Ironblaster can stand a shoot?

Hello!

Do you think an Ironblaster can stand and shoot? The ironblaster is a chariot type of unit, so it doesn't have the "slow to fire" rule like war machine type of unit.

technically, yes, however you have to be over half the distance because it's not Quick to Fire... so 19" for the actual cannon, but at that range only fliers and steeds of slaanesh are even going to attempt it, and 7 or more inches for the grapeshot which is more reasonable.

so you can stand and shoot with the grape shot that is awesome

Why would they have to charge from over half range? Aren't you allowed to stand and shoot, so long as they are charging from a distance that is more than their move value (unless you have quick to fire, in which case you may always stand and shoot?)

@Falconlance:  yes, you're right: basic simple rule: if you can charge without using dice, they can't stand and shoot.

@Falconlance:  yes, you're right: basic simple rule: if you can charge without using dice, they can't stand and shoot.

Again, not quite right. They have to be within their regular movement allowance to disallow S&S. You can still guarantee a charge without using the dice from 2" further away that your movement allowance, as the minimum charge roll is 2". Practically the same, but as we've had on other threads best not to confuse by trying to generalise.

On the topic, I'm unsure about whether it will be able to S&S or not. It's not necessarily about what the unit type is, but what the weapon is. It will depend if the "Slow to Fire" rule is in the Cannon entry or in the War Machine entry. I can't say for certain until I get the book though.

It would certainly be nice if it could though!

The "slow to fire" rule is in the war machine entry in the BRB.

The "slow to fire" rule is in the war machine entry in the BRB.

But the ironblaster isn't a warmachine... it's a chariot, which *is* allowed to stand and shoot.

Awesome!

If anything, the Grapeshot can be used in a Stand and Shoot, but not the actual cannon.


technically, I see no reason that either mode of fire can't be used in a Stand and Shoot. Neither the Cannon or the Grapeshot profile has the Slow to Fire special rule and the actual Ironblaster is a Chariot.

It would be interesting to Stand and Shoot with the cannon ball. that might make some units wary of charging(like your typical warmachine hunters. imagine blasting a Great Eagle out of the sky with a single blast )

Even though it says that it's a chariot, the Volly of Cannonballs rules says that you use the highest dice to determine the bonce.  The only place you can find the rules for bouncing cannonballs (or firing a cannon for that matter) is in the war machine entry to the BRB, not the chariot.  Because the cannon uses the war machine rules, it's a war machine.  The rhinox would still be a chariot so the Iron Curse talisman wouldn't work on those attacks.  How the Skaven Bell would effect this...thing...would be anyone's guess.     

I don't think thats correct.

Warmachine is a Unit Type.

the Ironblaster's unit type is Chariot. says nothing about Warmachine anywhere.


the Cannon rules are for shooting Cannons. no where in the Cannon rules(or the Sky Titan cannon rules) does it mention Slow to Fire.

But it also doesn't say anything about how the cannonball bounces either.  In order to get those rules, you have to look at the war machine entry.  Granted, I don't remember the BRB having any rules about a model having multiple unit types apply to it or a chariot having a giant cannon strapped to it, so this is just my best guess.

It needs FAQ. In same point of logic scraplauncher also can make stand & shoot!
But they both are chariot not a war machine... Needs FAQ...

Hmm I was looking into this, I'd have to say it can't S&S. Unfortunately.  My reckoning is, from the rulebook under chariots, it says the if the crew have missile weapons then it can make shooting attacks. But in the Ironblaster entry, it lists the crew as having a hand weapon, then lists the ironblaster as its own seperate "equipment".

That would make sense if stand and shoot was a rule that you have to be "given" to use, but it isnt. Stand and shoot is an ability that all missile weapons have, unless stated otherwise.

...and hellcannon.

I think "fire the cannon of the Sky-titans in the same way as a normal cannon" is vague enough to suggest that all the restrictions that apply to firing a normal cannon apply to the COTST.

Otherwise the Move and Fire rule is redundant, since its function is to override the normal Move or Fire rule.

But yeah, it's hard to build a cast-iron RAW defence against this. Silliness.

However, Slow to Fire is NOT a rule that all cannons have.

Slow to Fire is specific to Warmachines, which the Ironblaster is NOT.

therefor, there is no way the Ironblaster has Slow to Fire.

it's hard to build a cast-iron RAW defence against this. Silliness

pun intended?


i see it as it can stand and shoot. its a move and fire missile weapon.
it fires like a cannon yes but it isnt a cannon .

Well, it is a cannon.

