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.

ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

I sent it in after page 1... more the merrier though.

I agree that the RPJ is the closest comparison, but if you view additional as having to have something first, then its no issue.

This whole debate is hinging around to words.

Conflict

and

additional.


One side says in order for there to be a conflict, something hasto be specifically mentioned, The other counters that if something is specifically mentioned, there is no conflict.

One side puts forward that additional always means one more... even starting from 0... The other side says additional cant start from 0, you have to have something for something to be additional too.




In the RPJ example, it does not break the game because if its immobilized the vehicle is not allowed to move at all, so there is nothing for the +1" to be in addition to.
Same as Running and fireing. If you run, you are not allowed to fire, so there is no firing for there to be an addition to it.

I hope that's a logical way of breaking down the arguments, and agree there's not much changing minds till its FAQ'd or organizers making rulings. Many of the examples are just silly, irrelevant, and non-comparable. Like the Grenade+3attacks, or the recent charging carnifex into cover trying to claim init 3. Those are already clearly have a process in the BRB, and following it solves the issue.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
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.

That's incorrect - assaulting into terrain never changes your Init. Perhaps consulting the actual rules would help you stay informed.

What about my example? Model is using grenades (1 attack, no modifier). Codex wargear gives additional attacks. Does that mean I can make multiple attacks with grenades?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
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.

That's incorrect - assaulting into terrain never changes your Init. Perhaps consulting the actual rules would help you stay informed.

I unignored you to see if it was anything relevant to say.. and its not.

Its a set modifier...just like a power fist or a lash whip.. Its sets the value to a set number. And it happens at the very end of the equation. So maybe instead of insisting everyone else learn what they are talking about, maybe you should try it first. Back on /ignore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
What about my example? Model is using grenades (1 attack, no modifier). Codex wargear gives additional attacks. Does that mean I can make multiple attacks with grenades?

Are melee attacks listed on the statline?

Are grenades a set value that occurs at the end of the equation?

No issues cause.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
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.

That's incorrect - assaulting into terrain never changes your Init. Perhaps consulting the actual rules would help you stay informed.

I unignored you to see if it was anything relevant to say.. and its not.

Its a setmodifier...just like a power fist or a lash whip.. Its sets the value to a set number. And it happens at the very end of the equation. So maybe instead of insisting everyone else learn what they are talking about, maybe you should try it first. Back on /ignore.

Again with the incorrect rules statement.

Actual rules page 22 wrote:all of the unit's models must attack at Initiative step 1

Gee, that looks to me like it's not modifying my Initiative.
Let's look at your other examples:
Power Fist:

Actual rules page 43 wrote:A model attacking with this weapon does so at Initiative step 1,

Again, doesn't change your statline.
Lash Whip:

GW FAQ wrote:counts their Initiative value as 1 until the end of the Assault phase, regardless of their actual Initiative.

Wow - look! An actual stat line modifier!
Too bad it has absolutely nothing to do with my example.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
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.

That's incorrect - assaulting into terrain never changes your Init. Perhaps consulting the actual rules would help you stay informed.

I unignored you to see if it was anything relevant to say.. and its not.

Its a setmodifier...just like a power fist or a lash whip.. Its sets the value to a set number. And it happens at the very end of the equation. So maybe instead of insisting everyone else learn what they are talking about, maybe you should try it first. Back on /ignore.

No, it's not a set modifier. "must attack at Initiative 1" is not setting Initiative to 1. You're still at the existing Initiative, but you no longer attack at that Initiative. This is important for interactions such as Unwieldy and Quickening. You attack at Initiative 1, but are Initiative 10 for Sweeping Advance. But keep telling others they need to learn the rules.

Quark wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
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.

That's incorrect - assaulting into terrain never changes your Init. Perhaps consulting the actual rules would help you stay informed.

I unignored you to see if it was anything relevant to say.. and its not.

Its a setmodifier...just like a power fist or a lash whip.. Its sets the value to a set number. And it happens at the very end of the equation. So maybe instead of insisting everyone else learn what they are talking about, maybe you should try it first. Back on /ignore.

