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:

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.

Red: Don't you think an emerging pattern of brokenness with your application of the rules might be saying something about that selfsame application?
Blue: I was not stating that the interpretation is correct (although I believe it is, following your application of pg.7, which is his point), I was saying how you cannot claim an FAQ for something else as supporting your claim.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

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.

Red: Don't you think an emerging pattern of brokenness with your application of the rules might be saying something about that selfsame application?
Blue: I was not stating that the interpretation is correct (although I believe it is, following your application of pg.7, which is his point), I was saying how you cannot claim an FAQ for something else as supporting your claim.

Where is the ruling stating that you sweeping advance, quickening, and init 10 happen at init 10? Trying to look it up but all I found was the related FAQ above that is not what they were talking about, and another FAQ that says things like lash-whip, or the necron coils and quickening conflict and you have to roll off to see which is used.


Finding 2 examples of brokenness is no cause for alarm, if there were not 100's of examples of issues with the rules you would have a point, but also then there would be no point for this forum because GW would have perfectly worded and inter-meshing rules.

Steel-WOLF, I'm honestly curious. How does one know when to apply codex>BRB? Is it all the time? If so, why do you denounce other issues of codex>BRB? Is it only sometime? If so, how do you know that those situations the "rule" applies?

I can name numerous instances of codex rules/wargear that give bonuses yet you claim they don't apply because...?

At this point, I think this thread needs to be locked because it is not going anywhere.

 Happyjew wrote:
Steel-WOLF, I'm honestly curious. How does one know when to apply codex>BRB? Is it all the time? If so, why do you denounce other issues of codex>BRB? Is it only sometime? If so, how do you know that those situations the "rule" applies?

I can name numerous instances of codex rules/wargear that give bonuses yet you claim they don't apply because...?

At this point, I think this thread needs to be locked because it is not going anywhere.

100% this.

 Happyjew wrote:
Steel-WOLF, I'm honestly curious. How does one know when to apply codex>BRB? Is it all the time? If so, why do you denounce other issues of codex>BRB? Is it only sometime? If so, how do you know that those situations the "rule" applies?

I can name numerous instances of codex rules/wargear that give bonuses yet you claim they don't apply because...?

At this point, I think this thread needs to be locked because it is not going anywhere.

Which instances?

Every instance you've given that I can think of you have been directly answered with the reasons why it does not work. For the stat line stuff, its not that those bonus's are not applying, its that the equation they give you to follow makes them irrelevant to the outcome.


I'm fine with a thread locking, we are not going to change each others minds. Its not that others have not also decided one way or the other, we are just the few left actually debating it.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Which instances?

Every instance you've given that I can think of you have been directly answered with the reasons why it does not work. For the stat line stuff, its not that those bonus's are not applying, its that the equation they give you to follow makes them irrelevant to the outcome.


I'm fine with a thread locking, we are not going to change each others minds. Its not that others have not also decided one way or the other, we are just the few left actually debating it.

And every instance is from a codex, thus creating a conflict. Ergo, codex wins.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
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.

That's absolutely and demonstrably false. A Power Fist never modifies your Initiative. Ever.
It changes when you swing (and therefore when you Pile In). Saying otherwise ignores written rules and is ignorance at best.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Which instances?

Every instance you've given that I can think of you have been directly answered with the reasons why it does not work. For the stat line stuff, its not that those bonus's are not applying, its that the equation they give you to follow makes them irrelevant to the outcome.


I'm fine with a thread locking, we are not going to change each others minds. Its not that others have not also decided one way or the other, we are just the few left actually debating it.

And every instance is from a codex, thus creating a conflict. Ergo, codex wins.

Thats the point. The codex IS being applied. But they lay out a formula that you follow for applying them. You are wanting to just skip right past the formula in an attempt to prove codex's cant be right all the time (which they cant be, but normally are)

Take your grenades example...or maybe it was someone else....

A model has 2 attacks, charges, has wargear that adds d3 attacks, but opts to use a grenade.... follow the equation.
2 base +1 charge = 3... 3 +1d3 = 5 (you rolled a 2), 5 attacks gets set to 1 grenade. (The codex bonuses WERE figured in.)

The same applies to initative:

Say your seargent has 4 base, a piece of wargear that gives +1, and a powerfist.

4+1=5, but the setvalue makes the 5=1. Now maybe for sweeping advance he counts as 5... I asked where that was above but never got answered.

yeah, your codex bonus of +1 weapon to shoot WAS already applied, BEFORE you chose to shoot ordinance, which then sets it to 0 additional weapons, since you fired ordinance.


just like you said above, the codex bonus is applied, then the specific wargear (ie grenade) sets the attacks to 1

just like even if you can fire 3 weapons, or 2+1, once you decide to shoot ordinance, its 0 more weapons.

you keep flip flopping steel wolf, you cant have it both ways.

