A Spearhead can fire one additional weapon if at cruising speed or slower.

However, the Ordinance rule says no additional weapons may be fired.

If, say, a Monolith was in a Spearhead can it fire the Particle Whip (Ordinance) and the Flux Arc (the shoot everything in 12" gun)?

Ordnance prevents the vehicle from firing any other weapons.

Being able to fire one more than normal would allow the vehicle to fire one more weapon than it can normally fire when it shoots... but firing Ordnance specifically stops it from firing anything else.

So no, your Monolith can't still can't fire anything else with the Whip.

I am sorry Insaniak but you are incorrect.

The Spearhead rule is a special rule and that trumps the general rule of not Other weapons.

POTMS works with the Land Raider Ares (Apocalypse datasheet on GW site, a Land Raider with a Demolisher Cannon) to allow a Second weapon to be fired along with the demolisher Cannon.

Lumbering Behemoth allows a Leman russ to fire it's Turret mounted Ordnance weapons while firing all other weapons available at any given speed.

And the Spearhead rule allows 1 weapon to be fired along with the Ordnance weapon so long as another member of that particular spearhead formation is within 4".

This last one is because Normally you cannot fire any weapons along with the Ordnance weapon So value=0 And 0+1=1.

Yes but this means you are breaking the rule of 'No other weapons may fire'. Always follow the path that breaks no rules.

KKel - you are misapplyhing this rule.

The rule of "specific overrides general" is applied: Ordnance is more specific than Spearhead "may fire another weapon", and therefore you still may not fire another weapon.

Kommissar Kel wrote:The Spearhead rule is a special rule and that trumps the general rule of not Other weapons.

The Spearhead rule is a special rule that applies to all vehicles, firing any weapons.
The rule limiting other weapons when firing Ordnance is a special rule that applies to all vehicles specifically when firing Ordnance weapons.

The more specific rule wins.



Or, to look at it the other way: You're specifically not allowed to fire any other weapons when firing ordnance. So, as ChrisCP mentioned, you follow the path that breaks no rule. You have one rule that allows you to fire one more weapon than normal. You have another rule that prevents you from firing any additional weapons. The only path that breaks neither of those rules is to fire no additional weapons when firing Ordnance.

yes but one could look at like this

apply the ordinance rule from the BRB - then apply the supplimentary rule from spearhead

or..

normally you cannot fire any other weapons in addition to the Ordinance then the spearhead rule allows you to fire one additional weapon

the spearhead rule over rides the BRB basically allowing you to fire one extra weapon to what you would be able to fire under normal circumstances

normal 40K = ordinance + 0
spearhead = (ordinance + 0) + 1 spearhead rule

It's ridiculous to say that the spearhead rule doesn't apply but PotMS which does the exact same thing would apply.

Please explain to me what is different about how specific PotMS and spearhead are when regarding ordnance firing.

Kommissar Kel wrote:POTMS works with the Land Raider Ares (Apocalypse datasheet on GW site, a Land Raider with a Demolisher Cannon) to allow a Second weapon to be fired along with the demolisher Cannon.

According to who? There's no mention of that on the Ares datasheet.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Lumbering Behemoth allows a Leman russ to fire it's Turret mounted Ordnance weapons while firing all other weapons available at any given speed.

Lumbering Behemoth specifically allows ordnance +1 - PotMS and Spearhead do not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin949 wrote:It's ridiculous to say that the spearhead rule doesn't apply but PotMS which does the exact same thing would apply.

Please explain to me what is different about how specific PotMS and spearhead are when regarding ordnance firing.

PotMS doesn't apply - an Ares that uses the ordnance weapon will not be able to fire other weapons.

you could also argue

normal 40K = (ordinance + 0) + (1 PotMS)
spearhead = ((ordinance + 0) + (1 PotMS)) + (1 spearhead rule)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lumbering behomoth actually allows normal weapons + turret weapon (whether it is ordinance or not)

This is very much a case of specific vs general; While the Ordnance rule is more specific than the Move and Fire rules, or at least as it applies to what weapons are actually able to be fired given a particular speed. The Ordnance is less specific that the spearhead rule that says a vehicle meeting certain requirements may fire 1 More weapon than normally allowed.

In General you fire an Ordnance weapon and 0 other weapons maybe fired. The ordnance rules over-ride the general moving and shooting rules, to a degree(that degree based wholly on speed moved). The Spearhead rule then kicks in so long as all requirements are met allowing you to fire 1 more weapon.

1 more than 0 is 1 therefore you may fire 1 weapon and this does not exactly break any rules. I say not exactly because it does Break the Ordnance only rule but only because it allows you to. And even then it is not so much breaking the rule as it is amending it.

As I said earlier Lumbering Behemoth does the same thing, the only difference is that that author had the forethought to specifically mention Ordnance(yet not tell us what weapons are turret mounted)

What you and Nos are proposing is that You apply the Spearhead Rule at any given Speed, and then Further apply the Ordnance rule; giving you an equation more like:
Combat Speed/Fast vehicle Cruising speed= 1+(D+1*X) Where D is the number of defensive weapons, and X is a given Value of 1 or 0 depending on whether the 1 weapon fired is Ordnance.
40k does not like overly complicated equations, and order of rules application unfortunately is not defined. Our Equation should lose the Parenthesis and move the X so this:
Combat Speed/Fast vehicle Cruising speed= 1+D*X+1 Where D is the number of defensive weapons, and X is a given Value of 1 or 0 depending on whether the First weapon fired is Ordnance.

"so no other weapons may be fired that turn (not even defensive weapons)."

This is not the same as may only fire one weapon. What this tells us is that if ord is fired we may not fire any more weapons. So even if we met the conditions for spearhead, we could not fire the one additional weapon to normal, as if you fire Ordnance 'no other weapons may be fired that turn'.

Kommissar Kel wrote:As I said earlier Lumbering Behemoth does the same thing, the only difference is that that author had the forethought to specifically mention Ordnance(yet not tell us what weapons are turret mounted)

No, the author gave you explicit permission to break the ordnance rules limitation on firing other weapons - Spearhead and PotMS do not give you permission to ignore this rule.

ETA - Kel, I notice you did not respond to my question about the Ares.

KK - no, the Ordnance rule appling to vehicles ina a Spearhead, which is a subset of all possible vehicles that could be in a spearhead, is *definitely* more specific than the Spearhead rule, which applies to *all* vehicles in 40k.

number of vehicles with Ordnance in Spearhead < total number of vehicles that can be in a Spearhead

In addition: we do not require an order of operation, In fact it relies upon it - you must satisfy the "may not fire ANY other weapon" AND "may fire an additional weapon" simultaneously; the ONLY way to do this is to fire no weapons, as one is a compulsion and the other is an option.

Indeed.

Where there is a rule saying "You may do X" and another says "You cannot do X", the only way to not break either rule is to not do X, unless the first rule specifically allows you do do so even if you cannot do X.

