Vehicles, Ordnance & the Heavy Vehicle Rule

[Eternus]

Hey guys, this is my first 'proper' thread on Bell of Lost Souls - go easy on me!

I apologise if this has been discussed before, but my question is this:

I believe that, based on a combination of the Vehicle Shooting text, the Relentless rule, the Heavy Vehicle rule and the Vehicles firing Ordnance text that the following is how these rules should be played.

Vehicles can remain stationary and fire all weapons at full effect.

Non Heavy Vehicles that move (up to 12" in most cases) and fire Ordnance can only fire other weapons as Snap Fire.

Heavy Vehicles can move a maximum of 6", but can fire all weapons to full effect.

Some people seemt to read the rules in isolation, resulting in all vehicles firing Ordnance only being able to snap fire other weapons whether they move or not, which effectively negates the Heavy Vehicle rule, as it means that a stationary Heavy vehicle firing Ordnance has the same penalties as a non Heavy Vehicle firing whilst moving and firing Ordnance.

How do you guys play this rule? I have had mixed opinions from elsewhere.

[Demonus]

from the way Ive read it, if you fire an ordinance weapon at all, any other weapon fired is "snap" fired.

[Eternus]

from the way Ive read it, if you fire an ordinance weapon at all, any other weapon fired is "snap" fired.

Yeah, that's how the text reads when read in isolation, but when you consider how this affects the different vehicle types and how it makes them compare to each other, what you get is lots of drawbacks to a Heavy Vehicle that is armed with an Ordnance weapon. Doesn't make sense to me.

[Wildcard]

Eternus: Yeah, thats how it currently is :( Leman Russ battle tanks and demolishers are worst of their models now in that regard. I hope they rule it so that heavy vehicle could fire all at full bs, even ordnance, but before its written, we just have to live with that..

On the other hand. Leman Russ Executioner can move and fire 5x plasma blasts and lascannon / heavy bolter / heavy flamer even if it moved. And Exterminator (that autocannon variant) is sure to cause grieve with 4x twin linked autocannon shots and total of 9 heavy bolter shots.. (an at bs4 if you give it Pask upgade)..

Unlimited new options because old good ones became crappy ones..

[Demonus]

tell me about it. worthless on Monoliths. Ooooh, I lose my 5+ jink save to be able to fire all my weapons....which are fired at BS 1 due to the ordanance partical whip....fail.

[Houghten]

I hope they rule it so that heavy vehicle could fire all at full bs, even ordnance,

Or just, y'know, revert to the Lumbering Behemoth rule.

[Eternus]

Or just, y'know, revert to the Lumbering Behemoth rule.

Seems strange they improve shooting with Leman Russ, but slow them down, then with the new edition just take away the shooting boost and keep the speed restriction.

[Nabterayl]

Seems strange they improve shooting with Leman Russ, but slow them down, then with the new edition just take away the shooting boost and keep the speed restriction.
That's true, but the argument for reading the rules "in isolation" (i.e., reading the rules without regard to whether they nerf or buff the existing units) is that GW would not write rules that have the effect of nerfing existing units. Do we believe that? Not universally.

[Azrell]

The answer to this question can be found on pg 150 of the BRB, first paragraph on the right side. It explains the chart below it showing vehicle movement and how many weapons can be fired at full BS, with a non bolded note below:

"The notable exception to this is ordnance weapons. Firing an ordnance weapon means that a vehicle can only make snap shots with its other weapons that turn (see pg 71)."

So Ordnance weapons are a restriction applied on top of the vehicle movement. And yes having the Leman Russ's main weapon be ordnance is kindda stupid on Gdubs part. But on the other side, blast now applies full str anywhere under the template... so thats good.

[pnkfld7892]

tell me about it. worthless on Monoliths. Ooooh, I lose my 5+ jink save to be able to fire all my weapons....which are fired at BS 1 due to the ordanance partical whip....fail.

Unfortunatley, the monolith never gets a Jink save. In the newest rules FAQ it states that models with the Heavy rule do not get to jink.

