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 has been debated ad nauseam all over the place. Its like FNP and things that say "when a model suffers a wound.." and similar. So which happens first FNP or the effect? Or both? There is no order of resolution or blanket approach to things like this.

Personally I allow full BS from jink but would not be inclined to for invis although I've never had that one come up.

basic math 1+4x0=1
this isnt the only topic that gw does use propper math

but if potms didnt do what it says on the box it does nothing that would be counterintuitive

odin wrote:
basic math 1+4x0=1
this isnt the only topic that gw does use propper math

but if potms didnt do what it says on the box it does nothing that would be counterintuitive

Basic maths you multiply before addition or subtracting. Unless there's a bracketed formula, but that's really not the issue here.

With regards to my orgiinal question. We have a verdict from GW HQ. This came about after adeptus ludus ( the chap who asked the question in his game) emailed there FAQ team. They replied via the Oxofrd Branch.

Here is waht was stated

"POTMS counts as a seperate vehicle and is not affected by vehicle damage results of crew shaken/stunned"

As for moving its quite clear, one more than normal, so thats 2 at combat speed and 1 at crusing at full BS.

To sum up POTMS allows:

Combat speed = 2 weapons at full BS

Crusing speed = 1 Weapon at full BS

Smoke = no shooting

Crew shaken/stuned = 1 weapon at full BS

Jink = 1 weapon at full BS

You snap fire at flyers as always, along with all other units that can only be shot at with snapp shots.

 Hanskrampf wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Overwatch? "Any shots fired as Overwatch can only be fired as Snap Shots."
PotMS allows one normal shot if you are shooting Overwatch?

(p78, BRBR) [...] vehicles cannot make Overwatch fire [...]

(BRBR: Shooting with Walkers) To represent the vastly superior agility of Walkers in comparison with other vehicles, Walkers can fire Overwatch.

And as far as i can tell, they are still Vehicles. Granted, no walkers with PoTMS exist (do they?) but the rules have to work for all conditions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Godeth wrote:
This explains why you can fire smoke and shoot with one weapon etc. As for moving its quite clear, one more than normal, so thats 2 at combat speed and 1 at crusing at full BS.

To sum up POTMS allows:
You can fire smoke and use 1 wepaon at FUll BS

First of all, i suggest you read the Tenets page (HERE) especially point number 2.

Secondly, that statement is completely opposite to the rules:

Power of the Machine Spirit:
In a turn in which the vehicle neither moves Flat Out nor uses smoke launchers, the vehicle can fire one more weapon at its full Ballistic Skill than normally permitted.

You cannot use PotMS if you fire smoke.

So either that statement is made up, or they really need to read their own Rules before saying anything....

 BlackTalos wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Godeth wrote:
This explains why you can fire smoke and shoot with one weapon etc. As for moving its quite clear, one more than normal, so thats 2 at combat speed and 1 at crusing at full BS.

To sum up POTMS allows:
You can fire smoke and use 1 wepaon at FUll BS

First of all, i suggest you read the Tenets page (HERE) especially point number 2.

Secondly, that statement is completely opposite to the rules:

Power of the Machine Spirit:
In a turn in which the vehicle neither moves Flat Out nor uses smoke launchers, the vehicle can fire one more weapon at its full Ballistic Skill than normally permitted.

You cannot use PotMS if you fire smoke.

So either that statement is made up, or they really need to read their own Rules before saying anything....

And this is why you don't trust GW emails..........

barnowl wrote:


And this is why you don't trust GW emails..........

wow that's really egregious

If I email the same question to GW today, I can almost guarantee I will get a different answer, even if the same CSR gets my email.

 Godeth wrote:
With regards to my orgiinal question. We have a verdict from GW HQ. This came about after adeptus ludus ( the chap who asked the question in his game) emailed there FAQ team. They replied via the Oxofrd Branch.

Here is waht was stated

"POTMS counts as a seperate vehicle and is not affected by vehicle damage results of crew shaken/stunned"

This explains why you can fire smoke and shoot with one weapon etc. As for moving its quite clear, one more than normal, so thats 2 at combat speed and 1 at crusing at full BS.

To sum up POTMS allows:

Combat speed = 2 weapons at full BS

Crusing speed = 1 Weapon at full BS

You can fire smoke and use 1 wepaon at FUll BS

You can use wepaon at full BS with crew shaken and crew stunned results.

