so the Spearhead rule, and power of the machine spirit, are both worded the same. They both allow you to "fire one more weapon than normally allowed."

Does this mean that a landraider in a spearhead formation, may NOT fire both lascannons after moving twelve? They have two rules telling them they may fire ONE more than NORMAL, and the normal here would be "none." One more than none, is One.

I discussed with a couple guys yesterday at my local GW, and the consesus was that I am wrong.

Falconlance wrote:so the Spearhead rule, and power of the machine spirit, are both worded the same. They both allow you to "fire one more weapon than normally allowed."

Does this mean that a landraider in a spearhead formation, may NOT fire both lascannons after moving twelve? They have two rules telling them they may fire ONE more than NORMAL, and the normal here would be "none." One more than none, is One.

I discussed with a couple guys yesterday at my local GW, and the consesus was that I am wrong.

They just want to be able to cheese out.

You are right. You have two rules saying you can fire one more than normally allowed. Once you fire one weapon, you satisfy both instances of the rules. Nowhere does it say it DOES stack, so it doesn't.

Gwar! wrote:Nowhere does it say it DOES stack, so it doesn't.

Nowhere does it say it DOESN'T stack, so 1+1=2. "Normal" for a Land Raider is (normal for a vehicle) + 1.

thebetter1 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Nowhere does it say it DOES stack, so it doesn't.

Nowhere does it say it DOESN'T stack, so 1+1=2. "Normal" for a Land Raider is (normal for a vehicle) + 1.

Nowhere does it say that Space Marines don't move 12", or have Strength 10, or automatically win the game on a 1+. Similarly, the rules do not say you can't hit your opponent in the face with hammer.

The rules have to say you CAN do something. If it doesn't, you can't. It's that simple.

Gwar! wrote:Nowhere does it say that Space Marines don't move 12", or have Strength 10, or automatically win the game on a 1+. Similarly, the rules do not say you can't hit your opponent in the face with hammer.

The rules have to say you CAN do something. If it doesn't, you can't. It's that simple.

This is not about doing something the rules don't tell you to do. If you are told to do a specific thing, and then told to do it again, you cannot possibly argue that you are acting illegally by doing it twice.

thebetter1 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Nowhere does it say that Space Marines don't move 12", or have Strength 10, or automatically win the game on a 1+. Similarly, the rules do not say you can't hit your opponent in the face with hammer.

The rules have to say you CAN do something. If it doesn't, you can't. It's that simple.

This is not about doing something the rules don't tell you to do. If you are told to do a specific thing, and then told to do it again, you cannot possibly argue that you are acting illegally by doing it twice.

If the rule said "You may fire one more weapon", or "may fire an additional weapon" then yes, it would stack.

That's not what the rule says. It says you may fire "one more weapon THAN NORMAL".

Firing 2 Weapons more than normal is not firing One more weapon than normal.

Gwar! wrote:
That's not what the rule says. It says you may fire "one more weapon THAN NORMAL".

Firing 2 Weapons more than normal is not firing One more weapon than normal.

A normal vehicle can fire a base number of weapons.

A normal Land Raider can fire base + 1 weapons.

A spearhead vehicle is allowed to fire however many normal weapons it gets plus one. Therefore, a spearhead Land Raider gets its normal weapons, and then one more. More specifically, it gets (base + 1) + 1, or base + 2.

thebetter1 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
That's not what the rule says. It says you may fire "one more weapon THAN NORMAL".

Firing 2 Weapons more than normal is not firing One more weapon than normal.

A normal vehicle can fire a base number of weapons.

A normal Land Raider can fire base + 1 weapons.

A spearhead vehicle is allowed to fire however many normal weapons it gets plus one. Therefore, a spearhead Land Raider gets its normal weapons, and then one more. More specifically, it gets (base + 1) + 1, or base + 2.

Nope. Because it being a land raider allows it to fire one more than normal - that is base + 1. The Spearhead rule also allows it to fire once more than normal - again, base + 1. The whole (base + 1) + 1 thing doesn't work because '(base + 1)' isn't normal - 'base' is.

I was having a real hard time getting these guys to accept that last part of the sentence, one more than normal. They had a bad habit of reciting "one more weapon." and leaving out that last part.

Their stronger arguments included, "I see what you're saying, but trust me." and, "Well being GW, you can only assume that if it gives Space Marines an advantage, that's how they intended it to work."

Aelyn wrote:
Nope. Because it being a land raider allows it to fire one more than normal - that is base + 1. The Spearhead rule also allows it to fire once more than normal - again, base + 1. The whole (base + 1) + 1 thing doesn't work because '(base + 1)' isn't normal - 'base' is.

Being a Land Raider lets you shoot 1 more weapon than a standard vehicle. Being in a spearhead allows you to fire 1 more weapon than the kind of vehicle you are could normally shoot. For Land Raiders, the extra weapon IS normal.

Falconlance wrote:Well being GW, you can only assume that if it gives Space Marines an advantage, that's how they intended it to work.

It would be unfair to say that Space Marines, who pay for this extra weapon, get no benefit, while everyone else who does not pay gets it anyway.

thebetter1 wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
Nope. Because it being a land raider allows it to fire one more than normal - that is base + 1. The Spearhead rule also allows it to fire once more than normal - again, base + 1. The whole (base + 1) + 1 thing doesn't work because '(base + 1)' isn't normal - 'base' is.

Being a Land Raider lets you shoot 1 more weapon than a standard vehicle. Being in a spearhead allows you to fire 1 more weapon than the kind of vehicle you are could normally shoot. For Land Raiders, the extra weapon IS normal.

Falconlance wrote:Well being GW, you can only assume that if it gives Space Marines an advantage, that's how they intended it to work.

It would be unfair to say that Space Marines, who pay for this extra weapon, get no benefit, while everyone else who does not pay gets it anyway.

If you are claiming that the fact that the land raider possesses a rule that always allows it to fire one more weapon than normal, makes +1 normal, then by that logic, power of the machine spirit itself lets it fire 2 more weapons than another vehicle could, "because for land raiders, the extra weapon IS normal" in which case, the spearhead rule STILL wouldn't change anything.

moving cruising speed for a non fast vehicle, means 0 weapons are normally permitted.

Falconlance wrote:
moving cruising speed for a non fast vehicle, means 0 weapons are normally permitted.

We aren't talking about vehicles. We are talking about Land Raiders.

Falconlance wrote:
If you are claiming that the fact that the land raider possesses a rule that always allows it to fire one more weapon than normal, makes +1 normal, then by that logic, power of the machine spirit itself lets it fire 2 more weapons than another vehicle could, "because for land raiders, the extra weapon IS normal" in which case, the spearhead rule STILL wouldn't change anything.

You're trying to make my logic look circular, even though it is not. Land Raiders add a weapon to the standard vehicle rules. Spearheads add a weapon to the vehicle in question.

thebetter1 wrote:

You're trying to make my logic look circular, even though it is not. Land Raiders add a weapon to the standard vehicle rules. Spearheads add a weapon to the vehicle in question.

Naw, not at all, what I am trying to point out to you if you are willing to accept the interpretation that the ability to fire one more gun than normal, is in fact, the normal state, then the power of the machine spirit itself would already allow you two more weapons than normal, without even considering the spearhead rule.

Falconlance wrote:
Naw, not at all, what I am trying to point out to you if you are willing to accept the interpretation that the ability to fire one more gun than normal, is in fact, the normal state, then the power of the machine spirit itself would already allow you two more weapons than normal, without even considering the spearhead rule.

Either you did not read my argument or you are making things up. Land Raiders normally get 1 more weapon than vehicles because of PotMS. Nothing says to add another, until Spearhead.

Okay, both rules use the term 'normally allowed'.
Now whichever way one cuts it, if one is allowed to fire no weapons and one uses either the Spearhead or PotMS to fire a weapon - One has now fired one weapon - one more than actually allowed.
So if one went on to fire a second weapon one would be lacking a rule that allows one to fire two more weapons than normally allowed.

thebetter1 wrote:

Falconlance wrote:
Naw, not at all, what I am trying to point out to you if you are willing to accept the interpretation that the ability to fire one more gun than normal, is in fact, the normal state, then the power of the machine spirit itself would already allow you two more weapons than normal, without even considering the spearhead rule.

Either you did not read my argument or you are making things up. Land Raiders normally get 1 more weapon than vehicles because of PotMS. Nothing says to add another, until Spearhead.

Spearhead doesn't say vehicles get "1 more weapon," it says they can fire "one more than normal." PotMS also says they can fire, "one more than normal."

Are you NOT claiming that firing "one more than normal" is "normal" for a landraider? Because from here it looks like that's what you're trying to say.

ChrisCP wrote:Okay, both rules use the term 'normally allowed'.
Now whichever way one cuts it, if one is allowed to fire no weapons and one uses either the Spearhead or PotMS to fire a weapon - One has now fired one weapon - one more than actually allowed.
So if one went on to fire a second weapon one would be lacking a rule that allows one to fire two more weapons than normally allowed.

The result of PotMS is that the Land Raider can normally fire one more weapon than a standard vehicle. It is obviously not one more than is normal for a Land Raider, as rules cannot possibly be written that way.

The spearhead rule, on the other hand, gives the vehicle one more weapon than would be normally allowed for that vehicle. Normal vehicles get a number of weapons per turn, fast vehicles get more, vehicles with PotMS get more, and these are all normal.

Falconlance wrote:
Spearhead doesn't say vehicles get "1 more weapon," it says they can fire "one more than normal." PotMS also says they can fire, "one more than normal."

Are you NOT claiming that firing "one more than normal" is "normal" for a landraider? Because from here it looks like that's what you're trying to say.

That is exactly what I am saying, minus the poor choice of wording using the repetition of "normal" without context.

thebetter1 wrote:
The spearhead rule, on the other hand, gives the vehicle one more weapon than would be normally allowed for that vehicle. Normal vehicles get a number of weapons per turn, fast vehicles get more, vehicles with PotMS get more, and these are all normal.

This is your point of error, a vehicle with PotMs normally would only be allowed to fire no weapons. A special rule 'PotMS' allows it to fire one more than allowed, one can't have two 'one more than allowed' clauses resulting in two weapons fired as that will have broken both rules by having the net shots fired bing two more than normally allowed.

If you choose not to grasp this point then good luck to you.

thebetter1 wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Okay, both rules use the term 'normally allowed'.
Now whichever way one cuts it, if one is allowed to fire no weapons and one uses either the Spearhead or PotMS to fire a weapon - One has now fired one weapon - one more than actually allowed.
So if one went on to fire a second weapon one would be lacking a rule that allows one to fire two more weapons than normally allowed.

The result of PotMS is that the Land Raider can normally fire one more weapon than a standard vehicle. It is obviously not one more than is normal for a Land Raider, as rules cannot possibly be written that way.

The spearhead rule, on the other hand, gives the vehicle one more weapon than would be normally allowed for that vehicle. Normal vehicles get a number of weapons per turn, fast vehicles get more, vehicles with PotMS get more, and these are all normal.

Falconlance wrote:
Spearhead doesn't say vehicles get "1 more weapon," it says they can fire "one more than normal." PotMS also says they can fire, "one more than normal."

Are you NOT claiming that firing "one more than normal" is "normal" for a landraider? Because from here it looks like that's what you're trying to say.

That is exactly what I am saying, minus the poor choice of wording using the repetition of "normal" without context.

Out of curiosity, what makes you believe that the standard for number of weapons "normally allowed" should be judged based on special rules that already alter the number of weapons "normally allowed"?

Falconlance wrote:
Out of curiosity, what makes you believe that the standard for number of weapons "normally allowed" should be judged based on special rules that already alter the number of weapons "normally allowed"?

The special rules altering the number of weapons "normally allowed" change what is "normal" for that vehicle. On the other hand, the Spearhead rules do not change what is "normal", as you could have some Land Raiders not under the influence of the rule.

ChrisCP wrote:
This is your point of error, a vehicle with PotMs normally would only be allowed to fire no weapons.

No, this is the point of your error. How can you tell me that a vehicle with PotMS would not normally get to fire any additional weapons right after saying it has PotMS? PotMS changes the way the vehicle ALWAYS fires, therefore it changes what is normal.

thebetter1 wrote:

Falconlance wrote:
Out of curiosity, what makes you believe that the standard for number of weapons "normally allowed" should be judged based on special rules that already alter the number of weapons "normally allowed"?

The special rules altering the number of weapons "normally allowed" change what is "normal" for that vehicle. On the other hand, the Spearhead rules do not change what is "normal", as you could have some Land Raiders not under the influence of the rule.

But aren't you already forced to determine what you are "normally allowed" to fire, JUST to use PotMS in the first place? If you have already determined that, why would the standard change?

Falconlance wrote:
But aren't you already forced to determine what you are "normally allowed" to fire, JUST to use PotMS in the first place? If you have already determined that, why would the standard change?

