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.

No conflict, as no mention is made of ordnance in the codex. Cutting context is a bad thing

Non-competitive player perspective.

My logic. Order of operations. As Codex>BRB then BRB rules are applied prior to Codex rules.

BRB rules:
MC = May fire up to two weapons.
Ordnance = May only fire this weapon.

Codex rule:
MT= May fire an additional weapon.

Scenario:
I'm a big 'ol robot suit and I'm charging my Ion thingy because I wanna zap something. Hey, the rulebook says that because I'm a big 'ol suit I get to shoot two guns, aww...darn, I chose to charge my Ion thingy and the rule there says that if I use that I only get to shoot that. Wait a tic! My army specific book has this nifty rule attached to my wargear that only units in my army have (gee whiz, golly) and it says I can shoot one more gun. Wait. That doesn't sound right. One rule says I can only shoot the one gun and this other one says I can shoot an additional gun. Huh. Which one is right? Oh, I know! There's this other rule that says my army rule is always right! I do get to shoot two guns! Great!


* Note: The above is my opinion and holds as much weight as anybody's if/until GW staff actually learn how to playtest and write rules properly or at least FAQ things that come up on a regular basis. Your opinion is just as valid as mine, have a nice day.

I love the way you wrote that.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Saying:
You can't fire any additional.
Vs
You can fire one additional.

Is the definition of a conflict in the rules.

Saying "May fire one additional weapon, even when otherwise not allowed to do so" would be a conflict which the codex would trump.
If it said something like that you'd be right.
However it doesn't.
Simply being able to fire one addition weapon, with no extra rules, means it must follow the standard rules for a firing a weapon. This includes the shot being disallowed due to Ordnance.

Without a multitracker or being a MC you are not normally allowed to fire a second weapon.

Firing a second weapon is always conflicting with the rule of only firing 1 weapon.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Without a multitracker or being a MC you are not normally allowed to fire a second weapon.

Firing a second weapon is always conflicting with the rule of only firing 1 weapon.

So the Ordnance rule does nothing then. Cool story bro.
And if your going to argue you should probably correctly quote rules. Ordnance does not say you can only fire 1 weapon.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Saying:
You can't fire any additional.
Vs
You can fire one additional.

Is the definition of a conflict in the rules.

Saying "May fire one additional weapon, even when otherwise not allowed to do so" would be a conflict which the codex would trump.
If it said something like that you'd be right.

Thats not a conflict because it tells you right in the wording its not. A conflict is two things that disagree with each other with no stated resolution.

And the codex does not conflict with the rulebook

rigeld2 wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Without a multitracker or being a MC you are not normally allowed to fire a second weapon.

Firing a second weapon is always conflicting with the rule of only firing 1 weapon.

So the Ordnance rule does nothing then. Cool story bro.
And if your going to argue you should probably correctly quote rules. Ordnance does not say you can only fire 1 weapon.

Care to point out where I mentioned ordinance in my post? Hmm?

I said you can normally fire 1 weapon. Having a special rule that lets you shoot an addition weapon by default is a conflict with the rule of firing only 1 weapon.

When you DO fire ordinance, you additionally have a rule saying you can't fire other weapons, with a codex rule that says you can fire 1 more. That's a conflict no matter how you lawyer it.

Only when the codex specifies ordnance (not ordinance) is there a conflict

I would have to agree with Rigeld and Nos here, for which they probably wouldn't thank me.

The rule for a nonvehicle model firing an ordinance weapon absolutely limits the model to firing one weapon. The multitracker allows a model to fire one more weapon then it normally could. But the absolute limit on the ordinance weapon precludes the nonvehicle from firing any other weapons, negating the multitracker bonus.

Be nice to see this clarified in a FAQ since GW has made some strange rule calls in the past.

Ya, how many additional weapons can be fired when you are not allowed to fire any of them? - none

MT doesn't include permission to override a restriction which says you can not fire anything else- if it did that would be conflict

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Saying:
You can't fire any additional.
Vs
You can fire one additional.

Is the definition of a conflict in the rules.

Saying "May fire one additional weapon, even when otherwise not allowed to do so" would be a conflict which the codex would trump.
If it said something like that you'd be right.

Thats not a conflict because it tells you right in the wording its not. A conflict is two things that disagree with each other with no stated resolution.

