Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.




The SM Power of the Machine Spirit rules say (SM codex, pg 81): "A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted. In addition, this weapon can be fired at a different target unit to any other weapons, subject to the normal rules for Shooting.

Therefore, a Land Raider that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, and a Land Raider that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon."


The Smoke Launchers rule says (rulebook, pg 62): "Once per game, after completing its move, a vehicle with smoke launchers can trigger them. . .The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers, but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save."


The Shaken rule says (rulebook, pg 61): "The vehicle may not shoot until the end of its next player turn."


The Stunned rule says (rulebook, pg 61): "The vehicle may not move nor shoot until the end of its next player turn."







QUESTION: Can a Land Raider that uses Smoke Launchers still fire one weapon using 'The Power of the Machine Spirit'?



OPTION A. Yes it can. Fire away!


OPTION B. No it cannot.


OPTION C. Something else entirely: reply exactly what it is below.

B. The rules for Power of the Machine Spirit allow it to go around the Shaken and Stunned results. There is no allowance for Smoke Launchers.

Agreed.

Brice

I personally think that it is yes. One more weapon than would normally permitted seems to me to mean that you would be able to fire.

I don't think it should be able to, although "vote how you play" doesn't count, as I haven't played games with the new marine codex yet.

RAW - I believe it's pretty clear that codex rules supersede rulebook rules, and the Machine Spirit is a codex rule, while the smoke launcher rule is a rulebook rule.

But I don't think it was intended to allow someone to move, shoot and get a 4+ save. But that's GW for you.

I think it's allowed but unintentional - what's new? : /

It's not allowed in my opinion. The fact that the rule entry clarifies itself with the inclusion of the phrase, "Therefore, a Land Raider that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, and a Land Raider that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon", limits the rule to application in only the circumstances listed. This is basic application of the rule of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius .

Brice

The question in my mind is whether or not the following language (Language B):

"Therefore, a Land Raider that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, and a Land Raider that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon."

is exclusionary or in otherwords restricts the preceding language (Language A):

"A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted. In addition, this weapon can be fired at a different target unit to any other weapons, subject to the normal rules for Shooting."

If Language B does not restrict Language A but is mearly offering examples that apply, then PoMS would allow you to fire one weapon if you blow smokes.

Wow, RAW is wrong again...go figure.

Yea, it looks like one of those strict (RAW) readings leading to another one of those sticky situations...

I defiantly think you shouldn't and voted B, but RAW defiantly points the other way, as in many many situations seen here.

I don't think RAW points the other way at all. There are rules for reading rules. As I pointed out above, the cannon of construction, Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The express mention of one thing excludes all others), applies here. Per the rule, the detailed descriptions of when the rule applies provided within the rule itself are exclusionary. If the descriptions listed were offset by something like "Includes" instead of "Therefore" it would be different. "Therefore" is exclusionary language and "Includes" is obviously expansive.

Brice

I thought I would post some of BBeale language in more common terms (We are but humble pirates):

"Rule of construction" is a phrase used within a legal context to mean "interpretation." The rules are not binding and are better seen as different methods of approaching the interpretation of laws.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The express mention of one thing excludes all others)
Items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as "includes."

Main Entry: there·fore

Function: adverb
Date: 14th century
1 a: for that reason : consequently b: because of that c: on that ground
2: to that end

. . .or what Fox said.

Brice

For a friendly game, I don't shoot at all.

For the 'Ard Boyz tournament, I blow smoke and fire one weapon.

I don't see 'therefore' as exclusionary. To try and force that interpretation is far more lawyering than this game demands. The rule is that it can fire one more weapon than normal. That's a simple sentence, it's simply understood. The fact that they included a couple of examples doesn't change that simple rule.

And, as much as think it's an oversight, I cannot see how smoke stops PotMS if you apply RAW.

I voted A. I also figure it is intended but who knows till they FAQ the marine dex in 3 years (if we are lucky).

Redbeard,

Even if you don't think "therefore" is exclusionary (which it is in terms of definition and common usage), the remainder of that sentence contains EVERY situation when the Land Raiders rate of fire would be affected with the exception of smoke launchers (". . .a Land Raider that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, and a Land Raider that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon."). It is not a case where some general exceptions are cited; the list is exhaustive and merely a clarification of the instances in which PoTMS is to be used.

