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.

Yes, we have. As your argument falls into the category of 'Normal is what the BRB says and any additional special rules the model has'

If you've been given:
permission to fire your normal allotment of shots plus one
and
permission to fire your normal allotment of shots plus one

...guess what you've got? (hint, it's permission to fire your normal allotment of shots plus one)

thebetter1 - nope, sorry, your argument fails. Your name is still ironic....

Your have no basis for redefining "normal" in the way you do, as it leads to a loop AND is unsupported by the rules.

Both rules tell you to add +1 to your NORMAL allowance. Both are resolved at the same time. One cannot reference the other as you are applying OoO to someting when you have not got permission to do so.

Vehicle damage, as you have been told repeatedly (but will presumably ignore) does not do that - it tells you to add +1, not +1 to normal (as that wouldnt make a lot of sense in this case, as "normal" is a D6 roll - so random. Unlike the deterministic movement speeds) and therefore modifiers DO stack.

You know, I've been trying to get this thread to die for a long time, but because of all of the near trolls and the attempts to get the last word in, you guys just don't want that to happen, so here I am.

kirsanth wrote:
This is starting to read like the FnP vs AP3 threads.

Comments like these really should be deleted. You're adding nothing to the thread except insult.

Gwar! wrote:
Normal for a land raider is the same as any other tank. PotMS is a SPECIAL rule. You cannot have a SPECIAL rule and claim it to be normal.

Kevin949 wrote:
If it was normal then you wouldn't need a special rule to define it as a differing aspect.

If it was normal, then the land raiders rules would state "land raiders can fire one weapon when moving at cruising speed". That would make it normal. As it stands, PotMS is an additive for the land raider, because at its base the LR can not fire any weapon at cruising speed (or however many it is, I don't use them so I don't know off hand). But PotMS allows it to do so. This isn't specific to the land raider, it is specific to PotMS.

PotMS does not redefine what is normal for the LR, it modifies the normal.

Elitest Jerk wrote:
PoTMS/Spearhead does not allow you to fire 1 time. It allows you to fire 1 more time than normal.

So both rules are fullfilled when you fire 1 time.

ChrisCP wrote:Yes, we have. As your argument falls into the category of 'Normal is what the BRB says and any additional special rules the model has'

Gorkamorka wrote:If you've been given:
permission to fire your normal allotment of shots plus one
and
permission to fire your normal allotment of shots plus one

...guess what you've got? (hint, it's permission to fire your normal allotment of shots plus one)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your have no basis for redefining "normal" in the way you do, as it leads to a loop AND is unsupported by the rules.

Both rules tell you to add +1 to your NORMAL allowance. Both are resolved at the same time. One cannot reference the other as you are applying OoO to someting when you have not got permission to do so.

These posts basically assume that I haven't already made any arguments on the subject.

calypso2ts wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Now, if the Leman Russ were vastly underpowered compared to the Land Raider in normal games, you might have a point.

This is my favorite argument so far. I feel my LR should be more powerful than his LR, they both have the same acronym but I wish I had a Battle Cannon or was a lumbering behemoth. BTW, what is a normal game? If you are playing Apoc it is normal to Apoc but playing standard 40k it is normal to that, I cannot understand the context of normal so I have no idea what you are referencing...

This is just an attempt to make me look bad, not an actual argument.

ChrisCP wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:
~A wonderful deconstruction of a couple of posts.

Seriously, don't modify quotes. That kind of thing gets you sued.

Anyone see a trend forming here?

ChrisCP wrote:
So really, the issue is you consider a LR with Potms to be a 'Normal' vehicle. Fair enough.
Might I point out again thou that your bastketballer example is still incorrect. 'suddenly most of them seem normal in that context.' A wonderful statement illustrating that indeed among land raiders there are 'unusual' cases. Also you know as well as anyone 'extremely tall people' is a fairly board category.

