Land Raider popping smoke + power of the machine spirit

[Tyrsday]

I'm sure someone has already asked this, but after a cursory look into the search forum box I couldn't find an answer.

So if a Land Raider moves however far, pops smoke, can it then in the shooting phase shoot one weapon thanks to power of the machine spirit? The wording states that popping smoke doesn't allow you to shoot, just like cruising, and the codex says that PotMS allows you to shoot one more weapon than normally allowed. Well the normal allowance of 0 + 1 for PotMS= 1 weapon used in the shooting phase by the LR.

We allowed it in the game I played last night, but I just wanted to get some clarification. Thanks.

[PhoenixFlame]

I would have to check the wording again to be 100% and I don't have my book in front of me just now, but I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. I think the reasoning as you've described it holds true.

[Lord Azaghul]

I'm pretty sure that one would be a 'no'. If it were yes then by the same logic leman russ' could fire their main gun and pop smoke thanks to the lumbering behemoth rule.
Do you really want to see that?

[Xas]

afaik the wording of POTMS states that you can fire one weapon more than you could fire and one weapon if you mvoed full ahead or were stunned.

afaik this means you cannot shoot after smoking (but I'd also read it that you cannot shoot if you are stunned AND moved full ahead).

[DarkLink]

The Leman Russ Lumbering Behemoth rule uses a different wording than PotMS does, so one would not affect the other. Lumbering Behemoth can't shoot after using smoke because of the way its rule is worded, while PotMS has a different wording that makes this theoretically possible.

Technically, you are correct. I don't play it this way, but I cannot find any justification in the rules that invalidates this interpretation. PotMS can shoot with smoke, unless GW FAQ's it.

Edit:
PotMS only says "The Land Raider can fire one more weapon than normally permitted... ...Therefore a Land Raider that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons... etc"

1. The Land Raider can fire one more weapon than normally allowed (smoke allows no shooting, so PotMS allows one shot)

2. The second part of the rule simply provides examples. It does NOT state "a land raider can only do this under X circumstances". It states "because of this ability, a land raider can do cool stuff like this" and then gives EXAMPLES. Key word being examples. The rule does not offer a definite list of the exact circumstances the rule can be used, it just gives examples. Thus, there is nothing to prevent point #1 from being true.

[Tyrsday]

Alright cool, thanks.

[Pi666]

Then, an "old codex" Land Raider Crusader can move 12", pop smoke, and shoot the Assault Cannon and the hurricane bolters? Don't think so, and i remember reading that you can pop smoke INSTEAD of shooting, that makes one or another, not both.

[mercer]

The POTMS does give examples, which are crew shaken and crew stunned and doesn't mention anything about smoke. I guess if it could it would say fire even popped smoke.

[DarkLink]

Then, an "old codex" Land Raider Crusader can move 12", pop smoke, and shoot the Assault Cannon and the hurricane bolters? Don't think so, and i remember reading that you can pop smoke INSTEAD of shooting, that makes one or another, not both.

Old codex Hurricane Bolters merely allow you to move 12" and still fire them. There is no reason to assume that this allows you to fire them when also using smoke (or when stunned for that matter). The rules say "in this specific circumstance, you can still fire them".

However, PotMS is worded differently. Basically, you are allowed to shoot one more weapon than normal. Smoke disallows shooting, meaning you are not allowed to fire any weapons. PotMS lets you fire on weapon, though, because it is one more than normally allowed. Old Hurricane bolters have no bearing on this, and are unrelated (similarly to how Lumbering Behemoth is a different rule, with different wording and meaning).

Now, as I mentioned, I don't play my Land Raiders like this. But I can't find any rules justification that actually disallows it.


EDIT: I'm actually surprised that this issue doesn't come up very often. I've heard it mentioned before, but I've never seen a thread about it specifically, until now.

[phoenyxx]

Smoke disallows all shooting, regardless of its source. No shooting from the vehicle, no shooting from the crew, no shooting from the embarked passengers, and no shooting from PotMS. No shooting is no shooting. You are not permitted to shoot at all if you pop smoke.

[Culven]

i don't have all of the necessary rules to hand, so maybe someone can illuminate me. Does the use of Smoke Launchers (any of the versions) prevent the vehicle from "shooting" or does it limit the number of weapons which may be fired? If it prevents the vehicle from shooting, then I don't think that it would matter that PotMS would allow an additional weapon to fire. Crusing Speed limits the number of weapons which can be fired, so PotMS would increase this by one. Shaken/Stunned are (IIRC) specifically mentioned in the PotMS rules, so would be an exception to the "vehicle may not shoot" issue.

[Nabterayl]

Smoke disallows all shooting, regardless of its source. No shooting from the vehicle, no shooting from the crew, no shooting from the embarked passengers, and no shooting from PotMS. No shooting is no shooting. You are not permitted to shoot at all if you pop smoke.
So do moving at cruising speed, Crew Shaken and Crew Stunned, but Power of the Machine Spirit overrides those rules. The wording is instructive:


A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted. In addition, this weapon can be fired at a different target unit to any other weapons, subject to the normal rules for Shooting.

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

The third paragraph of PotMS is worded as giving examples of what the second paragraph's rule does. It is not worded as giving an exhaustive list. All three examples disallow all shooting, regardless of source - no shooting from the vehicle, no shooting from the crew, no shooting from the embarked passengers. I see no reason why smoke should be different.

