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.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

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.

So I suppose the next question is, are you disagreeing with that master of English, Charles Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll)?

Trasvi wrote:

See Lewis Caroll's take on this:

`Take some more tea,' the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.
`I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone, `so I can't take more.'
`You mean you can't take less,' said the Hatter: `it's very easy to take more than nothing.'

Its a funny thing, when the 'strict wording' can sometimes mean something different to the 'common use'. But only one actually makes sense as an extensible rules interpretation.

Because he's a published author...and you, AFAIK, are not. His works, therefore, have gone through an editor, and this makes sense linguistically. You CAN, in fact, have an additional thing where there are zero things to start with. Alice had no tea (0). The Hatter gave her tea (1). She now has more tea than none (0+1).
You may fire no more weapons (0) while firing Ordnance. If you claim that Multitracker lets you fire one more weapon while firing Ordnance (0+1), then it must also let you fire one more weapon after running (0+1).

 acekevin8412 wrote:
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."

That's basically the point I was making while others seemed to be jumping on a bandwagon of misrepresented comparisons. A situation where you're tryign to add an additional shot onto no shots allowed is different to adding an additional shot onto one ordnance shot with ordinarily no others allowed.

Additionally this example invokes the Codex > BRB in conflict rule, whereas Monstrous Creatures' two weapons reduced to only ordnance is a purely BRB conflict.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Because he's a published author...and you, AFAIK, are not. His works, therefore, have gone through an editor, and this makes sense linguistically. You CAN, in fact, have an additional thing where there are zero things to start with. Alice had no tea (0). The Hatter gave her tea (1). She now has more tea than none (0+1).
You may fire no more weapons (0) while firing Ordnance. If you claim that Multitracker lets you fire one more weapon while firing Ordnance (0+1), then it must also let you fire one more weapon after running (0+1).

It's a clever ploy, but it's still a strawman. For starter the language is not the same and is not used in the same setting. Punnery and word play for entertainment are not the same as what we are discussing. Note that the rules do not say "one more weapon". Although this can mean the same there is a nuanced difference in meaning. You can have more than zero, but you cannot have one (or more) in addition to nothing. "An additional weapon" does not make sense if you have no weapons to begin with.

Note also that firing ordnance is (1+0)+1=2 as ordnance is a weapon. You are neglecting the "no more" part of the ordnance rules and equating it with simply "no" weapons as in situations such as running.

As for my qualification, I'm a former international teacher of English as a second langauge and currently work in the legal profession, but I'm not going to try and use that as some argument of authority, merely as an aside.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 acekevin8412 wrote:
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."

That's basically the point I was making while others seemed to be jumping on a bandwagon of misrepresented comparisons. A situation where you're tryign to add an additional shot onto no shots allowed is different to adding an additional shot onto one ordnance shot with ordinarily no others allowed.

Additionally this example invokes the Codex > BRB in conflict rule, whereas Monstrous Creatures' two weapons reduced to only ordnance is a purely BRB conflict.an aside.

If you run you get no shots allowed. If you fire Ordnance you get no shots allowed.

How it that different exactly?

Plus the Codex only trumps the BRB when there is a conflict.

There is no conflict here. Pinpoint is in conflict with Snap Shots and Pinpoint specifically says it can override the snap shot restriction.

Multi-tracker does not specifically override the Ordnance restriction, therefore it can not override the Ordnance restriction.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you run you get no shots allowed. If you fire Ordnance you get no shots allowed.

How it that different exactly?

Correction; if you run you get no shots allowed. If you fire ordnance you get the ordnance shot allowed.

You are using an additional interpretation of how the rules should be played to argue against my point of what the rules say. I do not disagree that it is probably how the rules should be played, but I see a rules discussion forum as a place to discuss the rules as they are, and Games Workshop have actually given us only a limited portion of your interpretation.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you run you get no shots allowed. If you fire Ordnance you get no shots allowed.

How it that different exactly?

Correction; if you run you get no shots allowed. If you fire ordnance you get the ordnance shot allowed.

You are using an additional interpretation of how the rules should be played to argue against my point of what the rules say. I do not disagree that it is probably how the rules should be played, but I see a rules discussion forum as a place to discuss the rules as they are, and Games Workshop have actually given us only a limited portion of your interpretation.

There is no difference. Each one of those creates a restriction. It does not matter how the restriction was created. Running= 0 shots allowed. Firing an ordnance weapon= 0 shots allowed. If the MT allows one, it must allow both.

Fragile wrote:
There is no difference. Each one of those creates a restriction. It does not matter how the restriction was created. Running= 0 shots allowed. Firing an ordnance weapon= 0 shots allowed. If the MT allows one, it must allow both.