Now, does anybody know how to ask this question directly to GW; it'd be great to have an official ruling on this issue.

[gwensdad]

This came up at the gaming group last week. I tried to argue that the LR didn't get to fire "normally" after firing ordinance but got voted down. So the store "house rule" now has the "Heavy vehicle" rule overriding the "Ordnance" rule.

[walrusman999]

The answer to this question can be found on pg 150 of the BRB, first paragraph on the right side. It explains the chart below it showing vehicle movement and how many weapons can be fired at full BS, with a non bolded note below:

"The notable exception to this is ordnance weapons. Firing an ordnance weapon means that a vehicle can only make snap shots with its other weapons that turn (see pg 71)."

So Ordnance weapons are a restriction applied on top of the vehicle movement. And yes having the Leman Russ's main weapon be ordnance is kindda stupid on Gdubs part. But on the other side, blast now applies full str anywhere under the template... so thats good.

This is the rule, you fire ordnance everything else is snapfire, regardless of what other special abilities you have (unless something new comes out). Lumbering behemoth wouldn't really provide any bonus as it just allowed you to fire the turret weapon regardless of if you moved or not, has no affect on ordnance causing snapshots. The Heavy rule is Lumbering behemoth and since the only tanks to get that rule are the Leman Russ and the Monolith, its a pretty solid rule. The basic Leman Russ didn't really get nerfed all to hell, it just made it so that it wasn't worth taking plasma cannon side sponsons on it anymore. There are better options out there now. Vanquisher is better AT, Executioner with Plasma sponsons makes a mockery of spacemarine terminators, Punisher sucker punches Tyranid, Guard, and Ork swarm armies, there are just more options then before, get creative.

[Houghten]

Lumbering behemoth wouldn't really provide any bonus as it just allowed you to fire the turret weapon regardless of if you moved or not

Ordnance weapons haven't been move-or-fire since 4th edition. Have you read the Lumbering Behemoth rule? What it allows you to do is to fire the turret weapon in addition to any other weapons you'd be allowed to fire at combat speed or less. (That, and it caps your cruising speed to 6+d6".)

When the shooting rules of 5th moved to 6th, which I shall loosely summarise as "fire X amount of stuff" changing to "fire X amount at full BS, and the rest as Snap Shots", it would have made sense to simply amend Lumbering Behemoth so that you could fire the turret weapon at full BS in addition to any other weapons you'd be allowed to fire at full BS. But for some reason GW decided to make it Heavy instead, so it's less shooty and has a lower maximum speed.

So go on, having read that, try to tell me they didn't nerf the Russ. Without laughing.

[Demonus]

Unfortunatley, the monolith never gets a Jink save. In the newest rules FAQ it states that models with the Heavy rule do not get to jink.

Now, does anybody know how to ask this question directly to GW; it'd be great to have an official ruling on this issue.

exactly. He had the jink for the week or so after 6th came out, until it was faq'd

[Eternus]

exactly. He had the jink for the week or so after 6th came out, until it was faq'd

Go through the email address at the bottom of the FAQ page on the GW site.

[Black1705f]

This came up at the gaming group last week. I tried to argue that the LR didn't get to fire "normally" after firing ordinance but got voted down. So the store "house rule" now has the "Heavy vehicle" rule overriding the "Ordnance" rule.

In retrospect to this "house rule" decision I deliberated on, I would not consider it a house rule because it was something we came up with on the fly in quick fashion to keep the game moving. Also I was not directly involved in playing the game so I was at least neutral and the decision would affect both players equally (i.e. both players had Leman Russes).

In retrospect the two sets of rules taken into consideration (Vehicles & Ordnance Weapons p71 and Shooting with Heavy Vehicles p83) can just as easily if not should be interpreted independently of each other without conflict. The Heavy Vehicle rule will consider the vehicle as stationary for shooting purposes, but even if stationary the firing of the ordnance can still force snap shots whether you really moved or not.

My current leaning is that I was incorrect in my initial assessment of that rule at that time. Not because of the RAW interpretation says so, since I still like to consider some of the RAI. If GW intended Heavy Vehicles to be able to shoot everything at normal BS regardless of shooting ordnance I would think they would have FAQ'd it by now. Not to mention the majority opinion seems to support opposite.

