapons, you seem to get that its 0 not 0+1 for multi tracker, and dont think thats a conflict (which is correct, you cannot run+shoot with multitracker)

BRB says if you fire ordinance, you can shoot 0 other weapons,
yet in this case you say it is a conflict, and its 0+1... even though the + 1 happens BEFORE you choose to shoot ordinance, and even though there is no conflict.

 Jackal wrote:
So in theory, if a model with a multi-tracker suffers an effect that prohibits it from firing ie: The model is not allowed to fire this turn.

So by your ideas, the tracker would still allow it to fire a weapon.

Not at all.

In order to fire "an additional weapon" you have to have been allowed to fire in the first place... this is 5 pages ago.

Then explain to me which situations in which the ordinance restriction can be applied?

The only one from the basic rule book which could be effected by this restriction is the monstrous creature may fire an additional weapon clause, using very similar words to multi-trackers. The only other possible modes effected are vehicles and they have a specific rule telling you how to resolve this 'conflict. Seeing we can't use page 7 to resolve this 'conflict,' the ordinance restrictions have no purpose by your logic. So please, explain to me how this problem can be resolved....

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
So in theory, if a model with a multi-tracker suffers an effect that prohibits it from firing ie: The model is not allowed to fire this turn.

So by your ideas, the tracker would still allow it to fire a weapon.

Not at all.

In order to fire "an additional weapon" you have to have been allowed to fire in the first place... this is 5 pages ago.

And this argument is a fallacy. It doesnt matter how your not allowed to fire, the MT does not override that restriction.

Fragile wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
So in theory, if a model with a multi-tracker suffers an effect that prohibits it from firing ie: The model is not allowed to fire this turn.

So by your ideas, the tracker would still allow it to fire a weapon.

Not at all.

In order to fire "an additional weapon" you have to have been allowed to fire in the first place... this is 5 pages ago.

And this argument is a fallacy. It doesnt matter how your not allowed to fire, the MT does not override that restriction.

Pg#?

Edit: Also... In this discussion the assumption is that you are being allowed to fire... or else you would not be firing the ordnance in the first place.

Pg# that says you "in order to fire an additional weapon you have to have been allowed to fire in the first place"


Run and shoot, stunned and shoot, ordnance and shoot all have the same restrictions. If you do X then you cannot fire. You want to apply that selectively and not universally, which proves your argument is invalid. The Ork movement with Red Paint Job also proves you are wrong.

Fragile wrote:
Pg# that says you "in order to fire an additional weapon you have to have been allowed to fire in the first place"


Run and shoot, stunned and shoot, ordnance and shoot all have the same restrictions. If you do X then you cannot fire. You want to apply that selectively and not universally, which proves your argument is invalid. The Ork movement with Red Paint Job also proves you are wrong.

If you can use bonuses in situations you cant use the base ability, them I'm going to start using bonus CC attacks against units I have not charged, and Red Paint lets orks move 1" if immobilized.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Pg# that says you "in order to fire an additional weapon you have to have been allowed to fire in the first place"


Run and shoot, stunned and shoot, ordnance and shoot all have the same restrictions. If you do X then you cannot fire. You want to apply that selectively and not universally, which proves your argument is invalid. The Ork movement with Red Paint Job also proves you are wrong.

If you can use bonuses in situations you cant use the base ability, them I'm going to start using bonus CC attacks against units I have not charged, and Red Paint lets orks move 1" if immobilized.

And that statement has nothing to do with the argument.

Fragile wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Pg# that says you "in order to fire an additional weapon you have to have been allowed to fire in the first place"


Run and shoot, stunned and shoot, ordnance and shoot all have the same restrictions. If you do X then you cannot fire. You want to apply that selectively and not universally, which proves your argument is invalid. The Ork movement with Red Paint Job also proves you are wrong.

If you can use bonuses in situations you cant use the base ability, them I'm going to start using bonus CC attacks against units I have not charged, and Red Paint lets orks move 1" if immobilized.

And that statement has nothing to do with the argument.

Sure it does...

If I'm not allowed to shoot at all... I cant get any bonuses to my number of weapons I can shoot.
If I cannot make CC attacks at all, I cant use bonus CC attacks.
If I cannot move at all, I can not move bonus amounts of distance.

In the situation being discussed shooting is obviously allowed, or else you couldn't shoot ordnance. Whats being ignored is that the Riptide CAN shoot, its firing ordnance, what rule trumps the codex that says one additional weapon can be fired? We've had theories, Examples that have been FAQ'd meaning they used to be conflicts, Opinions, and Generalities vs Specifics.......but none can point to an actual rule.