No, it's not a set modifier. "must attack at Initiative 1" is not setting Initiative to 1. You're still at the existing Initiative, but you no longer attack at that Initiative. This is important for interactions such as Unwieldy and Quickening. You attack at Initiative 1, but are Initiative 10 for Sweeping Advance. But keep telling others they need to learn the rules.

I said I wouldn't get into a side debate.... I lied. Just to add an example to prove you're wrong.

What is the Str of a marine with furious charge and a power fist when charging?

9

Even though the Power Fist does not literally change the units stat line Str, GW specifically uses the stat line equation to figure out the units str. Multiply/divide then add/subtract, then set values.

It's like words mean things or something.

And even then it generates a conflict which the codex must win. (Using your argument)

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
What about my example? Model is using grenades (1 attack, no modifier). Codex wargear gives additional attacks. Does that mean I can make multiple attacks with grenades?

Are melee attacks listed on the statline?

Are grenades a set value that occurs at the end of the equation?

No issues cause.

Sure there are. BRB says no additional attacks. Codex says additional attacks. There's a conflict, ergo, codex wins and my model gets to make additional attacks.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
What about my example? Model is using grenades (1 attack, no modifier). Codex wargear gives additional attacks. Does that mean I can make multiple attacks with grenades?

Are melee attacks listed on the statline?

Are grenades a set value that occurs at the end of the equation?

No issues cause.

Sure there are. BRB says no additional attacks. Codex says additional attacks. There's a conflict, ergo, codex wins and my model gets to make additional attacks.

Then you are not following the equation for a stat line. Just plug in the numbers, including the bonus ones, and your answer will come out.

There is no equation for number of weapons a unit/model can fire.


EDIT: You are right though, this debate would be cleared up if GW just stated "Anytime numbers of any sort are being modified, follow the order for modifying a stat line." That would end the debate, and end it in favor of your side of it too.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
What about my example? Model is using grenades (1 attack, no modifier). Codex wargear gives additional attacks. Does that mean I can make multiple attacks with grenades?

Are melee attacks listed on the statline?

Are grenades a set value that occurs at the end of the equation?

No issues cause.

Sure there are. BRB says no additional attacks. Codex says additional attacks. There's a conflict, ergo, codex wins and my model gets to make additional attacks.

Then you are not following the equation for a stat line. Just plug in the numbers, including the bonus ones, and your answer will come out.

There is no equation for number of weapons a unit/model can fire.


EDIT: You are right though, this debate would be cleared up if GW just stated "Anytime numbers of any sort are being modified, follow the order for modifying a stat line." That would end the debate, and end it in favor of your side of it too.

I think the point they're trying to make is that you have situations where the big rule book has a section that defines certain things (charging into cover for instance) and the codex that says something else. In both cases the rule book needs to trump the codex for the game to work despite there being statements to the contrary via "codex trumps rulebook all the time".

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
What about my example? Model is using grenades (1 attack, no modifier). Codex wargear gives additional attacks. Does that mean I can make multiple attacks with grenades?

Are melee attacks listed on the statline?

Are grenades a set value that occurs at the end of the equation?

No issues cause.

Sure there are. BRB says no additional attacks. Codex says additional attacks. There's a conflict, ergo, codex wins and my model gets to make additional attacks.

Then you are not following the equation for a stat line. Just plug in the numbers, including the bonus ones, and your answer will come out.

There is no equation for number of weapons a unit/model can fire.


EDIT: You are right though, this debate would be cleared up if GW just stated "Anytime numbers of any sort are being modified, follow the order for modifying a stat line." That would end the debate, and end it in favor of your side of it too.

I think the point they're trying to make is that you have situations where the big rule book has a section that defines certain things (charging into cover for instance) and the codex that says something else. In both cases the rule book needs to trump the codex for the game to work despite their being statements to the contrary via "codex trumps rulebook all the time".

And when you follow the process they give you. It does.

But they want to ignore that part and claim brokenness.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
And when you follow the process they give you. It does.

Only if you play 40Steel-W0LFk. The actual rules don't work the way you think they do.

But they want to ignore that part and claim brokenness.

I've ignored nothing - but you're ignoring me so you'll never see this.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
And when you follow the process they give you. It does.

Only if you play 40Steel-W0LFk. The actual rules don't work the way you think they do.

