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.

I propose:
1. If a vehicle weapon has both the Ordinance and Barrage types, it can only be fired if the vehicle has not moved (Seriously you think a Basilisk can fire while moving with the same accuracy?!)
2. If a vehicle has the type Heavy then if it has not moved it may fire all it's weapoons, including an Ordinance weapon without having to fire snap shots with it's other weapons (Leman Rus / heavy bolters)
3.Characters automatically pass look out sir rolls against Barrage weapons (Reduce the effectiveness of Barrage Sniping - can still snipe heavy weapons though)

I agree with the first suggestion, as it makes a lot of sense, however the other two do not. Suggestion 3 over buffs characters, so they cannot be killed by barrage weapons, thus nerfing barrages. Why exactly would he know to get in front of his sergeant anyway? Suggestion 2 also makes no sense, as the purpose of a heavy tank is to provide a stable gun platform that can fire heavy ordinance when on the move. Choosing to fire other weapons means that power is being re-routed from the main gun and its relevant propulsion units, and into sub systems, drastically reducing the effectiveness of the tank as a whole. It is also likely to keep vehicles such as Leman Russes balanced, as they would potentially game-breaking if this was to occur.

Why do people keep doing this? It's "Ordnance", not "Ordinance". There is no "I".

Ordinance is the correct spelling for me, im not sure if thats a fail on the computers part though

Only 2 of the leman rus are ordinance, the snap fire/ordinance rule:
-1increases the relative effectiveness of the non-ordinance ones without changing any costs change
-2 Makes buying sponsons on ordinance Rus pointless

I would be happy with ordinance removing casualties from the front instead of LOS passing just like all other weapons. Ordinance can blind fire for goodness sake why should it be better at taking out priority targets than sniper rifles and rapid fire guns?

 ThunderFury 2575 wrote:
Ordinance is the correct spelling for me, im not sure if thats a fail on the computers part though

Its because ordinance is still a word.

However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.

Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.

Ordnance is high caliber explosives.

No 'I' in ordnance.

Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.

Ordinance is basically a municipal order or decree.
Ordnance is basically artillery.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 ThunderFury 2575 wrote:
Ordinance is the correct spelling for me, im not sure if thats a fail on the computers part though

Its because ordinance is still a word.

However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.

Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.

Ordnance is high caliber explosives.

No 'I' in ordnance.

Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.

Then again, if you keep them busy with paperwork all day long, you can get your ordnance lined up to wipe them out.

 Blacksails wrote:

 ThunderFury 2575 wrote:
Ordinance is the correct spelling for me, im not sure if thats a fail on the computers part though

Its because ordinance is still a word.

However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.

Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.

Ordnance is high caliber explosives.

No 'I' in ordnance.

Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.

Sigged...

I think this is the first time I've ever been sigged.

Achievement Unlocked

 Blacksails wrote:
I think this is the first time I've ever been sigged.

Achievement Unlocked

can i sig that?

Sigception.

Hmm I hit agree with number 2 because I thought heavy vehicles could already move and fire everything. Heavy rule says they may move and fire an ordnance weapon. It further says that the vehicle is always considered stationary, so it should be able to fire all its weapon even when moving at full BS. The rules for ordnance don't say anything about limiting the fire of a vehicle.

Rumbleguts wrote:
Hmm I hit agree with number 2 because I thought heavy vehicles could already move and fire everything. Heavy rule says they may move and fire an ordnance weapon. It further says that the vehicle is always considered stationary, so it should be able to fire all its weapon even when moving at full BS. The rules for ordnance don't say anything about limiting the fire of a vehicle.

Page 71, very last paragraph.

 Happyjew wrote:
Why do people keep doing this? It's "Ordnance", not "Ordinance". There is no "I".

You use american english, hence why you spell armour as armor. We is australia use british english, which is why we spell it as Ordinance.

 Timmy149 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Why do people keep doing this? It's "Ordnance", not "Ordinance". There is no "I".

You use american english, hence why you spell armour as armor. We is australia use british english, which is why we spell it as Ordinance.

Umm, no, it's 'ordnance' in British English, too.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Why do people keep doing this? It's "Ordnance", not "Ordinance". There is no "I".

You use american english, hence why you spell armour as armor. We is australia use british english, which is why we spell it as Ordinance.

Umm, no, it's 'ordnance' in British English, too.

Canadian here, confirming ordnance is correct.

Again, unless your basilisk fires stacks of paperwork.

