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.

I feel the RAW is clear, a smoking vehicle is allowed to POTMS fire one weapon. Just as clear, most of us think that was another major "OOPS, Our Bad!", and wouldn't play it that way.

Just as feasible is a wrecked (but not exploded) vehicle would be able to fire a weapon, as long as it had one left.

I agree with Redbeard and voted "A."

I think that's the right call by the wording but I don't think that's the rule as intended.

Breton wrote:I feel the RAW is clear, a smoking vehicle is allowed to POTMS fire one weapon. Just as clear, most of us think that was another major "OOPS, Our Bad!", and wouldn't play it that way.

Just as feasible is a wrecked (but not exploded) vehicle would be able to fire a weapon, as long as it had one left.

A wrecked vehicle is no longer a vehicle but area terrain...ergo no weapons to fire.

Since the rules for Machine Spirit make specific mention of when it can be used, I'd say not.

But, RAW, you can indeed.

And nicely pointed out RAW there wyomingfox! Must remember that one, just in case. Always nice to put a ruleslawyer off their pace a little.

I'm going to have to go with option a. My reasoning there is if the squad inside the vehicle can shoot out if you smoke there's no reason that the PoTMS couldn't do something too.

Can they? I'm not up on the transport rules I'll admit, but I was under the impression they couldn't fire if the Tank couldn't fire.

Besides, blazing away from inside the smoke cloud kind of defeats the point of the thing.

'Pssssshhhhh'
'Where's it gone'
DAKKADAKKADAKKDAKKA!
'Oh, there it is KERBLAM'

When I read this threads it comes down to two simple differences of opinion that will never agree. this one will need FAQ'ing.

1) Cannot fire any weapon takes precedent over the POTMS may fire one more than permitted therefore zero.

2) Cannot fire equals zero, POTMS is +1 therefore you can fire one weapon.

I can see both points of view, but tend to agree more with one. From a RAW poing of view and in a tournie I would go with B (even as a SM player).

I agree with RedBeard.

I would also point out that moving at cruising speed (12" or whatnot) is stated as a time when you can fire one weapon, but normally in the rules does not allow firing any weapons. It seems to me that once again it is just a question of GW leaving an example out of a list, and people assuming RAI is what they expected, not what is written.

So then if I don't move can I fire all my weapons once plus one twice because of PotMS?

See the argument would be: No because each weapon can only fire once each turn.
PotMS doesn't allow me to fire a weapon more than the 1 time it can fire in a turn.

Just like smoke, each weapon cannot fire.
so while I get an extra shot, but no weapon can fire.

Same situation in my opinion.

Moving puts a restriction on the number of weapons that you can fire, while smoke puts a restriction on which weapons can fire.

fullheadofhair wrote:1) Cannot fire any weapon takes precedent over the POTMS may fire one more than permitted therefore zero.

Just want a clarification on this arguement as PoTMS language states:

"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."

Cruising speed, 'crew stunned', and 'crew shaken' are all examples in the BRB where a vehicle can clearly not fire any weapon (ie they are restricted from firing any weopons), PoTMS overides this base rule. Furthermore, the use of "therefore" relates a causal relationship being derived from the ability to "fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted."

Often terms like 'therefore' are used to indicate exemplars of whatever conclusions that can be drawn from the application of a rule.

It seems to me that in this case a Land Raider with the Power of the Machine Spirit rule can use a weapon when it has blown smoke, since the rule is that ordinarily blowing smoke prevents a vehicle from using any weapons, and the Power of the Machine Spirit rule allows the Land Raider to fire one more weapon than ordinarily permitted.

RAW in this situation is not clear. The addition of the word 'ANY' within the smoke launcher rules and explicit inclusion of both shaken and stunned in the POTMS rules seems to indicate to me that Smoke overrides POTMS.

While I feel there is enough evidence in this to argue either way I do feel that GW intended for Smoke to take all the shooting away from the vehicle to obscure the target something of which shooting out of it seems counter intuitive.

So I am definitely in the B camp on this one.

Based on the logic used by many people in the 'Calgar' thread, we can adjust the exact phrasing of rules as long as the "intent" remains the same.

Therefore, if we were to replace, "may not fire any weapons" in the smoke launcher rule with "may fire 0 weapons", then clearly PotMS would interact to allow 1 weapon to fire (0+1=1).