But they want to ignore that part and claim brokenness.

I've ignored nothing - but you're ignoring me so you'll never see this.

He might if somebody quotes you. I don't know how ignore really works.

You really don't need to quote me - it'll let him see it but the mods may think you're doing it to intentionally get around the ignore feature.

I don't want anyone to get a mod warning.

OK, how about this example then.

I have a piece of wargear (that comes with the model standard) that allows me to re-roll a D6 of my choice once per turn.
He is under the effect of Misfortune.
He passes a save.
He is forced to re-roll due to Misfortune, and fails.
I then opt to re-roll that failed save (the one I just re-rolled) using the wargear.
Can I do this (even though the BRB says you can never re-roll a re-roll)?

 Happyjew wrote:
OK, how about this example then.

I have a piece of wargear (that comes with the model standard) that allows me to re-roll a D6 of my choice once per turn.
He is under the effect of Misfortune.
He passes a save.
He is forced to re-roll due to Misfortune, and fails.
I then opt to re-roll that failed save (the one I just re-rolled) using the wargear.
Can I do this (even though the BRB says you can never re-roll a re-roll)?

This.

This is exactly the reason why you need the rules in question to directly address each other in conflict for the codex to trump the core rulebook. Otherwise the game breaks too many ways.

Laser lock allows war walkers to twin link their bright lances. Prescience allows them to also reroll misses. Brb says you cannot reroll a reroll. Codex provides a method to reroll a reroll but without an explicit conflict. Using steel-wolfs definition of conflict, eldar can in fact reroll a reroll using the codex>brb argument.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

And when you follow the process they give you. It does.

But they want to ignore that part and claim brokenness.

Alright, since I've pitched in my hat into this I'll give this a go then. Let's start by seeing everything laid out verbatim shall we?

First the Multi-tracker:
"A model with a multi-tracker can fire an additional weapon in each Shooting phase."

And Ordnance:
"When shooting, a model with an Ordnance weapon fires the number of times indicated in its profile after its type. A non-vehicle model carrying an Ordnance weapon cannot fire it in the Shooting phase if he moved in the preceding Movement phase and cannot fire it as Snap Shots. Futhermore, if a non-vehicle model fires an Ordnance weapon, then the massive recoil from the Ordnance weapon means that the model cannot fire other weapons that phase, nor will it be able to charge in the ensuing Assault phase."

From this its easy to see where the claims of a conflict are coming from. The Ordnance weapon says "cannot fire other weapons that phase" and the Multi-tracker says "can fire an additional weapon". However, I believe these claims are ignoring the justification of the cannont given by the Ordnance rule: "the massive recoil from the Ordnance weapon". The very rule states that the recoil from the gun is supposed to be very powerful and prevents the non-vehicle model from engaging it's other weapons. From this we can see the clear intent of the rules: Ordnance always prevents the firing of additional weapons on non-vehicle models.

That said, there is a lot of room for reading things just as they are written, but that's a slippery slope that lets you argue immobilized Trukks getting a free inch of movement each turn because the Red Paint Job allows you to move an additional inch despite being told you cannot move (as per Immobilization). It's a situation where the codex's rules conflict with the rulebook and yet the rulebook must win in this conflict as the alternative breaks the intent of the rules (or as some would say the "spirit of the game"). Any time that this kind of conflict occurs I go the fairest route: to take the rule book's interpretation of the rules until we see an FAQ or Errata that says otherwise. It's best move one can take and it's always better to err to the side of caution for the purposes of at least respecting the other players you see across from you.

 Happyjew wrote:
OK, how about this example then.

I have a piece of wargear (that comes with the model standard) that allows me to re-roll a D6 of my choice once per turn.
He is under the effect of Misfortune.
He passes a save.
He is forced to re-roll due to Misfortune, and fails.
I then opt to re-roll that failed save (the one I just re-rolled) using the wargear.
Can I do this (even though the BRB says you can never re-roll a re-roll)?

Do you ever have permission to re tell a reroll?

No.


And to the ignored users statement, which intentionally quoting to get around the ignor feature is probably a violation and has been reported as such.