For PotMS, you have to figure out what a tank would normally fire. For the Spearhead Rule, you have to figure out what the Land Raider would normally fire, a huge difference. Haven't I said this many times before?

PotMS is a special rule/ability - hardly normal

Catachan_Devil wrote:PotMS is a special rule/ability - hardly normal

It's normal if you are a Land Raider. We are discussing only Land Raiders, therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, PotMS is normal.

thebetter1 wrote:

Falconlance wrote:
But aren't you already forced to determine what you are "normally allowed" to fire, JUST to use PotMS in the first place? If you have already determined that, why would the standard change?

For PotMS, you have to figure out what a tank would normally fire. For the Spearhead Rule, you have to figure out what the Land Raider would normally fire, a huge difference. Haven't I said this many times before?

They are worded exactly the same though, I don't see where youre getting that the spearhead rule tells you to take into account any other rules that modify what you can "normally fire."

Falconlance wrote:
They are worded exactly the same though, I don't see where youre getting that the spearhead rule tells you to take into account any other rules that modify what you can "normally fire."

The Spearhead rule builds on the standard 40k rules. The standard 40k rules have Land Raiders normally shooting an additional weapon. When you build on this, that extra weapon is normal.

Did you see a flaw in my logic about normal abilities or are you just ignoring it?

The way I see it is the rules have been changed in Spearhead.

All vehicles moving up to cruising speed can fire one more weapon than normal. This changes what is considered "normal" now. So the Land Raider can still use it's PoTMS

true - come to think about it i don't think that the spearhead rule is intended to remove the benifit of PotMS.. i would put this down to another ill-defined rule

i now say they stack

The flaw I see is that you must already determine what you can normally fire just to use PotMS, and that you are claiming this changes for some reason when you acquire the spearhead rule.

@ General_Chaos, the rules aren't being changed, not ALL vehicles can do this in a spearhead game. Only vehicles that belong to a spearhead formation, and are within 4'' of it, acquire the spearhead rule. It is not a blanket change.

I'd play it as PotMS works for Spearheads.

Hah! Black Templars PoTMs bypasses this entire dilemma. Too bad it doesn't help LRCs in the slightest

I'm with Gwar! on this though. The rules overlap in function, not stack.

I think the issue here is that the general gamer mentality is that everything of the same type should stack. While I'd be fine playing that way, I do think the letter of the rules is that they do not.

but if i ask you how many weapons a Land Raider can normally fire if moving at combat speed.. what would you answer??

Catachan_Devil wrote:but if i ask you how many weapons a Land Raider can normally fire if moving at combat speed.. what would you answer??

One Main and all Defensive. It also has a special rule allowing it to do some other stuff. By the very definition, a SPECIAL rule is not NORMAL, it is SPESHUL!

thebetter1 wrote:

No, this is the point of your error. How can you tell me that a vehicle with PotMS would not normally get to fire any additional weapons right after saying it has PotMS? PotMS changes the way the vehicle ALWAYS fires, therefore it changes what is normal.

Sure it will be my point of error the second you can point to a section in the BRB that says:
"Vehicles that moved at cruising speed may fire one weapon" or
"Vehicles that move at combat speed may fire two weapons and all defensive weapons."

Then yes I'll be incorrect as to the number of weapons a vehicle can normally fire under the situations described.

So does the spearhead rule, like PotMS, override crew stunned and crew shaken results?

As to the argument about PotMS specifically, I think you two are talking in circles. I would probably play it as landraider gets an extra shot (otherwise they are paying a bunch of points for a spearhead and don't get a benefit from the central bonus of having a spearhead), but I can see merit on both sides.

Kolath wrote:So does the spearhead rule, like PotMS, override crew stunned and crew shaken results?

As to the argument about PotMS specifically, I think you two are talking in circles. I would probably play it as landraider gets an extra shot (otherwise they are paying a bunch of points for a spearhead and don't get a benefit from the central bonus of having a spearhead), but I can see merit on both sides.

The Spearhead rule works exactly like power of the machine spirit. It even allows you to fire a weapon at a separate target.

Kolath wrote:So does the spearhead rule, like PotMS, override crew stunned and crew shaken results?

As to the argument about PotMS specifically, I think you two are talking in circles. I would probably play it as landraider gets an extra shot (otherwise they are paying a bunch of points for a spearhead and don't get a benefit from the central bonus of having a spearhead), but I can see merit on both sides.

as i said earlier - i don't think the spearhead rule is ment to remove/replace the benifit of PotMS

another backflip

PotMS is still and advantage as it can be used when there are no other spearhead units with in 4"

thebettter1 - the normal number of weapons a LR can fire is exactly the same as any other vehicle. THen PotMS kicks in - which requires you to determine the *normal* number of weapons you can fire - and says you can fire 1 more than this "normal" amount.

You are now trying to say the Spearhead rule uses an Updated version of the "normal" amount, which already takes into account the extra weapon fired by a LR. Except that is rubbish - you have the same word "normal", which is a variable based on spered, and you are trying to say PotMS redefines this variable with the "+1" before Spearhead klcks in.

Which it does not do; both rules have to be satisfied simultaneously and therefore the "normal" referenced in BOTH rules MUST be the same value.

In other words you are attempting to define an order of operations when none such exists. Your argument fails at this point.

lol I wonder if some of you people actually have any fun playing this game at all.

This is one that doesn't have a RaW answer as what is considered "normal" is not defined. There are 2 definitions of what counts as normal in the spear head rule being proposed both sides assuming there is correct and in some cases only definition.

So what is "normal" in the spearhead rules. Does normal mean the amount of weapons that a vehicle can fire according to the BRB.

Or

Is normal the amount of weapons that the given vehicle in the spear head can fire?

The former defintion being proposed instantly starts breaking down when you consider fast vehicles. Claiming that fast vehicles should be treated differently is not following that definition of normal. Thus a fast vehicle in a spear head moving 12" can fire 1 weapon and not even its defensive weapons. Thus spearheads become a bad idea for fast vehicles (though of course they'd still be able to fire 1 weapon if they moved 18" or 24").

The other definition which follows from context means that you consider what the given vehcile can normally fire. Thus a fast vehcile moving 12" can fire 1 primary weapon all defensive weapons plus one other weapon. A Landraider moving 12" can fire 2 weapons.

Claiming that PoTMS spirit is not a normal condition for a Landraider has no more merit to it than claiming that a fast vehciles shooting rules are not normal for fast vehciles. Yes it is a special rule but it is a special rule that is niormal to all landraiders just like orbital bombardment is a special rule that is normal for all chapter masters...

Fling - except it is the same "normal" executed at the same time. You are stating "normal" for PotMS is different to "normal" for spearhead, despite you having to determine the value of normal *at the same instant* in order to work out how many weapons you can fire.

Otherwise, if you are stating the value of "normal" is replaced you end up with the PotMS loop: the first value of normal is replaced with normal'+1. This is then overwritten, via PotMS stating you "fire one more weapon than normal" (note, not the notional normal prime "normal'") meaning this second "normal" is replaced with normal'+1

Which is absurd.

So you are left with the only possible answer: "normal" means exactly that in both cases - the number of weapons the vehicle can fire based on its speed AND whether it is classified as fast.

I can see your point Nos.

thebetter1 wrote:

Catachan_Devil wrote:PotMS is a special rule/ability - hardly normal

It's normal if you are a Land Raider. We are discussing only Land Raiders, therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, PotMS is normal.

I can see you argument that a Land Raider regularly has one more than other vehicles would in the given circumstances.
I can also see the point that vehicles normally would fire none.

I suggest, 4+ it...and play on!

I think pure RaW Nos is right the timing issue (like for instance Shrike's inflitrate) means you fullfill both rules at the same time and thus it is +1. However the intention is clear enough to conclude with absolute certainty the rule is that Landraiders get to fire 2 extra weapons.

Play it that way or play pure RaW and you can't even deploy so you stop. The choice is yours...

FlingitNow wrote:
Play it that way or play pure RaW and you can't even deploy so you stop. The choice is yours...

Where are you getting this from? The Fun List of RAW Fun? Because I completely exposed the mistake given there, yet it still got added to the list.

FlingitNow wrote:I think pure RaW Nos is right the timing issue (like for instance Shrike's inflitrate) means you fullfill both rules at the same time and thus it is +1. However the intention is clear enough to conclude with absolute certainty the rule is that Landraiders get to fire 2 extra weapons.

Play it that way or play pure RaW and you can't even deploy so you stop. The choice is yours...

Spearhead rule intended for ALL vehicles... noone made it to allow your LR's to shoot two times over normal.

Normal ammount are written in BRB, PotMS are special rule, its not anything even nearly Normal.

penek wrote:
Spearhead rule intended for ALL vehicles... noone made it to allow your LR's to shoot two times over normal.

Normal ammount are written in BRB, PotMS are special rule, its not anything even nearly Normal.

Are you saying Land Raiders are meant to not get the bonus they pay quite a lot of points for? And yes, it is normal amongst Land Raiders.

thebetter1 wrote:

penek wrote:
Spearhead rule intended for ALL vehicles... noone made it to allow your LR's to shoot two times over normal.

Normal ammount are written in BRB, PotMS are special rule, its not anything even nearly Normal.

Are you saying Land Raiders are meant to not get the bonus they pay quite a lot of points for? And yes, it is normal amongst Land Raiders.

Not for DH Land Raiders. They don't have the PotMS rule.

Normal doesn't include special rules.

Gwar! wrote:Not for DH Land Raiders. They don't have the PotMS rule.

So now you're disputing the name of special rules in a context where the name means nothing?

I'm going to catch an argument I know is coming: we are not discussing Chaos Land Raiders here.

Gwar! wrote:Normal doesn't include special rules.

It does include special rules amongst models that have those special rules. How can you say it is not normal for a Land Raider with PotMS to be able to fire one more weapon than other vehicles of the same type?

thebetter1 wrote:How can you say it is not normal for a Land Raider with PotMS to be able to fire one more weapon than other vehicles of the same type?

Like this:
It is not normal for a Land Raider with PotMS to be able to fire one more weapon than other vehicles of the same type.

Some Land Raiders have a non-Normal (also called Special) rule that allow them too however.

thebetter1 wrote:

penek wrote:
Spearhead rule intended for ALL vehicles... noone made it to allow your LR's to shoot two times over normal.

Normal ammount are written in BRB, PotMS are special rule, its not anything even nearly Normal.

Are you saying Land Raiders are meant to not get the bonus they pay quite a lot of points for? And yes, it is normal amongst Land Raiders.

you don't know when to stop? Do not confuse warm to the soft.
ps. i think you one of that "people" who trying to use Psychic Hood on harlequins Veil of Tears, no?

Gwar! wrote:It is not normal for a Land Raider with PotMS to be able to fire one more weapon than other vehicles of the same type.

There is really no way to argue with statements like this. You clearly have a very different definition of "normal" than I do. May I ask what you think "normal" means?

penek wrote:you don't know when to stop? Do not confuse warm to the soft.

What's all this about warm and soft?

penek wrote:ps. i think you one of that "people" who trying to use Psychic Hood on harlequins Veil of Tears, no?

I think you're one of that "people" who trying to radically redefine the term "normal".

Is Veil of Tears a psychic power? If not, I don't.

thebetter1 wrote:May I ask what you think "normal" means?

Look at rulebook.
See how many weapons Tanks can fire.

That is how many is normal.

thebetter1 wrote:
What's all this about warm and soft?

thats why you don't understand difference between normal rules and when special rules kick in. Warm is warm, and soft if soft, they are absolutely not the same.

Is Veil of Tears a psychic power? If not, I don't.

It is psychic power. Go find C:E and check warlock and Harlies entry

Gwar! wrote:Look at rulebook.
See how many weapons Tanks can fire.

That is how many is normal.

So what you're saying is...

Fast vehicle: normal
Walker: normal
Shaken vehicle: normal
Vehicle using smoke launchers: normal
Vehicle with Power of the Machine Spirit: not normal

Sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

thebetter1 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Look at rulebook.
See how many weapons Tanks can fire.

That is how many is normal.

So what you're saying is...

Fast vehicle: normal
Walker: normal
Shaken vehicle: normal
Vehicle using smoke launchers: normal
Vehicle with Power of the Machine Spirit: not normal

Sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

Erm... what?

No, I am saying:
Tank: What's in the Rulebook is normal for them.
Fast Vehicle: What's in the Rulebook is normal for them.
Walker: What's in the Rulebook is normal for them.
Shaken Vehicle: They normally can fire, but a special rule says they cannot.
Vehicle using smoke: They normally can fire, but a special rule says they cannot.
Tank with PotMS: They normally fire what the rulebook says they fire as tanks. They also have a SPECIAL rule allowing the to fire more weapons than normal.

So how many shots does a Leman Russ get with Lumbering Behemoth?

General_Chaos wrote:So how many shots does a Leman Russ get with Lumbering Behemoth?

