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.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Mike94656 wrote:
Hooray for carnifex buffs!

Carnifex has no codex rule granting it extra shooting attacks.

he was referring to Rig's post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Edit: also, thanks for showing my Carnifexes assault into terrain with a 3 init even without grenades.

The Carnifex has a Codex rule called living battering ram that adds 2 to its initiative score the turn it assaults.

We know that you need assault grenades or you swing at I1.

But by your definition of a conflict the Carnifex makes his attacks at I3 when he assaults through difficult terrain, which of course is not how it works because there is nothing in the Codex that says it overrides the restriction in the BRB about assaulting through terrain.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Mike94656 wrote:
Hooray for carnifex buffs!

Carnifex has no codex rule granting it extra shooting attacks.

he was referring to Rig's post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Edit: also, thanks for showing my Carnifexes assault into terrain with a 3 init even without grenades.

The Carnifex has a Codex rule called living battering ram that adds 2 to its initiative score the turn it assaults.

We know that you need assault grenades or you swing at I1.

But by your definition of a conflict the Carnifex makes his attacks at I3 when he assaults through difficult terrain, which of course is not how it works because there is nothing in the Codex that says it overrides the restriction in the BRB about assaulting through terrain.

Statline modifiers are set. Do you need the page number that explains the math that makes the codex rule not apply when assaulting into cover?

Because there is a rule that covers that.

I do not need them explained, I was simply pointing out to what they were referring.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I do not need them explained, I was simply pointing out to what they were referring.

And the example they gave was irrelevant and wrong from the get go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I do not need them explained, I was simply pointing out to what they were referring.

And the example they gave was irrelevant and wrong from the get go.

Sorry. I'm tracking now. I've ignored the user that started that line of thought so was missing 1/2 the conversation. Thought you were implying something you were not.

Well that was a fun nine and a bit page read. Some of the 'veterans' of the site came up with some ridiculous counter arguments that bordered on being childish. These counterarguments have been closer to comparing apples and oranges. Even one of the best counter points with the Assault grenade + d3 A is flawed from the basis that its a characteristic, subject to different rules. The best counter point or closest approximation would be power of the machine spirit, which I believe is worded the same as the multi-tracker. "May fire an additional weapon in the shooting phase" or some such.

But I digress...

I get the Pro+1 weapon argument from the stand point that firing an ordinance weapon IS firing a weapon in the shooting phase. And their argument is that the +1 is in addition to the ordinance weapon fired. A basic 1+1 weapon argument.

I also see the real argument for the Con+1 weapon argument. The ordinance weapon type rule states that it disallows any other weapon from being fired if the ordinance weapon is fired. Its not a matter of 0+1 weapon, its more a matter of the rule disallowing any weapons being fired other than the ordinance weapon. From this stand point that includes additional weapons.

Both sides have a decent case, but until this is FAQ'd I'd lean towards only firing the ordinance weapon.

 Bausk wrote:
Well that was a fun nine and a bit page read. Some of the 'veterans' of the site came up with some ridiculous counter arguments that bordered on being childish. These counterarguments have been closer to comparing apples and oranges. Even one of the best counter points with the Assault grenade + d3 A is flawed from the basis that its a characteristic, subject to different rules. The best counter point or closest approximation would be power of the machine spirit, which I believe is worded the same as the multi-tracker. "May fire an additional weapon in the shooting phase" or some such.

But I digress...

I get the Pro+1 weapon argument from the stand point that firing an ordinance weapon IS firing a weapon in the shooting phase. And their argument is that the +1 is in addition to the ordinance weapon fired. A basic 1+1 weapon argument.

I also see the real argument for the Con+1 weapon argument. The ordinance weapon type rule states that it disallows any other weapon from being fired if the ordinance weapon is fired. Its not a matter of 0+1 weapon, its more a matter of the rule disallowing any weapons being fired other than the ordinance weapon. From this stand point that includes additional weapons.

Both sides have a decent case, but until this is FAQ'd I'd lean towards only firing the ordinance weapon.

You've stated both sides very succinctly and I wont say you are wrong. I'd choose to play it differently, but you are at least understanding both sides before making the decision. Most of the comparisons here have been borderline window-licking.

Well that was a fun nine and a bit page read. Some of the 'veterans' of the site came up with some ridiculous counter arguments that bordered on being childish. These counterarguments have been closer to comparing apples and oranges. Even one of the best counter points with the Assault grenade + d3 A is flawed from the basis that its a characteristic, subject to different rules. The best counter point or closest approximation would be power of the machine spirit, which I believe is worded the same as the multi-tracker. "May fire an additional weapon in the shooting phase" or some such.

But I digress...

I get the Pro+1 weapon argument from the stand point that firing an ordinance weapon IS firing a weapon in the shooting phase. And their argument is that the +1 is in addition to the ordinance weapon fired. A basic 1+1 weapon argument.