Kommissar Kel wrote: The Ordnance is less specific that the spearhead rule that says a vehicle meeting certain requirements may fire 1 More weapon than normally allowed.

The subject in question is the vehicle firing the Ordnance weapon. That being the case, a Spearhead rule that applies to all vehicles is most definitely not more specific than a rule that applies to vehicles firing Ordnance weapons.


Which refers more specifically to a vehicle firing Ordnance:
'All vehicles'?
or
'A vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon'?

1 more than 0 is 1 therefore you may fire 1 weapon and this does not exactly break any rules.

That's the problem. You're not given permission to fire 0 weapons. You're prohibited from firing any.

And no, that doesn't actually mean exactly the same thing. Being allowed to fire 0 weapons is granting permission. A rule that changes that allowance doesn't involve breaking the rule... it simply alters the permission. Being prohibited from firing a weapon is not granting permission... it is denying the ability to do something.

So you have one rule that allows you to fire one more weapon than normal, and one rule that prohibits you from firing weapons. It is impossible to do the former without breaking the latter. That leaves you, as your only option, with not firing any weapons.

As I said earlier Lumbering Behemoth does the same thing, the only difference is that that author had the forethought to specifically mention Ordnance(yet not tell us what weapons are turret mounted)

Lumbering Behemoth is not the same, specifically because it specifically mentions Ordnance. Different wording of a rule makes it a different rule. Being similar in some ways doesn't mean that you can apply the differences to the other rule.

What you and Nos are proposing is that You apply the Spearhead Rule at any given Speed, and then Further apply the Ordnance rule; giving you an equation more like:
Combat Speed/Fast vehicle Cruising speed= 1+(D+1*X) Where D is the number of defensive weapons, and X is a given Value of 1 or 0 depending on whether the 1 weapon fired is Ordnance.

I'm not using any equations. What I'm saying is that when you fire Ordnance, you can't fire any other weapons.


To allow you to fire other weapons, a rule would have to specifically over-ride the Ordnance rule. In other words, it needs to actually say that it over-rides the Ordnance rule... otherwise, it doesn't.

number of vehicles with Ordnance in Spearhead < total number of vehicles that can be in a Spearhead

Vehicles in a spearhead with ordanance < Vehicles with Ordanance...

Which is more specific is definitely debatable especially as Ordanance appears in normal 40K where as Spearhead only appears in this sopecific expansion.

So even if we met the conditions for spearhead, we could not fire the one additional weapon to normal, as if you fire Ordnance 'no other weapons may be fired that turn'.

So Terminators can't assault out of Landraiders or Orks out of oppen topped vehicles. Because they have a rule that allows them to, but there is also a rule that prevents them so you break the least rules by not assaulting...

Where there is a rule saying "You may do X" and another says "You cannot do X", the only way to not break either rule is to not do X, unless the first rule specifically allows you do do so even if you cannot do X.

Which is exactly what KK is claiming the spearhead rule does.

FlingitNow wrote:Vehicles in a spearhead with ordanance < Vehicles with Ordanance...

If you're playing a Spearhead game, what a vehicle can do outside a Spearhead game is irrelevant.

Which is more specific is definitely debatable especially as Ordanance appears in normal 40K where as Spearhead only appears in this sopecific expansion.

It's really not. If you're trying to find out if the vehicle can do something, the vehicle is the subject, not the mission. And when the vehicle is the subject, a rule that applies to all vehicles is less specific than a rule that applies to a vehicle that is firing an Ordnance weapon.

Now then to answer the OPs question instead.

The Grog wrote:A Spearhead can fire one additional weapon if at cruising speed or slower.

However, the Ordinance rule says no additional weapons may be fired.

If, say, a Monolith was in a Spearhead can it fire the Particle Whip (Ordinance) and the Flux Arc (the shoot everything in 12" gun)?

The Monitlith is allowed to fire bothe the particle whip AND the gauss flux arc in normal games even if it moves.
It has a special rule allowing it.

The energy matrix or something. Basicly fire the perticle whip or use the portal.

VikingScott wrote:The Monitlith is allowed to fire bothe the particle whip AND the gauss flux arc in normal games even if it moves.
It has a special rule allowing it.

The energy matrix or something. Basicly fire the perticle whip or use the portal.

Erm... No, it doesn't?

It never has. All it can do is move and fire the Whip. In 3rd, this was important, as nothing else could move and fire Ordnance. Now everything can, making this rule pointless.

cheating necron player decieved me...

VikingScott wrote: cheating necron player decieved me...

I see what you did there.

I think from now one I am only going post in YMDC when I own the codex instead of going off what i get told.

I am going to Concede this; mainly by being yelled down, and being to lazy to really continue arguing.

I will however address 3 points before quitting:

1)Sorry Scott-S6; my last post was just before Bed(and I was already up too late) and you posted while I was in the middle of typing it. The Ares Datasheet Lists POTMS, and POTMS says 1 more weapon than normally allowed(possibly at a second target), so according to the POTMS.

2)My entire Basis for argument is this: Spearhead/POTMS both allow you to fire one more weapon than normal with no other qualifiers(specifically basing on speed, or damage status, or both), although at least in the case of POTMS they give examples of when this comes into effect, but then again until the Ares came out there was no way to fire Ordnance on a Land Raider at all. No weapons is equal to zero weapons allowed as a normal restriction when firing Ordnance. Spearhead/POTMS allows one more weapon than normal, so you should be able to Fire Ordnance plus 1 Weapon as that is 1 more than normally allowed.

3) Viking Scott: The Monolith Lacks any such rule; well it has Energy Matrix, but that does not allow it to fire the Whip and the Gauss Arcs. So in normal games it cannot fire Both. This is also specifically addressed on the GW FAQ for necrons. Edit: I see this was resolved while i was typing.

Finally; When Playing a Game of Spearhead or Apocalypse, I will be sure to just discuss the Issue with my opponent before the game and come to a consensus with them. This is a Game(with rather muddy wording often) I will just continue to have fun.

Kommissar Kel wrote:1)Sorry Scott-S6; my last post was just before Bed(and I was already up too late) and you posted while I was in the middle of typing it. The Ares Datasheet Lists POTMS, and POTMS says 1 more weapon than normally allowed(possibly at a second target), so according to the POTMS.

Yes, it has PotMS. It also has an ordnance weapon that prevents you from firing any other weapon. There is no permission given to break or ignore that rule.

PotMS does allow you to ignore certain rules (cruising speed, stunned, shaken) but there is no permission given to ignore other specific prohibitions.

If you're playing a Spearhead game, what a vehicle can do outside a Spearhead game is irrelevant.

So you're claiming if you're playing spear head no vehicles will appear that don't have spearhead?

And when the vehicle is the subject, a rule that applies to all vehicles is less specific than a rule that applies to a vehicle that is firing an Ordnance weapon.