Yes, there can be outliers amongst a sample. However, if the sample includes only Land Raiders with PotMS, each able to fire the same number of weapons, you cannot claim one of them is not normal compared to the others.

thebetter1 - seriously , get over yourself. Modifying a quote and clearly denoting it is a modification is perfectly fine.

In addition, you would need to show actual harm to prevail. So, good luck with that!

You have not made a cogent argument demonstrating why your "normal" for PotMS modiofies the "normal" for spearhead. Maybe an on topic post?

nosferatu1001 wrote:You have not made a cogent argument demonstrating why your "normal" for PotMS modiofies the "normal" for spearhead.

The way I see it, in a greater context, it is normal for a Land Raider to get the benefit of PotMS, as the only way to remove it short of destroying all of its weapons is to not buy it in the first place.

To go into more detail on contexts, the PotMS rule is clearly referring to the base state for vehicles. Your loop argument would require that it refers to the norm for Land Raiders, which could not possibly be true as that would be a circular rule. The Spearhead Rule refers to the number of weapons that the vehicle in question can normally fire; it does not ask for the normal number for a vehicle, as that would not acomodate other vehicle types.

This brings up another point: your argument is arbitrary. You consider it normal for, for example, a fast vehicle to fire more weapons than a regular vehicle and a walker to fire a fixed number of weapons, but you do not consider it normal when the rule making it that way is under a special rule, just because "special cannot be normal."

Now, a test of maturity. I am willing to accept that not everyone shares my view, and will end the thread on an agreement to disagree. If that is okay with the opposing side, we can end this stupid argument. If not and people start forming large groups all saying the same thing, we can rehash this argument all over again.

thebetter1 wrote:

Falconlance wrote:
They are worded exactly the same though, I don't see where youre getting that the spearhead rule tells you to take into account any other rules that modify what you can "normally fire."

The Spearhead rule builds on the standard 40k rules. The standard 40k rules have Land Raiders normally shooting an additional weapon. When you build on this, that extra weapon is normal.

Did you see a flaw in my logic about normal abilities or are you just ignoring it?

Here is the flaw in your logic.

Power of the machine spirit allows you to fire one more weapon than normal.

How many weapons can your land raider Normally fire after it has moved more than 6"?

The answer is 0.

So with PotMS 0+1=1

You may fire one Weapon.

With the spearhead rule you may fire one more weapon than normal when moving.

How many weapons can your Land Raider normally fire after moving more than 6"?

The answer is 0.

So with spearhead 0+1=1

Now if you have both rules, the answers do not change. By firing one and only one extra weapon you have fulfilled both rule modifiers allowed by the special abilities. My Land Raider moved 12" I fire one twin linked LasCannon. I have fulfilled the description of both PotMS and Spearhead.

There is no where that says a Land Raider may fire as a fast vehicle as Normal.

This is the beauty/tragedy of RAW. The rules must be written to apply to this game. If it is not written explicitly it cannot be done. Sometimes GW writes rules that don't work as they intended due to wording that they have chosen and most people want to interrpret the rules to favor them. Some groups will just play RAI and they assume they know what is intended. These groups are often great fun when everyone agrees.

I DO think that GW intended to let the Land Raider shoot two shots more than normal. Unfortunately that is not what they wrote.

By firing one more weapon than normal, and only one, you fulfull both rules requirements and violate none so you only get one extra shot. I would choose a different spearhead for my Land Raiders.

Orion_44 wrote:
Here is the flaw in your logic.

Power of the machine spirit allows you to fire one more weapon than normal.

How many weapons can your land raider Normally fire after it has moved more than 6"?

The answer is 0.

So with PotMS 0+1=1

You may fire one Weapon.

With the spearhead rule you may fire one more weapon than normal when moving.

How many weapons can your Land Raider normally fire after moving more than 6"?

The answer is 0.

So with spearhead 0+1=1

Now if you have both rules, the answers do not change. By firing one and only one extra weapon you have fulfilled both rule modifiers allowed by the special abilities. My Land Raider moved 12" I fire one twin linked LasCannon. I have fulfilled the description of both PotMS and Spearhead.

