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.

Belphegor wrote:Another way of looking at it is in the form of a que
(since I can't recall anything that stacks in this game other than Go-to-Ground)

Machine Spirit takes precedent over Smoke since it is applied afterwards.
   Smoke applied in the Movement phase
   THEN
   Machine Spirit applied in the Shooting phase

maybe a bit of a reach, but I'm just trying to break it down into programmable logic

isn't smoke applied in the shooting phase too though? correct me if i'm wrong...

You pop smoke after the vehicles move at the end of the movement phase.

I think it is B.

The fluff reson would be that the crew cant see a thing and dont want freindly fire.

So you can only fire one wepon WITHOUT adding in smoke. Smoke ends using the last gun.

If GW had meant A, then I think it would have said:

"Therefore, a Land Raider that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, and a Land Raider that has either moved at cruising speed, used smoke launchers, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon."

(magic text added above)

RAW seems very clear on the topic. The vehicle can always shoot one more weapon than normal.

0 + 1 = 1

I think the crux (IMHO) is the word 'normally' in the PotMS special rule. Quoted "A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted."

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

Anyways, the word 'normally' usually implies a situation that is 'normal' that means no special interaction from an outside source, or the 'default' mode.

Smoke Launchers are a special 'ability' that a vehicle uses and I firmly believe that this is not 'normal' but a special 'ability' used once a turn.

Because launching smoke launchers is outside 'normality' for a vehicle, then PotMS, would not work because it only applies during a 'normal' turn.

Even moving full speed is still 'normal' and firing weapons is 'normal' so the PotMS works well with this line of thinking.

anyways B.

Excellent summation, padixon.

Now just post it 10 more times while exchanging a few nonessential phrases and call it a day

It says at the end of the description on smoke launchers (for everyone who quotes the rule) that the codex takes presedence. That in itself acknowlegdes the amount a codex can screw with the rules, IMO

Fair doos for the normaillity issue. But the smoke launchers come standard with tank, its its normal loadout. (But that 'normally' word will be the crux, if anything)

You can also view the turn sequence of the various abilities & rules being used. You first pop smoke then you use the rules for the PotMS. The BGB says you cant. Then the codex says you can.

It is a Landraider. Its not all together that unreasonable. Big things get cool stuff. 5pt 4+ cover saves from anything beyound 12'' (right?) for tau is unreasonable

The Codex Smoke says to refer back to the BBB Smoke.

The Codex PotMS says that it only negates movement and Stunned / Shaken limitations.

It doesn't say or imply that any other restrictions are removed, nor that other limitations are lifted.

When you boil it down, the SM players arguing A are really arguing "it doesn't say I can't", which doesn't work as basis for argument.

The PotMS rule is crystal clear about what it says you *can* do: fire an extra weapon when moving or Stunned / Shaken. For once, GW actually stated *exactly* what they wanted the rule to do. So I don't know why there is a question here.

For example, if the Land Raider has NO Weapons left (ALL Weapons Destroyed), does PotMS allow the player to shoot?

Or, better yet, if the Land Raider is Destroyed and replaced by debris, does PotMS *still* allow the player to fire?

Panic wrote:
John Spencer, the GW rules Guru also indicates B...

Hell Bro, that's all you needed to say!

John Spencer makes the call - that's how I like it

JohnHwangDD wrote:The PotMS rule is crystal clear about what it says you *can* do: fire an extra weapon when moving or Stunned / Shaken.

Well, no... it lists a couple of things that the PotMS can do... it doesn't restrict the 'can fire one more weapon' to only those specific situations. That would require the rules to actually say that the PotMS allows the vehicle to fire an extra weapon in those specific situations rather than the blanket 'can fire one more weapon' that it actually has.

While I'm inclined to agree that your interpretation is what was intended, the rules as presented can be read either way. I don't agree that the PotMS rule is as clear as you think.

For example, if the Land Raider has NO Weapons left (ALL Weapons Destroyed), does PotMS allow the player to shoot?