But it doesn't apply to all vehicles it only applies to vehicles that are purchased as part of a spearhead and then remain within 4". You still seem focused on the idea that in spearhead all vehicles are suddenly given the spearhead rules. They are not only those that are part of a spearhead gain the benefit, just like not all weapons are ordanance on Ordanance weapons are. So which is more specific weapons or Vehicles...

Still a toss up as to which is more specific. However I thinl this is a more telling argument:

To allow you to fire other weapons, a rule would have to specifically over-ride the Ordnance rule. In other words, it needs to actually say that it over-rides the Ordnance rule... otherwise, it doesn't.

It certainly doesn't specifically override the ordanance rule. It is a question of whether it is considered to augment it (Ordance says normally Ordanace + 0 therefore spearhead = Ordnance +1) or whether it is a direct contradiction (Ordance = Ordnance and NEVER anything else) which would require the Spear (or indeed PotMS) to specifically address it to override it. The wording of "no other weapons may be fired that turn" to me lends itself to both readings.

I leaning towards the later but remain unconvinced by the arguments so far posted.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

3) Viking Scott: The Monolith Lacks any such rule; well it has Energy Matrix, but that does not allow it to fire the Whip and the Gauss Arcs. So in normal games it cannot fire Both. This is also specifically addressed on the GW FAQ for necrons. Edit: I see this was resolved while i was typing.

Without the FAQ what would the ruleing on the monolith be?
Maybe my opponent just didn't have the FAQ.

Without the FAQ the ruling would be the same. The Matrix is Ordnance, and as has been referenced here several times already, if you fire Ordnance you may not fire any other weapons, barring a special rule similar to Lumbering Behemoth that specifically states you may fire weapons in additions to Ordnance.

FlingitNow wrote:So you're claiming if you're playing spear head no vehicles will appear that don't have spearhead?

No, I'm not.

But it doesn't apply to all vehicles it only applies to vehicles that are purchased as part of a spearhead and then remain within 4".

... and unless that's a more specific group of vehicles than 'vehicles firing an Ordnance weapon' it's less specific.


Any vehicle that fits into that category gains a rule allowing it to fire one more weapon than normal.
Within the group comprised of 'vehicles subject to the Spearhead rule' you will have some vehicles with Ordnance weapons. Not all vehicles have Ordnance weapons, nor does the Spearhead rule apply only to or specifically to vehicles with Ordnance weapons.

So vehicles with Ordnance weapons are a more specific group than vehicles with the Spearhead rule.

Ordance says normally Ordanace + 0

I already addressed this.

The Ordnance rules do not grant permission to fire 'x' number of weapons. They forbid you from firing any other weapons.

So you don't have a permitted quantity to add to. You have a blanket ban on firing anything other than the Ordnance weapon.

VikingScott wrote:Without the FAQ what would the ruleing on the monolith be?

It would be the same. The FAQ merely clarified the situation.

VikingScott wrote: cheating necron player decieved me...

The answer would be the same - without a rule overriding the Ordnance rule, you may not fire any weapons in addition to an Ordnance weapon.

To correct a misnomer: the LR Helios has been around since IA2 (iirc...) and that has never been able to fire Ordnance plus another weapon. The Ares is a lot more recent...

Fling - "may not fire any" is not equivalent to "may fire 0" - which your 0+1 maths would require. It is neitehr equivalent in language nor in mathematics (as "any" is an undefined number), therefore does nto work.

All vehicles that are part of a spearhead have the spearhead rule. This is provably less than the number of vehicles with Ordnance that are part of a spearhead. One is provably, when you use the correct context, more specific than the other.

Any vehicle that fits into that category gains a rule allowing it to fire one more weapon than normal.
Within the group comprised of 'vehicles subject to the Spearhead rule' you will have some vehicles with Ordnance weapons. Not all vehicles have Ordnance weapons, nor does the Spearhead rule apply only to or specifically to vehicles with Ordnance weapons.

So vehicles with Ordnance weapons are a more specific group than vehicles with the Spearhead rule.

This is the circular logic I've already addressed. Use your same wording but instead of considering the group of spearhead vehicles first consider the group of ordnance firing vehicles of that set the vehicles that are in a spearhead is more specific using the same logic.

The Ordnance rules do not grant permission to fire 'x' number of weapons. They forbid you from firing any other weapons.

This coupled with Nos' post over the page has convinced me. Though I still maintain a rule for ordnance weapons is not mroe specific than a rule for spearhead vehicles by default as you've argued (using the rule to prove itself). But yes reading it in that light it does indeed to be not a Ordanance + no other weapons, but more a strick forbiddance on firing any other weapons.

FlingitNow wrote:This is the circular logic I've already addressed. Use your same wording but instead of considering the group of spearhead vehicles first consider the group of ordnance firing vehicles of that set the vehicles that are in a spearhead is more specific using the same logic.

But it doesn't work that way around, because Spearhead doesn't just apply to Ordnance weapons.

One rule allows you to fire any weapon.
One rule applies to a specific type of weapon.

One specific type of weapon is more specific than any type of weapon.

This coupled with Nos' post over the page has convinced me. Though I still maintain a rule for ordnance weapons is not mroe specific than a rule for spearhead vehicles by default as you've argued (using the rule to prove itself). But yes reading it in that light it does indeed to be not a Ordanance + no other weapons, but more a strick forbiddance on firing any other weapons.

Good-o.

I don't agree with the argument of going the route of breaking no rules because the spearhead rule by definition is breaking another rule, as do many special rules in the game.

Yes it does and it tells you which rules you can break, the same as PotMS does.

Since it doesn't give you an exemption to break the ordnance rules you have to follow them. You can only break a rule if another rule specifically allows you to do so.

But what if something moves at cruising speed, and has PotMS? it could still fire one weapon, right? so what's the difference?

Well, monolith can't move at cruising speed so that's the difference.

I still don't agree with what people are saying here.

What about the Gauss Flux arcs then, would the lith be able to fire those twice?

Deepstrike.

kirsanth wrote:Deepstrike.

Ah, yes.

But then the debate of "it says it can still move and shoot" comes into play with that. And whether it is cruising or combat speed, movement is movement.

Klawz wrote:But what if something moves at cruising speed, and has PotMS? it could still fire one weapon, right? so what's the difference?

The difference is that PotMS says you can ignore the cruising speed restriction. It does not say you can ignore the ordnance weapon restriction.

Spearhead says the same about cruising and combat speed.

Does PotMS let you fire the same weapon twice (forgoing this ordnance argument for this question)?

Kevin949 wrote:Does PotMS let you fire the same weapon twice (forgoing this ordnance argument for this question)?

No. It says you can fire an additional weapon, not a single weapon twice.

insaniak wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Does PotMS let you fire the same weapon twice (forgoing this ordnance argument for this question)?

No. It says you can fire an additional weapon, not a single weapon twice.

So if a vehicle stood still and fired all it's weapons, it couldn't use PotMS to fire one additional weapon than normally allowed? Thus obviously being the same for spearhead though the wording is probably slightly different between the two rules, they are essentially exactly the same thing.