And you have provided no rule that says Multitracker allows you to fire when prohibited by Ordnance. Just a bunch of 0+1 type of formulas. Those same formulas work for all the situations that you now claim dont work. Your not consistent, either a MT can run and shoot, etc... or you cannot fire Ordnance and "+1"

Fragile wrote:
And you have provided no rule that says Multitracker allows you to fire when prohibited by Ordnance. Just a bunch of 0+1 type of formulas. Those same formulas work for all the situations that you now claim dont work. Your not consistent, either a MT can run and shoot, etc... or you cannot fire Ordnance and "+1"

I have not provided ANY 0+1 formulas, because a rule that states "additional" implies that the first number cannot be 0.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Pg# that says you "in order to fire an additional weapon you have to have been allowed to fire in the first place"


Run and shoot, stunned and shoot, ordnance and shoot all have the same restrictions. If you do X then you cannot fire. You want to apply that selectively and not universally, which proves your argument is invalid. The Ork movement with Red Paint Job also proves you are wrong.

If you can use bonuses in situations you cant use the base ability, them I'm going to start using bonus CC attacks against units I have not charged, and Red Paint lets orks move 1" if immobilized.

And that statement has nothing to do with the argument.

Sure it does...

If I'm not allowed to shoot at all... I cant get any bonuses to my number of weapons I can shoot.
If I cannot make CC attacks at all, I cant use bonus CC attacks.
If I cannot move at all, I can not move bonus amounts of distance.

In the situation being discussed shooting is obviously allowed, or else you couldn't shoot ordnance. Whats being ignored is that the Riptide CAN shoot, its firing ordnance, what rule trumps the codex that says one additional weapon can be fired? We've had theories, Examples that have been FAQ'd meaning they used to be conflicts, Opinions, and Generalities vs Specifics.......but none can point to an actual rule.

They have, you've just covered your ears and said "LALALALA CODEX > BRB"

Codex only trumps the BRB when there is a conflict in rules. A conflict like where snapshots cannot be modified above bs1, yet the pinpoint rule allows snapshots to be modified. BRB says one thing, codex addresses that one thing and says the opposite.

Multi-tracker does not address ordnance firing, therefore there is no conflict. The conflict you're claiming is made up, not RAW. There is nothing in writing (RAW) that says MT overrides the ordnance ban. Therefore no conflict.

 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.

This, along with RPJ, are the two most convincing arguments I've seen thus far.
Infantry model is allowed to fire a single ranged weapon, or 0-1 weapons (since there is no requirement to fire in the first place). Ordnance, therefore, doesn't really affect Infantry models in this regard, since they can only fire one weapon anyhow.
MCs may fire 0-2 weapons. When using Ordnance, this is restricted to 0-1 weapon. The restriction overrides the permission.
Multitracker lets the MC fire an additional weapon, resulting in 0-3 weapons. Ordnance still has the restriction 0-1 weapons. There's an overlap here, which is 0-1.

"You may fire 0-3 weapons as an MC with Multitracker. When firing Ordnance, you may only fire 1 weapon, the Ordnance." Firing 1 weapon falls into 0-3 weapons, thus fulfilling both rules at the same time.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Pg# that says you "in order to fire an additional weapon you have to have been allowed to fire in the first place"


Run and shoot, stunned and shoot, ordnance and shoot all have the same restrictions. If you do X then you cannot fire. You want to apply that selectively and not universally, which proves your argument is invalid. The Ork movement with Red Paint Job also proves you are wrong.

If you can use bonuses in situations you cant use the base ability, them I'm going to start using bonus CC attacks against units I have not charged, and Red Paint lets orks move 1" if immobilized.

And that statement has nothing to do with the argument.

Sure it does...

If I'm not allowed to shoot at all... I cant get any bonuses to my number of weapons I can shoot.
If I cannot make CC attacks at all, I cant use bonus CC attacks.
If I cannot move at all, I can not move bonus amounts of distance.

In the situation being discussed shooting is obviously allowed, or else you couldn't shoot ordnance. Whats being ignored is that the Riptide CAN shoot, its firing ordnance, what rule trumps the codex that says one additional weapon can be fired? We've had theories, Examples that have been FAQ'd meaning they used to be conflicts, Opinions, and Generalities vs Specifics.......but none can point to an actual rule.

They have, you've just covered your ears and said "LALALALA CODEX > BRB"

Codex only trumps the BRB when there is a conflict in rules. A conflict like where snapshots cannot be modified above bs1, yet the pinpoint rule allows snapshots to be modified. BRB says one thing, codex addresses that one thing and says the opposite.