Not to mention, historically, poppin' smoke has always made you forego shooting.

Brice

winterman wrote:I voted A. I also figure it is intended but who knows till they FAQ the marine dex in 3 years (if we are lucky).

And assuming the FAQ doesn't creat more problems than the original rule set

A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted.

Ok so lets say you don't move, you don't get an extra shot out of any of the weapons. Each can only fire once.

What I am getting at here is PoTMS has to do with how many weapons can be fired not how many times each can be fired.

So if your still with me, lets look at smoke:

The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons...

So while you get an extra shot, which weapon are you going to take it from? None of them are allowed to shoot.


Move 6 inches
Weapons allowed to fire: Any, 1 time each
Shots: 1 + (1 for PoTMS)

Hasn't moved
Weapons allowed to fire: Any, 1 time each
Shots: infinite + (1 for PotMS)

Smoke w/out moving
Weapons allowed to fire: 0
Shots: infinite + 1(PotMS)

Shaken
Weapons allowed to fire: Any, 1 time each
Shots: 0 + 1(PotMS)

I said "b."
Every gaming group I've been a part of has always read that rule to refer to the fact that you can't SEE anything, due to the smoke, not that popping smoke was such a time consuming or momentus event that it precluded the firing of weapons.

If someone tried that in a game with me, I'd simply stare at them until they changed their minds or decided the game was over and left.

Eric

"The SM Power of the Machine Spirit rules say (SM codex, pg 81): "A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted. In addition, this weapon can be fired at a different target unit to any other weapons, subject to the normal rules for Shooting." "

B.

A smoke Launcher is not a weapon.

Edit 1: Added parentheses.

I voted B. The smoke launchers are instead of firing a weapon, therefore you cannot fire weapons, and smoke launchers are not considered weapons. Thus, PotMS does not apply.

MagickalMemories wrote:I said "b."
Every gaming group I've been a part of has always read that rule to refer to the fact that you can't SEE anything, due to the smoke, not that popping smoke was such a time consuming or momentus event that it precluded the firing of weapons.

If someone tried that in a game with me, I'd simply stare at them until they changed their minds or decided the game was over and left.

Eric

Yes and it's clearly impossible that a machine spirit could have any advanced alternate spectrum imaging devices?

BBeale wrote:
Even if you don't think "therefore" is exclusionary (which it is in terms of definition and common usage),

I'm an engineer, not a lawyer. "Therefore", in my world, means "from A, we can see that B follows." It doesn't include or exclude anything.

For example: The sum of the angles in any triangle add up to 180 degrees. Therefore, in an equalateral triangle, each corner is 60 degrees.

That doesn't tell me anything about non-equalateral triangles. It doesn't exclude non-equalateral triangles. It doesn't mean that the first sentence only applies to equalateral triangles. All it is saying is that, if you apply the statement to this specific case, you get this specific result.

I see the Land Raider sentence to mean the same thing. A land raider can always shoot one more weapon than normal. That's a statement.
Therefore, it can fire a weapon when stunned. That's a logical conclusion drawn from the application of the statement to a specific case.

the remainder of that sentence contains EVERY situation when the Land Raiders rate of fire would be affected with the exception of smoke launchers

That's true. But I think the explicit sentence has more value than some inference you are drawing from a list of examples. There is no 'except smoke launchers' in the definitive statement of the rule.

the list is exhaustive and merely a clarification of the instances in which PoTMS is to be used.

Again, I disagree. I see a list of some examples. You are attempting to infer extra rules from an example. I am only reading explicitly stated rules.

Not to mention, historically, poppin' smoke has always made you forego shooting.

This is also true. It's also completely irrelevant. Historically, Power of the Machine spirit reduced the BS of the shot. Historically, chaos land raiders had Infernal Contraption. Historically, five man squads of marines could buy a lascannon. Historically landraiders held 10 men. It's a new codex. Forget what you think you know about the past and read what has been written in this codex. I don't think this would even be an issue if it wasn't for the historical part. It's a clearly written rule, and you're grasping at straws trying to force it into a historical paradigm that is no longer relevant.