*Edit*
Also keep in mind that all this being said in here is making spearhead completely useless for an entire army. The individual formation rules, no (though a few them are pointless for this army).

Kevin949 wrote:So if a vehicle stood still and fired all it's weapons, it couldn't use PotMS to fire one additional weapon than normally allowed?

It would be allowed to fire an additional weapon... it just doesn't have one to fire.

Kevin949 wrote:Also keep in mind that all this being said in here is making spearhead completely useless for an entire army. The individual formation rules, no (though a few them are pointless for this army).

I don't see why - it's intended to keep all your vehicles moving whilst still firing effectively and it seems to do that quite well.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Also keep in mind that all this being said in here is making spearhead completely useless for an entire army. The individual formation rules, no (though a few them are pointless for this army).

I don't see why - it's intended to keep all your vehicles moving whilst still firing effectively and it seems to do that quite well.

So tell me what benefit from the spearhead rule that necrons would gain.

None, apparently.

Except when they deepstrike in - before they could not have fired ANY weapon, now they can fire 1.

They can fire the whip when they deepstrike.

Kevin949 wrote:They can fire the whip when they deepstrike.

Not normally.

Gwar! wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:They can fire the whip when they deepstrike.

Not normally.

Why? It says in the rules for the monolith that it can fire the whip even if it moved. It does not specify combat or cruising speed and both are considered movement, and as the rules go the codex overrules general rules because it is the more specific rule. In many arguments it has been stated that the more specific rule overrules general rules.

Wrong. Specific Overrides general, not "the codex is always more specific"

There is a specific rule stating you may not fire if you have moved cruising speed. Please find the rule stating you can fire even if you have moved at Cruising Speed.

Kevin949 wrote:It does not specify combat or cruising speed

You answered your own question there.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong. Specific Overrides general, not "the codex is always more specific"

There is a specific rule stating you may not fire if you have moved cruising speed. Please find the rule stating you can fire even if you have moved at Cruising Speed.

Gwar! wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:It does not specify combat or cruising speed

You answered your own question there.

I didn't say the codex is always more specific, but the rule specific to the monolith stating that it can fire the particle whip even if it moved would overwrite the general all vehicle rule of not being able to fire if you moved at cruising speed.

Gwar - you didn't address the other half of my post saying that movement is movement regardless to how far it is. So are you telling me that cruising speed isn't movement?

All it says is that it can move and fire.

Woop de do.

it can move, and fire as many weapons as it is allowed. Yippie.

Nothing says it can fire even if it moves Cruising Speed.

Thus begins the circular argument that is not conducive to this thread.

Kevin949 wrote:Thus begins the circular argument that is not conducive to this thread.

It's not circular at all.

The rule lets you move and fire Ordnance.

This is a redundant rule, since ALL vehicles can do this now.
When the rule was written, only the Lith could do this!

It does not let it move Cruising Speed and fire. Compare it with a rule that does, like the PotMS.

Kevin949 wrote:Thus begins the circular argument that is not conducive to this thread.

It isnt circular, it ends.

The codex rule is not more specific as it does not state "CRUISING SPEED", whcih is what it needs to do in order to overwrite the BRB rule.

how many weapons can you NORMALLY fire with an ordinance weapon?? none

how weapons can you fire with the spearhead rule?? one more than is NORMALLY allowed


Automatically Appended Next Post:
really it cannot get any easier than that

Catachan_Devil wrote:how many weapons can you NORMALLY fire with an ordinance weapon?? none
how weapons can you fire with the spearhead rule?? one more than is NORMALLY allowed

insaniak wrote:
The Ordnance rules do not grant permission to fire 'x' number of weapons. They forbid you from firing any other weapons.

And by firing that singular weapon you'll be breaking that rule.

ChrisCP wrote:

Catachan_Devil wrote:how many weapons can you NORMALLY fire with an ordinance weapon?? none
how weapons can you fire with the spearhead rule?? one more than is NORMALLY allowed

insaniak wrote:
The Ordnance rules do not grant permission to fire 'x' number of weapons. They forbid you from firing any other weapons.

And by firing that singular weapon you'll be breaking that rule.

with permission to do so with the spearhead rule

the BRB provides the rule for normal play - Spearhead is NOT normal play and when playing a Spearhead game the Spearhead rules override normal rules

that how i interperate it and thats how i feel it should be played

Catachan_Devil wrote:with permission to do so with the spearhead rule

Spearhead allows you to fire one more weapon than normally allowed.

In order for that rule to do anything, you still need to be allowed to fire weapons.



Once again, the Ordnance rule doesn't allow you to fire a set number of additional weapons. It restricts you from firing anything else.

So allowing 'one more than normal' doesn't over-ride that... because you don't have a normally allowed number. You're not allowed to fire any.

And we are trying to explain to you that your interpretation is flawed as one is not allowed to ignore the letter of either rule. Ie, one may fire normal allotment +1 due to spearhead but this isn't permission to fire Ordnance and another weapon. We are in fact explictly told "so no other weapons may be fired that turn".

special rules are always going to be breaking normal rules.. otherwise they wouldn't be shpecial

moving at combat speed states you are ONLY allow to fire one weapon + defensive weapons (sounds pretty specific to me) - spearhead cannot override that rule either


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the way is see it ordinance + 1 is playing within the limit of the special rule

the special rule override the normal conditions of the BRB rules

Except it doesnt.

Ordnance states "you may not fire any other weapons" - that isnt "you can fire ordnance +0", that is "once you fire ordnance you cannot fire any other weapon"

So Spearhead has to more specifically override this rule, which would require it mentioning "even if you fire Ordnance", or similar.

If you wish to see where your "special rules override BRB general rules" is wrong, look at Sweeping Advance and WBB.

Catachan_Devil wrote:special rules are always going to be breaking normal rules.. otherwise they wouldn't be shpecial

Yes, of course. But that's not the issue.

We have two different special rules (Firing Ordnance weapons, and Spearhead) which do opposite things. The trick is to determine which takes precedence.


So, there's two ways to break it down:

In a Spearhead game, Spearhead applies to all vehicles with the Spearhead rule.
In that same game, the Ordnance rules only apply to those specific vehicles with Ordnance weapons.

Or, to put it all together: The Spearhead rules apply to all vehicles in a Spearhead. Within that group, the Ordnance rules apply to all Spearhead vehicles with Ordnance weapons.

So the Ordnance rules are more specific, and so take precedence.



The other way to look at it is to see look at what you have permission to do, and what you are restricted from doing.


The Spearhead rule allows you to fire one more weapon than normally allowed.
The Ordnance rule forbids you from firing any other weapon when firing Ordnance.


Being forbidden from doing something is not the same as being allowed to do '0' instances of it. If I tell you you aren't allowed to have a cookie, that doesn't mean you are allowed to not have a cookie... Being 'allowed' imposes an option: You may choose to do it, or you may choose to not. The outcome of the choice in this case is the same (either way you don't get any cookies)... but the permission does grant that choice.

