POTMS and Bloos Angel Storm Ravens

[Duke]

In the new Blood Angels codex the Storm Raven has "Power of the Machine Spirit," it is also a "Fast, Skimmer (IIRC)"

Here are the rules from the Big Rule book and Codex Space Marines

- BRB pg. 70 "Fast Vehicles firing: ... Fast Vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons"
Which is similar to
- BRB pg. 58 "Moving and Shooting vehicle weaponry: ... Vehicles that moved at crusing speed may not fire.
And also similar to
- BRB pg. 61 "Damage results: Crew-Stunned: .. The vehicle may not move or shoot until the end of its next player turn.

Now for POTMS:
- C: SM pg. 81 "Power of the Machine Spirit: ... A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted... Therefore a Land Raider that has moved at Combat speed may 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 question I have is: Can a storm raven with POTMS move flat out and fire one weapon?

[pgarfunkle]

I would say yes. In the same way that the Land Raider in the example is able to fire one weapon while moving at cruising speed.

[Lerra]

Hopefully the wording of PotMS in the BA codex will make it clear. That seems like the sort of thing which ought to be spelled out in the wording of PotMS.

[Sir Biscuit]

This is a VERY similar question to the debate about whether or not you can fire with PotMS after popping smoke. You can find that here: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=5671

If you read my evidence in that thread I think it will be clear that you can fire after moving flat out. I'm not sure why anyone would think that you couldn't?

[Duke]

The power is where you can zoom flat out and fire off a to multiple melta... That is like a 36" melta shot!

[therealjohnny5]

my only reservation on that is that PotMS reduces the number of weapons able to be fired as the movement goes up. The LR doesn't have flat out, but i could see this either way, however i would question the wisdom of making a vehicle able to flat out and then still fire. kind of changes the tactical application greatly. that would be awesome, but could suck a lot too. the next step would be assaulting after deepstriking as standard...

[Nabterayl]

In the new Blood Angels codex the Storm Raven has "Power of the Machine Spirit," it is also a "Fast, Skimmer (IIRC)"

Here are the rules from the Big Rule book and Codex Space Marines

- BRB pg. 70 "Fast Vehicles firing: ... Fast Vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons"
Which is similar to
- BRB pg. 58 "Moving and Shooting vehicle weaponry: ... Vehicles that moved at crusing speed may not fire.
And also similar to
- BRB pg. 61 "Damage results: Crew-Stunned: .. The vehicle may not move or shoot until the end of its next player turn.

Now for POTMS:
- C: SM pg. 81 "Power of the Machine Spirit: ... A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted... Therefore a Land Raider that has moved at Combat speed may 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 question I have is: Can a storm raven with POTMS move flat out and fire one weapon?[/QUOTE]
Subject to the caveat that I don't have the book in my hand, I'd say yes:

POTMS definitely lets a Land Raider that moved at Cruising Speed fire one weapon, despite the fact that "Vehicles that moved at cruising speed may not fire" (p. 58). This is an example of POTMS' effect, rather than the rule itself (c.f. the introductory "Therefore"), so we need to decide if Flat Out is a different or analogous case:

The rule is that "A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted."
One example of the effect that this has is to permit a vehicle that "may not fire" to shoot one weapon.
Vehicles that moved Flat Out "may fire no weapons" (p. 70).
Is there a difference in meaning between "may fire no weapons" and "may not fire?"
No, because the rulebook ever only speaks of firing weapons (note that smoke launchers are "triggered" or "used;" c.f. page 62).
Cruising Speed for a non-Fast vehicle and Flat Out for a Fast vehicle are analogous.
POTMS [assuming it has the same wording as in C:SM) allows Fast vehicles that moved Flat Out to fire one weapon.

[Duke]

All I can say is "Lawyered!" Thank you Nab. I always greatly appreciate your approach at rules questions, Could you do me a favor and act as if you were building a case against this and argue that point?

Duke

[DarkLink]

This is a VERY similar question to the debate about whether or not you can fire with PotMS after popping smoke. You can find that here: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=5671

If you read my evidence in that thread I think it will be clear that you can fire after moving flat out. I'm not sure why anyone would think that you couldn't?


