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.

I don't see a problem. There was a problem with the proof I presented in the previous thread, and I've corrected it. Some people would approve of such intellectual honesty...

Speaking of which, does anyone else find it amusing that I had made a mistake in a previous thread, corrected it in this thread, and then got excoriated for "flip-flopping" or contradicting myself? I said I was 25 last year and 26 this year. What an inconsistent flip-flopper I must be.

WOW hahahahahahahahahahaha Nurglitch you make me laugh and im at work so thanks, its boring here.

I personally really like the argument:

Smoke launcher grants a cover save.

Vehicles can fire out of cover.

PotMS lets a Land Raider fire one more shot than normal.

I still don't think I'll play it that way because it's such a change from previous canon, but I'd eagerly await an FAQ on this subject.

I'm glad this post excited such a heated discussion. Unfortunatly we are at the same point reached at the origional problem during the game: stalemate. RAW vs RAI.... Sigh... guess we all have to wait for GW to tell us how to think.

Strict RAW looks like PotMS can be used to override the Smoke effect.

However, this flies in the face of all precedent for both PotMS and smoke launchers.

Send this one to askyourquestion@GW and let us know what John Spencer replied, if you would?

sourclams wrote:Strict RAW looks like PotMS can be used to override the Smoke effect.

However, this flies in the face of all precedent for both PotMS and smoke launchers.

Send this one to askyourquestion@GW and let us know what John Spencer replied, if you would?

Wilco

sourclams wrote:Strict RAW looks like PotMS can be used to override the Smoke effect.

However, this flies in the face of all precedent for both PotMS and smoke launchers.

Send this one to askyourquestion@GW and let us know what John Spencer replied, if you would?

I would agree on this even though I could argue semantics over word usage.

Ps Everyone who says about cannot see through smoke as a background justification for why you cannot shoot etc - ever thought POTMS might be like an auspex and can "see" through smoke.

Nurglitch wrote:I don't see a problem. There was a problem with the proof I presented in the previous thread, and I've corrected it. Some people would approve of such intellectual honesty...

Speaking of which, does anyone else find it amusing that I had made a mistake in a previous thread, corrected it in this thread, and then got excoriated for "flip-flopping" or contradicting myself? I said I was 25 last year and 26 this year. What an inconsistent flip-flopper I must be.

entirely off topic:

I was going to just say my piece then stay out but this comment is too rich.

Arguing in two different directions on a single topic while the facts of that topic (codex entry) have not changed is flipping your position on the topic.

The facts regarding your age change on a yearly basis. You indeed are a year older than you were last year, so the correct statement would be "I was 25 last year and I am 26 this year". There is no flop in that statement. For someone who enjoys word play as much as you, I would have assumed you already knew this.

RAW = fire 1 weapon
RAI = fire nothing

thats my two cents (or is it 4, since I already stated it once)

Kyvik:

What, am I supposed to take a position and zealously guard it against all dissent merely because it is mine?

Should I not, upon closer and more careful examination, change my position to better reflect what I should consider true?

By the way, congratulations on discovering an instance of irony: to whit declaring that I am a flip-flopper for uttering a set of consistent statements. If you look carefully, you may even detect sarcasm.

Oh give it up. You sound like a Japanese fish wife. You argued two opposing arguments on the exact same topic two weeks apart. The rules didn't change, the game didn't change, the context didn't change, and the amount of games you've played didn't change.

Take your knuck and move on.

sourclams:

I have. I've pointed out that I was previously in error, and pointed out how I've amended my analysis of the rules. So either point out how my amended reading fails, or STFU.

I can't help but laugh at people trying to make something of nurglitch's prior comment, he made a single post contributing to that thread and didn't offer much support for it, here he has undertaken a close examination of the rules and supported his stance, yet the discrepency between conclusions is somehow meant to be indicative of some character flaw.

Even if he had offered stronger support in the first thread, I can tell you there is more than one rule that has seemed clear cut to me until other people contribute their views.

Woodrow Wilson famously said 'If you want to make enemies, try to change something.' But I don't think he had changing your own opinion in mind. Must we really take so much pleasure in discrediting the views of a member of this forum on the basis of a change in opinion weeks apart.

I believe that the uproar about Nurgly's posts stems directly from the fact that he didn't state "I previously believed X was the correct way to play, but after consideration I have changed my mind and now believe Y is the way to go."

However I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt; He, like Insaniak, merely forgot about the previous thread.

I'd still like to see an explanation of how popping smoke on occasion is conditional (therefore not normal) but being shaken or stunned on occasion is unconditional (therefore normal)? It's an important question since 'normality' is the at the heart of Nurglitch's revised position.