I also see the real argument for the Con+1 weapon argument. The ordinance weapon type rule states that it disallows any other weapon from being fired if the ordinance weapon is fired. Its not a matter of 0+1 weapon, its more a matter of the rule disallowing any weapons being fired other than the ordinance weapon. From this stand point that includes additional weapons.

Both sides have a decent case, but until this is FAQ'd I'd lean towards only firing the ordinance weapon.



You've stated both sides very succinctly and I wont say you are wrong. I'd choose to play it differently, but you are at least understanding both sides before making the decision. Most of the comparisons here have been borderline window-licking.

Agreed, I gave up after page 4 but this is a great little summation.
Im erring on the Con side myself because the Rip is armed with a weapon that has Type: Ordinance. Hence the ordinance rules must be referenced and subsequently adherred to.

 Ratius wrote:

Well that was a fun nine and a bit page read. Some of the 'veterans' of the site came up with some ridiculous counter arguments that bordered on being childish. These counterarguments have been closer to comparing apples and oranges. Even one of the best counter points with the Assault grenade + d3 A is flawed from the basis that its a characteristic, subject to different rules. The best counter point or closest approximation would be power of the machine spirit, which I believe is worded the same as the multi-tracker. "May fire an additional weapon in the shooting phase" or some such.

But I digress...

I get the Pro+1 weapon argument from the stand point that firing an ordinance weapon IS firing a weapon in the shooting phase. And their argument is that the +1 is in addition to the ordinance weapon fired. A basic 1+1 weapon argument.

I also see the real argument for the Con+1 weapon argument. The ordinance weapon type rule states that it disallows any other weapon from being fired if the ordinance weapon is fired. Its not a matter of 0+1 weapon, its more a matter of the rule disallowing any weapons being fired other than the ordinance weapon. From this stand point that includes additional weapons.

Both sides have a decent case, but until this is FAQ'd I'd lean towards only firing the ordinance weapon.



You've stated both sides very succinctly and I wont say you are wrong. I'd choose to play it differently, but you are at least understanding both sides before making the decision. Most of the comparisons here have been borderline window-licking.

Agreed, I gave up after page 4 but this is a great little summation.
Im erring on the Con side myself because the Rip is armed with a weapon that has Type: Ordinance. Hence the ordinance rules must be referenced and subsequently adherred to.

I'll trade it all for a 3rd weapon on the thing so it can actually fire 3 like its allowed to in non-ordnance mode?

So if a monstrous riptide had 6 different ordnance pistols, could he fire them all thanks to the Monstrous Gunslinging Multi-tracker Rule?

-Matt

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

Well that was a fun nine and a bit page read. Some of the 'veterans' of the site came up with some ridiculous counter arguments that bordered on being childish. These counterarguments have been closer to comparing apples and oranges. Even one of the best counter points with the Assault grenade + d3 A is flawed from the basis that its a characteristic, subject to different rules. The best counter point or closest approximation would be power of the machine spirit, which I believe is worded the same as the multi-tracker. "May fire an additional weapon in the shooting phase" or some such.

But I digress...

I get the Pro+1 weapon argument from the stand point that firing an ordinance weapon IS firing a weapon in the shooting phase. And their argument is that the +1 is in addition to the ordinance weapon fired. A basic 1+1 weapon argument.

I also see the real argument for the Con+1 weapon argument. The ordinance weapon type rule states that it disallows any other weapon from being fired if the ordinance weapon is fired. Its not a matter of 0+1 weapon, its more a matter of the rule disallowing any weapons being fired other than the ordinance weapon. From this stand point that includes additional weapons.

Both sides have a decent case, but until this is FAQ'd I'd lean towards only firing the ordinance weapon.



You've stated both sides very succinctly and I wont say you are wrong. I'd choose to play it differently, but you are at least understanding both sides before making the decision. Most of the comparisons here have been borderline window-licking.

Agreed, I gave up after page 4 but this is a great little summation.
Im erring on the Con side myself because the Rip is armed with a weapon that has Type: Ordinance. Hence the ordinance rules must be referenced and subsequently adherred to.

I'll trade it all for a 3rd weapon on the thing so it can actually fire 3 like its allowed to in non-ordnance mode?

1ord or upto 3 non-ord would be my understanding (MC+MT).

EDIT: But also the original question of move and fire ordinance on a MC. Go for gold (thats loosly translated as 'yes'), MCs are similar to walkers like that.

There’s plenty of examples already put forward. I’d like to go back to the most relevant, where reading through the pages a few times (Obviously a very busy Friday here), its been dodged a few times and Pro +1 side have failed to answered it.


From page 1.