When did modifying the stat line the way the rules tell you to, in the order they tell you to become my way? If you are not modifying stat lines that way you are doing it wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
OK, how about this example then.

I have a piece of wargear (that comes with the model standard) that allows me to re-roll a D6 of my choice once per turn.
He is under the effect of Misfortune.
He passes a save.
He is forced to re-roll due to Misfortune, and fails.
I then opt to re-roll that failed save (the one I just re-rolled) using the wargear.
Can I do this (even though the BRB says you can never re-roll a re-roll)?

This.

This is exactly the reason why you need the rules in question to directly address each other in conflict for the codex to trump the core rulebook. Otherwise the game breaks too many ways.

Laser lock allows war walkers to twin link their bright lances. Prescience allows them to also reroll misses. Brb says you cannot reroll a reroll. Codex provides a method to reroll a reroll but without an explicit conflict. Using steel-wolfs definition of conflict, eldar can in fact reroll a reroll using the codex>brb argument.

Re-rolling a reroll is FAQd....

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
When did modifying the stat line the way the rules tell you to, in the order they tell you to become my way? If you are not modifying stat lines that way you are doing it wrong.

The stat line is never modified by assaulting into terrain using the actual rules.
You've failed at demonstrating a conflict.
You've failed at addressing basic rules issues with your interpretation.
You've failed to actually defend your viewpoint with anything besides "Page 7 > *" which isn't an argument so much as a statement to how little you understand permissive rule systems.

Since I'm on ignore you won't see this - but if you feel the need to "win" by making me stop reading/caring about this thread, you've done so. Congrats on trolling.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

And when you follow the process they give you. It does.

But they want to ignore that part and claim brokenness.

Alright, since I've pitched in my hat into this I'll give this a go then. Let's start by seeing everything laid out verbatim shall we?

First the Multi-tracker:
"A model with a multi-tracker can fire an additional weapon in each Shooting phase."

And Ordnance:
"When shooting, a model with an Ordnance weapon fires the number of times indicated in its profile after its type. A non-vehicle model carrying an Ordnance weapon cannot fire it in the Shooting phase if he moved in the preceding Movement phase and cannot fire it as Snap Shots. Futhermore, if a non-vehicle model fires an Ordnance weapon, then the massive recoil from the Ordnance weapon means that the model cannot fire other weapons that phase, nor will it be able to charge in the ensuing Assault phase."

From this its easy to see where the claims of a conflict are coming from. The Ordnance weapon says "cannot fire other weapons that phase" and the Multi-tracker says "can fire an additional weapon". However, I believe these claims are ignoring the justification of the cannont given by the Ordnance rule: "the massive recoil from the Ordnance weapon". The very rule states that the recoil from the gun is supposed to be very powerful and prevents the non-vehicle model from engaging it's other weapons. From this we can see the clear intent of the rules: Ordnance always prevents the firing of additional weapons on non-vehicle models.

That said, there is a lot of room for reading things just as they are written, but that's a slippery slope that lets you argue immobilized Trukks getting a free inch of movement each turn because the Red Paint Job allows you to move an additional inch despite being told you cannot move (as per Immobilization). It's a situation where the codex's rules conflict with the rulebook and yet the rulebook must win in this conflict as the alternative breaks the intent of the rules (or as some would say the "spirit of the game"). Any time that this kind of conflict occurs I go the fairest route: to take the rule book's interpretation of the rules until we see an FAQ or Errata that says otherwise. It's best move one can take and it's always better to err to the side of caution for the purposes of at least respecting the other players you see across from you.

That why I have been saying the RPJ is the closest example. How I view the word "additional" makes it not broken, but the other definition of additional does break it. Without GW defining it then its a opinion on which way to go.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

And when you follow the process they give you. It does.

But they want to ignore that part and claim brokenness.

Alright, since I've pitched in my hat into this I'll give this a go then. Let's start by seeing everything laid out verbatim shall we?

First the Multi-tracker:
"A model with a multi-tracker can fire an additional weapon in each Shooting phase."