Unless you factor in the meaning of "an additional" in which case you require at least one weapon being fired. This is not present with running, but with an ordnance weapon it is.

It is simple English that you do not do something in addition to nothing.

Fragile wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you run you get no shots allowed. If you fire Ordnance you get no shots allowed.

How it that different exactly?

Correction; if you run you get no shots allowed. If you fire ordnance you get the ordnance shot allowed.

You are using an additional interpretation of how the rules should be played to argue against my point of what the rules say. I do not disagree that it is probably how the rules should be played, but I see a rules discussion forum as a place to discuss the rules as they are, and Games Workshop have actually given us only a limited portion of your interpretation.

There is no difference. Each one of those creates a restriction. It does not matter how the restriction was created. Running= 0 shots allowed. Firing an ordnance weapon= 0 shots allowed. If the MT allows one, it must allow both.

Then a red paint job allows vehicles to move after imobilized.

Firing ordinance is not firing 0 weapons. It's firing 1.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Fragile wrote:
There is no difference. Each one of those creates a restriction. It does not matter how the restriction was created. Running= 0 shots allowed. Firing an ordnance weapon= 0 shots allowed. If the MT allows one, it must allow both.

Unless you factor in the meaning of "an additional" in which case you require at least one weapon being fired. This is not present with running, but with an ordnance weapon it is.

It is simple English that you do not do something in addition to nothing.

Simple English would show there is no conflict in the rules, but here we are arguing strict RAW. You cannot have it one way for your rule, and not apply it everywhere else it would apply.

Fragile wrote:
Simple English would show there is no conflict in the rules, but here we are arguing strict RAW. You cannot have it one way for your rule, and not apply it everywhere else it would apply.

But that's not the case. I've not been provided with a comparable example of where it could apply elsewhere, and have explained why the examples I've been shown are not the same. In the case of running there is no weapon being fired for the Multi-tracker to allow an additional weapon being fired, whereas with an ordnance weapon the ordnance weapon fulfills the requirement for a weapon being fired to engage the Multi-tracker's "may fire an additional weapon."

The conflict arises when ordnance states no other weapons may be fired while the Multi-tracker allows for an additional weapon to be fired. I'm unsure how that's not a conflict in simple English, assuming we exclude the expanded interpretation of explicit permission > restrictions > permission.

How many weapons can a typical suit fire?

Look at Pinpoint Vs. Snap shots for an example of a Codex Conflict with the BRB.

Pinpoint has specific permission, MT does not.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Look at Pinpoint Vs. Snap shots for an example of a Codex Conflict with the BRB.

Pinpoint has specific permission, MT does not.

And it's not a written requirement anywhere that they do list it.

Fragile wrote:
How many weapons can a typical suit fire?

Two; typically Tau Battlesuits have Multi-trackers.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Look at Pinpoint Vs. Snap shots for an example of a Codex Conflict with the BRB.

Pinpoint has specific permission, MT does not.

I don't have my Codex handy, but if Pinpoint has specific permission then I'm unsure how there can be conflict due to it being explicitly worded to avoid such.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Look at Pinpoint Vs. Snap shots for an example of a Codex Conflict with the BRB.

Pinpoint has specific permission, MT does not.

And it's not a written requirement anywhere that they do list it.

Codex only wins if there is a conflict.

There is no conflict.

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

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I don't have my Codex handy, but if Pinpoint has specific permission then I'm unsure how there can be conflict due to it being explicitly worded to avoid such.

Because Snapshot says the BS can not be modified. Pinpoint says that you can modify the BS of a snapshot.

There is a conflict as one says cant and one says can. Usually Can't Trumps Must (Or may), but since the codex > than BRB, and with pinpoint there is a conflict, then Pinpoint (May) trumps Snapshot (Can't) because there is a conflict.

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

If it explicitly stated such then there would be no conflict, because it was explicitly stated, surely?

 Mr. Shine wrote:

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

If it explicitly stated such then there would be no conflict, because it was explicitly stated, surely?

See there is the issue, you are misunderstanding the conflict.

Snapshot says the BS can not be modified. Pinpoint says that you can modify the BS of a snapshot.

There is a conflict as one says cant and one says can. Usually Can't Trumps Must (Or may), but since the codex > than BRB, and with pinpoint there is a conflict, then Pinpoint (May) trumps Snapshot (Can't) because there is a conflict.

 DeathReaper wrote:
See there is the issue, you are misunderstanding the conflict.

Snapshot says the BS can not be modified. Pinpoint says that you can modify the BS of a snapshot.