There is no such choice in being forbidden to take any cookies... you simply can't have any.


SO, in the same vein, being forbidden from firing a weapon is not the same as being allowed to fire '0' weapons. You are simply not allowed to fire any weapons.

So being allowed to fire one more than normal doesn't grant you an extra weapon, because none are allowed. You would need to be allowed to fire weapons (even if that allowance was '0') in order to be able to fire one more than allowed. If you're not allowed, there is no 'allowed' value to add one to.

Returning to the cookie analogy, if you have a special rule that says on Mondays you can have one more cookie than normal, but then I forbid you from having any cookies, you don't get any cookies. The 'one more than normally allowed' just doesn't kick in, because you're not allowed any number.



TL : DR - You need an allowed number of weapons in order to be able to add one to the number of allowed weapons you can fire. If you don't have a numerical value for the number of weapons, you simply can not add to it.

normally you cannot have a cookie

but on special occasions (ie: spearhead) you are allowed to have 1 cookie


Automatically Appended Next Post:
notice how the first remark forbids you from having a cookie

but the second remark provides a situation where it is permitted

anybody else hungry

Catachan_Devil wrote:normally you cannot have a cookie

but on special occasions (ie: spearhead) you are allowed to have 1 cookie


Automatically Appended Next Post:
notice how the first remark forbids you from having a cookie

but the second remark provides a situation where it is permitted

anybody else hungry

I take it from your incomplete metaphor an casual aside that you are not going to address the fact that to follow your interpretation is to break a rule.
One the topic of you metaphor - it's already been done to completion in this thread, two parents both allow you to have 'one more cookie with dinner than normal', and then mommy cried for an hour because you took two, while your father went to his desk and made a mantra out of "there's always sports, there's always sports....."

But to use one closer to the situation at hand - someone is diabetic, this means they can never eat sugar after dinner. Now they ate dinner (fired ordnance, wink wink), this was a dinner at his mates place – they’re always allowed to have a cookie after dinner... now guess whose foot will fall off if they eat a cookie after dinner.

If we followed your interpretation you'd be giving me permission to Deepstrike my Warboss with Zagstruk. As I must deploy the squad via deep strike (while quietly ignoring the fact that I'm breaking a rule to bring the WB along.)

Edit: Their, there, they’re - a thousand times - Their, there, they’re, Their, there, they’re…

Catachan_Devil wrote:normally you cannot have a cookie

but on special occasions (ie: spearhead) you are allowed to have 1 cookie

Except that Spearhead doesn't allow you to have 1 cookie. It allows you to have one more than you would otherwise be allowed.


If you're not allowed cookies, you can't have one more... You simply can't have cookies.

if you are normally not allowed to have cookies = you are allowed to have 0 cookies.. it doesn't matter how you try to twist the english language you can alway put a numerical figure to the equation

having one more than you would normally be allowed is one

if i ask anyboby how many weapons i can normally fire in addition to an Ordinance weapon the answer will always be none/zero


Automatically Appended Next Post:
going by your rules the only vehicles that are able to utilise the spearhead rule at crusing speed are fast vehicles

because non-fast vehicles are not permitted to fire any weapons at cruising speed you cannot add 1 to nothing

Okay how about this then if you want to do math...

Normally you can fire from the following set of numbers (or have the following set of numbers)

{ 0 } This is a set of 1 number, the number being zero and applies to situations when you move at cruising speed or are shaken. However, when you fire Ordinance you can fire additional weapons from this set of numbers{ } This is the null or empty set. When you can figure out how to add { } + 1, you can fire an additional weapon.

Edit: Fixed wording, also if you can add those two feel free to pick up your nobel prize for mathematics.

so why is it when you move at cruising speed it is {0}

but when you fire ordinance it is {}

if there is no value it is 0 - since when is nothing not 0 when we are talking about amounts or numbers??

You are still changing "not allowed to fire any weapons" into "alllowed to fire 0" - you are not only adding a number into an undefined amount ("any") but changing a prohibition into an allowance.

so by your rules a tank moving at cruising speed cannot use the spearhead rule to fire a weapon

Erm... So assuming I take 3 Leman Russ Battle Tanks as a Spearhead. Does this mean I can move them 6" and proceed to fire my Battlecannon and 2 sponson weapons/1 sponson + hull weapon per Leman Russ Battle Tank?

Jay - yes, as normally you could fire 1 primary, all defensive plus (due to the special rule LB) the Turret weapon. You are then allowed to fire an additional weapon as per the spearhead rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are still changing "not allowed to fire any weapons" into "alllowed to fire 0" - you are not only adding a number into an undefined amount ("any") but changing a prohibition into an allowance.

Cruising speed states you are not allowed to fire any weapons, as well. It does not say "0".

Kevin949 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are still changing "not allowed to fire any weapons" into "alllowed to fire 0" - you are not only adding a number into an undefined amount ("any") but changing a prohibition into an allowance.

Cruising speed states you are not allowed to fire any weapons, as well. It does not say "0".

exactly what i am trying to say.. playing the way that they want prevent a tank from firing an additional weapon after firing an Ordinance weapon..

PotMS and the spearhead rules would not work for vehicles that are:

Shaken
Stunned
non-fast vehicles moving at cruising speeds

as all of these conditions don't allow you to fire any weapons.. instead of allowing you to fire 0 weapons???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JaWzY83 wrote:Erm... So assuming I take 3 Leman Russ Battle Tanks as a Spearhead. Does this mean I can move them 6" and proceed to fire my Battlecannon and 2 sponson weapons/1 sponson + hull weapon per Leman Russ Battle Tank?

if you move at combat speed here is how LB works on a LR

move 6"

pick to fire one of the sponsons or the hull mounted weapon along with any defensive weapons

LB then allows you to fire the turret weapon (regardless if is Ordinance)

spearhead would then allow you to fire another weapon whether it would be the hull mounted or sponson mounted

so yes you would fire the main gun along with 2 other weapons plus defensive weapons

the key in the process is you are actually picking a sponson or hull mounted weapon to fire first in keeping with the wording of LB.. you fire the turret weapon in addition to weapons you can normally fire

because a Leman Russ at combat speed can normally fire 1 weapon + defensive + turret.. spearhead in my mind allows you to fire +1 weapon to that list

I still think it needs to be FAQ'd/Errata'd by GW (not some independent) before a true understanding of the rule can be had.

Wishful thinking, I know.

Until that time though, at least when gaming with my buddy, if we use spearhead formations we have agreed to forgo the spearhead rule entirely.

If I may ask, why would GW FAQing it be any different?

The FAQ Portions of GWs FAQs are, by their own admission, nothing but house rules.

Add to that the fact they don't bother to write them themselves anyway, I am just curious as to why a GW FAQ would be "better" than any other FAQ.

I suppose I'd rather hear an answer endorsed by the maker of the game rather than just general consensus (which there isn't, currently). If the two ended up being the same then so be it, but until then, like I said, I'm just not using the spearhead rule in friendly games to simplify things.