Now for POTMS:
- C: SM pg. 81 "Power of the Machine Spirit: ... A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted... Therefore a Land Raider that has moved at Combat speed may 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 question I have is: Can a storm raven with POTMS move flat out and fire one weapon?
Subject to the caveat that I don't have the book in my hand, I'd say yes:

POTMS definitely lets a Land Raider that moved at Cruising Speed fire one weapon, despite the fact that "Vehicles that moved at cruising speed may not fire" (p. 58). This is an example of POTMS' effect, rather than the rule itself (c.f. the introductory "Therefore"), so we need to decide if Flat Out is a different or analogous case:

The rule is that "A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted."
One example of the effect that this has is to permit a vehicle that "may not fire" to shoot one weapon.
Vehicles that moved Flat Out "may fire no weapons" (p. 70).
Is there a difference in meaning between "may fire no weapons" and "may not fire?"
No, because the rulebook ever only speaks of firing weapons (note that smoke launchers are "triggered" or "used;" c.f. page 62).
Cruising Speed for a non-Fast vehicle and Flat Out for a Fast vehicle are analogous.
POTMS [assuming it has the same wording as in C:SM) allows Fast vehicles that moved Flat Out to fire one weapon.

I'd have to say that you can fire it. I think moving flat out is a closer analogy to moving at cruising speed than using smoke is, primarily because PotMS has a specific example clarifying that it can override the limitations placed on firing due to movement.

[Jwolf]

The wording for PoTMS spells out how and when you can shoot weapons; firing when moving Flat Out is not specifically allowed in the wording.

Unless GW FAQs this differently than what is written, I must say no.

[Nabterayl]

Has anybody seen the actual wording of the rule for the Storm Raven? Because the C:SM wording doesn't apply at all, if you want to be that literal about it, inasmuch as the Storm Raven is not a Land Raider.

[DarkLink]

Has anybody seen the actual wording of the rule for the Storm Raven? Because the C:SM wording doesn't apply at all, if you want to be that literal about it, inasmuch as the Storm Raven is not a Land Raider.

Well, the C:SM wording doesn't apply if they modify the rule. Which they might. Knowing GW, they'll probably just copy and paste, though:rolleyes:.

[Duke]

It is exactley the same but doesn't say landraider... As was said previously, the movement usage is only added as an example of how it works. The bigger problem is that never before has a fast skimmer had POMS. IMHO rules as written Allow it to be used, but balance of the game and arguably rules as intended would not.

Rai: a vehicle cannot fire when moving flat out because it's crew are focusing on moving the vehicle at high speeds and not crashing into walls and such. The machine spirit cares not if the crew can focus on diving or firing, it is the same to it if the vehicle is going flat out or barely moving. As such I also say spirit of the law says it can be used...

All that said game balance says not to allow it, but then again valks have scout! Lol

[Sir Biscuit]

Honestly, that's not a very good case for RAI. "It's never appeared before" is not a good argument that it can't exist now, especially when it pertains to a special rule that's entire purpose is to circumvent the standard rules!

Honestly, someone needs to get a codex before we'll get ANY answer to this. I bet it's spelled out in the entry what it can do. (And if it isn't then by RAW you definitely CAN for after moving flat out.)

[pgarfunkle]

I think that the codex entry for the raven refers the reader to the PotMS entry on the land raider page (could be wrong) but I agree that from what I can remember the rule would seem to suggest that it is possible. I don't remember anything that would suggest otherwise, but as Sir Biscuit says until we have a codex in hand we can't be sure one way or another.

[Duke]

I went into the store the other day and read it. The wording is exactley the same as the c:sm without the word "landraider"

[joescalise]

Yes, if you have potms you can alwasy fire one weapon.

[Duke]

If only it was that easy! Lol

[DarkLink]

It is exactley the same but doesn't say landraider... As was said previously, the movement usage is only added as an example of how it works. The bigger problem is that never before has a fast skimmer had POMS. IMHO rules as written Allow it to be used, but balance of the game and arguably rules as intended would not.

Rai: a vehicle cannot fire when moving flat out because it's crew are focusing on moving the vehicle at high speeds and not crashing into walls and such. The machine spirit cares not if the crew can focus on diving or firing, it is the same to it if the vehicle is going flat out or barely moving. As such I also say spirit of the law says it can be used...