Unless otherwise defined, Cannons are Warmachines.

the Ironblaster, however, is otherwise defined as a Chariot.


so it can stand and shoot.

But it also doesn't say anything about how the cannonball bounces either.  In order to get those rules, you have to look at the war machine entry.  Granted, I don't remember the BRB having any rules about a model having multiple unit types apply to it or a chariot having a giant cannon strapped to it, so this is just my best guess.

War Machine unit type and using the same rules of cannons that are warmachine isn't the same thing.

an Hellcannon uses the rules for stonethrowers but it isn't a WM unit type, but a Monster unit type.

infact hellcannon needed a faq to deny stand and shot....

probably there will be a faq for ironblaster etc....but till that day nothing says that you can't stand and shot

However, Slow to Fire is NOT a rule that all cannons have.

Slow to Fire is specific to Warmachines, which the Ironblaster is NOT.

therefor, there is no way the Ironblaster has Slow to Fire.

Yes but Move Or Fire is a special rule that all War Machines have but Chariots do not. The Ironblaster has a special rule Move And Fire that is entirely redundant if we assume that the War Machine rules of Slow To Fire and Move Or Fire don't apply to the Ironblaster.

Assuming the writers don't write special rules that do nothing, it clearly shows the writer intended it as an exception to the War Machine rule of Move Or Fire, therefore we can assume that the writer intended both Slow to Fire and Move or Fire to apply to the Ironblaster and gave a specific exception to Move or Fire but not Slow to Fire.

So we can show that presuming the writers don't intend to write non-functional rules, the intent was demonstrably that the ironblaster be subject to the normal rules for war machines.

This is one of those cases where RAW is clear, intent is clear, play it how your conscience dictates until the FAQ comes out.

if the RAW was clear, then why are we having this conversation?

if the RAW was clear, then why are we having this conversation?

Because playing by the rules and playing by RAW are not necessarily the same thing. 

Incidentally, whether you stand and shoot is determined by the charger's move and not the range of the weapon anymore.

yeah, i got that... everything i had in both my armies was quick to fire so i never even bothered looking up the rule until yesterday.  which now tell me that dwarf player was cheating when i had my tyrant on a carpet..... oh he'll pay.


i still don't see how this is an argument though. scraplaunchers, ironblasters and thundertusks are not warmachines they simply use rules similar.  by your same logic in the old book a model carrying a Thundermace was a warmachine because it hit like a stonethrower.   just because something is similar does not make it the same. 

motocycles and motorcycles
mandarin oranges and tangerines

all different, but similar.

and this is coming from a 15 year old C- english student!. 
(i.e. me)

My only dislike with GW is that, unlike MTG, there are no comprehensive rules which players can rely on to resolve rules issues. In the same way laws are examined by the US supreme court to see if they fit into what the Constitution outlines, MTG judges bounce cards and problems off of the comp. rules to see if it still works.

Unfortunately, instead we have grammar debates instead of examining the actual rules.  But the way I see it the rules HAVE been examined which led to said grammar scrutiny. Every game I've ever played had at least two instances in which the rulebook failed us, leading to a comparison between "rules as intended" and "rules as poorly written." It's a shame because whf is one of my favorite hobbies.

The way I see it, the Ironblaster was intended to follow all the war machine rules but still follow the chariot rules. However the new OK book doesn't have air-tight language. What's worse is, who knows when we will get an FAQ? MTG releases get rulings and clarifications sometimes even before the new set is released!

Ultimately, the obvious solution to this bigger picture is that we must simply not allow our chariots to get charged. I mean, really? We should be the ones calling the charges. We're scrutinizing a rule that implies we're using these models as they were NOT intended.

the main reason i do this is so that if i come across someone who is so dedicated to the rulebook and not the spirit of the game i can shut him up with his own weapon!
(p.s. sorry if i am sounding like a ass right now)

No, you sound pretty rational considering the mutual hobby we share. Secretly, I hope Ironblasters can SnS so that I can do even more point-and-laughing at my two friends who both play dwarves. And the store owner near my house who plays empire, and his younger brother whose skaven army has two warp-lightning cannons. Needless to say, around here is a warmachine-heavy metagame in which fielding a dragon is folly.

OK pg51 - fire the cannon of the sky titans in the same way as a normal cannon, using the following the profile and special rules that follow.

To fire a normal cannon, we us the cannon rules on BRB pg112-113 and the rules entitled Shooting With War Machines on pg109.

This states that unless specified otherwise, all war machine weapons have the move or fire and slow to fire special rules. The Ironblasters entry makes an exception with Move and Fire but not slow to fire.

It therefore can't make a SnS reaction as it follows the above rules.