*edit*
Please keep in mind though, I'm not talking about going and asking the fools in the store what they think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And quite honestly, it wouldn't be so difficult for them to just put out a blurb saying "this rule overwrites firing restrictions normally in place and stacks with similar rules." Or "this rule doesn't apply to ordnance and neither does it stack with similar rules."

Or something.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification guys!

Just to point out PotMS works on Cruising speed, because it specifically states it does.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Just to point out PotMS works on Cruising speed, because it specifically states it does.

Gwar! wrote:If I may ask, why would GW FAQing it be any different?

This is borderline trolling, Gwar. You know the answer to this. It's the reason that the FAQ's are accepted as valid sources of rules in the Tenets of YMDC. For most players, the GW FAQs count, whether GW choose to call them their house rules or not.

It isn't trolling at all. I wasn't asking in the context of answering the question (as it has already been answered), I was asking why his personal feeling is that GW themselves need to FAQ it when any other FAQ has the same "weight" when it comes to these things in real life outside of YMDC.

Why Is it whenever I ask a Question I get shouted at for Trolling?

Gwar! wrote:It isn't trolling at all. I wasn't asking in the context of answering the question (as it has already been answered), I was asking why his personal feeling is that GW themselves need to FAQ it when any other FAQ has the same "weight" when it comes to these things in real life outside of YMDC.

Why Is it whenever I ask a Question I get shouted at for Trolling?

Poor Gwar!, here have a metaphorical cookie....

nosferatu1001 wrote:Just to point out PotMS works on Cruising speed, because it specifically states it does.

As does spearhead.

This argument is falling along the same lines of POTMS and popping smoke.

Kevin -no, it sets a restriction (moving UP TO cruising speed) but gives no allowance to fire additional weapons AT cruising speed.

Unlike PotMS.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Kevin -no, it sets a restriction (moving UP TO cruising speed) but gives no allowance to fire additional weapons AT cruising speed.

Unlike PotMS.

I'm simply saying that BOTH the rules for cruising speed and the rules for ordnance state you cannot fire any weapons. neither state you can fire 0.
And when something states "up to" it includes the end of that. So, "up to" cruising speed is up to 12 inches. 12.1 inches is no longer cruising speed just as 6.1 inches is no longer combat speed. I don't see why you're getting so particular about spearhead and potms when they're the same thing. *Shrug* Otherwise I would say that if a vehicle moved0-5.9 inches and 6.1-11.9 inches they could not use potms, by your definition.

Except PotMS gives Cruising Speed as an example where you CAN fire an additional weaspon.

Spearhead does not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except PotMS gives Cruising Speed as an example where you CAN fire an additional weaspon.

Spearhead does not.

And example would mean it is not limited to, which means ordnance would work. But then you'll just say no because it doesn't specify. So it can't be specific AND vague at the same time...

Also, yes spearhead does as it states it in the description. *shakes head*

Sigh.

Apparently you are confused here:

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.

Explain in there how you are given permission to fire EVEN IF you cannot fire ANY weapons. It doesnt.

Fast Vehicles CAN fire weapons at cruising speed so CAN fire one more weapon than the normal 1.

PotMS on the hand EXPLICITLY STATES it can fire 1 weapon after moving at Cruising Speed. Not an example, an explicit statement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except PotMS gives Cruising Speed as an example where you CAN fire an additional weaspon.

Spearhead does not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh.

Apparently you are confused here:

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.

Explain in there how you are given permission to fire EVEN IF you cannot fire ANY weapons. It doesnt.

Fast Vehicles CAN fire weapons at cruising speed so CAN fire one more weapon than the normal 1.

PotMS on the hand EXPLICITLY STATES it can fire 1 weapon after moving at Cruising Speed. Not an example, an explicit statement.

I'm not confused on anything. Is it an example or is it specific? BOTH rules of ordnance and cruising speed state you can not fire ANY weapons. BOTH spearhead and POTMS say that a vehicle moving up to cruising speed may fire one additional weapon.

Spearhead specifically states that moving flat out denies the rule, but why wouldn't it just say that for cruising speed as well if it was meant to not work at 12 inch movement?

So it works at cruising speed, which says you can't fire any weapons...so does ordnance...so lets say you move 6 inches, fire ordnance, then one more weapon...that way you're only breaking one "can't fire any weapons" rule per spearhead. Same can be said for PotMS.

about the lith, the whip is not a weapon but rather a special rule

i say any vehicle regardless of being fast or not can fire at least one weapon using the spearhead rule at cruising speed.. because one more than none is one

- fast vehicles at cruising speed can fire two weapons
- normal vehicles that have move combat speed can fire two weapons
- vehicles that fire ordinance or moved at combat speed and fired ordinance can fire +1 weapon due to spearhead
- i would even go as far as to say vehicles that have PotMS can fire an additional weapon using the spearhead rule

all the scenarios listed are firing one extra weapon than the vehicle normally would in a normal game of 40K

i think you have to apply the spearhead rule to the vehicle after all its shooting has been resolved for the vehicle following its normal abilities and 40k rules

this is the process i will be using:

(40k rules + vehicle abilities) + spearhead


Automatically Appended Next Post:
not being able to fire = 0

Phase wrote:about the lith, the whip is not a weapon but rather a special rule

Mm, I'd say the power matrix is a special rule but the whip is definitely a weapon. I believe it is even classified under the armory and in the weapons section of the codex.

KEvin - yes you are "confused", or just not reading the applicable rules correctly.

Spearhead does not contain permission to fire a weapon when you cannot fire "any". ALL it states is that you can fire "one more weapon than normal" when travelling up to cruising speed.

PotM spirit on the other hand *specifically states a vehicle moving at cruising speed can fire 1 weapon* - not an example, but permission to do so.

One rule gives permkission to fire even when you cannot fire "any", one rule doesn't

Catachan - ify ou had read the rest of the thread you would have seen why your "not fire any = 0" is incorrect. One denies permission, one provides permission.

ok i am playing a normal game of 40k

i move my preditor 7 inches (cruising speed).. it is armed with auto cannon, and hvy bolter sponsons

in my shooting phase how many of these weapons can i fire?

As you are a fast vehicle that has move at cruising speed you are allowed to fire one weapon and plus (+) all defensive weapons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:KEvin - yes you are "confused", or just not reading the applicable rules correctly.

Spearhead does not contain permission to fire a weapon when you cannot fire "any". ALL it states is that you can fire "one more weapon than normal" when travelling up to cruising speed.

PotM spirit on the other hand *specifically states a vehicle moving at cruising speed can fire 1 weapon* - not an example, but permission to do so.

One rule gives permkission to fire even when you cannot fire "any", one rule doesn't

Catachan - ify ou had read the rest of the thread you would have seen why your "not fire any = 0" is incorrect. One denies permission, one provides permission.