All that said game balance says not to allow it, but then again valks have scout! Lol

RAI is something player's make up to justify their own opinion of how the rules work, and has no bearing on how the actual rules work. If we want to know what GW intended, the we only have RAW to go off of. Because of this, RAI IS RAW, as much as some people probably won't like being able to literally make stuff up in order to justify their opinion of how the game should work.

If you think the game would be more fun if you use your modification to the rules, such as banning PotMS from working while the vehicle moves fast, that's fine. But it's a houserule. That's all. Calling it RAI is a feeble attempt to try and pass off an individual opinion as that of GW's, regardless of that individual's relationship with GW.

Hmmm, that seems to have turned into a bit of a rant:rolleyes:. I guess then I'll clarify that I'm not attacking your opinion, or even disagreeing on how the rule should be played. Just pointing out the flaw of using RAI as an argument.

[Duke]

Your right in that RAI isn't the way to go when searching for rules clearifi ation... I was only using it when raw is difficult or has disagreements.

[Jwolf]

Under this interpretation of RAW you can fire a weapon when all your weapons are destroyed, too. Or when the vehicle was destroyed, for that matter. Heck, maybe you don't even have to have one in your list to begin with.

I don't treat the "Therefore" paragraph as examples. I believe it spells out exactly what PoTMS allows you to do, in toto. If the paragraph began with "For example," then I would agree with PotMS allowing firing at any speed. Since the PotMS ruleset actually details how the rule functions, adding in additional functionality because part of the ruleset seems to indicate that doing so is correct seems like poor logic to me.

[Nabterayl]

I went into the store the other day and read it. The wording is exactley the same as the c:sm without the word "landraider"

Meaning it reads, in relevant part:


Power of the Machine Spirit: ... A Storm Raven can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted... Therefore a Storm Raven that has moved at Combat speed may fire two weapons, and a Storm Raven that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or Crew Shaken result can fire a single weapon

with no mention of moving Flat Out? Or the fact that a Storm Raven that moved at combat speed can already fire two weapons?

[Duke]

Meaning it reads, in relevant part:


Power of the Machine Spirit: ... A Storm Raven can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted... Therefore a Storm Raven that has moved at Combat speed may fire two weapons, and a Storm Raven that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or Crew Shaken result can fire a single weapon

with no mention of moving Flat Out? Or the fact that a Storm Raven that moved at combat speed can already fire two weapons?

I don't have it in front of me, but yes that is it...

[Sir Biscuit]

Under this interpretation of RAW you can fire a weapon when all your weapons are destroyed, too. Or when the vehicle was destroyed, for that matter. Heck, maybe you don't even have to have one in your list to begin with.

I don't treat the "Therefore" paragraph as examples. I believe it spells out exactly what PoTMS allows you to do, in toto. If the paragraph began with "For example," then I would agree with PotMS allowing firing at any speed. Since the PotMS ruleset actually details how the rule functions, adding in additional functionality because part of the ruleset seems to indicate that doing so is correct seems like poor logic to me.

And I disagree. It should be noted that a lot of other people do as well. Instead of repeating myself explaining why here are some of my explanatory posts 'bout it.
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=60082&postcount=15
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=60196&postcount=18
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=60402&postcount=29

Specifically from that third linked post:

The wrecked vehicle is no longer a Land Raider, it is a "wreck" as defined on page 62 of the big rule book. Effectively, it stops being a vehicle and a unit and becomes terrain. Since it is now terrain, it no longer benefits from any special abilities it may have had, and cannot be controlled by anyone.

So no, a wrecked Raider (or any vehicle, for that matter, as the rule book never explicitly states that wrecks may not fire) cannot shoot at all regardless of any special rules it may have.

I find it hard to believe that the Storm Raven's PotMS is a copy paste and does not define it more clearly. But you know what? Spring break is here and my hobby store is not that far away. QUEST TIME

EDIT: They didn't have a preview copy. Can SOMEONE please get us the exact wording on this one?

[Lord Azaghul]

hhhmmm. It just seems like a bit of an abuse to me.

