Question Regarding Smoke Launchers

[Xzarol]

Hey there! Until recently, it had been many a month since I dusted off my figures and played 40K.

Getting to the point, however:

Can units shoot out of a transport that has popped smokes?

I.E: One squad of Nurgle Marines inside a Rhino travel 6' in the vehicle, pop smokes, and then fire upon another vehicle with their Melta-Guns.

I have always played it that my own guys cannot shoot while smokes are popped, but now I'm curious. It's nothing major, as I still won the game, but I would still like to know for future reference.

It just seems to me that the potential for cheese is too great to use something like that.

Thanks!

[SotonShades]

This one is tricky. The BRB doesn't seem to say either way. The nearest analogy I can find is the Crew Stunned/Shaken rules, which prevent embarked passangers from firing in the same way they stop the vehicle from firing.

From a logical point of view, if the smoke is thick enough to prevent the enemy being able to see the vehicle, it's a good bet its thick enough to stop the embarked troops seeing out of it, and thus preventing them from shooting.

Both of these points would suggest that they can't. I don't think I can find an argument that would suggest that they can, other than the BRB not specificly saying they can't.

[SeattleDV8]

The smoke launchers only stop the vehicle from firing, there is no effect on the embarked unit .
Seems odd until you realize the passengers are a seperate unit from the vehicle.

[Tynskel]

That's not exactly right--- when you look at the rules for passengers, if the vehicle cannot shoot, the passengers cannot shoot. They may be separated from the vehicle, but they are subject to the vehicle's shooting rules.

if the vehicle is stationary, passengers count as stationary.
if the vehicles moves, passengers count as moving.
if the vehicle moves 6+", passengers cannot shoot.
if the vehicle is shaken or stunned, passengers cannot shoot.

The rule hierarchy demonstrates that the passengers are dependent on the vehicle condition, not the other way around.

[DarkLink]

That's not exactly right--- when you look at the rules for passengers, if the vehicle cannot shoot, the passengers cannot shoot.

Is that explicitly stated?

[SeattleDV8]

That's not exactly right--- when you look at the rules for passengers, if the vehicle cannot shoot, the passengers cannot shoot. They may be separated from the vehicle, but they are subject to the vehicle's shooting rules.
<snip>
The rule hierarchy demonstrates that the passengers are dependent on the vehicle condition, not the other way around.

Nope, thats never stated in the rules.
Yes if the vehicle moves that does have an effect on passengers (BRB pg.66 Firing Points)
If the vehicle takes damage that can have an effect on embarked units (BRB pg.67)
Smoke launchers have no stated effect on embarked units.
You can added a rule that is not there.

[Old_Paladin]

I don't usually agree with Tynskel, but...
For everyone saying he has made up a rule and demand he proves it in writting, I have this to ask you:

Can you do what you ask of him, prove your own case with a written rule? You cannot; the rulebook doesn't state that "passengers may fire out of a smoked vehicle."

The fact is that the type of game is a permissive rule set, we should only do what the rulebook says is allowed. If it doesn't give permission, then we shouldn't do the action.

[DarkLink]

I don't usually agree with Tynskel, but...
For everyone saying he has made up a rule and demand he proves it in writting, I have this to ask you:

Can you do what you ask of him, prove your own case with a written rule? You cannot; the rulebook doesn't state that "passengers may fire out of a smoked vehicle."

The fact is that the type of game is a permissive rule set, we should only do what the rulebook says is allowed. If it doesn't give permission, then we shouldn't do the action.

Actually, this is a case where the exact opposite is required. Passengers are, normally, allowed to fire out of a vehicle. There are specific exceptions to this rule. Unless the rulebooks states that shooting from a smoked vehicle is one of these exceptions, you are allowed to do so.

Does the rulebook state explicitly that the passengers may not ever fire if the vehicle may not fire? Does it state explicitly that smoke launchers prevent the passengers from firing as well as the vehicle?

If not, then they are allowed to shoot, because they are normally allowed to do so, and there are not specific exceptions to that rule that prevent them from shooting.

[Tynskel]

I have already stated my reasoning.

Every single other instance that the vehicle cannot shoot, it is stated that the passengers cannot shoot. In all respects, the 'permissive' ruleset works both ways.

Does the rulebook state that passengers 'can' shoot when the vehicle cannot?
Here's another thing: The Smoke Launcher rules are written before ANYTHING about passengers are written. The rulebook is NOT written as a direct permissive: it is written as simple rules first, then overlay more complicated rules.

I stand by my statement earlier: After passengers are mentioned, every instance written where the vehicle cannot shoot, the passengers cannot shoot either. If you were to overlay these 'future' rules on the rest of the section, it sets a precedent that previous rules would follow...

Very similar to the 'poison weapons' argument in a different thread.

[Old_Paladin]

They must also be able to draw line of sight, which one could claim the smoke blocks (either fully, or at least provides a cover save).

[DarkLink]

They must also be able to draw line of sight, which one could claim the smoke blocks (either fully, or at least provides a cover save).

Well, one could claim that, but there is absolutely no justification in the rules for it. If there is a rule, then this would be the justification. But to the best of my knowledge that rule doesn't exist.

[Mr.Pickelz]

so you pop smoke on say..a rhino, and now your obscured so you get a cover save, however if the troops inside fire at.. a chimera, then the chimera doesn't get a cover save? Even though your firing through the same cover he is firing through?

[SeattleDV8]

They must also be able to draw line of sight, which one could claim the smoke blocks (either fully, or at least provides a cover save).

Except Smoke does not block LOS, all it does is make the vehicle 'count as' obscured in the next enemy shooting phase.
Darklink is correct , there is no restriction to the embarked unit from smoke, only to the vehicle.
Tynskel is making up rules.

[lobster-overlord]

The rule also says to use some sort of marker to denote the smoked vehicle, thus, you add an item to teh battle field that could potentially cause a True LOS issue, not only for the vehicle it's covering, but also any vehicle/unit behind it.

How is that supposed to interact with "counts as"?

John M>

[SeattleDV8]

The rule also says to use some sort of marker to denote the smoked vehicle, thus, you add an item to teh battle field that could potentially cause a True LOS issue, not only for the vehicle it's covering, but also any vehicle/unit behind it.

How is that supposed to interact with "counts as"?

John M>

It doesn't.
Would you allow me to use a shoebox as my smoke marker and then allow that box to block LOS?

[lobster-overlord]

It doesn't.
Would you allow me to use a shoebox as my smoke marker and then allow that box to block LOS?

BRB (english) page 62. "Place some cotton wool or other suitable marker on or around the vehicle to show it is obscured."

I do not believe that a shoebox qualifies as "suitable" so no, I would not allow it, but if someone has a Land Raider, and their smoke marker makes the LR slightly bigger, thus blocking a unit behind it, then I'd give it to them.

John M.

[DarkLink]

so you pop smoke on say..a rhino, and now your obscured so you get a cover save, however if the troops inside fire at.. a chimera, then the chimera doesn't get a cover save? Even though your firing through the same cover he is firing through?

Like I said, it would probably work like that in the real world, but there are not rules that state this.

No one ever said the rules had to make sense:rolleyes:.

[SeattleDV8]

Darklink.... yes indeed that is correct.

Lobster-overlord "I do not believe that a shoebox qualifies as "suitable" so no, I would not allow it, "
Really, and where in the rules do you find what is 'suitable'??
Gee I guess there isn't a rule for that, so how does your idea of suitable over-rule my idea of suitable??
It doesn't.
So I guess that the best idea is that a 'marker' has no impact on LOS.

[Tynskel]

Except Smoke does not block LOS, all it does is make the vehicle 'count as' obscured in the next enemy shooting phase.
Darklink is correct , there is no restriction to the embarked unit from smoke, only to the vehicle.
Tynskel is making up rules.

Hah! I am making up rules! That's quite a statement.


Except, I didn't make any rules up--- I am using precedents set by the conventions of the rulebook. These are written rules RAW. The rulebook even mentions in the beginning about how the rules are first designed to get you playing, then introduce more complicated rules: p.1.

The rules first only talk about tanks, and smoke launchers are in that section. A simple tank knows nothing about transports, fast, skimmers, ect.
Then the book brings up 'special' rules for tanks.
This includes transport capacity. Every single instance from there, if the tank cannot fire, the transported unit cannot fire.