I would never use a rules decision in one game as a standard or house rule in every game at that or any other venue. I would however use that decision for the remainder of that particular game just as GW describes in the, "The Most Important Rule" p4. I typically go back after the game and research the rule issue in question to gain an expanded perspective and it would seem that Gwensdad does as well. A house rule would be something widely accepted by a gaming community at some level.

The last thing I would want to see or experience is a juvenile style disagreement based on a previous game with a lot of, "Well last time we did this" arguments. Likewise I think it’s just as important to reach the most informed decision possible as quickly as possible otherwise they'll be a lot of rules roll offs slowing the game down even more than normal.

[Black1705f]

This came up at the gaming group last week. I tried to argue that the LR didn't get to fire "normally" after firing ordinance but got voted down. So the store "house rule" now has the "Heavy vehicle" rule overriding the "Ordnance" rule.

In retrospect to this "house rule" decision I deliberated on, I would not consider it a house rule because it was something we came up with on the fly in quick fashion to keep the game moving. Also I was not directly involved in playing the game so I was at least neutral and the decision would affect both players equally (i.e. both players had Leman Russes).

In retrospect the two sets of rules taken into consideration (Vehicles & Ordnance Weapons p71 and Shooting with Heavy Vehicles p83) can just as easily if not should be interpreted independently of each other without conflict. The Heavy Vehicle rule will consider the vehicle as stationary for shooting purposes, but even if stationary the firing of the ordnance can still force snap shots whether you really moved or not.

My current leaning is that I was incorrect in my initial assessment of that rule at that time. Not because of the RAW interpretation says so, since I still like to consider some of the RAI. If GW intended Heavy Vehicles to be able to shoot everything at normal BS regardless of shooting ordnance I would think they would have FAQ'd it by now. Not to mention the majority opinion seems to support opposite.

I would never use a rules decision in one game as a standard or house rule in every game at that or any other venue. I would however use that decision for the remainder of that particular game just as GW describes in the, "The Most Important Rule" p4. I typically go back after the game and research the rule issue in question to gain an expanded perspective and it would seem that Gwensdad does as well. A house rule would be something widely accepted by a gaming community at some level.

The last thing I would want to see or experience is a juvenile style disagreement based on a previous game with a lot of, "Well last time we did this" arguments. Likewise I think it’s just as important to reach an informed decision as quickly as possible otherwise they'll be a lot of needless rules roll offs slowing the game down even more than normal.

[Black1705f]

This came up at the gaming group last week. I tried to argue that the LR didn't get to fire "normally" after firing ordinance but got voted down. So the store "house rule" now has the "Heavy vehicle" rule overriding the "Ordnance" rule.

In retrospect to this "house rule" decision I deliberated on, I would not consider it a house rule because it was something we came up with on the fly in quick fashion to keep the game moving. Also I was not directly involved in playing the game so I was at least neutral and the decision would affect both players equally (i.e. both players had Leman Russes).

In retrospect the two sets of rules taken into consideration (Vehicles & Ordnance Weapons p71 and Shooting with Heavy Vehicles p83) can just as easily if not should be interpreted independently of each other without conflict. The Heavy Vehicle rule will consider the vehicle as stationary for shooting purposes, but even if stationary the firing of the ordnance can still force snap shots whether you really moved or not.

My current leaning is that I was incorrect in my initial assessment of that rule at that time. Not because of the RAW interpretation says so, since I still like to consider some of the RAI. If GW intended Heavy Vehicles to be able to shoot everything at normal BS regardless of shooting ordnance I would think they would have FAQ'd it by now. Not to mention the majority opinion seems to support opposite.

I would never use a rules decision in one game as a standard or house rule in every game at that or any other venue. I would however use that decision for the remainder of that particular game just as GW describes in the, "The Most Important Rule" p4. I typically go back after the game and research the rule issue in question to gain an expanded perspective and it would seem that Gwensdad does as well. A house rule would be something widely accepted by a gaming community at some level.