I have a hard time believe that those are the 'intentions' of the rule. But that's an arguement I do not wish to join or open.
I would think that somewhere in the BA codex would be the wording 'as per normally allowed in shooting' such as in the 'lumbering behemoth' rule. IE flat out and firing a weapons is prolly forbidden.

[Duke]

As I have said before, game balance wouldn't allow it... But I still haven't heard a raw that outright disallows it as well... For now it is going to be a tournament by tournament judgement call I feel.

[DarkLink]

Under this interpretation of RAW you can fire a weapon when all your weapons are destroyed, too. Or when the vehicle was destroyed, for that matter. Heck, maybe you don't even have to have one in your list to begin with.

I disagree that the argument allows this. PotMS allows you to fire a weapon, but if you don't have any weapons to fire because they have been destroyed, PotMS is useless. Any reasonable interpretation of this view of PotMS, or any other view of PotMS, clearly disallows firing a destroyed weapon. Or, more precisely, doesn't allow it in the first place.

And the "therefore" paragraph is pretty clearly a list of examples. It doesn't have anything that says "this is all a LR can do". It list the three main things PotMS can do; shoot one extra weapon, ignore shaken and target a separate unit. It never limits PotMS to these cases specifically, however. The two preceding paragraphs define the limits of PotMS.

Now, it's entirely possible that GW will FAQ this by saying the "therefore" paragraph is a definite list of cases. But it currently isn't.

[Duke]

There is simply no way the "therefore" paragraph is an all encompassing list of what POtMS can do. If it was then why even have a second paragraph that says you can fire one more weapon?


Duke

[Lord Azaghul]

It never limits PotMS to these cases specifically, however. The two preceding paragraphs define the limits of PotMS.



I have heard it successfully argued (many times) that the rules are written more from a 'can do' stand point then a 'can't do' stand point.

The shooting rules don't say: you may not rapid fire at 13", 14", 15", 16", 17" ,18" ,19"...
They say you may rapid fire 12" or less.

Following the 'can do' ideal seems to lead to healthier, happier, gaming experiences rather then 'it doesn't say I can't' -

By the way - the proper response to "it doesn't say I can't" is: 'it doesn't say I can't hit you either!' :D

[Duke]

I would agree that the rules are written in a "can do," attitude. But that deson't solve much. Can we please get a direct quote from the dex someone?

[Duke]

From Page 37 in the Blood Angels Codex:

"...The vehicle 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 other weapons, subject to the normal rule for shooting.

Therefore, a vehicle that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, and a vehicle that has either moved at crusing speed, or has suffered a crew stunned or crew shaken result can fire a single weapon"

I skipped the fluff portion.
So lets see:

Land Raider regular:
Combat: one weapon
Crusiing: No weapons

Land Raider POTMS:
Combat :Two Weapons (1+1)
Cruising: One Weapons (0+1)

Storm Raven regular:
Combat: All
Cruising: One Weapon
Flat out: no weapons

Storm Raven POTMS: Per your arguments based on the second paragraph
Combat: All (all +1)
Crusing: One Weapon "...Crusing speed ... Can fire a single weapon"
Flat out: Not defined in third paragraph so zero

Storm Raven POTMS: Per my arguments based on first paragraph
Combat: All (All+1)
Cruising: 2 (One Weapon regularly allowed for Fast + 1 for POTMS)
Flat Out: 1 (0+1)

Im sorry, but the first example of the Storm Raven doesn't make sense, all then one then zero? no thanks


Based on this I still feel that PotMS is allowed when a vehicle is moving flat out "... One more weapon than is normally permitted..." Is pretty clear i.e. 0+1.

A disclosure: I really don't care what the solution is, so long as it makes sense (And right now it seems the only one that makes sense is to allow it) . I honestly don't think Ill even be taking a Raven in a competitive build. Thanks for everyone input and for keeping feelings of "OMG BROKEN" out of the discussion.