[Nabterayl]

i don't have all of the necessary rules to hand, so maybe someone can illuminate me. Does the use of Smoke Launchers (any of the versions) prevent the vehicle from "shooting" or does it limit the number of weapons which may be fired? If it prevents the vehicle from shooting, then I don't think that it would matter that PotMS would allow an additional weapon to fire. Crusing Speed limits the number of weapons which can be fired, so PotMS would increase this by one. Shaken/Stunned are (IIRC) specifically mentioned in the PotMS rules, so would be an exception to the "vehicle may not shoot" issue.

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

The thing is, cruising speed doesn't actually limit the number of weapons which can be fired. Cruising speed says "Vehicles that moved at cruising speed may not fire," and Fast vehicles get an exception to that rule.

Then there's Crew Stunned and Crew Shaken, each of which state "The vehicle may not shoot until the end of its next player turn." So we have the following wordings:

Vehicles that moved at cruising speed may not fire.
The vehicle may not shoot until the end of its next player turn.
The vehicle may not shoot until the end of its next player turn.
The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers.
Power of the Machine Spirit overrides 1, 2, and 3. I am at a loss to explain how 4 is any different from those.

[Lord Azaghul]

Agreed. You can't use PotMS to fire when you use smoke.
Reread the lumbering behomth rules:
"A Lemen Russ that moved at Combat Speed or remained stationary can fire its turrent weapon in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire."

Well I blew smoke, so I can't fire my normal weapons, but I can fire my turret? Nope, some thing.

Its a very similar wording.

Smoke Rules: 'The vehicle may not fire ANY of its weapons in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers,'

[Nabterayl]

Azaghul, or somebody else, can you explain to me what the principle is that distinguishes the smoke wording from the Crew Stunned, Crew Shaken, or cruising speed wording?

[Unholy_Martyr]

If you want to look at it from a standpoint of logic, Smoke Launchers effectively "blind" enemy units in some way shape or form (in this case by putting up a smoke screen). In the same way that the enemy cannot draw direct line of sight to you, you could not draw a direct line of sight to them as well. So in a way you could still fire a weapon, but it would be like taking a blind shot...so yeah you could pull it off but your enemy would be considered to have a cover save as well...

I had this discussion a few weeks back at my local gaming store and it was agreed that "any of its weapons" was a literal description so no matter what, even Power of the Machine Spirit could allow one to shoot.

[Lord Azaghul]

Azaghul, or somebody else, can you explain to me what the principle is that distinguishes the smoke wording from the Crew Stunned, Crew Shaken, or cruising speed wording?

Aside from the solid explanation by the previous poster.

Smoke is something to you to prevent in coming fire, You can't see me I can't see you. Its my choice to pop smoke OR shoot.

Stuned and shaken are results forced upon you, as are the result from cruising speed - thus one can not normally shoot. PotSM says its not bothered by shaken or stunned result - the machine (now the crew) and still fire.
I guess I would assume that machine can't 'see' to fire in smoke is blown. I'm not sure if that helps.

[Nabterayl]

Aside from the solid explanation by the previous poster.

Smoke is something to you to prevent in coming fire, You can't see me I can't see you. Its my choice to pop smoke OR shoot.

Stuned and shaken are results forced upon you, as are the result from cruising speed - thus one can not normally shoot. PotSM says its not bothered by shaken or stunned result - the machine (now the crew) and still fire.
I guess I would assume that machine can't 'see' to fire in smoke is blown. I'm not sure if that helps.
Fair enough, from a fluff/common sense standpoint. But what about the actual wording of the rules? The wording of the rules is indistinguishable to me. "May not fire any of its weapons" is not a stronger statement than "may not fire" or "may not shoot."

[Lord Azaghul]

Fair enough, from a fluff/common sense standpoint. But what about the actual wording of the rules? The wording of the rules is indistinguishable to me. "May not fire any of its weapons" is not a stronger statement than "may not fire" or "may not shoot."

I think you have to look at the different rules set involved
1) Glace and Pen Chart
2) Smoke Rules
3) Movement Rules

To me Potsm Covers 1) and 3)
As does Lumbering Behemoth.
But neither Specifically mentions 2. I believe that is because 2 is not specifially overriden by Potms or LB rule. And does not interact with them what so ever.

I don't think I've ever had anyone use a LR to blow smoke and then fire...I think I'd call foul on it, though.

I think that this may come down to an RAW vs RAI. However In Both the Smoke and Potsm there is RAW for firing and not firing. To me this is more of 'common sense' thing, but there are other rules examples where common sense does not prevail.

Sorry that's about the best I can give you.:cool:

[Nabterayl]

I think you have to look at the different rules set involved
1) Glace and Pen Chart
2) Smoke Rules
3) Movement Rules

To me Potsm Covers 1) and 3)
As does Lumbering Behemoth.
But neither Specifically mentions 2. I believe that is because 2 is not specifially overriden by Potms or LB rule. And does not interact with them what so ever.

I don't think I've ever had anyone use a LR to blow smoke and then fire...I think I'd call foul on it, though.

I think that this may come down to an RAW vs RAI. However In Both the Smoke and Potsm there is RAW for firing and not firing. To me this is more of 'common sense' thing, but there are other rules examples where common sense does not prevail.

Sorry that's about the best I can give you.:cool:
I have no problem at all with a rule coming down to "well, the rule says you can do this but it makes no sense." I myself often play (in agreement with my group, of course) with house rules that break the RAW but that I think make more sense; I just like to know what the RAW actually is, you know?