When I read your interpretation of the rules, I see an inconsistency with how you are using 'rules as written' RAW. The rulebook clearly states in the beginning about how the 'rules are written', that simple rules, then add complexity. I don't know about you guys, but consistency is what I am after when I play 40k--- and if all situations from when the book mentions passenger where tank cannot fire the embarked unit cannot fire, then this is a complete logical extension that any instance that a vehicle cannot fire, embarked units cannot fire.

[Mr.Pickelz]

"No one ever said the rules had to make sense:rolleyes:."

:cool: Sad but true...

[gwensdad]

Maybe it's this cold talking but...

Could the squad in the Rhino fire and THEN the Rhino pop smoke? Seems like that could be legal by RAW.

[Archon Charybdis]

Maybe it's this cold talking but...

Could the squad in the Rhino fire and THEN the Rhino pop smoke? Seems like that could be legal by RAW.

Smokes are used at the end of the movement phase.

[BuFFo]

Can units shoot out of a transport that has popped smokes?


Yes.

[SeattleDV8]

.......... , then this is a complete logical extension that any instance that a vehicle cannot fire, embarked units cannot fire.

This is the part that you make up.
There is no rule stating that.
It may be a 'logical extension' to you but to me it is a fabrication.
BRB pg.66 "...a single passenger may fire out of a fire point..."
It then gives us an exception to this rule when moving.
Later we get another exception with the Effects of Damage Results on Passengers pg.67
Notice what is missing? Any mention of the effects of smoke.

[addamsfamily36]

Notice what is missing? Any mention of the effects of smoke.

You mean gamesworkshop might have overlooked a rule by mistake?

I'm on board with tynskel for this one. To put it simply, the BRB (BASIC rulebook) is jsut that its the basics of a game. You are free to invent whatever rules you wish on top of that.

However for this instance there is no set rule saying you can shoot with smokes, and theres no rule saying you can't.

What do i do now i ask myself?:confused:

i look at the book as a whole.

I find the only examples of vehicles and their passengers shooting. ALL of which say when the vehicle cannot shoot, the passengers cannot shoot. Not one of them says when the vehicle cannot shoot the unit inside Can shoot.

you can accuse tynskel of making up rules all you like, but hes not hes used his brain to work out a fair and just ruling. If someone were to dispute that then im sure he would probably use the method of 1,2,3 its a yes 4,5,6 its a no.

Personally i would allow them to shoot, but whatever they targeted would gain a cover save (which would just be a direct reflection of the bonus the vehicle that popped smokes would be getting0. thats me using the rulebook as a guide making a simple LOGICAL decision based upon the game's workings. I would of course allow a role off for the decision i.e the 1,2,3 etc etc, but any player claiming RAW on this one, will have to do better than "doesn't say you can;t so i can" because my argument is "doesn't say you can so you can't"

[SeattleDV8]

You mean gamesworkshop might have overlooked a rule by mistake?
Its happened before



I'm on board with tynskel for this one. To put it simply, the BRB (BASIC rulebook) is jsut that its the basics of a game. You are free to invent whatever rules you wish on top of that.
Of course you can but then you are playing with house rules.


However for this instance there is no set rule saying you can shoot with smokes, and theres no rule saying you can't.
Incorrect, the passenger does have permission to fire, there is not an exception to this rule from smoke.


What do i do now i ask myself?:confused:

i look at the book as a whole.

I find the only examples of vehicles and their passengers shooting. ALL of which say when the vehicle cannot shoot, the passengers cannot shoot. Not one of them says when the vehicle cannot shoot the unit inside Can shoot.

you can accuse tynskel of making up rules all you like, but hes not hes used his brain to work out a fair and just ruling. If someone were to dispute that then im sure he would probably use the method of 1,2,3 its a yes 4,5,6 its a no.
No what he has done is invent a house rule and tried to pass it off as RAW.


Personally i would allow them to shoot, but whatever they targeted would gain a cover save (which would just be a direct reflection of the bonus the vehicle that popped smokes would be getting0. thats me using the rulebook as a guide making a simple LOGICAL decision based upon the game's workings.
Thats fine as long as everyone agrees with your house rules.

I would of course allow a role off for the decision i.e the 1,2,3 etc etc, but any player claiming RAW on this one, will have to do better than "doesn't say you can;t so i can" because my argument is "doesn't say you can so you can't"
Ah but thats not what I'm saying.
The passengers have a rule allowing them to take an action, if you want to stop that action you have to show the exception to the action.
In this case passengers may fire, exceptions 1/fire point, moving and vehicle damage.
Smoke is not one of the exceptions.

[DarkLink]

I'm on board with tynskel for this one. To put it simply, the BRB (BASIC rulebook) is jsut that its the basics of a game. You are free to invent whatever rules you wish on top of that.

That's fine. Just understand that your claim is directly contrary to the rules in the BRB.



However for this instance there is no set rule saying you can shoot with smokes, and theres no rule saying you can't.


There is, however, a rule that says passengers are allowed to fire out of a vehicle, with X exceptions listed in various places. Smoke is not one of those exceptions.

[Tynskel]

Here's the thing---


You state no mention of smoke---- but I keep telling you, the book overlays rules. The rules for smoke were written pages before mentioning of passengers---- because passengers are extended rules. The instant passengers are mentioned and from that point on, anytime the vehicle cannot fire, the embarked unit cannot.

This is a rules convention by the 40k rulebook---- simple first, complicated later.
A lot of people treat RAW to mean to read individual phrases or sentences for rules are independent of everything else. That is completely incorrect. All of the rules are written within a context of the other rules. It is the context that we use to explain how the rules fit together. If a vehicle crashes while moving flat out-- the embarked unit is destroyed, however if the vehicle moves flat out, and is destroyed during the shooting phase, the passengers are fine--- the reason has to do with how the complicated rules overlay the simple rules. The complicated rules for flat out are designed to prevent certain situations that would give an unfair advantage to embarked units: disembarking during movement (no more Rhino Rush from 3rd Edition).

This is the same thing during shooting:
If you pop smoke, the vehicle cannot fire--- embarked unit cannot fire--- passengers are 'advanced rules'. All of the advanced rules state the vehicle cannot fire, embarked units cannot fire. When you overlay these rules onto the simple, the context of popping smoke within the context of all of the other shooting rules, the embarked unit cannot fire.

[SeattleDV8]

Here's the thing---


You state no mention of smoke---- but I keep telling you, the book overlays rules. The rules for smoke were written pages before mentioning of passengers---- because passengers are extended rules. The instant passengers are mentioned and from that point on, anytime the vehicle cannot fire, the embarked unit cannot.

This is the same thing during shooting:
If you pop smoke, the vehicle cannot fire--- embarked unit cannot fire--- passengers are 'advanced rules'. All of the advanced rules state the vehicle cannot fire, embarked units cannot fire. When you overlay these rules onto the simple, the context of popping smoke within the context of all of the other shooting rules, the embarked unit cannot fire.

Sorry but that doesn't work.
The rules for vehicle movement are on page 57
The rules for vehicle damage are on page 61
Smoke Launchers are on page 62
The rules for passengers allow them to fire with certain exceptions.
The passengers rules tell us exactly how they interact with the vehicle.
There is no exception for smoke, unlike movement or damage.
There is no blanket statment, that is still your house rule.
You have made a mental leap which is unsupported.

[MarshalAdamar]

I don't see how it matters, it literally does not matter one wit. So long as you follow the rules for shooting you're golden, there isn't even an argument to be made that the passengers can't fire.

They are separate and may fire before or after their transport fires and may fire at different targets than the transport.

So, let’s say you have 10 grey hunters in their trusty rhino.

You move 6", have your two grey hunters with melta guns fire at the chimera; they hit, pen and explode the chimera...Boom!

You finish all your other shooting for that round except for the Rhino the grey hunters are in THEN you point at the transport for the grey hunter and declare "This Rhino is popping smoke"

Done and done, 100% legal and the passengers fired and the Rhino popped smoke and all is right with the world.

[Old_Paladin]

I don't see how it matters, it literally does not matter one wit. So long as you follow the rules for shooting you're golden, there isn't even an argument to be made that the passengers can't fire.

They are separate and may fire before or after their transport fires and may fire at different targets than the transport.

So, let’s say you have 10 grey hunters in their trusty rhino.

You move 6", have your two grey hunters with melta guns fire at the chimera; they hit, pen and explode the chimera...Boom!

You finish all your other shooting for that round except for the Rhino the grey hunters are in THEN you point at the transport for the grey hunter and declare "This Rhino is popping smoke"

Done and done, 100% legal and the passengers fired and the Rhino popped smoke and all is right with the world.