Actually that very much would be a conflict. You'd have one rule saying you can, and one that you can't.
Instead you have one rule saying you can't, and one simply following normal rules (without saying you can).
So the can't wins.

I think the opposing view is that "can fire an additional weapon" is in addition to "cannot fire other weapons". It's like this. The basic rules are that a model can fire 1 weapon. Advanced rules due to MC say that he can fire 2, another advanced rule due to weapon type means can't fire any other weapons then the codex specific wargear/rules enter and add +1. 1+1=2-1+1=2. It pretty much depends on perspective and order of operations; when do you apply the allowance to fire an additional weapon? I don't think that anyone expects GW's massively competent (yes read all the sarcasm in the universe into this) writers to think of every possible scenario when they're busy copy and pasting things into the latest hack-fest of a book they're producing.

If you want to play competitively, there are better rule systems out there. 40k was designed as a game to meet up with a few friends and toss some dice around, not to agonize over on the internet, hell the designers have said as much more times than I can count in the 20 years I've played the stupid game. Trying to make sense of chaos will just cause undue angst; if you play someone you don't know, bring it up at the beginning of the game and explain your view. If they disagree, there's always "The Most Important Rule" on the first page of the stupid rulebook; dice off and go get a beer afterward.

 grendel083 wrote:
Actually that very much would be a conflict. You'd have one rule saying you can, and one that you can't.
Instead you have one rule saying you can't, and one simply following normal rules (without saying you can).
So the can't wins.

This is called opinion.

It's a really simple problem.
'Can not' and 'may not' trumps 'can' or 'may'.
The only thing that 'can not' conflicts with is 'must'.
Any other way of reading destroy how the rules work.
You can't fire ANY other weapons after firing ordnance. As above, it sets the value to 'null' rather than '0'

Imagine an rule in a codex that says "this vehicle may move an additional 6" in the movement phase". Could an immobilized vehicle with that upgrade still move? If a unit that runs an additional 3" is pinned, can it move 3"?
The answer is no, because CANNOT is stronger than MAY.

Codex does not trump rule book. That works in very specific situations, eg unit profiles being different or rules which have since become USR's. 'Specific trumps general' is the real rule.


Seriously, go through the BRB and find any instance of "can't", "cannot", "can not", "may not"... would you be ok with any of those being broken by an accompanying rule saying "x gets an additional y" ?



(source: I'm a Tau player who runs 3 riptides in tournaments)

 BarBoBot wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Without a multitracker or being a MC you are not normally allowed to fire a second weapon.

Firing a second weapon is always conflicting with the rule of only firing 1 weapon.

So the Ordnance rule does nothing then. Cool story bro.
And if your going to argue you should probably correctly quote rules. Ordnance does not say you can only fire 1 weapon.

Care to point out where I mentioned ordinance in my post? Hmm?

I said you can normally fire 1 weapon. Having a special rule that lets you shoot an addition weapon by default is a conflict with the rule of firing only 1 weapon.

When you DO fire ordinance, you additionally have a rule saying you can't fire other weapons, with a codex rule that says you can fire 1 more. That's a conflict no matter how you lawyer it.

No, it's really not a conflict. And while you didn't mention Ordnance I was informing you of the consequence of your line of thinking.

seriously, Is this still an argument?

The proper response is

Hi, want to play 40k?

Yes brought my Tau.

Lol, I just realized I have a tooth that needs pulling, see you!

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Actually that very much would be a conflict. You'd have one rule saying you can, and one that you can't.
Instead you have one rule saying you can't, and one simply following normal rules (without saying you can).
So the can't wins.

This is called opinion.

No, it's pretty much fact... It's almost like you have no rules to back up your assertions so you're just making up thinks to pretend others arguments are wrong.

"Pretty much fact" is an oxymoron.

Oh... see I was envisioning a Riptide getting creamed with ordnance weaponry. Which, ya know... Ordnance only works on vehicles, which, ya know... the giant Tau battlesuit is not...