MT just gives + 1 to weapons to be fired, no matter how many weapons you can fire, you still cannot fire them after shooting ordinance, unless you have a specific rule that allows it (like heavy)

MT is applied before you choose to shoot ordinance, you seem to get that for grenades, why not MT?

 easysauce wrote:
yeah, your codex bonus of +1 weapon to shoot WAS already applied, BEFORE you chose to shoot ordinance, which then sets it to 0 additional weapons, since you fired ordinance.


just like you said above, the codex bonus is applied, then the specific wargear (ie grenade) sets the attacks to 1

just like even if you can fire 3 weapons, or 2+1, once you decide to shoot ordinance, its 0 more weapons.

you keep flip flopping steel wolf, you cant have it both ways.

MT just gives + 1 to weapons to be fired, no matter how many weapons you can fire, you still cannot fire them after shooting ordinance, unless you have a specific rule that allows it (like heavy)

MT is applied before you choose to shoot ordinance, you seem to get that for grenades, why not MT?

Just curious, but if the MT says additional weapon may be fired, wouldn't that happen after the ordinance was fired?

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Say your seargent has 4 base, a piece of wargear that gives +1, and a powerfist.

4+1=5, but the setvalue makes the 5=1. Now maybe for sweeping advance he counts as 5... I asked where that was above but never got answered.

You're misapplying the actual rules, again. Please read the actual rules before trying to answer that question.

 easysauce wrote:
yeah, your codex bonus of +1 weapon to shoot WAS already applied, BEFORE you chose to shoot ordinance, which then sets it to 0 additional weapons, since you fired ordinance.


just like you said above, the codex bonus is applied, then the specific wargear (ie grenade) sets the attacks to 1

just like even if you can fire 3 weapons, or 2+1, once you decide to shoot ordinance, its 0 more weapons.

you keep flip flopping steel wolf, you cant have it both ways.

MT just gives + 1 to weapons to be fired, no matter how many weapons you can fire, you still cannot fire them after shooting ordinance, unless you have a specific rule that allows it (like heavy)

MT is applied before you choose to shoot ordinance, you seem to get that for grenades, why not MT?

That equation is for Statlines...

Is the number of weapons a model can fire on its statline?


I already said earlier that if this was used everywhere there would be no debate on the issue...

12 pages...

Tempers flaring...

Sides refusing to agree...

...time to close?

 Alpharius wrote:
12 pages...

Tempers flaring...

Sides refusing to agree...

...time to close?

Please.

Circular arguments are circular.

 Alpharius wrote:
12 pages...

Tempers flaring...

Sides refusing to agree...

...time to close?

ok with me too, neither side budging.

Roll off during games and wait for a FAQ. Seems to be the best option.

Until the FaQ you should take the least advantageous interpretation. choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice and the sporting way to play it.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Until the FaQ you should take the least advantageous interpretation. choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice and the sporting way to play it.

Woah that can lead up to a whole new thread and argument there.

 Miri wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Until the FaQ you should take the least advantageous interpretation. choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice and the sporting way to play it.

Woah that can lead up to a whole new thread and argument there.

How so?

Playing it so the action taker takes the least advantageous interpretation is really the meaning of ethical and sporting.

 Alpharius wrote:

...time to close?

I just got here!

It seems to me a matter of specific trumping general.

I have a mc with 2 shooting weapons, I have permission to fire them both.
The rule that allows that, is entirely unaware of what type it is granting permission to use (its general).

I have a model with mt, I have permission to fire an additional weapon.
Similarly, the rule that allows this, is entirely unaware of what type it is granting permission to use (general).

Back to the mc, it has weapon a that is ordnance and weapon b which is heavy.
A + b, 1 + 1.

According to the ordnance rules, if I fire a, I can't fire b. That is entirely specific to ordnance weapons.

So above, I had general permissions to fire first 2 weapons, then 1 + 1 = 2 weapons with a specific prohibition to firing the second, because of the specific manner deciding its use.

The logic trail rules-wise goes yes you can, yes you can, but ends in no you can't.

In a very simple way I would boil it down to restrictions and permissions.

Ordnance says you cannot fire any additional weapons. This is a restriction. Multi-trackers say you may fire an additional weapon. This is a permission. So the restriction trumps permission as the permission is not specific and does not say "even when firing ordnance".

That's just a very quick summary of what I think.

But, yes time to close in my mind 12 pages of the same arguments make it rather clear that this is going no where.

 redkeyboard wrote:
In a very simple way I would boil it down to restrictions and permissions.

Ordnance says you cannot fire any additional weapons. This is a restriction. Multi-trackers say you may fire an additional weapon. This is a permission. So the restriction trumps permission as the permission is not specific and does not say "even when firing ordnance".

That's just a very quick summary of what I think.

But, yes time to close in my mind 12 pages of the same arguments make it rather clear that this is going no where.

This is how I view it as well, and how our gaming group has been playing it.

From page 48 of the Warhammer 40,000 6th edition rulebook:

SHOOTING
Monstrous creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase - they must of course, fire both of them at the same target.

That is the rule that the multi-tracker conflicts with and is modified by. The number of weapons that a monstrous creature may fire. Not the rule that says a non-vehicle model may not fire another weapon if it fires an ordnance weapon.

