Stationary vehicles firing Ordnance

[This Dave]

As requested here are the emails I got from Forgeworld about stationary vehicles firing Ordnance and if the other weapons have to fire Snap Shots. I wrote both GW and Forgeworld about this last year when I realized that if firing an Ordnance weapon makes all the other shots Snap Shots things like Titans and Baneblades were a lot less useful. GW sent me a form response but Forgeworld actually answered me.

I know it's not an official pronouncement but since it makes a lot more sense for things like Leman Russes I believe this is how the rule is intended to work.

*****

From: "Forge World (UK)" <forgeworld@...>
Date: January 10, 2013, 9:25:57 AM EST
To: David <pitfriend@...>
Subject: Re: Super Heavy vehicles and Ordnance weapons

Hi,

Thanks for your e-mail. Page 83 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook states that Heavy vehicles always count as remaining stationary for shooting; the Vehicles and Ordnance paragraph on page 71 specifically relates to the Moving and Shooting with Vehicles heading.

The Heavy or Super-heavy type overrides this; as such yes, the Internet is just a bit confused because it's not especially clear from the rules.

If there is anything further we can do to assist you, or if you have any queries about the information we have requested or provided, please telephone us.

Regards,
Forge World



If you have a query about your order, please call
0115 900 4995 within the UK
011 44 115 900 4995 from the US and Canada
00 44 115 900 4995 from much of Europe

Our office hours are:
0930 – 1800 (GMT) Monday to Friday
0930 – 1700 (GMT) Saturday


On 10 January 2013 11:53, David <pitfriend@...> wrote:
So that means that my Leman Russ can fire its Battlecannon and still fire the sponson weapons with full Ballistic Skill? That will make my Guard very happy if it does.

Also you might want to get that put into a FAQ both for Forge World and 40K as my original reading of the rule seems to be the common one, if what I've read around the Internet is any indication.

Thanks again!
Dave

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 10, 2013, at 5:04 AM, "Forge World (UK)" <forgeworld@...> wrote:

Hi there.

The reference to firing Ordnance weapons and other weapons specifically relates to moving and shooting. As Super Heavy vehicles (and Heavy vehicles) always count as stationary when firing, other, non-ordnance weapons may be fired with the full BS.


On 10 January 2013 01:32, David <pitfriend@...> wrote:
Have a question about Super Heavy vehicles and Ordnance weapons. On page 71 of the 6th edition rulebook it says that a vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon can fire other weapons but they count as Snap Shots. Since all Super Heavy vehicles have Ordnance weaponry this rule makes them far less useful. Ordnance, Blast, and Template weapons cannot be fired as Snap Shots so many of the weapons on things like Titans can't be fired and those weapons that can be are far less effective when they only hit on a 6.

I have read the Super Heavy rules in the new Imperial Armour book several times and cannot find any rule to override the Vehicles and Ordnance rule from the main rulebook. Have I just missed something somewhere?

Thanks!
Dave

Sent from my iPad



--

If there is anything further we can do to assist you, or if you have any queries about the information we have requested or provided, please telephone us.

Regards,
Forge World



If you have a query about your order, please call
0115 900 4995 within the UK
011 44 115 900 4995 from the US and Canada
00 44 115 900 4995 from much of Europe

Our office hours are:
0930 – 1800 (GMT) Monday to Friday
0930 – 1700 (GMT) Saturday

Information in this email and any attachments is confidential, subject to copyright and must not be
used or disclosed except for the purpose it has been sent, unless required by law.

Games Workshop Limited, registered in England and Wales, under company number 1467092, and
registered at Games Workshop, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham NG7 2WS.

*****

Hope this helps!

[Haighus]

Wow, so a Leman Russ can fire everything at full BS? That sounds great! :D

Finally located my rulebook. I see where FW is coming from with the ordnance rules for vehicles only relating to moving and shooting, but that is seriously ambiguous! Not to mention GW has taken down their FAQs... :(

[Wildcard]

Nice one Dave. This has to be one of the greatest buffing discoveries in the 41st millenium for the imperial guard :)

[This Dave]

Wow, so a Leman Russ can fire everything at full BS? That sounds great! :D

Finally located my rulebook. I see where FW is coming from with the ordnance rules for vehicles only relating to moving and shooting, but that is seriously ambiguous! Not to mention GW has taken down their FAQs... :(

That definitely seems to be the case. And my tanks are a LOT happier. :) But like you said it's written very badly. I've sent GW several requests to put it in the FAQ. Hopefully when they put them back up they'll add this in.

[Nabterayl]

Yeah ... while I think this is the sensible rule, I don't think it's at all clear from page 71 that firing an Ordnance weapon essentially means you're deemed to have moved at cruising speed when it comes to firing the rest of your weapons. "Not especially clear" is an understatement :P

[This Dave]

Nice one Dave. This has to be one of the greatest buffing discoveries in the 41st millenium for the imperial guard :)

Thanks. With the rule working this way it now makes sense why GW originally took the Lumbering Behemoth rule away from Leman Russes. Now the biggest problem is convincing people this is the way it's supposed to be played.

- - - Updated - - -


Yeah ... while I think this is the sensible rule, I don't think it's at all clear from page 71 that firing an Ordnance weapon essentially means you're deemed to have moved at cruising speed when it comes to firing the rest of your weapons. "Not especially clear" is an understatement :P

If the rules were clear it wouldn't be 40K. :)

[Haighus]

The thing is, this also makes other vehicles better too, not just heavy vehicles- any vehicle that is stationary can now fire all it's weapons at full BS plus ordnance. Hell, even hellstrike missiles on a Valkyrie could be usable now if it goes into hover mode ;) (although it is a bit crap that a highly advanced aircraft basically has to come to a complete stop to fire all it's weapon systems accurately....)