Whatever a Normal Tank Gets, plus the extra NON NORMAL shots because it has a SPECIAL rule.

Special cannot be Normal. It's like speeding slowly, or Microsoft Works.

Gwar! wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:So how many shots does a Leman Russ get with Lumbering Behemoth?

Whatever a Normal Tank Gets, plus the extra NON NORMAL shots because it has a SPECIAL rule.

Special cannot be Normal. It's like speeding slowly, or Microsoft Works.

thebetter1 - i refer you back to the sort-of proof that if "normal" is not the same word in both cases (referring to the BRB rules for vehicles and moving) you end up being able to infinitiely add weapons;. Which is absurd.

lumbering bohemoth works differently - i states you can fire the turret weapon in addition to any weapons it may normally be able to fire when moving at Combat speed

so at combat speed you pick one weapon and the turret to shoot at one target

then you can pick another weapon to fire at a different target or the same target if LOS is not an issue


Automatically Appended Next Post:
basically you pick one sponson - use spearhead rule to shoot the other

and then lumbering bohemoth allows you to fire the turret

I'd say LR can make 2 shots. Spearhead rules IIRC do not overlap the POTMS rule..now how this works is the timing..if we are playing spearhead..then the LR gets the bonus shot when cruising via the spearhead rule, (in this instance that extra shot was granted by the spearhead rule) then we switch to the POTMS rule which allows the LR to shoot another weapon at another target than you would normally be able to. In this case the timing of the rules play a part, the spearhead rule grants a free shot...then the POTMS grants another free shot...both rules can stack because they come from 2 different sources and neither of these sources overrule each other...spearhead nor POTMS have no entries in them that say they can't work together and nowhere in the rulebook is stated that abilities do not stack, usually these restrictions are written in the additional rules of each unit or scenario in this case spearhead and POTMS and non of which says no you cannot shoot 2 weapons. Arguing about what is normal is actually a flawed argument, just follow the special rules as they are written. To further make it more legal and RAW look at it this way...

1.move at cruising speed
2. check for spearhead rule *ok check*
3. shoot with 1 weapon
4. check for POTMS rule *ok check*
------ok now people will argue about the normal weapon thing here..but look at it this way..spearhead grants units a free shot while cruising this is to be considered as normal for the spearhead units since the spearhead rule is albeit a universal one that applies to all, hence we can consider it as normal.
5. shoot another weapon

there I think this is a better argument


edit: lumbering behemoth cannot use the spearhead rule while moving at combat speed, you need to move at cruising speed

No matter anyones argument. I'm playing it can fire two more than normal and both can be fired at different targets, as well as different target from any other firing.

In my eyes it would be wrong for the Land Raider to not benefit where other vehicles do.

Saying it doesn't stack is wrong as games workshop in the past has had to say when things do and don't stack. E.g. re-rolls don't (find the rule that says they don't) and vehicle damage chart modifiers do (find the rule telling you they do stack).

For me that leaves it open, and you have my reasons to argue for it stacking.

Would anyone seriously play this as only getting one shot?

Well, I think the Leman Russ example has merit. Consider a Leman Russ in a Spearhead, within 4" of another spearhead tank, moving at combat speed.
It fires one sponson weapon, allowed by BRB rules.
Now, if it fires its main gun using the Lumbering Behemoth rule. It just fired one more weapon than normal. Raw kicks in, no more shots.
However, if it had fired another turret weapon first, it would have still gotten to fire its main gun.

This, to me, is the conclusion logically suggested by the 1 shot group. If you take normally to mean 1 shot standard, then the Spearhead Rule would prevent you firing an extra sponson weapon if you fired your main gun first. Sounds pretty nonsensical to me.
I think it makes much more sense to apply normally to the tank firing. A landraider moving 6 inches can normally fire 1 weapon plus 1 other. A Leman Russ can normally fire 1 weapon plus its turret. Spearhead allows you to fire one more weapon than normal. This way, there's no internal logical contradictions like "Why does it matter when I fire my main gun, especially considering that all tank shooting is supposed to happen simultaneously?"

I agree and since we are making up rules I like to play my Rhino's with 2 structure points each!

While it requires some insight, the rules are pretty clear IMO. Nos made an excellent point, normal is according to the chart in the back of the book. The fact a LR can fire one more than Normal through PotMS indicates what normal is!

General_Chaos wrote:lol I wonder if some of you people actually have any fun playing this game at all.

Yeah ask that question in YMDC. I'd like to see the responces. lol

Special examples normally being allowed to do something special does not alter what normal actually is.

ceorron wrote:No matter anyones argument. I'm playing it can fire two more than normal

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

ceorron wrote:No matter anyones argument. I'm playing it can fire two more than normal

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

Yup, especially since no rule allows it to fore TWO more than normal!

Methinks some one is unhappy that their Space Marines can't get an unfair advantage out of spearhead.

thebetter1 wrote:

Catachan_Devil wrote:PotMS is a special rule/ability - hardly normal

It's normal if you are a Land Raider. We are discussing only Land Raiders, therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, PotMS is normal.

Not normal at all. Chaos Land Raiders don't get the rule, ergo not all Land Raiders get the rule. Not 'Normal' by any means. Alternatively, you've just let me stack officers of the fleet, astropaths, and everything else that doesn't explicitly say that it doesn't stack.

Your pick.

daedalus wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Catachan_Devil wrote:PotMS is a special rule/ability - hardly normal

It's normal if you are a Land Raider. We are discussing only Land Raiders, therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, PotMS is normal.

Not normal at all. Chaos Land Raiders don't get the rule, ergo not all Land Raiders get the rule. Not 'Normal' by any means. Alternatively, you've just let me stack officers of the fleet, astropaths, and everything else that doesn't explicitly say that it doesn't stack.

Your pick.

First, I already made it clear that we are only discussing Land Raiders with PotMS. Unless you can say with a straight face that it is unusual for a Land Raider with PotMS to fire more weapons than other vehicles, it is normal.

Second, the things you listed do say they don't stack, if you play using the GW FAQs. If you don't use them, I wouldn't be playing against you in the first place. Now, for consistency's sake, would you also say that vehicle damage modifiers do not stack?

Gwar! wrote:Yup, especially since no rule allows it to fore TWO more than normal!

But two separate rules allow it to fire one more. Any normal person would probably say that this amounts to two.

Lord Harrab wrote:Methinks some one is unhappy that their Space Marines can't get an unfair advantage out of spearhead.

You obviously know nothing about game balance if you feel this way. Funnily enough you have not said this about Leman Russes.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

ceorron wrote:No matter anyones argument. I'm playing it can fire two more than normal

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

There's nothing ironic about it. Harassing people for the way they want to play the game is extremely wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:thebetter1 - i refer you back to the sort-of proof that if "normal" is not the same word in both cases (referring to the BRB rules for vehicles and moving) you end up being able to infinitiely add weapons;. Which is absurd.

This "proof" does not exist, as I defeated it in one of my first posts in the thread, actually before it was first brought up.

Gwar! wrote:
Shaken Vehicle: They normally can fire, but a special rule says they cannot.

So first you say that the rules are worded the same way but then you argue that they work differently?

Gwar! wrote:
Special cannot be Normal. It's like speeding slowly, or Microsoft Works.

It can be in the right context. People in a mental institution might seem special from the outside world, but if you go inside and ask one patient about another, there is a good chance you will hear that he/she is normal.

thebetter1 -of course you defeated it. we all believe you.

Now please show how "normal" is different in each case, and how this does nto lead to a loop. Your go.

thebetter1 wrote:

daedalus wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Catachan_Devil wrote:PotMS is a special rule/ability - hardly normal

It's normal if you are a Land Raider. We are discussing only Land Raiders, therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, PotMS is normal.

Not normal at all. Chaos Land Raiders don't get the rule, ergo not all Land Raiders get the rule. Not 'Normal' by any means. Alternatively, you've just let me stack officers of the fleet, astropaths, and everything else that doesn't explicitly say that it doesn't stack.

Your pick.

First, I already made it clear that we are only discussing Land Raiders with PotMS. Unless you can say with a straight face that it is unusual for a Land Raider with PotMS to fire more weapons than other vehicles, it is normal.

Second, the things you listed do say they don't stack, if you play using the GW FAQs. If you don't use them, I wouldn't be playing against you in the first place. Now, for consistency's sake, would you also say that vehicle damage modifiers do not stack?

Gwar! wrote:Yup, especially since no rule allows it to fore TWO more than normal!

But two separate rules allow it to fire one more. Any normal person would probably say that this amounts to two.

Lord Harrab wrote:Methinks some one is unhappy that their Space Marines can't get an unfair advantage out of spearhead.

You obviously know nothing about game balance if you feel this way. Funnily enough you have not said this about Leman Russes.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

ceorron wrote:No matter anyones argument. I'm playing it can fire two more than normal

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

There's nothing ironic about it. Harassing people for the way they want to play the game is extremely wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:thebetter1 - i refer you back to the sort-of proof that if "normal" is not the same word in both cases (referring to the BRB rules for vehicles and moving) you end up being able to infinitiely add weapons;. Which is absurd.

This "proof" does not exist, as I defeated it in one of my first posts in the thread, actually before it was first brought up.

Gwar! wrote:
Shaken Vehicle: They normally can fire, but a special rule says they cannot.

So first you say that the rules are worded the same way but then you argue that they work differently?

Gwar! wrote:
Special cannot be Normal. It's like speeding slowly, or Microsoft Works.

It can be in the right context. People in a mental institution might seem special from the outside world, but if you go inside and ask one patient about another, there is a good chance you will hear that he/she is normal.

Okay firstly you are defining a Land Raider with Potms to be the normal state for vehicle having moved over 6".

You go on to say that 'Any normal person' would conclude that two separate allowances giving a player permissions to fire one additional weapon to the normal quota, would result in two additional weapons being fired with respect to the normal quota.

You follow this up with disparaging remarks about individuals abilitys.

You make a broad reaching value statement while engaging in the activity you've branded extremely wrong.

Yes and within the context of the word is being used it retains it's meaning.

As for your lovely example of the use of the word 'special' other than gross problems involving the structure of you sentence, glaring prejudice on your part and a miss-understanding of the use of the word normal to describe a default state in game play.

It still proves our point.

If one makes a generalisation that one person with mental difficulties would regard a different person with a different set of mental processing problem (here’s where it starts to break down you see, as there is a wide variety of altered mental states from a variety of sources effecting a variety of different people with a varity of different brain chemistry…) as ‘normal’.
I’m sorry what does this have to do with your argument?

Neither rule asks for one to apply perspective or differing viewpoints to the issue either.

Rule A) Says in addition to normal Rule B) Says in addition to normal.

Neither rule says stop look at the other and decide that this effect is ‘normal’. So obviously I’ll apply it’s effects without first checking it they have been met (by firing one additional weapon)



That post is a dogs breakfast, but had to rush

thebetter1 wrote:- Snip-

My point was that you were coming across as a whiny kid, a fact that other posters have pointed out.

Oh, you want me to comment on the Russ, fine I'm game.

The Russ is roughly the same points cost as the Land Raider, (I Think, i don't own the space marine codex so i can't check.) while having worse armor and no transport capability, admittedly with more guns.

Also, it's "Lumbering behemoth" rule comes with draw backs, the Leman russ has a random speed and its extra weapon cannot engage a separate target. thats a balancing factor yes?

EDIT: fixed my spelling.

thebetter1 wrote:

daedalus wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Catachan_Devil wrote:PotMS is a special rule/ability - hardly normal

It's normal if you are a Land Raider. We are discussing only Land Raiders, therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, PotMS is normal.

Not normal at all. Chaos Land Raiders don't get the rule, ergo not all Land Raiders get the rule. Not 'Normal' by any means. Alternatively, you've just let me stack officers of the fleet, astropaths, and everything else that doesn't explicitly say that it doesn't stack.

Your pick.

First, I already made it clear that we are only discussing Land Raiders with PotMS. Unless you can say with a straight face that it is unusual for a Land Raider with PotMS to fire more weapons than other vehicles, it is normal.

Second, the things you listed do say they don't stack, if you play using the GW FAQs. If you don't use them, I wouldn't be playing against you in the first place. Now, for consistency's sake, would you also say that vehicle damage modifiers do not stack?

I invoke the Gwar! Defense: GW says that FAQ is house rules. Beyond errata, they have as much legitimacy as me claiming you only get one more shot than regular vehicles, or you saying that they get two more, or me being absurd and saying that each rule gains "moron recursion" off of the other and as a result you can fire every weapon no matter how far you move. Do I play that astropath's stack? No. Generally I play by the FAQ, however, I check with the other player to make sure we're playing the same game. This issue is just going to have to go on the long list of things that need to be discussed prior to game, as if there weren't enough already.