Done and 100% cheating!
Smoke gets popped at the end of the MOVEMENT phase; that's why this discussion matters.

[MarshalAdamar]

You are correct sir! I see that on page 62 of the handy little pocket rule book! I was thinking it was in place of shooting!

That is a horse of a different color.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[MarshalAdamar]

Now that I have my handy rule book out, I took a close look at the rules.

I would note that the section on smoke launchers make a direct reference to firing, stating that the VEHICLE may not fire if it deploys smoke but does not say anything about the passengers firing or not firing.

On page 66 under fire points, it specifies that models firing from a vehicle count as moving if the vehicle moves and cannot fire if it moved at cruising speed that turn.

On page 66 it has the effects of shaken or stunned results on passengers. It states that they may not shoot from the vehicle if the vehicle suffered a shaken or stunned result.

If you follow the rules as written the last rule we have regarding passengers firing while embarked is that the passengers MAY fire UNLESS the vehicle is shaken or stunned or if the vehicle moves more than 6".

So there is no rule stating that they cannot fire from the vehicle if the vehicle deployed smoke.

[addamsfamily36]

You have made a mental leap which is unsupported.

you mean he used his head?!! shock horror.


No offence to anyone but this is what annoys me most about the hobby. Unless its written in black and white people just don;t want to know.

theres no creativity

no imagination

only a win at all costs attitude.

Heres the basic rule book

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1400018

Its a guide. Its like pirates of the Caribbean and the "pirate code" quote "there more of a guidline"

Gamesworkshop often creates situations which conflict. they also miss out rules etc. Hence why there are pages of errata's and FAQ's. Sometimes they expect us to solve the issue on our own.

In this case there is a strong argument for and i agree RAW and at a tournament yes your right. But its just jammy.

Everyone knows that its an absolute kick in the balls to your opponent when you claim cover for your precious tank whilst you melta your opponents away from a tiny hatch surrounded in smoke. Its utter bollox.

Then You get those like Tynskel with an alternative interpretation of the rules (or call it a house rule if you want)

In ALL 4 cases in which a tank and its boarded unit interact regarding to shooting, the tank being unable to fire also results in the unit onboard being unable to fire. Thats the argument. and its an argument because Smokes being the only time you apparently can shoot when the vehicle can't seems like a very important rule Not o make solidly clear. There are plenty of examples where a rule will say this can;t do this but it can still do this etc etc. Why would Gamesworkshop not write( passangers Can shoot). its what, 3 words? So did Gamesworkshop forget to wright can shoot? did it forget to say it can't? Maybe it's a bit of both.

Hence why allowing cover back when shooting out of a smoked vehicle is a LOGICAL, FAIR and SIMPLE method of solving an issue.

Or better still a roll off. being Gamesworkshops own rule for rule disputes.

[AirHorse]

This is a discussion about what the rules allow, not if you think its "jammy" or lacks imagination. By your own admission models embarked in a transport that pops smoke can still shoot(unless its moved of course :P) according to RAW so its as simple as that.

If you want to use a house rule fair deal, but you have to remember that its the rules which say what is and isnt allowed, and therefore what is fair for a player to do, not the other way around.

[SeattleDV8]

This is a discussion about what the rules allow, not if you think its "jammy" or lacks imagination. By your own admission models embarked in a transport that pops smoke can still shoot(unless its moved of course :P) according to RAW so its as simple as that.

If you want to use a house rule fair deal, but you have to remember that its the rules which say what is and isnt allowed, and therefore what is fair for a player to do, not the other way around.

Yes indeed.
I believe Culven said it best
"We debate RaW, not in an attempt to gain an advantage, but rather to better understand the rules as they are written so that problems can be identified, addressed, and possible solutions developed before we get to the game table."

I'm all for house rules, and my group uses many, but here I debate what the rules really say.
So we can make adjustments or discuss places where we run into 'silly RAW' when at the table.

[DarkLink]

Right. In fact, to paraphrase something I've already said earlier "If you want to do it that way, that's cool, I don't have a problem with that. It just isn't supported by the rulebook (meaning your version is houserules only)."

[Tynskel]

Right. In fact, to paraphrase something I've already said earlier "If you want to do it that way, that's cool, I don't have a problem with that. It just isn't supported by the rulebook (meaning your version is houserules only)."

I don't know if you referring to me on this one, but what ihave stated earlier has been supported by the rulebook. The convention of Rules as Written is a form of interpretation of rules. However, anytime one 'quotes' RAW, they are interpreting the rulebook. What I am trying to point out is that it is often that people will say they are using RAW, when they really are not. What they are doing is misquoting the rulebook. Proper RAW is knowing how all the rules interact with each other. One rule is never independent of the other rules, the rules mesh together. If the rules were independent, we would never be able to make any sense of this rulebook at all.

This is why I frame a context around my argument. When i am framing an argument with the rulebook, I always attempt to be as broad as possible to include as many rules as possible. My reasoning has to do with the way the rulebook is laid out. The rulebook has two systems within it: 1) simple rules first, then overlay more complex rules, 2) hierarchy of rules, where, for example, a psychic test is a type of Ld check, but a Ld check is not a type of psychic test.

As RAW goes, one needs to keep in mind these two points whenever they interpret what has been written.

1) the smoke launcher rules are a part of the Tank rules. This is a 'simple' rules section.
2) the embarked units rules are a subset of rules within the hierarchy of the 'tank' rules. These rules are more complex and are 'overlaid' onto the simple rules.
3) the embarked unit rules mimic the tank rules: if the tank moves less than 6", then the unit counts as moving. The unit can not fire any heavy weapons. (tanks can only fire 1, due to stable platform). If the tank moves more than 6"' it cannot fire anything. The embarked unit, likewise cannot fire. If the tank is shaken or stunned, the tank cannot fire- which is the same for the em barked unit. Everything is mimicked.
Note, there is no concern for 'Fast' rules, because they do not come until late. There is a theme here, complex rules are overlaid on simple rules.
4) now overlay these complex rules onto the simpler rules. RAW: if smoke launchers are fired, embarked units may not fire. This is due to embarked units ALWAYS mimicking the tank rules. If the embarked unit wants to fire, they will have to disembark.

[DarkLink]

I don't know if you referring to me on this one

No, I was referring to addamsfamily's last comment. Though I do disagree with your argument:p.

Basically, I don't agree that the simple rules first, complex rules second thing causes a "passengers can never shoot if the vehicle can't shoot" situation to arise. I see it as "passengers can shoot by default, and it later lists specific exceptions to this". As smoke is not one of those exceptions, they can shoot when smoked.

[Tynskel]

Ah-hah!

This is a completely different interpretation of the rules. (although, I really do not see where in the book that the passengers may 'always fire' with some exceptions--- the book actually never states this. However, this is why your viewpoint is a completely different initial condition.)
Both of our interpretations have supporting arguments, both are RAW.

We are dealing with a 'multiple equilibria' condition. We cannot come to the same conclusion from different starting initial conditions (viewpoints).

[AirHorse]

Both of them are not RAW tynskel, yours is an extension of the rules based on an assumption, though an understandable assumption at that. The rules arent written saying that smoke being popped prevents the unit from shooting, you are extending them to draw that conclusion.

The rules however ARE written to say passengers can shoot from a vehicle and lacks a rule which tells us that smoke popped stops shooting while there are other rules preventing shooting in other circumstances, making the RAW fairly clear. Popping smoke does not affect passengers.

I understand your thought process, but just because every other situation that prevents the vehicle from firing also prevents the passengers shooting doesnt mean that every situation does. And this is definately a situation where RAI is very much not clear at all.

[Tynskel]

You are interpreting the rules of 'may' shoot out of vehicle to 'always' shoot out of the vehicle. 'May' and 'Always' are not interchangeable.
That is an interpretation of the rules, and you are calling that RAW. No, that's RAI, because all rules are being Interpreted.

That's what I mean by people 'misquoting' the rulebook--- they are stating RAW, but they need to understand that the Rules as Written are interpreted based upon ALL of the rules written, not single rules written.

RAI and RAW= same thing--- this is all based upon an interpretation of the rules, and initial conditions of the user.

[AirHorse]

Im sorry tynskel, but Im not. I didnt say they can always shoot, infact I explicitly said there are cases where the rules say the passengers cant shoot. But popping smoke is not one of those cases.