Well, it appears you are not okay with agreeing that we see the rules differently. I don't want to hear that my argument is flawed when you did not actually address it.

Orion_44 wrote:
This is the beauty/tragedy of RAW. The rules must be written to apply to this game. If it is not written explicitly it cannot be done. Sometimes GW writes rules that don't work as they intended due to wording that they have chosen and most people want to interrpret the rules to favor them. Some groups will just play RAI and they assume they know what is intended. These groups are often great fun when everyone agrees.

I DO think that GW intended to let the Land Raider shoot two shots more than normal. Unfortunately that is not what they wrote.

By firing one more weapon than normal, and only one, you fulfull both rules requirements and violate none so you only get one extra shot. I would choose a different spearhead for my Land Raiders.

I am not arguing RAI. You can't use the fact that RAI seems to be one thing to further justify that RAW says something else.

thebetter1 wrote:These posts basically assume that I haven't already made any arguments on the subject.

Except all your arguments are wrong and you don't understand the difference between what a baseline "everything is this" and a special "some units get this" rule is.

Kevin949 wrote:
Except all your arguments are wrong and you don't understand the difference between what a baseline "everything is this" and a special "some units get this" rule is.

Wow. People really tell me that I should drop this and I get responses like this?

Your argument is arbitrary. You set up a difference between special rules and rules in the BRB even though no rule tells you that any such difference exists. By the way, all of your arguments are wrong.

How did I not address it? Please clarify. The only thing I see you saying is that a land raider normally fires more than one weapon. That is a flawed argument. That is the issue that I address. There is no where that says a land raider fires one more weapon than normal.

You refuse to see it that way.

You are arguing RAI becase you are not abiding by RAW.

Lay it out like I laid it out. Using the appropriate quotes that show where a land raider fires more shots than any other tank does as normal.

That does not exist. What you are attempting to argue is how you see the rule. Not what is actually written in either description of PotMS or the Spearhead Formation.

So, then show me. I am simple. Quote from the rules the relevant sentences. I do not see them anywhere in this thread. If you cannot show the rule as it is written you have no argument by RAW.

Where does it say that the Power of the Machine Spirit is "normal" for a Land Raider? If it said that we would all agree and this would be over.

The part I think that you aren't looking at is if you fire one more weapon you fulfill both sentences with no contradiction.

Now it is incumbent on you to show where they explicitly state that they would stack. Again, explicitly state that they would stack.

thebetter1 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
Except all your arguments are wrong and you don't understand the difference between what a baseline "everything is this" and a special "some units get this" rule is.

Wow. People really tell me that I should drop this and I get responses like this?

Your argument is arbitrary. You set up a difference between special rules and rules in the BRB even though no rule tells you that any such difference exists. By the way, all of your arguments are wrong.

Show me where in the BRB that it talks about PotMS at all then.

thebetter1 - one is a normal rule, one is special - as denoted by the words "special rule"

To argue that the special rule isnt special is certainly NOT a RAW argument!

thebetter1
Humans wear clothes. Do you think is it "Normal" or "Special" ?

Orion_44 wrote:The only thing I see you saying is that a land raider normally fires more than one weapon.

This is correct. By observation you will find that the Land Raiders in question will always fire two weapons at cruising speed (if they want to and have enough weapons to fire).

Orion_44 wrote:There is no where that says a land raider fires one more weapon than normal.

This is a nice blatant lie.

Orion_44 wrote:
You refuse to see it that way.

You refuse to see that different people can interpret the rules differently.

Orion_44 wrote:
You are arguing RAI becase you are not abiding by RAW.

So, now an interpretation becomes RAW when you say so?

Orion_44 wrote:
Lay it out like I laid it out. Using the appropriate quotes that show where a land raider fires more shots than any other tank does as normal.

Show me quotes that a fast vehicle is normal.