...stupid damn Riptides...

how many weapons you can fire,

has 0 effect on the ordnance rule,

weather you can "normally" fire 1, 2 ,3 or 5 guns, does not matter. having 1+1, or 2+1, guns to fire, also does not matter.

ordnance does not even "set" your # of wepaons to one, for you to add the +1 after too ... so stop pretending that it does.

you have nothing to ADD too with multi tracker... ordnance isnt setting the # of weapons you can fire to anything.. it prevents you from firing anything but ordnance.

period.
so even if you do get to do your "fancy math" and claim you add + 1 after ordnance "sets" you to 1, you are just making up rules... ordnance doesnt set you to one.

your # of weapons able to be fired, does not matter, ordnance restricts you from firing any other weapons,

so not matter HOW many weapons you claim to be allowed to fire, ordnance restricts you from shooting them.. unless you are a vehicle..

this is a completely separate thing, from how many weapons you are allow to fire

see the difference?

multi tracker is : +1 to # of weapons to fire

ordnace is: may not fire any other weapons

 BarBoBot wrote:
"Pretty much fact" is an oxymoron.

Fine - just for you - it's absolute fact. It's nowhere near opinion. Grendels statement was correct, Steel's was not.
Is that clear enough?

The reason I used "null" instead of "zero" or "none" in my post is exactly that. Ordnance gives no feths how many weapons you can fire. You could be an MC with 300 Vanquisher Cannons and a Battlecannon, with permission to shoot 301 weapons per turn...

...but if you fire the Battlecannon then NO other weapons may be fired, period.

If a model fires an ordanance weapon it may fire no additional weapons that turn unless it has a rule that specifically states it can ignore the rules for ordnance weapons.

The tau codex multi tracker gives no such rule. it allows the model to fire more than 1 weapon.

If a model fires an ordnance weapon it may fire no additional weapons.

Nothing about multi tracker overrules that, as it it does not specifically give you permission to do so.

It is not a case of codex versus rulebook and which trumps which as there is no rule for multitracker allowing you to ignore the rules for ordnance.

blaktoof wrote:

It is not a case of codex versus rulebook and which trumps which as there is no rule for multitracker allowing you to ignore the rules for ordnance.

The counter argument would be that, while ordnance is not specifically mentioned, it does not need to be. The MT allows the model to fire one more weapon then normal. Ordnance sets that 'normal' to one weapon and so the MT must make that 'one more then one' because the codex gets applied last. This is not how it works.

"Normal" would be the number of weapons the model can fire regardless of what they are, in the case of a monstrous creature that is two weapons. The MT lets the MC fire 'one more then two' weapons. Before any weapons are fired by the MC the controlling player will identify all the weapons the MC will fire. If any of them are ordinance the model is restricted to firing only that weapon.

It might help if you think of it just like with modifiers. First do any multiplication or division, then any addition or subtraction, and finally anything that sets the value to a static number. The MT will increase the number of weapons by +1 then the ordnance rule will set it to a static one.

Ordnance's rule is not a modifier or even a number. It is a rule that says "no other weapons may be fired". Nowhere in there is a number, or modifier, or any math at all. Merely a easily-parsed English sentence, with what I expected to be a clear and obvious meaning. Evidently I was incorrect.

 easysauce wrote:
how many weapons you can fire,

has 0 effect on the ordnance rule,

weather you can "normally" fire 1, 2 ,3 or 5 guns, does not matter. having 1+1, or 2+1, guns to fire, also does not matter.

ordnance does not even "set" your # of wepaons to one, for you to add the +1 after too ... so stop pretending that it does.

you have nothing to ADD too with multi tracker... ordnance isnt setting the # of weapons you can fire to anything.. it prevents you from firing anything but ordnance.

period.
so even if you do get to do your "fancy math" and claim you add + 1 after ordnance "sets" you to 1, you are just making up rules... ordnance doesnt set you to one.

your # of weapons able to be fired, does not matter, ordnance restricts you from firing any other weapons,

so not matter HOW many weapons you claim to be allowed to fire, ordnance restricts you from shooting them.. unless you are a vehicle..

this is a completely separate thing, from how many weapons you are allow to fire

see the difference?

multi tracker is : +1 to # of weapons to fire

ordnace is: may not fire any other weapons

Page and paragraph?

Nope?

Ok, opinion noted.

Steel - found yours yet? You have ignored that therre is no conflict, so I presume you have another rule you can point to?

 Steel-W0LF wrote:


Page and paragraph?

Nope?

Ok, opinion noted.

Still no rules to support your stance?
Still refuse to accept that your argument makes that sentence in the Ordnance rules useless?

MT allows you to fire one extra weapon.
Ordnance denies you from firing any other weapon.
Is firing one extra weapon firing a weapon other than the Ordnance one?
Why are you ignoring the denial? The MT rule does not conflict and therefore does not overrule.