[Tynskel]

The thing is, this also makes other vehicles better too, not just heavy vehicles- any vehicle that is stationary can now fire all it's weapons at full BS plus ordnance. Hell, even hellstrike missiles on a Valkyrie could be usable now if it goes into hover mode ;) (although it is a bit crap that a highly advanced aircraft basically has to come to a complete stop to fire all it's weapon systems accurately....)

the Vulture/Valkyrie/Stormraven/Stormtalon are helicopters of 40k. Meant to just hover and blast away.

[Mad Cat]

I still don't think this is right. I am willing to be convinced by a FAQ from GW or even from forgeworld but they have not done so. When they took away lumbeing behemoth 18 months ago the effect was clear and they didn't FAQ it to clarify. Now the AM codex still doesn't "Correct" this so GW have had 2 chances to allow Russ to fire all guns + ordnance but chosen not to do so so I don't think you can argue RAI on that.

I know Dave has his Email as evidence but that just comes from someone at FW who is in charge of answering customer emails that day. It's like me asking a redshirt at the local GW, getting him to write his ruling on a piece of paper and taking it along to adepticon. Hardly gospel as GW and FW staff are hardly above making mistakes.

If you check the superheavy rules there is a clause stating that a superheavy vehicle can fire ordnance and then other weapons without having to snapfire. Great! This rule does override the firing ordnance rule in the 40k rulebook. No problems there.

The problem is the HEAVY TANK rule (Diferent from the superheavy) in the 40k rulebook makes no such claims and just says they are counted as stationary at all times which in no way overrides the ordnance rule.

Lets hope they get it sorted soon. I would love to put sponsons and stubbers on basic Russ. Perhapse 7th edition will solve this without needing a FAQ.

[Wildcard]

just to point out, with the new (well, the old ones actually, but in new place) FAQs being hosted on a fw-website clearly shows that FW is from this point on, the main rule fixing entity (if the faqs will start pouring out from FW instead of GW in the future)

[Patrick Boyle]

just to point out, with the new (well, the old ones actually, but in new place) FAQs being hosted on a fw-website clearly shows that FW is from this point on, the main rule fixing entity (if the faqs will start pouring out from FW instead of GW in the future)

Except they're hosted on the Black Library's website, which doesn't directly have anything to do with FW; in fact just like FW they're just another department of GW.

[Nabterayl]

So ... wait, are new FAQs up somewhere or something? Link?

[Charistoph]

So ... wait, are new FAQs up somewhere or something? Link?

Right here (http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html).

And as pointed out, the firing of Ordnance weapons causing other weapons to Snap Fire has absolutely NOTHING to do with being stationary or not.

[This Dave]

Right here (http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html).

And as pointed out, the firing of Ordnance weapons causing other weapons to Snap Fire has absolutely NOTHING to do with being stationary or not.

But that's the question now isn't it? The rule can be read either way. The response from FW and the fact that it makes a lot more sense makes me feel that the RAI is that a stationary vehicle can fire all weapons at full effect. But the RAW definitely reads the other way.

I wonder how they play it at Warhammer World at GW. That would probably be as close to getting it from the source as we can get until GW releases a FAQ or a rules rewrite.

[Patrick Boyle]

So ... wait, are new FAQs up somewhere or something? Link?

By new, it's all of the ones for pre-daemons army books. If the emails from GW earlier this week are anything to go by it implies that new FAQs are being written for anything missing from that list; Daemons, Tau, Eldar, Marines, Nids, AM and various supplements.

[John Bower]

But that's the question now isn't it? The rule can be read either way. The response from FW and the fact that it makes a lot more sense makes me feel that the RAI is that a stationary vehicle can fire all wea

but then why would they specifically point out that a Super Heavy CAN fire all it's weapons normally, whether stationary or not? To me it's still obvious, and to allow Russ's to get buffed like that would get a lot of haters really fuming at the mouth. I say it stands until we get proper clarification; Snapshots only after firing ordnance.

[Charistoph]

But that's the question now isn't it? The rule can be read either way. The response from FW and the fact that it makes a lot more sense makes me feel that the RAI is that a stationary vehicle can fire all weapons at full effect. But the RAW definitely reads the other way.

Only if you blur your eyes and tilt your head the right way could it be read that way.

The requirement of Snap Firing a weapon is not solely based on whether a model (Vehicle or not) is moving. If it is, then a Heavy Vehicle could fire at Flyers to full affect as well.

When other weapons fire on a Vehicle with an Ordnance weapon, it's not the Vehicle's speed that is causing the Snap Fire, it's because you fired a weapon that rocked the whole machine. The Ordnance on Vehicles rule doesn't say that the other weapons fire as if the Vehicle went Cruising Speed, it just flat out says they Snap Fire, just as if you were shooting at a Flyer without Skyfire.

And the Heavy rule doesn't stop all Snap Firing, just the ones that are caused by going a certain speed, which Ordnance does not apply.

Should the Heavy rule be amended to address that? Probably, it would be cool, and put Leman Russes closer to their 5th Edition incarnation. But until then, the Rules as Written do not support anything else. (Your own House Rules can do however you please, obviously).

[This Dave]

Only if you blur your eyes and tilt your head the right way could it be read that way.

The requirement of Snap Firing a weapon is not solely based on whether a model (Vehicle or not) is moving. If it is, then a Heavy Vehicle could fire at Flyers to full affect as well.