No one has misqouted the rule book, nothing is said about passengers shooting when a vehicle pops smoke. There is only one conclusion possible to draw from that fact, popping smoke has no affect on the passengers. The arguement about intentions is moot unless there is an faq to cover it stating the designers intentions, until then smoke does not prevent passengers shooting.

And RAW and RAI are not the same thing, otherwise we would never have to have faqs to tell us the rules operate slightly differently from how they are written. You are simpley muddying this arguement by making it about the definitions of words now.

[Tynskel]

you use the 'explicitly' can't shoot statement, but as I said before, you are leaving out the context of how the rule is written--- you are Interpreting the rules by stating that it does not matter what the context of the rules are, that they are completely independent entities.

That argument is poor, and impossible to justify from the rulebook, especially since I have demonstrated how the rules fit together. You cannot go through the rulebook and find a page number to justify your argument, all you can do is revert to your initial conditions on how you interpret the rules.

What kind of RAW is this?

A better argument is what I stated earlier--- you have Initial Conditions on how YOU interpret the rules. Then you attempt to apply those initial conditions.

My initial conditions are to interpret the rules based upon how they fit together. I never treat the rules as separate entities. I treat the rules as a whole.

Both of these interpretations are RAW. Both of these interpretations are RAI.

[AirHorse]

Everything I have said is taken in context and takes into account how the rules fit together. There is only one description of smoke launchers effect on the game and we have the rules for passengers firing from a transports fire points. That is the only context we have to go by. And you know what? It doesnt say anything about passengers being unable to use firepoints in that context.

The other rules for transport vehicles that talk about their affects on passengers are quite clear, and in those contexts there is no arguement. Why is it that simpley because the smoke launchers dont mention passengers shooting is it that we must assume that these other, different, situations determine what happens in this one?

Want some more rules that follow the trend of the smoke launchers rule? Space marine rhinos can attempt to perform repairs in the shooting phase. Doing so prevents the vehicle from shooting. Nothing in the rules description mentions passengers being unable to shoot from inside the rhino when doing this. This clearly means that the repair attempt has no affect on the passengers, meaning they can shoot as they normally would from inside the vehicle.

This is exactly the same as smoke launchers, the only difference is that it makes more sense in terms of realism. The rules are not there to make the game more realistic, they are there to govern what you can and cannot do within the bounds of the game.

The rules for smoke launchers dont tell you passengers cannot shoot from the transport when they are used, and given that passengers within a transport which hasnt popped smoke and has otherwise not been effected by anything that prevents passengers from shooting(because this is the ONLY situation you can compare to)then the passengers would be able to fire their weapons.

So far your arguement is that other rules that prevent shooting "mimic" the rules for vehicles. That has no bearing on other rules, they dont dictate how the rules for other situations work, it just so happens that they both have similar outcomes on the two different units. Each of those rules explicitly states how they affect vehicles or passengers. Other rules which effect vehicles dont say anything on how they affect passengers firing from the vehcile, what if I used my rhinos repair? Doesnt say a thing about passengers inside firing out the hatches, would you allow passengers to shoot then? I certainly would.

The other arguement against this is based off of the idea that smoke obscures a vehicle from seeing its target and as such that is why it cant fire. There is no basis in the rules for that. The rules simply say that the vehicle may not fire its weapons on a turn in which it uses its smoke launchers. It doesnt say why. It could be just as plausible that the crew cannot perform both tasks at the same time. You cant use an assumption like this as a basis for interpreting, and more to the point, extending what is written in the rules.

All of this is very clear.

[Old_Paladin]

The other arguement against this is based off of the idea that smoke obscures a vehicle from seeing its target and as such that is why it cant fire. There is no basis in the rules for that. The rules simply say that the vehicle may not fire its weapons on a turn in which it uses its smoke launchers. It doesnt say why.

Actually, the rules section does state that the tank lays "behind thick, concealing walls of smoke."

So, even if passengers could fire, at the very least they would definately give a cover save.

[AirHorse]

Yes it does, but thats not the point of what I said, the rules dont state that its because the smoke is there that it cant fire. The smoke is purely symbolic as your smoke marker could be of any size and not even actually obscure the vehicle at all(if you even have a smoke marker that isnt a little plastic token). Its the rules that prevent the vehicle from firing since they tell you it cant, not the smoke.

[addamsfamily36]

Actually, the rules section does state that the tank lays "behind thick, concealing walls of smoke."

So, even if passengers could fire, at the very least they would definately give a cover save.

Thankyou!!

A suitable marker should also be placed i.e cotton wool. Treating this like any other LOS feature and wha-la cover saves for the unit being shot at, which was my "house rule" for solving a valid argument from both sides.

As for comments on my last post. I may be house ruling in your eyes, but i'm using the principle that tynskel is using. Applying a rules basis of one section to another.

I.e when the vehicle can't shoot the unit on board can't, as all other instances enforce this. As this is disputed by it also doesn't say you can't, we then go to the section of "concealing walls of smoke", an effect the Rulebook states use an appropriate marker.

there is now a new obstacle. one that can block line of sight both to the passangers and to thoe wishing to shoot the tank.

A cover save both ways is perfectly legal.

[SeattleDV8]

Actually, the rules section does state that the tank lays "behind thick, concealing walls of smoke."

So, even if passengers could fire, at the very least they would definately give a cover save.

Fluff has no stating in a rules debate
Also quotes should be given as printed. BRB pg. 62 (also C :SM pg.103)
"....behind concealing clouds of smoke."


Nope , the only time the smoke obscures the vehicle is in the enemies next shooting phase.

Very well stated Airhorse.

[Tynskel]

Fluff has no stating in a rules debate
Also quotes should be given as printed. BRB pg. 62 (also C :SM pg.103)
"....behind concealing clouds of smoke."


Nope , the only time the smoke obscures the vehicle is in the enemies next shooting phase.

Very well stated Airhorse.
This isn't fluff.
An example of a misquoted rule: The rulebook does not state only in the enemy shooting phase, you place the 'cotton' down then they are used, which is during your movement phase. The effects continue, to prevent the tank from firing. The 'cotton' stays in effect all the way until after the enemy's shooting phase has been completed.

Here's another thing: suitable marker--- the tank fire because it cannot see. The mechanic is there for those that do not have the 'suitable marker'. If you were to state the passengers are able to fire, then you must use the suitable marker--- and in that case, the passengers could not see anyhow.

Either point of view, the passengers still cannot fire.

[Old_Paladin]

Fluff has no stating in a rules debate
Also quotes should be given as printed. BRB pg. 62 (also C :SM pg.103)
"....behind concealing clouds of smoke.".

Ooohh! Well, excuse me, Mi'lord!
There is such a huge difference between a wall of smoke and a cloud of smoke.
It's nice to know you get to decide what is fluff and what are true rules (when it's all within the same boarded text).


There are plenty of 'rules' in this game that are nothing more then discriptions of things; not dry, boring, mechanics.

[Tynskel]

I am glad somebody pointed that out. The lines between fluff and rules are very blurry in this book, and that is on purpose (otherwise, it would not have been written this way).

[addamsfamily36]

I may be mistaken, but itsn't it widely regarded that anything in italics is a visual description or background info where anything in regular format is considered rules?

Just curious

[SeattleDV8]

An example of a misquoted rule: The rulebook does not state only in the enemy shooting phase, you place the 'cotton' down then they are used, which is during your movement phase. The effects continue, to prevent the tank from firing. The 'cotton' stays in effect all the way until after the enemy's shooting phase has been completed.

BRB pg. 62 "....but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase....."
Yes it does state that.

That's it, the smoke has two effects, first the vehicle can not fire, second it is obscured in the next enemy shooting phase. Thats it.

For example a BA Land Raider Deep Strikes , upon landing (the end of it's movement) it pops smoke.
His opponent has 2 Mystic's and and fires on the Land Raider.
In this case the Land Raider would not get a cover save from the smoke.

[Tynskel]

I may be mistaken, but itsn't it widely regarded that anything in italics is a visual description or background info where anything in regular format is considered rules?

Just curious

Yes, but in this case, nothing for the smoke launchers is in italics.

[Tynskel]

BRB pg. 62 "....but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase....."
Yes it does state that.

That's it, the smoke has two effects, first the vehicle can not fire, second it is obscured in the next enemy shooting phase. Thats it.

For example a BA Land Raider Deep Strikes , upon landing (the end of it's movement) it pops smoke.
His opponent has 2 Mystic's and and fires on the Land Raider.
In this case the Land Raider would not get a cover save from the smoke.