From a RAW standpoint, I think that both PotMS and LB do allow you to pop smoke and fire one weapon (though in the case of LB, not if you've moved at cruising speed, and only if the one weapon you want to fire is your turret weapon). It's true that neither specifically mentions smoke, but I don't read either rule as giving an exact list of situations in which you can and cannot use the rule. Instead I think they both give a principle, and (in the case of PotMS) some examples (I'm hanging my hat on the "therefore" in PotMS here, so if you disagree that "therefore" means "here's some examples," fair enough). And matching up the smoke rules with the examples given, they seem identical to me - therefore I think they should be treated the same.

Just so we're clear - whether or not you'd play it that way, do you agree that I'm reading the RAW correctly? Or do think I'm wrong about the RAW, and you wouldn't play it that way? :P

[Lord Azaghul]

Just so we're clear - whether or not you'd play it that way, do you agree that I'm reading the RAW correctly? Or do think I'm wrong about the RAW, and you wouldn't play it that way? :P

By RAW I agree with you. I'm curious to see how people react when I tell them this at game night...(and I'm off to check the IG faq)

[phoenyxx]

So do moving at cruising speed, Crew Shaken and Crew Stunned, but Power of the Machine Spirit overrides those rules. The wording is instructive:


A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted. In addition, this weapon can be fired at a different target unit to any other weapons, subject to the normal rules for Shooting.

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

The third paragraph of PotMS is worded as giving examples of what the second paragraph's rule does. It is not worded as giving an exhaustive list. All three examples disallow all shooting, regardless of source - no shooting from the vehicle, no shooting from the crew, no shooting from the embarked passengers. I see no reason why smoke should be different.

Actually I would disagree with your comment about the second paragraph. I see nothing in the wording of the second paragraph that indicates it is a set of limited examples. On the contrary, I think that is meant to be an exhaustive list.

Which is one of 2 reasons PotMS does not apply to smoke. Smoke is not specifically included in the PotMS rules and is thus not overwritten by them. Therefore, smoke blocks PotMS.

In addition, you have the wording of the smoke rule. As multiple people here have pointed out, the smoke rules very specifically include the word "any". You've commented that "may not shoot any weapons" is not a stronger statement than "you may not fire". I disagree again. I believe there is a very intentional difference there and that "you may not shoot ANY weapon" means exactly that. That no firing is permitted under any circumstances.

That to me is the difference and how I interpret those rules.

Phoenyxx

[Nabterayl]

Actually I would disagree with your comment about the second paragraph. I see nothing in the wording of the second paragraph that indicates it is a set of limited examples. On the contrary, I think that is meant to be an exhaustive list.
I assume you mean that you think "Therefore" indicates that an exhaustive list is going to follow. If that's true then fair enough - we disagree on the English, and there's really no way to argue further. You've got a consistent view, though, which is all I can ask for.

EDIT: Okay, I couldn't resist. The structure of the PotMS rule is:
Principle
Therefore
Statement
Am I correct that you think it is self-evident that, in the structure above, #3 is always a limitation of #1? Because I think it's self-evident that #3 will always be an example of #1. If you disagree with me on this then okay, I guess we really don't have any way to argue.


In addition, you have the wording of the smoke rule. As multiple people here have pointed out, the smoke rules very specifically include the word "any". You've commented that "may not shoot any weapons" is not a stronger statement than "you may not fire". I disagree again.
Again, if that's your view of the English, then fair enough. I acknowledge that one statement includes the word "any" and the others do not, but I think it's self-evident that the two statements are of equivalent meaning and equivalent emphasis; you apparently think it's self-evident that they aren't. Assuming we're both native English speakers, I doubt either of us have any ways to argue the point. Thank you for taking an internally consistent view of the rules, even if it is different from mine.

[DarkLink]

Agreed. You can't use PotMS to fire when you use smoke.
Reread the lumbering behomth rules:
"A Lemen Russ that moved at Combat Speed or remained stationary can fire its turrent weapon in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire."

Well I blew smoke, so I can't fire my normal weapons, but I can fire my turret? Nope, some thing.

Its a very similar wording.

Smoke Rules: 'The vehicle may not fire ANY of its weapons in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers,'

Why would you think Lumbering Behemoth has anything to do with PotMS:confused:?

[Nabterayl]

I think it's not so much that they "have to do with" each other, so much as both are "you can fire one more weapon than normal" type mechanics. If you find it obvious that a Leman Russ can't fire its turret weapon after popping smoke, then to be internally consistent you probably have to admit that Power of the Machine Spirit doesn't allow you to fire one weapon after popping smoke, either.

If, on the other hand, you think that a Leman Russ can fire its turret weapon after popping smoke (as I do), then there's no argumentative point to the analogy.

[DarkLink]

Well, it's more like assuming that an apple will taste as good as an orange, because both are fruit.

When you assume A=B, you can't just assume that C=B, even if C is very similar to A. PotMS might have a similar effect as Lumbering Behemoth, but it does not have an identical one.

Lumbering Behemoth is worded in such a way (and worded in a way that is different than PotMS) that it cannot fire after using smoke. However, PotMS uses a slightly different wording, as in not identical, causing a slightly different effect. Though some aspects of the effects of the rules are similar, they are not identical.

Just because A ~ B* does not mean that A=B. It's just bad logic.

I can even do fancy maths to prove it, if you want ;).


