Stormraven Flatout + PotMS

[Schnitzel]

There has been a bit of debate at my FLGS regarding the Stormraven as of late. There are generally two camps, of which I fall into the smaller of the two. There is the "flat out says you can't shoot so you can't shoot" camp, which holds the majority and forces me to play by their 18" move rules for my Stormravens. Then there is the "PotMS says you can fire one additional weapon that what you are normally allowed, ie 0+1+1" camp.

How do I play Stormravens? After dropping my preciously deadly cargo I zoom around 24" at a time and pop tanks with PotMS Melta shots. Other players don't like this as it's "over powered" and obviously not what was intended with the vehicle rules. Some players refuse to play against BA until a FAQ is released because of such bollocks. (These same players are also the sort that claim the Vindicator is not a Blast template shot, fyi).

What's you're take on it? Is there a need for a FAQ regarding this you think? I honestly don't think so. If you can't fire a shot, but because PotMS says you can fire one additional than normally allowed, then you can shoot. It's plain english. I don't see how there is really an argument against it.

Enlighten me.

[slxiii]

seems like its the same argument as smokes + POTMS. If I recall correctly, most people think you cannot fire off smokes and POTMS a weapon.

[Splug]

The SM codex specifically states that a land raider may fire one more weapon than normal, and includes firing a single weapon while shaken as an example. This is a fairly convincing precedent for being able to use one weapon even if one or more effects should prevent you from firing at all (such as turbo boosting or popping smoke).

[Nabterayl]

What it comes down to is the significance you accord to "therefore." Is what follows a rule, or is it a mere dictum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictum)?

If the rule is "can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted," then plainly a Stormraven moving Flat Out can fire one weapon, because there is no meaningful difference between "vehicles that moved at cruising speed may not fire" and "fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons" - if the rule overrides one, it should override the other.

But if the rule is not "can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted" but rather, "a vehicle that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'crew stunned' or 'crew shaken' result can fire a single weapon," then obviously a Stormraven moving Flat Out cannot fire anything.

Note that the "Flat Out means no shooting" camp has to make the second paragraph (the one that starts "Therefore") the entire operative rule. If the rule is both that a vehicle can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted and that a vehicle that has moved at cruising speed can fire a single weapon, then a Stormraven moving Flat Out can still shoot - because the second rule says nothing at all about the Flat Out case, meaning we would fall back to the broader, first rule. It is for this reason that I personally think the rules best support a Stormraven moving Flat Out and still shooting one weapon via PotMS.

[Schnitzel]

The following is what I just posted to my gaming groups forums.





There's been some disputing of the ruling on PotMS in the BA Codex lately, mainly regarding Stormravens being able to move 24" and still shoot with PotMS. I've graciously cut the movements down to 18" for when playing with players who don't believe it can still shoot at 24", but I want to open this up to debate.

I'll start with the C:BA entry for PotMS:

The vehicle can fire one more weapon that 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 vehicle that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, and a vehicle that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or 'Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon. (pg. 37 C:BA)
Now that is not saying a vehicle moving at combat speed can only fire "two weapons", it is giving an example of a vehicle moving at combat speed being reduced to one weapon and being allowed one more by PotMS. The same is true with the shaken/stunned results. For those who wish to argue that this is an example and not a literal ruling, look at the word "therefore". Therefore implies that it is an example. Take a look at the Merriam-Webster definition of it if you doubt me.


Main Entry: there·fore
Pronunciation: \ˈther-ˌfȯr\
Function: adverb
Date: 14th century

1 a : for that reason : consequently b : because of that c : on that ground
2 : to that end

Next I will list the rulings for "Flat Out" per the BRB:

The number of weapons a vehicle can fire in the Shooting phase depends on how fast it has moved in that turn's Movement phase, as detailed below.

In addition, the normal penalties of movement on shooting rapid fire and heavy weapons do not apply - when fired from a vehicle, these weapon types always fire as if the firing model has not moved, regardless of whether it actually did or not. Note that vehicles cannot run.

- Vehicles that remained stationary may fire all their weapons (remembering that pivoting on the spot does not count as moving).

- Vehicles that moved at combat speed may fire a single weapon (and its defensive weapons as explained below).

- Vehicles that moved at cruising speed may not fire.
(pg. 58 BRB)


Now when we change to a Fast Vehicle, the shooting abilities bump up a notch and Combat Speed may fire all and Cruising Speed fires one with anything faster firing zero. Note the number zero.