The last thing I would want to see or experience is a juvenile style disagreement based on a previous game with a lot of, "Well last time we did this" arguments. Likewise I think it’s just as important to reach an informed decision as quickly as possible otherwise they'll be a lot of needless rules roll offs slowing the game down even more than normal.

[damian]

I think it may be worth quoting the pg.71 rule in full and in context.

In the chapter 'Vehicles', in the section 'Shooting with Vehicles', in the subsection 'Moving and Shooting with Vehicles', we find the following rule:

Vehicles and Ordnance Weapons
Unlike other units, vehicles can move and fire with Ordnance weapons. However, a vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn.

It seems to me fairly clear that the use of the word 'however' makes the second sentence conditional upon the first i.e. that it applies when a vehicle is both moving and firing an ordnance weapon, which is backed up by the rule being in the 'Moving and Shooting with Vehicles' subsection.

This would mean that it does not apply if the vehicle is not moving and in the absence of any rule to the contrary a stationary vehicle would fire all weapons at full BS.

This would also mean that the Heavy rule has a point in terms of firing Ordnance weapons.

D

[Learn2Eel]

I think it is more a clarification that, unlike non-vehicle units that can never move and fire Ordnance weapons, vehicles can move and fire ordnance weapons. I think the second sentence is not specific to whether the vehicle has moved; it only states "a vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon", it doesn't state "a vehicle that has moved that fires an Ordnance weapon". I'm pretty sure the intent is that Ordnance weapons cause a vehicle to snap shot the rest of its guns unless it has an in-codex rule overriding it. I'm also certain this was intended by GW so as to at least bring the Ordnance-sporting Leman Russes back into line so that the other variants can be seen more often.

[Magpie]

There is a full stop after the moving and firing bit and when I went to school we weren't allowed to start a sentence with "However", because it caused too much confusion like this I guess.

The rule is saying.

Vehicles can move and fire Ordnance.
A vehicle that fires Ordnance ..... can only make snap shots ...

The way it is written narrows it down by saying "however when it fires ...." not "when it does this" or "however when it moves and fires..."

[damian]

Alot of people got taught this at school along with all the other daft little things we get taught like 'i before e except after c' and, like many of these things, it is somewhat far from the truth.

It is entirely possible to start a sentence with the word however and if done so with a subsequent comma the word becomes a conjunctive adverb that connects the main clauses of the sentence with the word however within it to the sentence preceeding it.

An example from Charles Dickens’ Nicholas Nickleby, “It is a great deal easier to go down hill than up. However, they kept on, with unabated perseverance,”

The question here is this; in their unabated perseverance are they going down hill or up?

Similarly is the pg.71 Ordnance firing vehicle moving or not?

This is not interpretation, nor simply my opinion, try googling 'starting a sentence with the word however' and you will find plenty of pages that explain exactly this.

The irony here is that, for once, a GW sub-editor has written it entirely correctly if not entirely clearly.

D

[Wolfshade]

... conjunctive adverb that connects the main clauses of the sentence ...

Squee!

Faith in humanity restored.

[Magpie]

The irony here is that, for once, a GW sub-editor has written it entirely correctly if not entirely clearly.


Which is why I said in my post that my schooling was to not do it, why? not because it is wrong but because it creates confusion.

[damian]

I'd like to raise a few other points in relation to this discussion, forgive me if this ends up being rather long.

Point 1: However

See the posts above.

Point 2: Context

So far no one has made any mention of where the rule actually is in the book (besides me), it is being quoted in isolation and I think this is misleading people to the wrong conclusion.

The following may seem a bit patronising in places, that isn't my intention but I feel it best to start from the ground up rather than leaping to the heady heights of a conclusion

'Vehicles and Ordnance Weapons' is written in a very small heading at the bottom of pg. 71. Publishing convention and the page layout would lead us to deduce that it exists within the 'Moving and Shooting with Vehicles' subsection that itself exists within the 'Shooting with Vehicles' section of the 'Vehicles' chapter.