Duke

[Shotgun Justice]

Therefore, a vehicle that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, and a vehicle that has either moved at crusing speed, or has suffered a crew stunned or crew shaken result can fire a single weapon"

Storm Raven regular:
Combat: All
Cruising: One Weapon
Flat out: no weapons

Storm Raven POTMS: Per your arguments based on the second paragraph
Combat: All (all +1)
Crusing: One Weapon "...Crusing speed ... Can fire a single weapon"
Flat out: Not defined in third paragraph so zero

Storm Raven POTMS: Per my arguments based on first paragraph
Combat: All (All+1)
Cruising: 2 (One Weapon regularly allowed for Fast + 1 for POTMS)
Flat Out: 1 (0+1)


Duke

I'm with Duke, I do not believe that the 'therefore' paragraph is an exhaustive list of applications of the rule. His reasoning quoted above makes clear that if this were so then the only benefit granted by PoTMS to the Stormraven would be the ability to fire a single weapon following a crew stunned or shaken result. Which is much less than PotMS should do in my opinion.

[Lord Azaghul]

I still must disagree.

I think we must first look at what 'normally be permitted', or normal firing is. IE did not suffer stunned or shaken and did not move above the firing limitation.

The rule specifically states two circulstances in which you are normally not permited to fire: Shaken and Stunned. PotMS overrides these two, and is stated

Moving flat is takes the vehicle to a state of: normally not allowed to fire.

I don't see that PotMS overrides this as it states: normally be permitted.

I think the argument for firing after moving flat out, still remains along with poping smoke and using PotMS to still fire - ie not satisfactorly resolved to all parties

PotMS is just protecting the fast vehcle from stunned and shaken and the ability to fire at two tagets.

Just my 2 cents.

[Duke]

Az: So in your opinion if a fast vehicle moves at cruising how many weapons can it fire?

[Lord Azaghul]

Az: So in your opinion if a fast vehicle moves at cruising how many weapons can it fire?

1 +defensive + 1 (PotMs)

Because it is 'normally allowed' to fire.

In my head I see two columns. One is "allowed to fire" the other is "not allowed to fire"
The rule specifically moved stunned and shaken into the 'allowed to fire' category.

Does my perspective at least make sense?

[Duke]

Yes, I see where your trying to make your point. Here Are my thoughts. And I hope you can see mine.

In potms it says a vehicle that moves at crusing can fire one weapon if we follow that to be the pure rule (as opposed to an example) then it cannot fire 1+ defensive+ 1potms because it spcifically says "1". However if we take that paragraph as an example then you are right as 1+defensive+ 1 potms for a fast vehicle. But then flat out "no weapons = 0+1potms"

I think the main difference lies in the nautre of the "therefore..." paragraph. I still like nabterayls analysis on page one.

[Lord Azaghul]

I most definately see your side of the arguement. And I do wish that GW would have clarified this one in the BA 'dex.

I think this will be another RAI v RAW debate. But I only know 1 BA player in my area so I'm not even sure how often it'll come up... I do have a hard time believe that 'flat out and firing' was the intention of the rule, but I will agree that that is not what RAW says. And I can live with that!

now if only gw erratas my Landspeeders with PotMs!:D

[Duke]

I agree 100% that this is a very "few and far between" situation. I porbably won't even bring the thing against anyone outside of a fun game. I really hope gw FAQ's this but they probably won't, lol. I also would really love to have PotMS on speeders , if only!

[SeattleDV8]

BRB pg.70 Moving Fast Vehicles
"...and is treated in all respects exactly the same as moving at cruising speed for a vehicle that is not fast..."
The POMS would be allowed one shot.

[Lord Azaghul]

Something that should be clarified:
Fast vehicles do not move 'flat out' unless they are also skimmers.
Only skimmers gain the flat out movement/ obscured ability/bonus.

[Jwolf]

BRB pg.70 Moving Fast Vehicles
"...and is treated in all respects exactly the same as moving at cruising speed for a vehicle that is not fast..."
The POMS would be allowed one shot.

And that's fine, except that firing weapons is one of the things that is defined differently. Cruising speed for normal vehicles says may not fire. Flat out for fast vehicles says may fire no weapons. Not sure if that is enough to have them defined differently when an FAQ eventually comes out, but I hope so. TL Multimeltas with a 36" 2d6 threat radius seems a bit much to me.

[SeattleDV8]

And that's fine, except that firing weapons is one of the things that is defined differently. Cruising speed for normal vehicles says may not fire. Flat out for fast vehicles says may fire no weapons. Not sure if that is enough to have them defined differently when an FAQ eventually comes out, but I hope so. TL Multimeltas with a 36" 2d6 threat radius seems a bit much to me.