Multi-tracker does not address ordnance firing, therefore there is no conflict. The conflict you're claiming is made up, not RAW. There is nothing in writing (RAW) that says MT overrides the ordnance ban. Therefore no conflict.

Red: except page 7.... see below.

Blue: That is no where in type....

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
And the ones claiming what you claim cant site ANY rule....at all.

Happy Gaming.

That's a lie.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 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.

This, along with RPJ, are the two most convincing arguments I've seen thus far.
Infantry model is allowed to fire a single ranged weapon, or 0-1 weapons (since there is no requirement to fire in the first place). Ordnance, therefore, doesn't really affect Infantry models in this regard, since they can only fire one weapon anyhow.
MCs may fire 0-2 weapons. When using Ordnance, this is restricted to 0-1 weapon. The restriction overrides the permission.
Multitracker lets the MC fire an additional weapon, resulting in 0-3 weapons. Ordnance still has the restriction 0-1 weapons. There's an overlap here, which is 0-1.

"You may fire 0-3 weapons as an MC with Multitracker. When firing Ordnance, you may only fire 1 weapon, the Ordnance." Firing 1 weapon falls into 0-3 weapons, thus fulfilling both rules at the same time.

I agree thats close... which is why its key to use "additional" in its proper usage.

There is nothing on pg 7 about Ordnance weapons.

Fragile wrote:
There is nothing on pg 7 about Ordnance weapons.

It tells you which rules take priority.

Codex.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Fragile wrote:
There is nothing on pg 7 about Ordnance weapons.

It tells you which rules take priority.

Codex.

In the case of a conflict - which you keep ignoring and literally refusing to cite evidence of.
I'm going to go ahead and get a mod to lock the thread - I'm tired of being trolled.

You have yet to cite a conflict, hence you have no rules basis.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Pg# that says you "in order to fire an additional weapon you have to have been allowed to fire in the first place"


Run and shoot, stunned and shoot, ordnance and shoot all have the same restrictions. If you do X then you cannot fire. You want to apply that selectively and not universally, which proves your argument is invalid. The Ork movement with Red Paint Job also proves you are wrong.

If you can use bonuses in situations you cant use the base ability, them I'm going to start using bonus CC attacks against units I have not charged, and Red Paint lets orks move 1" if immobilized.

And that statement has nothing to do with the argument.

Sure it does...

If I'm not allowed to shoot at all... I cant get any bonuses to my number of weapons I can shoot.
If I cannot make CC attacks at all, I cant use bonus CC attacks.
If I cannot move at all, I can not move bonus amounts of distance.

In the situation being discussed shooting is obviously allowed, or else you couldn't shoot ordnance. Whats being ignored is that the Riptide CAN shoot, its firing ordnance, what rule trumps the codex that says one additional weapon can be fired? We've had theories, Examples that have been FAQ'd meaning they used to be conflicts, Opinions, and Generalities vs Specifics.......but none can point to an actual rule.

They have, you've just covered your ears and said "LALALALA CODEX > BRB"

Codex only trumps the BRB when there is a conflict in rules. A conflict like where snapshots cannot be modified above bs1, yet the pinpoint rule allows snapshots to be modified. BRB says one thing, codex addresses that one thing and says the opposite.

Multi-tracker does not address ordnance firing, therefore there is no conflict. The conflict you're claiming is made up, not RAW. There is nothing in writing (RAW) that says MT overrides the ordnance ban. Therefore no conflict.

Red: except page 7.... see below.

Blue: That is no where in type....

Still no conflict because you aren't told there is. Because you aren't told there is a conflict, you cannot reference pg7.

MT is wargear that is always active. Turn 1- turn 7. Firing ordnance is a choice that may or may not happen turns 1-7.

MT allows a MC to fire up to 3 weapons normally. Choosing to fire ordnance reduces this to one. During your shooting phase, you can fire up to 3 normally or 1 ordnance. No rules have been broken as there is no conflict. Since they are not multiple modifiers or set modifiers, you cannot choose to apply them in different orders to achieve different results to your advantage.

If you want a conflict which favors the codex, you would need the rules to say:
"When firing ordnance, the model cannot fire any additional weapons"
"Models with multi-trackers may fire one additional weapon, even when firing ordnance"

THAT is a conflict in rules where the BRB says one thing and the codex DIRECTLY contradicts it. Your argument stands on a premise that doesn't exist.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 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.

This, along with RPJ, are the two most convincing arguments I've seen thus far.
Infantry model is allowed to fire a single ranged weapon, or 0-1 weapons (since there is no requirement to fire in the first place). Ordnance, therefore, doesn't really affect Infantry models in this regard, since they can only fire one weapon anyhow.
MCs may fire 0-2 weapons. When using Ordnance, this is restricted to 0-1 weapon. The restriction overrides the permission.
Multitracker lets the MC fire an additional weapon, resulting in 0-3 weapons. Ordnance still has the restriction 0-1 weapons. There's an overlap here, which is 0-1.