This, to me, is significant. The whole point of having the chapter heading 'Vehicles' is that it leads us to the fairly inescapable deduction that the following text is all about vehicles and that we won't find any text about other things (infantry, monstrous creatures, etc.). Therefore none of the rules in the vehicle chapter relate to things that are not vehicles unless otherwise specified (the transport rules, for example, obviously have some relation to infantry).

Within 'Vehicles' we have the section titled 'Shooting with Vehicles' and again we can deduce from this that the subsequent text relates to vehicular shooting and not anything else (movement, assaulting, etc.).

Within this we have the subsection titled 'Moving and Shooting with Vehicles' from which we can deduce that the subsequent text is all about vehicles which both move and shoot and not about anything else.

This means that the paragraph being quoted is only relevant to vehicles which are moving and is totally irrelevant to vehicles which are not moving (i.e. stationary).

My question is this: If the last sentence of pg. 71 covers all vehicles that shoot Ordnance weapons (both moving and stationary) why is it in the subsection titled 'Moving and Shooting with Vehicles' rather than in the 'Shooting with Vehicles' section which directly preceeds it?

Point 3: The redundant sentence

It has been stated that the first sentence of the paragraph being discussed is there to tell us that vehicles have the potential to move and fire Ordnance weapons as if it were something not mentioned elsewhere in the book.

In fact we already know this from the bold text four paragraphs above stating that 'Vehicles always have the Relentless special rule'.

If we trundle over to the Relentless special rule over on pg. 41 we find the following sentence:

'Relentless models can shoot with Heavy, Salvo or Ordnance weapons, counting as stationary, even if they moved in the previous Movement phase.'

Given that GW has gone to no small amount of effort to avoid redundancies in rules writing and replace them with USR references it seems rather odd to view the first sentence of the last paragraph of pg.71 as a rule expression in and of itself; its only possible purpose is to exist as a conditional clause for the second sentence, to which it is joined by the word however (see Point 1 several posts earlier).

Point 4: The Stationary Exception

Despite being a subsection about Shooting with moving vehicles there is, three paragraphs up, a statement in the subsection that relates to stationary vehicles:

'A vehicle that has remained stationary can fire all of its weapons.'

Compare this to the rule given for Snap Shots on pg. 13 in which we have the third sentence:

'Some weapon types, such as Templates and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots.'

It seems that GW is perfectly happy to list exceptional weapon types when required, which can only lead us to the conclusion that the stationary sentence above does not list Ordnance firing vehicles as an exception because it isn't one.

Now I am fairly certain that some people are going to say 'Well sure it can fire the other weapons but it does not say at what BS.'

This is also a fallacious argument, inherent in the construction of 40k is the idea that you can either shoot, at full BS, or are expressly forced to fire Snap Shots, hitting on 6's. It seems eminently logical to me that if a statement says the vehicle can shoot then it does so at its full BS unless those shots are defined as Snap Shots. In this instance, they aren't.

Conclusions

These four points each lead us to the conclusion that the last sentence of pg. 71 does not refer to stationary vehicles. Each of these points leads us to this conclusion without inference, implication or interpretation and does so entirely independantly of the other three points.

This is not RAI, nor is it opinion, this is how the rules are presented in the BRB.

Stationary vehicles can fire all weapons at full BS even if that includes an Ordnance weapon.

I would dearly love for this to be wrong, all too often I fight an IG player who has entirely too many LRBT for comfort

If you have read this far, thankyou for your patience.

D

[damian]

Which is why I said in my post that my schooling was to not do it, why? not because it is wrong but because it creates confusion.

It isn't the 'however' which is unclear, what makes it unclear to a certain way of reading it is that the second sentence does not include the first sentence's conditional clause.

Technically speaking, it shouldn't have to. If the BRB included all of the inherent clauses in every rules sentence then it would be a much larger tome and so, where possible, they are removed.

D

[Magpie]

The rule the rule that says stationary vehicles can fire all of its weapons is a general case, the rule for vehicles and Ordnance weapons is a specific alteration of that rule in the special case of firing an Ordnance weapon.

