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.

Both of these issues came up where I went to play Ard Boyz prelims. I have also had people saying that their "gaming group" plays things the same way. So I wanted to see how Dakka played it at their respective stores.

Can you fire ONE weapon even after popping smoke due to the wording on Machine Spirit?

Can the troops firing out of the firing points shoot?

I know how it is played at my store, and that is that they cannot in either case. I just wanted to see if we were in the majority or the minority.

Kaotik wrote:Both of these issues came up where I went to play Ard Boyz prelims. I have also had people saying that their "gaming group" plays things the same way. So I wanted to see how Dakka played it at their respective stores.

Can you fire ONE weapon even after popping smoke due to the wording on Machine Spirit?

Can the troops firing out of the firing points shoot?

I know how it is played at my store, and that is that they cannot in either case. I just wanted to see if we were in the majority or the minority.

1) It is unclear. To quote my Unofficial Blood Angels FAQ (See my sig for a link!):

BA.37.02 – Q: Does the “Power of the Machine Spirit” allow a weapon to be fired on the same turn a Land Raider uses Smoke Launchers?
A: No. [Clarification]
• The wording is ambiguous enough for an interpretation that allows the Land Raider to shoot. The ruling above is a case of applying the more restrictive alternative given a truly ambiguous situation.

I wish I could be more decisive, but I cannot. It all boils down to whether you interpret the list given in the rule as exclusive or not. It really is one of those situations with no concrete answer. :(

2) RaW, Yes. It has been this way since at least 3rd edition. If GW didn't want people to do this, they have had not one, but TWO edition changes to "fix" this. They haven't, so make of that what you will.

I've already gotten a bunch of flak for saying what I'm about to say but that's never stopped me before!

Power of the Machine Spirit:
"... can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted."

Smoke Launchers:
"... The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons..."

Vehicles and Movement:
"... is moving at cruising speed. This represents the vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible without firing its guns."

Vehicles moving & shooting summary chart P 73
"... No Weapons..."

The relevant point is the difference between "Not allowed to fire any weapons" and "allowed to fire 0 weapons" or "1 weapon allowed". When a restriction says, "A vehicle may fire 1 weapon" PotMS says "You are allowed to fire 1+1 weapons" or when a restriction says, "You are allowed to fire 0 weapons" then PotMS says, "you may fire 0+1 weapons", when a restriction says, "You may not fire any weapon" then PotMS is completely tacit, you cant say "Not any +1 weapons" that makes no sense and there is a real difference between "Disallowed to shoot at all" and "Able to shoot 0 weapons".

Thus, when smoke launchers are launched, PotMS does not allow you to shoot 1 weapon because of the wording of the restriction. When you move at Cruising speed, you are not allowed to shoot any weapons and again, PotMS does not interact with the restriction thus you are not allowed to fire any weapons.

About Smoke launchers and troops shooting from fire points, I've yet to see any interaction between these two rules and thus this is, in my opinion, a hole in the rules. Thus, I would strongly suggest you do what I do and do not fire from any fire point when you pop smoke because that just seems wrong to me.

visavismeyou wrote:

The relevant point is the difference between "Not allowed to fire any weapons" and "allowed to fire 0 weapons" or "1 weapon allowed". When a restriction says, "A vehicle may fire 1 weapon" PotMS says "You are allowed to fire 1+1 weapons" or when a restriction says, "You are allowed to fire 0 weapons" then PotMS says, "you may fire 0+1 weapons", when a restriction says, "You may not fire any weapon" then PotMS is completely tacit, you cant say "Not any +1 weapons" that makes no sense and there is a real difference between "Disallowed to shoot at all" and "Able to shoot 0 weapons".

Thus, when smoke launchers are launched, PotMS does not allow you to shoot 1 weapon because of the wording of the restriction. When you move at Cruising speed, you are not allowed to shoot any weapons and again, PotMS does not interact with the restriction thus you are not allowed to fire any weapons.

But there's never an "allowed to fire 0 weapons". You inferred that into the passage. All of the passages say "not allowed to fire any weapons". Whether it says "may not fire" or "not allowed to fire any weapons" it is the same meaning. Not any = 0. Not any is not some magical number or phrase that means more or less than 0. How many are you normally permitted to fire? Not any. Then you can fire one more than that.

