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.

hello ..

im have a friend of mine that is saying that a landraider may shot trought in the same moment was it uses the smoke launcher becausa of the machine spirit

he says its Raw over Rai

im not convinced ...

where´s why ...






sooooo.... how do we make this?

can i shoot trought the smoke launches or not??

INATFAQ 3.2

SM.81B.02 – Q: Can the Machine Spirit be used to fire a weapon on the same turn a Land Raider uses Smoke Launchers?
A: No [clarification].
Ref: BT.29I.02, BA.06S.01, DA.34D.02, SW.44B.02


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also posting actual pages from the codex might not be a good thing....

Posting a reference to the INAT FAQ (awesome, wellthought out and maintained it may be), doesn't really constitute a useable answer.

I would say "no".

I see the "the vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same.." as a restriction meaning "you really can't shoot anything...at all...no way, José.." as opposed to a restriction in line with the ones imposed by movement.

As it stands RAW can be read either way.

I would say yes.

Smoke Launchers say that the vehicle cannot fire any of its weapons. Machine Spirit allows the vehicle to fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed. 0+1=1.

If you want to rule the other way, then how exactly is it possible for the Land Raider to fire when shaken or moving at cruising speed? The entry does not actually give it permission to do so; it just clarifies that the given rule works that way.

This is not really counterarguments to thebetter1.

1.You cannot apply strict mathrules to the written language.

"Cannot fire any weapons" does not equal "0" in a strict sense of comparing two languages with different rules. Yes, I consider math a language of sorts, with its own rules for Spelling, Grammar and Syntax.

2. The "Stunned" issue is addressed directly in the Smoke Launcher text. The Crusing Speed issue is why I mentioned the restriction placed by the Smoke Launcher as being of a different nature that the ones imposed by movement.

so no answer 100% correct ?

no faq?

no GW answer?

so what do whe stay - yes or no ?

i say no because shoting even if shaken or stunned isn´t the same was shoting trought smokes!

so what can i say to my adversaries in a tournmant???

Steelmage99 wrote:Posting a reference to the INAT FAQ (awesome, wellthought out and maintained it may be), doesn't really constitute a useable answer.

I would say "no".

I see the "the vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same.." as a restriction meaning "you really can't shoot anything...at all...no way, José.." as opposed to a restriction in line with the ones imposed by movement.

As it stands RAW can be read either way.

I post the INATFAQ item here because 'they' already had this conversation and that's what they came up with.

Otherwise here goes all the arguments...

Perceived logic is.... the Land Raider completes its move during the Movement phase. The LR uses Smoke Launcher at the end of its Movement Phase. Movement Phase is over. It may not fire ANY of its weapons in the same turn the smoke launchers were used.

Shooting Phase begins
PotMS states that the Land Raider can fire one additional weapon that would normally be permitted.
Since smoke is not 'normal' then the LR cannot fire anything. Smoke > PotMS.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

so what can i say to my adversaries in a tournmant???

Get the tourney director to settle...

You can say; "Before we start I need to mention that, after having wisely spoken to the TO beforehand (perhaps having looked at their FAQ), the POTMS does XXXXXX when firing Smoke Launchers".

This is never an issue in tournaments (judges can handle that) and really shoudn't be an issue in friendly games.

I would say this is much more complicated math than simple addition... if were going to describe this accurately in a mathematical sense i believe we would have to dig out calculus 1 at the very least and set up a limit equation.... something along the lines of this appears more accurate..


Lim
x->0^-
(approach from the negative side of number line)

___0+1___
.......x

Problem still = - infinity whereas its below zero and no weapons can be fired.

No, you can't.

Simple.

Gwar! wrote:No, you can't.

Simple.

lol but see, my answer is irrefutable since i used maths

Tsannik wrote:

Perceived logic is.... the Land Raider completes its move during the Movement phase. The LR uses Smoke Launcher at the end of its Movement Phase. Movement Phase is over. It may not fire ANY of its weapons in the same turn the smoke launchers were used.

Shooting Phase begins
PotMS states that the Land Raider can fire one additional weapon that would normally be permitted.
Since smoke is not 'normal' then the LR cannot fire anything. Smoke > PotMS.

That is a really good argument. I need to remember that.