There's really no mechanical definition in the 40k rules for what is "normal" and what isn't. They're game states inferred from what units typically do or not.

What it comes down to in my eyes is that we have a new rules structure that will allow PotMS and Smoke Launchers to interact differently than before. This new interpretation, though, is so different from previous a lot of people will probably call it bending or twisting the rules, which will cause a lot of problems for those actually trying to game.

I'd say that the norm is they can't fire, but wouldn't be surprised if FAQ allowed it. If it does, however, expect a lot more screaming from the SPAZE MRIENZ CHEEZ crowd.

The problem with Nurglitch's position is that he was caught in a direct conflict with his earlier position, and then attempted to weasel out of his earlier position by claiming that he had changed his mind. If he had come right out at the beginning, and said "I had an opinion earlier, I have thought more on it, and come to the realization that my previous position was wrong" that would have been a very strong and compelling position. As it is, it comes across as though he has to win the argument, no matter which side he's on. Which wrecks his credibility. That is unfair, however - as Lordhat says, Nurglitch is due the benefit of the doubt - I certainly do not remember everything I ever have said.

Nurglitch, perhaps you can tell us why you have done a 180 degree turn from your prior stance? I must agree with Sourclams that while it looks like a bad rule on first glance, it is actually the correct rule to allow the PotMS to shoot through smoke.

Crew Shaken and Crew Stunned are functions of the basic rules structure of the game. Much like normally taking wounds and saving, movement rules, etc.

PotMS and Smoke Launchers are special rules that override "normal" rules functions to perform an act that is not otherwise part of the rules set. PotMS overriding shooting restrictions and Smoke Launchers overriding cover rules in non-cover situations. The proliferation of these exceptional circumstances has no real bearing on the situation. They are still situations that aren't normal functions of the rules. When the PotMS references normal, the standard baseline for normal is the functions of the rules and not what is most commonly fielded in armies across the game.

Because of the way that PotMS is written, it only fires one more weapon than is "normally" allowed. Because smoke launchers are a rules overriding situation, they are inherently not "normal" and thus you shouldn't be able to apply PotMS rule to a vehicle using smoke.

Ultimately, I understand that this is a situation that is only going to be solved by an FAQ and that the two sides have pretty much staked their claim to their versions of the truth. I'm just saying this is the side that makes the most sense within the scope of the rules as I see it and this might help quell some arguments somewhere along the line. Enjoy.

Nurglitch wrote:The Power of the Machine Spirit rule doesn't state that "a Land raider can always fire one more weapon than is normally allowed". It says that: "A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted."

There would be a conflict between the Power of the Machine Spirit rule and the Smoke Launchers rule if the Power of the Machine Spirit applied universally, rather than just in normal cases. The Smoke Launchers rule is a special case and says that: "The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers,".

One more than normal is included in "any", so the Power of the Machine Spirit would not allow a Land Raider that popped smoke to fire a weapon.

If the smoke launchers are an exception to whatever is normal, why does this even matter? The codex rules explicitly state that a Land Raider can fire one more than normal.

Using smoke makes it so the vehicle cannot fire any weapons. Then you look to the PotMS rules, and check how many it the vehicle would normally be permitted to fire, and then add one to this number. That should be the total number of shots it should be able to fire.

I read normally as meaning 'without PotMS', not under the arbitrary assigment that some people appear to be giving it. Otherwise you're claiming Crew Shaken is normal but using smoke isn't. That seems completely unfounded.

Shaggoth wrote:PotMS and Smoke Launchers are special rules that override "normal" rules functions to perform an act that is not otherwise part of the rules set.

Smoke Launchers have rules in the 5th edition rulebook. How are you defining them as "special" rather than "normal"?

Traskel:

Shaggoth isn't defining the Power of the Machine Spirit and Smoke Launchers as special, it's just that, as he says, their interactions with other rules in the game make them special cases of, and exceptions to, more general rules.

One more weapon than normal is one more (Main or Defensive, inclusive) weapon than would normally be allowed for that vehicle's states of speed, type, and damage.

A Land Raider firing a weapon when moving at cruising speed contradicts the general rule for that type of vehicle moving at cruising speed. The Power of the Machine Spirit rule allows this exception to what it normally the case.

Likewise, a Land Raider gaining a 4+ Cover save and not being able to fire any weapons. Now, just as the Power of the Machine Spirit rule does not further subdivide the class of weapons into the sub-classes of Main weapons and Defensive weapons, Smoke Launchers do not distinguish between weapons that are fired normally and weapons that are fired thanks to a special rule.