When other weapons fire on a Vehicle with an Ordnance weapon, it's not the Vehicle's speed that is causing the Snap Fire, it's because you fired a weapon that rocked the whole machine. The Ordnance on Vehicles rule doesn't say that the other weapons fire as if the Vehicle went Cruising Speed, it just flat out says they Snap Fire, just as if you were shooting at a Flyer without Skyfire.

And the Heavy rule doesn't stop all Snap Firing, just the ones that are caused by going a certain speed, which Ordnance does not apply.

Should the Heavy rule be amended to address that? Probably, it would be cool, and put Leman Russes closer to their 5th Edition incarnation. But until then, the Rules as Written do not support anything else. (Your own House Rules can do however you please, obviously).

The question isn't if Heavy overrides Snap Shooting. Shooting at Flyers and even Heavy vehicles have nothing to do with this. The issue is if a vehicle that remains stationary may fire all it's weapons at full BS, Ordnance or not.

If this is indeed the case then Heavy vehicles (which always count as stationary) could fire their Ordnance weapons and anything else at full BS even if they move.

There are vehicles besides Heavy ones that have Ordnance weapons. Defilers, Whirlwinds, Basilisks, and FW ones like Medusas and LR Helios. If this is the case then they could remain stationary and fire all their weapons at full BS or move and fire everything else as a Snap Shot. So this would help things besides Leman Russ tanks.

Is this wrong? Possibly. The majority of people online seem to think so. And that rule is written very awkwardly. But between the fact that this interpretation makes the most sense on top of these emails makes me believe it's right.

[John Bower]

Sorry but if you read the rules for Super Heavies, you will see clear as day the intent (regardless of any one guy who answered an e-mail at GW) is that any other vehicle firing Ordnance can't fire it's other stuff at full BS. It all Snap Fires, otherwise you wouldn't need the clarification on Supers that clearly states (they may fire all their weapons as normal even if they fired an Ordnance weapon) not an exact quote but the basic wording is there. It doesn't say that under 'Heavy' vehicles, all it says is that they count as 'stationary' when firing. Even a modern MBT rocks like heck when it fires, despite the guidance and suppression systems on it, and if somebody is firing an HMG from somewhere on that tank he's going to have one heck of a job doing so with anything but minimal accuracy. In fact a 1/6 chance of hitting is probably pretty optimistic.

[Gleipnir]

It is worded unusual, but its hardly unclear pg. 51 has the base special rules for Ordinance weapons that details all the rules for non-vehicles firing one, nothing surprising there since that section of the book is dedicated to all things considered infantry. pg. 71 presents the exception for Vehicles firing Ordinance weapons while moving and shooting where unlike non vehicles they are permitted to move and shoot them, after which it is followed by a sentence using a conjunction "However" which is bad grammar specifically because one should not begin sentences with conjunctions, as conjunctions are more appropriately used as a part of the same sentence separated by a comma. Its typical bad grammar on GW's part but not the worst wording they use in the book.

Essentially the second sentence that begins with "However" as a conjunction is referring to the rule presented in the first sentence, basic English. The entirety of the rule is presented under the rules for Moving and Shooting with Vehicles, under the greater entry for Shooting with Vehicles. Have to read not only what is written but take it in context, there is a reason that certain rules headings use different font sizes folks its to make clear to you what heading and subheading things pertain to.

Basically any vehicle that is stationary and fires an Ordinance weapon may fire all its other remaining weapons at full BS as none of the rules for a stationary vehicle shooting or Ordinance say otherwise, Heavy vehicles are treated as stationary even if they move and thus fire all their weapons at full BS regardless of if they moved or stay stationary. Other vehicles (other than Super-Heavies and Gargantuans) that move and fire an Ordinance weapon fire their other weapons as Snap Shots per the rules on page 71

The argument that somehow this or POTMS having rules that read they would allow you to shoot at flyers at full BS is a silly comparison since the rules for Hard to Hit for Flyers and Flying Monstrous creatures are more specific than the advanced rules for vehicles or the POTMS special rule, additionally GW has already told us in the case of flyers which rule takes precedence, and neither of those rules specifically detail shooting at flyers.

[AirHorse]

I'm inclined to agree having got my rulebook out and had a look at it now. I think Gleipnir has explained it quite well.

It isn't brilliantly laid out for sure, but I definitely think that its the correct interpretation.

[Katharon]

It is worded unusual, but its hardly unclear pg. 51 has the base special rules for Ordinance weapons that details all the rules for non-vehicles firing one, nothing surprising there since that section of the book is dedicated to all things considered infantry. pg. 71 presents the exception for Vehicles firing Ordinance weapons while moving and shooting where unlike non vehicles they are permitted to move and shoot them, after which it is followed by a sentence using a conjunction "However" which is bad grammar specifically because one should not begin sentences with conjunctions, as conjunctions are more appropriately used as a part of the same sentence separated by a comma. Its typical bad grammar on GW's part but not the worst wording they use in the book.

Essentially the second sentence that begins with "However" as a conjunction is referring to the rule presented in the first sentence, basic English. The entirety of the rule is presented under the rules for Moving and Shooting with Vehicles, under the greater entry for Shooting with Vehicles. Have to read not only what is written but take it in context, there is a reason that certain rules headings use different font sizes folks its to make clear to you what heading and subheading things pertain to.

Basically any vehicle that is stationary and fires an Ordinance weapon may fire all its other remaining weapons at full BS as none of the rules for a stationary vehicle shooting or Ordinance say otherwise, Heavy vehicles are treated as stationary even if they move and thus fire all their weapons at full BS regardless of if they moved or stay stationary. Other vehicles (other than Super-Heavies and Gargantuans) that move and fire an Ordinance weapon fire their other weapons as Snap Shots per the rules on page 71

The argument that somehow this or POTMS having rules that read they would allow you to shoot at flyers at full BS is a silly comparison since the rules for Hard to Hit for Flyers and Flying Monstrous creatures are more specific than the advanced rules for vehicles or the POTMS special rule, additionally GW has already told us in the case of flyers which rule takes precedence, and neither of those rules specifically detail shooting at flyers.