Orion_44 wrote:
That does not exist. What you are attempting to argue is how you see the rule. Not what is actually written in either description of PotMS or the Spearhead Formation.

Therefore, being fast must not be normal either.

Orion_44 wrote:
So, then show me. I am simple. Quote from the rules the relevant sentences. I do not see them anywhere in this thread. If you cannot show the rule as it is written you have no argument by RAW.

Show me a quote from the rules saying that a walker firing all of its weapons is normal.

Orion_44 wrote:
Where does it say that the Power of the Machine Spirit is "normal" for a Land Raider? If it said that we would all agree and this would be over.

Where does it say being a walker is "normal"?

Orion_44 wrote:
The part I think that you aren't looking at is if you fire one more weapon you fulfill both sentences with no contradiction.

If you actually followed the thread you would see that I dealt with this from the beginning.

Orion_44 wrote:
Now it is incumbent on you to show where they explicitly state that they would stack. Again, explicitly state that they would stack.

Only after you can explain why all other circumstances are normal.

Kevin949 wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
Except all your arguments are wrong and you don't understand the difference between what a baseline "everything is this" and a special "some units get this" rule is.

Wow. People really tell me that I should drop this and I get responses like this?

Your argument is arbitrary. You set up a difference between special rules and rules in the BRB even though no rule tells you that any such difference exists. By the way, all of your arguments are wrong.

Show me where in the BRB that it talks about PotMS at all then.

What does that have to do with anything? You draw the line of "normal" between the BRB and the codices even though no rule tells you to do this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:thebetter1 - one is a normal rule, one is special - as denoted by the words "special rule"

To argue that the special rule isnt special is certainly NOT a RAW argument!

So your whole argument is that anything special cannot possibly be normal? Who's arguing RAI now?

penek wrote:thebetter1
Humans wear clothes. Do you think is it "Normal" or "Special" ?

It is both.

(That's what happens when you try to troll.)

No, I am arguinig that, when you are told something is "special" it probably means it isnt counted when something asks about "normal" rules.

That is RAW: The Special Rule gives you something over a normal vehicle, making you...ta da! Not Normal.

Your method still ends up with a never ending loop as you endlessly redefine not-normal as normal...

It is still normal for a special rule not to be considered a normal rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, I am arguinig that, when you are told something is "special" it probably means it isnt counted when something asks about "normal" rules.

You are told the rule is special, not the effect of the rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That is RAW: The Special Rule gives you something over a normal vehicle, making you...ta da! Not Normal.

So this "normal vehicle" is "normal" because...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your method still ends up with a never ending loop as you endlessly redefine not-normal as normal...

You really like circular arguments, don't you? I defeat this one time, we go on for a while, and then you just bring it up again as if it had never been mentioned.

kirsanth wrote:It is still normal for a special rule not to be considered a normal rule.

You made this up, didn't you?

thebetter1 wrote:
Show me quotes that a fast vehicle is normal.

Full rules for fast vehicles presented at BRB, so they are what is normal in that game.

thebetter1 wrote:
Show me a quote from the rules saying that a walker firing all of its weapons is normal.

same BRB

thebetter1 wrote:
Where does it say being a walker is "normal"?

same as above

thebetter1 wrote:
It is both.
(That's what happens when you try to troll.)

you even can't give such simple answer.

and now Ladies and Gentlemen where PotMS ??
not in BRB. not in descriptions of all LR, its just in few SM codexes, in SPECIAL RULES section.

Why you begun all that trolling here if you don't have intention of hearing right answer?

ps. get off your disguise damn troll.

penek wrote:
Full rules for fast vehicles presented at BRB, so they are what is normal in that game.

This only proves my point that your interpretation is arbitrary.

I have been extremely calm throughout this thread. Your behavior suggests that you want me to stop.

thebetter1 wrote:This only proves my point that your interpretation is arbitrary.

I have been extremely calm throughout this thread. Your behavior suggests that you want me to stop.

No, not really.

