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.

Huh? "normal" is defined in the clarifying sentence: Combat / Cruising speed, Shaken / Stunned. :S
____

Linguistically, I would refer people to look at the wording for "Unit Coherency"

BBB, p.12 wrote:Unit Coherency
... - but remember that units have to stick together, otherwise, .... So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2". We call this 'unit coherency'

Structurally, this is the same as PotMS.

GW defines the general requirement in one sentence (i.e. "stick together").

Then, in the immediately following sentence, GW defines precisely what they mean (i.e. "no more than 2".") in the preceding sentence. GW uses a coupling word (i.e. "so") to clarify that the following sentence is the specific detail.

If we understand and accept unit coherency to work this way, why are people arguing that PotMS doesn't follow the same basic structure of general to specific?

It's like people would claim "stick together" simply means they're on the same game board... :S

JohnHwangDD wrote:Huh? "normal" is defined in the clarifying sentence: Combat / Cruising speed, Shaken / Stunned. :S

Very cute but I don't think you can actually quote me a definition of "normal" from that sentence. I stand by to be corrected.

There's nothing cute about it. The second sentence itself defines the first.

You'll have to spell it out for me.... the sentences I see don't contain a definition of 'normal', just a list of a few "influences" on what a vehicle can do. Are we sure we're looking at the same sentences?

What I'm looking for as a definition of "normal" would be something like this:

'A vehicle can normally fire the number of weapons shown in the move & shoot table, unless it is shaken or stunned, in which case it can not normally fire at all'.

Basically my contention is that 'normal' for a vehicle is never defined in the rules, and there is no reason to elevate shaken and stunned to the level of normal that would not also elevate smoke to the level of normal. In fact the rulebook never uses the word 'normal' in any of the places where it discusses whether vehicles are able to shoot or not.

It's a situation of two conflicting special rules. Smoke Launchers vs PoTMS. Much like always hits on a 6 and always hits on a 2+, you should have to die roll it every time This game gets sillier and sillier as time goes on.

Except these rules don't conflict. One adds a weapon to the number a vehicle would normally be able to fire, and one negates the possibility of firing any weapons.

If one rule always permitted at least one weapon to fire, while the other rule negated the possibility of firing any weapons, then they would come into conflict. But that is not the case.

If we include Smoke Launchers in what defines the number of weapons that a vehicle can normally fire, then the only deductively valid conclusion is that a Land Raider that has used its Smoke Launchers may fire one weapon. Call this 'A'.

If we exclude Smoke Launchers from what defines the number of weapons that a vehicle can normally fire, then the only deductively valid conclusion is that a Land Raider that has used its Smoke Launchers may not fire any weapons. Call this 'B'.

A is false, Smoke Launchers are not part of what defines how many weapons a vehicle can normally shoot. What defines how many weapons a vehicle can normally shoot are the basic rules about vehicle shooting: Movement, Type, and Damage state.

Since A is false, therefore B.

Yet another example of less than well thought out rules wording. Since the Marine player reading this will doubtlessly argue that he *can* fire a weapon thanks to Dakka's RAW crowd, and I'd use common sense and argue that he *cannot* fire the weapon due to logic such as Nurglitch uses, we would end up dicing it off, calling a Tourney judge over to rule, or turning blue while waiting for GW to FAQ the matter.

In my Unit Coherency example, GW doesn't define "stick together", yet we all understand what it means due to the following sentence.

How do you reconcile understanding "stick together" for Unit Coherency, but not "normal" for PotMS?

First thing.

To use Smoke Launchers you can not shot.

Second thing.

If you are not shooting then how do you fire any weapon?

POTMS does not make your vehicle not shoot. So stop cheating.

Now if someone tried to cheat me on this rule, I'll take a 4+ save. If you get a cover save from me shooting into smoke then I get a cover save from you doing the same thing. If they continue to cheat and try to say that they fire before they pop smoke I'll say bs. They fired 0 weapons and then chose to use POTMS to fire 1 more. So they fired and can't pop smoke.

If you get cheated on bs like this you can give it right back to them.

Nice one, Mauleed.