Of course, some people think rewriting the rules while arguing them as-written is very, very stupid.

Meh, I see room for conflict with various effects and no real order of operations to go by. If a particular ability of a unit or terrain feature hit a Land Raider and said "that vehicle may not shoot," it would be using the same text as my rulebook lists for Shaken and Stunned results. Would the Machine Spirit still allow the vehicle to shoot 1 weapon? I don't have a clear answer either way from the rulebook. I'd give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, but I want the issue FAQ'd.

Personally, my Land Raiders don't shoot out of a Smoke Launchers cloud with the Machine Spirit since the Machine Spirit doesn't allow them to ignore the concealment save shooting into a Smoke Launchers cloud of another vehicle. The context implies to me that the Machine Spirit doesn't confer some special ability to target through the smoke.

- Marty Lund

B all the way.. any other reading is rediculous.. RAW or RAI...its clear as day...

Honestly, I believe the following is how the majority wished GW had written it:

"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. In addition, this weapon can be fired at a different target unit to any other weapons, subject to the normal rules for Shooting." (first sentences pertained to PoTMS removed)

Instead this is how GW actually wrote it:

"The cow says 'Moo'"

So if PotMS lets one always fire, does this apply after weapons are destroyed?

The rules for vehicle damage do not state that destroyed weapons cannot fire - the rules for smoke launchers do.

shrug

Of course, the poll question isn't about what RAW says, or even RAI... it is about how *you* would play it.

Whether you play it that way because you think it is RAW, RAI, or because your grandma says so isn't really the issue.

If you can fire through smoke with POTMS, can you go 18 inches on a road a shoot a lascannon?

Redbeard has stated the situation as simply as it can be stated. Instead of arguing it in a game, I would go with the suggestion that the target claim a cover save since the LR is shooting through the smoke. Much like the situation where the players differ on whether a unit gets a cover save.

Reading it I think that "normally" is simply there to eliminate rules lawyers from creating an infinite loop of "well its always one more, so that means he can fire one more gun than the one more he just fired!"

Therefore, we have two contradictory and conflicting rules. If it were a friendly game, I would say roll off, on a 4+ he gets to fire through the smoke (it's only once per game right).

In a tournament, I would say that PoTMS is a codex rule, and thus trumps the smoke rule (as it's a BGB rule), and so you get to fire one weapon. This is a stretch, but the best I can come up with.

It fully needs to be FAQ'd though.

okay moving at combat speed (1+D(where D=defensive weapons) +1= 2+D
shaken ,stunned or moved at cruising speed 0+1=1
smoke (0+1) x 0= 0
You do NOT have the specific codex rule to over-rule the general BRB rule. so no shots with smoke.

Why would you use the multiplier 0 for smoke but not for your other assumptions?

yeah,
I voted B... I don't think it was intended. I believe its a RAW loop hole.
Also John Spencer, the GW rules Guru also indicates B...

Q: who wants to play with loopholes to win?

Panic...

Kallbrand wrote:Why would you use the multiplier 0 for smoke but not for your other assumptions?

Movement ,stunned and shaken rules state the vehicle "may not shoot" in this case the PotMS allows the extra shot.
The smoke rule states the vehicle "may not fire any of its weapons" I feel that that wording stops all firing.

"The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers"

Seems pretty simple to me.

Blow smoke and MS fire
Based on: A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted.
   if 10 weapons can fire then the land raider can MS for 11
   if -1 weapons can fire then the land raider can MS for 0
   if 0 weapons can fire the land raider can MS for 1

Examples that the MS rule specifically override are not numerical values, but denials of fire
Blow smoke is a denial of fire
thus MS overrules smoke directly described by the codex rules as well as by precedent

I can see it both ways but voted B. The problems, as happens alot lately it seems, is GW fails to clarify sufficiently rules in the newer codex's. Just adding a bit as to whether the PoMS can still fire or not after blowing smoke is all that would be needed.