* A~B, mathematically speaking, would mean that they are very close, but not necessarily identical, such as 8.00000000000001 ~ 8. In case you didn't know. Actually, it is technically a squiggly equals sign, but they don't have that button on the key board.

[entendre_entendre]

RAW makes this a toss-up. there are arguments for both sides based on slight differences in interpretation. what i've found is when RAW doesn't make itself clear, is to go to RAI. i mean the smoke is supposed to hide the vehicle from the enemy, who can't see the vehicle, and therefore have to guess where it is (hence the cover save). but if the tank fires, then the enemy would see the muzzle flash or beam of light or w/e, and know where the tank is based upon the location of the weapon fire.
if PotMS allowed you to shoot after smoking (that LR hasn't read the surgeon general's warning has it?) the enemy's conversation would go something like this:

sgt: "shoot that land raider!"
pvt: "sir, i can't really see it through all that smoke, i might miss it."
sgt: "WHAT?! you can't see the giant fire ball from that redeemer cannon?!?"
pvt: "... umm... yeah."
sgt: <facepalm>

does this make sense?
if PotMS was meant to override smoke, it'd be one of those examples, or in the FAQ already (it should be anyways, but i digress...).

[Nabterayl]

When you assume A=B, you can't just assume that C=B, even if C is very similar to A. PotMS might have a similar effect as Lumbering Behemoth, but it does not have an identical one.

Lumbering Behemoth is worded in such a way (and worded in a way that is different than PotMS) that it cannot fire after using smoke. However, PotMS uses a slightly different wording, as in not identical, causing a slightly different effect.
I get that they aren't identical, but I don't get how the operative clauses have different semantic meanings. The operative clause of PotMS is "can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted." The operative clause of LB is "can fire its turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire."

I understand that they aren't identical. But don't they both boil down to "can fire a number of weapons equal to X+1", where X is the number of weapons otherwise allowed to be fired? Even if X is zero, the end result is still that the number of weapons permitted to be fired is one.

EDIT: I understand the fluff arguments, but I don't find them entirely persuasive because they rely on the time sequence of the game being the time sequence of the reality, which seems contrary to the spirit of the rulebook. Mechanically, you move, then the next unit moves, then the next unit moves, then you shoot, then the next unit shoots, then the next unit shoots, then you charge, the next unit charges, the next unit charges, and you all fight at once. Obviously that's not what we're supposed to imagine the battlefield looks like. Similarly, mechanically, you move, then you pop smoke, then you shoot. But I see no reason why you couldn't move, shoot, and then pop smoke, since "popping smoke" is effectively just firing a weapon (since you're just triggering small mortars on the vehicle).

But Nab, you might say, doesn't that logic apply to every vehicle? Yes, it does, but then again, the whole PotMS makes no sense if you think about it too hard. A Predator's turret and sponsons are all slaved to the same firing station, for instance - and yet if the vehicle moves only one of those slaved weapons can fire? If we accept that a vehicle on the move can (for whatever Throne-forsaken reason) generally only fire one weapon, then I see no particular reason why a Land Raider's AI, which assists the crew in firing more than one weapon, couldn't assist the crew in firing at least one weapon before triggering the smoke mortars.

That doesn't make 100% sense, I know. But it doesn't make any less sense to me, as a fluff argument, than the idea that a vehicle crew can't shoot before they trigger the smoke mortars, or before the resultant smoke cloud has grown large enough to obscure their aim.

[jeffersonian000]

One of the issues that keeps popped up is that in previous editions, smoke was used in the shooting phase instead of shooting while in the current edition smoke is used after moving and only limits shooting. Power of the Machine Spirit overrides the normal limits on shooting by allowing one more weapon than normal to be fired, where smoke limits normal shooting to no weapons. Since PotMS allows us to fire one more than none, then one weapon can be fired using PotMS after smoke has been used regardless of movement. This is a loop whole built into the system that GW has not closed with an FAQ, which means that it is a legal option per the Rules as Written.

I've used it several times now in local games and tournaments; it's equivalent to firing one weapon through cover after you've moved, something an LR can already do which means that it is not a game breaking abuse of the rules.

SJ

[AirHorse]

To me this is totaly allowable, and for the landraiders rule at least, totaly makes sense. Its the machine spirit that is doing the targeting, you think smoke is going to have that big an effect on a machines targeting system? I seriously doubt it, it probaly tracks targets by heat and other forms of sensory perception. It also makes sense, the list is examples to me and not the be all and end all of what it works with. There could also be wargear that it lets you use an extra weapon on etc so I think its fine.

For the leman russ it is questionable, but from the wording it can still fire its turret while smoke is up. Perhaps with the leman russ they intended you can always fire your turret weapon without restriction when you fire one or more of your other weapons(seems a bit more like what they intended from the written).

[jeffersonian000]

The wording for Lumbering Behemoth is different from Power of the Machine Spirit, and seems to indicate that you must be able to fire at least one weapon to be able to fire a turret weapon, regardless of what the actual turret weapon is. However, this is implied only, as the rule only references restrictions caused by movement without mention of outside factors that deny the ability to fire weapons such as Vehicle Stunned or Shaken results (which PotMS specifically covers). LB is not a case of “fire one more weapon than normal”, it’s a case of “if you can fire a weapon, you can fire the turret, too.”

SJ

[DarkLink]

I get that they aren't identical, but I don't get how the operative clauses have different semantic meanings. The operative clause of PotMS is "can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted." The operative clause of LB is "can fire its turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire."