Fast vehicles are capable of a third level of speed, called 'flat out'. A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18". This represents the fast vehicle moving at top speed, without firing its guns and is treated in all respects exactly the same as moving at cruising speed for a vehicle that is not fast (except where noted otherwise). For example, a fast vehicle moving flat out on a road may move up to 24". (pg. 70 BRB)
Notice how it does not state that the vehicle fires "one less weapon", but rather implies "zero weapons" by stating "without firing its guns"?

Some may also argue that for this Fast Skimmer to move 24" is for it to turbo boost. Turbo Boosting is a USR found on page 76 of the BRB and is not listed on the Stormravens entry in C:BA. Rather, per page 71 of the BRB, a fast skimmer can move up to 24" flat out.


A skimmer that is also fast and is moving flat out can move up to 24". (pg. 71 BRB)

In conclusion, moving flat out does not reduce the weapons fired by a set number but rather sets the number of weapons that my fire normally to zero. PotMS adds one additional weapon to what my be fired normally and raises it to one. The same argument may also be used for Smoke Launchers.

Comments/Concerns?

[Nabterayl]

I've never heard of anybody arguing that Flat Out is related to the Turbo-Boosters USR, but if you've run into it, okay.

I agree with you about the meaning of "therefore," but in the case of Stormravens there's an additional point to be made. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the whole "therefore" paragraph is considered a rule rather than an example. Consider the following:


Rule 1: A vehicle may fire one weapon more than normal.
Rule 2: A vehicle that has moved at cruising speed may fire one weapon.

That's the state we would be left in, right? Well, if those are our two rules, and somebody asks whether a vehicle subject to these two rules that has moved Flat Out can fire a weapon, what would we say? We'd say Rule 2 doesn't disallow it, and Rule 1 allows it, so it's allowed.

The only way we get to the conclusion that a Stormraven can't fire a weapon after moving Flat Out is if we say that Rule 2 limits Rule 1. But if the first paragraph only allows the specific examples listed in the second paragraph, then the second paragraph is effectively the entire operative text of the rule.

So even if the second paragraph of PotMS is treated as a rule rather than an example, Stormravens can fire a weapon after moving Flat Out unless the first paragraph is treated as not a rule at all.

[Schnitzel]

Nabterayl, I definitely think you're on target with the speculation regarding "therefore" and its implications in the rules entry. Where as I am arguing with a bias, you seem to be taking a completely unbiased approach and I appreciate it.

So far the only real response I've recieved from my groups forum is:
Also.. "Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons." (BRBPg70)
No +1 is still No..

And...
Hmm, I can honestly go either way for this one. Rules aren't 100% clear either way.

Something you should definitely talk to your opponent about before the game starts, probably dicing it off.

Now quite frankly, I'm not going to dice off on something that will make or break the game like that. And for that "no +1 is still no" bs, I call bollocks. I believe there is more evidence in support of being able to fire one additional weapon than there being against it.

My end response to the blatant a**hattery was that
Now I don't want to sound like a troll, but I'm going to play with 24" move and one PotMS shoot until I see some irrefutable validation from GW that supports other wise. If an opponent doesn't like it, they don't have to play me. Simple is as simple does.

Justifiable?

[Nabterayl]

Also.. "Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons." (BRBPg70)
No +1 is still No..
Nonsense. How is that different from "the vehicle may not shoot" (shaken), "the vehicle may not move or shoot" (stunned) or "may not fire" (cruising speed)?

Unless you don't understand what "therefore" means.

EDIT: We aren't multiplying here. One more than "no weapons" is one. If somebody said, "How many weapons is 'no weapons?'" the correct answer would be "Zero," not "'No weapons' does not signify a number."

[Schnitzel]

EDIT: We aren't multiplying here. One more than "no weapons" is one. If somebody said, "How many weapons is 'no weapons?'" the correct answer would be "Zero," not "'No weapons' does not signify a number."

You must be a latent psyker as that was my next argument when I receive another reply from aforementioned individual. You can not validate that "none" does not have a numerical counterpart, as it must (especially in this context) for the player to know the number of weapons that may or may not be shot. Yes?

[Nabterayl]

You must be a latent psyker as that was my next argument when I receive another reply from aforementioned individual. You can not validate that "none" does not have a numerical counterpart, as it must (especially in this context) for the player to know the number of weapons that may or may not be shot. Yes?
I think the intuition is that "no weapons" means "may never fire a weapon, ever, no matter what." And the thing is, there are ways to say, "This rule has no exceptions, even if we later say that there are exceptions." None of those ways were used.

[Duke]

We had a lengthy discussion about this a while back and almost everyone agreed that you can use POTMS to fire the melta shot after moving flat out.