Page 426 clarifies this by stating that the notable exception to the effects of movement on vehicle weapons are Ordnance weapons and makes the blanket statement that firing Ordnance weapons from a vehicle means the other weapons can fire snap shots.

[Nabterayl]

The rule the rule that says stationary vehicles can fire all of its weapons is a general case, the rule for vehicles and Ordnance weapons is a specific alteration of that rule in the special case of firing an Ordnance weapon.

Page 426 clarifies this by stating that the notable exception to the effects of movement on vehicle weapons are Ordnance weapons and makes the blanket statement that firing Ordnance weapons from a vehicle means the other weapons can fire snap shots.
For the record, I think this is exactly the correct analysis.

[damian]

Yet neither paragraph states or implies such a relationship, and the second flatly contradicts it.

Consider the following example:

'A cat can jump into the sea. However, it will drown.'

What happens to a cat that does not jump into the sea? It does not drown.

Compare this to:

'Unlike other units, vehicles can move and fire with Ordnance weapons. However, a vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn.'

This is an example of a conjunctive adverb; essentially the sentence following the comma after 'however' only applies if the sentence preceeding the 'however' is true. If the first sentence is not true then the second sentence does not apply.

Therefore a vehicle that does not move and fire does not have the last sentence of pg.71 applied to it.

[Nabterayl]

Therefore a vehicle that does not move and fire does not have the last sentence of pg.71 applied to it.
If that were true, why does page 426 say, "Firing an Ordnance weapon means that a vehicle can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn (see page 71)" as opposed to "Firing an Ordnance weapon means that a vehicle can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn, unless it remained stationary" or "Firing an Ordnance weapon means that a vehicle that moved can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn"?

I think you overstate the rules for conjunctive adverbs. A conjunctive adverb needn't express a conditional; it only needs to express a relationship or make a comparison some sort. It is not incorrect to say, "The Spartans were unable to take Athens by siege; however, [or: siege. However,] the Spartan army had never had much expertise in siegecraft." In this sentence, both main clauses are true when stated on their own; the conjunctive adverb is used only to draw the reader's attention to the contrast between them. It is not used to tell the reader that the second main clause is only true if the first is.

[damian]

Given some of the screaming howlers that turn up in summary sheets I'd never take a piece of summary text over the main body text.

Having said that, the piece of text quoted has again been taken out of context, it is quite obviously an addendum to the sentence above it in bold:

'Vehicles have a different chart, as it is usually how far a vehicle has moved, rather than what type of weapon it is firing, that determines how effective its firepower is.'

So we have an inherent assumption that the vehicle has moved, in which case the subsequent sentence you have quoted is entirely correct. However it says nothing about vehicles that are stationary.

As for the Spartan statement, the first sentence is not a conditional clause it is a definite statement which creates a totally different relationship to that of the rule on pg.71. Consider this:

'The Spartans can take Athens. However, many would be injured.'

How many Spartans are injured if they don't take Athens?

D

[Magpie]

All you need to know is written right here.

"Firing an Ordnance weapon means that a vehicle can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn (see page 71)"

The wording on Page 426 specifically says that usually it is movement and not which weapons are fired that counts EXCEPT in the case of Ordnance.

Discounting something that disagrees with an interpretation because it is as summary is just silly. A summary or rewording is a pretty good method of clarification.

[Nabterayl]

Having said that, the piece of text quoted has again been taken out of context, it is quite obviously an addendum to the sentence above it in bold:

'Vehicles have a different chart, as it is usually how far a vehicle has moved, rather than what type of weapon it is firing, that determines how effective its firepower is.'

So we have an inherent assumption that the vehicle has moved, in which case the subsequent sentence you have quoted is entirely correct. However it says nothing about vehicles that are stationary.
Why would we assume that? The chart given on that page clearly includes vehicles that are stationary.


As for the Spartan statement, the first sentence is not a conditional clause it is a definite statement which creates a totally different relationship to that of the rule on pg.71.
Neither first main clauses are conditional. "Unlike other units, vehicles can move and fire with Ordnance weapons" is not a conditional. You appear to be reading it as conditional because you assume that in this case, the relationship expressed by the conjunctive adverb is that of cause and effect. How do you know, though, that the relationship is not that of contrast? I see nothing in the first clause to indicate that.

