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.

Normally, ordnance prevents me from firing any other weapon. However Riptides have multi-trackers, which let me fire one additional weapon than normal. Does this mean I can still fire both of my weapons at full BS? Also, can I still move and fire the ordnance weapon because its a monstrous creature?

Yes you can move and fire the Ordnance weapon. The Multi-tracker doesn't change the restriction Ordnance puts in place on number of weapons you can fire.

So even though the wording is similar in terms of how many weapons you can fire, it doesn't work like the PotMS on a land raider? Darn.

It doesn't?

I am not convinced that "can fire an additional weapon in each shooting phase" is overridden by "cannot fire other weapons that phase".

It kind of depends what order you apply the rules in. If you apply the ordnance rule (cannot fire another weapon) first, then apply the codex rule (can fire an additional), you certainly are allowed to fire the extra weapon, because of the wording of the multitracker. Normally, you're done, but you can fire an extra weapon.

Restrictions must override permission (part of how a permissive rule set works). The multi-tracker doesn't give an exception to the Ordnance rules.

And neither does the fact that you're a MC (as far as firing an additional weapon).

rigeld2 wrote:
Restrictions must override permission (part of how a permissive rule set works). The multi-tracker doesn't give an exception to the Ordnance rules.

Again, I'm not sold on this answer. You're reading it as an absolute restriction, I'm reading it as a limiting number. The multitracker allows you to exceed the limiting number by one.

The limiting number is "any". Being told you can't fire other weapons precludes all weapons

 Redbeard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Restrictions must override permission (part of how a permissive rule set works). The multi-tracker doesn't give an exception to the Ordnance rules.

Again, I'm not sold on this answer. You're reading it as an absolute restriction, I'm reading it as a limiting number. The multitracker allows you to exceed the limiting number by one.

As does being an MC. Using your argument an Ordnance weapon would never actually restrict anything.
If it's a limiting number, what's the limit? Can you cite where it says that?

Right, and the multitracker then overrides that, allowing you to fire one more than none.

And so does an mc, which is allowed to fire two anyway.

It does not say it can fire more weapons than usually allowed, so doesn't do so.

u can fire both no one i know or any tournaments i went to0 never said i could not fire both as multi tracker and MC says you can fire 2

When you look at it, the riptide can fire 3 weapons a turn.

yup but the sucky thing is they can only ever have 2 weapons? Where the Wraithknight can have 4 weapons and can only every fire two? Thanks GW

 Redbeard wrote:
Right, and the multitracker then overrides that, allowing you to fire one more than none.

Except for the fact that, you know, it doesn't.

You have permission to fire one additional weapon. Ordnance says,

p51 wrote:Furthermore, 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

Is the Riptide a vehicle?
Can you fire other weapons?
Are you seriously asserting that this part of the Ordnance rule literally does nothing? Multi-tracker is worded the same as the MC rule allowing additional weapons which, using your argument, overrides it.
I'm not aware of any model that has an Ordnance weapon that is neither an MC nor has some multi-tracker-esque rule.
edit: Chapter Masters can. Not that this invalidates anything because if they had a rule allowing another weapon your argument is that they'd overrule Ordnance. Meaning there is literally no case where it's relevant.

 Lovechunks wrote:
u can fire both no one i know or any tournaments i went to0 never said i could not fire both as multi tracker and MC says you can fire 2

Except that isn't what the rules actually say, as proven in the thread.

Also, please read the Dakka rules on posting and using proper english

"cannot fire any other weapons"

This is not a limiting sentence, it's giving us an absolute # of weapons we can fire. 1.

I play Tau, and I love my tide's. But it's really clearly written.

If it was worded as a limiting factor like tanks moving at different speeds are the rules would work differently.
Just like POTMS

the arguement for letting a riptide circumvent the restriction for ordinance,

IE

ordinance says I can only shoot that ordnance, and nothing else,

but multitracker adds +1 to the weapons I can fire, so why dont I try to "add" it after I the ordinance..


that doesnt work for several reasons:

one: the "order" in your theory is null, void, non existant... ect ect otherwise you can just claim the riptide fires the ordnance "last" so is not prevented from shooting other weapons.

two: multi tracker allows you to shoot one more weapon then normal, it does not grant permission to always fire two weapons, nor does it grant permission to over rule specific weapon rules such as ordnance. multi tracker is a general rule that generally applies to weapons.
ordnance is a specific rule that applies specifically to ordnance weapons.

ordnance have a specific restriction, which over rules any general permissions.


and for the record, even though it is anecdotal and not RAW evidence, no tourny I have played in has allowed riptides this "added" bonus... its pretty clear to all the TO's what the answer is around here.

I agree with the answer of no, even as a Tau player.

It is clear that the restriction in ordnance exists for a reason, but the only non-vehicle models that would be bound to it are those that can fire two weapons to begin with. If all it took was general permission for a non-vehicle modal to fire two weapons to overcome this specific restriction, then nothing would ever be bound by this restriction. While Game Workshop does write some very bad rules, it is hard to think of any other situation then restricting models like the riptide which this rule was penned. Therefore, without something specifically stating it lets a model ignore the ordnance restriction, the restriction is in play.

This is important not just for Ordnance weapons either: A good deal of rules and scenarios out there have multiple restrictions, sometimes with a single restriction being over-written by a general permission. If the mentality of the multi-tracker example above is applied to these situations, then all restrictions would go away soon as you have permission to ignore one. With a game as complicated as Warhammer 40k, this would mean that a good deal of the restrictions in the book no longer have any purpose. Needless to say, the rules quickly fall apart so much that the game becomes unplayable.