Ok, whatever dude, you seem to know more about my state of mind than I do. *Shrug* Keep thinking what you want, but you can't get your "facts" straight and you can't stick to one statement and constantly change your wording. You're taking rules lawyering to an extremely ridiculous level, and you're wrong in your interpretation of the rules because you're failing to realize that EVERY situation discussed has revolved around not being able to fire any weapons. So go ahead and pick and choose and make sure the SM don't get out-advantaged by any other army. *Shakes head*

I'm out of this convo.

Pointless posts are pointless.

You seemed convinced that Spearhead contains rules for firing even when you cannot fire any weapons, when it does not - it simply allows you to use the rule "up to cruising speed" - which is not the same thing at all.

PotMS on the other hand, if you had bothered to read the rule, specifically states you CAN fire 1 weapon while at cruising speed - which is appropriate as the LR is not Fast.

They are not equivalent, as one carries specific permission and one does not. And this game comes down to permission.

I also love that you think I want to make sure SM win....given I play Chaos and we dont *have* PotMS. Still, nice projection and attempt at a strawman there!

Chris - I thought Preds were not fast, unless they were Baal Preds - in which case you can fire no weapons if you move at 6"+, even with Spearhead.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Chris - I thought Preds were not fast, unless they were Baal Preds - in which case you can fire no weapons if you move at 6"+, even with Spearhead.

Quite right~! I was stuck in BA mode, cheers for the heads-up

No worries, it's those fast vindicators of yours that are nasty....

Fast Vindicators... THAT DON'T SCATTER!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Pointless posts are pointless.

PotMS on the other hand, if you had bothered to read the rule, specifically states you CAN fire 1 weapon while at cruising speed - which is appropriate as the LR is not Fast. .

Read PotMS again - the rule is that it can fire one additional weapon more than normal.. the part where you are referring to in regards to it spefically allowing the LR to fire atm cruising speed starts with the word "Therefore".. which to me is where the explaination of how the rule is intended to work not part of the rule itself

nosferatu1001 wrote:Chris - I thought Preds were not fast, unless they were Baal Preds - in which case you can fire no weapons if you move at 6"+, even with Spearhead.

ok i will reword the question again to be more specific.. if in a NORMAL game of 40k i move my SM Pred 7" (cruising speed) how many weapons can i fire out of the turret auto cannon and the hvy bolter sponsons??

Do you own the LRB Devil? Cos there's a wounderful table at the bottom of page 73 that has the information you're asking for displayed in such a readily understandable way - I think the information you seek, is from memory on row one column three.

lol i know the answer i have the BRB (not being snappy)

if the question i posted was asked to me - i and i am sure many others would answer 0/none/may not fire any

therefore spearhead which allows you to fire one more the is normally allowed (as above) would then allow you to fire 1 weapon as long as the spearhead guidelines are met (being within 4" of another spearhead member)

Yet you are told you may fire 'No Weapons' so if you're told you may fire your Thundercougarfalconbird gun. But your also told you may fire 'No Weapons' then you're breaking the rule that you may not fire weapons { }+1=/=1 .
However if one had moved at combat speed then one may fire 1 Weapon 1+1=2 *Plus all defensive weapons.

then by what you are saying PotMS does not work for LR moving at cruising speed, stunned or shaken

normal rules = ()
spearhead rules = {}

(0) + {1} = 1

you are not breaking any rules = spearhead rules are applied after the normal rules have been applied and the amount of weapons under the normal rule have been determined

spearhead is the same as PotMS it only has the condition that another member of the spearhead be within 4"

Are you still firing no weapons? If not you're breaking a rule. We can't help the language that is used.

so you are also stating that a shaken, stunned or moving at cruising speed LR cannot fire using PotMS

Very well, as vocalised before - various versions of the vexing PotMS specifically deal with 'Crew Stunned' and 'Crew Shaken' results. See BA codex (page 37) for an example.

POTMS rule from pg37. BA codex:

the vehicle 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.

the next part is the explaination of how it works:

THEREFORE a vehicle that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, a vehicle that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or 'Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the PotMS actual rule wording does not give any more permission than the Spearhead rule does

the second part of the text is not the actual rule rather an explaination of how it works

Or it could be granting permission.
I am 18+ in Aust. Therefore I may drink.

I am BA PotMS Therefore I may fire even when stunned or shaken.

Your parsing of the rule into two different sections is irrelevant - it's all rules text, under a rules heading. It's not fluff brah - it's as you say how it works, on page 37 of the Ba codex.

If I was not told this I would not draw my otherwise erroneous conclusion of ‘I can fire extra weapons when I’m told I’m not allowed to fire any weapons’.

the spearhead rule gives you permission to break the normal rules - otherwise you would not be allowed to use spearhead at combat speed to fire 2 weapons and all defensive weapons either as the BRB only allows you to fire 1 weapon + defensive

i love how you are justifying it not working at cruising speed due to breaking the "may not fire any weapons" rule in the BRB

but you state it works at combat speed allowing you to fire two weapons dispite it clearly breaking "may fire one weapon + defensive weapons" rule in the BRB

a bit of a double standard - no matter how you look at it you will be breaking a rule

using spearhead to fire at cruising speed or in combination with Ordinance weapons in not breaking anymore rules than using it to fire an additional weapon at combat speed - all of the scenarios only break one rule

Catachan_Devil wrote:
but you state it works at combat speed allowing you to fire two weapons dispite it clearly breaking "may fire one weapon + defensive weapons" rule in the BRB

As you put it yourself.
"May fire one (1) weapon + all def Wep (n)"
'May fire one Wep + all def weapon + one additional weapon (either PotMS or SH)'
'1+n+1=2+n'

Catachan_Devil wrote:POTMS rule from pg37. BA codex:

the vehicle 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.

the next part is the explaination of how it works:

THEREFORE a vehicle that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, a vehicle that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or 'Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the PotMS actual rule wording does not give any more permission than the Spearhead rule does

the second part of the text is not the actual rule rather an explaination of how it works

Yep! It really can't be any clearer than that. Everything after the "Therefore..." is just showing how the POTMs rule is applied in a couple of different situations, but not necessarilly all possible situations.

i agree but as you put it:

combat speed:
1 + defensive (+ 1 spearhead)

clearly breaks the 1 + defensive weapons rule

you dont have permission to fire more than one weapon + defensive at combat speed in the BRB so you cannot use the spearhead rule

it is the same arguement you are using to prevent 1 weapon being fired at cruising speed using the spearhead rule

No it is not.

You are conflating "may not fire ANY weapns" with "may fire 0 weapons" in order to try to suggest the two situations are similar. Mathematically AND linguistically the two statements are NOT the same.

They are not. Do not keep on doing this, as it does nto help your argument.

The BRB states you may fire 1 weapon plus all defensive. This is permission to fire 1 weapon, plus all defensive; when you fire one more with Spearh ead, which spearhead gives you permission to do, you have broken neither rule.