Of course, we didn't disagree in any way. I have just seen a tendency to throw the INAT FAQ around as the way to end any rules discussion.
Although I respect the immense work that has gone into the INAT FAQ and use it myself, I will fight it tooth and nail if it becomes the de facto answer to any rules discussion in YMDC.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Tsannik wrote:

Perceived logic is.... the Land Raider completes its move during the Movement phase. The LR uses Smoke Launcher at the end of its Movement Phase. Movement Phase is over. It may not fire ANY of its weapons in the same turn the smoke launchers were used.

Shooting Phase begins
PotMS states that the Land Raider can fire one additional weapon that would normally be permitted.
Since smoke is not 'normal' then the LR cannot fire anything. Smoke > PotMS.

That is a really good argument. I need to remember that.

Of course, we didn't disagree in any way. I have just seen a tendency to throw the INAT FAQ around as the way to end any rules discussion.
Although I respect the immense work that has gone into the INAT FAQ and use it myself, I will fight it tooth and nail if it becomes the de facto answer to any rules discussion in YMDC.

I see your point, but without an official GW rules arbitor who posts everyday to answer these questions.... yakface and the other fine people who help put the INATFAQ together are probably the close we'll ever get.
Why continue to argue when people who care about the game have taken time to FAQ alot of our questions.

Granted there is no "why" in a FAQ answer... so I will try to put a "why" in my answers from now on.
Though I may not be privvy to the actual discussion that brought about the FAQ answer.

ok then end of topic right?

hellboytuga wrote:ok then end of topic right?

Very much so, math cannot be denied >.<

thanks all

TopC wrote:I would say this is much more complicated math than simple addition... if were going to describe this accurately in a mathematical sense i believe we would have to dig out calculus 1 at the very least and set up a limit equation.... something along the lines of this appears more accurate..


Lim
x->0^-
(approach from the negative side of number line)

___0+1___
.......x

Problem still = - infinity whereas its below zero and no weapons can be fired.

What? Is this supposed to make any sense at all? Sure, you started to set up a limit of x, but you did not apply that limit to any function, making it completely meaningless.

Also, what part of these rules gives you the idea that something starts in the negative? Does the phrase "Cannot fire any of its weapons" mean "can fire - infinity weapons" now?

And then there is still the problem of discrete functions not being differentiable. How can you possibly set up a limit that describes the behavior of numbers very close to zero when the closest applicable number to zero is -1?

Gwar! wrote:No, you can't.

Simple.

Yes, you can.

Simple, but this time based on rules.

Steelmage99 wrote:I would say "no".

I see the "the vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same.." as a restriction meaning "you really can't shoot anything...at all...no way, José.." as opposed to a restriction in line with the ones imposed by movement.

I see no significant difference between the two restrictions, therefore I see no reason to treat them differently.

thebetter1 wrote:

TopC wrote:I would say this is much more complicated math than simple addition... if were going to describe this accurately in a mathematical sense i believe we would have to dig out calculus 1 at the very least and set up a limit equation.... something along the lines of this appears more accurate..


Lim
x->0^-
(approach from the negative side of number line)

___0+1___
.......x

Problem still = - infinity whereas its below zero and no weapons can be fired.

What? Is this supposed to make any sense at all? Sure, you started to set up a limit of x, but you did not apply that limit to any function, making it completely meaningless.

Also, what part of these rules gives you the idea that something starts in the negative? Does the phrase "Cannot fire any of its weapons" mean "can fire - infinity weapons" now?

And then there is still the problem of discrete functions not being differentiable. How can you possibly set up a limit that describes the behavior of numbers very close to zero when the closest applicable number to zero is -1?

This is the remainder of said function, you can have any number of ways for a function to represent 0 i just simplified it for you. and 1 over -0 = - infinity. all numbers to the left of 0 on a number line. which to get a positive value and gain the ability to fire said weapon is impossible.

TopC wrote:This is the remainder of said function, you can have any number of ways for a function to represent 0 i just simplified it for you. and 1 over -0 = - infinity. all numbers to the left of 0 on a number line. which to get a positive value and gain the ability to fire said weapon is impossible.

1. Why is 0 negative (please don't say "all numbers to the left of 0" again, it doesn't make any sense)?
2. Why are you dividing at all?
3. Since when is 1/-0 infinity? It is undefined. By your logic, negative infinity would be the same as positive infinity.

To summarise:
There are two schools of thought on this one:
1: Yes, you can fire through smoke, as 0+1=1
or
2: No, you can't fire smoke, as you can't fire at all on the turn it is used, so never have anything to add the +1 to.

This is a fairly frequently debated topic, which pretty much always winds up deadlocked. Until GW get around to FAQ'ing it, discuss it with your opponent before the game.