*glomps Gleipnir*

I couldn't have put it any better myself. It's just another case of of the Interwebs freaking over GW's usual bad grammar and interpreting a rule -- badly. When 6th first came out and IG guys lost Lumbering Behemoth, we all freaked. Now we all know that we were freaking out for no good reason other than our own misunderstanding.

[This Dave]

Thank you Gleipnir, that's a far clearer explaination than anything I could come up with.

Time to grind more enemies of the Imperium under the sacred treads of the machine.

[Charon]

*glomps Gleipnir*

I couldn't have put it any better myself. It's just another case of of the Interwebs freaking over GW's usual bad grammar and interpreting a rule -- badly. When 6th first came out and IG guys lost Lumbering Behemoth, we all freaked. Now we all know that we were freaking out for no good reason other than our own misunderstanding.

Not quite sold on this cause other translations of the rulebook support the "snapfire only" faction. There is no "however" in the german translation. Just a paragraph named "Vehicles and Ordnance" which states that you can only fire snapfire after firing with ordnance (or no weapon at all if you are no vehicle).

[John Bower]

Yeah, not sold myself; it firstly wouldn't need to be so specific about Super heavies if that was the case; and secondly, that whole 'however' bit... A vehicle that fires an ordnance weapon can only fire snapshots, it's kind of under it's own heading; vehicles and ordnance weapons, it's not labelled 'moving with ordnance weapons'. It just clearly states a vehicle firing with and ordnance weapon can only fire snapshots with its other weapons, it doesn't differentiate between moving or not.

[Gleipnir]

Not quite sold on this cause other translations of the rulebook support the "snapfire only" faction. There is no "however" in the german translation. Just a paragraph named "Vehicles and Ordnance" which states that you can only fire snapfire after firing with ordnance (or no weapon at all if you are no vehicle).

That is because bad grammar does not translate well, particularly bad grammar for rules written originally in English. As I do not read or speak German I cannot speak to how their rules for grammar handle conjugations or how it was translated in a secondary foreign language. In English it's a conjugation which means you combine the sentences separated by a comma to understand the meaning.

The rule so often referred to does in fact fall under the subheading for Vehicles and Ordinance which falls under the rules for vehicles moving and shooting which in turn falls under the rule heading for shooting with vehicles. So its context would be a rule pertaining to Vehicles shooting Ordinance weapons while moving. GW rules sections, rules headings and subheadings are child's play in comparison to IATA dangerous goods rules for shipping, but one thing is consistent in GW's rules and that is the context laid out by their use of headings and subheadings, though some people seem to ignore that fact, only reading often incomplete sentences out of context.

In this case the rule falls under the Advanced rules for Vehicles/Shooting with Vehicles/Moving and Shooting with Vehicles/Vehicles & Ordinance Weapons, if it was not intended to fall under the rules for Moving and Shooting the font for Vehicles & Ordinance would have been the same size as that used for Moving and Shooting with Vehicles.

The reason a subset rule was created for Vehicles moving and shooting Ordinance weapons was because all Vehicles have Relentless, and they needed an advanced rule to override that existing special rule when included with the Ordinance weapon entry on pg. 51

[Charon]

Even different structure here.
We have:
Vehicle movement (Bold) paragraph with movement and turns.
Subparagraph about difficult and dangerous terrain

complete new paragraph named Shooting with Vehicles (Bold, same formating as Vehicle movement)
Subparagraph with movement and shooting
New sub paragraph about vehicles and ordnance.

Without arguing about paragraphs:
The rule would make no sense at all as it is normal vehicle behaviour to fire ONE weapon at full BF after movement and the rest is snapshots. No reason to mention Ordnance in an extra paragraph at all.
Ordnance is special because even a stationary vehicle (which could fire all weapins in term of normal rules) is forced to snapshot the othe weapons if it fired ordnance. Would make no sense to mention it at all as a plasma cannon would behave exactly the same (if you move and fire the plasma cannon every other shot would be a snapshot) going with normal vehicle rules.

[John Bower]

Even different structure here.
We have:
Vehicle movement (Bold) paragraph with movement and turns.
Subparagraph about difficult and dangerous terrain

complete new paragraph named Shooting with Vehicles (Bold, same formating as Vehicle movement)
Subparagraph with movement and shooting
New sub paragraph about vehicles and ordnance.

Without arguing about paragraphs:
The rule would make no sense at all as it is normal vehicle behaviour to fire ONE weapon at full BF after movement and the rest is snapshots. No reason to mention Ordnance in an extra paragraph at all.
Ordnance is special because even a stationary vehicle (which could fire all weapins in term of normal rules) is forced to snapshot the othe weapons if it fired ordnance. Would make no sense to mention it at all as a plasma cannon would behave exactly the same (if you move and fire the plasma cannon every other shot would be a snapshot) going with normal vehicle rules.

Qudos Sir, you nailed it and I just read that for myself to double check. Indeed, a moving vehicle can ONLY fire a single weapon at normal BS, rendering any other version of the Ordnance rule redundant.

[Gleipnir]

Qudos Sir, you nailed it and I just read that for myself to double check. Indeed, a moving vehicle can ONLY fire a single weapon at normal BS, rendering any other version of the Ordnance rule redundant.

Hardly, as I said before the reason Ordinance carries a seperate subsection ruleset for moving and shooting is because all Vehicles are Relentless.