The Land Raider is a tank, so follows the rules for Tanks.

The Rules that Tanks follow are Normal for all Tanks.

The Rules that the Land Raider Follows are Special Rules that apply only to it.
Special Rules Cannot be normal.

thebetter1
oh, you finally got it? just 4 pages... thx Emperor.

penek wrote:Why you begun all that trolling here if you don't have intention of hearing right answer?

ps. get off your disguise damn troll.

The fact that someone disagrees with a given interpretation of the rules does not make them a troll.

Let's keep it civil, folks.

You are trying to argue two different levels of specificity. In one you are saying it is normal for the 'vehicle' so when applying the spearhead rules you examine what is normal for that specific vehicle. Unfortunately, by defining the default state as being that of the vehicle you run into the problem nos mentioned...here is some math because math always proves everything!

Let: S = 0 - # Weapons a LR can normally fire at cruising speed

Let us determine S, to make it easy we can start with:
S = 0
add +1 for PotMS (or Spearhead take your pick) and we get the following update relationship:

S = S + 1 = 0 + 1 = 1
Oh noes, S = 0 = 1? This can't be true, here try 1 instead!

S = S + 1 = 1 + 1 = 2
oh wait...

Now if instead we use..

N = 0 - the number of weapons a vehicle can fire at cruising speed

S = N + 1 = 0 + 1 = 1

Amazing! Now how many can a LR fire with Spearhead, we'll call that P

P = N + 1 = 0 + 1 = 1

Go math!

thebetter1 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
Except all your arguments are wrong and you don't understand the difference between what a baseline "everything is this" and a special "some units get this" rule is.

Wow. People really tell me that I should drop this and I get responses like this?

Your argument is arbitrary. You set up a difference between special rules and rules in the BRB even though no rule tells you that any such difference exists. By the way, all of your arguments are wrong.

Show me where in the BRB that it talks about PotMS at all then.

What does that have to do with anything? You draw the line of "normal" between the BRB and the codices even though no rule tells you to do this.

And you draw no line between normal and special. As Gwar! said above, the LR is a tank. It follows the rules for EVERY tank. The BRB states all the normal rules for every unit type played in the game. The codices are what hold the special rules for specific units. Not every LR gets PotMS so it is not normal. As others have stated, it is listed under the special rules area in the codices. That alone makes it special.

As I said much much earlier that you seem to have ignored, if the LR entry said ONLY "Land Raiders can fire one weapon at BS 2 when moving up to cruising speed" and it said that for EVERY land raider, THEN it would be normal because it would be specific to the LR and every LR would have it (and only LR's). But, since PotMS is what gives it that ability and you can take PotMS on other vehicles, that makes it a special rule, not a normal one.

Normal rules are "Tank, Skimmer, Bike, Infantry, Monstrous Creature". Special rules are "Eternal Warrior, Power of the Machine Spirit, Fleet, Move through Cover". A "normal" rule is on that applies to all similar units, such as all infantry having to roll 2d6 to move through cover. SOME infantry have a special rule allowing them to roll 3d6. So, do you think that an IC having move through cover makes it a normal rule?

thebetter1 wrote:

This is correct. By observation you will find that the Land Raiders in question will always fire two weapons at cruising speed (if they want to and have enough weapons to fire).

Observation is not RAW

thebetter1 wrote:

Orion_44 wrote:There is no where that says a land raider fires one more weapon than normal.

This is a nice blatant lie.

Actually not a lie, it is pulled out of the context of the earlier sentences. To be better understood I will rephrase. There is no where that says firing one more weapon than normal due to PotMS is now normal for the second instance to apply.

- Personal attacks removed -

thebetter1 wrote:

Orion_44 wrote:
You refuse to see it that way.

You refuse to see that different people can interpret the rules differently.

Orion_44 wrote:
You are arguing RAI becase you are not abiding by RAW.

So, now an interpretation becomes RAW when you say so?

