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.

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)