Belphegor wrote:Blow smoke and MS fire
Based on: A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted.
   if 10 weapons can fire then the land raider can MS for 11
   if -1 weapons can fire then the land raider can MS for 0
   if 0 weapons can fire the land raider can MS for 1

Examples that the MS rule specifically override are not numerical values, but denials of fire
Blow smoke is a denial of fire
thus MS overrules smoke directly described by the codex rules as well as by precedent

The question is which one takes over first. I originally took "normally" to mean "before PoTMS is applied" otherwise you could just argue that it could always fire all of it's weapons, since it would be "well i just fired my extra weapon, but the rule says i ALWAYS get to fire an extra weapon, so here's one more." However, the rules then specifically go to override shaken/stunned cruising speed, so at that point it's anyone's guess.

you either get:
can fire = (could fire + 1) * 0; where PotMS is applied first, and smoke is applied second and no weapons can fire or
can fire = (could fire * 0) + 1; where Smoke is applied first, and one weapon can fire.

My argument is that smoke is a BGB rule, it is applied first "as normal," then PotMS, being a codex rule, is applied after and is the "exception" to the BGB rule of "may not fire any weapons."

However even though this is an extremely shakey argument, I don't think any other arguments either way are valid. Both are rules that imply "always" and neither implies that one takes precedence over the other. Since neither is explicitly stated to overrule the other, you cannot say that one will ever take precedence as both rules are equally strong, meaning that the only thing tipping the balance is where the rules are found.

That's all RAW argument though. If you want to houserule it RAI, I think the big billowing clouds of smoke would override the computer-assisted targetting of the machine spirit. But that's of course arguing RAI, not RAW.

Another way of looking at it is in the form of a que
(since I can't recall anything that stacks in this game other than Go-to-Ground)

Machine Spirit takes precedent over Smoke since it is applied afterwards.
   Smoke applied in the Movement phase
   THEN
   Machine Spirit applied in the Shooting phase

maybe a bit of a reach, but I'm just trying to break it down into programmable logic

Belphegor wrote:Another way of looking at it is in the form of a que
(since I can't recall anything that stacks in this game other than Go-to-Ground)

Machine Spirit takes precedent over Smoke since it is applied afterwards.
   Smoke applied in the Movement phase
   THEN
   Machine Spirit applied in the Shooting phase

maybe a bit of a reach, but I'm just trying to break it down into programmable logic

isn't smoke applied in the shooting phase too though? correct me if i'm wrong...

You pop smoke after the vehicles move at the end of the movement phase.

I think it is B.

The fluff reson would be that the crew cant see a thing and dont want freindly fire.

So you can only fire one wepon WITHOUT adding in smoke. Smoke ends using the last gun.

If GW had meant A, then I think it would have said:

"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, used smoke launchers, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon."

(magic text added above)

RAW seems very clear on the topic. The vehicle can always shoot one more weapon than normal.

0 + 1 = 1

I think the crux (IMHO) is the word 'normally' in the PotMS special rule. Quoted "A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted."

Smoke Launchers say "The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers."

Anyways, the word 'normally' usually implies a situation that is 'normal' that means no special interaction from an outside source, or the 'default' mode.

Smoke Launchers are a special 'ability' that a vehicle uses and I firmly believe that this is not 'normal' but a special 'ability' used once a turn.

Because launching smoke launchers is outside 'normality' for a vehicle, then PotMS, would not work because it only applies during a 'normal' turn.

Even moving full speed is still 'normal' and firing weapons is 'normal' so the PotMS works well with this line of thinking.

anyways B.

Excellent summation, padixon.

Now just post it 10 more times while exchanging a few nonessential phrases and call it a day

It says at the end of the description on smoke launchers (for everyone who quotes the rule) that the codex takes presedence. That in itself acknowlegdes the amount a codex can screw with the rules, IMO

Fair doos for the normaillity issue. But the smoke launchers come standard with tank, its its normal loadout. (But that 'normally' word will be the crux, if anything)

You can also view the turn sequence of the various abilities & rules being used. You first pop smoke then you use the rules for the PotMS. The BGB says you cant. Then the codex says you can.

It is a Landraider. Its not all together that unreasonable. Big things get cool stuff. 5pt 4+ cover saves from anything beyound 12'' (right?) for tau is unreasonable

The Codex Smoke says to refer back to the BBB Smoke.

The Codex PotMS says that it only negates movement and Stunned / Shaken limitations.

It doesn't say or imply that any other restrictions are removed, nor that other limitations are lifted.