It’s just like shooting missiles from a storm raven,

Yes Power of the machine spirit lets you fire one additional WEAPON,

But you cannot fire more than 2 missiles still, because the specific missile rule is 2 per turn

A direct precedent concerned with the same type of enhancement. You cannot fire more than 2 missiles, even though the codex says you can fire one additional weapon

No one has put forward why MT works differently with ordinance concerning overriding the restrictions presented in the ordinance rule.

We can see it’s not because it’s a codex rule, because of the PoTMS example.

There are also an abundance of examples that could be put forward which show codex rules cannot always be implemented and do not always override BRB rules. I appreciate the rules are not actually very easy to understand at all, but I do get annoyed when I read pages and pages of ‘Codex beats BRB’ and spamming page 7 without regard for context.

I don’t think you’re going to get much more however, as this thread is quickly moving towards insulting, I don’t think people who are spending their time and knowledge trying to help you understand the structure of the rules (People are not always right about everything, but at least you should appreciate they know a lot more than you about these things) deserve their efforts being labeled as ‘Childish’ or ‘Window-licking’ because of your failing to understand where they are coming from.


MC's can normally fire 2 weapons. MT give you the ability to fire one more weapon than normal, so you can now fire 3 weapons.
Ordinance stops you firing any other weapon that phase, it doesn’t matter how many you could fire, the Riptide does not have the ability to override this restriction.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
End of story. Arguing otherwise negates all kinds of "codex trumps.." rulings. It just doesn't float.

The irony here is when you say something like this it basically invalidates all your previous arguments by basically saying, 'hi, I can't come up with a decent argument because I'm not sure I'm actually right.' So yes, it is end of story, just not the ending you were looking for, which is a shame because though I disagreed with you all along, your arguments up until this piece of WTF were rather solid.

Sorry, i don't understand why a Riptide can't shoot another weapon. Here is my view on it:

-Riptide only have 2 weapon. A "primary" weapon and a TL weapon, so whats the use of a MT???

-BRB states Ordnance weapon fired by non-vechicle model, it cannot fire other weapon that phase and the MT states the model can fire an additional weapon in the shooting phase.
So that means I can fire an additional weapon in the shooting phase, i don't see a conflict there at all because MT clearly say I can shoot an additional weapon in the shooting phase.

Verdict: Yes, you can shoot the big gun and shoot with the remaining weapon.

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.

Well this has gotten me convinced. I now firmly agree against additional weapons.

 bluedestiny wrote:
Sorry, i don't understand why a Riptide can't shoot another weapon. Here is my view on it:

-Riptide only have 2 weapon. A "primary" weapon and a TL weapon, so whats the use of a MT???

-BRB states Ordnance weapon fired by non-vechicle model, it cannot fire other weapon that phase and the MT states the model can fire an additional weapon in the shooting phase.
So that means I can fire an additional weapon in the shooting phase, i don't see a conflict there at all because MT clearly say I can shoot an additional weapon in the shooting phase.

Verdict: Yes, you can shoot the big gun and shoot with the remaining weapon.

So my Wind rider jet bikes can run ? Cool.

But seriously i think Battle Focus is a good example here the rule says models can either shoot and run or run then shoot. Jet bikes cant run because the BRB says they cant but my codex says they can as per the Tau side of the argument on Conflict there is a conflict there my codex wins and i may now Run with my jet bikes.

If i'm missing something here please point it out but i don't really think i am.

 bluedestiny wrote:

-Riptide only have 2 weapon. A "primary" weapon and a TL weapon, so whats the use of a MT???

Why do Jetbikes have battle focus?

Why can an Avatar buy night vision?

Stratos wrote:
So my Wind rider jet bikes can run ? Cool.

But seriously i think Battle Focus is a good example here the rule says models can either shoot and run or run then shoot. Jet bikes cant run because the BRB says they cant but my codex says they can as per the Tau side of the argument on Conflict there is a conflict there my codex wins and i may now Run with my jet bikes.

If i'm missing something here please point it out but i don't really think i am.

Of the many counter-examples to Codex always beats Rulebook, this is my favorite yet.

It's not actually. The Battle Focus rule specifically says it doesn't apply to jetbikes.

I think it's the very definition of ‘conflict’ that’s the difference here. One side says there’s no conflict and one does. This of course leads to applying the rules differently, resulting in the current discussion. The word conflict is only in the rules section once, and the other uses are in fluff sections. The BRB FAQ does not use the word conflict at all.

So why don’t the sides try to explain what their definition of conflict is and try to hash out a common definition. This would result in a more uniform application of the rules.

quirthanon wrote:
I think it's the very definition of ‘conflict’ that’s the difference here. One side says there’s no conflict and one does. This of course leads to applying the rules differently, resulting in the current discussion. The word conflict is only in the rules section once, and the other uses are in fluff sections. The BRB FAQ does not use the word conflict at all.