Fastest example of why this mentality of 'over-write one, over-write all' is incorrect that comes to mind: Units could assault on the turn they drop pod in even though this is clearly denied....

 easysauce wrote:
the arguement for letting a riptide circumvent the restriction for ordinance,

IE

ordinance says I can only shoot that ordnance, and nothing else,

but multitracker adds +1 to the weapons I can fire, so why dont I try to "add" it after I the ordinance..


that doesnt work for several reasons:

one: the "order" in your theory is null, void, non existant... ect ect otherwise you can just claim the riptide fires the ordnance "last" so is not prevented from shooting other weapons.

two: multi tracker allows you to shoot one more weapon then normal, it does not grant permission to always fire two weapons, nor does it grant permission to over rule specific weapon rules such as ordnance. multi tracker is a general rule that generally applies to weapons.
ordnance is a specific rule that applies specifically to ordnance weapons.

ordnance have a specific restriction, which over rules any general permissions.


and for the record, even though it is anecdotal and not RAW evidence, no tourny I have played in has allowed riptides this "added" bonus... its pretty clear to all the TO's what the answer is around here.

The only problem with this theory is that the BRB tells you explicitly which rules over ride which. Codex overides BRB.

Yes that can cause issues in some circumstances, but this isnt one of them. MCs wouldnt get to shoot 2 when firing ordinance because that would be trying to override one BRB rule weapon specific rule with a general model type rule.

This was a huge debate a couple months ago, and it went nowhere for 10 pages before locked. Overall I've never had it come up in a game because nova charging the ion accelerator just never seems to be worth it. Situations where you need str9 ordinance over str8 large blast just is not very common.

unless your trying to pen a vehicle and want 2D6 armour pen.....

but codex does trump rule book

p51 gives the ordinance rules, aside from preventing charges ect you cannot move. obviously doesn't apply to the tide as it has relentless.

monsterous creatures on p48 tells us that they can fire up to 2 weapons in each shooting phase (among other rules)

the 'more than one weapon' rule on p51 is what the multi-tracker is circumnavigating imo.

p69 Tau codex for multi-tracker, allows it to fire an additional weapon in the phase.

this does not circumnavigate the ordinance rule

rules clarification of succession:

shooting rules: you may fire a single ranged weapon
monstrous creature: you may fire 'up to' 2 weapons
multi-tracker: you may fire an additional weapon

this brings your total permissive weapons up to 3.

if you fire the ordinance weapon it states you may not fire an other weapons.

so basically if you wish to use the ordinance weapon you can either fire it, or 3 weapons of any other type.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
unless your trying to pen a vehicle and want 2D6 armour pen.....

but codex does trump rule book

p51 gives the ordinance rules, aside from preventing charges ect you cannot move. obviously doesn't apply to the tide as it has relentless.

monsterous creatures on p48 tells us that they can fire up to 2 weapons in each shooting phase (among other rules)

the 'more than one weapon' rule on p51 is what the multi-tracker is circumnavigating imo.

p69 Tau codex for multi-tracker, allows it to fire an additional weapon in the phase.

this does not circumnavigate the ordinance rule

rules clarification of succession:

shooting rules: you may fire a single ranged weapon
monstrous creature: you may fire 'up to' 2 weapons
multi-tracker: you may fire an additional weapon

this brings your total permissive weapons up to 3.

if you fire the ordinance weapon it states you may not fire an other weapons.

so basically if you wish to use the ordinance weapon you can either fire it, or 3 weapons of any other type.

Your last 2 sentences are made up out of whole cloth and nowhere in the rukebooks. Your interpritation of RAI, but not RAW.

Actually no - his penultimate sentence is literally what the rule says. His final sentence just restates 2 facts.

Acourding to the BRB and its statement of what rules over ride what. Nope.

Until you can find a rule stating what BRB rules over ride codex rules, you are stating RAI as you see it, not RAW. Because RAW tells you what trumps what.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Acourding to the BRB and its statement of what rules over ride what. Nope.

Until you can find a rule stating what BRB rules over ride codex rules, you are stating RAI as you see it, not RAW. Because RAW tells you what trumps what.

It also says that the trump rule is only invoked in the event of a conflict.

There is no direct conflict between "may not fire any other weapons" and "may fire one additional weapon". One sets the value "other weapons" to "null", the other tries to add one to "null" which gives an error.

If you think one stating one thing and the codex stating something else is not a conflict then that's your opinion.

And the stat line modifiers order of operation does not apply, number of weapons is not a stat line.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
If you think one stating one thing and the codex stating something else is not a conflict then that's your opinion.

And the stat line modifiers order of operation does not apply, number of weapons is not a stat line.

It might be my opinion, but I do not see a conflict and telling me that it's my opinion does not work out the rule.

I wasn't invoking order of operations. I'll even do it backwards if you like:

"May fire one additional weapon" sets the total value of weapons able to be fired to 3 (1+MC+MT). Firing the ordnance weapon reduces the value of "other weapons" (I.e. anything beside said ordnance weapon) to "null", making the firing of any other weapon illegal.

Stating the same thing differently does not change it. You are overriding a codex permission with a BRB rule with nothing saying BRB rules over ride the codex.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Stating the same thing differently does not change it. You are overriding a codex permission with a BRB rule with nothing saying BRB rules over ride the codex.

You have failed to understand what "conflict" actually means.
There is no conflict between firing an additional weapon and not being able to fire any other weapon.

Steel, codex isn't in conflict here.

Saying:
You can't fire any additional.
Vs
You can fire one additional.

Is the definition of a conflict in the rules. And you are told what rule takes precedence by the BRB.

I'll leave the debate though as the same 10 page thread does not need rehashed. If I remember the poll from three months ago the community was split pretty evenly. IF the situation ever came up I'ld ask the opponent, and dice off for it if you disagree with the opponent.