When you boil it down, the SM players arguing A are really arguing "it doesn't say I can't", which doesn't work as basis for argument.

The PotMS rule is crystal clear about what it says you *can* do: fire an extra weapon when moving or Stunned / Shaken. For once, GW actually stated *exactly* what they wanted the rule to do. So I don't know why there is a question here.

For example, if the Land Raider has NO Weapons left (ALL Weapons Destroyed), does PotMS allow the player to shoot?

Or, better yet, if the Land Raider is Destroyed and replaced by debris, does PotMS *still* allow the player to fire?

Panic wrote:
John Spencer, the GW rules Guru also indicates B...

Hell Bro, that's all you needed to say!

John Spencer makes the call - that's how I like it

JohnHwangDD wrote:The PotMS rule is crystal clear about what it says you *can* do: fire an extra weapon when moving or Stunned / Shaken.

Well, no... it lists a couple of things that the PotMS can do... it doesn't restrict the 'can fire one more weapon' to only those specific situations. That would require the rules to actually say that the PotMS allows the vehicle to fire an extra weapon in those specific situations rather than the blanket 'can fire one more weapon' that it actually has.

While I'm inclined to agree that your interpretation is what was intended, the rules as presented can be read either way. I don't agree that the PotMS rule is as clear as you think.

For example, if the Land Raider has NO Weapons left (ALL Weapons Destroyed), does PotMS allow the player to shoot?

Technically, the PotMS allows it to fire a weapon in that situation... it simply doesn't have any to fire, so it will have the same net effect as not allowing it to fire in the first place.

More specifically, the weapon you fire is chosen from amongst whichever weapons the vehicle currently has. If the vehicle has none, you can't choose any to fire.


Although if you wanted to go silly-RAW, you could argue that the PotMS rule allows the vehicle to fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed, without restricting that to weapons that are actually mounted on the vehicle... You can simply fire one more weapon than the vehicle could normally fire. Determining LOS and measuring range in that case could be problematic though, unless you're firing a weapon that is somewhere else in your army.

Or, better yet, if the Land Raider is Destroyed and replaced by debris, does PotMS *still* allow the player to fire?

PotMS does not include a rule that allows terrain to fire weapons.

wyomingfox wrote:Now just post it 10 more times while exchanging a few nonessential phrases and call it a day

Let's keep it civil here, wyomingfox. Posts like this derail the thread without adding content; please refrain from doing this.

Thank you.

I agree with Redbeard. There's no need for a tortuous twist of semantics and logic to deform a rule into justifying what was in a previous edition/codex. The simple statement "one more than permitted" is simple and unambiguous. RAW says to use the words on the page, not what you can attempt to justify as the intent.

@insaniak: you are wrong. If those were a couple examples, then GW would have worded it "For example, ..." instead of "Therefore, ...". Using a leading phrase such as "for example", clearly implies that the list is not all-inclusive, and that there may be other possibilities not listed.

The fact is, PotMS is unambiguously worded. That is why they use the word "therefore", because they are specifying *exactly* what they intend in the general statement. Linguistically, the word "therefore" directly couples the statement as a clarification of the previous statement.

JohnHwangDD wrote: Linguistically, the word "therefore" directly couples the statement as a clarification of the previous statement.

It means that what follows is a direct result of the original statement.
It doesn't mean that result is the only result of that statement.

If I say "I like the colour blue, therefore I like this blue cup" that doesn't mean that the blue cup is the only thing on the entire planet that I like. It simply means that I like the cup because I like blue things.

insaniak wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The PotMS rule is crystal clear about what it says you *can* do: fire an extra weapon when moving or Stunned / Shaken.

Well, no... it lists a couple of things that the PotMS can do... it doesn't restrict the 'can fire one more weapon' to only those specific situations. That would require the rules to actually say that the PotMS allows the vehicle to fire an extra weapon in those specific situations rather than the blanket 'can fire one more weapon' that it actually has.

While I'm inclined to agree that your interpretation is what was intended, the rules as presented can be read either way. I don't agree that the PotMS rule is as clear as you think.