And Ordnance:
"When shooting, a model with an Ordnance weapon fires the number of times indicated in its profile after its type. A non-vehicle model carrying an Ordnance weapon cannot fire it in the Shooting phase if he moved in the preceding Movement phase and cannot fire it as Snap Shots. Futhermore, if a non-vehicle model fires an Ordnance weapon, then the massive recoil from the Ordnance weapon means that the model cannot fire other weapons that phase, nor will it be able to charge in the ensuing Assault phase."

From this its easy to see where the claims of a conflict are coming from. The Ordnance weapon says "cannot fire other weapons that phase" and the Multi-tracker says "can fire an additional weapon". However, I believe these claims are ignoring the justification of the cannont given by the Ordnance rule: "the massive recoil from the Ordnance weapon". The very rule states that the recoil from the gun is supposed to be very powerful and prevents the non-vehicle model from engaging it's other weapons. From this we can see the clear intent of the rules: Ordnance always prevents the firing of additional weapons on non-vehicle models.

That said, there is a lot of room for reading things just as they are written, but that's a slippery slope that lets you argue immobilized Trukks getting a free inch of movement each turn because the Red Paint Job allows you to move an additional inch despite being told you cannot move (as per Immobilization). It's a situation where the codex's rules conflict with the rulebook and yet the rulebook must win in this conflict as the alternative breaks the intent of the rules (or as some would say the "spirit of the game"). Any time that this kind of conflict occurs I go the fairest route: to take the rule book's interpretation of the rules until we see an FAQ or Errata that says otherwise. It's best move one can take and it's always better to err to the side of caution for the purposes of at least respecting the other players you see across from you.

That why I have been saying the RPJ is the closest example. How I view the word "additional" makes it not broken, but the other definition of additional does break it. Without GW defining it then its a opinion on which way to go.

For the ruleset to work the definitions need to remain consistent, therefore the "additional" of the Multi-tracker must mean the same as the "additional" of the RPJ and so on. This is how the rules work, by setting up a consistent system regardless of army so that we understand the rules much more easily. So if the "additional" of the Multi-tracker lets you add an extra shot in when the bar has been limited to 1 shot, then it allows other oddities to occur too.

Honestly the safest bet if you think you can do it is to talk it over with your opponent or TO before hand and defer with their judgement. They'll likely tell you "no" and it'll honestly be for the best until an actual FAQ comes out.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

And when you follow the process they give you. It does.

But they want to ignore that part and claim brokenness.

Alright, since I've pitched in my hat into this I'll give this a go then. Let's start by seeing everything laid out verbatim shall we?

First the Multi-tracker:
"A model with a multi-tracker can fire an additional weapon in each Shooting phase."

And Ordnance:
"When shooting, a model with an Ordnance weapon fires the number of times indicated in its profile after its type. A non-vehicle model carrying an Ordnance weapon cannot fire it in the Shooting phase if he moved in the preceding Movement phase and cannot fire it as Snap Shots. Futhermore, if a non-vehicle model fires an Ordnance weapon, then the massive recoil from the Ordnance weapon means that the model cannot fire other weapons that phase, nor will it be able to charge in the ensuing Assault phase."

From this its easy to see where the claims of a conflict are coming from. The Ordnance weapon says "cannot fire other weapons that phase" and the Multi-tracker says "can fire an additional weapon". However, I believe these claims are ignoring the justification of the cannont given by the Ordnance rule: "the massive recoil from the Ordnance weapon". The very rule states that the recoil from the gun is supposed to be very powerful and prevents the non-vehicle model from engaging it's other weapons. From this we can see the clear intent of the rules: Ordnance always prevents the firing of additional weapons on non-vehicle models.

That said, there is a lot of room for reading things just as they are written, but that's a slippery slope that lets you argue immobilized Trukks getting a free inch of movement each turn because the Red Paint Job allows you to move an additional inch despite being told you cannot move (as per Immobilization). It's a situation where the codex's rules conflict with the rulebook and yet the rulebook must win in this conflict as the alternative breaks the intent of the rules (or as some would say the "spirit of the game"). Any time that this kind of conflict occurs I go the fairest route: to take the rule book's interpretation of the rules until we see an FAQ or Errata that says otherwise. It's best move one can take and it's always better to err to the side of caution for the purposes of at least respecting the other players you see across from you.

That why I have been saying the RPJ is the closest example. How I view the word "additional" makes it not broken, but the other definition of additional does break it. Without GW defining it then its a opinion on which way to go.