Except of course it is the speed band (movement ) that determines what a vehicle can fire.
A Fast vehicle going Flat Out is for all intents and "..in all respects exactly..." counts as criusing speed.
The POTMS allows a shot at criusing speed.
I agree this is going to be a bit over the top, but it is allowed.

[Jwolf]

In all respects, except where noted below. All speed bands have shooting rules posted below, so in all respects is not applicable to the situation at hand.

[Duke]

After hearing all the arguments, I think the RAW supports allowing it Seattles comment was the nail in the coffin... I do however, support tournament organizers who won't allow it for balance purposes.

Jwolf and others going to Adepticon: Can you all keep an ear out for this rule and see what people think/feel? I know it isn't an approved codex for the Con, but it would be nice to see what they are thinking about it.

Duke

P.S. Over the top was after page 2. lol

[SeattleDV8]

In all respects, except where noted below. All speed bands have shooting rules posted below, so in all respects is not applicable to the situation at hand.

I disagree, in the Fast Vehicle shooting section, the fast vehicle going Flat Out is treated the same as a criusing non-fast vehicle, ie neither is allowed to shoot.

In the Assault section it is treated the same.
The only exception is in the Embarking /Disembarking.
The "except where noted below" only has one exception, embarking.
The difference bewteen' may fire no weapons' and 'may not fire' is not enough.
LOL , well yes I guess the debate and the rule are both there, somewhere over the rainbow.

[Jwolf]

Disagreeing is of no merit, as we both can see that shooting is in fact spelled out for Fast Vehicles in their own rules - so the quote you gave originally is entirely meaningless. I don't know that the difference is enough to be FAQed differently either, though.

[SeattleDV8]

Disagreeing is of no merit, as we both can see that shooting is in fact spelled out for Fast Vehicles in their own rules - so the quote you gave originally is entirely meaningless. I don't know that the difference is enough to be FAQed differently either, though.

Meaningless?? The rule tells us how to treat fast vehicles, except for the exceptions named below.
There is only one exception, embarking.
The shooting rules you point to are not exceptions.

[AirHorse]

Surely it can only be interpretted one way... No weapons or may not fire, both wordings clearly permit the firing of no weapons, that is what is permitted. The rule says one more than permited, so you are able to fire one weapon if you are permitted none. The fact that this vehicle is moving at a different speed or is using a different section of rules is of no merit, the codex(which trumps main book) says you can fire one extra beyond what the rules in the main book permits.

The only ambiguity is the little extra part, but it is written as an example, not as a ruling clearly. If it was an exhaustive list of all situations you could use it the first sentence would tell you that you can fire one more weapon than permitted in certain situations, but it doesnt.

Its pretty clear how i view the rules, the question of if you find the prospect of a very fast moving melta weapon balanced is totaly irrelevant to what the rules do, its either an oversight, an intentionally powerful ability the unit has or simply the way that it is viewed by players :)

[Duke]

Well said Air Horse.

Though I do think that the RAW is overly powerful I don't think that making a ruling based on "its broken," is all around the right thing to do.

I think the overwhelming majority of people feel that RAW supports being able to.

this still obviously doesn't prevent anyone from making a house ruling simply because the ruling is arguable.

Duke

[therealjohnny5]

Airhorse and Duke, i have to agree, while i think that ruling is way over the top, it's true the PotMS does allow an additional weapon to fire when not normally allowed. It's sometimes useful to look at both elements in an argument when you hit a wall in making any advances in the discussion. In this case we've all been looking at the Flat Out rule and haven't really been digging into the PotMS rule. And that may very well be where the key is. A stunned, or cruising LR can still fire, so why couldn't a flat out moving fast skimmer? i don't like it but it makes sense....i'll be interested in seeing the FAQ or if you BoLS gents find anything out at Adept.

[Duke]

So all that said I'm goig to say this is the conclusion of the thread:

SOLUTION: though it is arguable, the raw evidence strogly supports allowing potms with moving flat out for a fast skimmer.

Thanks for everyones help. Now go play!