The Rules for Heavy Vehicles are even more specific than the Relentless rules as they additionally refer to What weapons they can fire and at what Ballistic Skill.

Many Vehicle types alter the number of weapons that may be fired at full BS while moving, Fast, Flyers and the POTMS special rule for example in answer to Charon's queston of why the redundancy, when you consider that fact the redundancy is clear.

[Nabterayl]

Gleipnir, that response doesn't make sense to me. A vehicle that moves at all can fire, at most, one weapon at full Ballistic Skill. No matter what type of weapon that is - assault, rapid fire, salvo, heavy, template, ordnance, whatever - all other weapons on the vehicle must be fired as Snap Shots.

If the ordnance rule on page 71 is really a moving-and-shooting type restriction, then the only vehicles for which it is not redundant are Fast vehicles moving at Cruising Speed, which are the only vehicles that can fire more than one but fewer than all weapons at full BS. That seems ... implausibly specific, doesn't it? Especially seeing as there are very few Fast vehicles with ordnance weapons?

EDIT: I see you anticipated my question in your edit. I'm still not sure I buy it, but I accept that you've thought about the objection and don't find it persuasive.

[John Bower]

Gleipnir, that response doesn't make sense to me. A vehicle that moves at all can fire, at most, one weapon at full Ballistic Skill. No matter what type of weapon that is - assault, rapid fire, salvo, heavy, template, ordnance, whatever - all other weapons on the vehicle must be fired as Snap Shots.

If the ordnance rule on page 71 is really a moving-and-shooting type restriction, then the only vehicles for which it is not redundant are Fast vehicles moving at Cruising Speed, which are the only vehicles that can fire more than one but fewer than all weapons at full BS. That seems ... implausibly specific, doesn't it? Especially seeing as there are very few Fast vehicles with ordnance weapons?

EDIT: I see you anticipated my question in your edit. I'm still not sure I buy it, but I accept that you've thought about the objection and don't find it persuasive.

Actually Offhand (but I don't have Tau dex) I don't know of any fast vehicles that cart ordnance around, only tanks of the type used by guard/marines. Eldar don't have any that I can think of offhand, DE certainly don't, Orks ... Don't think their Battlewagon is fast either. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but nope, can't think of any fast vehicles much less skimmers with ordnance.

[Nabterayl]

When the 6th edition rulebook was printed, Valkyries in Hover mode armed with Hellstrike missiles were Fast vehicles with ordnance weapons. I'm not aware of any others, though, outside of Forge World items. None of that changes my personal feeling that reading it as a move-and-shoot type restriction is awfully specific, though.

[Gleipnir]

At work at the moment or I'd respond with a detailed explanation with examples for you Nab, ultimately though it you don't accept the that the rule subset for Vehicles firing Ordinance Weapons is a part of the rules for Vehicles Moving and Shooting in the BRB by virtue of how it is presented in the basic rulebook as such, then its not going to be possible to convince you otherwise, since the rule when taken out of context would behave as some others are suggesting.

Not to mention that the rule that is so often quoted is being quoted in part and not in its entirety. Sentences that start with conjugations (But, Yet, However) carry the same meaning as simply combining them into one larger sentence with a comma.

[Charon]

Many Vehicle types alter the number of weapons that may be fired at full BS while moving, Fast, Flyers and the POTMS special rule for example in answer to Charon's queston of why the redundancy, when you consider that fact the redundancy is clear.

Which is covered under the special treatment of fast vehicles. If that was an issue the special treatment of ordnance and fast moving vehicles it had to be stated under that specific section.

[Gleipnir]

Which is covered under the special treatment of fast vehicles. If that was an issue the special treatment of ordnance and fast moving vehicles it had to be stated under that specific section.

While I and I'm sure many others would enjoy that level of specificity in rules writing GW doesn't do that, they present the general rule and then allow other rules to supersede them.

[Nabterayl]

At work at the moment or I'd respond with a detailed explanation with examples for you Nab, ultimately though it you don't accept the that the rule subset for Vehicles firing Ordinance Weapons is a part of the rules for Vehicles Moving and Shooting in the BRB by virtue of how it is presented in the basic rulebook as such, then its not going to be possible to convince you otherwise, since the rule when taken out of context would behave as some others are suggesting.
I'd probably feel differently if ordnance didn't get its own subheading under Moving and Shooting with Vehicles, and was listed as a bullet point. As it is, I do see your point, but I don't find it as persuasive as you apparently do.


Not to mention that the rule that is so often quoted is being quoted in part and not in its entirety. Sentences that start with conjugations (But, Yet, However) carry the same meaning as simply combining them into one larger sentence with a comma.
They do, certainly, but it's still a compound [compound-complex] sentence. No matter how you punctuate it, the second main clause is still independent of the first. "Vehicles can move and fire with Ordnance weapons" doesn't turn into a dependent clause whether you write it as two sentences or a single sentence.

EDIT: In other words, I just don't think it's obvious that:


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


A vehicle that remained Stationary can fire all of its weapons
a vehicle that that remained Stationary and fired an Ordnance weapon need not make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn.

[Gleipnir]

The second clause by virtue of the conjunct "However" used as a "but" is linked to the first statement and is not taken independently in a sentence. That is why it is bad grammar to begin sentences with conjunctions it confuses the reading.

Again the reason the subset rule about Ordinance weapons used while moving and shooting is presented at all is the fact that all Vehicles are Relentless, if they did not specify anything about them moving and shooting they would be no different than Salvo weapons on a vehicle otherwise.