For the ruleset to work the definitions need to remain consistent, therefore the "additional" of the Multi-tracker must mean the same as the "additional" of the RPJ and so on. This is how the rules work, by setting up a consistent system regardless of army so that we understand the rules much more easily. So if the "additional" of the Multi-tracker lets you add an extra shot in when the bar has been limited to 1 shot, then it allows other oddities to occur too.

Honestly the safest bet if you think you can do it is to talk it over with your opponent or TO before hand and defer with their judgement. They'll likely tell you "no" and it'll honestly be for the best until an actual FAQ comes out.

Just out of curiosity cause no one has posted one yet, when the limit is one and you apply additional what oddities occur? There are many oddities that occur if its zero that have been posted.....

Otherwise I'm not really disagreeing with this post at all.

ClockworkZion wrote:
I think the point they're trying to make is that you have situations where the big rule book has a section that defines certain things (charging into cover for instance) and the codex that says something else. In both cases the rule book needs to trump the codex for the game to work despite there being statements to the contrary via "codex trumps rulebook all the time".

(Emphasis Mine)
Please stop saying this, it is not true at all. (The underscored text)

Codex trumps rulebook only when there is a conflict.

Quark wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
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.

That's incorrect - assaulting into terrain never changes your Init. Perhaps consulting the actual rules would help you stay informed.

I unignored you to see if it was anything relevant to say.. and its not.

Its a setmodifier...just like a power fist or a lash whip.. Its sets the value to a set number. And it happens at the very end of the equation. So maybe instead of insisting everyone else learn what they are talking about, maybe you should try it first. Back on /ignore.

No, it's not a set modifier. "must attack at Initiative 1" is not setting Initiative to 1. You're still at the existing Initiative, but you no longer attack at that Initiative. This is important for interactions such as Unwieldy and Quickening. You attack at Initiative 1, but are Initiative 10 for Sweeping Advance. But keep telling others they need to learn the rules.

Incorrect: Q: Does a model with an Unwieldy weapon Pile In at its normal Initiative step and then fight at Initiative step 1? (p22/23) A: No – it Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
OK, how about this example then.

I have a piece of wargear (that comes with the model standard) that allows me to re-roll a D6 of my choice once per turn.
He is under the effect of Misfortune.
He passes a save.
He is forced to re-roll due to Misfortune, and fails.
I then opt to re-roll that failed save (the one I just re-rolled) using the wargear.
Can I do this (even though the BRB says you can never re-roll a re-roll)?

Do you ever have permission to re tell a reroll?

No.

Sure I do. I can re-roll a D6 of my choice. I choose the die I just re-rolled. Permission is granted by the codex.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

And when you follow the process they give you. It does.

But they want to ignore that part and claim brokenness.

Alright, since I've pitched in my hat into this I'll give this a go then. Let's start by seeing everything laid out verbatim shall we?

First the Multi-tracker:
"A model with a multi-tracker can fire an additional weapon in each Shooting phase."

And Ordnance:
"When shooting, a model with an Ordnance weapon fires the number of times indicated in its profile after its type. A non-vehicle model carrying an Ordnance weapon cannot fire it in the Shooting phase if he moved in the preceding Movement phase and cannot fire it as Snap Shots. Futhermore, if a non-vehicle model fires an Ordnance weapon, then the massive recoil from the Ordnance weapon means that the model cannot fire other weapons that phase, nor will it be able to charge in the ensuing Assault phase."

From this its easy to see where the claims of a conflict are coming from. The Ordnance weapon says "cannot fire other weapons that phase" and the Multi-tracker says "can fire an additional weapon". However, I believe these claims are ignoring the justification of the cannont given by the Ordnance rule: "the massive recoil from the Ordnance weapon". The very rule states that the recoil from the gun is supposed to be very powerful and prevents the non-vehicle model from engaging it's other weapons. From this we can see the clear intent of the rules: Ordnance always prevents the firing of additional weapons on non-vehicle models.

