Stationary vehicles firing Ordnance

[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.