There is a conflict as one says cant and one says can. Usually Can't Trumps Must (Or may), but since the codex > than BRB, and with pinpoint there is a conflict, then Pinpoint (May) trumps Snapshot (Can't) because there is a conflict.

I think we're disagreeing on the nature of conflict and when we must refer to BRB pg. 7. There's no point in stating that Pinpoint is an exception to Snap Shot if you then have to refer to BRB pg. 7 as a conflict. It seems self-evident that if the rule explicitly states it overrides something then it overrides it, without requiring reference elsewhere (BRB pg. 7) to clear it up.

The point of explicitly stating it is to avoid creating a conflict and thus invoking BRB pg. 7.

Ignoring page 7, which rule "wins" in Snap Shot vs Pinpoint and why?
Cite rules please, again ignoring page 7.

If you cannot fire any weapons, you cannot fire any weapons regardless of how many you can normally fire.

If you cannot fire any other weapons, you cannot fire any other weapons regardless of how many you can normally fire.

rigeld2 wrote:
Ignoring page 7, which rule "wins" in Snap Shot vs Pinpoint and why?
Cite rules please, again ignoring page 7.

If you're trying to point out that there is a conflict between the rules without pg. 7 and thus we must refer to pg. 7, I think I should have been more clear in my comments I assume you're basing your question on. When I mentioned referring to pg. 7 I meant the Codex/BRB conflict portion. I think we take it as a given that specificied exceptions overrule general rules as iterated by advanced > basic.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Ignoring page 7, which rule "wins" in Snap Shot vs Pinpoint and why?
Cite rules please, again ignoring page 7.

If you're trying to point out that there is a conflict between the rules without pg. 7 and thus we must refer to pg. 7, I think I should have been more clear in my comments I assume you're basing your question on. When I mentioned referring to pg. 7 I meant the Codex/BRB conflict portion. I think we take it as a given that specificied exceptions overrule general rules as iterated by advanced > basic.

You do realize that the codex/BRB rule is the same as the advanced/basic rule, right?
Like - literally the exact same thing.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Fragile wrote:
How many weapons can a typical suit fire?

Two; typically Tau Battlesuits have Multi-trackers.

And that is all the MT does really. It give permission for the suits to fire two weapons instead of one that every other normal infantry does. It grants no other permissions to break any other rule.

The Riptide gets 3 just because the MC rules stack with MT rules.

For the Ord+1 side.

I have a model equipped with assault grenades.
Assault grenades used in combat says I can only make one attack regardless of Attacks profile or bonus attacks.
My model also has a piece of codex-specific wargear that grants +D3 attacks.

If I use the assault grenades in cc, how many attacks do I get to make and why?

 Happyjew wrote:
For the Ord+1 side.

I have a model equipped with assault grenades.
Assault grenades used in combat says I can only make one attack regardless of Attacks profile or bonus attacks.
My model also has a piece of codex-specific wargear that grants +D3 attacks.

If I use the assault grenades in cc, how many attacks do I get to make and why?

You would get one attack. Assault grenades says one attack, regardless. No ifs, ands or buts. If they codex wargear said something to the affect of even when using assault grenades, then you would be granted the additional attacks.

Just like in this discussion, the ordinance rules and pretty straight forward, fire it, then nothing else. MT does nothing to affect this. You could have the ability to fire 28934505 weapons, but if one is ordinance, and your wargear or special rule doesn't include ignoring this restriction, then the restriction stands. If MT said it ignored the restriction, then you have the conflict where codex would win. No wording to ignore the restriction equals no conflict.

Mike94656 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
For the Ord+1 side.

I have a model equipped with assault grenades.
Assault grenades used in combat says I can only make one attack regardless of Attacks profile or bonus attacks.
My model also has a piece of codex-specific wargear that grants +D3 attacks.

If I use the assault grenades in cc, how many attacks do I get to make and why?

You would get one attack. Assault grenades says one attack, regardless. No ifs, ands or buts. If they codex wargear said something to the affect of even when using assault grenades, then you would be granted the additional attacks.

Just like in this discussion, the ordinance rules and pretty straight forward, fire it, then nothing else. MT does nothing to affect this. You could have the ability to fire 28934505 weapons, but if one is ordinance, and your wargear or special rule doesn't include ignoring this restriction, then the restriction stands. If MT said it ignored the restriction, then you have the conflict where codex would win. No wording to ignore the restriction equals no conflict.

There is a reason why I asked the side that says you can fire Ordnance +1 weapon.

rigeld2 wrote:
You do realize that the codex/BRB rule is the same as the advanced/basic rule, right?
Like - literally the exact same thing.