I agree with Redbeard: I see "therefore" as a statement of implication (A therefore B means that A implies B). Also, I don't see any indication that the list of instances in which PotMS can be used is exhaustive.

I voted A. I suspect that if GW makes a FAQ that includes this issue, they will rule B, but for now A is what the rules suggest. As for how I would actually play it, it hasn't yet come up, but I suppose I'll leave that to the discretion of my opponent. I would prefer the game be played as I think it was intended (B), but I couldn't object to somebody playing it as it currently stands (A).

Okay... then how about this?

"...subject to the normal rules for Shooting."


BGB, Page 62, bottom right corner, text box. Halfway down the 2nd paragraph:
"...The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers, but will count as obscured..."

Some might counter that this is not, in actuality, a rule "for shooting," but a rule "for Smoke Launchers."
I would disagree with that as, since it affects shooting, it is a rule for shooting *in that particular instance.
Since that is my OPINION, you would be wasting your breath to try to convince me otherwise... not that it will stop anyone who wants to. Just like I'm not trying to talk YOU out of YOUR opinion. I'm only stating mine.

Quote, Drunkenspleen:

Yes and it's clearly impossible that a machine spirit could have any advanced alternate spectrum imaging devices?

Precisely. I'm glad we agree.
Since the RULES for Machine Spirit do not say that it has "advanced alternate spectrum imaging devices," then we cannot (per RAW) assume that it does.
Right?

Eric

I vote for B.

If it's A, wouldn't the Land Raider's PotMS's shot logically have to take a 4+ cover save? It's shooting through the smoke after all. That this save might avoidable because of the way PotMS can be read if it shoots seems like this shot wasn't supposed to be possible.

MagickalMemories wrote:Quote, Drunkenspleen:

Yes and it's clearly impossible that a machine spirit could have any advanced alternate spectrum imaging devices?

Precisely. I'm glad we agree.
Since the RULES for Machine Spirit do not say that it has "advanced alternate spectrum imaging devices," then we cannot (per RAW) assume that it does.
Right?

Eric

My point was you were doing exactly that in your original post with your interpretation of smoke's functionality. And you claimed to vote based on this information with no RAW basis. There's no more support for smoke being a billowing cloud of smoke than it being a mist of nanoparticles which project distorting images and hide the tank making it appear to not exist than the fact that smoke is in the item's name.

Timmah wrote:A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted.

Ok so lets say you don't move, you don't get an extra shot out of any of the weapons. Each can only fire once.

What I am getting at here is PoTMS has to do with how many weapons can be fired not how many times each can be fired.

So if your still with me, lets look at smoke:

The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons...

So while you get an extra shot, which weapon are you going to take it from? None of them are allowed to shoot.


Move 6 inches
Weapons allowed to fire: Any, 1 time each
Shots: 1 + (1 for PoTMS)

Hasn't moved
Weapons allowed to fire: Any, 1 time each
Shots: infinite + (1 for PotMS)

Smoke w/out moving
Weapons allowed to fire: 0
Shots: infinite + 1(PotMS)

Shaken
Weapons allowed to fire: Any, 1 time each
Shots: 0 + 1(PotMS)

QFT - What he said. Doesn't matter if the PotMS can shoot, no weapons are allowed to fire.

That's more twisting of semantics to fit your preconceived notion of how it worked in the last edition.

"You may not fire any weapons" is the same as "you're not permitted to fire any weapons"

Then PotM says, "you may fire one more than you're normally permitted to fire", which means that you start at the 0 you're permitted, and add one.

Trying to say that "the vehicle may not fire any of its weapons" is in any way different from "the vehicle may not fire" is simply lawyering at its worst.


Ever hear of something called Occam's Razor? It basically says that you should make as few assumptions as possible, and that, all things being equal, the simplest solution is best.

The simplest solution is "the land raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted." It's a simple sentence in clear English.

Everything else is making assumptions, and adding unnecessary complications. You're doing it because you want it to work the way it worked in the past, and you're stretching to find obscure interpretations of words that back up that want. But this is a new codex, it's a new rule, and you need to start from a state without a preconceived idea of how it should be.