RAW is not about interpretting the rules. It is about how the rules are written. If you are not stating what is written it is not RAW (use your cursor and hover over the abbreviation and it will define it again for you).

thebetter1 wrote:

Orion_44 wrote:
Lay it out like I laid it out. Using the appropriate quotes that show where a land raider fires more shots than any other tank does as normal.

Show me quotes that a fast vehicle is normal.

Orion_44 wrote:
That does not exist. What you are attempting to argue is how you see the rule. Not what is actually written in either description of PotMS or the Spearhead Formation.

Therefore, being fast must not be normal either.

Orion_44 wrote:
So, then show me. I am simple. Quote from the rules the relevant sentences. I do not see them anywhere in this thread. If you cannot show the rule as it is written you have no argument by RAW.

Show me a quote from the rules saying that a walker firing all of its weapons is normal.

Umm, as stated by others, if it is in the BRB that is what is considered "Normal." And where did the walker come from? No one here is arguing whether walkers can fire all of its weapons or not as normal. I won't bother even looking at RAW for the quote on walkers but it is completely irrelevant. Hyperbole - personal attack removed - is pointless in this discussion as it was not used in any of my posts, or most posts by people who are explaining why your interrpretation is not correct.

thebetter1 wrote:

Orion_44 wrote:
Where does it say that the Power of the Machine Spirit is "normal" for a Land Raider? If it said that we would all agree and this would be over.

Where does it say being a walker is "normal"?

Orion_44 wrote:
The part I think that you aren't looking at is if you fire one more weapon you fulfill both sentences with no contradiction.

If you actually followed the thread you would see that I dealt with this from the beginning.

Orion_44 wrote:
Now it is incumbent on you to show where they explicitly state that they would stack. Again, explicitly state that they would stack.

Only after you can explain why all other circumstances are normal.

Again, normal is what is in the BRB, we are referring to the movement and shooting of tanks. Nothing else. And you did not deal with fulfilling both rules with no contradiction you explained why you think it should be different, which is not what is written.

This is YMDC, where we discuss rules that are ambiguous and not defined by RAW. This rule is defined by RAW, thus most posters are disagreeing not based on opinion simply based on what is written. Again WRITTEN. That means in this context, that it has been printed in a Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book published by Games Workshop.

Orion_44 wrote:Actually not a lie, it is pulled out of the context of the earlier sentences. To be better understood I will rephrase. There is no where that says firing one more weapon than normal due to PotMS is now normal for the second instance to apply.

Your original statement was ambiguous. While rewording it is helpful, the personal attacks are not.

Final warning for this thread. Any further personal attacks will result in a holiday for the poster responsible.

I think I can say pretty clearly that after 4 pages of this, I know where I stand on the question posed. Thank you, everyone, for your input.

thebetter1 wrote:But two separate rules allow it to fire one more. Any normal person would probably say that this amounts to two.

Please go educate yourself on conditional logic and get back to us... until then... you're wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thebetter1 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Nowhere does it say it DOES stack, so it doesn't.

Nowhere does it say it DOESN'T stack, so 1+1=2. "Normal" for a Land Raider is (normal for a vehicle) + 1.

Just wanted to reiterate what has already been said a thousand times over (but people still make this same mistake). The rules are permissive, if you ever attempt to ask "What does the rulebook NOT say" then you arn't going to be able to coherently describe the rulebook nor the way the game works. Again, its all about context and permission.

Gwar! wrote:The Land Raider is a tank, so follows the rules for Tanks.

The Rules that Tanks follow are Normal for all Tanks.

The Rules that the Land Raider Follows are Special Rules that apply only to it.
Special Rules Cannot be normal.

So, you're saying that all tanks follow the rules for tanks, therefore these rules are normal for all tanks. All vehicles with PotMS follow the rules for PotMS, therefore these rules must be normal for all vehicles with PotMS. Basically, the only thing you have in your post is that special rules cannot be normal, which I disproved with examples.

calypso2ts wrote:You are trying to argue two different levels of specificity. In one you are saying it is normal for the 'vehicle' so when applying the spearhead rules you examine what is normal for that specific vehicle. Unfortunately, by defining the default state as being that of the vehicle you run into the problem nos mentioned...here is some math because math always proves everything!