Nurglitch wrote:Often terms like 'therefore' are used to indicate exemplars of whatever conclusions that can be drawn from the application of a rule.

So what did I get wrong here? I took the two situations given as examples as being general because they were in the rulebook as opposed to being special because they were the Codex. After all, Codex trumps Rulebook. So this sentence is true, and I misapplied the rules by confusing what was relevant (how rules applied to objects in the game), and what was irrelevant (a rule of thumb for preferring contradictory rules by order of precedence).

Nurglitch wrote:It seems to me that in this case a Land Raider with the Power of the Machine Spirit rule can use a weapon when it has blown smoke, since the rule is that [wrong]ordinarily blowing smoke prevents a vehicle from using any weapons[/wrong], and the Power of the Machine Spirit rule allows the Land Raider to fire one more weapon than ordinarily permitted.

Ordinarily blowing smoke prevents a vehicle from using any weapons, but blowing smoke is not ordinary. In other words, using Smoke Launchers ordinarily prevents a vehicle from using any weapons, but using Smoke Launchers is not ordinary since 1/game and only on vehicles with Smoke Launchers special rule. Whereas at any given time all vehicles have a state of type, speed, and damage, only some also have a state of using Smoke Launchers (have not yet, have, have previously).

Note an interesting implication for this: A vehicle with the Power of the Machine Spirit can fire one weapon if all of its weapons have been destroyed. But fortunately, the Power of the Machine Spirit is necessary, but not sufficient for a Land Raider to actually fire one weapon if all of its weapons have been destroyed.

This is the way I see it:

1) "The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers..."

The wording of the rule refers to the weapons but to the actual model. In other words: "The vehicle may not fire its Twin-linked Lascannons or its Twin-linked Heavy Bolters in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers..."

2) "A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted."

Yes, the Land Raider can fire an additional weapon when poppin smoke but it still can not fire its Lascannons or Heavy Bolter since the Smoke Launcher rule forbids it.

3) To be able to fire while smoking the wording would have to be something like: "The vehicle may not shoot in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers...," in a similar fashion that Crew Stunned/Shaken is written. In this case the reference is to the vehicle it self and PotMS overrides that.

Nurglitch:

Based on your argument of using smoke launchers being a "special" case shouldn't the following apply in the case of a vehicle with PotMS popping smoke?

Normally the vehicle can fire x shots (based on movement or whatever conditions are satisfied in "normal" rules)
The vehicle pops smoke and can fire 0 shots (based on "special" rules)
The vehicle has PotMS and can therefor shoot x+1 shots (based on "normal" rules +1)

This is how I would carry out the logic based on your "special" and "normal" classifications. The PotMS rules specify one more shot than is "normally" permitted not "either how much the smoke special rule allows you to fire or one more than the smoke special rule allows you to fire" which seem to be the numbers being thrown around the thread.

Maybe I am butchering your interpretation, but this is what I come away with when I read the two rules under your interpretation. Reading the "normally" quote as Traskel suggested (just as "without PotMS" seems to simplify things)

No one is right, and no one is ever going to be right because "normal" is not a defined game term. You can decide what your interpretation of 'Normal' is, you can create arguments to support your side, but ultimately the house of cards falls apart because the entire premise is based on your interpretation of 'normal' as a game term. We can beat our head into a wall or we can email that John Spencer guy and see what GW's "opinion" on the matter is to at least find some common consensus.

Nurglitch wrote:Likewise, a Land Raider gaining a 4+ Cover save and not being able to fire any weapons. Now, just as the Power of the Machine Spirit rule does not further subdivide the class of weapons into the sub-classes of Main weapons and Defensive weapons, Smoke Launchers do not distinguish between weapons that are fired normally and weapons that are fired thanks to a special rule.

Show me where this train of thought fails:

Normally, when a vehicles uses smoke launchers, it cannot fire any weapons.

A vehicle with PotMS can fire one more weapon that would normally be allowed.

A vehicle using PotMS can fire one more weapon than it normally would be able to (if it didn't have PotMS) after using smoke launchers.

In this particular case, you have 0 + 1 = 1 shot.

It seems like you're trying to say that the rule in the rulebook that states that smoke launchers prevent you from firing any weapons is overriding the special rule in the codex, which is backwards from the way things work (codex overrides rulebook).

Traskel:

Yes, in my last post I talked about how my original application of the "Codex trumps Rulebook" rule of thumb failed because both Smoke Launchers and the Power of the Machine Spirit are special rules.

So, let's review were that train of thought fails:

P1. Normally, when a vehicle uses Smoke Launchers, it cannot fire any weapons.