Pg108 doesn't come into it anywhere.

due to the punctuation of the sentence "fire the cannon of the sky titans in the same way as a normal cannon, using the following the profile and special rules that follow." it actually never references the natural "Special rules" to firing a cannon.
im sorry but due to that punctuation you cannot argue the fact that you use the "Slow to fire" and "Move or fire" special rules on the ironblaster. unless we see some official Errata or FAQ a ironblaster can S&S.

An excellent point. I stand corrected, ashamed for missing such a clear mark if punctuation.

due to the punctuation of the sentence "fire the cannon of the sky titans in the same way as a normal cannon, using the following the profile and special rules that follow." it actually never references the natural "Special rules" to firing a cannon.
im sorry but due to that punctuation you cannot argue the fact that you use the "Slow to fire" and "Move or fire" special rules on the ironblaster. unless we see some official Errata or FAQ a ironblaster can S&S.

That's tautological.

"Fire the cannon of the sky titans in the same way as a normal cannon" means we follow the rules for firing a cannon.

"using the profile and special rules that follow" doesn't in any way preclude the normal rules (including special) rules being followed. We use the special rules that follow, yes, but we also use the cannon rules, including the special rules.

Clearly we must follow the rules for cannons. We must treat the Ironblaster as a war machine for the purposes of firing the cannon (otherwise lines like this "nominate a point within the war machine's line of sight" don't work). We must use the general rules for firing war machines on page 109 as they delineate how to draw LOS and range from the cannon. Ergo we follow the rules for shooting with war machines and the Move or Fire and Slow to Fire apply to the weapon and the Ironblaster rules override the Move or Fire very explicitly.

If, as you claim, the line "special rules that follow" was intended to overrule the standard special rules for cannon firing, why would the Move and Fire rule be required?

As Gutlord Inquisitor said. Spot on!

A cannon "is not" always a war machine. Isn't that just the
definition from a "human" perspective?

A giant should pretty easy be able to load, fire and move
with a cannon single handed. But small empires need a
whole crew.

If you fire a war machine, sure, you cant stand and shoot.
But if you fire a hand gun (giants perspective of a cannon) he
should be able to stand and shoot, just as normal gun can.

The mechanics for a handgun and a cannon is the same. Its just a
size difference. If you are strong enough to load it fast enough, I
cant say that stand and shoot would be a problem?

This is not really the case for the ironblaster. Just want to say that
you should not always see a cannon as a cannon, but as a weapon. 

About this issue, the most logical thing is that you cant stand and shot.
If leadbelchers cant stand and shot. I really doubt that a leadbelcher
behind a titan cannon can.
But at the same time, if the mechanics for the titan cannon are well
done, maybe he can? How does he load the cannon? I dont have the
model so i cant check it out myself.

All the cards on the table, he probably cant stand and shoot. And as
someone stated, does he really need to?
If your ironblaster gets charged, you have probably already screwed
something up. And its your fault if you die, not the stand and shoot
rule for the ironblaster.

Why did i take the time to write this? I should make dinner

btw, i tried to make the lines shorted to make them easier
to read. maybe i failed ^^

A cannon "is not" always a war machine. Isn't that just the
definition from a "human" perspective?

In the BRB, the rules for cannons are a subsection of the War Machine section (as are stone throwers). So, it would seem to me that cannons are defined by GW as a type of war machine.

I don't have enough experience in the game to know if there are any "cannons" that do not follow the cannon war machine rules though.

I was not really talking by the brb. Just in logic.

I don't have enough experience in the game to know if there are any "cannons" that do not follow the cannon war machine rules though.

The Leadbelchers have cannons that do not follow the normal rules. There are cannon like weapons, that are not counted as a war machine because the bearer are large enough to fire with is as a handgun.

If i remember correct, they could stand and shoot in the old book.

And even if the titan canon is a canon, it do not have to be a war machine by the same logic.

And to say that the all  "the war machine ... " quotes in the brb cannon rules, most mean that the cannon is a war machine. Can you imagine if they didn't referred to the brb and instead wrote the whole cannon rule in the army book but with "ironblaster" instead of "war machine", that would just be stupid ^^

The issue is that the "war machine" rules comprise two things. The rules for the unit type: war machine. This includes a number of special rules specific to unit type: war machine, such as failing initiative tests automatically. Then the bulk of the war machine rules are given over to firing war machine weapons. Unfortunately, while war machine weapons are typically mounted on unit type: war machine, the rules muddle these up. The rules for cannons, as noted earlier, assume it is a war machine that is firing. There are a number of non-war-machine units like scraplaunchers, hellcannon and steam tanks that fire modified versions of the war machine weapons. Because there is a poorly defined distinction really between which rules apply only to unit type war machine and to war machine weapons, we get threads like this one.

