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.

Okay, this is a page for Erattas/FAQ's that just don't make sense: That are silly and that seem to be against the design of the rule that they change.

To make things a little easier for people to reference and find out for themselves if they so chose, I think a small formatting guide would be helpful:

Game type: 40k
Army name: Space marine
Name of rule in question: Power of the Machine Spirit
FAQ/Eratta: FAQ
Current rule excerpt:
"a Land Raider can fire one more weapon that is normally permitted"
FAQ:
Can smoke launchers be used in conjunction with POTMS?



My argument:

No weapons are allowed to be shot while using smoke launchers. You are allowed to fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted. 0+1=1 weapon shot.

But isnt the reason you "Pop Smoke" is to block off clear line of sight? Your enemy can shoot you but you get a cover save. On the other hand you are surrounded by dense smoke and probably can see less than your enemys because your in the middle of the cloud. They however can see the cloud and figure your in the middle of it. Admititly this is the fluff justification why you can fire no weapons.

But you've picked an FAQ that does make sense... If they can't see you, you can't see them, so no shots is logical.


A better one would be the most recent Chaos Space Marine one about lash of submission, stating that it needs to roll to hit.
Then the SW and BA FAQs state that their similar powers don't roll to hit, which is an odd combination of rulings.

Likewise with the Venomthrope's Spore Cloud somehow not reducing charging units' initiative, though all similar rules do so.

Both of the first comments are invalid, because they rely on the use of logical thinking.

In this game, it is not possible to use a searchlight because there is no weapon. Obviously there is a level of abstractia, but that is because the rules do not openly permit this action. In this case, the basic rules before erratta would openly permit the use of the gun despite smoke, because the smoke is an abstract part of the game. It provides cover - it does not block line of sight.

If smoke meant that I COULD NOT BE SHOT AT, I'd not have a problem with this, but it doesn't, does it? So, no. it isn't valid.

Are there any more of these cases? I'm very curious.

But the difference is that your enemy knows that you are somewhere in the cloud of smoke, so can still shoot and attempt to hit you, hence the cover save, whilst if you are inside the smoke you cannot see anything, hence you cannot shoot. Perfectly logical, and works well as a balanced rule.

Well if you take it one step further, why does it even have a smoke launcher? I mean, sure, most basic infantry wouldnt be able to see through, but anything with a sensor of any sort can easily penetrate some smoke (let alone the advanced sensor of space marines themselves). Unless ofcourse it is some magic smoke that also blocks all types of sensors .

MoD_Legion wrote:Well if you take it one step further, why does it even have a smoke launcher? I mean, sure, most basic infantry wouldnt be able to see through, but anything with a sensor of any sort can easily penetrate some smoke (let alone the advanced sensor of space marines themselves). Unless ofcourse it is some magic smoke that also blocks all types of sensors .

Maybe it's more of a Chaff than a smoke, used to confuse sensors as well as provide visual obstruction?

On the actual topic, normal vehicles cannot smoke and shoot, the machine spirit is an AI of sorts that allows another weapon to be fired, but assuming smoke obscures vision/sensors it wont be able to resolve a shot as normal. In terms of consistency, this is fairly consistent.

MoD_Legion wrote:Well if you take it one step further, why does it even have a smoke launcher? I mean, sure, most basic infantry wouldnt be able to see through, but anything with a sensor of any sort can easily penetrate some smoke (let alone the advanced sensor of space marines themselves). Unless ofcourse it is some magic smoke that also blocks all types of sensors .

You mean like the magic smoke used by modern tanks that blocks visible light, binfra red, laser & radar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_screen

Unless by the time of 40k they have invented new physics the ways sensors can be advanced beyond being more sensative is limited. Smoke works well to block all types of sensors even now, the problem being that you can't see out of it. The abstraction comes because smoke launchers would not normaly drop by the tank, more in LOS to move behind safely, but tanks do have other ways of makeing smoke that dose soround the tank, like squerting drev on the hot exaust. However equaly you would never let a modern tank get as close as they do in 40k, or use chainsaws in war, so maybe they would drop them closer due to the nature of combat in 40k.

This looks like a YMDC thread so I am moving it.

I see this as totally consistent for three reasons.

1. PotMS overrides the restrictions placed on the firing of weapons by movement not from any other reason.

2. The PotMS actually says if you move at combat speed you can fire 2 weapons and if you move at cruising speed you can fire 1 weapon. At no point does it say you can fire one more than usual.

3. Smoke Dischargers aren't a weapon.

Magpie wrote:I see this as totally consistent for two reasons.

PotMS overrides the restrictions placed on the firing of weapons by movement not from any other reason.

Smoke Dischargers aren't a weapon.

Agreed.

Perhaps to avoid "friendly fire" accidents, the vehicle systems are made so that you can't shoot while (blind) emitting smoke? There are endless ways to explain this "logically".

No. POTMS says you can fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed. That is one sentance without any attache's. There is no mention of them having to be a movement related rule

No that is the fluff mate. In all the rules there is a lead up paragraph that gives you some back ground which help in the interpretation of the rule BUT the actual nuts and blots are in the final paragraph.

It is only the game specific instructions that can be applied as the rule.

I think Nicorex's example was actually pretty good.
You're in the middle of a big, thick cloud of smoke. You can't see anything. Shooting would be useless.
You're looking at a big, thick cloud of smoke. You bet there is some tank that has just discharged smoke launchers inside. Fire and take your chances.