 Timmy149 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Why do people keep doing this? It's "Ordnance", not "Ordinance". There is no "I".

You use american english, hence why you spell armour as armor. We is australia use british english, which is why we spell it as Ordinance.

Actually I'm an oddball. I tend to use British English spelling. I put in the "u" in colour and armour (and my spellcheck hates me for it). I use "s" instead of "z" when I spell Immobilise. And I'm currently looking at page 51 of the BRB (which is written in Brit English and it clearly has no "i" in Ordnance.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Why do people keep doing this? It's "Ordnance", not "Ordinance". There is no "I".

You use american english, hence why you spell armour as armor. We is australia use british english, which is why we spell it as Ordinance.

Actually I'm an oddball. I tend to use British English spelling. I put in the "u" in colour and armour (and my spellcheck hates me for it). I use "s" instead of "z" when I spell Immobilise. And I'm currently looking at page 51 of the BRB (which is written in Brit English and it clearly has no "i" in Ordnance.

I have no idea now...

My spellcheck says Ordanance is wrong... It is in English (Australia) according to my taskbar, so I have no idea...

 Timmy149 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Why do people keep doing this? It's "Ordnance", not "Ordinance". There is no "I".

You use american english, hence why you spell armour as armor. We is australia use british english, which is why we spell it as Ordinance.

Actually I'm an oddball. I tend to use British English spelling. I put in the "u" in colour and armour (and my spellcheck hates me for it). I use "s" instead of "z" when I spell Immobilise. And I'm currently looking at page 51 of the BRB (which is written in Brit English and it clearly has no "i" in Ordnance.

I have no idea now...

My spellcheck says Ordanance is wrong... It is in English (Australia) according to my taskbar, so I have no idea...

Cos you've spelt it as 'ordanance'. The a I've highlighted will be doing that - its just spelt ordnance.

Anyway, back on topic:

Just go back to the 5th edition rules. You can fire in two modes:

1) Direct fire. Ignore minimum range, shoot just like a normal blast weapon.

2) Indirect fire. Uses the barrage rules, except that you may not fire at all inside minimum range and can not fire if the model has moved.

This is how it should have worked in the first place, except whoever wrote the barrage rules is apparently an idiot who doesn't have any clue about how indirect-fire weapons work.

All Ordnance weapons should be S10, Shred, Armourbane, Large Blast and Twin Linked, with no minimum range either.

Because you know all those cool heroes, monsters, and other painstakingly hand painted models people put on the board? Well theres nothing better then simply putting a template over them and pressing the 'erase' button

 Dakkamite wrote:
All Ordnance weapons should be S10, Shred, Armourbane, Large Blast and Twin Linked, with no minimum range either.

Because you know all those cool heroes, monsters, and other painstakingly hand painted models people put on the board? Well theres nothing better then simply putting a template over them and pressing the 'erase' button

Don't forget Flashbane for those pesky T10 monsters. And Remove from Play - Any model that is killed by this weapon is removed from play. No special rules can bring them back (such as MI, EL, RP, etc). They are gone. If you try to bring them back your opponent is allowed to crush them with a hammer.

There is a difference between Ordnance and Barrage. To recap:

Barrage:
1. can fire just like a normal blast weapon would (direct)
2. can fire without seeing the target (indirect) but it must scatter full distance except on a Hit
3. can fire inside it's minimum range, but must do so using indirect shot.
4. casualties are removed from the center of the blast marker (regardless of firing mode). So if you place it on a character and 10 other models, the character has to make 10 LOS tests.
5. cover saves are calculated from the center of the blast marker (regardless of firing mode). So unless you are in area terrain/jink you are most likely not going to get a cover save.

Ordnance:
1. If fired, other weapons must be snap fired - regardless of any amount of movement/other rules
2. Roll 2 dice and pick the highest when penetrating armor

Heavy (vehicle type):
1. can only ever move 6 inches
2. counts as standing still when shooting

So what is the current state:
Artillery type units (that are not heavy) such as the Basilisk can drive 6 inches and shoot their main cannon (Ordnance + Barrage) and have exactly the same accuracy as if they were standing still
Barrage weapons such as the Manticore (S10, AP 4, D3 shots) can snipe characters / heavy weapons regardless of where they are in the squad
Heavy vehicle type has no beneficial effects at all if you have an ordnance weapon (and intend to fire it), since you will be firing snap shots anyway.
Leman Rus armed with a Battle Cannon (Ordnance S8 AP3) will never by Heavy Bolters and will always move (to get WS1 in combat) since they are snap shooting everything else anyway
Leman Rus armed with an Erradicator (S6 AP4 ignores cover) will always buy Heavy Bolters since they are not restricted by the new Ordnance rules


-- Please correct me if any of these are incorrect in a meaningful way.