It's easily solved of course by applying the rules pertinent to unit type war machine to the unit type and the rules governing shooting with war machine weapons to any case where a war machine weapon is fired (and the rules do make this distinction). However, just because something makes sense, prevents illogical situations like a grudgethrower engineer having slow to fire and quick to fire on his pistol (or units that obviously shouldn't stand and shoot like ironblasters from standing and shooting), is obviously the intent (otherwise why give ironblasters "move and fire"?) and fits with the rules as written doesn't mean we shouldn't spend 5 pages arguing about it. 

Isn't the first rule of Warhammer, "if there is an argument about a rule, roll about it" ?

Thats probably the simplest solution. My brother and I, always argue(like typical brothers) about rules and it mostly settles with a D6 roll. 1-3, my way, 4-6, his way ^^

That may work for friendly games Rampant, but I don't see every person in a tournament being that lenient. Especially when their prize unit of Cavalry is about to get hit in the face by grapeshot.

god i wish i could unsubscribe to this so it would stop coming up to the top of my new replies....

why is this conversation still going on when it's obvious neither side will budge until the FAQ?

It doesn't matter if anyone agrees - when the FAQ will be out, one side will be right. If we agree, we risk being either all right or all of us wrong; however, as it stands someone's guaranteed to be correct. Of course, this is I-haven't-slept logic.

I think it was intended that they do not. I want there to be an FAQ so GW can officially say that's what they intended but ineffectively communicated to us.

An Ironblaster fires like a cannon. A Cannon cannot stand and shoot. Therefore an Ironblaster cannot stand and shoot.

It's just like a cannon but what differs it is listed, the changes are right there, grapeshot S10 and move&fire, nothing about ignoring stand and shoot.

This issue is on the list direwolf is submitting to GW.  There I not a clear-cut answer at the moment.  This needs to be discussed with your opponents at the start of a game, and checked with a TO at an event.

An Ironblaster fires like a cannon. A Cannon cannot stand and shoot. Therefore an Ironblaster cannot stand and shoot.

It's just like a cannon but what differs it is listed, the changes are right there, grapeshot S10 and move&fire, nothing about ignoring stand and shoot.

And you know, the fact that it's not a cannon.

RAW:
The Ironblaster's rules make NO REFRENCE WHAT SO EVER to it being a warmachine.  It is a chariot with a ranged weapon that functions like a cannon.  As such it is allowed to stand and shoot and ICI does not provide a save.  This also means that it can not pivot on the spot, that the crew can be killed off, it takes dangerous terrain test and marches at double it's movement speed.

RAI:
They forgot to say all the rules for a warmachine apply to this and the scraplauncher and not once in all of their playtesting were any of these questions raised.


Going down the RAI path is pretty slippery slope, because leadbelchers use cannons by fluff so do you think they should not be able to stand and shoot? That the ICI applies to them? that they can only move at their regular move speed and if they do they can't fire?

Of course not, because they are monsterous infantry and none of those rules apply to them.  Just like the Ironblaster is a chariot.

I want this thread to die in a fire. Or get eaten by the Maw.

I want this thread to die in a fire. Or get eaten by the Maw.

Why? It is living proof that discussions on-line are just like recycling...

sitaavanu

The Ironblaster's rules make NO REFRENCE WHAT SO EVER to it being a warmachine.<< It doesnt need to because a normal cannon is a warmachine (pg 108 BRB).
Its like saying they forgot to add the rules for throwing weapons to Gnoblars, so we wont use all the rules for shooting.

>>It is a chariot with a ranged weapon that functions like a cannon. << Yes, its a chariot, moves as a chariot, fights as one, etc, etc but 'Fire ...in the same way as a normal cannon.'
It didnt say using only the rules for a cannon and not a warmachine, it said 'as a normal cannon.' So all the rules for a normal cannon apply, including warmachine rules.

2 things
Let's eat Grandma!
Let's eat, Grandma!

Punctuation is very important.

The very important part that is being missed here is the CANNON rules do not say slow to fire.  The WARMACHINE rules say slow to fire.

At no point is there a reference to the Ironblaster using the WAR MACHINE rules.

You are still using the BRB rules but your only using the relevant part.  Many people are interjecting their own ideas that firing like a cannon is synonymous with being a warmachine, which it is not.

I don't really care either way it's a great unit but if your gonna discuss the rules atleast discuss the actual rules.

this is getting nowhere.  locking this thread until we see an FAQ.