It has nothing to do with the wording of the restriction, imo. PoTMS allows you to fire 1 more than you're normally permitted. If I'm permitted 0, which is the same thing as "not any", then I am permitted 1+0. You're focusing on the "Not allowed" part of it. You're "Not Allowed" to fire any weapons. Okay. Allowed is synonmous with Permitted. So, you could say "Not permitted to fire any weapons." and it would be the same sentence. PoTMS would still work because it says you may fire one more weapon than you're permitted. Or, You may fire one more weapon than you're normally allowed.

"I'm not allowed to fire anything."

"Well you can fire one more than you're allowed to. You're allowed to fire 0. You're allowed to fire 'not any'."

"So I can fire 1."

I guess that's why everyone around here plays Cruising Speed allows you to fire 1 weapon.

I agree with Visavismeyou on this one.

I am unable to see why the explanation he gives isn't sufficient...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I agree with Visavismeyou on this one.

I am unable to see why the explanation he gives isn't sufficient...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Castastrophic reading fail...

I agree with Puma... Curse my blackberry for not allowing me to edit posts.

puma713 wrote:But there's never an "allowed to fire 0 weapons". You inferred that into the passage.

Wrong, I never said there was any passage that says "Allowed to fire 0 weapons".

While GW has never openly embraced this idea, I've always been a fan of the idea that, in games, rules that "can not" always over-ride "can."

This rule philosophy exists in a lot of CCGs and Steve Jackson games, and GW could do worse than adopt that idea.

Edited for grammar failure on my part.

visavismeyou wrote:

puma713 wrote:But there's never an "allowed to fire 0 weapons". You inferred that into the passage.

Wrong, I never said there was any passage that says "Allowed to fire 0 weapons".

Right, you inferred it. You made it to seem as if it did say that or suggested a meaning for a passage by applying your own wording to it.

visavismeyou wrote:

puma713 wrote:But there's never an "allowed to fire 0 weapons". You inferred that into the passage.

Wrong, I never said there was any passage that says "Allowed to fire 0 weapons".

Well, your argument seems to articulate the idea that there is such a state, distinct and separate from "allowed to fire x number of weapons" and "not allowed to fire at all". In the actual rules, though, they don't ever give a number allowed as "0". Just none, 1, or all. I tend to concur with Puma, that "none" + 1 = 1.

None+1 = 1

Exactly. I'm afraid that, to me, the arguments against this require way too much overcomplication of the rules which seem to be written in a rather concise and unambiguous manner(for once.)

Ive never had anyone even try to use a weapon the same turn they popped smoke w/ machine spirit. if they did id ask if they were taking their smoke back.. moving 12'' and firing a weapon is cool and played around here though.

I should hope that it's cool. It's specifically listed in the rules for POTMS.

Monster Rain wrote:I should hope that it's cool. It's specifically listed in the rules for POTMS.

obviously just making it clear because there are alot of stupid people these days lol

reasoning behind no smoke RAW asid because its clearly been discussed repeatedly.

Your using a special ability to lessen the chances of damage being inflicted to the vehicle at the cost of ANY AND ALL shooting.

Another special rule lets you fire even when you normally fire 0.

Why on earth would you get both, when the cost of using the defensive ability is that no weapons on the vehicle can fire? If anyone plays any card games that wont be mentioned, Sacrifice X for X ability. If your not sacrificing X you dont get X ability.. seems pretty simple to me.

@TopC: I definitely see your point, it all seems to come down to interpretation. Until GW says otherwise I'll defer to INAT, but I hope the FAQ rules one way or the other someday...

It depends on your view of the sequence of events, when such are to be applied, and what are the operative terms for usage.

The PotMS rule says, "....can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted..".

The Smoke Launchers rule says,"... The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons.." .


If you aplly the Smoke launcher rule first then one weapon may fire but if it is applied second then no weapons will fire.

Though Smoke may be popped at the end of the movement phase it seems that it applies last in the shooting phase. This is because you "normally" declare all of the weapons to be fired and check range in order to determine eligibbilty before you fire weapons. Then the Smoke laucher rule comes into play.