Tell your gaming buddies to get over it, your zooming around a 200 point av 12 land speeder (essentially) it isn't like you didn't pay through the nose for the thing and took a vital heavy support choice.

Duke

[DarkLink]

EDIT: We aren't multiplying here. One more than "no weapons" is one. If somebody said, "How many weapons is 'no weapons?'" the correct answer would be "Zero," not "'No weapons' does not signify a number."

Or to be more precise, we're following the proper order of operations. We multiply stuff, then we add stuff. That's even the same way that the BRB states we handle modifiers for things like power fists combined with furious charge (double strength, then add +1, rather than +1, then double strength).

X=the number of weapons a vehicle can fire.

Flat out= X*0= 0 weapons.

Flat out with PotMS= X*0+1=1 weapon

[Schnitzel]

Now it could be argued that because it says on page 70 of the BRB that:
A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18". This represents the fast vehicle moving at top speed, without firing its guns and is treated in all respects exactly the same as moving at cruising speed for a vehicle that is not fast (except where noted otherwise).

However on page 36 of C:BA it states:
a vehicle that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' or 'Crew Shaken' result can fire a single weapon.
That corresponds directly to the BRB statement of treating the vehicle like one (non-fast) moving at cruising speed.

Also there is still the argument where if asked "how many weapons are able to shoot", the numerical answer will be "zero". Lets take in conversation here: "You moved 24" without firing". (P1). "How many weapons is 'without firing' before modifiers?" (P2). "None." (P1).
We once again arrive at "none" is equivelant of "zero", and after modifiers are put into play (aka adding one); is now one.

To break it down "Barney style" I have a children math question. Sarah has five apples, Joey has three and Billy has none. How many apples does Billy have?
Answer: Zero.
Question two: If Sarah were to give Billy an apple, how many apples would Billy have?
Answer: One.
It's simple math. There shouldn't even be room for debate on this matter. The only reason why any one would try to argue against it is because they're afraid of a glass skimmer.

Who can guess how long my Stormravens last on average a game?
Usually at least one is shot down by turn three and I'm lucky to finish the game with on limping around. That's 600 points for "broken" Birds that are most likely going to die.

[SeattleDV8]

The line that tells me the fast vehicle with PotMS could fire is this "...and is treated in all respects exactly the same as moving at cruising speed for a vehicle that is not fast (except where noted otherwise). "
We know that a non-fast vehicle has permission to fire one weapon with PotMS at cruising speed, a fast vehicle should be able to fire when moving Flat-out as it is treated 'in all respects" the same.
(The one exception would be embarking/disembarking)

[Dbrinson]

I state something may be opionated be let it be said. Just accept it as a fact that is how it works and basically if the rule can make something worse or screw you in someway then it is right. I say everybody just adapt like we due to every new rule and since we know its there play it like it is the rule and continue on just change your tactics. like nids wolves guard marine orks chaos and every other codex when its new it will be the flavor of the month and yes you will have to play against it but soon it will burn out for most due to interest lost because gw releases a new shiny.

[Sir Biscuit]

Just want to throw this out there real quick, may help:

Page 70, BRB under Moving Fast Vehicles:
"This represent the fast vehicle moving at top speed, without firing its guns and is treated in all respects exactly the same as moving at cruising speed for a vehicle that is not fast (except where noted otherwise)."

Flat out is treated as cruising speed. PotMS allows for one weapon to be fired while a vehicle is moving at cruising speed, so I don't see why it wouldn't allow it for flat out.

[Forbino]

The Blood Angels PotMS also goes into detail about how many weapons may be fired at each speed band. As it specificially does that, and excludes flat out, one can reasonably infer that flat out means no weapons.

[Tynskel]

The Blood Angels PotMS also goes into detail about how many weapons may be fired at each speed band. As it specificially does that, and excludes flat out, one can reasonably infer that flat out means no weapons.

No, the PotMS is the same wording as the one in the Space Marine Codex.

Technically, the Land Raider can Move at Flat Out. If you are on a road, you may move an additional 6". PotMS would still work in this case.

The examples given in the codex(es) show how the rule works for any situation:
1) Extra weapon at combat speed.
2) Extra weapon when you cannot shoot (stunned and/or Shaken)
3) Extra weapon when moving too fast (cruising speed).

2 of the 3 examples are when you CANNOT fire. PotMS overrides this. They showed multiple examples and different cases when you cannot fire, yet the machine takes over.

PotMS can fire during Flat Out--- it is the same as Cruising Speed or the Shaken/Stunned--- you are able to fire when normally you cannot.