That said, there is a lot of room for reading things just as they are written, but that's a slippery slope that lets you argue immobilized Trukks getting a free inch of movement each turn because the Red Paint Job allows you to move an additional inch despite being told you cannot move (as per Immobilization). It's a situation where the codex's rules conflict with the rulebook and yet the rulebook must win in this conflict as the alternative breaks the intent of the rules (or as some would say the "spirit of the game"). Any time that this kind of conflict occurs I go the fairest route: to take the rule book's interpretation of the rules until we see an FAQ or Errata that says otherwise. It's best move one can take and it's always better to err to the side of caution for the purposes of at least respecting the other players you see across from you.

That why I have been saying the RPJ is the closest example. How I view the word "additional" makes it not broken, but the other definition of additional does break it. Without GW defining it then its a opinion on which way to go.

Incorrect I'm afraid. If you had actually read the full example I gave a few pages ago, you would know that it is possible for the vehicle to become immobilised partway through movement, meaning that we have a literally identical situation.
RPJ (according to you):
moves 3" then immobilised by terrain
Cannot move any further
Can move an additional 1"

Ordnance + multitracker (according to you):
Fires ordnance
Cannot fire anything else
Can fire an additional weapon

RPJ (according to the rules):
moves 3" then immobilised by terrain
Cannot move any further

Ordnance + multitracker (according to the rules):
Fires ordnance
Cannot fire anything else




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Quark wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
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.

That's incorrect - assaulting into terrain never changes your Init. Perhaps consulting the actual rules would help you stay informed.

I unignored you to see if it was anything relevant to say.. and its not.

Its a setmodifier...just like a power fist or a lash whip.. Its sets the value to a set number. And it happens at the very end of the equation. So maybe instead of insisting everyone else learn what they are talking about, maybe you should try it first. Back on /ignore.

No, it's not a set modifier. "must attack at Initiative 1" is not setting Initiative to 1. You're still at the existing Initiative, but you no longer attack at that Initiative. This is important for interactions such as Unwieldy and Quickening. You attack at Initiative 1, but are Initiative 10 for Sweeping Advance. But keep telling others they need to learn the rules.

Incorrect: Q: Does a model with an Unwieldy weapon Pile In at its normal Initiative step and then fight at Initiative step 1? (p22/23) A: No – it Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1.

Incorrect again I'm afraid. Notice how he said "sweeping advance" and not "pile in".

I did make a mistake earlier. Re-rolling a re-roll is not in the FAQ. It is a BRB. It does say regardless of the source of the re-roll.

So this is a valid example of when a codex advanced rule that breaks a BRB rule and causes problems if allowed.

Its also further stated in the BS6 and higher section. So after 11 pages there is a valid example of "codex trumps" being broken.

 DeathReaper wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
I think the point they're trying to make is that you have situations where the big rule book has a section that defines certain things (charging into cover for instance) and the codex that says something else. In both cases the rule book needs to trump the codex for the game to work despite there being statements to the contrary via "codex trumps rulebook all the time".

(Emphasis Mine)
Please stop saying this, it is not true at all. (The underscored text)

Codex trumps rulebook only when there is a conflict.

If you read my post you know that I wasn't claiming that, but rather stating that it had to work that way regardless of the claims to that effect.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

Incorrect I'm afraid. If you had actually read the full example I gave a few pages ago, you would know that it is possible for the vehicle to become immobilised partway through movement, meaning that we have a literally identical situation.
RPJ (according to you):
moves 3" then immobilised by terrain
Cannot move any further
Can move an additional 1"

Ordnance + multitracker (according to you):
Fires ordnance
Cannot fire anything else
Can fire an additional weapon

RPJ (according to the rules):
moves 3" then immobilised by terrain
Cannot move any further

Ordnance + multitracker (according to the rules):
Fires ordnance
Cannot fire anything else



Incorrect again I'm afraid. Notice how he said "sweeping advance" and not "pile in".

Red: This example is correct for what you are arguing, it provides a broken example of the rule.

Blue: Whichever way he choose to try and use a stat line modifier, its still wrong. A power fist works exactly the same way, modifying the str of the attack but not setting it to a new value for anything else... yet the same equation in used in the rulebook for all modifications to model stats. In all of thier examples all they have to do is follow the equation, even puting codex stuff in that they claim breaks it, and they would still arrive at the correct result.