When you try to fire 1 weapon in addition to not being able to fire ANY weapon, you HAVE broken the BRB rule as Spearhead does not give you permission.

if you dont fire any weapons normally and you then use spearhead to fire one weapon.. you have not broken either rule also

the two statement equal the same thing = 0/none/no weapons can/may be fired

whats the difference with PotMS

Catachan_Devil wrote:if you dont fire any weapons normally and you then use spearhead to fire one weapon.. you have not broken either rule also

the two statement equal the same thing = 0/none/no weapons can/may be fired

whats the difference with PotMS

Please, please re-read our posts it's the point we've illustrated to you a few times now. If you're choosing to be blind to it fair enough - take your ball and go home. If you're having trouble actually comprehending what we are saying then we will continure to try to break it down for you as far as possible... keep in mind we've been doing that for the past few pages...

Catachan_Devil wrote:POTMS rule from pg37. BA codex:

the vehicle 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.

the next part is the explaination of how it works:

THEREFORE a vehicle that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, a vehicle that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or 'Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon.

the PotMS actual rule wording does not give any more permission than the Spearhead rule does

the second part of the text is not the actual rule rather an explaination of how it works

you want to use the 'English language' to support your argument when you clearly ignore the use of the English language in this passage


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the part where people are trying to say PotMS works at cruising speed is actually only an example and not the rule wording itself

Catachan_Devil wrote:

Catachan_Devil wrote:POTMS rule from pg37. BA codex:

the vehicle 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.

the next part is the explaination of how it works:

THEREFORE a vehicle that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, a vehicle that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or 'Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon.

the PotMS actual rule wording does not give any more permission than the Spearhead rule does

the second part of the text is not the actual rule rather an explaination of how it works

you want to use the 'English language' to support your argument when you clearly ignore the use of the English language in this passage


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the part where people are trying to say PotMS works at cruising speed is actually only an example and not the rule wording itself

I asked you to re-examine our posts - not yours. If this is as far as we're able to go with you - fair enough.
Again parsing rules text into 'important parts' and 'non-important parts' is the same as ignoring rules text.

It is not an example, it is a different sentence and specifically states it may fire 1 weapon. It is therefore *Permission*

You cannot conflate denial of permission (may NOT fire ANY weapons) with permission (may fire 0 weapons) either mathematically or linguistically. This has been explained many, many times by both Insaniak, ChrisCP and myself. If you refuse to understand this point, and continue to ignore it, there is not a lot we can do about it, is there?

ok but if you look at the combat speed for vehicle (excluding fast) rules it states:

"may fire a single weapon"

so if you apply the spearhead rule you will be breaking this very specific rule also

the spearhead rule doesn't spell out that a vehicle moving at combat speed can fire two weapons like the PotMS rule does


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and as i said if you may NOT fire any weapons.. how many weapons may you fire??



Automatically Appended Next Post:
it doesn't matter anyway - we will just have to agree to disagree

my group will play it our way and your group are welcome to play it how you want

as long as rules that you use apply equally to both players there shouldn't be an issue

It doesnt need to.

It gives youy permission to fire "one more weapon than normal"

If you are allowed to fire 1 weapon, you can add 1 weapon to that to equal 2. Permission is granted, the specified rule overrides the brb general rule.

Now, if you can NOT fire any weapons, which is NOT equal to being able to fire 0 (you cannot assume the converse, which you are doing, and you cannot assume "not any" is equivalent to 0) the SPearhead rule does not provide permission to break this rule. So you cannot.

as i said earlier i am going to let this go

as long as you and your opponent agree and apply the same rules thats fine

different interperatations and house rules are permitted by the BRB

i think it will make for a faster more exciting game - allowing tanks to move at cruising speed and fire a weapon especially now that you are playing long ways down the table

You are confusing real life and this forum.

In real life I would have no issues with letting people use this at cruising speed, if they want to. I just wouldnt do it myself.

The main thing is to know that the actual rules do not permit it, therefore it needs to be a conscious houserule to change it - which is fine, no issues, just useful when disparate gaming groups meet up to know what the rules say, so you can know how you want to change it.

i will play whatever my opponent plays by and i will use the same rules

It is not an example, it is a different sentence and specifically states it may fire 1 weapon. It is therefore *Permission*

I'm sorry I'll have to pull this up. It is not giving any permission to do anything beyond what it already has done. Like Chris P's own example illustrates:

I am 18+ in Aust. Therefore I may drink.

The 18+ part (inconjunction with another rule) is giving the permission to drink. The therefore is just explaining this result.

That is how English works. If you write therefore you are not giving new permission or stating new facts you are simply giving results of previously stated facts.

Therefore we can conclude the PotMs rule gives you permission to fire 1 weapon in situations when you could not normally fire any. As the Spearhead rule is worded the same the conclusion has to be identical.

FlingitNow wrote:

It is not an example, it is a different sentence and specifically states it may fire 1 weapon. It is therefore *Permission*

I'm sorry I'll have to pull this up. It is not giving any permission to do anything beyond what it already has done. Like Chris P's own example illustrates:

I am 18+ in Aust. Therefore I may drink.

The 18+ part (inconjunction with another rule) is giving the permission to drink. The therefore is just explaining this result.

That is how English works. If you write therefore you are not giving new permission or stating new facts you are simply giving results of previously stated facts.

Therefore we can conclude the PotMs rule gives you permission to fire 1 weapon in situations when you could not normally fire any. As the Spearhead rule is worded the same the conclusion has to be identical.

+1 someone who understands

like stated earlier i love how they are using the 'English Language' as a supporting arguement but ignore the clear use of the English Language in the PotMS rule

the second part of the PotMS is clearly an explaination on how the rule works - the actual rule wording is no different to the Spearhead rule

Interesting conversation going on, let me throw in my pov as a IG:ABG player. I see the Ord rule being you can fire (Orb. + Null)=Ord only, the Null = not being allowed to fire any weapons not 0. So Spearhead allows you to fire (Ord. + (Null + 1))= Ord only. The real use if this spearhead rule that I see would be the ability of something like a Pred. or a LR moving 6" and fireing 2 Lascannons (1 normal lascannon + 1 Spearhead lascannon) + all other wapons as allowed normaly ie: defensive and MS powered weapons. A Leman Russ with the Lumbering & Spearhead rule would be able to move 6" fire (Ord. + (1 +1))= Ord +2 ie a battle cannon and 2 sponsons. Thats my $0.02

yes with the at combat speed lumbering would allow you to fire the turret weapon in addition to the hull or sponson weapon and then spearhead would allow you to fire the another weapon

stationary the leman can fire all it weapons sponsons and hull + turret

now the way i would play spearhead rule at cruising the leman russ can use spearhead to fire one of any of its weapons - turret, sponson or hull

though for the russ it is important you read the lumbering rule right - you fire the turret weapons (regardless if it is ordinance) in addition to normally allowed weapons you wish to fire.. the best way to look at is that you select the normal weapons (sponson or hull) you wish to fire (depending on speed it will be one or all) the you use lumbering to fire the turret weapon (which is resloved at the same time as the other shots)