This is from your argument in PotMS w/smoke launcher

Then you say

The rules tell us what we can do in the game. Anything that the rules don't tell us we can do, we can't

during the forum discussion about dedicated transports

I hate to point this out to you brother, but where exactly do you stand on the issue of whether the rulebook/codex is permissive or restrictive. You clearly say that in one instance in another forum on another topic that a rule that gives you exactly what you *can* do, then in the next instance you claim that if it doesn't say you can then you can't.

You believe its either one way or the other, not both.

This is a copy from the other post so you can see that it applies to this as well

this is an 'exact' quote from pg 81 SM codex "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."

According to your own post in another forum topic, then by your *own* logic stated above "Anything that the rules don't tell us we can do, we can't."

GW is *very very very* specific in that quote, they give you exactly what we *can* do and "don't tell us we can do", so therefore "we can't"

I hate to use your own words against you to prove a point.

padixon wrote:I hate to point this out to you brother, but where exactly do you stand on the issue of whether the rulebook/codex is permissive or restrictive.

Exactly where I've always stood: The rules tell us what we can do.

In this particular instance, the rules tell us that using the PotMS, the vehicle can fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed.



What leaves the issue in doubt is simply the interpretation of 'normally' in the rule. The rules tell us that we can do something... opinions are simply divided on exactly what it is that the rules are telling us we can do in this specific situation.

I know, but in the last paragraph, it says what I quoted earlier. It gives exactly what we *can* do, and ends it there. That last paragraph is so very specific.

I honestly respect all your positions insaniak, and value your inputs here in Daka, and have many times, changed my stance from what you wrote.

But, I have to disagree here. This is not *RAW* solid, because we have a split nearly 50/50 on this and I am sure that is not just chance.

****But**** Since we both agree that "normally" is an issue of ambiguity, we *can* agree the very specific last paragraph of PotMS and their exact situations it can be used.

Ask yourself, why would they dedicate an entire paragraph with very very (and multiple) specific situations it is used with.

Surely the Rule *points* to against Smoke launchers more than the other way.

padixon wrote:I know, but in the last paragraph, it says what I quoted earlier. It gives exactly what we *can* do, and ends it there. That last paragraph is so very specific.

But it's not. It lists a couple of things that we can do, that in no way contradicts the earlier statement as to what we can do.

If I say: You can go out, and therefore you can go to the pool, does that mean that the only place you can go is the pool?

Of course not. The pool statement is specific, but what it's specific about is that the ability to go to the pool is granted by the ability to go out. It doesn't make it exclusive... the blanket 'You can go out rule' gives you permission to go wherever you like, so long as there is no other rule that limits it.

Same thing here. The PotMS rule allows you to fire an extra weapon. It then goes on to list situations where this would make a difference. It doesn't state, or even imply, that these are the only situations where it will apply. So, without a specific limitation, those listed situations are simply some of, not the only, situations in which the rule applies.

Ask yourself, why would they dedicate an entire paragraph with very very (and multiple) specific situations it is used with.

That would be to illustrate the sort of situations where PotMS would be useful.

Surely the Rule *points* to against Smoke launchers more than the other way.

Sure. Which is why I've agreed as to which way I think is the intended one. But the fact that you or I think it's supposed to be played a given way doesn't make the rule any less ambiguous. My sole point was that the rule isn't as clear-cut as some people have claimed.

So, I was wondering, what defines the number of weapons that a tank like a Land Raider can normally fire?

insaniak wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: Linguistically, the word "therefore" directly couples the statement as a clarification of the previous statement.

It means that what follows is a direct result of the original statement.
It doesn't mean that result is the only result of that statement.

If I say "I like the colour blue, therefore I like this blue cup" that doesn't mean that the blue cup is the only thing on the entire planet that I like. It simply means that I like the cup because I like blue things.

The problem for you is that your phrasing isn't mirroring the PotMS phrasing.

PotMS says something like "At a high level, MS allows an extra shot in specific situations; therefore, it may take 2 shots under these conditions, and 1 shot under these other conditions." Nowhere does it imply that there are additional situations whereby other shots may be taken.

Furthermore, as I noted above, it would have been trivial to add "uses Smoke Launchers" to the PotMS rule, especially as GW had to specifically refer to SL in the BBB.

And getting back to GW rules fundamentals, GW doesn't need to tell you that you can't fire when using Smoke, because that would be redundant when we understand GW rules to be permissive. Therefore, GW only needs to specify those cases in which the player *is* allowed to do something.

