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

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.