Technically, the PotMS allows it to fire a weapon in that situation... it simply doesn't have any to fire, so it will have the same net effect as not allowing it to fire in the first place.

More specifically, the weapon you fire is chosen from amongst whichever weapons the vehicle currently has. If the vehicle has none, you can't choose any to fire.


Although if you wanted to go silly-RAW, you could argue that the PotMS rule allows the vehicle to fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed, without restricting that to weapons that are actually mounted on the vehicle... You can simply fire one more weapon than the vehicle could normally fire. Determining LOS and measuring range in that case could be problematic though, unless you're firing a weapon that is somewhere else in your army.

Or, better yet, if the Land Raider is Destroyed and replaced by debris, does PotMS *still* allow the player to fire?

PotMS does not include a rule that allows terrain to fire weapons.

wyomingfox wrote:Now just post it 10 more times while exchanging a few nonessential phrases and call it a day

Let's keep it civil here, wyomingfox. Posts like this derail the thread without adding content; please refrain from doing this.

Thank you.

I agree with Redbeard. There's no need for a tortuous twist of semantics and logic to deform a rule into justifying what was in a previous edition/codex. The simple statement "one more than permitted" is simple and unambiguous. RAW says to use the words on the page, not what you can attempt to justify as the intent.

@insaniak: you are wrong. If those were a couple examples, then GW would have worded it "For example, ..." instead of "Therefore, ...". Using a leading phrase such as "for example", clearly implies that the list is not all-inclusive, and that there may be other possibilities not listed.

The fact is, PotMS is unambiguously worded. That is why they use the word "therefore", because they are specifying *exactly* what they intend in the general statement. Linguistically, the word "therefore" directly couples the statement as a clarification of the previous statement.

JohnHwangDD wrote: Linguistically, the word "therefore" directly couples the statement as a clarification of the previous statement.

It means that what follows is a direct result of the original statement.
It doesn't mean that result is the only result of that statement.

If I say "I like the colour blue, therefore I like this blue cup" that doesn't mean that the blue cup is the only thing on the entire planet that I like. It simply means that I like the cup because I like blue things.

insaniak wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The PotMS rule is crystal clear about what it says you *can* do: fire an extra weapon when moving or Stunned / Shaken.

Well, no... it lists a couple of things that the PotMS can do... it doesn't restrict the 'can fire one more weapon' to only those specific situations. That would require the rules to actually say that the PotMS allows the vehicle to fire an extra weapon in those specific situations rather than the blanket 'can fire one more weapon' that it actually has.

While I'm inclined to agree that your interpretation is what was intended, the rules as presented can be read either way. I don't agree that the PotMS rule is as clear as you think.

This is from your argument in PotMS w/smoke launcher

Then you say

The rules tell us what we can do in the game. Anything that the rules don't tell us we can do, we can't

during the forum discussion about dedicated transports

I hate to point this out to you brother, but where exactly do you stand on the issue of whether the rulebook/codex is permissive or restrictive. You clearly say that in one instance in another forum on another topic that a rule that gives you exactly what you *can* do, then in the next instance you claim that if it doesn't say you can then you can't.

You believe its either one way or the other, not both.

This is a copy from the other post so you can see that it applies to this as well

this is an 'exact' quote from pg 81 SM codex "Therefore, a Land Raider that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, and a Land Raider that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or 'Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon."

According to your own post in another forum topic, then by your *own* logic stated above "Anything that the rules don't tell us we can do, we can't."

GW is *very very very* specific in that quote, they give you exactly what we *can* do and "don't tell us we can do", so therefore "we can't"

I hate to use your own words against you to prove a point.

padixon wrote:I hate to point this out to you brother, but where exactly do you stand on the issue of whether the rulebook/codex is permissive or restrictive.

Exactly where I've always stood: The rules tell us what we can do.

In this particular instance, the rules tell us that using the PotMS, the vehicle can fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed.