I understand that they aren't identical. But don't they both boil down to "can fire a number of weapons equal to X+1", where X is the number of weapons otherwise allowed to be fired? Even if X is zero, the end result is still that the number of weapons permitted to be fired is one.


There is actually a difference. Let's go with your (reasonable) simplification. Both guns allow you to fire X+1 weapons.

PotMS:
The Land Raider may fire X+1 weapons, from -1<x<[number of guns on the Land Raider]. So for the rule to work, x must be either 0,1,2,3, etc, up until we reach the number of guns on the Land Raider.

LB:
The Russ may fire X guns + Turret, so long as 0<x<[number of guns on Leman Russ]. This rule is different. In order to fire the Turret, you must be able to fire at least one other weapon. X cannot be zero like it can with the Land Raider.

There's the difference that matters. The fact that the Russ must be able to fire another weapon in the first place is what separates it from the PotMS, and makes it an irrelevant reference.

Even if the semantics are similar, if there is a difference in the details the implications of that difference prevent the arguments around one rule from being used as justification for the other.

[AirHorse]

Go read the lumbering behemoth rules again, it definately does no say you must fire another weapon to fire the turret, it says that a leman russ that stays stationary or moves at combat speed can fire its turret in addition to any weapons you can fire. Doesnt say you have to fire, or be able to fire, those weapons.

The difference is that a land raiders rule says it can fire one more weapon than permitted. This is where I find that a land raider is totaly a'ok to fire a weapon using the machine spirit having poped smoke, but a leman russ probaly isnt, but with the leman russ its much much less clear.

[Nabterayl]

There's the difference that matters. The fact that the Russ must be able to fire another weapon in the first place is what separates it from the PotMS, and makes it an irrelevant reference.
Ah, I think I see where we are disagreeing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the source of your statement above is "A Leman Russ that moved at combat speed or remained stationary," right?

I think you and I are treating that clause differently. As I read it, the shooting part of the Lumbering Behemoth rule can be re-phrased with no loss of accuracy as, "A Leman Russ can fire its turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire (even if the turret weapon is ordnance!); provided, however, that a Leman Russ may not so fire its turret weapon if during the Movement Phase immediately preceding its Shooting Phase it moved at Cruising Speed."

You seem to be reading it differently. You seem to be reading "A Leman Russ that moved at combat speed or remained stationary" as implying that the Leman Russ must be able to fire at least one gun (since ordinarily a vehicle of the Leman Russ' type that moved at combat speed could fire no more than one gun) in order for the shooting part of the Lumbering Behemoth rule to apply. Am I right?

If I am, I suggest that you're substituting one of the normal implications of moving at cruising speed or remaining stationary for the actual act of moving at cruising speed or remaining stationary, which is unwarranted.

[Tyrsday]

If the fluff/common sense problems are what's killing it for you, then just imagine that normally the crew lines up the shot by eye/camera/etc. and the PotMS sees into the infrared spectrum allowing it to see through the smoke that the crew could not. And don't say that they would/should add infrared cameras to the other vehicles, that's just techno-heresy. You're not a techo-heretic, are you?

[phoenyxx]

I assume you mean that you think "Therefore" indicates that an exhaustive list is going to follow. If that's true then fair enough - we disagree on the English, and there's really no way to argue further. You've got a consistent view, though, which is all I can ask for.

EDIT: Okay, I couldn't resist. The structure of the PotMS rule is:
Principle
Therefore
Statement
Am I correct that you think it is self-evident that, in the structure above, #3 is always a limitation of #1? Because I think it's self-evident that #3 will always be an example of #1. If you disagree with me on this then okay, I guess we really don't have any way to argue.


Again, if that's your view of the English, then fair enough. I acknowledge that one statement includes the word "any" and the others do not, but I think it's self-evident that the two statements are of equivalent meaning and equivalent emphasis; you apparently think it's self-evident that they aren't. Assuming we're both native English speakers, I doubt either of us have any ways to argue the point. Thank you for taking an internally consistent view of the rules, even if it is different from mine.

Just to clarify, english is my main language. :)

Now on to your argument. In all honesty, I would normally agree with your reasoning of "Principle, therefore, statement". I will relate to you some of my experiences over the last few months here on BoLS lounge though. I've asked a variety of questions and been involved in a handful of rules debates about several issues similar to this.

On numerous occasions, I have made the assumption that GW either chose poor wording or did not in fact mean literally exactly what they wrote in the rules. Every single time I have done that, I have been soundly proven incorrect in making that assumption.

I believe you are making a similar mistake in this instance. You have assumed that the second paragraph is an example and not a list of the cases in which PotMS applies. I think that is a valid assumption, but not necessarily a correct one. If that is the case, then why did they not say "for emample" or use the word "et-cetera" or the abbreviation "etc"? To me that second paragraph reads much more like a clarification - here is the general rule, therefore this is when and how it applies. If they had meant it as an example that was not all inclusive, then they easily could have worded it so. Except that did not choose to word it that way. I believe that is intentional and not a mistake.

The issue with the word "any" in the smoke rules is agreeably more of a nit picky thing that could honestly be taken either way. However, when combined with what I have said above, I believe that again it is an intentional difference.

Now this is more RAI than RAW, but I believe the intent of the smoke rules is that you cannot fire because you cannot see through the smoke. When traveling cruising speed, shaken, or stunned the rules do explain (while in a fluffy manner) that the reason the crew can't shoot is that they are too busy doing other things. Which is why PotMS can shoot, because it's not busy doing other things.