Any vehicle that is stationary can fire all of its weapons at full BS, others are arguing the minute an ordinance weapon is used all the remaining weapons become Snap Shots, the rule for Vehicles firing Ordinance is a sub rule of the rules for Vehicles Moving and Shooting, in the case of the Leman Russ which is a Heavy Vehicle the rules for Heavy Vehicles treat the vehicle as stationary even if moving for determining the number of shots you can make at full BS which is a more specific rule than Relentless which applied to shooting a weapon while moving.

Additionally the rules for Ordinance weapons themselves only carry additional restrictions elsewhere as they pertain to non vehicles moving and firing them not vehicles on pg. 51

Basically if its not a Heavy/Super-Heavy/Gargantuan model that is moving and shooting with an Ordinance weapon then all the remaining weapons firing are Snap Shots.

To believe otherwise you have to discount the context of where the rule is given as a sub rule of Vehicles Moving and Shooting, rules of grammar as they pertain to a conjunct "however" when used as a "but" in a sentence, past examples of how Lemus Russ worked as Lumbering Behemoth 5th edition when replaced with Heavy Vehicle rules in 6th Edition, and previous examples of GW and FW customer service telling players that is exactly how it works.

[Nabterayl]

I don't see where you're getting as much from that "but" as you are. I get that if you want ordnance weapons to affect other weapons you need another provision, since Relentless by itself would let a vehicle move and fire an ordnance weapon no differently than any other weapon. What I don't get is why you think the sentence reads "... a vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon after moving can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn."

You seem to be getting that from the "but," but I don't think that's warranted. That would be warranted if the second main clause read "... a vehicle that does so can only make Snap Shots," or if the second verb otherwise referenced "move and fire." But it doesn't (yes, I did that deliberately :)). The predicate of the second main clause is broader than the predicate of the first, and I don't think that linking them by any kind of conjunction gives us a warrant to make the first scope a limit on the scope of the second.

[Gleipnir]

Grammar rules tell you that "However" used the way it is being used, carries the same meaning as "But" the very definition of a conjunction means they are not two seperate clauses, but joined.

con·junc·tion

Grammar - a word used to connect clauses or sentences or to coordinate words in the same clause (e.g., and, but, if ).

[Nabterayl]

Yes, but "but" doesn't mean what you think it means - at least, not in my mind. Take the following sentence:


Unlike other units, vehicles can move and fire with Ordnance weapons, but a vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn.
That's what page 71 actually says, I absolutely agree with you. If that's the rule, and a vehicle does not move but fires an Ordnance weapon, what does that sentence say happens?

You would have it that the sentence says nothing - it doesn't apply to the situation at all, and we fall back on whatever other rules may govern vehicles that fire without moving. Even written as above, I disagree with that proposition. Two independent clauses linked by a conjunction simply do not have to limit each other, and even if the sentence structure is more specifically "<clause 1> but <clause 2>," grammar simply does not compel clause 1 to limit the scope of clause 2.

Now, I would agree with you if the rule was written like this:


Unlike other units, vehicles can move and fire with Ordnance weapons, but a vehicle that does so can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn.
That is not what is written, though, and the two sentences are not equivalent to each other.

[Gleipnir]

If a vehicle does not move and fires an ordinance weapon nothing happens, it is treated as if it is a stationary vehicle firing any weapons, nothing in the rules for Ordinance on pg. 51 or Shooting with a Vehicle while stationary on pg. 71 change that.

[Nabterayl]

... which you're getting because you think "can move and fire with Ordnance weapons, but a vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon" is exactly the same as "can move and fire with Ordnance weapons, but a vehicle that moves and fires an Ordnance weapon," right?

If that's your contention, I think we have reached an impasse. That is not the way conjunctions work.

[Gleipnir]

No my contention is that a conjunction combines two or more clauses into one.

Written grammatically for the proper meaning the rule subset for Vehicles & Ordinance Weapons as they pertain to Moving & Shooting with Vehicles, in the Rules section for Shooting with Vehicles reads thusly;

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

The conjunction applies both clauses into one and taken as a whole based on the context the meaning is not that difficult unless you start taking things out of context. Meaning this is a rule under the subheading of moving and shooting thus that is the context of the rule, not a rule about shooting while stationary and moving, which if that was the intent the rule would not have been made a subset of the rules for moving and shooting (the font size would have been the same as Moving and Shooting)

[Nabterayl]

No my contention is that a conjunction combines two or more clauses into one.
That's ... just not true, unless you mean it in a way I'm not understanding. There are two subjects in your combined sentence ("vehicles" and "vehicle," respectively), and two predicates ("can" and "fires," respectively). There are two clauses, combined into a single sentence. But we still have to take the clauses as we find them. If nothing in clause 2 suggests that it relates to movement, the fact that it is coordinated with a different clause that does relate to movement does not give us warrant to read clause 2 as relating to movement. This is true of all conjunctions, but particularly of "but," whose function is often to present two clauses in contrast to one another.

[Gleipnir]

Maybe you misunderstood what a conjunction is

con·junc·tion [kuhn-juhngk-shuhn]
noun

1. Grammar .

a. any member of a small class of words distinguished in many languages by their function as connectors between words, phrases, clauses, or sentences, as and, because, but, however.

b. any other word or expression of similar function, as in any case.

2. the act of conjoining; combination.

3. the state of being conjoined; union; association: The police, in conjunction with the army, established order.

4. a combination of events or circumstances.

5. Logic.

a. a compound proposition that is true if and only if all of its component propositions are true.

b. the relation among the components of such a proposition, usually expressed by AND or & or

Not trying to be insulting there Nab just offering in case you honestly didn't know the definition

Reading both clauses taken separately and not together is by its definition taking something out of context.