What leaves the issue in doubt is simply the interpretation of 'normally' in the rule. The rules tell us that we can do something... opinions are simply divided on exactly what it is that the rules are telling us we can do in this specific situation.

I know, but in the last paragraph, it says what I quoted earlier. It gives exactly what we *can* do, and ends it there. That last paragraph is so very specific.

I honestly respect all your positions insaniak, and value your inputs here in Daka, and have many times, changed my stance from what you wrote.

But, I have to disagree here. This is not *RAW* solid, because we have a split nearly 50/50 on this and I am sure that is not just chance.

****But**** Since we both agree that "normally" is an issue of ambiguity, we *can* agree the very specific last paragraph of PotMS and their exact situations it can be used.

Ask yourself, why would they dedicate an entire paragraph with very very (and multiple) specific situations it is used with.

Surely the Rule *points* to against Smoke launchers more than the other way.

padixon wrote:I know, but in the last paragraph, it says what I quoted earlier. It gives exactly what we *can* do, and ends it there. That last paragraph is so very specific.

But it's not. It lists a couple of things that we can do, that in no way contradicts the earlier statement as to what we can do.

If I say: You can go out, and therefore you can go to the pool, does that mean that the only place you can go is the pool?

Of course not. The pool statement is specific, but what it's specific about is that the ability to go to the pool is granted by the ability to go out. It doesn't make it exclusive... the blanket 'You can go out rule' gives you permission to go wherever you like, so long as there is no other rule that limits it.

Same thing here. The PotMS rule allows you to fire an extra weapon. It then goes on to list situations where this would make a difference. It doesn't state, or even imply, that these are the only situations where it will apply. So, without a specific limitation, those listed situations are simply some of, not the only, situations in which the rule applies.

Ask yourself, why would they dedicate an entire paragraph with very very (and multiple) specific situations it is used with.

That would be to illustrate the sort of situations where PotMS would be useful.

Surely the Rule *points* to against Smoke launchers more than the other way.

Sure. Which is why I've agreed as to which way I think is the intended one. But the fact that you or I think it's supposed to be played a given way doesn't make the rule any less ambiguous. My sole point was that the rule isn't as clear-cut as some people have claimed.

So, I was wondering, what defines the number of weapons that a tank like a Land Raider can normally fire?

insaniak wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: Linguistically, the word "therefore" directly couples the statement as a clarification of the previous statement.

It means that what follows is a direct result of the original statement.
It doesn't mean that result is the only result of that statement.

If I say "I like the colour blue, therefore I like this blue cup" that doesn't mean that the blue cup is the only thing on the entire planet that I like. It simply means that I like the cup because I like blue things.

The problem for you is that your phrasing isn't mirroring the PotMS phrasing.

PotMS says something like "At a high level, MS allows an extra shot in specific situations; therefore, it may take 2 shots under these conditions, and 1 shot under these other conditions." Nowhere does it imply that there are additional situations whereby other shots may be taken.

Furthermore, as I noted above, it would have been trivial to add "uses Smoke Launchers" to the PotMS rule, especially as GW had to specifically refer to SL in the BBB.

And getting back to GW rules fundamentals, GW doesn't need to tell you that you can't fire when using Smoke, because that would be redundant when we understand GW rules to be permissive. Therefore, GW only needs to specify those cases in which the player *is* allowed to do something.

Nurglitch wrote:So, I was wondering, what defines the number of weapons that a tank like a Land Raider can normally fire?

When using smoke, since that's the situation under discussion, the vehicle can normally not fire any.

Revisiting the same tired old ground won't change the answers any.

JohnHwangDD wrote:PotMS says something like "At a high level, MS allows an extra shot in specific situations; therefore, it may take 2 shots under these conditions, and 1 shot under these other conditions."

So my phrasing doesn't reflect the rule, but your exact same phrasing does?

Thanks for playing, anyway

Nowhere does it imply that there are additional situations whereby other shots may be taken.