Don't forget Flashbane for those pesky T10 monsters. And Remove from Play - Any model that is killed by this weapon is removed from play. No special rules can bring them back (such as MI, EL, RP, etc). They are gone. If you try to bring them back your opponent is allowed to crush them with a hammer.

Genius! The war of the future will not be fought by bloodthirsty monsters and hardened soldiers - it will be fought by artillery drones over distances of billions of kilometers. We must make sure this is represented accurately on the tabletop!

-- Please correct me if any of these are incorrect in a meaningful way.

You misspelled Eradicator. Que semantics discussion.

Fixing Barrage

Something like;

"Wounds from a barrage weapon are allocated as seen fit by the owner of the target unit amongst all models under the template"

Old wound allocation is better than "put twenty ID wounds on your character kthanksbye"

Considering the range of the Earthshaker cannon, why would a basilisk ever need to move anyway?

 Dakkamite wrote:
"Wounds from a barrage weapon are allocated as seen fit by the owner of the target unit amongst all models under the template"

No. As long as you're going to have the awful "closest model" wound allocation system you can't just special-case barrage weapons to use a completely different system. To fix barrage sniping properly you need to fix the wound allocation system as a whole.

 PredaKhaine wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Why do people keep doing this? It's "Ordnance", not "Ordinance". There is no "I".

You use american english, hence why you spell armour as armor. We is australia use british english, which is why we spell it as Ordinance.

Actually I'm an oddball. I tend to use British English spelling. I put in the "u" in colour and armour (and my spellcheck hates me for it). I use "s" instead of "z" when I spell Immobilise. And I'm currently looking at page 51 of the BRB (which is written in Brit English and it clearly has no "i" in Ordnance.

I have no idea now...

My spellcheck says Ordanance is wrong... It is in English (Australia) according to my taskbar, so I have no idea...

Cos you've spelt it as 'ordanance'. The a I've highlighted will be doing that - its just spelt ordnance.

Tis but a typo... Apologies for that.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
"Wounds from a barrage weapon are allocated as seen fit by the owner of the target unit amongst all models under the template"

No. As long as you're going to have the awful "closest model" wound allocation system you can't just special-case barrage weapons to use a completely different system. To fix barrage sniping properly you need to fix the wound allocation system as a whole.

Whats wrong with the general wound allocation system? From the front makes sense to me.

 Dakkamite wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
"Wounds from a barrage weapon are allocated as seen fit by the owner of the target unit amongst all models under the template"

No. As long as you're going to have the awful "closest model" wound allocation system you can't just special-case barrage weapons to use a completely different system. To fix barrage sniping properly you need to fix the wound allocation system as a whole.

Whats wrong with the general wound allocation system? From the front makes sense to me.

I agree. Why does the dude at the back of your squad get killed before the guys at the front? That makes zero sense. Fantasy is different simply because of the way all of the regiments are created.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Whats wrong with the general wound allocation system? From the front makes sense to me.

Two things:

1) It creates endless arguments. Which model is 0.000001" closer, etc. Even if you make it so that barrage weapons don't use that method (multiple-shot barrage weapons are the worst offenders) you still have the argument for general shooting.

2) It's completely unrealistic. Let's say you have a tank character, and standing a few inches to the side (and 0.01" farther away) a melta gunner. And let's say my priority is killing the melta gunner to protect my tank. Well, why the hell would be supposedly trained troops dump shot after shot into a re-rollable 2++ instead of just shooting at the melta gunner? "Closest first" only makes sense if everyone is standing in a line leading directly away from the incoming fire, if everyone is spread out in a ruin you have the absurd "cinematic" experience of everyone being amazingly accurate shots and picking out the closest model for the whole squad to focus on (even if only a single fingertip of that model is visible), but never shooting at the most important threats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Timmy149 wrote:
I agree. Why does the dude at the back of your squad get killed before the guys at the front? That makes zero sense. Fantasy is different simply because of the way all of the regiments are created.

Because you point your gun at the guy in the back and shoot him.