The smoke situation is not the same as those situaions. Assuming (yes I know I just made an assumption) that you can't fire after popping smoke because you can't draw line of sight, then PotMS can't fire either. Regardless of what "entity" is firing, you must always be able to draw a line of sight. You can make up all the fluffy reasons you want as to why PotMS should be able to fire without a line of sight, but the rules very clearly state that you must always be able to draw a line of sight to fire (except for barrage weapons). PotMS is not exception.

That's basically my reasoning. PotMS cannot fire under smoke beause its rules do not specifically say that it bypasses smoke. Additionally smoke does say that it prevents all firing. And my personal fluff reason is that I think smoke blocks LOS and PotMS is not exception to that.

Phoenyxx

[Nabterayl]

On numerous occasions, I have made the assumption that GW either chose poor wording or did not in fact mean literally exactly what they wrote in the rules. Every single time I have done that, I have been soundly proven incorrect in making that assumption.
Thanks for your clarifications; much appreciated. I still think this boils down to you and I having different views of what "literally exactly" they wrote in the rules, though. To me, treating the "therefore" paragraph of PotMS as limiting the general principle is going beyond what is literally written (why even bother having the second paragraph if they were going to limit it to the third paragraph anyway? I ask myself). To you, adding anything not enumerated in the third paragraph is going beyond what is literally written (why not just list smoke, or drop the third paragraph entirely, if they didn't mean it to be exclusive? you ask yourself).

We appear to have reached an impasse. Thank you for your well-reasoned and civilized argument, though.

[PhoenixFlame]

There is actually a difference. Let's go with your (reasonable) simplification. Both guns allow you to fire X+1 weapons.

PotMS:
The Land Raider may fire X+1 weapons, from -1<x<[number of guns on the Land Raider]. So for the rule to work, x must be either 0,1,2,3, etc, up until we reach the number of guns on the Land Raider.

LB:
The Russ may fire X guns + Turret, so long as 0<x<[number of guns on Leman Russ]. This rule is different. In order to fire the Turret, you must be able to fire at least one other weapon. X cannot be zero like it can with the Land Raider.

There's the difference that matters. The fact that the Russ must be able to fire another weapon in the first place is what separates it from the PotMS, and makes it an irrelevant reference.

Even if the semantics are similar, if there is a difference in the details the implications of that difference prevent the arguments around one rule from being used as justification for the other.
I was going to do a whole post braking down reasoning etc but DarkLink pretty much covers it above



"A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permited." [PotMS]

"A Leman Russ that moved at combat speed or remained stationary can fire its turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire" [Lumbering]

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





That's basically my reasoning. PotMS cannot fire under smoke beause its rules do not specifically say that it bypasses smoke. Additionally smoke does say that it prevents all firing. And my personal fluff reason is that I think smoke blocks LOS and PotMS is not exception to that.
I think you may be right regarding RAI vs RAW (but I do my best to stick to RAW when debating rule points because debating the validity of a given set of house rules is really a futility endeavor when the parties involved aren't going to actually be playing each other).
The LoS assumption sounds good on face but the problem with it for me is that if there's an obstruction blocking LoS from point A to B then it will block LoS from point B to A (since in the case of smoke elevation is a non-factor). If instead it is treated like area cover and thus can be shot through/into because it's not blocking LoS then it can be shout out of for the selfsame reasons. Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying there but it seems like a double standard.

It could also be argued that the vehicle can't fire after popping smoke because it takes the crews full attentions to 'fire' the smoke launchers. If that were the reason than both PotMS and Lumbering would apply their benefits. But this reasoning too is supposition on our part and not an actual aspect of the rules at any point.

What we do have is the following;

1) The rules are unclear or we wouldn't be having this conversation. (I think this thread has been very well reasoned and debated on all sides and thus disregard the "someone just isn't bothering to read/think it through" type of contention)

2) The smoke rules state "The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used smoke launchers" which would be the end of it except that the core rules also state that Codex rules supersede core rules. (I'll dig up the page citation if anyone would like, but I think we've all read that)

3) The rules for PotMS and Lumbering are different. (is it RAI that they work fundamentally the same with the key difference being that Lumbering only applies to the turret weapon? Could be, I can see a case for that, but again that's straying outside for RAW)

4) PotMS says "A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted."

With the above (yes I know I left out an interpretation of the rules for the Russ... but thinking about the Russ since this new Dex came out just makes me sad ;) ) I think there is a slightly stronger case for RAW meaning you can indeed fire one weapon via PotMS after popping smoke. However it is still unclear which defaults us to "the first rule" and the actual method I use to play this;

1) Friendly games talk to your opponent about it before setting up for the game.
2) Tournaments talk to the organizers/judges so you know what they'll be using during that competition. Then also talk to your opponent each round so that you're both clear on what rules will be in effect.

As long as everyone is playing by the same rules and everyone knows what those rules are in advance of the first dice roll I think that either reading of the PotMS rules is fair (and for that matter probably either reading of the rules for the Russ as well).