That's not correct. The game runs on LOS rules--- if you put smoke down, the you cannot see--- that's the point of the tank not firing, it cannot see---- but the mechanic is there because not everyone has a 'suitable' marker.

You are also making a mistake with the mystics: the mystics power enacts BEFORE the Land Raider has completed its move. Hence, the Land Raider hasn't even fired off the smoke, so this is irrelevant to the discussion.

[SeattleDV8]

Ooohh! Well, excuse me, Mi'lord!
There is such a huge difference between a wall of smoke and a cloud of smoke.
It's nice to know you get to decide what is fluff and what are true rules (when it's all within the same boarded text).


There are plenty of 'rules' in this game that are nothing more then discriptions of things; not dry, boring, mechanics.

If you wish to paraphase great, but it is bad form to misquote.
If you bother to put something in quote try to be correct.
Otherwise it can weaken your point.

Heh...gosh I guess i missed the rules in that descriptive paragraph. oh wait...there aren't any...


I believe that the actual rules start in the second paragraph.

[AirHorse]

This isn't fluff.
An example of a misquoted rule: The rulebook does not state only in the enemy shooting phase, you place the 'cotton' down then they are used, which is during your movement phase. The effects continue, to prevent the tank from firing. The 'cotton' stays in effect all the way until after the enemy's shooting phase has been completed.

Here's another thing: suitable marker--- the tank fire because it cannot see. The mechanic is there for those that do not have the 'suitable marker'. If you were to state the passengers are able to fire, then you must use the suitable marker--- and in that case, the passengers could not see anyhow.

Either point of view, the passengers still cannot fire.

Thats no misquote, like seattle said thats what it actually says.

Talking of misquotes it does not say that a suitable marker must block the tanks line of sight, thereby preventing it from shooting. What it actually says on pg 62 BRB is "Place some cotton wool or other suitable marker on or around the vehicle to show that it is obscured". The key word here is show, it does not say place a marker to obscure the vehicle, it says place it to show that it is obscured. There is a massive difference here, one is literal the other is symbolic. The marker is there to denote that the vehicle has popped smoke, not to define its effects.

[Tynskel]

If you wish to paraphase great, but it is bad form to misquote.
If you bother to put something in quote try to be correct.
Otherwise it can weaken your point.

Heh...gosh I guess i missed the rules in that descriptive paragraph. oh wait...there aren't any...


I believe that the actual rules start in the second paragraph.

That's YOUR interpretation. It does not follow the convention that italics are descriptors, standard text are rules. The smoke launchers section has no Italics.


But, all of this brings me back to my point---- people are using whatever individual segment of the text to support their argument---- these are incorrect quotations. The way I have presented my argument takes into account all situations in the rulebook.

By the way, airhorse, codex rules overrule the main rulebook--- the repair rules cannot be used in this situation because those rules are independent of the main rulebook. Just like if you used smoke launchers from Black Templars--- those rules override the main rulebook. GW has stated this many many times.

[SeattleDV8]

That's not correct. The game runs on LOS rules--- if you put smoke down, the you cannot see--- that's the point of the tank not firing, it cannot see---- but the mechanic is there because not everyone has a 'suitable' marker.

You are also making a mistake with the mystics: the mystics power enacts BEFORE the Land Raider has completed its move. Hence, the Land Raider hasn't even fired off the smoke, so this is irrelevant to the discussion.

The Deep Strike is the Land Raiders move, unless you are suggesting that the Mystics can shoot something off the table...
Notice in the FAQ that a DSing unit does complete it's move before the mystics can shoot.
DH FAQ. Q. Do Inquisitorial Mystics allow “free shots” at
units arriving by Drop Pod?
A. Yes. The shooting is resolved after the Drop
Pod lands and the passengers have disembarked."

There we go again, the smoke bit is another one of your made up rules.
By your idea If I put cotton wool all around my vehicle then my opponent could not shoot at the vehicle at all, as it would be out of LOS, rather silly don't you think?
Why don't we just play by the rules instead.

[Tynskel]

Thats no misquote, like seattle said thats what it actually says.

Talking of misquotes it does not say that a suitable marker must block the tanks line of sight, thereby preventing it from shooting. What it actually says on pg 62 BRB is "Place some cotton wool or other suitable marker on or around the vehicle to show that it is obscured". The key word here is show, it does not say place a marker to obscure the vehicle, it says place it to show that it is obscured. There is a massive difference here, one is literal the other is symbolic. The marker is there to denote that the vehicle has popped smoke, not to define its effects.

Here we go again with interpretations:

You are stating that show = symbolic. Where did you come up with that? That is for sure not 'RAW'. Show is to make clear, to be seen, visable-- in fact, placing cotton down DOES block LOS. It is a physical obstruction on the board. It is in no way 'symbolic'.

This just drives home my point. Not taking to context the entire situation at hand. As I said before--- the whole section there is the rules for smoke launchers--- every part of it is the rules, not one section, not ONE word--- the entire thing.

I never use the cotton, although I should, but the way the rule is written, you don't have too, there is a 'back-up' mechanic for those that do not have things beyond the models.

[AirHorse]

By the way, airhorse, codex rules overrule the main rulebook--- the repair rules cannot be used in this situation because those rules are independent of the main rulebook. Just like if you used smoke launchers from Black Templars--- those rules override the main rulebook. GW has stated this many many times.

Did you even read what I said at all? I didnt even slightly suggest using repair while smoke is popped, I compared the situation of using repair to the situation of using smokes.

You are continuing to throw out less than convincing vagueries into this arguement and seem to be changing your mind about the reason that embarked units wouldnt be able to shoot in the first place. The facts are clear even if you choose to try and work around them.

[ArchonPhelps]

I used to play the same way. I think that rule must have been an old rule or something.

[Tynskel]

Did you even read what I said at all? I didnt even slightly suggest using repair while smoke is popped, I compared the situation of using repair to the situation of using smokes.

You are continuing to throw out less than convincing vagueries into this arguement and seem to be changing your mind about the reason that embarked units wouldnt be able to shoot in the first place. The facts are clear even if you choose to try and work around them.

Did you even read what I said?

I said that Codex Rules override the rulebook (that's a given by GW). You cannot cite a codex rule as an example in this argument about how the Main Rulebook works. You need to cite an example from the Main Rulebook that supports your case. Unfortunately, the only other rules to cite that are directly related to this situation are rules that state that embarked units cannot fire whenever the tank cannot fire.

You also did not address my previous comment that you are interpreting the rules, ignoring the context, and citing individual words with a specific meaning that is not described by the context. This is the whole point of my argument: that if you are going to say you can fire while using smoke launchers, that you have to specify that you are interpreting the rules within a context that Passengers may 'always' get to fire.

This is why all rules reading are RAI, even when they are RAW. You interpret the rules with the context the rules are given, and with your own 'initial conditions' (ie viewpoint).

[addamsfamily36]

[QUOTE]The Deep Strike is the Land Raiders move, unless you are suggesting that the Mystics can shoot something off the table...
Notice in the FAQ that a DSing unit does complete it's move before the mystics can shoot.
DH FAQ. Q. Do Inquisitorial Mystics allow “free shots” at
units arriving by Drop Pod?
A. Yes. The shooting is resolved after the Drop
Pod lands and the passengers have disembarked."

FAQ's are definitely NOT rules. Errata's yes FAQ's are just another persons opinion. they are rarely written by the initial rules writer of a codex or ruebook. That being said it is valid for mystics to shoot once a unit had
s deepstriked, but again the rules don"t mention smokes. why?

i can hear you already : "because it only effects in the next shooting phase"

which is when the tank would normally be shot at, but then u get little tricks like this one and gamesworkshop might have overlooked it. same with the passengers onboard.

But rules / wordings such as place a marker to show that the tank is obscured. I mean go to tanks and obscured and you'll see a picture of a small portion of a tank sticking out of some terrain.

[SeattleDV8]

LOL , all RAW is RAI...heh...I'm sorry but thats a load of total and complete crap.
Rules As Written are not Rules As Intended...lol not even close.

Unfortunately, the only other rules to cite that are directly related to this situation are rules that state that embarked units cannot fire whenever the tank cannot fire.

Which is still a rule that you made up.
It does not exsist in the rule book.