The way I see it happening:

Normal == Vehicle Rules in The Rules.
PotMS is not normal. Sorry, it's really not. "I always get this ability.", does not make it normal. I've always been colorblind. That doesn't make it normal, and that's why people would look at me funny when I wear brown pants and bright pink shirts, assuming I did so. If it was 'normal', then there wouldn't be rules defining it as a special case, because it would be normal. There's really no plainer way to put it.

Spearhead == one more attack than normal.
PotMS == one more attack than normal.

SM Land Raider gets one more attack than normal, and it gets one more attack than normal. Let us look at it programmaticly, because we have a set of (what should be) well defined rules, so it should be able to be modeled that way:

// You get one shot at crusing speed
CrusingSpeedGuns = 1;
// You get one more shot than normal with PotMS
PotMS = CrusingSpeedGuns + 1;
// You get one more shot than normal with Spearhead
Spearhead = CrusingSpeedGuns +1;
// Land Raiders have PotMS
LandRaiderAtCrusingSpeed = PoTMS;
// Land Raiders with Spearhead
LandRaiderAtCrusingSpeed = Spearhead;

At this point, the land raider shots still equal 2.

It can be in the right context. People in a mental institution might seem special from the outside world, but if you go inside and ask one patient about another, there is a good chance you will hear that he/she is normal.

This comment alone fills me with such horror and revulsion that I'm not altogether positive how to respond to it.

Have any of you actually considered that your arguments would cause vehicle damage modifiers to not stack?

nosferatu1001 wrote:thebetter1 -of course you defeated it. we all believe you.

Now please show how "normal" is different in each case, and how this does nto lead to a loop. Your go.

I covered this in my third post in the thread, and I told you to look there the first time. "Normal" means different things in different contexts.

ChrisCP wrote:
Okay firstly you are defining a Land Raider with Potms to be the normal state for vehicle having moved over 6".

No, I'm not. I am defining one weapon for cruising speed, etc. to be the normal state for a Land Raider with PotMS.

ChrisCP wrote:
You go on to say that 'Any normal person' would conclude that two separate allowances giving a player permissions to fire one additional weapon to the normal quota, would result in two additional weapons being fired with respect to the normal quota.

Yes, I would bet my money on that.

ChrisCP wrote:
You make a broad reaching value statement while engaging in the activity you've branded extremely wrong.

No, you have no idea what you are talking about. I do not care at all if you and Gwar! play together and agree that the two rules don't stack. If you find it offensive that other people would play the other way, you shouldn't be on the internet.

ChrisCP wrote:
As for your lovely example of the use of the word 'special' other than gross problems involving the structure of you sentence, glaring prejudice on your part and a miss-understanding of the use of the word normal to describe a default state in game play.

It still proves our point.

This is not exactly a rules argument. I hope you realize that posts on internet forums tend to be informal.

ChrisCP wrote:
If one makes a generalisation that one person with mental difficulties would regard a different person with a different set of mental processing problem (here’s where it starts to break down you see, as there is a wide variety of altered mental states from a variety of sources effecting a variety of different people with a varity of different brain chemistry…) as ‘normal’.
I’m sorry what does this have to do with your argument?

Mental difficulties really had nothing to do with it. For another example, consider extremely tall people. Their heights would generally not be considered normal. Now put them all on a basketball team and suddenly most of them seem normal in that context.

Lord Harrab wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:- Snip-

My point was that you were coming across as a whiny kid, a fact that other posters have pointed out.

Oh, you want me to comment on the Russ, fine I'm game.

The Russ is roughly the same points cost as the Land Raider, (I Think, i don't own the space marine codex so i can't check.) while having worse armor and no transport capability, admittedly with more guns.

Also, it's "Lumbering behemoth" rule comes with draw backs, the Leman russ has a random speed and its extra weapon cannot engage a separate target. thats a balancing factor yes?

EDIT: fixed my spelling.

Now, if the Leman Russ were vastly underpowered compared to the Land Raider in normal games, you might have a point.

daedalus wrote:
I invoke the Gwar! Defense: GW says that FAQ is house rules. Beyond errata, they have as much legitimacy as me claiming you only get one more shot than regular vehicles, or you saying that they get two more, or me being absurd and saying that each rule gains "moron recursion" off of the other and as a result you can fire every weapon no matter how far you move. Do I play that astropath's stack? No. Generally I play by the FAQ, however, I check with the other player to make sure we're playing the same game. This issue is just going to have to go on the long list of things that need to be discussed prior to game, as if there weren't enough already.

I see no point arguing with you if you want to ignore official rule sources.

thebetter1 wrote:Have any of you actually considered that your arguments would cause vehicle damage modifiers to not stack?.

No, not really, because our arguments don't cause this at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thebetter1 wrote:I see no point arguing with you if you want to ignore official rule sources.

They are not official. GW say as much.

Furthermore, they are known to -cough- borrow from other sources, making them not RaI (as the author didn't bother to write them).

Gwar! wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Have any of you actually considered that your arguments would cause vehicle damage modifiers to not stack?.

No, not really, because our arguments don't cause this at all.

Yes they do. If these two rules do not stack because they both tell you to add 1 and just adding 1 satisfies them both, then how would you play an open-topped vehicle hit by a meltagun? You have two places telling you to add 1 and just adding 1 satisfies them both.

thebetter1 wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:You go on to say that 'Any normal person' would conclude that two separate allowances giving a player permissions to fire one additional weapon to the normal quota, would result in two additional weapons being fired with respect to the normal quota.

Yes, I would bet my money on that.

I am a normal person. I do not conclude that two separate allowances giving a player permissions to fire one additional weapon to the normal quota, would result in two additional weapons being fired with respect to the normal quota.

Where is my money? Or are you insinuating that I am not normal (which could be construed as an attack of my personage as it were)?

thebetter1 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Have any of you actually considered that your arguments would cause vehicle damage modifiers to not stack?.

No, not really, because our arguments don't cause this at all.

Yes they do. If these two rules do not stack because they both tell you to add 1 and just adding 1 satisfies them both, then how would you play an open-topped vehicle hit by a meltagun? You have two places telling you to add 1 and just adding 1 satisfies them both.

Neither rule says +1 from normal.

It just says +1, it's from two different sources so they stack fine, for the same reason that Pheromone Trail and Alien Cunning stack. Neither mention "than normal".

What you seem to keep ignoring is both rules allow you to fire one more weapon THAN NORMAL.
Neither rule allows you to fire two more weapons than normal, so you cannot.

Gwar! wrote:Furthermore, they are known to -cough- borrow from other sources, making them not RaI (as the author didn't bother to write them).

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

Alternatively, if the original author intends 'x' rule to work a given way, and I write an FAQ explaining how that rule works and manage to explain it in a way that corresponds with that original intention, and he then 'borrows' that FAQ for his own... his FAQ is very much RAI.

Gwar! wrote:What you seem to keep ignoring is both rules allow you to fire one more weapon THAN NORMAL.

He's not ignoring that.

The issue here is simply that there are two differing opinions on what exactly constitutes 'normal'...

Gwar! wrote:Or are you insinuating that I am not normal (which could be construed as an attack of my personage as it were)?

I would argue that hardly anyone on this forum represents a typical person, considering how many people have never even heard of wargaming.

Gwar! wrote:It just says +1, it's from two different sources so they stack fine, for the same reason that Pheromone Trail and Alien Cunning stack. Neither mention "than normal".

What you seem to keep ignoring is both rules allow you to fire one more weapon THAN NORMAL.
Neither rule allows you to fire two more weapons than normal, so you cannot.

Well, now we're back to square 1 and our disagreements on whether it is normal for a Land Raider to fire more weapons than other vehicles.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Furthermore, they are known to -cough- borrow from other sources, making them not RaI (as the author didn't bother to write them).

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

Alternatively, if the original author intends 'x' rule to work a given way, and I write an FAQ explaining how that rule works and manage to explain it in a way that corresponds with that original intention, and he then 'borrows' that FAQ for his own... his FAQ is very much RAI.

I would normally agree, however there is a difference between Borrowing and Copypasting. Not to mention that I think it was Allesio who was writing the FAQ? I remember something in White Dwarf about him not resting till there was an FAQ out or something.

But I digress.

Normal for a land raider is the same as any other tank. PotMS is a SPECIAL rule. You cannot have a SPECIAL rule and claim it to be normal.

thebetter1 wrote: "Normal" means different things in different contexts.

The context is (vehicles in) 40k. The special -- or non-normal -- rules are covered by special rules. Note that PotMS falls under the heading "Special Rules".

This is starting to read like the FnP vs AP3 threads.

thebetter1 wrote:

Falconlance wrote:
They are worded exactly the same though, I don't see where youre getting that the spearhead rule tells you to take into account any other rules that modify what you can "normally fire."

The Spearhead rule builds on the standard 40k rules. The standard 40k rules have Land Raiders normally shooting an additional weapon. When you build on this, that extra weapon is normal.

Did you see a flaw in my logic about normal abilities or are you just ignoring it?

If it was normal then you wouldn't need a special rule to define it as a differing aspect.

If it was normal, then the land raiders rules would state "land raiders can fire one weapon when moving at cruising speed". That would make it normal. As it stands, PotMS is an additive for the land raider, because at its base the LR can not fire any weapon at cruising speed (or however many it is, I don't use them so I don't know off hand). But PotMS allows it to do so. This isn't specific to the land raider, it is specific to PotMS.

PotMS does not redefine what is normal for the LR, it modifies the normal.

My guess is that the spearhead rule was designed to give other races the ability to have something similar to PotMS (such as necron monoliths getting to fire the whip AND gauss flux arcs at the same time).

If Spearhead said you can fire 1 weapon when moving fast, I could see you firing twice. 1 time for Spearhead and one more time for PoTMS.

With both rules doing the same thing I myself can not justify shooting more than 1 weapon.

PoTMS/Spearhead does not allow you to fire 1 time. It allows you to fire 1 more time than normal.

So both rules are fullfilled when you fire 1 time.

thebetter1 wrote:

Now, if the Leman Russ were vastly underpowered compared to the Land Raider in normal games, you might have a point.

This is my favorite argument so far. I feel my LR should be more powerful than his LR, they both have the same acronym but I wish I had a Battle Cannon or was a lumbering behemoth. BTW, what is a normal game? If you are playing Apoc it is normal to Apoc but playing standard 40k it is normal to that, I cannot understand the context of normal so I have no idea what you are referencing...

thebetter1 wrote:
~A wonderful deconstruction of a couple of posts.

So really, the issue is you consider a LR with Potms to be a 'Normal' vehicle. Fair enough.
Might I point out again thou that your bastketballer example is still incorrect. 'suddenly most of them seem normal in that context.' A wonderful statement illustrating that indeed among land raiders there are 'unusual' cases. Also you know as well as anyone 'extremely tall people' is a fairly board category.



Hehe little man.

I'm a Limey and even I know Point Guards are of shorter stature than most basketball players.

Some don't even get to 6 foot!

It's nice to see how no-one has taken me up on my argument why treating the Spearhead rules as 1 extra only makes no sense if looking at the leman russ, but I guess that just means the argument is right.

How many guns does a Landraider normally fire when moving 6 inches? 2
There you go, plug that into the spearhead "formula" if you want to go that route.

Yes, we have. As your argument falls into the category of 'Normal is what the BRB says and any additional special rules the model has'

If you've been given:
permission to fire your normal allotment of shots plus one
and
permission to fire your normal allotment of shots plus one

...guess what you've got? (hint, it's permission to fire your normal allotment of shots plus one)

thebetter1 - nope, sorry, your argument fails. Your name is still ironic....

Your have no basis for redefining "normal" in the way you do, as it leads to a loop AND is unsupported by the rules.

Both rules tell you to add +1 to your NORMAL allowance. Both are resolved at the same time. One cannot reference the other as you are applying OoO to someting when you have not got permission to do so.

Vehicle damage, as you have been told repeatedly (but will presumably ignore) does not do that - it tells you to add +1, not +1 to normal (as that wouldnt make a lot of sense in this case, as "normal" is a D6 roll - so random. Unlike the deterministic movement speeds) and therefore modifiers DO stack.

You know, I've been trying to get this thread to die for a long time, but because of all of the near trolls and the attempts to get the last word in, you guys just don't want that to happen, so here I am.

kirsanth wrote:
This is starting to read like the FnP vs AP3 threads.

Comments like these really should be deleted. You're adding nothing to the thread except insult.

Gwar! wrote:
Normal for a land raider is the same as any other tank. PotMS is a SPECIAL rule. You cannot have a SPECIAL rule and claim it to be normal.

Kevin949 wrote:
If it was normal then you wouldn't need a special rule to define it as a differing aspect.

If it was normal, then the land raiders rules would state "land raiders can fire one weapon when moving at cruising speed". That would make it normal. As it stands, PotMS is an additive for the land raider, because at its base the LR can not fire any weapon at cruising speed (or however many it is, I don't use them so I don't know off hand). But PotMS allows it to do so. This isn't specific to the land raider, it is specific to PotMS.