Jink = 1 weapon at full BS

You snap fire at flyers as always, along with all other units that can only be shot at with snapp shots.

Like BlackTalos pointed out, you can't use PotMS with Smoke Launchers.

Can we see the full email from GW? Did GW mention the Smoke and PotMS or did you read that wrong?
If PotMS is really counted as a different vehicle, that would make sense, excluding Invisibility and Overwatch PotMS on walkers (if there are any) from the list of viable uses and the need to exclude Smoke Launchers and Flat Out in the rule.

However, it's a GW mail and they are not known for giving correct answers.

Can we see the full email from GW? Did GW mention the Smoke and PotMS or did you read that wrong?
If PotMS is really counted as a different vehicle, that would make sense, excluding Invisibility and Overwatch PotMS on walkers (if there are any) from the list of viable uses and the need to exclude Smoke Launchers and Flat Out in the rule.

However, it's a GW mail and they are not known for giving correct answers.

I dont have the email, the info was passed on the person who asked GW, the same guy who thought that vehicle damage ovrode POTMS which was the main point of the thread.

As for smoke I typed that up wrong for some reason.

The FAQ's should be updated with it at some point. But who kows when that will happen.

I think that for every rules discussion there is on this forum there seems to always be two answers.
1. simple 2/3 second solution like the 0+1, 1+1 etc.
2.the collage thesis explaining why the 0+1 answer is wrong and how the rule should be played etc etc.

I think is the 0+1 answer for this question that's how I've always played it

GW Oxford informed me that POTMS counts as a sperate unit/entity and as it is like an automated targeting system that would not be used by the crew it would not therefore be affecte dby the damage result.

not the answer i was looking for but... when the mighty GW speak we humble servants of the imperium (plastic crack)addicts must listen!

Even people in the GW design studio don't know their rules. I wouldn't take any store personnel's word as any more binding than any other person's. The latest Tyranid releases exemplify it.

 adeptus ludus wrote:
GW Oxford informed me that POTMS counts as a sperate unit/entity and as it is like an automated targeting system that would not be used by the crew it would not therefore be affecte dby the damage result.

not the answer i was looking for but... when the mighty GW speak we humble servants of the imperium (plastic crack)addicts must listen!

The guys in GW stores don't receive any special 'official' rules training. They have no more sacred insight into the rules than anyone else reading them.

As crazy as it is, even sending emails to GW's 'FAQ' email won't get you actual answers from the guys who actually know the rules. They're just answered by the mail order team.

GW believes that the studio interacting with their players creates some sort of 'cult of personality' where we expect them to tell us how to play the game. I'm not sure why they think we buy the rulebook, in that case. I suspect it's just another example of GW not actually understanding their customers...

Insaniak,
If they understood their customers they would abandon this idea of being 'nothing more then a modeling company' post haste.

It isn't just the quality of Rules that would be written if Game Workshop embraced the reality that they are making game systems, not just models, but it would open a great deal of markets that Game Workshop has failed repetitively to tap. The closest they have come in the past is selling their brand to other companies that want to venture into these field, without a care for how good or bad those companies products will be. If they, themselves, decided to venture away from being nothing more then a 'modeling company' there is the good possibility that they will produce a product that would prosper in these markets.

They wouldn't even need to move far away from being 'a modeling company' either as their first venture could be into supplying virtual models and a digital Table-Top to play the game on.

Ok guys I think we of an answer of sorts, so if you want to debate why GW do what they do with rules etc, start a new topic please.

Lets keep on track with the subject so the thread dosent get blocked.

Thanks.

 Godeth wrote:
With regards to my orgiinal question. We have a verdict from GW HQ. This came about after adeptus ludus ( the chap who asked the question in his game) emailed there FAQ team. They replied via the Oxofrd Branch.

So...you mean we can just email them and get answers to all the questions? What's the address - can't find it on the site.

You can email them and get 3 different answers to your question

 koooaei wrote:

 Godeth wrote:
With regards to my orgiinal question. We have a verdict from GW HQ. This came about after adeptus ludus ( the chap who asked the question in his game) emailed there FAQ team. They replied via the Oxofrd Branch.

So...you mean we can just email them and get answers to all the questions? What's the address - can't find it on the site.

Gamefaqs@gwplc.com

Alternatively, you can ask a random passer-by on the street.


Meanwhile, I think all the usual arguments have been covered by this point, so until GW see fit to start writing decent FAQs again. we're probably about done here.