Stationary vehicles firing Ordnance

[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.