[Nabterayl]

No offense taken. I understand what a conjunction is. What I meant to say with my last post is that a conjunction can express multiple ideas, and to figure out which idea it is expressing, we need to look not just at which conjunction is being used (e.g., and vs. but vs. or), but also the clauses being conjoined. For instance, in the sentences:


Nabterayl makes a number of good points, but Gleipnir has the better answer
and


Nabterayl is wrong, but stubbornly refuses to admit it

and

Nabterayl is right in general, but in this case he is wrong
the conjunction "but" does three different things. In the first case it indicates an unexpected contrast between clause 2 and clause 1. In the second case, it's interchangeable with "and." In the third case, it indicates that clause 2 is an exception to clause 1. My contention is not that we should read the clauses in isolation, but rather that you are arguing that "but" is performing work that, if you look at the content of the two clauses being coordinated, makes no sense.

In the case we have before us, clause 1 indicates if A (a vehicle moves) then B (it can fire Ordnance weapons). Clause 2 indicates if B (a vehicle fires Ordnance weapons), then C (all other weapons can only be fired as Snap Shots). You are arguing that, because they are coordinated by "but," we can conclude if !A, then !C. But of course that does not follow. We know nothing about the consequences of !A.

This fact tells us something about which of "but's" possible meanings it has in this particular case. It should tell us that "but" is not establishing clause 2 as a mere amplification of the point made by clause 1. "But" can establish such a relationship, as a general matter, but in this particular case the content of the two clauses being coordinated tells us that it is not doing so in this case. Rather, as we can see from the logical consequences of clauses 1 and 2, "but" is conjoining the two clauses in a way that indicates that clause 2 is in opposition to clause 1.

[Gleipnir]

Actually my contention is that a conjunction in all three of the examples you provided does the same thing combines two clauses to one fixed meaning.

I could swap the word "and" or "however" for all three examples and still come to the same conclusion that a conjunction is about combining clauses for one meaning.

Yes each clause apart may have very separate meanings, but a conjunction is about taking the two and conjoining their meaning.

[Nabterayl]

... define "conjoining" in the sense that you mean there. It's true that all conjunctions form logical relationships between thoughts. But it is not true that all such logical relationships are the same. A conjunction that causes clause 1 to limit the scope of clause 2 is not performing the same work as a conjunction that makes clause 2 an exception to clause 1. You want the conjunction to cause clause 2 to be about moving and firing, because it is conjoined to a clause that is about moving and firing. But there is nothing inherent in conjunctions that means the relationship between clauses 1 and 2 must be that relationship. There merely has to be a relationship, of some sort.

EDIT: To be clear - I agree that "clause 1 limits the scope of clause 2" is one logical relationship that two clauses can have, and certainly a conjunction could be part of setting up that structure. But you can't just say, "Look, clause 1 and clause 2 are joined by a coordinating conjunction! Clause 1 limits the scope of clause 2, QED."

EDIT 2: That wasn't meant to be snarky. I'm just trying to be sure I'm being clear.

[Gleipnir]

Sure thing

For the puposes of this rule I mean it in the sense that the However(or But as it is being used) is intended to connect two ideas with the meaning of "with the exception of"

The two separate clauses are joined into one statement.

A. A vehicle can move and shoot an ordinance weapon, but(here comes the exception for doing part A.

B. all other weapons fire as Snap Shots.

[Nabterayl]

Sure. But the exception need not be contained entirely within the thing it is excepted from. The fact that clause 2 is set up as an exception to clause 1 does not mean that all of clause 2's subjects must also be clause 1's subjects. You are arguing that the sentence


Vehicles can move and fire with ordnance weapons, but a vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn
requires that all vehicles that fire an Ordnance weapon also be vehicles that move and fire ordnance weapons, because the former are set up as an exception to the latter. But nothing in the sentence actually requires that. Clause 2 can still be an exception to clause 1, even though clause 2 describes a bigger population of vehicles (vehicles that fire ordnance weapons and may or may not move) than the population of vehicles described in clause 1 (vehicles that fire ordnance weapons and definitely move). If all vehicles that move and fire Ordnance weapons have some property (e.g., that they are allowed to do so), and all vehicles that fire Ordnance weapons have some other property that one would not assume given the first clause (e.g., that they can fire other weapons, but only in a limited capacity), then as long as the second set includes all of the first set (which it does), the exception relationship is still preserved.

[Gleipnir]

Yes and no my point about the conjunction was that players were attempting to separate "A vehicle that fires an ordinance weapon can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn" from what is a rule with combined meanings(Yes your meaning is equally as likely as mine taken all by itself), though when taken from its proper context as a rule subset of the rules dealing with Vehicles that are Moving and Shooting, if past editions didn't demonstrate RAI that Vehicles like the Leman Russ would be able to move and fire ordinance weapons and all its sponsoons at full BS(Lumbering Behemoth was replaced by Heavy in 6th edition) Add to that FW and GW customer service confirming that is how it should be played. If none of these things were true then maybe I would agree with your interpretation, but sum of the arguments against it are more substantial that the out of context sum for.