PotMS does not redefine what is normal for the LR, it modifies the normal.

Elitest Jerk wrote:
PoTMS/Spearhead does not allow you to fire 1 time. It allows you to fire 1 more time than normal.

So both rules are fullfilled when you fire 1 time.

ChrisCP wrote:Yes, we have. As your argument falls into the category of 'Normal is what the BRB says and any additional special rules the model has'

Gorkamorka wrote:If you've been given:
permission to fire your normal allotment of shots plus one
and
permission to fire your normal allotment of shots plus one

...guess what you've got? (hint, it's permission to fire your normal allotment of shots plus one)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your have no basis for redefining "normal" in the way you do, as it leads to a loop AND is unsupported by the rules.

Both rules tell you to add +1 to your NORMAL allowance. Both are resolved at the same time. One cannot reference the other as you are applying OoO to someting when you have not got permission to do so.

These posts basically assume that I haven't already made any arguments on the subject.

calypso2ts wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Now, if the Leman Russ were vastly underpowered compared to the Land Raider in normal games, you might have a point.

This is my favorite argument so far. I feel my LR should be more powerful than his LR, they both have the same acronym but I wish I had a Battle Cannon or was a lumbering behemoth. BTW, what is a normal game? If you are playing Apoc it is normal to Apoc but playing standard 40k it is normal to that, I cannot understand the context of normal so I have no idea what you are referencing...

This is just an attempt to make me look bad, not an actual argument.

ChrisCP wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:
~A wonderful deconstruction of a couple of posts.

Seriously, don't modify quotes. That kind of thing gets you sued.

Anyone see a trend forming here?

ChrisCP wrote:
So really, the issue is you consider a LR with Potms to be a 'Normal' vehicle. Fair enough.
Might I point out again thou that your bastketballer example is still incorrect. 'suddenly most of them seem normal in that context.' A wonderful statement illustrating that indeed among land raiders there are 'unusual' cases. Also you know as well as anyone 'extremely tall people' is a fairly board category.

Yes, there can be outliers amongst a sample. However, if the sample includes only Land Raiders with PotMS, each able to fire the same number of weapons, you cannot claim one of them is not normal compared to the others.

thebetter1 - seriously , get over yourself. Modifying a quote and clearly denoting it is a modification is perfectly fine.

In addition, you would need to show actual harm to prevail. So, good luck with that!

You have not made a cogent argument demonstrating why your "normal" for PotMS modiofies the "normal" for spearhead. Maybe an on topic post?

nosferatu1001 wrote:You have not made a cogent argument demonstrating why your "normal" for PotMS modiofies the "normal" for spearhead.

The way I see it, in a greater context, it is normal for a Land Raider to get the benefit of PotMS, as the only way to remove it short of destroying all of its weapons is to not buy it in the first place.

To go into more detail on contexts, the PotMS rule is clearly referring to the base state for vehicles. Your loop argument would require that it refers to the norm for Land Raiders, which could not possibly be true as that would be a circular rule. The Spearhead Rule refers to the number of weapons that the vehicle in question can normally fire; it does not ask for the normal number for a vehicle, as that would not acomodate other vehicle types.

This brings up another point: your argument is arbitrary. You consider it normal for, for example, a fast vehicle to fire more weapons than a regular vehicle and a walker to fire a fixed number of weapons, but you do not consider it normal when the rule making it that way is under a special rule, just because "special cannot be normal."

Now, a test of maturity. I am willing to accept that not everyone shares my view, and will end the thread on an agreement to disagree. If that is okay with the opposing side, we can end this stupid argument. If not and people start forming large groups all saying the same thing, we can rehash this argument all over again.

thebetter1 wrote:

Falconlance wrote:
They are worded exactly the same though, I don't see where youre getting that the spearhead rule tells you to take into account any other rules that modify what you can "normally fire."

The Spearhead rule builds on the standard 40k rules. The standard 40k rules have Land Raiders normally shooting an additional weapon. When you build on this, that extra weapon is normal.

Did you see a flaw in my logic about normal abilities or are you just ignoring it?

Here is the flaw in your logic.

Power of the machine spirit allows you to fire one more weapon than normal.

How many weapons can your land raider Normally fire after it has moved more than 6"?

The answer is 0.

So with PotMS 0+1=1

You may fire one Weapon.

With the spearhead rule you may fire one more weapon than normal when moving.

How many weapons can your Land Raider normally fire after moving more than 6"?

The answer is 0.

So with spearhead 0+1=1

Now if you have both rules, the answers do not change. By firing one and only one extra weapon you have fulfilled both rule modifiers allowed by the special abilities. My Land Raider moved 12" I fire one twin linked LasCannon. I have fulfilled the description of both PotMS and Spearhead.

There is no where that says a Land Raider may fire as a fast vehicle as Normal.

This is the beauty/tragedy of RAW. The rules must be written to apply to this game. If it is not written explicitly it cannot be done. Sometimes GW writes rules that don't work as they intended due to wording that they have chosen and most people want to interrpret the rules to favor them. Some groups will just play RAI and they assume they know what is intended. These groups are often great fun when everyone agrees.

I DO think that GW intended to let the Land Raider shoot two shots more than normal. Unfortunately that is not what they wrote.

By firing one more weapon than normal, and only one, you fulfull both rules requirements and violate none so you only get one extra shot. I would choose a different spearhead for my Land Raiders.

Orion_44 wrote:
Here is the flaw in your logic.

Power of the machine spirit allows you to fire one more weapon than normal.

How many weapons can your land raider Normally fire after it has moved more than 6"?

The answer is 0.

So with PotMS 0+1=1

You may fire one Weapon.

With the spearhead rule you may fire one more weapon than normal when moving.

How many weapons can your Land Raider normally fire after moving more than 6"?

The answer is 0.

So with spearhead 0+1=1

Now if you have both rules, the answers do not change. By firing one and only one extra weapon you have fulfilled both rule modifiers allowed by the special abilities. My Land Raider moved 12" I fire one twin linked LasCannon. I have fulfilled the description of both PotMS and Spearhead.

Well, it appears you are not okay with agreeing that we see the rules differently. I don't want to hear that my argument is flawed when you did not actually address it.

Orion_44 wrote:
This is the beauty/tragedy of RAW. The rules must be written to apply to this game. If it is not written explicitly it cannot be done. Sometimes GW writes rules that don't work as they intended due to wording that they have chosen and most people want to interrpret the rules to favor them. Some groups will just play RAI and they assume they know what is intended. These groups are often great fun when everyone agrees.

I DO think that GW intended to let the Land Raider shoot two shots more than normal. Unfortunately that is not what they wrote.

By firing one more weapon than normal, and only one, you fulfull both rules requirements and violate none so you only get one extra shot. I would choose a different spearhead for my Land Raiders.

I am not arguing RAI. You can't use the fact that RAI seems to be one thing to further justify that RAW says something else.

thebetter1 wrote:These posts basically assume that I haven't already made any arguments on the subject.

Except all your arguments are wrong and you don't understand the difference between what a baseline "everything is this" and a special "some units get this" rule is.

Kevin949 wrote:
Except all your arguments are wrong and you don't understand the difference between what a baseline "everything is this" and a special "some units get this" rule is.

Wow. People really tell me that I should drop this and I get responses like this?

Your argument is arbitrary. You set up a difference between special rules and rules in the BRB even though no rule tells you that any such difference exists. By the way, all of your arguments are wrong.

How did I not address it? Please clarify. The only thing I see you saying is that a land raider normally fires more than one weapon. That is a flawed argument. That is the issue that I address. There is no where that says a land raider fires one more weapon than normal.

You refuse to see it that way.

You are arguing RAI becase you are not abiding by RAW.

Lay it out like I laid it out. Using the appropriate quotes that show where a land raider fires more shots than any other tank does as normal.

That does not exist. What you are attempting to argue is how you see the rule. Not what is actually written in either description of PotMS or the Spearhead Formation.

So, then show me. I am simple. Quote from the rules the relevant sentences. I do not see them anywhere in this thread. If you cannot show the rule as it is written you have no argument by RAW.

Where does it say that the Power of the Machine Spirit is "normal" for a Land Raider? If it said that we would all agree and this would be over.

The part I think that you aren't looking at is if you fire one more weapon you fulfill both sentences with no contradiction.

Now it is incumbent on you to show where they explicitly state that they would stack. Again, explicitly state that they would stack.

thebetter1 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
Except all your arguments are wrong and you don't understand the difference between what a baseline "everything is this" and a special "some units get this" rule is.

Wow. People really tell me that I should drop this and I get responses like this?

Your argument is arbitrary. You set up a difference between special rules and rules in the BRB even though no rule tells you that any such difference exists. By the way, all of your arguments are wrong.

Show me where in the BRB that it talks about PotMS at all then.

thebetter1 - one is a normal rule, one is special - as denoted by the words "special rule"

To argue that the special rule isnt special is certainly NOT a RAW argument!

thebetter1
Humans wear clothes. Do you think is it "Normal" or "Special" ?

Orion_44 wrote:The only thing I see you saying is that a land raider normally fires more than one weapon.

This is correct. By observation you will find that the Land Raiders in question will always fire two weapons at cruising speed (if they want to and have enough weapons to fire).

Orion_44 wrote:There is no where that says a land raider fires one more weapon than normal.

This is a nice blatant lie.

Orion_44 wrote:
You refuse to see it that way.

You refuse to see that different people can interpret the rules differently.

Orion_44 wrote:
You are arguing RAI becase you are not abiding by RAW.

So, now an interpretation becomes RAW when you say so?

Orion_44 wrote:
Lay it out like I laid it out. Using the appropriate quotes that show where a land raider fires more shots than any other tank does as normal.

Show me quotes that a fast vehicle is normal.

Orion_44 wrote:
That does not exist. What you are attempting to argue is how you see the rule. Not what is actually written in either description of PotMS or the Spearhead Formation.

Therefore, being fast must not be normal either.

Orion_44 wrote:
So, then show me. I am simple. Quote from the rules the relevant sentences. I do not see them anywhere in this thread. If you cannot show the rule as it is written you have no argument by RAW.

Show me a quote from the rules saying that a walker firing all of its weapons is normal.

Orion_44 wrote:
Where does it say that the Power of the Machine Spirit is "normal" for a Land Raider? If it said that we would all agree and this would be over.

Where does it say being a walker is "normal"?

Orion_44 wrote:
The part I think that you aren't looking at is if you fire one more weapon you fulfill both sentences with no contradiction.

If you actually followed the thread you would see that I dealt with this from the beginning.

Orion_44 wrote:
Now it is incumbent on you to show where they explicitly state that they would stack. Again, explicitly state that they would stack.

Only after you can explain why all other circumstances are normal.

Kevin949 wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
Except all your arguments are wrong and you don't understand the difference between what a baseline "everything is this" and a special "some units get this" rule is.

Wow. People really tell me that I should drop this and I get responses like this?

Your argument is arbitrary. You set up a difference between special rules and rules in the BRB even though no rule tells you that any such difference exists. By the way, all of your arguments are wrong.

Show me where in the BRB that it talks about PotMS at all then.

What does that have to do with anything? You draw the line of "normal" between the BRB and the codices even though no rule tells you to do this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:thebetter1 - one is a normal rule, one is special - as denoted by the words "special rule"

To argue that the special rule isnt special is certainly NOT a RAW argument!

So your whole argument is that anything special cannot possibly be normal? Who's arguing RAI now?

penek wrote:thebetter1
Humans wear clothes. Do you think is it "Normal" or "Special" ?

It is both.

(That's what happens when you try to troll.)

No, I am arguinig that, when you are told something is "special" it probably means it isnt counted when something asks about "normal" rules.

That is RAW: The Special Rule gives you something over a normal vehicle, making you...ta da! Not Normal.

Your method still ends up with a never ending loop as you endlessly redefine not-normal as normal...

It is still normal for a special rule not to be considered a normal rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, I am arguinig that, when you are told something is "special" it probably means it isnt counted when something asks about "normal" rules.

You are told the rule is special, not the effect of the rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That is RAW: The Special Rule gives you something over a normal vehicle, making you...ta da! Not Normal.

So this "normal vehicle" is "normal" because...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your method still ends up with a never ending loop as you endlessly redefine not-normal as normal...

You really like circular arguments, don't you? I defeat this one time, we go on for a while, and then you just bring it up again as if it had never been mentioned.

kirsanth wrote:It is still normal for a special rule not to be considered a normal rule.

You made this up, didn't you?

thebetter1 wrote:
Show me quotes that a fast vehicle is normal.