Nurglitch wrote:So, I was wondering, what defines the number of weapons that a tank like a Land Raider can normally fire?

When using smoke, since that's the situation under discussion, the vehicle can normally not fire any.

Revisiting the same tired old ground won't change the answers any.

JohnHwangDD wrote:PotMS says something like "At a high level, MS allows an extra shot in specific situations; therefore, it may take 2 shots under these conditions, and 1 shot under these other conditions."

So my phrasing doesn't reflect the rule, but your exact same phrasing does?

Thanks for playing, anyway

Nowhere does it imply that there are additional situations whereby other shots may be taken.

Aside from the bit where it says that the vehicle can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted, without adding restrictions.

Furthermore, as I noted above, it would have been trivial to add "uses Smoke Launchers" to the PotMS rule, especially as GW had to specifically refer to SL in the BBB.

It would have been, but they didn't. That doesn't change what it does say.

And getting back to GW rules fundamentals, GW doesn't need to tell you that you can't fire when using Smoke, because that would be redundant when we understand GW rules to be permissive.

Right. And we have a rule that grants permission to fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed.

So we do need a rule disallowing you from doing so when using smoke. Otherwise, when using smoke is covered by the same blanket rule as any other situation... it limits the number of weapons you can fire, and PotMS therefore allows you to fire one extra.

Insaniak:

Where does it say that using Smoke Launchers is part of what defines the number of weapons a tank can normally fire?

So far as I can tell, what defines the number of weapons that a tank can normally fire is its:

1. Type (Normal, Walker, Fast)
2. Damage (Shaken, Stunned)
3. Movement (Combat, Cruising, Flat Out)

We've already been over this repeatedly. There's really nothing to be gained by doing it all again.

@ insaniak

I agree with your reasoning. It is sound and concise.

But...

1) we agree that the words GW writer used "normally" is ambiguous enough to warrant a not so clear RAW reading. So this throws a solid RAW argument out the window.

2) the last paragraph, we both agree that they list what PotMS can work with.

3) Can you honestly look your opponent in the eye (after he/she brought this up as 'ify') and say with *full* confidence that this is A) RAW solid B) the opponent has no room for argument against it.

4) I am on the fence on this, but when something is ambiguous, but the signs tend to point a certain way (given the specific ways PotMS works in last paragraph) and for the sportsmanship of the game 'I' would always rule in favor of a "friendlier reading of the rules for the opponents sake".

This is why I voted B, I can not honestly look across a table and say "This is how it works, sorry you don't like it" especially when this maneuver can be seen by many as a bit beardy.

There's plenty to be gain, particularly an understanding of how terms like "normally" and "special" work in the 5th edition rules so that these misreadings don't keep cropping up.

The normal case is the case that applies to all vehicles by dint of them being vehicles.

If a vehicle shoots as it would normally, it shoots as it would following the rules that apply to all vehicles.

If a tank is normally allowed to fire one weapon when it is moving at combat speed and neither shaken nor stunned, it is because that is the case for all tanks, pending specified exceptions.

If a tank cannot fire any weapons because it has used its Smoke Launchers, it is because it is a tank equipped with Smoke Launchers and it has used those Smoke Launchers. This is not the normal case because not all vehicles have Smoke Launchers, and hence cannot use Smoke Launchers.

Therefore, a tank that is unable to fire any of its weapons because it has used its Smoke Launchers is not firing the number of weapons it would normally be permitted.

If the Power of the Machine Spirit allows a vehicle to fire one more weapon than it would normally be permitted, and a special case such as Smoke Launcher prevents it from firing any weapon, it cannot fire any weapons and the Power of the Machine spirit does not allow it to fire at least one weapon.

padixon wrote:3) Can you honestly look your opponent in the eye (after he/she brought this up as 'ify') and say with *full* confidence that this is A) RAW solid B) the opponent has no room for argument against it.

No. Why would I? I play it that you can't shoot.

I've never claimed that anything else is the only answer. My point has simply been that there is more than one way to read it, regardless of how many times Nurglitch insists that his arbitrary judgement as to what 'normally' refers to is the only possible correct one.

@insaniak: When the natural / linguistic reading of the rule, coupled with standard GW "permissive" / RAW interpretation gives a clear and consistent answer, then neither Nurglitch, ihadhq nor I are being "arbitrary".