"You may fire 0-3 weapons as an MC with Multitracker. When firing Ordnance, you may only fire 1 weapon, the Ordnance." Firing 1 weapon falls into 0-3 weapons, thus fulfilling both rules at the same time.

I agree thats close... which is why its key to use "additional" in its proper usage.

I would, first off, repeat the advice that someone on here gave to you earlier: as a noob on this site, have some respect for your elders. It's not personal, it's simply a matter of respect. If someone is more experienced than you, you should value that experience and take advantage of it, not fight it every step of the way. The elders can be crotchety and rude sometimes...but it's up to us young'uns to deal with their crankiness, ignore their rude and terse posts, and instead soak up the wisdom contained in their gravelly words. We're young, we can handle it!

Secondly, your response to my post was quite unhelpful. It did not, in any manner that I can comprehend, successfully address my point. To use your own words, "Try again."


Edit: Finally, a discussion about rules is nothing to get upset about. There's nothing personal going on here. Who cares if you're right or wrong? The point is to find the truth in the situation, not to compare the lengths of our respective lower horns. If you're wrong, so what? If you're right...again, so what? You don't personally know any of these people; you literally CANNOT lose face online, since there's no face to look at! If you feel like someone is making ad homenim attacks, report the post to a Mod (with the Yellow Triangle in the upper right of the post). And then, if the Mod doesn't do anything about it because it wasn't inflammatory, TRUST the Mod.

 Ghaz wrote:
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.

 Ghaz wrote:
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.

No, you're still completely missing the point. You don't understand the definition of "additional". Your examples do not relate at all because they are trying to compare "0+1=1" to "(1+0)+1=2".

Running disallows you from making any shooting attacks at all, and you cannot make something in addition to nothing.

Your examples are not structurally the same as what we are discussing and are irrelevant.


I think it's clear that we've all reached an impasse here. One side is arguing what the rules say and the other side is arguing their (compelling and agreeable in practice) extension of how the rules should be interpreted.

For myself I see a rules forum as a place to discuss what the rules say and, having reached an obvious point of arguing something on different terms, I don't think either side can effectively contribute to discussion. We can all say "but that's what the rules say" and "but this is how that should be interpreted" but we're not going to reach an agreement.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 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.

This, along with RPJ, are the two most convincing arguments I've seen thus far.
Infantry model is allowed to fire a single ranged weapon, or 0-1 weapons (since there is no requirement to fire in the first place). Ordnance, therefore, doesn't really affect Infantry models in this regard, since they can only fire one weapon anyhow.
MCs may fire 0-2 weapons. When using Ordnance, this is restricted to 0-1 weapon. The restriction overrides the permission.
Multitracker lets the MC fire an additional weapon, resulting in 0-3 weapons. Ordnance still has the restriction 0-1 weapons. There's an overlap here, which is 0-1.

"You may fire 0-3 weapons as an MC with Multitracker. When firing Ordnance, you may only fire 1 weapon, the Ordnance." Firing 1 weapon falls into 0-3 weapons, thus fulfilling both rules at the same time.

This, along with what Hyv3mynd said just after is exactly what I said 2 (?) pages ago.

Clearly there is no changing Steel-WOLF's mind about the lack of conflict in the rulings.

Your Riptide model comes equipped with MultiTracker. Ergo, your Riptide is given permission (from the moment you created your army list and fielded that army) to fire 3 weapons (even if you do not have 3 weapons to shoot with) in each of its shooting phases. In one of those shooting phases you opt to fire Ordnance. At this point, the Ordnance restriction takes effect, reducing your permission to shoot from 3 weapons (even if you cannot because you don't have 3 weapons) to "no other weapons".

Ordnance removes your modifier/permission granted by the wargear, not the other way around.

I've been catching up with the 8 pages of this thread and I thought I'd throw in my 2cents.

First of all, in general I agree with the argument that you can't fire additional weapons because of the ordnance restriction.

However, I have one question. Since you can't add one to 0 as in the case of RPJ, does the ordnance weapon itself count as a weapon for the purposes of firing? If it does the you were allowed to fire a weapon and as a result, you can fire one more by virtue of the Multi-tracker. I'm not sure if someone has asked this already and 8 pages is a bit to skim through. I think it comes down to if there is a difference between the MC's set, "able to fire up to 2 weapons" and MT's "fire an additional weapon."