Full rules for fast vehicles presented at BRB, so they are what is normal in that game.

thebetter1 wrote:
Show me a quote from the rules saying that a walker firing all of its weapons is normal.

same BRB

thebetter1 wrote:
Where does it say being a walker is "normal"?

same as above

thebetter1 wrote:
It is both.
(That's what happens when you try to troll.)

you even can't give such simple answer.

and now Ladies and Gentlemen where PotMS ??
not in BRB. not in descriptions of all LR, its just in few SM codexes, in SPECIAL RULES section.

Why you begun all that trolling here if you don't have intention of hearing right answer?

ps. get off your disguise damn troll.

penek wrote:
Full rules for fast vehicles presented at BRB, so they are what is normal in that game.

This only proves my point that your interpretation is arbitrary.

I have been extremely calm throughout this thread. Your behavior suggests that you want me to stop.

thebetter1 wrote:This only proves my point that your interpretation is arbitrary.

I have been extremely calm throughout this thread. Your behavior suggests that you want me to stop.

No, not really.

The Land Raider is a tank, so follows the rules for Tanks.

The Rules that Tanks follow are Normal for all Tanks.

The Rules that the Land Raider Follows are Special Rules that apply only to it.
Special Rules Cannot be normal.

thebetter1
oh, you finally got it? just 4 pages... thx Emperor.

penek wrote:Why you begun all that trolling here if you don't have intention of hearing right answer?

ps. get off your disguise damn troll.

The fact that someone disagrees with a given interpretation of the rules does not make them a troll.

Let's keep it civil, folks.

You are trying to argue two different levels of specificity. In one you are saying it is normal for the 'vehicle' so when applying the spearhead rules you examine what is normal for that specific vehicle. Unfortunately, by defining the default state as being that of the vehicle you run into the problem nos mentioned...here is some math because math always proves everything!

Let: S = 0 - # Weapons a LR can normally fire at cruising speed

Let us determine S, to make it easy we can start with:
S = 0
add +1 for PotMS (or Spearhead take your pick) and we get the following update relationship:

S = S + 1 = 0 + 1 = 1
Oh noes, S = 0 = 1? This can't be true, here try 1 instead!

S = S + 1 = 1 + 1 = 2
oh wait...

Now if instead we use..

N = 0 - the number of weapons a vehicle can fire at cruising speed

S = N + 1 = 0 + 1 = 1

Amazing! Now how many can a LR fire with Spearhead, we'll call that P

P = N + 1 = 0 + 1 = 1

Go math!

thebetter1 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
Except all your arguments are wrong and you don't understand the difference between what a baseline "everything is this" and a special "some units get this" rule is.

Wow. People really tell me that I should drop this and I get responses like this?

Your argument is arbitrary. You set up a difference between special rules and rules in the BRB even though no rule tells you that any such difference exists. By the way, all of your arguments are wrong.

Show me where in the BRB that it talks about PotMS at all then.

What does that have to do with anything? You draw the line of "normal" between the BRB and the codices even though no rule tells you to do this.

And you draw no line between normal and special. As Gwar! said above, the LR is a tank. It follows the rules for EVERY tank. The BRB states all the normal rules for every unit type played in the game. The codices are what hold the special rules for specific units. Not every LR gets PotMS so it is not normal. As others have stated, it is listed under the special rules area in the codices. That alone makes it special.

As I said much much earlier that you seem to have ignored, if the LR entry said ONLY "Land Raiders can fire one weapon at BS 2 when moving up to cruising speed" and it said that for EVERY land raider, THEN it would be normal because it would be specific to the LR and every LR would have it (and only LR's). But, since PotMS is what gives it that ability and you can take PotMS on other vehicles, that makes it a special rule, not a normal one.

Normal rules are "Tank, Skimmer, Bike, Infantry, Monstrous Creature". Special rules are "Eternal Warrior, Power of the Machine Spirit, Fleet, Move through Cover". A "normal" rule is on that applies to all similar units, such as all infantry having to roll 2d6 to move through cover. SOME infantry have a special rule allowing them to roll 3d6. So, do you think that an IC having move through cover makes it a normal rule?

thebetter1 wrote:

This is correct. By observation you will find that the Land Raiders in question will always fire two weapons at cruising speed (if they want to and have enough weapons to fire).

Observation is not RAW

thebetter1 wrote:

Orion_44 wrote:There is no where that says a land raider fires one more weapon than normal.

This is a nice blatant lie.

Actually not a lie, it is pulled out of the context of the earlier sentences. To be better understood I will rephrase. There is no where that says firing one more weapon than normal due to PotMS is now normal for the second instance to apply.

- Personal attacks removed -

thebetter1 wrote:

Orion_44 wrote:
You refuse to see it that way.

You refuse to see that different people can interpret the rules differently.

Orion_44 wrote:
You are arguing RAI becase you are not abiding by RAW.

So, now an interpretation becomes RAW when you say so?

RAW is not about interpretting the rules. It is about how the rules are written. If you are not stating what is written it is not RAW (use your cursor and hover over the abbreviation and it will define it again for you).

thebetter1 wrote:

Orion_44 wrote:
Lay it out like I laid it out. Using the appropriate quotes that show where a land raider fires more shots than any other tank does as normal.

Show me quotes that a fast vehicle is normal.

Orion_44 wrote:
That does not exist. What you are attempting to argue is how you see the rule. Not what is actually written in either description of PotMS or the Spearhead Formation.

Therefore, being fast must not be normal either.

Orion_44 wrote:
So, then show me. I am simple. Quote from the rules the relevant sentences. I do not see them anywhere in this thread. If you cannot show the rule as it is written you have no argument by RAW.

Show me a quote from the rules saying that a walker firing all of its weapons is normal.

Umm, as stated by others, if it is in the BRB that is what is considered "Normal." And where did the walker come from? No one here is arguing whether walkers can fire all of its weapons or not as normal. I won't bother even looking at RAW for the quote on walkers but it is completely irrelevant. Hyperbole - personal attack removed - is pointless in this discussion as it was not used in any of my posts, or most posts by people who are explaining why your interrpretation is not correct.

thebetter1 wrote:

Orion_44 wrote:
Where does it say that the Power of the Machine Spirit is "normal" for a Land Raider? If it said that we would all agree and this would be over.

Where does it say being a walker is "normal"?

Orion_44 wrote:
The part I think that you aren't looking at is if you fire one more weapon you fulfill both sentences with no contradiction.

If you actually followed the thread you would see that I dealt with this from the beginning.

Orion_44 wrote:
Now it is incumbent on you to show where they explicitly state that they would stack. Again, explicitly state that they would stack.

Only after you can explain why all other circumstances are normal.

Again, normal is what is in the BRB, we are referring to the movement and shooting of tanks. Nothing else. And you did not deal with fulfilling both rules with no contradiction you explained why you think it should be different, which is not what is written.

This is YMDC, where we discuss rules that are ambiguous and not defined by RAW. This rule is defined by RAW, thus most posters are disagreeing not based on opinion simply based on what is written. Again WRITTEN. That means in this context, that it has been printed in a Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book published by Games Workshop.

Orion_44 wrote:Actually not a lie, it is pulled out of the context of the earlier sentences. To be better understood I will rephrase. There is no where that says firing one more weapon than normal due to PotMS is now normal for the second instance to apply.

Your original statement was ambiguous. While rewording it is helpful, the personal attacks are not.

Final warning for this thread. Any further personal attacks will result in a holiday for the poster responsible.

I think I can say pretty clearly that after 4 pages of this, I know where I stand on the question posed. Thank you, everyone, for your input.

thebetter1 wrote:But two separate rules allow it to fire one more. Any normal person would probably say that this amounts to two.

Please go educate yourself on conditional logic and get back to us... until then... you're wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thebetter1 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Nowhere does it say it DOES stack, so it doesn't.

Nowhere does it say it DOESN'T stack, so 1+1=2. "Normal" for a Land Raider is (normal for a vehicle) + 1.

Just wanted to reiterate what has already been said a thousand times over (but people still make this same mistake). The rules are permissive, if you ever attempt to ask "What does the rulebook NOT say" then you arn't going to be able to coherently describe the rulebook nor the way the game works. Again, its all about context and permission.

Gwar! wrote:The Land Raider is a tank, so follows the rules for Tanks.

The Rules that Tanks follow are Normal for all Tanks.

The Rules that the Land Raider Follows are Special Rules that apply only to it.
Special Rules Cannot be normal.

So, you're saying that all tanks follow the rules for tanks, therefore these rules are normal for all tanks. All vehicles with PotMS follow the rules for PotMS, therefore these rules must be normal for all vehicles with PotMS. Basically, the only thing you have in your post is that special rules cannot be normal, which I disproved with examples.

calypso2ts wrote:You are trying to argue two different levels of specificity. In one you are saying it is normal for the 'vehicle' so when applying the spearhead rules you examine what is normal for that specific vehicle. Unfortunately, by defining the default state as being that of the vehicle you run into the problem nos mentioned...here is some math because math always proves everything!

Let: S = 0 - # Weapons a LR can normally fire at cruising speed

Let us determine S, to make it easy we can start with:
S = 0
add +1 for PotMS (or Spearhead take your pick) and we get the following update relationship:

S = S + 1 = 0 + 1 = 1
Oh noes, S = 0 = 1? This can't be true, here try 1 instead!

You're missing the part about the two "normals" referring to different things. The PotMS rule refers back to the vehicle rules. You're essentially saying that PotMS adds to the Land Raider rules, which makes no sense at all, considering it IS the Land Raider rule. The Spearhead Rule refers to the vehicle being used, so it does add to the Land Raider rules.

Kevin949 wrote:
And you draw no line between normal and special. As Gwar! said above, the LR is a tank. It follows the rules for EVERY tank. The BRB states all the normal rules for every unit type played in the game. The codices are what hold the special rules for specific units. Not every LR gets PotMS so it is not normal. As others have stated, it is listed under the special rules area in the codices. That alone makes it special.

Well then only consider Land Raiders that get one type of PotMS. Amongst that group, it would still be considered normal. And as I have stated and proven, special can be normal in the right contexts.

Kevin949 wrote:
As I said much much earlier that you seem to have ignored, if the LR entry said ONLY "Land Raiders can fire one weapon at BS 2 when moving up to cruising speed" and it said that for EVERY land raider, THEN it would be normal because it would be specific to the LR and every LR would have it (and only LR's). But, since PotMS is what gives it that ability and you can take PotMS on other vehicles, that makes it a special rule, not a normal one.

This is no different than the distinction between, for example, standard vehicles and fast vehicles.

Kevin949 wrote:
Normal rules are "Tank, Skimmer, Bike, Infantry, Monstrous Creature". Special rules are "Eternal Warrior, Power of the Machine Spirit, Fleet, Move through Cover". A "normal" rule is on that applies to all similar units, such as all infantry having to roll 2d6 to move through cover. SOME infantry have a special rule allowing them to roll 3d6. So, do you think that an IC having move through cover makes it a normal rule?

Using the phrase "normal rule" is a bit misleading. I would say that it is normal for an IC to have the move through cover rule.

Orion_44 wrote:
Observation is not RAW

It would be if the rules asked you to observe. In this case, it is indirect, but determining "normal" in any case always requires a little bit of thinking.

Orion_44 wrote:
RAW is not about interpretting the rules. It is about how the rules are written. If you are not stating what is written it is not RAW (use your cursor and hover over the abbreviation and it will define it again for you).

Your definition of RAW accomplishes nothing. You define it as the text given in appropriate rule sources. Therefore, RAW can never be debated as text does not change and the way it is read does not matter, as the text is still worded the same way. Basically, your RAW debates would be limited to providing quotes and nothing else.

Orion_44 wrote:
Umm, as stated by others, if it is in the BRB that is what is considered "Normal."

The fact that others stated this is definitely not in the definition of RAW. This distinction that the BRB is normal and the codices are not is arbitrary, as you cannot point to any rule saying this.

Orion_44 wrote:
This is YMDC, where we discuss rules that are ambiguous and not defined by RAW. This rule is defined by RAW, thus most posters are disagreeing not based on opinion simply based on what is written. Again WRITTEN. That means in this context, that it has been printed in a Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book published by Games Workshop.

I just don't get it. Why does everyone think I am arguing RAI? You have failed to provide any rules showing why "normal" means something other than what it would mean in English.

visavismeyou wrote:
Please go educate yourself on conditional logic and get back to us... until then... you're wrong.

Seriously, you're quoting some of the first posts in the thread. The arguments have developed a lot since then, so you should probably read at least the last page before you post.

thebetter1 wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:
Please go educate yourself on conditional logic and get back to us... until then... you're wrong.

Seriously, you're quoting some of the first posts in the thread. The arguments have developed a lot since then, so you should probably read at least the last page before you post.

The more I consider you a wall the more tolerable staring at it is. I was going to address thing more thoroughly ran out of time :(

No the argument hasn't developed since then that's why we are all a little frustrated with you...

thebetter1 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Nowhere does it say it DOES stack, so it doesn't.

Nowhere does it say it DOESN'T stack, so 1+1=2. "Normal" for a Land Raider is (normal for a vehicle) + 1.