Thanks John.

Just so you know you can call me MLY. Mauleed is a totally different guy.

MLY, yay for accusations of cheating. You win the 'makes friends and influences people' award for taking a reasonable discussion about a game and turning it into a moral crusade.

Oh wait, I play Orks, and none of my vehicles can even take smoke launchers. So your crusade is a bit misdirected here matey. I'm arguing that my opponents can pop smoke and shoot at my units.

Nurglitch, how do you reconcile the fact that the smoke launcher prohibition on shooting is identical to the prohibition on shooting that comes with shaken and stunned results? Where in the rules does it say that one is 'normal' and the other is 'not normal'?

How do you figure that being shaken or stunned is normal for a vehicle? You must play a bit different from me, my vehicles are almost never shaken or stunned.

JohnHwangDD, I don't need you to explain the coherency rules. You might need to reread the POTMS, shaken result and smoke launcher rules to see if you can figure out why "so" is not necessarily a word of limitation.

Given that the coherency rules have the same structure, perhaps you need to refresh your basic English comprehension to figure out that "A, so B" is linguistically the same as "A, therefore B".
____

Oh yeah, I don't think that you're some dirty, filthy scumbag cheater.

I do, however, think that you're not being consistent in interpreting PotMS with how GW writes their rules.

I'm not arguing that these are linguistically different. I just think you are incorrectly taking "therefore" to be a word of limitation.

In the case of coherency, a consequence of the rules is that your unit ends its move in a particular formation. In this case the consequence is expressed broadly enough that it encompasses all the possible results, but this isn't because of the use of "so" but because of the scope of the consequence.

In the case of POTMS, a few consequences are listed but there is nothing to indicate that these are all the available consequences.

"Therefore" we are back to arguing about whether being unable to fire due to smoke launchers is a normal prohibition or something special. Nurglitch believes it is something special; I can't see it defined anywhere. He therefore believes the meaning of the rule is clear, whereas I think it's quite ambiguous.

Oh, and I noticed you weren't accusing anyone of cheating - that was Mauleed.

Ardnutz

I'm not calling anyone a cheater.

I've pointed out a very important thing for smoke launchers. You can't shoot. If you shoot you can't use Smoke Launchers. How is POTMS a work around? It isn't. To get the bonus for being in cover the vehicles can't shoot.

Lets break this down.

LandRaider
Extra Armor
POTMS
Pinto Mounted Melta

Ok is POTMS a weapon? NO.
Is POTMS part of the vehicle? YES.

So the vehicles can't shoot the turn it pops smoke? Correct.
So can it use POTMS to fire? No because it can't shoot when it uses Smoke.

How is this hard to understand?

Ok lets break this down.

You pop smoke at the end of the movement phase and you can't shoot for the rest of the turn. You can't shoot with the vehicle at all. POTMS included.

Can't shoot doesn't mean 0 shots. It means can't shoot.

POTMS tells you what it can do. It doesn't say it can fire after SL are used and please don't let me hear "It doesn't say I can't." It clearly tells you what you can do at what speed and after taking hits.

MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:
I'm not calling anyone a cheater.

Ahem.

MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:
POTMS does not make your vehicle not shoot. So stop cheating.

As for the rest of it, I've seen the argument and simply don't agree. You've 'broken it down' into an even less understandable and convincing version of Nurglitch's argument. Whether POTMS counts as a weapon is totally irrelevant and I have no idea where you got that from or why you would bring it up.

I still fail to see a difference between being shaken, in which case a vehicle may not fire, and using smoke launchers, in which case a vehicle may not fire. The rulebook puts these restrictions in very much the same language and I see nothing in POTMS that limits it to one and not the other.

K, I'm signing off here.

This is the classic bs that power gamers use. "The rule doesn't say I can't." POTMS doesn't say you can't fire one extra weapon twice.

It clearly tells you it can fire when shaken and stunned. Smoke Launchers clearly say you can't shoot. So shooting the vehicle or shooting with POTMS is totally out. POTMS doens't magically make you not shoot. If that is not clear I don't know what is.

Again I'm not calling anyone a cheater.