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.

Simple question.

Smoke launchers - Vehicle may not fire any weapons during a turn they are used.

PotMS - May fire one more weapon than normally allowed.

I want to barrel (EDIT: cruising speed) across the board in my Land Raider, and then I want to pop smoke and still get my one free shot. Is this feasible or do I ask too much?

1. Search.

2. No, as smoke says may not fire any weapons - this is not normal.

3. Or Yes, as you get an additional shot.

The issue is using 1 to resolve 2 and 3.

kirsanth wrote:1. Search.

2. No, as smoke says may not fire any weapons - this is not normal.

3. Or Yes, as you get an additional shot.

The issue is using 1 to resolve 2 and 3.

The answer is both correct, incorrect and maybe.

Ahh yes, the reason why FAQ are "official". One says yes, one says no, and yet other say maybe.

I'd play it as smoke launchers cancelling any vehicle shooting, Power of the Machine Spirit included in vehicle shooting.

Be sure, though, to mention it to your opponent before hand if you plan on doing as you have stated.

I play that the Land Raider can shoot one weapon. The wording for Crew Shaken and Stunned are almost exactly the same as the wording for smoke; the only difference is that it gives an example specifically saying it works for shaken and stunned. The argument that "smoke is not normal" is no more valid than saying "crew shaken is not normal."

thebetter1 wrote: The wording for Crew Shaken and Stunned are almost exactly the same as the wording for smoke; the only difference is that it gives an example specifically saying it works for shaken and stunned.

Oddly, this is the exact same logic that is used by the players I know to say 0 shots.

Personally, I play Tyranids, so I just discuss it before hand with new opponents.
Very few, if any, insist on the stronger side of a debatable issue for their own armies. I do not for mine.

From a completely RAI POV I think the landraider can pop smoke and use PotMS to fire a gun. PotMS represents the artificial intelligence crafted into the onboard computer system of the tank. Landraiders have a very strong AI as compared to any other vehicle in the game. PotMS does not represent the crew driving the tank of firing the guns, they are two completely separate systems. The PotMS is basically redundancy for the crew. Also you are paying a lot of points for a landraider, the ability to both pop smoke and fire a gun seems consistent with the cost.

However RAI does not count for much in most discussions here so it's not a big deal to me.

Green Blow Fly wrote:From a completely RAI POV I think the landraider can pop smoke and use PotMS to fire a gun. PotMS represents the artificial intelligence crafted into the onboard computer system of the tank. Landraiders have a very strong AI as compared to any other vehicle in the game. PotMS does not represent the crew driving the tank of firing the guns, they are two completely separate systems. The PotMS is basically redundancy for the crew. Also you are paying a lot of points for a landraider, the ability to both pop smoke and fire a gun seems consistent with the cost.

However RAI does not count for much in most discussions here so it's not a big deal to me.

The problem with stating RAI is that, we don't know what the intention is? You can say No because the writers intended that the smoke covers up sight from shooting accruately out the smoke, or yes the writers intended that PotMS is a special onboard intelegence.

If you ask me you can pop smoke, and fire one weapon giving your opponent a cover save 4+. Only way to play it fair. Reasons, yes logically PotMS would allow you to fire the weapon, but no you could not fire it accurately. The reason for the lost accuracy is while the Servitor is hard wired and can do multiple things at one time, his sight is still impaired because the smoke is effecting the sight from the targeting system on the vehicle which the servitor would still have to use to fire anything as normal. As for smoke thickness if its enough to cause a vehicle to be come obscured then its surely enough to hamper sight out of it.

Now that is my Interpretation of what I would say the RAI, but there is nothing written there for all that, but still can be argued. I just wish GW would go into way more detail on there rules. I am kinda in the camp that believes they just write stuff and don't compare in detail a lot of their rules with how they would effect other things.

Gold tooth Jerry wrote:
If you ask me you can pop smoke, and fire one weapon giving your opponent a cover save 4+. Only way to play it fair. Reasons, yes logically PotMS would allow you to fire the weapon, but no you could not fire it accurately. The reason for the lost accuracy is while the Servitor is hard wired and can do multiple things at one time, his sight is still impaired because the smoke is effecting the sight from the targeting system on the vehicle which the servitor would still have to use to fire anything as normal. As for smoke thickness if its enough to cause a vehicle to be come obscured then its surely enough to hamper sight out of it.

Now that is my Interpretation of what I would say the RAI, but there is nothing written there for all that, but still can be argued. I just wish GW would go into way more detail on there rules. I am kinda in the camp that believes they just write stuff and don't compare in detail a lot of their rules with how they would effect other things.

This is inconsistent RAI. If the vehicle (which happens to be firing a computer-guided weapon) gives a 4+ save when shooting out, then shouldn't units behind the vehicle also confer a 4+ cover save when shooting around or over it? What about giving them a 4+ save when they are shot at?

The moral of this story: don't try to make up a third option when there are only one or two accepted RAW solutions.

Green Blow Fly wrote:From a completely RAI POV I think the landraider can pop smoke and use PotMS to fire a gun. PotMS represents the artificial intelligence crafted into the onboard computer system of the tank. Landraiders have a very strong AI as compared to any other vehicle in the game. PotMS does not represent the crew driving the tank of firing the guns, they are two completely separate systems. The PotMS is basically redundancy for the crew. Also you are paying a lot of points for a landraider, the ability to both pop smoke and fire a gun seems consistent with the cost.

However RAI does not count for much in most discussions here so it's not a big deal to me.

You're choosing the fluff that firing the smoke launcher is such a technically difficult feat that no space marine tank crew can fire smoke launchers and any other weapon.

I counter that the purpose of the smoke launcher is to obscure the vehicle. Not firing the weapons of the vehicle aids in confusing the opponents. By firing, an enemy heavy weapon team could focus where the muzzle flash occurred. Hence, the Machine Spirit is not firing.

Again, discuss with your opponent before hand whichever you choose.

Even by RAW it's an open ended interpretation. By RAW we know that PotMS now works at BS4. If you have Chronus in the tank it would work at BS5.

G

Using the INAT FAQ as a basis, I would say "No, PotMS may not fire on the turn that smoke is used." INAT rules that transported models may not fire out of a transport on the turn that it has blown smoke, and in one of our tournaments I would treat PotMS as the same way.

Regnirok wrote:INAT rules that transported models may not fire out of a transport on the turn that it has blown smoke, and in one of our tournaments I would treat PotMS as the same way.

This is a nice example of where the INAT rules completely against RAW and still refuses to call it a rule change. I personally would have never even considered playing this way, and didn't realize that anybody does, until I saw the document.