Actually i just stumbled upon this in the BRB page 7 bottom right corner:
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and the one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence."

So that should mean it can fire the Ordnance weapon and use the MT to shoot the other weapon.

 bluedestiny wrote:
Actually i just stumbled upon this in the BRB page 7 bottom right corner:
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and the one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence."

So that should mean it can fire the Ordnance weapon and use the MT to shoot the other weapon.

As yakface said:

 yakface wrote:
So please, please, please do not parrot the terms: 'codex > rulebook' and 'advanced > basic' without understanding that these concepts are not absolute. They ONLY apply when the rules between two sources actually contradict, not when one is a permission and the other is a restriction.

 bluedestiny wrote:
Actually i just stumbled upon this in the BRB page 7 bottom right corner:
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and the one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence."

So that should mean it can fire the Ordnance weapon and use the MT to shoot the other weapon.

You know those moments in movies where the dude steps on the rake and smacks himself in the face. Yea, that happened.

I know 12+ pages are just about too many to read to post, but you really need to have a basis on what's been said/covered.

Specific > General isn't listed on page 7. It is however how the entire rulebook is built. Each section starts out with general rules for a topic, be that infantry, vehicles, shooting or whatever. Then follow the more specific rules for different cases.

How many weapons can an infantry unit fire?

Infanty in general can shoot one weapon per shooting phase. Monsterous Creatures specifically can shoot two weapons.

Specific rules branch off from general rules and modify things to make them work in different situations, without writing a complete list of things a unit can and cannot do from scratch each time. That makes a BRB that can still be lifted possible, but it also gives rise to misunderstandings such as this thread. Further, the rules are organized in a logical tree structure. They are split up in sections and branch off, with each individual rule having a place somewhere in that structure. IMHO what is happening in this thread is that someone looked at a leaf from the general shooting branch and is bending it over to the ordnance branch, hellbent on making it fit there. There are rules that touch different sections, but they explicitly state so.

Which restrictions apply to firing ordnance weapons?

Ordnance type weapons have specific rules, those affecting infantry listed in the weapons section with several times "that are not vehicles" used to limit the application and a short mention of ordnance weapons in the general vehicle rules section. These rules are by and large restrictions that prohibit units firing ordnance weapons from doing things they would normally be permitted to do.

Examples:
- A model that isn't a vehicle cannot fire an ordnance weapon if it has moved in the previous movement phase.
- A model that isn't a vehicle firing an ordnance wepaon cannot - due to the massive recoil - fire any other weapon system or attack afterwards.

Clearly, a generic infantry model is stuck here, but more specifically, the Riptide is a monsterous creature which grant the special rule Relentless, which lifts the ordnance restriction against movement and attacking when using ordnance weapons. Note that it does this by specifically referencing the general ordance rule. Yay for monsterous creatures special rules!

What does Tau accessory special rule do?

The special rule grants the option to shoot an additional weapon system. Quite handy for the Tau suits! Unlike vehicles, the suits are stuck with the single weapon they can fire, unless they happen to benefit from the special rules. Suit units use many different weapon systems, most of which are not ordnance type. Clearly the accessory offers a benefit for most suits.
However, the accesorry rule does not mention, modify, reference or affect the restrictions applicable to all ordnance weapons specifically, which do apply to the Riptide.

- A Marine can fire one weapon. General rule.
-- A Riptide can fire two weapons (yay MC special powers!) - or fire one (1) ordnance type weapon (boo for ordnance weapon type special rules).
--- A Riptide with the accessory can fire three weapons (yay for MC special powers with Tau sugar on top) - or fire one (1) ordnance type weapon (boo for ordnance weapon type special rules).

The rules at play come from two branches, the general shooting rules and the weapon type rules.

General shooting rules:
- Infantry can fire one weapon.
-- Monsterous Creature type infantry can fire two weapons.
--- Tau units with the accessory can fire one more weapon.

Weapon type rules
- Ordnance weapons have a bunch of restrictions
-- Monsterous Creatures can ignore some of the restrictions via the Relentless rule.

Wishful thinking and trying to make this "additional weapon" rule from the shooting rule branch somehow fit into the ordnance branch is why this thread is so long.
The Codex Tau special rule for the accessory does not modify the ordnance special rules, therefore page 7 thumping and codex > BRB spam are misleading.

 Stephanius wrote:
Specific > General isn't listed on page 7.

Not as such, no. However, specific & general is another way of saying advanced & basic, which is on page 7.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
Specific > General isn't listed on page 7.

Not as such, no. However, specific & general is another way of saying advanced & basic, which is on page 7.

Great, but not my actual point.

The Tau special/advanced rule is an exception to the general shooting and monsterous chreatures rules.
It doesn't reference, contradict or lift the restrictions on ordnance weapons.

Oh I agree. Just because one grants permission and the other puts in a restriction does not mean there is a conflict.

The only time permission overrides restriction is when the restriction in question is specifically called out.