[Nabterayl]

3) The rules for PotMS and Lumbering are different. (is it RAI that they work fundamentally the same with the key difference being that Lumbering only applies to the turret weapon? Could be, I can see a case for that, but again that's straying outside for RAW)
Obviously I too think the case for PotMS overriding smoke is better than the case against it, as my responses have (I hope) made clear. With regard to this question, I think the "X+1" mechanic is supposed to be the same. Obviously there are other differences - you can't use Lumbering Behemoth if you moved at cruising speed, whereas you can use Power of the Machine Spirit if you moved at cruising speed, and Lumbering Behemoth doesn't let you split fire the way Power of the Machine Spirit does.

[DarkLink]

Ah, I think I see where we are disagreeing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the source of your statement above is "A Leman Russ that moved at combat speed or remained stationary," right?

I think you and I are treating that clause differently. As I read it, the shooting part of the Lumbering Behemoth rule can be re-phrased with no loss of accuracy as, "A Leman Russ can fire its turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire (even if the turret weapon is ordnance!); provided, however, that a Leman Russ may not so fire its turret weapon if during the Movement Phase immediately preceding its Shooting Phase it moved at Cruising Speed."

You seem to be reading it differently. You seem to be reading "A Leman Russ that moved at combat speed or remained stationary" as implying that the Leman Russ must be able to fire at least one gun (since ordinarily a vehicle of the Leman Russ' type that moved at combat speed could fire no more than one gun) in order for the shooting part of the Lumbering Behemoth rule to apply. Am I right?

If I am, I suggest that you're substituting one of the normal implications of moving at cruising speed or remaining stationary for the actual act of moving at cruising speed or remaining stationary, which is unwarranted.

Eh, it was my understanding of the LB rules that you had to be able to fire another weapon (@ Airhorse, I never said you had to actually fire another weapon, just be able to fire one), which was based on other arguments that other people made. I tend to agree with them.

The point is that the rules have subltly different effects, which are worded differently, each having different implications.

If in fact the Lumbering Behemoth rules does not require other weapons to be able to fire, then the same logic that would allow PotMS to fire after using smoke would also allow a Leman Russ to fire after using smoke.

But here's my simplification of the two rules:

Lumbering Behemoth: The Russ may always fire its turret in addition to any other weapons it may fire. (We'll ignore the cruising speed limiter, as that only effects how fast the Russ can move, not how it shoots).

PotMS: The Land Raider may fire one more weapon that would normally be allowed, which may fire at a different target than its other weapons. (It then goes on to list examples).

1. Now, smoke would reduce the number of weapons able to fire to 0.

2. PotMS is allowed to fire one more weapon than normally allowed, meaning 0+1 weapons in this case.

3. Lumbering Behemoth may fire the turret weapon in addition to any other weapons allowed. In this case, this can have two meanings:

a. The Russ must be able to fire other weapons in order to fire the turret, but otherwise can always fire the turret in addition to its other weapons. So if a Russ moved at cruising speed, it could fire up to one weapon (even if all the weapons were destroyed). Because it could fire one weapon, it may also fire the turret, for a total of two weapons. In this case, Shaken, Stunned, Smoke and Cruising speed prevents any weapons from being fired, preventing the turret from being fired.

or

b. The Russ may always fire its turret, ignoring the normal restriction of only shooting ordinance weapons. In this interpretation, in which we assume that " in addition to any other weapons it may fire" doesn't prevent the turret from firing even if other guns cannot shoot, then the Russ may always shoot its turret, by the exact same logic that PotMS can do so, even if Shaken, Stunned, Smoked or Cruising Speed-ed (yeah, I made that up, cause it sounds funny:D)

In case (a), the wording of LB differentiates it from PotMS, meaning that you cannot assume that one rule has any bearing on the other. I personally think that case (a) is correct. If case (a) is in fact correct, we can ignore LB when considering PotMS.

In case (b), the one Nabterayl has mentioned, the PotMS rule does the same thing as LB, for the purposes of this argument (the only difference is that PotMS can fire any weapon and at a different target, while LB can only fire the turret at the same target). If case (b) is in fact correct, then both PotMS and Lumbering Behemoth do the same thing (for our purposes): allowing one extra weapon to shoot, despite Shaken, Stunned, Smoke or Cruising Speed.

Either way, PotMS can still shoot when Smoked, the only question is whether or not LB can do the same. Thus my argument that LB is irrelevant when considering PotMS.



Now, regardless of LB, whether or not PotMS can shoot after Smoking cannot be answered by simply the PotMS rule. It requires either a GW FAQ or some rule in the BRB that somehow prevents it. I haven't seen any rule that satisfactorily prevents PotMS from firing after using Smoke, at least not yet.

So, for now, as far as I'm concerned PotMS can fire after using Smoke, though I choose not to play it that way.




BTW, unfortunately GW didn't FAQ the Lumbering Behemoth issues one way or another, just checked the IG FAQ. Same thing with PotMS.

[phoenyxx]

Thanks for your clarifications; much appreciated. I still think this boils down to you and I having different views of what "literally exactly" they wrote in the rules, though. To me, treating the "therefore" paragraph of PotMS as limiting the general principle is going beyond what is literally written (why even bother having the second paragraph if they were going to limit it to the third paragraph anyway? I ask myself). To you, adding anything not enumerated in the third paragraph is going beyond what is literally written (why not just list smoke, or drop the third paragraph entirely, if they didn't mean it to be exclusive? you ask yourself).

We appear to have reached an impasse. Thank you for your well-reasoned and civilized argument, though.

You're very welcome. :)

I would like you to consider one more thing though. If what you are saying above is correct, then why did they write the second paragraph? If the rule was meant to permit PotMS to fire an additional weapon in every single case that might possibly come up, then there is absolutely no need what-so-ever for the paragraph after the "therefore".