....

You are still trying to base your argument on the same fallacy of two incidences of permission to have one more chocolate than normal means you can have two.

Secondly, "The first part of this section presents the rules common to all vehicles. Then, each of the vehicle types has a separate entry, listing their unique rules and any exceptions to the normal vehicle rules (walkers being by far the most different)."

It's all so obvious now after reading better's argument.

A LR can take one shot more than normal because POTMS kicks in, so it has +1 shots. Which is it's normal number of shots. So POTMS kicks in boosting it's normal number of shots, which becomes normal. So POTMS kicks in boosting the number of shots, which becomes normal. So POTMS kicks in...

Gorkamorka wrote:It's all so obvious now after reading better's argument.

A LR can take one shot more than normal because POTMS kicks in, so it has +1 shots. Which is it's normal number of shots. So POTMS kicks in boosting it's normal number of shots, which becomes normal. So POTMS kicks in boosting the number of shots, which becomes normal. So POTMS kicks in...

No, it's not, 0 is normal for cruising speed, 1+defensive weapons is normal for combat speed. If anything needs to "kick in" it is not normal, it is now a modifier and modifiers are not normal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thebetter1 wrote:
Show me a quote from the rules saying that a walker firing all of its weapons is normal.

Where does it say being a walker is "normal"?

Pg 73 for both. And now you're arguing a vehicle class against a vehicle special rule.

thebetter1 wrote:You're missing the part about the two "normals" referring to different things. The PotMS rule refers back to the vehicle rules. You're essentially saying that PotMS adds to the Land Raider rules, which makes no sense at all, considering it IS the Land Raider rule. The Spearhead Rule refers to the vehicle being used, so it does add to the Land Raider rules.

thebetter1 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
And you draw no line between normal and special. As Gwar! said above, the LR is a tank. It follows the rules for EVERY tank. The BRB states all the normal rules for every unit type played in the game. The codices are what hold the special rules for specific units. Not every LR gets PotMS so it is not normal. As others have stated, it is listed under the special rules area in the codices. That alone makes it special.

Well then only consider Land Raiders that get one type of PotMS. Amongst that group, it would still be considered normal. And as I have stated and proven, special can be normal in the right contexts.

Except not every land raider gets that rule and to counter your argument, if you "only consider the ones that do get it" as being normal then you truly don't understand what normal is. Someone (not you) correct me if I'm wrong on this though, can you not take PotMS on another vehicle if so permitted? I'm almost positive my buddy has taken it on other vehicles that weren't land raiders before.

In Example, humans with two arms are normal. All humans with two arms follow the same rule of having two arms. This human has a third arm. But, normal for all humans is two arms thus this three armed man is special.

thebetter1 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
As I said much much earlier that you seem to have ignored, if the LR entry said ONLY "Land Raiders can fire one weapon at BS 2 when moving up to cruising speed" and it said that for EVERY land raider, THEN it would be normal because it would be specific to the LR and every LR would have it (and only LR's). But, since PotMS is what gives it that ability and you can take PotMS on other vehicles, that makes it a special rule, not a normal one.

This is no different than the distinction between, for example, standard vehicles and fast vehicles.

How so? EVERY fast vehicle follows the fast vehicle rules. Just like every tank follows the tank rules.

thebetter1 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
Normal rules are "Tank, Skimmer, Bike, Infantry, Monstrous Creature". Special rules are "Eternal Warrior, Power of the Machine Spirit, Fleet, Move through Cover". A "normal" rule is on that applies to all similar units, such as all infantry having to roll 2d6 to move through cover. SOME infantry have a special rule allowing them to roll 3d6. So, do you think that an IC having move through cover makes it a normal rule?

Using the phrase "normal rule" is a bit misleading. I would say that it is normal for an IC to have the move through cover rule.

I don't see how it is misleading when it is the simplest way to describe this. Also, saying it is normal for an IC to have move through cover is not the same as move through cover being normal. Most IC are infantry, and all infantry have to follow all the same infantry rules, BUT IC get a special rules that sets them above the rest of the infantry. It is NORMAL (standard) for them to have that ability but it is special to them because not all infantry get that ability. Making it a special rule. So with that being said, if an IC had another ability (or somehow gained one) that also allowed them to roll 3d6 through cover but it was called something else (not "move through cover") what would you do in that situation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
*edit*
FYI at the top of pg 56 it states "the first part of this section presents the rules common to all vehicles" bolded for emphasis.

In Example, humans with two arms are normal. All humans with two arms follow the same rule of having two arms. This human has a third arm. But, normal for all humans is two arms thus this three armed man is special.

But the three armed man is normal if you consider only three armed men, duh.

Woah this is why I avoid rules threads on Dakka now. I really don't understand how people can think you get to fire two extra guns, that's just wrong.

PotMS lets you fire one more than normal

Spearhead lets you fire one more than normal

Normal for a tank is 1 at combat speed, 0 at cruising speed as it says in the rule book, pg 58 I think.

When applying both the rules you get to fire one more weapon than normal twice, normal is laid out in the BRB so you get one more than that.

If you say Normal for a vehicle with PotMS is <realnormal +1> then you run into all sorts of problems. For a start its not normal, PotMS is explicitly not normal as you are firing one more weapon than normal. PotMS lets you fire Normal+1 it doesn't redefine normal. Neither does Spearhead, it doesn't redefine normal. If both rules redefined what it meant to be normal then my Stormraven could fire 4 Bloodstrikes , Mutlimelta and Assault Cannon at 6 different targets after moving 12", it cannot.

It's really very obvious really.

Aramoro

Aramoro wrote: I really don't understand how people can think you get to fire two extra guns, that's just wrong.

Aramoro

At this point it's less "people" and more "person."

ChrisCP wrote:

The more I consider you a wall the more tolerable staring at it is. I was going to address thing more thoroughly ran out of time :(

No the argument hasn't developed since then that's why we are all a little frustrated with you...

If you actually believe that my whole argument is that the rules don't say they stack so they do, you need to read more. I'm frustrated with all of you for not responding to all of the presented arguments (which I have) and for refusing to accept that there may be more than one interpretation.

ChrisCP wrote:
You are still trying to base your argument on the same fallacy of two incidences of permission to have one more chocolate than normal means you can have two.

Secondly, "The first part of this section presents the rules common to all vehicles. Then, each of the vehicle types has a separate entry, listing their unique rules and any exceptions to the normal vehicle rules (walkers being by far the most different)."

No, I'm not. You're basing your argument on the fallacy that I have only posted one or two times in this thread.

Gorkamorka wrote:It's all so obvious now after reading better's argument.

A LR can take one shot more than normal because POTMS kicks in, so it has +1 shots. Which is it's normal number of shots. So POTMS kicks in boosting it's normal number of shots, which becomes normal. So POTMS kicks in boosting the number of shots, which becomes normal. So POTMS kicks in...

This is a circular argument. Nosferatu brought this up, so I defeated it (actually before he brought it up the first time). It was then brought up again, so I referred to my first response. This keeps on going over and over again, and you just expect me to not respond to one of them so it looks like you were right.

Kevin949 wrote:
No, it's not, 0 is normal for cruising speed, 1+defensive weapons is normal for combat speed. If anything needs to "kick in" it is not normal, it is now a modifier and modifiers are not normal.

Modifiers are not normal? I don't remember seeing that in the rulebook.

Kevin949 wrote:
Pg 73 for both. And now you're arguing a vehicle class against a vehicle special rule.

Page 73 doesn't say what I requested. If you feel otherwise, quote the exact spot where being a walker is normal.

Kevin949 wrote:
Except not every land raider gets that rule and to counter your argument, if you "only consider the ones that do get it" as being normal then you truly don't understand what normal is. Someone (not you) correct me if I'm wrong on this though, can you not take PotMS on another vehicle if so permitted? I'm almost positive my buddy has taken it on other vehicles that weren't land raiders before.

I don't get to correct you? Your argument must be wrong then.

Kevin949 wrote:
In Example, humans with two arms are normal. All humans with two arms follow the same rule of having two arms. This human has a third arm. But, normal for all humans is two arms thus this three armed man is special.

If you go to a site of nuclear radiation where everyone has three arms, this man would be considered normal.

Kevin949 wrote:
How so? EVERY fast vehicle follows the fast vehicle rules. Just like every tank follows the tank rules.

Just like every vehicle with PotMS follows the PotMS rules.

Kevin949 wrote:
I don't see how it is misleading when it is the simplest way to describe this. Also, saying it is normal for an IC to have move through cover is not the same as move through cover being normal. Most IC are infantry, and all infantry have to follow all the same infantry rules, BUT IC get a special rules that sets them above the rest of the infantry. It is NORMAL (standard) for them to have that ability but it is special to them because not all infantry get that ability. Making it a special rule. So with that being said, if an IC had another ability (or somehow gained one) that also allowed them to roll 3d6 through cover but it was called something else (not "move through cover") what would you do in that situation?

This pretty much shows the way I see it. It is normal for an IC to have MTC, but it is not normal for infantry to have MTC. Therefore, in the context of infantry models, it is not normal for the ICs to have MTC, but in the context of just the ICs, it is normal. The situation you described means absolutely nothing as the IC would still have MTC.

Aramoro wrote:For a start its not normal, PotMS is explicitly not normal as you are firing one more weapon than normal.

If this were explicit, as you claim, there would have been no argument.


I would like to point out a trend here. I have responded to every one of your side's arguments (except the especially reduntant/sarcastic ones), yet many of my arguments seem to go unread. Therefore, I will outline what I see as the whole argument (1 is your side, 2 is my side (yes, there are other people on my side, they just don't want to post because of all the stupid responses from tons of people that they get every time)):

1: they don't stack
2: they do stack
1: they don't stack because they both add 1 to the normal amount
2: they do stack because the normal in PotMS refers to the vehicle rules while the normal in Spearhead refers to the specific vehicle
1: (dodging the previous argument a bit) this would create an infinite loop because PotMS would keep kicking in to add an extra weapon
2: there is no loop because it is not possible for the special rules for a Land Raider to be based off of the Land Raider rules
1: special cannot be normal
2: where does the BRB say this?
1: you are arguing intent
2: then why can't you present your definition from the rulebook?
1: but they don't stack because they both add 1 to the normal amount
2: they do stack because the normal in PorMS refers to the vehicle rules while the normal in Spearhead refers to the specific vehicle
1: this would create an infinite loop because PotMS would keep kicking in to add an extra weapon

Then it just keeps going because one of my statements gets ignored after every cycle.

Your statement gets ignored because you seem to think that the two instances of "normal" are somehow different, when if that were the case it WOULD be a cycle - and no, you have yet to defeat it.

Instead of responding with "Im right" perhaps, just perhaps, lay your argumenmt out, clearly and concisely, as to why two instances of "normal", both referring to how many weapons a vehicle can travel a t a certain speed, have an order of operaiton apoklied to them despite no permission for this being found in the rulebook.

Try it.

Your statement gets ignored because you seem to think that the two instances of "normal" are somehow different, when if that were the case it WOULD be a cycle - and no, you have yet to defeat it.

Sorry but the 2 normals being different does not lead to a cycle in any way shape or form. As previously posted lets put the maths to it but do it correctly.

We have:

Weapons a non-fast vehicle can normally fire at cruising speed - n
Weapons a LR can normally fire at cruising speed - Ln
weapon firing allowed by PotMS - P
weapon firing allowed by Spearhead - S

The equations we have are

n + 1 = P = Ln

and

Ln +1 = S

How is that a loop in any way shape or form? We know n= 0 so S = 2.

Hardly rocket science.

How about you answer how your interpretation deals with a Leman russ and it's extra battlecannon shot and how it matters when you shoot each weapon to how many shots you get?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I boils down to how you define normal. Given the rulebook doesn't I think looking at context is the most natural thing.

PotMS tells you how a LR differs from a normal vehicle. Spearhead tells you how a vehicle differs from itself when within 4" of another spearhead vehicle.

The counter RaW argument is based on a definition of normal as what is in the BrB and defines both rules occuring at the same time and assumes that the subject is the same.

As I said we can all argue this until we're all blue in the face (which I think we have done long ago now). Spearhead isn't a balanced game for competitive play so to an extent this is all redundant if you want to be TFG by making LRs not gain the benefit of spearheads when every other tank in the game does, then that is your look out.

thebetter1 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
No, it's not, 0 is normal for cruising speed, 1+defensive weapons is normal for combat speed. If anything needs to "kick in" it is not normal, it is now a modifier and modifiers are not normal.

Modifiers are not normal? I don't remember seeing that in the rulebook.

Then explain to me how +1 to 0 is normal to 0. It is not, because 0 is not 0+1.

Kevin949 wrote:
Pg 73 for both. And now you're arguing a vehicle class against a vehicle special rule.

Page 73 doesn't say what I requested. If you feel otherwise, quote the exact spot where being a walker is normal.