It's ambiguous as hell. Nurglitch (for example) completely shoots himself down by first pointing out that 'normal' is never defined in the rules, and then claiming that the mystic voices have gifted him with the ability to know the exact and only meaning of the word in the context of the rules.

Codswallop.

Huh? "normal" is defined in the clarifying sentence: Combat / Cruising speed, Shaken / Stunned. :S
____

Linguistically, I would refer people to look at the wording for "Unit Coherency"

BBB, p.12 wrote:Unit Coherency
... - but remember that units have to stick together, otherwise, .... So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2". We call this 'unit coherency'

Structurally, this is the same as PotMS.

GW defines the general requirement in one sentence (i.e. "stick together").

Then, in the immediately following sentence, GW defines precisely what they mean (i.e. "no more than 2".") in the preceding sentence. GW uses a coupling word (i.e. "so") to clarify that the following sentence is the specific detail.

If we understand and accept unit coherency to work this way, why are people arguing that PotMS doesn't follow the same basic structure of general to specific?

It's like people would claim "stick together" simply means they're on the same game board... :S

JohnHwangDD wrote:Huh? "normal" is defined in the clarifying sentence: Combat / Cruising speed, Shaken / Stunned. :S

Very cute but I don't think you can actually quote me a definition of "normal" from that sentence. I stand by to be corrected.

There's nothing cute about it. The second sentence itself defines the first.

You'll have to spell it out for me.... the sentences I see don't contain a definition of 'normal', just a list of a few "influences" on what a vehicle can do. Are we sure we're looking at the same sentences?

What I'm looking for as a definition of "normal" would be something like this:

'A vehicle can normally fire the number of weapons shown in the move & shoot table, unless it is shaken or stunned, in which case it can not normally fire at all'.

Basically my contention is that 'normal' for a vehicle is never defined in the rules, and there is no reason to elevate shaken and stunned to the level of normal that would not also elevate smoke to the level of normal. In fact the rulebook never uses the word 'normal' in any of the places where it discusses whether vehicles are able to shoot or not.

It's a situation of two conflicting special rules. Smoke Launchers vs PoTMS. Much like always hits on a 6 and always hits on a 2+, you should have to die roll it every time This game gets sillier and sillier as time goes on.

Except these rules don't conflict. One adds a weapon to the number a vehicle would normally be able to fire, and one negates the possibility of firing any weapons.

If one rule always permitted at least one weapon to fire, while the other rule negated the possibility of firing any weapons, then they would come into conflict. But that is not the case.

If we include Smoke Launchers in what defines the number of weapons that a vehicle can normally fire, then the only deductively valid conclusion is that a Land Raider that has used its Smoke Launchers may fire one weapon. Call this 'A'.

If we exclude Smoke Launchers from what defines the number of weapons that a vehicle can normally fire, then the only deductively valid conclusion is that a Land Raider that has used its Smoke Launchers may not fire any weapons. Call this 'B'.

A is false, Smoke Launchers are not part of what defines how many weapons a vehicle can normally shoot. What defines how many weapons a vehicle can normally shoot are the basic rules about vehicle shooting: Movement, Type, and Damage state.

Since A is false, therefore B.

Yet another example of less than well thought out rules wording. Since the Marine player reading this will doubtlessly argue that he *can* fire a weapon thanks to Dakka's RAW crowd, and I'd use common sense and argue that he *cannot* fire the weapon due to logic such as Nurglitch uses, we would end up dicing it off, calling a Tourney judge over to rule, or turning blue while waiting for GW to FAQ the matter.

In my Unit Coherency example, GW doesn't define "stick together", yet we all understand what it means due to the following sentence.

How do you reconcile understanding "stick together" for Unit Coherency, but not "normal" for PotMS?

First thing.

To use Smoke Launchers you can not shot.

Second thing.

If you are not shooting then how do you fire any weapon?

POTMS does not make your vehicle not shoot. So stop cheating.

Now if someone tried to cheat me on this rule, I'll take a 4+ save. If you get a cover save from me shooting into smoke then I get a cover save from you doing the same thing. If they continue to cheat and try to say that they fire before they pop smoke I'll say bs. They fired 0 weapons and then chose to use POTMS to fire 1 more. So they fired and can't pop smoke.