It's somewhat more specific. In the case of BRB/BRB conflicts, precedence is given to advanced rules over basic. No guidance is given for BRB advanced vs. advanced conflicts. In the case of Codex vs. BRB conflicts we know that advanced > basic, but if we're given a Codex advanced vs. BRB advanced conflict we then know that the Codex advanced rule has precedence over the BRB advanced rule.

Fragile wrote:
And that is all the MT does really. It give permission for the suits to fire two weapons instead of one that every other normal infantry does. It grants no other permissions to break any other rule.

The Riptide gets 3 just because the MC rules stack with MT rules.

Except by allowing suits to fire an additional weapon you're conflicting with the ordnance rule of firing only one weapon. Given that there is a conflict we must refer to the Codex vs. BRB rules on BRB pg. 7 and we're told to give precedence to the Codex rule.

 Happyjew wrote:
For the Ord+1 side.

I have a model equipped with assault grenades.
Assault grenades used in combat says I can only make one attack regardless of Attacks profile or bonus attacks.
My model also has a piece of codex-specific wargear that grants +D3 attacks.

If I use the assault grenades in cc, how many attacks do I get to make and why?

I don't have my rulebook on me, but assuming the wargear's description says "may make an additional D3 attacks" and assuming the rules for assault grenades do not somehow exclude other possibilities, then sure, 1+D3. Maybe I can answer this better after work.

Again, Games Workshop have never written the most straightforward, sensible or consistent rules and I absolutely think you should streamline or interpret them however makes best sense to you and your group, but this is a rules discussion forum so, with that caveat, I am just going on what the rules say.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You do realize that the codex/BRB rule is the same as the advanced/basic rule, right?
Like - literally the exact same thing.

It's somewhat more specific. In the case of BRB/BRB conflicts, precedence is given to advanced rules over basic. No guidance is given for BRB advanced vs. advanced conflicts. In the case of Codex vs. BRB conflicts we know that advanced > basic, but if we're given a Codex advanced vs. BRB advanced conflict we then know that the Codex advanced rule has precedence over the BRB advanced rule.

Fragile wrote:
And that is all the MT does really. It give permission for the suits to fire two weapons instead of one that every other normal infantry does. It grants no other permissions to break any other rule.

The Riptide gets 3 just because the MC rules stack with MT rules.

Except by allowing suits to fire an additional weapon you're conflicting with the ordnance rule of firing only one weapon. Given that there is a conflict we must refer to the Codex vs. BRB rules on BRB pg. 7 and we're told to give precedence to the Codex rule.

 Happyjew wrote:
For the Ord+1 side.

I have a model equipped with assault grenades.
Assault grenades used in combat says I can only make one attack regardless of Attacks profile or bonus attacks.
My model also has a piece of codex-specific wargear that grants +D3 attacks.

If I use the assault grenades in cc, how many attacks do I get to make and why?

I don't have my rulebook on me, but assuming the wargear's description says "may make an additional D3 attacks" and assuming the rules for assault grenades do not somehow exclude other possibilities, then sure, 1+D3. Maybe I can answer this better after work.

Again, Games Workshop have never written the most straightforward, sensible or consistent rules and I absolutely think you should streamline or interpret them however makes best sense to you and your group, but this is a rules discussion forum so, with that caveat, I am just going on what the rules say.

I am at a loss here. How is this getting interpreted any other way. If there is a rule that states you get one attack REGARDLESS of other bonuses or attack profiles, how are you still adding in the D3 attacks? Perhaps regardless means something different that I am not aware of. As is in the case of this argument, if you have something that says you can do X, and a BRB rule that states if you do Y, you cannot then do X, how are people claiming you can still do X, when it isn't stated ANYWHERE to ignore the rule.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You do realize that the codex/BRB rule is the same as the advanced/basic rule, right?
Like - literally the exact same thing.

It's somewhat more specific. In the case of BRB/BRB conflicts, precedence is given to advanced rules over basic. No guidance is given for BRB advanced vs. advanced conflicts. In the case of Codex vs. BRB conflicts we know that advanced > basic, but if we're given a Codex advanced vs. BRB advanced conflict we then know that the Codex advanced rule has precedence over the BRB advanced rule.

First question, why do you assume that the Multitracker is an advanced rule?
Second question, have you been able to demonstrate a conflict yet?

Edit: also, thanks for showing my Carnifexes assault into terrain with a 3 init even without grenades.

Hooray for carnifex buffs!

Mike94656 wrote:
Hooray for carnifex buffs!

Carnifex has no codex rule granting it extra shooting attacks.