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.

It doesn't matter if you had a tau headband that let you fire twenty additional weapons.

If you fire ordanance you may fire no additional weapons.

Is +twenty weapons additional weapons past ordnance?

yes.

Does the tau headband or multitracker remove the restrictions by firing weapons of certain types? no.

As previously stated you do get to fire an extra weapon from Multitracker. However if you choose to fire an ordnance weapon all of your additional shooting is gone and you fire only the ordnance, there is no rule in the tau codex regarding ordnance and bypassing, or ignoring, that separate rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Steel - found yours yet? You have ignored that therre is no conflict, so I presume you have another rule you can point to?

You just think a conflict is something that is clearly defined in the rules and spelled out, I do not.

Neither is defined so neither of us can say if its what GW meant by a conflict or not.



I just love this topic because for whatever reason, the folks who will argue the silliest RaW arguments all day till they are blue in the face will come in this topic and start shouting RaI at the rafters. You guys arguing with me in this thread is how most of the RaI crowd feel with you guys in other threads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
It doesn't matter if you had a tau headband that let you fire twenty additional weapons.

If you fire ordanance you may fire no additional weapons.

Is +twenty weapons additional weapons past ordnance?

yes.

Does the tau headband or multitracker remove the restrictions by firing weapons of certain types? no.

As previously stated you do get to fire an extra weapon from Multitracker. However if you choose to fire an ordnance weapon all of your additional shooting is gone and you fire only the ordnance, there is no rule in the tau codex regarding ordnance and bypassing, or ignoring, that separate rule.

Link to rule stating BRB over rules the Codex?

No?

Opinion noted.....

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
I just love this topic because for whatever reason, the folks who will argue the silliest RaW arguments all day till they are blue in the face will come in this topic and start shouting RaI at the rafters. You guys arguing with me in this thread is how most of the RaI crowd feel with you guys in other threads.

No, no one in this thread is arguing intent (other than you). Your refusal to understand what a conflict is has nothing to do with actual rules.

Link to rule stating BRB over rules the Codex?

No?

Opinion noted.....

Hmmm... How far so Infantry move? How do you know? Your Codex doesn't tell you.

rigeld2 wrote:

No, no one in this thread is arguing intent (other than you). Your refusal to understand what a conflict is has nothing to do with actual rules

please link to the BRB definition of Conflict.
please link to the BRB definition of specific rules vs general rules.

Yes, you guys are arguing for what you think the "intent" was.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

No, no one in this thread is arguing intent (other than you). Your refusal to understand what a conflict is has nothing to do with actual rules

please link to the BRB definition of Conflict.
please link to the BRB definition of specific rules vs general rules.

Yes, you guys are arguing for what you think the "intent" was.

Please define "a" according to the BRB.
I am absolutely not arguing intent. I have not said that, do not put words in my mouth.

rigeld2 wrote:

Please define "a" according to the BRB.
I am absolutely not arguing intent. I have not said that, do not put words in my mouth.

If you are arguing that they cant use the +1, you are arguing intent.

if you want to use a specific definition of conflict, you need to support why that is the correct definition with RaW, otherwise other definitions are just as valid.

I am arguing in favor of the +1, which follows RaW. We are told which rules over rule which. The general ordinance rule in the BRB is over ruled by the more specific multi-tracker rule in the codex. This is clearly spelled out on pg2. RaW the codex is specific, and the BRB is general.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
If you are arguing that they cant use the +1, you are arguing intent.

No. I'm not arguing intent. I know that because I'm me and you're not, and I haven't said I'm arguing intent.
Second request - please don't put words in my mouth.

I am arguing in favor of the +1, which follows RaW. We are told which rules over rule which. The general ordinance rule in the BRB is over ruled by the more specific multi-tracker rule in the codex. This is clearly spelled out on pg2. RaW the codex is specific, and the BRB is general.

We are told that when there is a conflict the codex wins.
You've utterly and completely failed to show a conflict.
You've utterly and completely failed to understand what a conflict is in the scope of 40k rules.

According to your argument Telion can modify a snapshot. We know that's false.

From what I've seen this is an RAI of the MT where in one case does not have any conflict, the other (steel's) that does.

rigeld2 wrote:

You've utterly and completely failed to understand what a conflict is in the scope of 40k rules

So define conflict with 40K rules..... I'll wait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chillis wrote:
From what I've seen this is an RAI of the MT where in one case does not have any conflict, the other (steel's) that does.

So you don't think one rule saying you cant fire anything else, and one rule saying you can fire more is a conflict?

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You've utterly and completely failed to understand what a conflict is in the scope of 40k rules

So define conflict with 40K rules..... I'll wait.

A conflict in 40k is snapshots can't be modified and markerlights modifying snapshots. This is a direct conflict were one says nothing can modify it, but markerlights say they can. Thus the conflict is resolved by having the Codex win because it is more specific.

If this wasn't the case, then there would be no need for markerlights to call out snapshots because then any codex ability that modifies BS would work, which according to the FAQ, they don't.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You've utterly and completely failed to understand what a conflict is in the scope of 40k rules

So define conflict with 40K rules..... I'll wait.

I can absolutely show you an example.

Markerlights can modify the BS of a shooting unit. Normally you cannot modify a snapshot. Using your argument, Telion would be able to modify a snap shot (and so would any Dev squad, etc). We know this is incorrect.
Markerlights have specific permission - this generates a conflict. Snapshots say they cannot be modified, Markerlights say they can modify a Snapshot. BRB says codex wins conflicts, Markerlights can modify.