You also did not address my previous comment that you are interpreting the rules, ignoring the context, and citing individual words with a specific meaning that is not described by the context.
No that would be you Tynskel. this 'context ' idea is also your own 'interpration' of how the rules work.
You may not make up rules and pretend that it is RAW (or RAI ) ...heh
Because that is what you are doing here, making things up.

Addamsfamily
I'm confused, you were telling us earlier How Tynskel's 'house rules' were so wonderful.
Now you are telling us that it is bad to follow GW's FAQs because they are "just another persons opinion"
Which is it?
Oh and that couldn't be you in the Sanguinary Priest debate that said

here are the rules:

BLOOD ANGELS CODEX:

blood chalice : all friendly UNITS within 6" are subject to the Furious charge and Feel No pain special rules.

(written word for word exactly, just not bold on the units word)

Blood angels FAQ ......
Oops, someone being logically dishonest....tsk tsk

Yes the smoked vehicle is obscured, but only when the rules tell us it is,
Not in your shooting phase ,not in your assault phase and not even in your foes movement phase.
Just when it tells us it is, which is in the enemies next shooting phase.

[Tynskel]

As I said before, I am not making rules up.

As for the Mystics firing: They fire after the Land Raider arrives, but before it has completed its move (ie Smoke Launchers). The FAQ directly addresses Drop Pods. They are allowing you the choice to shoot the Drop Pod, or The Unit that disembarks--- for example a Dreadnought would not be able to pop its smoke launchers until after the Mystics have directed fire at them.

As for the smoke launchers themselves, they still fire in the movement phase of the owning player and are in effect all the way to the end of the opponent's shooting phase. They are there then entire time, if you put 'cotton' down, they Block LOS, which is why your tank becomes obscured, and why your embarked unit cannot fire. If you do not have cotton, there's a back-up mechanic, which is CONSISTENT with all other rules.

[MaxKool]

I just read through this and I have to say guys, no offence but its pathetic.

Ive been playing since god knows how long and NEVER has anyone EVER tried to shoot from a transport with smoke popped. Its stupid and makes no sence.

Using the give the thing being shot at a coversave... dosnt even work. Since smoke has been introduced it has taken a few differant forms. For example Templar and Dark Angel smoke... Treats all hits as glancing. So why would I make up a rule and give them a cover save when I dont get one. That arguement only applies to new smoke. If we handle it the way you guys seem to be arugeing it its invnenting a rule.

I cant count how many times the designers have come out and said " just cause the BRB dosnt say you cant dosnt mean you can, If it makes no sence or seems to give an advantage its probably wrong/cheating."

If the tank with its machine spirit ect cant see through the smoke to shoot, how the hell to the tropps inside see anything.

Ive never played in a tourniment that allowed this kind of action (and ive played in ALOT of tournies over the years)

I normaly just troll, read and laugh... but I had to post as this is utter garbage. I cant belive it went on for 7 pages.....
You guys play yer WAAC crap all you want but next time yer in adapticon or somthign similar try n pull this **** n see how long it lasts.

Sory again, im not normaly like this, its just so mind numbingly moronic...


PS, what about dedicated transports bought as part of the unit... How does this interact with this? Would then this unit not be able to fire as its part of the unit? You cant cherry pick rules

[addamsfamily36]

Oh and that couldn't be you in the Sanguinary Priest debate that said

If you really want to bring into this debate another debate in which NO ONE could prove me wrong not even close, then by all means do.


As for house rules, tynkels points etc etc. Im going to jsut say scrap that for a moment, as i put this question to a few people today at gamesday. (i know its alot of pages of arguing to scrap but this might be worth a look, and if i'm wrong then ill yield) can't promise more than that.


Someone informed me that in the transport section its states (and i know im going to get shouted at but i can;t give page references or quotes because im up at gamesday for the day) that units embarked in transports follow the same rules for vehicle firing.

For example:

If you do not move you can fire all vehicle weapons and up to however many weapons from the embarked uni allowed by fire points. If you move 6 inches you can fire defensive weapons, but must choose between the tanks weapons or the embarked units if they are of a certain strength. etc etc.

then if you move flat out neither can shoot etc etc

So maybe the answer can be found somewhere in the there?

Just curious as i can;t get to my rulebook for least few days and its driving me nuts.

[Tynskel]

That's what I have been saying. If you look at the rules as a whole, not discrete units, and understand that complex rules overlay the simple ones, the passengers follow what the transport is doing. Every example of where the vehicle cannot shoot, the passengers cannot shoot.

Smoke Launchers are in the simple rules section for vehicles. There are 2 sets of rules within them: Physical rules, where you add terrain, and Mechanical rules, if you do not have the 'cotton' to add to the board. In both cases, the passengers would not be able to fire.

[SeattleDV8]

If you really want to bring into this debate another debate in which NO ONE could prove me wrong not even close, then by all means do.


Oh no you were correct in that debate, BUT you also used the FAQ to back up your point.
That is where you are being logical dishonest.
You can't use them in one debate and then claim they have no standing in another.

Tynskel
You are still misinterpreting basic game design for rules.
Any (and all) games start with the basic rules, they then add the exceptions and special rules as they go along.
You have not proven that in all cases where the vehicle may not fire the passengers may not fire.
Passenengers count as moving if the vehicle moves.
Even if the vehicle can fire (fast vehicle moving at cruising speed) the passengers can not fire at cruising or flat-out speed.

So the vehicle fire does not match the passengers.

A rhino repairing itself may not fire, but has no effect on the passengers
And before you start on the codex isn't the main rules the Codex is the specific rules that over-rule the BRB
Just like you claim the' complex rules overlay the simple ones.'
So which is it, do only the 'complex 'rules in the BRB overlay or does the codex also.
You have not proven that in all cases where the vehicle may not fire the passengers may not fire.
Once again you are making things up.

As to the Deep strike rules
BRB Pg. 95 " In the movement phase when they arrive, these units may not move any further, other than to disemark...."
If you can not move further then how can you claim that the units movement is not over?
Oh making things up again.

[Tynskel]

Hey Buck-O
Go read the Daemon Hunter entry--- the Mystics fire before you complete your movement "before the enemy unit moves, as an exception to the normal movement sequence"--- that's what it says! It is a codex rule, so it trumps the Main Rulebook.

Rhinos are a codex rule, too, they override the Main Rulebook. They do not Overlay, they simply replace. GW has said multiple times that Codex Rules TRUMP main rulebook--- that is not overlaying.

Complex rules, however, do not replace simple rules, they fit within the matrix of simple rules.

Look at Leadership--- when making a Ld Check, the unit's leadership is based upon the model with the highest leadership. Later, the more complex rule comes in, and you have to make a morale check-- a 'special type of leadership check'. However, they do not override the Ld check mechanics, they just simply overlay, and you, once again, default to the simple rule and use the highest Ld Model for the check.

Fire point entry states that models count as moving if the vehicle moves, and specifically states they cannot fire at cruising speed. If you read the entry CAREFULLY for Fast and for Fire Points, one you will note that the entry for fast uses different language. Note that the rules for Fast state they are 'like' combat speed when moving at cruising speed, however, you are still moving at cruising speed. If it had said, cruising speed BECOMES combat Speed, and Combat Speed BECOMES stationary, then your argument would work.

As I said before, the complex Rules in the Main Rulebook overlay the simpler ones-- they do not replace the simpler rules.

The Passengers do not get to fire whenever a vehicle cannot fire.

As for your argument for most games, the 40k Rulebook is not laid out exactly like a normal rulebook. Special Rules in most games simply replace the simple rule--- 40k Rulebook almost always adds in addition to the normal rules. This is distinct difference in the use of language.

Many people complain about how GW writes their rules, but they are surprisingly well written. Better than almost any rulebook out there, because almost every other game system just simply replaces rules, where GW goes one step further and teaches you how to play through simple examples, then overlaying more and more complexities. The use language is superb, conveying much more information than an average rulebook does. They created a game system that allows the simplest minds (children) to easily pick up how to play, that still engages full blown adults who have been playing since 80's n' 90's (like me).

[addamsfamily36]

Oh no you were correct in that debate, BUT you also used the FAQ to back up your point.
That is where you are being logical dishonest.
You can't use them in one debate and then claim they have no standing in another.

In that debate i did also say that FAQ's are not rules. i was then ignored and people tried to argue they were. so i showed that even if you excepted them as rules, then the outcome would still be the same.

Went into a local gw today to get a look at the sections i wanted to. I'm still of he opinion that for purposes of shooting the embarked unit is effected by the tank for shooting. In all instances. (and will probably continue to play this way)

However as i can find no statement that specifically says they can't then i am yielding and handing this one (personally) to seattledv8.