So why don’t the sides try to explain what their definition of conflict is and try to hash out a common definition. This would result in a more uniform application of the rules.

The con side has explained, in addition to providing examples.

I think both sides have explained their reasoning fairly clearly (although one side has been overly dramatic at times)

I'm leaning towards the con at the moment but I can see why people would think the other way. Until GW stop putting wargear and abilities in that offer no benefits to the unit it will lead to confusion.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Statline modifiers are set. Do you need the page number that explains the math that makes the codex rule not apply when assaulting into cover?

Because there is a rule that covers that.

The assaulting into difficult terrain rule says that I must attack at Initiative 1 regardless of other modifiers.
I have a codex rule that adds 2 to my initiative.

Why is 1+2 not 3?

rigeld2 wrote:

quirthanon wrote:
I think it's the very definition of ‘conflict’ that’s the difference here. One side says there’s no conflict and one does. This of course leads to applying the rules differently, resulting in the current discussion. The word conflict is only in the rules section once, and the other uses are in fluff sections. The BRB FAQ does not use the word conflict at all.

So why don’t the sides try to explain what their definition of conflict is and try to hash out a common definition. This would result in a more uniform application of the rules.

The con side has explained, in addition to providing examples.

Could you point me to these posts? After re-reading the posts all I can find are assertions that it is or is not a conflict. No one has defined what they think conflict means, at least that I can find. I hope I didn't miss it.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/541861.page#5878296 that's the first one i found.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Statline modifiers are set. Do you need the page number that explains the math that makes the codex rule not apply when assaulting into cover?

Because there is a rule that covers that.

The assaulting into difficult terrain rule says that I must attack at Initiative 1 regardless of other modifiers.
I have a codex rule that adds 2 to my initiative.

Why is 1+2 not 3?

Because Initiative is a Characteristic value and page 2 clearly defines how to modify those. Multiplies first, additions and subtractions and then finally set values.

From what I've read, the definitions of conflict in this thread are abstract and circular.

If you have to have a codex rule specifically call out by example that it breaks a BRB rule, such as marker light, then we have almost no cases of Codex > BRB.

If you only have to have Codex give a vague bonus and BRB gives a different bonus, we have a ton of rules were Codex > BRB, included init 3 Carnifexes charging into cover.

Sadly, I think that GW uses the latter on a case by base basis, rather that having cleanly written rules.

-Matt

 Miri wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Statline modifiers are set. Do you need the page number that explains the math that makes the codex rule not apply when assaulting into cover?

Because there is a rule that covers that.

The assaulting into difficult terrain rule says that I must attack at Initiative 1 regardless of other modifiers.
I have a codex rule that adds 2 to my initiative.

Why is 1+2 not 3?

Because Initiative is a Characteristic value and page 2 clearly defines how to modify those. Multiplies first, additions and subtractions and then finally set values.

Difficult terrain is not changing my Initiative value. It sets where I'm supposed to attack.
My initiative is 3 when I assault. This generates a conflict as to when I'd swing (according to the pro side).
The codex wins - I swing at I3.

 Miri wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Statline modifiers are set. Do you need the page number that explains the math that makes the codex rule not apply when assaulting into cover?

Because there is a rule that covers that.

The assaulting into difficult terrain rule says that I must attack at Initiative 1 regardless of other modifiers.
I have a codex rule that adds 2 to my initiative.

Why is 1+2 not 3?

Because Initiative is a Characteristic value and page 2 clearly defines how to modify those. Multiplies first, additions and subtractions and then finally set values.

But this creates a conflict with the +2i from the tyranid codex (using the assertion that ordnance and multi-trackers are in conflict) and the tyranid codex would prevail.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Miri wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Statline modifiers are set. Do you need the page number that explains the math that makes the codex rule not apply when assaulting into cover?

Because there is a rule that covers that.

The assaulting into difficult terrain rule says that I must attack at Initiative 1 regardless of other modifiers.
I have a codex rule that adds 2 to my initiative.

Why is 1+2 not 3?

Because Initiative is a Characteristic value and page 2 clearly defines how to modify those. Multiplies first, additions and subtractions and then finally set values.

But this creates a conflict with the +2i from the tyranid codex (using the assertion that ordnance and multi-trackers are in conflict) and the tyranid codex would prevail.

I cant believe this example is still being discussed...

Its a statline modifier. It has a set process for the order the math is done in. If you add in the +2 from the codex, but do everything in order, you STILL end up ay Init 1.

I'm in the "no additional weapons" camp personally. The thing is that allowing it creates a prescient that breaks the game when you apply it to similar items (like the Trukk with a RPJ). I personally feel that any time interpretation of a rule can create a situation that breaks the game it should be ruled against on principle of keeping the game fun for all players.

That said I sent the question into GW, so we'll see if they put it in the FAQs in the future.