[damian]

The use of the word 'can' rather than 'were' is a bit of a giveaway.

This discussion is going nowhere, so I shall summarise my arguments and do with it as you will:

1: This specific use of the word 'however' as a conjunctive adverb means that the second sentence only applies if the first sentence is true.

2: The fact that the rule quoted appears in the subsection entitled 'Moving and Shooting with Vehicles' rather than the 'Shooting with Vehicles' section that is immediately above it.

3: The fact that the first sentence is redundant as we already know that vehicles can move and fire Ordnance weapons from the bold text above stating that all vehicles have the relentless special rule.

4: The fact that the paragraph concerning stationary vehicles above does not state that Ordnance weapons are any kind of exception, nor does the paragraph in question contain any kind of exception to the stationary rule.

5: The rule quoted on pg. 426 follows on from a sentence concerning moving vehicles, by implication then it applies to moving vehicles and not necessarily to stationary ones. I would imagine that stationary vehicles column of the table below is there for a similar reason to the paragraph concerning stationary vehicles on pg.71, it was included for completeness sake.

For the record, I did not dismiss out of hand the rules presented in the summary section, I merely stated that if they appeared to be in conflict with the rules presented in the main body then we should probably follow the latter rather than the former.

I can think of 3 specific instances in which the summary rules were incorrect for some reason and in all three cases the main body text was found to be correct:

1. The strength skills that appeared in Necromunda.

2. The chart showing spell properties by type in the back of the 8th ed. WHFB RB.

3, The stat line for the demolisher siege cannon in the back of the latest space marine codex.

By contrast, I know of no instance where the summary text proved correct over the main body text.

In response I have seen several rather ineffectual attempts to pick apart two of the points I have raised. I have yet to see any actual evidence that the assumption that the last paragraph of pg. 71 applies to stationary vehicles is true.

Finally, I have a small challenge for anyone who still thinks that this quote applies to stationary vehicles.

Come up with two sentences forming a statement in which the second sentence is not conditionally dependant on the truth of the first, but which conforms to the following sentence structure:

<subject> can <verb><object>. However, <subject> can only <verb2>

For example:

The cat can jump into the sea. However, it can only drown.

The Spartans can try to take Athens. However, they can only fail.

Compare this with:

'Unlike other units, vehicles can move and fire with Ordnance weapons. However, a vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn.'

Laters

D

[Magpie]

Wow that's certainly the long road to Sparta !

You can see the table on Page 426 can't you? The one that has the column with the heading "Stationary" ? and the qualifier in the preamble to the table that says that vehicles who fire Ordnance are an exception to the table because if they fire it's snap shots due to firing rather than just moving?

Like I said before the usage of the word "however" has created some confusion as to the intent of the rule. That confusion is removed by the summary on page 426.
You don't get any clearer that "Firing an Ordnance weapon means a vehicle can only make snap shots with its other weapons that turn"

Why do you think that that somehow should read:

"Firing an ordnance weapon means the vehicle can only make snap shots with its other weapons that turn if it moves and just ignore the "Stationary" column below because that's just there for completeness"

???????

[damian]

Okay I shouldn't bite but I will; on pg.426 in the left hand column, the first point under shooting phase says, 'First choose a target' in bold text. It is then followed by a sentence linked to it by a hyphen mark, 'for an enemy unit to be a viable target...'. The second sentence quite clearly follows on from the first.

Now compare this to the two sentences in the right hand column on pg.426 and again, the second sentence is linked to the first by a hyphen and again, it follows on from the first. The only reason I think there is any confusion at all is that the first, bold, sentence finishes at the right hand edge of the page and so the second starts on a new line but even so, I think it fairly clear to all that the hyphen means it follows on.

Even if you don't agree with this I see no reason to assume that the sentence quoted on pg.426 overwrites the main body text on pg.71. Quite frankly the text on pg.71 is about as clear and unequivocal as it is possible for a rule to get.