Let: S = 0 - # Weapons a LR can normally fire at cruising speed

Let us determine S, to make it easy we can start with:
S = 0
add +1 for PotMS (or Spearhead take your pick) and we get the following update relationship:

S = S + 1 = 0 + 1 = 1
Oh noes, S = 0 = 1? This can't be true, here try 1 instead!

You're missing the part about the two "normals" referring to different things. The PotMS rule refers back to the vehicle rules. You're essentially saying that PotMS adds to the Land Raider rules, which makes no sense at all, considering it IS the Land Raider rule. The Spearhead Rule refers to the vehicle being used, so it does add to the Land Raider rules.

Kevin949 wrote:
And you draw no line between normal and special. As Gwar! said above, the LR is a tank. It follows the rules for EVERY tank. The BRB states all the normal rules for every unit type played in the game. The codices are what hold the special rules for specific units. Not every LR gets PotMS so it is not normal. As others have stated, it is listed under the special rules area in the codices. That alone makes it special.

Well then only consider Land Raiders that get one type of PotMS. Amongst that group, it would still be considered normal. And as I have stated and proven, special can be normal in the right contexts.

Kevin949 wrote:
As I said much much earlier that you seem to have ignored, if the LR entry said ONLY "Land Raiders can fire one weapon at BS 2 when moving up to cruising speed" and it said that for EVERY land raider, THEN it would be normal because it would be specific to the LR and every LR would have it (and only LR's). But, since PotMS is what gives it that ability and you can take PotMS on other vehicles, that makes it a special rule, not a normal one.

This is no different than the distinction between, for example, standard vehicles and fast vehicles.

Kevin949 wrote:
Normal rules are "Tank, Skimmer, Bike, Infantry, Monstrous Creature". Special rules are "Eternal Warrior, Power of the Machine Spirit, Fleet, Move through Cover". A "normal" rule is on that applies to all similar units, such as all infantry having to roll 2d6 to move through cover. SOME infantry have a special rule allowing them to roll 3d6. So, do you think that an IC having move through cover makes it a normal rule?

Using the phrase "normal rule" is a bit misleading. I would say that it is normal for an IC to have the move through cover rule.

Orion_44 wrote:
Observation is not RAW

It would be if the rules asked you to observe. In this case, it is indirect, but determining "normal" in any case always requires a little bit of thinking.

Orion_44 wrote:
RAW is not about interpretting the rules. It is about how the rules are written. If you are not stating what is written it is not RAW (use your cursor and hover over the abbreviation and it will define it again for you).

Your definition of RAW accomplishes nothing. You define it as the text given in appropriate rule sources. Therefore, RAW can never be debated as text does not change and the way it is read does not matter, as the text is still worded the same way. Basically, your RAW debates would be limited to providing quotes and nothing else.

Orion_44 wrote:
Umm, as stated by others, if it is in the BRB that is what is considered "Normal."

The fact that others stated this is definitely not in the definition of RAW. This distinction that the BRB is normal and the codices are not is arbitrary, as you cannot point to any rule saying this.

Orion_44 wrote:
This is YMDC, where we discuss rules that are ambiguous and not defined by RAW. This rule is defined by RAW, thus most posters are disagreeing not based on opinion simply based on what is written. Again WRITTEN. That means in this context, that it has been printed in a Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book published by Games Workshop.

I just don't get it. Why does everyone think I am arguing RAI? You have failed to provide any rules showing why "normal" means something other than what it would mean in English.

visavismeyou wrote:
Please go educate yourself on conditional logic and get back to us... until then... you're wrong.

Seriously, you're quoting some of the first posts in the thread. The arguments have developed a lot since then, so you should probably read at least the last page before you post.