You are saying that the second paragraph should not limit when PotMS can be used, but that's basically choosing to ignore part of the rules. That paragraph was written, and (imo) very intentionally. Again, why write it if there was no need for it?

But they did write it. You seem to feel that they wrote it as a mistake or misnomer, or that it should not be interpreted as a set of limiting cases of when PotMS can be used. But again, that's basically ignoring the paragraph and thus part of the rules.

My point, at the end of the day, is that GW did write that paragraph into the rules. It was not a mistake and it was not a misnomer. It was intentional, just as all of the other rules they wrote were intentional. And if you look at those 2 paragraphs under that light then you pretty much have to take it as a clarification of when PotMS is applied. Because if you believe that paragraph has basically no meaning, then there was never any reason to write it. While I don't believe GW is perfect, this is not a case where they made a mistake. That paragraph is there for a reason. :)

If you still disagree with everything I've said at this point, then I'll agree with you to disagree. :) However, I sure hope you're giving an automatic 4+ cover save to any target PotMS is firing at through smoke.

Phoenixflame - I pretty much agree with everything you just said, but I had to try one more time to make all the evil PotMS abusers see the light. :p

[Nabterayl]

3. Lumbering Behemoth may fire the turret weapon in addition to any other weapons allowed. In this case, this can have two meanings:

a. The Russ must be able to fire other weapons in order to fire the turret, but otherwise can always fire the turret in addition to its other weapons. So if a Russ moved at cruising speed, it could fire up to one weapon (even if all the weapons were destroyed). Because it could fire one weapon, it may also fire the turret, for a total of two weapons. In this case, Shaken, Stunned, Smoke and Cruising speed prevents any weapons from being fired, preventing the turret from being fired.

or

b. The Russ may always fire its turret, ignoring the normal restriction of only shooting ordinance weapons. In this interpretation, in which we assume that " in addition to any other weapons it may fire" doesn't prevent the turret from firing even if other guns cannot shoot, then the Russ may always shoot its turret, by the exact same logic that PotMS can do so, even if Shaken, Stunned, Smoked or Cruising Speed-ed (yeah, I made that up, cause it sounds funny:D)
I think the wording strongly supports b, except that Lumbering Behemoth explicitly says you cannot use the rule to fire your turret weapon unless you remained stationary or moved at Combat Speed. Remember, the full text of the rule is:


A Leman Russ that moved at combat speed or remained stationary can fire its turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it is usually allowed to fire (even if the turret weapon is ordnance!). However, a Leman Russ travelling at cruising speed can only move up to D6 + 6" - roll every time it moves at this speed.

I think it's actually pretty clear that it's not important whether the Russ can fire any other guns. The question is simply how fast the Russ moved.

If a Russ moved at cruising speed, the main rulebook says it can fire no weapons, and the codex does not have any overriding rules, because it didn't "move[] at combat speed or remain[] stationary."

If a Russ moved at combat speed or remained stationary and popped smoke, was Shaken, or Stunned, the rulebook says it can fire no weapons. The codex does have an override in this case, which allows the Russ to fire its turret weapon, even though no other weapons may fire (since the number of "other weapons it is usually allowed to fire" in this case is zero).


Either way, PotMS can still shoot when Smoked, the only question is whether or not LB can do the same. Thus my argument that LB is irrelevant when considering PotMS.
To sum up my position thus far: I agree 100% that the rules are logically separate from one another. I agree 100% that PotMS allows a Smoked Land Raider to shoot one weapon (though like you I might want to house rule that with my group). I also think, for totally separate reasons distinct to its own wording, that Lumbering Behemoth allows a Smoked Leman Russ to shoot its turret weapon, as long as it moved at Combat Speed or remained stationary.

[DarkLink]

I would like you to consider one more thing though. If what you are saying above is correct, then why did they write the second paragraph? If the rule was meant to permit PotMS to fire an additional weapon in every single case that might possibly come up, then there is absolutely no need what-so-ever for the paragraph after the "therefore".

The second paragraph is simply there to provide examples, clarifying the fact that PotMS can indeed work after being Stunned, for example. This is not a definitive list, and does not in and of itself prevent PotMS from working while Smoked.



You are saying that the second paragraph should not limit when PotMS can be used, but that's basically choosing to ignore part of the rules. That paragraph was written, and (imo) very intentionally. Again, why write it if there was no need for it?

But they did write it. You seem to feel that they wrote it as a mistake or misnomer, or that it should not be interpreted as a set of limiting cases of when PotMS can be used. But again, that's basically ignoring the paragraph and thus part of the rules.


Nothing about the second paragraph implies that it is a definitive list of possible circumstances under which PotMS can be used. It simply lists a few examples, to illustrate precisely what PotMS does, for clarification purposes. Once again, it in and of itself does not prevent PotMS from being used while Smoked. It's not a mistake that it is there, it just doesn't do what you think it does:p.



If you still disagree with everything I've said at this point, then I'll agree with you to disagree. :) However, I sure hope you're giving an automatic 4+ cover save to any target PotMS is firing at through smoke.

I'll agree on the agreement that you propose about agreeing to disagree on an issue that has had little agreement between disagreeing parties.

I'll also reiterate that I don't play the rule this way. If I did, however, my opponent wouldn't be getting any cover saves. I don't let fluff and real world common sense influence my interpretation of the rules :D.