If you do not agree that the rules for Vehicles and Ordinance Weapons is a rule subset of the rules for Vehicles that are Moving and Shooting there's not much more that can be said as you may as well ignore every rule subset in the book and take each rule in any context you want, something I am pointing out many players were doing with their positions on the rules. Context matters just as much as RAW

[Nabterayl]

If you do not agree that the rules for Vehicles and Ordinance Weapons is a rule subset of the rules for Vehicles that are Moving and Shooting there's not much more that can be said as you may as well ignore every rule subset in the book and take each rule in any context you want, something I am pointing out many players were doing with their positions on the rules. Context matters just as much as RAW
I ... sort of agree. I agree in the sense that I think the rules for vehicles that are moving and shooting is the obvious place to bring up the fact that vehicles can shoot ordnance weapons while moving, and if there are other rules that apply to vehicles shooting ordnance weapons, it would make sense to bring them up at that point rather than spreading them all around. And I agree that even my interpretation of the vehicles-and-ordnance rules applies to vehicles while shooting and moving (albeit in fewer cases than it applies to vehicles shooting and not moving), among other situations. The thing I don't agree with is the proposition that if a rule appears under heading X, all statements must be interpreted as pertaining to subject matter X, even if those statements appear on their face to be broader than X. I agree that context matters as much as RAW (I would say, rather, that context is part of RAW), but to my eyes you are making RAW subordinate to context, which I don't think is the correct way to read rules. Perhaps for your purposes that's the same as me disagreeing.

At any rate ... I think we've probably said all there is to be said on the subject. Would you agree?

[Gleipnir]

When reading the rule as written you would be correct I would say the RAW "is subordinate" to context under which the rule is written as is appropriate.

example

When I am reading the rules in a game on Equipment

Under the section for Uniforms I read "Uniforms must be short sleeves. However the color blue must be represented"

In another section of the rules for Bats where blue, yellow and red are the color options to choose from.

Does that rule about blue must be represented now apply to all things in the game I am playing or is it properly taken in context as part of the rules for uniforms.

The Vehicles Shooting Ordinance rules fall under the rules for Moving and Shooting with Vehicles, that is the proper context they are to be taken in, and separating the meaning of the rule into two separate meanings even though they are connected into one rule by a conjunction to apply elsewhere is the very definition of taking something out of context.

But yes I think we have gone over this enough for anyone to make up their own minds

[This Dave]

While it's not confirmation the drawings of the Leman Russ tanks in the new AM codex are an indication of how GW sees this. The drawing of the Demolisher on page 47 has three Heavy Flamers, on the hull and the sponsons. If firing the Ordnance main gun makes all other weapons fire Snap Shots this is almost completely pointless.

[John Bower]

While it's not confirmation the drawings of the Leman Russ tanks in the new AM codex are an indication of how GW sees this. The drawing of the Demolisher on page 47 has three Heavy Flamers, on the hull and the sponsons. If firing the Ordnance main gun makes all other weapons fire Snap Shots this is almost completely pointless.

Not really, if you have a bunch of DE wyches or similar threat bearing down on your russ, you'd be better not firing in your turn and letting the flamers do some mischief on them instead. For a start they won't get cover from that; secondly there's going to be a lot less of them to charge your tank. :) Then it can (hopefully) survive the remainder and do the same next turn if it needs to, or if it does wipe them out, it goes back to normal mode.

[This Dave]

Not really, if you have a bunch of DE wyches or similar threat bearing down on your russ, you'd be better not firing in your turn and letting the flamers do some mischief on them instead. For a start they won't get cover from that; secondly there's going to be a lot less of them to charge your tank. :) Then it can (hopefully) survive the remainder and do the same next turn if it needs to, or if it does wipe them out, it goes back to normal mode.

True. But also virtually every picture of a Leman Russ in the book has them with sponson weapons and many times with a Lascannon. Once again that could be on there just to show them off or put on "just in case" like the Heavy Flamer thing but that still seems like a lot of points to spend on something that's going to be snap shooting most of the time.

[Charon]

True. But also virtually every picture of a Leman Russ in the book has them with sponson weapons and many times with a Lascannon. Once again that could be on there just to show them off or put on "just in case" like the Heavy Flamer thing but that still seems like a lot of points to spend on something that's going to be snap shooting most of the time.

Its a "just in case" thing and 2nd edition nostalgia.
Dont forget that the Russ is a very old model. Sometimes (or rather quite often) old models suffer from rule shifts. The problem is you have a finished model that has all these weapons on the sprue - now you have to put them into the codex no matter if it makes sense or not.

[Gleipnir]

FYI Spanish language BRB also shows Vehicles shooting Ordinance as a rule subset of Moving and Shooting with Vehicles so the translated copies do in fact translate as such as well.

While I wouldn't use model images as proof, since there have been examples of White Dwarf images or kit bashes that from a rules standpoint wouldn't be rules legal. Then again the only people you are trying to prove it to are people taking the rule out of context to begin with. I could probably take 20 minutes and give you at least 3 other examples where a rule as written taken out of context could break the game.

[This Dave]

Its a "just in case" thing and 2nd edition nostalgia.
Dont forget that the Russ is a very old model. Sometimes (or rather quite often) old models suffer from rule shifts. The problem is you have a finished model that has all these weapons on the sprue - now you have to put them into the codex no matter if it makes sense or not.

The Russes in the photo spreads are the new model kits. You can tell by the riveted plates on the turret sides as well as the different design of the sponson Heavy Bolters. So these aren't old models pressed into service for photo duty.

It may just be a case of nostalgia arming, which I understand completely. But I figure they're using those in the studio army so I can't see them building a lot of non-optimal Russes just to photograph them.

[Charon]

Meh they are using so much non-optimal stuff in their studio armies... these armies or the infamous white dwarf battle reports where never a source of extensive knowledge of rules/codices or even optimal builds.

[John Bower]

Meh they are using so much non-optimal stuff in their studio armies... these armies or the infamous white dwarf battle reports where never a source of extensive knowledge of rules/codices or even optimal builds.

I'll be honest I actually don't believe that in those Battle reports in WD they even actually roll any dice at all. It's all just put there for the camera take a few shots, remove a few models take a few more etc.