D

[Learn2Eel]

Seems like a lot of banging on about nothing - sorry to say. My Defiler doesn't have the luxury of being able to fire any of its weapons at full Ballistic Skill after firing the Battle Cannon regardless of whether it moves or not, courtesy of store managers, GW HQ rules query managers and the like. I don't mean to be rude but I'm absolutely sure that firing an Ordnance weapon makes you snap shoot the rest regardless of whether you move or not, and you would have to go long and far to find anyone that disagrees.

[Denzark]

L2EEL - this shouldn't be a problem ever - everyone knows a Defiler should be run with 3 powerfists and a powerscourge - none of your poncy shooting except for the battle cannon!

[Magpie]

Okay I shouldn't bite but I will; on pg.426 in the left hand column, the first point under shooting phase says, 'First choose a target' in bold text. It is then followed by a sentence linked to it by a hyphen mark, 'for an enemy unit to be a viable target...'. The second sentence quite clearly follows on from the first.

Now compare this to the two sentences in the right hand column on pg.426 and again, the second sentence is linked to the first by a hyphen and again, it follows on from the first. The only reason I think there is any confusion at all is that the first, bold, sentence finishes at the right hand edge of the page and so the second starts on a new line but even so, I think it fairly clear to all that the hyphen means it follows on.

Even if you don't agree with this I see no reason to assume that the sentence quoted on pg.426 overwrites the main body text on pg.71. Quite frankly the text on pg.71 is about as clear and unequivocal as it is possible for a rule to get.

D

No in every way, just no.

[Warp dust]

The txt on page 426 isn't overwriting, it's restating. It even references page 71. You cannot deny how clear that sentence is. It makes no reference to moving or stationary so it has to be implied that it is in all cases that vehicles that fire ordnance weapons, all others must be fired as snap shots.

[damian]

If the sentences quoted on pg.426 are a definite standalone statement then perhaps you could explain somthing for me.

The first sentence:

'The notable exception to this is Ordnance weapons.'

The exception to what exactly? The english cricket team? Days of the week? Salsa dance moves?

It has to follow on from the previous statement in bold, otherwise that sentence makes no sense at all.

D

[Nabterayl]

It's an exception to the proposition that "it is usually how far a vehicle has moved ... that determines how effective its firepower is." Thus, when determining how many weapons a vehicle can fire at full BS, we "usually" reference how far it has moved, when ordnance weapons are involved we do not reference how far a vehicle has moved; instead, we reference "what type of weapon it is firing." As page 426 goes on to explain, "Firing an Ordnance weapon means that a vehicle can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn."

[damian]

Yes, thankyou, my apologies I shouldn't post in haste.

I know it is connected to the sentence in bold however others posting on this thread have maintained that the statement after the hyphen stands entirely alone from the sentence in bold on pg. 426.

I was being rhetorical.

D

[Magpie]

Yes, thankyou, my apologies I shouldn't post in haste.

I know it is connected to the sentence in bold however others posting on this thread have maintained that the statement after the hyphen stands entirely alone from the sentence in bold on pg. 426.

I was being rhetorical.

D

Who?

[Sam Scott]

Ok wait wait wait, it says if you fire ordnance the other shots are snap fired right? Correct me if I'm wrong or I'm missing something please since it is hard to keep track of all the rules and I don't have my book but, couldn't you shoot your other weapons first then shoot ordnance? It doesn't say you can't I don't believe.

[Nabterayl]

Ok wait wait wait, it says if you fire ordnance the other shots are snap fired right? Correct me if I'm wrong or I'm missing something please since it is hard to keep track of all the rules and I don't have my book but, couldn't you shoot your other weapons first then shoot ordnance? It doesn't say you can't I don't believe.
No, you can't. You have to declare all the weapons you're shooting, and at what, before you can actually shoot any of them. Then they're all shot simultaneously.

[Sam Scott]

Oh ok thank you for clearing that up. Well damn that sucks about the ordnance, another sweet *** backwards rule by the gw