If you get cheated on bs like this you can give it right back to them.

Nice one, Mauleed.

Thanks John.

Just so you know you can call me MLY. Mauleed is a totally different guy.

MLY, yay for accusations of cheating. You win the 'makes friends and influences people' award for taking a reasonable discussion about a game and turning it into a moral crusade.

Oh wait, I play Orks, and none of my vehicles can even take smoke launchers. So your crusade is a bit misdirected here matey. I'm arguing that my opponents can pop smoke and shoot at my units.

Nurglitch, how do you reconcile the fact that the smoke launcher prohibition on shooting is identical to the prohibition on shooting that comes with shaken and stunned results? Where in the rules does it say that one is 'normal' and the other is 'not normal'?

How do you figure that being shaken or stunned is normal for a vehicle? You must play a bit different from me, my vehicles are almost never shaken or stunned.

JohnHwangDD, I don't need you to explain the coherency rules. You might need to reread the POTMS, shaken result and smoke launcher rules to see if you can figure out why "so" is not necessarily a word of limitation.

Given that the coherency rules have the same structure, perhaps you need to refresh your basic English comprehension to figure out that "A, so B" is linguistically the same as "A, therefore B".
____

Oh yeah, I don't think that you're some dirty, filthy scumbag cheater.

I do, however, think that you're not being consistent in interpreting PotMS with how GW writes their rules.

I'm not arguing that these are linguistically different. I just think you are incorrectly taking "therefore" to be a word of limitation.

In the case of coherency, a consequence of the rules is that your unit ends its move in a particular formation. In this case the consequence is expressed broadly enough that it encompasses all the possible results, but this isn't because of the use of "so" but because of the scope of the consequence.

In the case of POTMS, a few consequences are listed but there is nothing to indicate that these are all the available consequences.

"Therefore" we are back to arguing about whether being unable to fire due to smoke launchers is a normal prohibition or something special. Nurglitch believes it is something special; I can't see it defined anywhere. He therefore believes the meaning of the rule is clear, whereas I think it's quite ambiguous.

Oh, and I noticed you weren't accusing anyone of cheating - that was Mauleed.

Ardnutz

I'm not calling anyone a cheater.

I've pointed out a very important thing for smoke launchers. You can't shoot. If you shoot you can't use Smoke Launchers. How is POTMS a work around? It isn't. To get the bonus for being in cover the vehicles can't shoot.

Lets break this down.

LandRaider
Extra Armor
POTMS
Pinto Mounted Melta

Ok is POTMS a weapon? NO.
Is POTMS part of the vehicle? YES.

So the vehicles can't shoot the turn it pops smoke? Correct.
So can it use POTMS to fire? No because it can't shoot when it uses Smoke.

How is this hard to understand?

Ok lets break this down.

You pop smoke at the end of the movement phase and you can't shoot for the rest of the turn. You can't shoot with the vehicle at all. POTMS included.

Can't shoot doesn't mean 0 shots. It means can't shoot.

POTMS tells you what it can do. It doesn't say it can fire after SL are used and please don't let me hear "It doesn't say I can't." It clearly tells you what you can do at what speed and after taking hits.

MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:
I'm not calling anyone a cheater.

Ahem.

MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:
POTMS does not make your vehicle not shoot. So stop cheating.

As for the rest of it, I've seen the argument and simply don't agree. You've 'broken it down' into an even less understandable and convincing version of Nurglitch's argument. Whether POTMS counts as a weapon is totally irrelevant and I have no idea where you got that from or why you would bring it up.

I still fail to see a difference between being shaken, in which case a vehicle may not fire, and using smoke launchers, in which case a vehicle may not fire. The rulebook puts these restrictions in very much the same language and I see nothing in POTMS that limits it to one and not the other.

K, I'm signing off here.

This is the classic bs that power gamers use. "The rule doesn't say I can't." POTMS doesn't say you can't fire one extra weapon twice.

It clearly tells you it can fire when shaken and stunned. Smoke Launchers clearly say you can't shoot. So shooting the vehicle or shooting with POTMS is totally out. POTMS doens't magically make you not shoot. If that is not clear I don't know what is.

Again I'm not calling anyone a cheater.