Also if i'm honest, i always move flat out and smokes first turn anyways so i never get the chance to fire out of a tank lol.

[AirHorse]

Im sorry Tynskel but you are just talking absolute drivel about how the rule book works now.

The repair rule being in a codex has absolutely no bearing on its validity as an example of a similar situation to smoke launchers.

How does the fast vehicle rule being written as it is invalidate seattles arguement? Your entire arguement is that vehicles firing and passengers firing are a connected set of rules and that because in all instances where one cant fire the other cant either. Therefore since smoke stops a vehicle firing the passengers cant either. This is another situation(just like repair) where we have proven that this is clearly not the case.

Clearly the conclusion that if one cannot fire neither can the other is a false one, meaning that a rule must explicitly state that it prevents the passengers from firing. Smoke launchers do not, therefore passengers can fire when smokes are popped. Once again all of this is very clear in the rules.

[Tynskel]

you keep citing repair--- that's a codex rule, not a Rulebook rule---- has NOTHING to do with this argument, because we all know that Codex Trumps Rulebook.

You guys have not proven anything--- "How does the fast vehicle rule being written as it is invalidate seattles arguement? Your entire arguement is that vehicles firing and passengers firing are a connected set of rules and that because in all instances where one cant fire the other cant either. Therefore since smoke stops a vehicle firing the passengers cant either. This is another situation(just like repair) where we have proven that this is clearly not the case."

In fact your statement makes no sense. And, that's NOT what I said. I said the rules follow a Hierarchy. Complex Rules overlay Simple Rules---- they do NOT replace them.

I demonstrated that Buck-O's argument is invalid because it uses different language from the previous rules--- Fast rules overlay the simpler rules. They make situations more complicated, and the default rules (simpler) always are in place unless SPECIFICALLY noted. The passengers cannot fire at cruising speed, and the Fast Tank rules do not change the cruising speed to combat speed. Nor does the fast vehicle moving at combat speed change to stationary move, therefore, the passengers are still considered moving.

My argument is still entirely consistent. The Complex rules in 40k do NOT replace the simpler rules. Smoke Launchers is a simple rule for Tanks. Passengers are a complex rule for Tanks. Fast is a Complex rule for Passengers (and Tanks). The hierarchy is rules flow back to the simple rule as the point of reference. That's how the rulebook is setup, and that is why this is RAW.

I noticed no one is arguing the Leadership Rules---- they work EXACTLY the same way. A Morale Check does not replace the Leadership Check rules. Nor does the Leadership Rules replace the Characteristic Test Rules. Ect ect.

Here's something simple:

I have a basket with FRUIT. In the Basket are APPLES, and ORANGES. Of the APPLES there are GALA and WASHINGTON. I pull out a WASHINGTON. It is a FRUIT. I pull out a GALA, it is an APPLE. I try to call it a WASHINGTON, but it is NOT. Now I pull out a piece of FRUIT, it is an ORANGE. Can I call it an APPLE, NO. Can I call it a WASHINGTON, NO. I can only call it an ORANGE or FRUIT.

Same reasoning with the Main Rulebook. The Smoke Launchers are Fruit. The Passengers are Apples, and the Fast is Gala. If you pop smoke, you effect all fruit. If you pop fast, you are only a Gala. This is what makes this rulebook awesome, because you can completely cut out FAST and still have functioning rules set. You can cut out Passenger rules, and it wouldn't change anything--- it is only when you cut out tanks when things become sketchy, but you can still just play with all non-tanks. The rule system is so abundantly clear, and awesome, that little kids can understand it better than you guys can, because you are adding a level of complication that DOES NOT exist in the rulebook.

[SeattleDV8]

you keep citing repair--- that's a codex rule, not a Rulebook rule---- has NOTHING to do with this argument, because we all know that Codex Trumps Rulebook.
LOL and how is that different from your 'complex overlays simple' ?
Which of course does not exist , except in your own mind.
Specific >general is the real basis from any game design.


You guys have not proven anything--- <snip>
yes we have, it is you that has not proven anything.



In fact your statement makes no sense. And, that's NOT what I said. I said the rules follow a Hierarchy. Complex Rules overlay Simple Rules---- they do NOT replace them.
Really? Show us where in the rules that is.
You can't because it is something you make up.



I demonstrated that Buck-O's argument is invalid because it uses different language from the previous rules--- Fast rules overlay the simpler rules. They make situations more complicated, and the default rules (simpler) always are in place unless SPECIFICALLY noted. The passengers cannot fire at cruising speed, and the Fast Tank rules do not change the cruising speed to combat speed. Nor does the fast vehicle moving at combat speed change to stationary move, therefore, the passengers are still considered moving.
LOL all you demonstrated is that you have no clue. Your answer is double speak.
By your own logic the Fast rules must 'overlay' the 'simple' rules
Guess what you can not even follow your own twisted logic.




My argument is still entirely consistent. The Complex rules in 40k do NOT replace the simpler rules. Smoke Launchers is a simple rule for Tanks. Passengers are a complex rule for Tanks. Fast is a Complex rule for Passengers (and Tanks). The hierarchy is rules flow back to the simple rule as the point of reference. That's how the rulebook is setup, and that is why this is RAW.
Small point , smoke is a rule for Vehicles, (tanks are a subset of vehicles)
No you are not consistent, you change every time someone proves you wrong.
Again more of the jibber jabber that you have make up.



I noticed no one is arguing the Leadership Rules---- they work EXACTLY the same way. A Morale Check does not replace the Leadership Check rules. Nor does the Leadership Rules replace the Characteristic Test Rules. Ect ect.
Manily because it has no bearing to the debate.



Here's something simple:

I have a basket with FRUIT. In the Basket are APPLES, and ORANGES. Of the APPLES there are GALA and WASHINGTON. I pull out a WASHINGTON. It is a FRUIT. I pull out a GALA, it is an APPLE. I try to call it a WASHINGTON, but it is NOT. Now I pull out a piece of FRUIT, it is an ORANGE. Can I call it an APPLE, NO. Can I call it a WASHINGTON, NO. I can only call it an ORANGE or FRUIT.

Same reasoning with the Main Rulebook. The Smoke Launchers are Fruit. The Passengers are Apples, and the Fast is Gala. If you pop smoke, you effect all fruit. If you pop fast, you are only a Gala. This is what makes this rulebook awesome, because you can completely cut out FAST and still have functioning rules set. You can cut out Passenger rules, and it wouldn't change anything--- it is only when you cut out tanks when things become sketchy, but you can still just play with all non-tanks. The rule system is so abundantly clear, and awesome, that little kids can understand it better than you guys can, because you are adding a level of complication that DOES NOT exist in the rulebook.

Amusing, the only complication and adding of rules is coming from you.
BTW your 'example' is total rubbish and makes no sense.

[Tynskel]

Hah! I was demonstrating hierarchy---- since you don't get that, my explanation will never make sense to you.

As for your first statement---- complex overlay simple does not equate to replace rules. Codex rules REPLACE the rulebook rules---- something that I pointed out earlier that most rulebooks do, but not the Main Rulebook for 40k.

I have demonstrated the Hierarchy within the rules set----- with the Leadership example that you say is not related---- but it is completely related to my argument. Here's another example: Tanks Shock and Ram. Tank Shock would be the 'simple' rules. Ram is the complex overlay---- does Ram replace Tank Shock? No--- the rules state that Ram is a special type of Tank Shock. Ram works within the Tank Shock rules and is a Tank Shock. However, if you declare tank shock, you cannot ram. If you declare Ram, you can Tank Shock. GW has demonstrated through their FAQs, too, that GW follows this rules hierarchy. People said that Ram is not Tank Shock, but the recent ork FAQ states clearly that the rules Hierarchy is how to interpret the rules: Complex Rules overlay Simple Rules.

You keep saying I am changing my argument: The thing is, my argument has been the same from the beginning. Complex Rules overlay Simple Rules--- otherwise know as a Rules Hierarchy.

Fast Rules DO overlay the simple rules---- I'll say it again---- THEY DO NOT REPLACE SIMPLE RULES.