P2. A vehicle with the Power of the Machine Spirit can fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed.

P3. A vehicle with the Power of the Machine Spirit can fire one more weapon than it normally would be able to (if it didn't have the Power of the Machine Spirit) after using Smoke Launchers.

C4. Therefore, since 0 (P1), +1 (P2), and 0+1 (P3), the vehicle can fire one weapon.

Firstly, this train of thought, an 'argument' if you will, fails because the number of weapons that a Land Raider is allowed to use depends on its Speed, its Damage, and its Type, all the characteristics that normally affects the number of weapons such a vehicle can fire.

Saying that Smoke Launchers 'normally', when used, prevent a vehicle from using any weapons is misleading because the Smoke Launchers rule is a special rule, an exception to the normal shooting rules.

So when a vehicle with the Power of the Machine Spirit can fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed, it can fire one more weapon than would be allowed by just its Type, Speed, and Damage.

The Smoke Launchers rule does not distinguish between the number of weapons that a vehicle can fire normally, or the number of weapons that a Land Raider can fire due to a special rule such as the Power of the Machine Spirit (just as the Power of the Machine Spirit doesn't say whether the extra weapon must be a Main weapon or a Defensive weapon, the unqualified reference to 'weapon' makes it inclusive).

Therefore, Traskel, that argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises, and indeed misrepresents the premises.

It is not the case that the Smoke Launchers prevent a Land Raider from firing any weapons that it would normally be able to fire, and then firing one extra weapon because of the Power of the Machine Spirit.

It is actually the case that the Power of the Machine Spirit enables a Land Raider to fire an extra weapon on top of any weapons that it would normally be able to fire, and then the Smoke Launchers would prevent the Land Raider from firing any of those weapons, both weapons it would normally be able to fire, and weapons that require a special rule to fire, since it makes no distinction between these two types of weapon.

So let us take the number of weapons that a Land Raider can normally fire thanks to its states of Type, Speed, and Damage. This number is a variable, so let us call this number x.

Therefore, the total number of weapons that a Land Raider can fire in virtue of possessing the Power of the Machine Spirit, is x+1.

Now since Smoke Launchers prevent a vehicle from firing any weapons, regardless of whether that firing is enabled normally or specially, we take however many weapons a Land Raider can fire, normally and specially, and subtract that number from itself, giving us: (x+1) - (x+1).

So in the case of the Power of the Machine Spirit and Smoke Launchers interacting, we have:

P1. [-(x + y)|x is normal, y is special]
P2. y=1
P3. x+1
C4. (x+1)-(x+1)=0

... well i remember all the fuss about Yo-Yo Swooping hawks and every one complaining that they shouldn't be able to...

... in game turns smoke launchers only work for one turn PotMS lets you fire an extra weapon. Personally, i don't think this is going to be a game winner...

Nurglitch wrote:
So when a vehicle with the Power of the Machine Spirit can fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed, it can fire one more weapon than would be allowed by just its Type, Speed, and Damage.

This statement is unfounded based on the PotMS entry. It is purely interpretation. The interaction between PotMS and "special" rules are not clearly stated. This would lead to either ignoring the effect of special rules when a vehicle has PotMS (since it is not mentioned in the entry) or accomodating the entry to account for the effects of the special rule. I would tend to think if a rule in the general rule set is contradicted by a codex rule (even if there is no direct interaction between the two rules) that the codex rule has priority.

Spif:

That statement is well founded on both the general rules that govern how many weapons a vehicle can fire, and the Power of the Machine Spirit.

What normally defines the number of weapons a vehicle can use is the vehicle's Type, Speed, and Damage. These characteristics are what define the basic or 'normal' case.

A fast vehicle moving at cruising speed with all of its main weapons destroyed, for example, can only fire its secondary weapons.

The Power of the Machine Spirit is a special rule, but all it does is add to the number of weapons that such a vehicle would normally be allowed to fire.

The total number of weapons that a vehicle can fire is then obviously the normal number of weapons that it can fire plus the number of weapons that it can fire due to special rules.

Smoke Launchers prohibit a vehicle from firing any weapons, regardless of whether those weapons would other be permitted by the normal rules or by some special rule.

Nurglitch wrote:

What normally defines the number of weapons a vehicle can use is the vehicle's Type, Speed, and Damage. These characteristics are what define the basic or 'normal' case.

Can you quote any rules on this or is this still just interpretation?

Spif:

See "Moving and Shooting Vehicle Weaponry", p.58, "Shooting At Vehicles" pp.60-61, and "Vehicles Moving & Shooting Summary Chart", p.73.