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.

This rule is of minor debate in my local gaming group. Can the Strorm Raven move flat out (getting the benefit of cover due to flat out) and still fire a weapon? I was mainly curious for when I go to tournaments. Is there a specific ruling, because if its just opinions on both sides that starts a huge argument then dont bother posting, I dont want another Land Raider pops smoke and wants to fire debocle.

Just curious what the YMDC ruling is.

PotMS allows you to fire one more weapon than you're normally allowed.

How many are you normally allowed if you move Flat Out? 0.

How many does PotMS allow you to fire, then? 0 + 1.

So how many may you fire? 1.

Edit: Some people will bring up the fact that some rules say 'not any'. Which is all well and good, but 'not any' still = 0. Not any is not some magical number that means less than zero. Not any is the same as none. None is the same as zero. How many are you allowed to fire if you may fire none? 0. PotMS allows you to fire one more than that.

Aye, so it is like the smoke launchers debate...damn.

It's not clear, simply put.

It's the same as smoke launchers debate. There is also the "Is the list exclusive or just an example" argument.

So, to summarise: GW are pillocks who couldn't proofread to save their life.

I am personally of the opinion that you cannot move Flat Out and fire, but it is not 100% clear and I feel applying the more restrictive alternative given a truly ambiguous situation is the more correct and fair way to go for all involved.

"not any" /= 0, as "not any" is not a defined number.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"not any" /= 0, as "not any" is not a defined number.

If you have "not any" apples in your hand, how many do you have in your hand?

Better yet, the definition of any:

an·y   
/ˈɛni/ Show Spelled[en-ee] Show IPA

one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification.

Now, using logic. What is 'not any'?

not one, none.

To be clear, what is the definition of none?

none    /nʌn/ Show Spelled[nuhn] Show IPA
–pronoun
1. no one; not one.

2. not any, as of something indicated.

And finally, the definition of zero:

ze·ro   
/ˈzɪəroʊ/ Show Spelled [zeer-oh] Show IPA noun, plural -ros, -roes, verb, -roed, -ro·ing, adjective

having no measurable quantity or magnitude; not any

I would think, therefore, that 'not any' = 'zero'. And 1 + 0 (the numeric representation of the above definition) = 1.

Except that you're using a dictionary, whereas Nos is using the BRB. There are quite a few terms in the BRB (see "Disembark") that have slightly or, in some rare cases, radically different meanings from their real-world counterparts.

When the BRB means "zero," typically it will say "zero" or "one." "Not any" is not necessarily these things, in the context of the BRB.

I have seen it played both ways.
The whole "0 = not any" seem to be a lark.

Can you fire?
No.

Is something allowing you to fire?
No.

Something allows extra shots, but if no shots are allowed. . .

The more specific in this case seems to be the FO restriction. As PotMS allows it all the time, and FO restricts in one case--that is optional.

If it is vague, and many think this is, play the weaker side for yourself.

/shrug

SaintHazard wrote:Except that you're using a dictionary, whereas Nos is using the BRB. There are quite a few terms in the BRB (see "Disembark") that have slightly or, in some rare cases, radically different meanings from their real-world counterparts.

When the BRB means "zero," typically it will say "zero" or "one." "Not any" is not necessarily these things, in the context of the BRB.

So, the BRB doesn't use the english language? That's a new one. I'll have to remember that for future arguments when Gwar! and other RAW purists say, "Ummm the English language?!"

If you can't rely on the English language (like you do when you assume that this is a permissive ruleset, since that's not outlined in the BRB either) then you have nothing else to work from. 'Not any' doesn't have some different, magical meaning in the BRB that it doesn't in the English language. That's a real stretch, even for RAW purists.

Since 'not any' doesn't mean the same thing in the BRB that it means in the English dictionary, can you define it for me? Oh, and if you would, quote me the passage that makes it clear to the gamer that that's the meaning they should be using, not the one defined for them in the english language (since, that's what they've been learning all their life and there's no indication in the front of the book that there may be radically different meanings just for the BRB.)

I never said you were wrong, chill. Just that you were making a few incorrect assumptions. One being that BRB definitions are identical to dictionary definitions. They're not. Again, look up "Disembark" in the BRB. It's a very different thing, and very carefully defined, in the BRB, versus its dictionary definition. This is something you have to be careful of, or it'll trip you up.

Personally, I agree with you. I feel like "one more than 'not any'" can't be anything other than "any," specifically, "one." Therefore, it may fire. But the rules are still extremely muddy in this regard, and I wouldn't honestly argue with either ruling from a TO.

SaintHazard wrote:I never said you were wrong, chill.