If you are given specific permission, then it's not a conflict because it tells you its not a conflict. You don't need page 2 for marker lights to effect snap shots because the marker light rule specifically says so. Page 2 could be blank and marker lights would still effect snap shots because you are told they do.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
If you are given specific permission, then it's not a conflict because it tells you its not a conflict. You don't need page 2 for marker lights to effect snap shots because the marker light rule specifically says so. Page 2 could be blank and marker lights would still effect snap shots because you are told they do.

So are you saying there is a conflict other BS buffing abilities from codices and that they should modify snapshot?

Now if marker lights made no mention of snap shots at all you would have an example that's comparable.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Now if marker lights made no mention of snap shots at all you would have an example that's comparable.

Could you please answer the question?

So are you saying there is a conflict with other BS buffing abilities from codices and that they should modify snapshot?

 Nilok wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
If you are given specific permission, then it's not a conflict because it tells you its not a conflict. You don't need page 2 for marker lights to effect snap shots because the marker light rule specifically says so. Page 2 could be blank and marker lights would still effect snap shots because you are told they do.

So are you saying there is a conflict other BS buffing abilities from codices and that they should modify snapshot?

Maybe I'm having a brain fart, what other ones are there?

RaW I couldn't argue why some would and some would not. I think it could probably be rationalized but as for written word it would be hard to argue against.

My whole reason for debating this topic is to prove why in some cases you have to go with what you think intent is. You can't always go with RaW as strict RaW causes some strange issues. It just so happens that a lot if the folks who will argue some if the silliest RaW come out against this interpretation. And its fun for the shoe to be on the other foot.

In this specific debate, I can see both sides with RaW support. Which by default means both sides are arguing for what they think RAI is.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
If you are given specific permission, then it's not a conflict because it tells you its not a conflict. You don't need page 2 for marker lights to effect snap shots because the marker light rule specifically says so. Page 2 could be blank and marker lights would still effect snap shots because you are told they do.

So are you saying there is a conflict other BS buffing abilities from codices and that they should modify snapshot?

Maybe I'm having a brain fart, what other ones are there?

RaW I couldn't argue why some would and some would not. I think it could probably be rationalized but as for written word it would be hard to argue against.

My whole reason for debating this topic is to prove why in some cases you have to go with what you think intent is. You can't always go with RaW as strict RaW causes some strange issues. It just so happens that a lot if the folks who will argue some if the silliest RaW come out against this interpretation. And its fun for the shoe to be on the other foot.

In this specific debate, I can see both sides with RaW support. Which by default means both sides are arguing for what they think RAI is.

That may be an interesting discussion, however, it is uncalled here and horrible off topic.

The FAQ defines all the other BS buffing abilities do not modify snapshots. The reason why both of us brought up snapshots is because they are very clearly defined and illustrate how a conflict works in the rules for 40k.

Without a specific example. I could argue why I think marker lights affect over watch. The snap shot rules cause lots of flakey issues. Another is using a marker light to snap fire a seeker missile. Many of the snap shot rulings seem arbitrary and inconsistent.

And you may be right that things that are specifically listed are conflicts, but that doesn't preclude other things that disagree with each other as not being conflicts.

It all boils down to GW rules are not perfect. There will always be inconsistencies. If that were not the case tournaments wouldn't need rule judges, or this forum. And the answer you get may not agree in all cases with the guy across the table.

Shooting myself in the foot. I think you guys could very well be right from a RAI standpoint. I'm arguing that RaW actually can go either way.

Have you defined "A" yet, using 40k rules?

Context defines what they mean by conflict: BRB says you may not do X because of Y, Codex states you may do X EVEN THOUGH Y.

This does not apply here. Your failure to understand what "conflict" means in 40k is the issue.

Your method of conflict results in my power armoured marine getting a save against a power sword. Given this is clearly ridiculous, you should probably rethink your stance

Steel Wolf, I have a simple question. Is the Tervigon a character?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Have you defined "A" yet, using 40k rules?

Context defines what they mean by conflict:

Context eh? So it is a RaI argument....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Steel Wolf, I have a simple question. Is the Tervigon a character?

Failing to see the relevance... Is there something that indicates it is, and something that says no? In answer: No, its just a unit of one.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Have you defined "A" yet, using 40k rules?

Context defines what they mean by conflict:

Context eh? So it is a RaI argument....

Context does not mean opinion.
Rules mean nothing without context.
Sentences mean nothing without context.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Have you defined "A" yet, using 40k rules?

Context defines what they mean by conflict:

Context eh? So it is a RaI argument....

Context does not mean opinion.
Rules mean nothing without context.
Sentences mean nothing without context.

So what context in the sentence about conflicting rules defer to the codex implies that conflicts must be spelled out and defined in the rules? Or is everyone taking context from other places in the rules and using it to define things elsewhere?

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Failing to see the relevance... Is there something that indicates it is, and something that says no? In answer: No, its just a unit of one.

Page 413 in the brb disagrees with you.
Of course, if the Codex always wins then you're right.

Thats sorta cheating in this argument. Only 6th edition codex's would override the BRB reference.

To those saying that the Riptide can fire Ordnance and a second weapon:

Can Slaanesh Daemons run 3" when they are pinned?
"Daemons Of Slaanesh:... units composed entirely of Daemons of Slaanesh Run an additional 3". "

If not, why not? In your view, why does the 'additional' & codex > brb argument work for Riptides by not for Slaanesh Daemons?

Steel - so if you claim context is rai, or opinion (it isn't, but we'll run with your ideas for a second) then define "a", using only 49k terms.

If you cannot, concede the point.

Fragile - no, it isn't cheating, it is illustrating what a conflict means in 40k, something steel seems unable to understand. Notice how they ignored my point that their version of conflict results in a power armoured model getting to make an armour save against a power sword?