Being a walker is normal for walkers just as being a tank is normal for tanks.

Kevin949 wrote:
Except not every land raider gets that rule and to counter your argument, if you "only consider the ones that do get it" as being normal then you truly don't understand what normal is. Someone (not you) correct me if I'm wrong on this though, can you not take PotMS on another vehicle if so permitted? I'm almost positive my buddy has taken it on other vehicles that weren't land raiders before.

I don't get to correct you? Your argument must be wrong then.

Honestly, the only reason I said not you is because I wanted a third party answer outside of our debate. Not wanting to hear an answer from the opposing party in a debate hardly makes the other person wrong.

Kevin949 wrote:
In Example, humans with two arms are normal. All humans with two arms follow the same rule of having two arms. This human has a third arm. But, normal for all humans is two arms thus this three armed man is special.

If you go to a site of nuclear radiation where everyone has three arms, this man would be considered normal.

You're getting too granular, that location would still be special to the rest of the normal world.

Kevin949 wrote:
How so? EVERY fast vehicle follows the fast vehicle rules. Just like every tank follows the tank rules.

Just like every vehicle with PotMS follows the PotMS rules.

Yes, but not every vehicle gets PotMS. The difference between them is that PotMS can be taken or not taken on some vehicles, but every single tank follows the common tank rules.

Kevin949 wrote:
I don't see how it is misleading when it is the simplest way to describe this. Also, saying it is normal for an IC to have move through cover is not the same as move through cover being normal. Most IC are infantry, and all infantry have to follow all the same infantry rules, BUT IC get a special rules that sets them above the rest of the infantry. It is NORMAL (standard) for them to have that ability but it is special to them because not all infantry get that ability. Making it a special rule. So with that being said, if an IC had another ability (or somehow gained one) that also allowed them to roll 3d6 through cover but it was called something else (not "move through cover") what would you do in that situation?

This pretty much shows the way I see it. It is normal for an IC to have MTC, but it is not normal for infantry to have MTC. Therefore, in the context of infantry models, it is not normal for the ICs to have MTC, but in the context of just the ICs, it is normal. The situation you described means absolutely nothing as the IC would still have MTC.

So in the instance of tanks, having PotMS is not normal. It doesn't matter if an IC always has move through cover, it is still a special rule. The same as PotMS always being on the LR's you get to take, it is not a rule that is common (normal) to every tank but in the instance of your LR it is an option that is always there, but it does not make it a normal rule because it is not common throughout all tanks. Just like living metal on the monolith, it is a special rule that the monolith has. Yes, ONLY the monolith gets living metal and you have no option to remove it but it is not normal to tanks or skimmers and is a special rule to make the monolith unique.

And you still didn't explain what you would do in the situation of an IC gaining another rule that was identical to Move through cover. It is the exact same situation, you have a model that gains a second instance of a rule it already has.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:As I said we can all argue this until we're all blue in the face (which I think we have done long ago now). Spearhead isn't a balanced game for competitive play so to an extent this is all redundant if you want to be TFG by making LRs not gain the benefit of spearheads when every other tank in the game does, then that is your look out.

And LR's benefit over every other tank in the game outside of spearhead. And LR's don't have to be within 4" of ANYTHING to benefit from the rule.

Do you know how restrictive it is to have your vehicles 4" together? Especially for necrons, you're limiting their mobility by having your monoliths so close together, it hinders them as well as benefits. But LR's get the rule regardless.

Let me illustrate a simple scenario that will let you all understand:

You are a child 7 years old. Mommy and Daddy have said in the past:

"Little children that are 7 years old may eat 2 cookies after a meal."

Now, on this particular day, you came home crying from school because the bully broke the land raider toy you brought home from show and tell.

Mommy and Daddy feel sorry for you, and Mommy says:

"Because you are sad, you may have one more cookie than normal today!"

Later, Daddy says:

"You poor, sad, little child with the broken land raider toy! You may have one more cookie than normal today!"

After you eat your dinner, you sneak 4 cookies out of the cookie jar. Daddy finds out and hits you with his belt, because you have taken 4 cookies - which is 2 more than you are normally allowed to take. Both of your parents specifically said 1 more cookie, not 2.

You retire to your bed, cradling your toy land raider and fondling your bruised behind.

I don't know which side of this argument I'm on yet, but I have a question for both sides.

A Black Templar LR is part of a spearhead. It moves 6" and fires 1 TL las cannon at BS4 (presumable fired by the crew). Now because it's within range of another member of the spearhead it gets to fire an additional TL las cannon at BS4 (again fired by the crew). Now the PotMS kicks in and fires the Multi-Melta at a BS2 (Obviously fired by the Machine Spirit). Now why is this sequence of events wrong? The machine spirit is obviously not normal as it is firing at a different BS but by that token it is no different than any other effect (e.g. utilizing a spotlight, or allowing troops to disembark) in that it is not the crew of the LR firing but a special rule kicking in that allows a weapon to fire. I would read the end result of this to be that the LR can fire one more weapon than normal because of the Spearhead rule, but the PotMS doesn't get to utilize the Spearhead rule for an additional shot because it is not normal shooting.

It would seem possible that the PotMS can fire in addition to the Spearhead shot but the Spearhead shot doesn't have any effect on PotMS as it isn't "normal".

Let me state as far as I remember "normal" is a quantitative rather than qualitative state. The majority of anything make up normal (or baseline) everything else is special. The problem comes down to what you are quantifying, if you are using "LandRaiders" then PotMS is normal if you are quantifying "Tanks" then PotMS is special. Both sides are making perfectly good arguments but the difference is what you are using as a baseline. I would think the solution would be written in the discription of the spearhead formation. If the formation says tanks then you use tanks as your baseline. If it says tanks and/or Landraiders or just Landraiders then you can use Landraiders as your baseline. I downloaded the formations and can't find any that give you one extra attack so I can't say which baseline is correct but I'm sure someone else can find the exact rule and post it. That should end the discussion fairly quickly.

zeshin wrote:I don't know which side of this argument I'm on yet, but I have a question for both sides.

A Black Templar LR is part of a spearhead. It moves 6" and fires 1 TL las cannon at BS4 (presumable fired by the crew). Now because it's within range of another member of the spearhead it gets to fire an additional TL las cannon at BS4 (again fired by the crew). Now the PotMS kicks in and fires the Multi-Melta at a BS2 (Obviously fired by the Machine Spirit). Now why is this sequence of events wrong? The machine spirit is obviously not normal as it is firing at a different BS but by that token it is no different than any other effect (e.g. utilizing a spotlight, or allowing troops to disembark) in that it is not the crew of the LR firing but a special rule kicking in that allows a weapon to fire. I would read the end result of this to be that the LR can fire one more weapon than normal because of the Spearhead rule, but the PotMS doesn't get to utilize the Spearhead rule for an additional shot because it is not normal shooting.

It would seem possible that the PotMS can fire in addition to the Spearhead shot but the Spearhead shot doesn't have any effect on PotMS as it isn't "normal".

Whether you go off the PotMS rule or the spearhead at any point after you have fired your second shot you have fulfilled the "fired one more shot than normal" quota. If you fired the BS4 secondary shot you have then fired one more than normal. If you fire the BS2 secondary shot you have fired one more than normal. At the end of either secondary shot you take (though who wouldn't take the BS4 shot at that point) you have fired one more than normal, so you can't fire one more than one more than normal (yes I wrote it twice).

Also, thanks for pointing out the BS differences, I didn't even think of that. So the LR is still benefiting from Spearhead like other vehicles.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Let me state as far as I remember "normal" is a quantitative rather than qualitative state. The majority of anything make up normal (or baseline) everything else is special. The problem comes down to what you are quantifying, if you are using "LandRaiders" then PotMS is normal if you are quantifying "Tanks" then PotMS is special. Both sides are making perfectly good arguments but the difference is what you are using as a baseline. I would think the solution would be written in the discription of the spearhead formation. If the formation says tanks then you use tanks as your baseline. If it says tanks and/or Landraiders or just Landraiders then you can use Landraiders as your baseline. I downloaded the formations and can't find any that give you one extra attack so I can't say which baseline is correct but I'm sure someone else can find the exact rule and post it. That should end the discussion fairly quickly.

Here ya go:

Spearhead Formations, page 1, 2nd column, The Spearhead Rule wrote:Vehicles other than Walkers, that are moving at up to cruising speed, 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. Note that vehicles which are moving flat out may not take advantage of this rule.

Kevin949 wrote:

zeshin wrote:I don't know which side of this argument I'm on yet, but I have a question for both sides.

A Black Templar LR is part of a spearhead. It moves 6" and fires 1 TL las cannon at BS4 (presumable fired by the crew). Now because it's within range of another member of the spearhead it gets to fire an additional TL las cannon at BS4 (again fired by the crew). Now the PotMS kicks in and fires the Multi-Melta at a BS2 (Obviously fired by the Machine Spirit). Now why is this sequence of events wrong? The machine spirit is obviously not normal as it is firing at a different BS but by that token it is no different than any other effect (e.g. utilizing a spotlight, or allowing troops to disembark) in that it is not the crew of the LR firing but a special rule kicking in that allows a weapon to fire. I would read the end result of this to be that the LR can fire one more weapon than normal because of the Spearhead rule, but the PotMS doesn't get to utilize the Spearhead rule for an additional shot because it is not normal shooting.

It would seem possible that the PotMS can fire in addition to the Spearhead shot but the Spearhead shot doesn't have any effect on PotMS as it isn't "normal".

Whether you go off the PotMS rule or the spearhead at any point after you have fired your second shot you have fulfilled the "fired one more shot than normal" quota. If you fired the BS4 secondary shot you have then fired one more than normal. If you fire the BS2 secondary shot you have fired one more than normal. At the end of either secondary shot you take (though who wouldn't take the BS4 shot at that point) you have fired one more than normal, so you can't fire one more than one more than normal (yes I wrote it twice).

Also, thanks for pointing out the BS differences, I didn't even think of that. So the LR is still benefiting from Spearhead like other vehicles.

Thats only the BT LR. The vanilla marines get a BS4 PotMS. I still don't see where the rules say "you can only fire one more weapon than normal regardless of any other rules or vehicle upgrade". It still seems like the spearhead rule lets the tank fire an additional shot, and the PotMS vehicle upgrade takes a weapon over and fires it as part of the effect of that vehicle upgrade.

The PotMS says you may fire ONE more weapon then normally permitted. The Spearhead rules say you may fire ONE more weapon then normally permitted. If these two rules stacked then you would be firing TWO more weapons then normally permitted which is not allowed by either rule.

Well then, lets try again.

I'm trying to show that taking 1 more weapon than normal as an absolute creates a self-conflicting situation in the Leman Russ Battle Tank

Leman Russ in a Spearhead moves 6", fires one sponson weapon
Now, there are 2 possibilities:
1.) The Leman Russ fires its main turret. By the "Normal is always the same" crowd, it may fire no more weapons for having an elite crew because it already fired an extra weapon, even though another rule allowed it to.
2.) The Leman Russ fires another sponson, and then its main turret. The "Normal is always the same" argument works in this case.
However, the BRB tells us all weapon fire is simultaneous. If weapons are to fire at the same time, the amount you can fire has to be known before-hand. This isn't possible in this case, because if you fire the turret before the second sponson, you can't fire the second sponson.
Here you go, pick that apart.

(Note: To me, RAI is quite clear on this one. You get your extra weapons, because your elite crew does not get less effective just because you have other assistance for fire control.)

Neither the language and structure of the 40k rules in general, nor the terminology in these specific rules are defined clearly enough to have a definitive answer. The whole discussion silly as things aren't well constructed enough for there to be any proper interpretation.

This entire issue is if it acts like a replacement effect or a triggered ability in MTG. Sadly we don't have things like that laid out for us in 40k.

Fling - it leads to a loop, because you are redefining the term "normal"

PotMS: fire one more weapon than normal

Your defiinition (in ordwert to make LR_normal == normal + 1) means:

normal = normal' +1

But wait! we have been told that PotMS lets you fire one more weapon than normal!

so we get:

normal = "normal" + 1 = normal'+1 = normal +2

But wait!

and so on.

In other words: in order for Spearheads "normal" to mean the already not-normal PotMS modified "normal" number of shots, you create a loop in just the PotMS

Not to mention that you are imposing an OoO on PotMS and Spearhead when none is permitted int he rules - in otherwords you are doing something you do not have permission for.

So 1 more weapon than normal means exactly that - and two instances of that still end up with 1 weapon having permission to fire in addition to normal.

thebetter1 wrote: This keeps on going over and over again, and you just expect me to not respond to one of them so it looks like you were right.

Getting in the last word doesn't make an argument right.

Nor does repeating it ad nauseum in an attempt to get in the last word.

Nor does repeating it ad nauseum just because the other 'side' is doing the same thing.


I think we're done here.