Sorry, I automatically get put on the defensive when talking about RAW and the BRB. Guess its a conditioned response from debating with Gwar! and nosferatu.

puma713 wrote:Sorry, I automatically get put on the defensive when talking about RAW and the BRB. Guess its a conditioned response from debating with Gwar! and nosferatu.

No worries.

Just out of curiosity, what is the problem with the dictionary definition of disembarking? I can't see any problem with it contradicting the BRB.

Rephistorch wrote:Just out of curiosity, what is the problem with the dictionary definition of disembarking? I can't see any problem with it contradicting the BRB.

It goes back to an argument that crops up from time to time regarding whether or not the unit previously embarked in a freshly exploded Rhino could assault, having not performed the action of "disembarking" as defined in the BRB.

But this is NOT the place to bring that argument back up, I was only citing it as an example. So I'm going to leave it at that.

Ok, I was just curious.

Yes, it can fire one weapon. PotMS (pg 37, BA Codex) specifically states that a vehicle that has moved at Cruising speed may fire one weapon. Flat out rule (page 80, main rulebook) states that moving flat out "is treated in all respects exactly the same as moving at cruising speed for a vehicle that is not fast (except where noted otherwise)." PotMS does not say it is noted otherwise, so treat it as moving at cruising for purposes of determining whether or not it can shoot using PotMS.

So no, it's way different from the smoke debate, cause it actually has a firm answer in the rules.

don_mondo wrote:Yes, it can fire one weapon. PotMS (pg 37, BA Codex) specifically states that a vehicle that has moved at Cruising speed may fire one weapon. Flat out rule (page 80, main rulebook) states that moving flat out "is treated in all respects exactly the same as moving at cruising speed for a vehicle that is not fast (except where noted otherwise)." PotMS does not say it is noted otherwise, so treat it as moving at cruising for purposes of determining whether or not it can shoot using PotMS.

So no, it's way different from the smoke debate, cause it actually has a firm answer in the rules.

That actually seems pretty solid. Thank you.

And I agree it is solid, but it can be interpreted differently. That being said, Don has made a very strong case, so much so I feel the need to change my opinion on the matter.

Never let it be said I never listen!

don_mondo wrote:So no, it's way different from the smoke debate, cause it actually has a firm answer in the rules.

Oooh, nice call.

don_mondo wrote:Yes, it can fire one weapon. PotMS (pg 37, BA Codex) specifically states that a vehicle that has moved at Cruising speed may fire one weapon. Flat out rule (page 80, main rulebook) states that moving flat out "is treated in all respects exactly the same as moving at cruising speed for a vehicle that is not fast (except where noted otherwise)." PotMS does not say it is noted otherwise, so treat it as moving at cruising for purposes of determining whether or not it can shoot using PotMS.

So no, it's way different from the smoke debate, cause it actually has a firm answer in the rules.

I do tend to agree with reading the rules this way. (it's page 70 in the BRB, btw) Also, the vehicle moving and shooting summary chart on page 73 says "No Weapons" for both vehicles moving at cruising speed and fast vehicles moving flat out. Since both things say "No Weapons", and PoTMS says that it can be used even if the vehicle can't normally fire weapons, I would say it's pretty cut and dry.

Darn fat fingers trying to type, yes, page 70, not 80.

Gwar! wrote:

Never let it be said I never listen!

Duly noted.

Awesome, thanks folks, now I actually have something concrete to argue for it at a tournament besides, not any = 0. Ill have to remember this when I play my brother as well, just to piss him off.

Some people will argue that "may not fire any weapons" does override PotMS as with smoke launchers.

I really don't see any clear ruling. I feel like the intention is that PotMS overrides the flat out and smoke launchers restrictions, but again its not clear.

Until FAQ'd you are going to have to work this out on a local level, and with your TOs.

Until recently I played that smoke launchers (the same issue as flat out really) meant no PotMS. However, a couple months ago I had a game against a local TO who told me they play it as PotMS overriding smoke launchers. Therefore, I now play it that way. At his tournament I played a game where it became an issue. I knew how the TO was going to rule when my opponent brought him over.

The point of the story is that you should find out beforehand to avoid having it ruled against you.

not that you are going to take the fluff into account, but they do not write it just to be silly.

flat out the pilot(s) are concentrating on moving the vehicle at full speed and they cant fire a weapon.

Power of the machine spirit is the spirit of the machine itself firing the weapon, not the crew (thus the BS of 2 in earlier editions)

but that is just fluff of course. and i am paraphrasing.

It should work as don_mondo has noted, i agree with that interpretation.

Just comes down to that Power of the Machine Spirit lets you fire one more than you are normally allowed. So look at a movement chart and add one!

Wow don, nice one!

Looks like its settled then. Let us crush the non believers! (In true 40k fashion)