So, by sequence of events there is a strong case for no. PotMS does not allow a vehicle to fire after popping smoke.

Then there is the question of which is the operative word here. I think that it is not "may" but "normally". Seeing as Smoke is a one use per game item then the situation may be seen as not normal and thus precludes the us of PotMS.

puma713 wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:

puma713 wrote:But there's never an "allowed to fire 0 weapons". You inferred that into the passage.

Wrong, I never said there was any passage that says "Allowed to fire 0 weapons".

Right, you inferred it. You made it to seem as if it did say that or suggested a meaning for a passage by applying your own wording to it.

Not only are you wrong, you're not even understanding my point nor how I got to it. I never made a proof by cases (inference) that there was anything in the rulebook that stated "Allowed to fire 0 weapons" I was using that in an explanatory capacity to demonstrate how the different wordings functioned. Furthermore, I never used "Allowed to fire 0 weapons" as a premise to prove anything, you can completely remove "Allowed to fire 0 weapons" from my argument and it would work just as well... again, you are completely misunderstanding everything and completely off the mark.

Can we please not turn this into "another one of those YMDC threads?"

You can't honestly say that it's not murky. Even Gwar says that it's ambiguous.

Mannahnin wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:

puma713 wrote:But there's never an "allowed to fire 0 weapons". You inferred that into the passage.

Wrong, I never said there was any passage that says "Allowed to fire 0 weapons".

Well, your argument seems to articulate the idea that there is such a state, distinct and separate from "allowed to fire x number of weapons" and "not allowed to fire at all". In the actual rules, though, they don't ever give a number allowed as "0". Just none, 1, or all. I tend to concur with Puma, that "none" + 1 = 1.

I have no problem with people holding the position that you can fire 1 weapon from a vehicle that has moved 12 inches and popped smoke, I'm just pointing out what the rules say. If you think that "Not any +1 = 1" makes sense, then run with it. I personally play a completely contradictory way, I shoot 1 weapon from my land raider after it has moved 12 inches but I will not shoot after I pop smoke; I am just pointing out what the wording says.

Furthermore, I am not saying there is another state, I am saying that "Allowed to fire X weapons" is what PotMS requires in order to work, and Smoke and Cruising speed talk about "Not able to fire any weapons". I will correct you that "Not able to fire any weapons" is not the same as "Able to fire 0 weapons"

Furthermore, consider, "Unable to fire" or "Unable to use weapons", these statements convey different meanings than "Able to fire 0 weapons". It is all about these different meanings, I'm trying to demonstrate these different ways to read the various passages so people can make up their own minds, the guidebook is cloudy at best.

GWAR,

As to your answer about troops using fire points the turn the vehicle they are riding in pops smoke...

I don't have my BBB near, but I believe it says that passengers are held to the same restrictions as the vehicle they are riding in, is that not the case?

armbarred wrote:GWAR,

As to your answer about troops using fire points the turn the vehicle they are riding in pops smoke...

I don't have my BBB near, but I believe it says that passengers are held to the same restrictions as the vehicle they are riding in, is that not the case?

No, it is not the case and have never been the case since 3rd edition IIRC.

By your logic, passengers would have to fire at the same target as the tank. In fact, by your logic, if the tank shoot anything higher than S4 the passengers can only shoot S4 or less.

In short, the ONLY restrictions imposed on the passengers by the transport are:
The number of models that can fire.
The unit counts as moved if the transport moved.
The unit cannot fire at all if it moves faster than Combat Speed.

Other than that, the passengers are free to do what they want. If you wanna fire 2 Meltas at a unit nearby while the Rhino fires it's storm bolter elsewhere, that's fine. If the Rhino Didn't move, you can fire your multimeltas out of the hatch if you really want!

armbarred wrote:I don't have my BBB near, but I believe it says that passengers are held to the same restrictions as the vehicle they are riding in, is that not the case?

Nope, it doesn't. Passengers have their own restrictions (no heavy weapons if moved, no firing if moved over 6") and these are not changed by being fast, popping smoke, red paint, etc.