Aside from the bit where it says that the vehicle can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted, without adding restrictions.

Furthermore, as I noted above, it would have been trivial to add "uses Smoke Launchers" to the PotMS rule, especially as GW had to specifically refer to SL in the BBB.

It would have been, but they didn't. That doesn't change what it does say.

And getting back to GW rules fundamentals, GW doesn't need to tell you that you can't fire when using Smoke, because that would be redundant when we understand GW rules to be permissive.

Right. And we have a rule that grants permission to fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed.

So we do need a rule disallowing you from doing so when using smoke. Otherwise, when using smoke is covered by the same blanket rule as any other situation... it limits the number of weapons you can fire, and PotMS therefore allows you to fire one extra.

Insaniak:

Where does it say that using Smoke Launchers is part of what defines the number of weapons a tank can normally fire?

So far as I can tell, what defines the number of weapons that a tank can normally fire is its:

1. Type (Normal, Walker, Fast)
2. Damage (Shaken, Stunned)
3. Movement (Combat, Cruising, Flat Out)

We've already been over this repeatedly. There's really nothing to be gained by doing it all again.

@ insaniak

I agree with your reasoning. It is sound and concise.

But...

1) we agree that the words GW writer used "normally" is ambiguous enough to warrant a not so clear RAW reading. So this throws a solid RAW argument out the window.

2) the last paragraph, we both agree that they list what PotMS can work with.

3) Can you honestly look your opponent in the eye (after he/she brought this up as 'ify') and say with *full* confidence that this is A) RAW solid B) the opponent has no room for argument against it.

4) I am on the fence on this, but when something is ambiguous, but the signs tend to point a certain way (given the specific ways PotMS works in last paragraph) and for the sportsmanship of the game 'I' would always rule in favor of a "friendlier reading of the rules for the opponents sake".

This is why I voted B, I can not honestly look across a table and say "This is how it works, sorry you don't like it" especially when this maneuver can be seen by many as a bit beardy.

There's plenty to be gain, particularly an understanding of how terms like "normally" and "special" work in the 5th edition rules so that these misreadings don't keep cropping up.

The normal case is the case that applies to all vehicles by dint of them being vehicles.

If a vehicle shoots as it would normally, it shoots as it would following the rules that apply to all vehicles.

If a tank is normally allowed to fire one weapon when it is moving at combat speed and neither shaken nor stunned, it is because that is the case for all tanks, pending specified exceptions.

If a tank cannot fire any weapons because it has used its Smoke Launchers, it is because it is a tank equipped with Smoke Launchers and it has used those Smoke Launchers. This is not the normal case because not all vehicles have Smoke Launchers, and hence cannot use Smoke Launchers.

Therefore, a tank that is unable to fire any of its weapons because it has used its Smoke Launchers is not firing the number of weapons it would normally be permitted.

If the Power of the Machine Spirit allows a vehicle to fire one more weapon than it would normally be permitted, and a special case such as Smoke Launcher prevents it from firing any weapon, it cannot fire any weapons and the Power of the Machine spirit does not allow it to fire at least one weapon.

padixon wrote:3) Can you honestly look your opponent in the eye (after he/she brought this up as 'ify') and say with *full* confidence that this is A) RAW solid B) the opponent has no room for argument against it.

No. Why would I? I play it that you can't shoot.

I've never claimed that anything else is the only answer. My point has simply been that there is more than one way to read it, regardless of how many times Nurglitch insists that his arbitrary judgement as to what 'normally' refers to is the only possible correct one.

@insaniak: When the natural / linguistic reading of the rule, coupled with standard GW "permissive" / RAW interpretation gives a clear and consistent answer, then neither Nurglitch, ihadhq nor I are being "arbitrary".

It's ambiguous as hell. Nurglitch (for example) completely shoots himself down by first pointing out that 'normal' is never defined in the rules, and then claiming that the mystic voices have gifted him with the ability to know the exact and only meaning of the word in the context of the rules.

Codswallop.