Let me repeat my argument:

COMPLEX RULES OVERLAY SIMPLE RULES---- THEY DO NOT REPLACE SIMPLE RULES. This is why Fast doesn't allow Passengers to fire at Cruising Speed. This is also why Passengers cannot fire during Smoke---- The complex rule NEVER overrides the simple rule, unless explicitly stating so. Here's an example: Leadership is a characteristic--- if leadership was called to take a characteristic test, would you just roll 1d6 and hope to roll equal to or higher than your characteristic (1 always fails)? No, because the more complex rules EXPLICITLY states to override the simple rule by rolling 2d6 add them together, compare to highest Ld in unit. Now we go to a more complex situation: Morale checks. More checks are a special type of Ld check, they have different results from the test, and have specific conditions when the test activated: However, they do not replace the Leadership Rules (the simpler rule), and still make the 2d6 vs highest Ld in the unit.

These are just two examples that reenforce my point that the Passenger Rules DO NOT replace the vehicle rules--- they work within the framework of the vehicle rules, only replacing rules IF explicitly stating so.
CODEX RULES TRUMP RULEBOOK RULES, THEY DO!! REPLACE RULEBOOK RULES. ----- Why Repair has NOTHING to do with this argument. Also why Mystics fire before you can pop smoke.

[Old_Paladin]

You know what this has turned into a parallel of: a debate on deism.
The one group says their Deity exists and challenges the other group to disprove its existence (which is logically impossible); and at the same time the other group demands they prove the existence in the first place (also logically impossible).

Again, I side with Tynskel (even though I don't agree with all his arguments made here), is that the Other group is making false initial positions, in order to gain their result.
Nowhere under firing point does it say 'models may always fire: and here are the only exceptions.' So the argument that they can, is already a faulty proposition.

So once again, I ask that what they other group demands of Tynskel, they apply to themselves (ie. Stop Making up Rules!).
The addition of a single idea (like the notion of always, with limited definitions on limitations), is easy to do, but it’s also a logical fallacy.

[AirHorse]

That arguement is fundamentally flawed though old paladin. There are not many rules that say "you can always do this" in those exact words, but that ability is inferred. Infact look at the basic rules for shooting in general. pg 15 BRB "During the shooting phase, any and all of your units may fire.", and then later on that page there is a section that explicitly lists situations that disallow shooting(and it also says there are others not listed here, i.e other rules can stop you shooting if they say so). No where does it say you can always shoot, but it makes it clear that shooting is allowed unless otherwise specified.

This is almost identical to the rules for using firepoints. pg 66 BRB "Unless specified differently in the vehicles entry, a single passenger may fire out of a fire point and the other transported models may not fire.", and then it continues by listing explicitly situations which prevent this from being allowed.

If you are going to follow a precedent and draw a conclusion then the precedent set by the general shooting rules is the one to follow. A unit is allowed to shoot, unless a rule otherwise prevents it. This is the same for passengers. A passenger which is able to shoot may fire out of a fire point unless a rule tells you otherwise. Nothing about smoke launchers tells you the embarked unit is unable to shoot or use firepoints.

Vehicles being unable to shoot themselves works in the exact same manner, it is an extension of the shooting rules. Fire points however are not an extension of vehicle shooting rules, they are a property that a vehicle can have, with rules that extend from the general shooting rules, not the vehicle shooting rules. Meaning a vehicles ability to shoot in no way has any effect on its passengers.

[Old_Paladin]

Sorry Air, but you just gave the worst lines of thought possible.
"All units may... nowhere does is say always"

In fact, you proved the opposite of what you said. It does say they may all infantry can shoot, and then gives an exact set of circumstances in which infantry may not.
And I say infantry, because that's what the majority of these shooting rules apply to. Vehicles have a whole sperate section for themselves, because they are very different.

Passangers are a weird limbo unit that have often caused problem (their actual state of existance, leadership test on the unit, etc.).

[AirHorse]

All and always are two completely seperate words...

And my entire point was that units can always shoot, unless otherwise specified....

[Old_Paladin]

All and always are two completely seperate words....

But not if used in the same context.
"All humans die" and "Humans always die" are exactly the same.
"All humans are mortal" and "Humans are always mortal" seem different but are still actually the same if used within the same context [they are only ever different in theoritical worlds that have a known and gainable possibility that is never actualized (ie. A universe in which people could and can live forever, combined with the knowledge that no human will actually ever undergo such a state)].


And back to the argument:
You once again broke your own rules.
You just said the rulebook says "all units may...", then you claim all and always are different words, then you say that "units can always fire..."
So which is it?

And I'll agree that infantry units can always fire (as it states they can outright, followed by exception);
but I don't give that extention to passengers, which behave differently, have to follow situation based upon the vehicle itself and never say "may always fire, except..."

[AirHorse]

I didnt make any contradictions at all, and quite frankly ive had enough of these replies which put their own meanings into my posts. You are changing the meaning of my posts to suit yourself, this is not an arguement anymore, its rediculous.

[Tynskel]

I didnt make any contradictions at all, and quite frankly ive had enough of these replies which put their own meanings into my posts. You are changing the meaning of my posts to suit yourself, this is not an arguement anymore, its rediculous.

No, we are not changing the meaning of your posts--- what is going on is a different point of view--- the meaning of your post changes depending on your reference frame. That's why it is important to make sure that your word choice is fitting exactly what you are trying to say.

Old Paladin has a point---

I brought it up earlier, that we are BOTH using RAW. We are using our initial conditions to determine an outcome. However, our equilibrium points are completely different due to our initial conditions, because the Rulebook format allows for multiple equilibria.

[ArchonPhelps]

Well since you are saying that the vehicle can not shoot then the people inside cant shoot. What if the vehicle's weapon is destroyed? Does that mean that the passengers inside can not shoot? After all it does not say they can shoot but also like you have "clearly" noted, that in all examples where the vehicle can not shoot the passengers can not either.

I'm not saying, just saying.

[SeattleDV8]

No, we are not changing the meaning of your posts--- what is going on is a different point of view--- the meaning of your post changes depending on your reference frame. That's why it is important to make sure that your word choice is fitting exactly what you are trying to say.

Old Paladin has a point---

I brought it up earlier, that we are BOTH using RAW. We are using our initial conditions to determine an outcome. However, our equilibrium points are completely different due to our initial conditions, because the Rulebook format allows for multiple equilibria.

Nope, you just Make stuff up Tynskel, and add all sorts of jibber jabber to support it.

Old Paladin

And I'll agree that infantry units can always fire (as it states they can outright, followed by exception);
but I don't give that extention to passengers, which behave differently, have to follow situation based upon the vehicle itself and never say "may always fire, except...
Which proves you are incorrect.
BRB pg. 15 "...the target unit may open fire."
BRB pg. 66" ...a single passenger may fire....."
Sorry sir, but there is no difference between a infantry model and passenger.

[Tynskel]

Well since you are saying that the vehicle can not shoot then the people inside cant shoot. What if the vehicle's weapon is destroyed? Does that mean that the passengers inside can not shoot? After all it does not say they can shoot but also like you have "clearly" noted, that in all examples where the vehicle can not shoot the passengers can not either.

I'm not saying, just saying.

no, that analogy does not work.

If a vehicle's weapon is destroyed, and the vehicle can normally fire, the vehicle can still fire--- it just doesn't have any weapons to fire with. Just like Hormogaunts could fire: they have a BS, but they don't shoot weapons in the Shooting Phase because they do not have guns--- does this prevent them from 'Running'? No, they simply forgo their shooting to run.


As for SeattleDV8--- sure, ignore all the precedents in the rulebook. I am sorry (not really) that you have simply gone from trying to prove your point, to just saying that I am lying.

Here I can go further with another rules example of Complex Rules overlay Simple Rules:
Independent Characters: These guys do not replace the rules in any way--- they just have Complex rules that fit overlay the framework of the simple rules.
Here's an example where the Rulebook EXPLICITLY changes the simple rules for more complex rules:
Jump Infantry: move 12", ignore intervening terrain, and fall back 3d6"--- these rules explicitly replace the simple rules.

[Mal]

with a grey area rule in friendly games you use 'the best rule' to determine, i.e. roll a D6 1-3 no, 4-6 yes.

in a tournament setting, ask a judge or see if they have their own ruling...

arguing doesn't help anyone.

[DarkLink]

arguing doesn't help anyone.

At least not arguing like this. I didn't bother once it kind of turned into a "I'm right, your wrong. No I'm right and your wrong..." thing. Not that anyone here's being rude or anything, but the arguments seem to have just gone around and around each other.

[Duke]

Well, I think that about sums it up... Time to close up the bar. I hope someone left feeling like they got a clear answer...

Duke