Smokey Landraiders

[pwrserge]

Hi all. It does appear that my search-FU is weak. So I am sory if this has been discussed.

 

Is the following legal?

 

Land Raider moves 12", pops smoke, and uses PotMS to fire one weapon at a valid target.

 

The logic behind this is that PotMS allows you to "[fire one more weapon than normally allowed]".

 

Crusing Speed -> Allowed to fire no weapons -> One weapon more than none = 1 (Specifically adressed in the rules.)

Shaken / Stunned -> Allowed to fire no weapons -> One weapon more than none = 1 (Specifically adressed in the rules.)

 

Does it then follow?

 

Smoked -> Allowed to fire no weapons -> One weapon more than none = 1

 

Thanks for the help.

[Vet Sgt Ezekiel]

I've had this discussion with a friend recently during a game and we both agreed that NO weapons can be fired through smoke.

 

If an Eldar Falcon with all its fancy sighting systems can't shoot you because of the smoke then you can't shoot it with PoftMS either. Fluff wise 40k 'smoke' would probably have all sorts of chaff like stuff in it to prevent any weapon targeting.

[chaplain_quint]

Somehow I can see this end up in a RAW vs RAI thread...

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Yes you can. Why is smoke different than crew shaken/stunned or moving at cruising speed?

[Vet Sgt Ezekiel]

I worked off the presumption that the target is totally obscured by the smoke and cannot be seen. Rather than harder to target/hit when moving etc.

[Stanley Tweedle]

Are there any non-fluff related reasons against it?

[Gurth]

I worked off the presumption that the target is totally obscured by the smoke and cannot be seen

Too bad the rules these days are based on RAW, and that means that being able to fire one more than no weapons means you can fire one weapon, I'd say …

[Brother Gothard]

Too bad the rules these days are based on RAW, and that means that being able to fire one more than no weapons means you can fire one weapon, I'd say …

I'd say that too. What has fluff got to do with it? The way the OPs argument has been setup, you indeed can fire a weapon with PoTMS after using smoke launcher. If those are indeed the rules, then that is indeed the result.

[Maijin]

I worked off the presumption that the target is totally obscured by the smoke and cannot be seen. Rather than harder to target/hit when moving etc.

 

But the target isn't "totally obscured and can't be seen". It can be seen. Smoke only gives you a cover save, it doesn't make you invisible. :)

[jeffersonian000]

The rules stated that a vehicle may not fire any of its weapons after using smoke. As Machine Spirit allows you to fire one more weapon than you normal could, and smoke prohibits all forms of weapons fire, I say that no, you could not use PotMS to fire while cloaked in smoke.

 

SJ

[DevianID]

The way it was explained to me the last time this came up was: It is not that you cant use PotMS, it is that after firing a weapon you can not use smoke. Or, the restriction for smoke lanuchers is on the smoke, not on the weapons being fired.

 

Direct quote of smoke from someone would solve this, but it goes something like 'A vehicle that has not fired any weapons in the shooting phase can use their smoke launchers.' Anyone with a rulebook handy while I am stuck at work?

[Vet Sgt Ezekiel]

The last line in the codex smoke launchers section says 'rules in the codex takes precedence' so i'd say it can fire. Contrary to what i said before ! :lol: Oh, well....

 

In reality smoke is dispersed to completely block LOS from your vehicle to target and vice versa. You can't see anything at all in front because of the smoke which is why, during a game, we went for the 'realist approach'.

 

Check the section on page 62 of the rules and see. I reckon that solves it?

[Stanley Tweedle]

The way it was explained to me the last time this came up was: It is not that you cant use PotMS, it is that after firing a weapon you can not use smoke. Or, the restriction for smoke lanuchers is on the smoke, not on the weapons being fired.

 

Direct quote of smoke from someone would solve this, but it goes something like 'A vehicle that has not fired any weapons in the shooting phase can use their smoke launchers.' Anyone with a rulebook handy while I am stuck at work?

 

Erm... that would work, but unfortunately smoke launchers are used before any shooting, at the end of your movement phase. So by RAW yes, you can fire POtMS after using smoke. I cant see any reasons against it beyond fluff and common sense. In the grim dark future there is no logic, only RAW...

 

Fluffwise, it is written in the description of POtMS that it "allows the crew to target with incredible accuracy" Perhaps the sophisticated ancient targeting systems allow it to see through the smoke?

[Vet Sgt Ezekiel]

Rules wise i'd say yes, it can fire one weapon even though its popped smoke at the end of the movement phase. Purely because of the refer to codex statement in the rulebook.

 

Fluff wise i'd say no because a more advanced vehicle/tank would be able to target and therefore hit through smoke. If a land raider can target through its own smoke a Falcon would see it no probs without obscurity.

 

In reality an armoured vehicle would fire, pop smoke and then move/jockey to a new position/withdraw etc under the targeting cover of the smoke. The strict gaming rule doesn't give the true sequence of events and if it was correct the rules would be less fair (possibly). Unless of course you could only use it once per game........

[Praeger]

No it cant be fired.

 

Why? becouse you need PERMISION to be able to fire anyhing before you can then fire ONE MORE.

 

Think of it like this:

 

You are allowed to put an extra piece of topping on your icecream then you are normally permited.

 

I say you can put 1 topping on, you are allowed to put on two.

 

Now - I say you CAN NOT EAT ICECREAM. Since you dont have any to begin with, you cant put topping on it.

 

Simple right?

[Stanley Tweedle]

No it cant be fired.

 

Why? becouse you need PERMISION to be able to fire anyhing before you can then fire ONE MORE.

 

Think of it like this:

 

You are allowed to put an extra piece of topping on your icecream then you are normally permited.

 

I say you can put 1 topping on, you are allowed to put on two.

 

Now - I say you CAN NOT EAT ICECREAM. Since you dont have any to begin with, you cant put topping on it.

 

Simple right?

 

So by your logic since a vehicle can fire no weapons at cruising speed it can not fire using POtMS; the codex clearly states otherwise

[Vet Sgt Ezekiel]

I agree with Mr Tweedle, purely because its says 'rules in the codex take precedence' in the rule book in the smoke launchers section.

[Praeger]

So by your logic since a vehicle can fire no weapons at cruising speed it can not fire using POtMS; the codex clearly states otherwise

 

Since I have lost my marine codex I have no idea exactly what the rule says, so without being able to look at it, yes thats exactly what im saying.

 

At the same time, keep in mind that if it does specificly stat it can be used while at cruising, then that actually gives more weight to it not being able to be used with smoke - crusing is something that would stop it, and if the rule says it can be used with cruise, then that is a specific situation that is ignored - but as crusing would put in place the same limits as smoke (and a few other effects) and these are not mentioned, then in this case it would ONLY be with crusing.

[Stanley Tweedle]

So by your logic since a vehicle can fire no weapons at cruising speed it can not fire using POtMS; the codex clearly states otherwise

 

Since I have lost my marine codex I have no idea exactly what the rule says, so without being able to look at it, yes thats exactly what im saying.

 

At the same time, keep in mind that if it does specificly stat it can be used while at cruising, then that actually gives more weight to it not being able to be used with smoke - crusing is something that would stop it, and if the rule says it can be used with cruise, then that is a specific situation that is ignored - but as crusing would put in place the same limits as smoke (and a few other effects) and these are not mentioned, then in this case it would ONLY be with crusing.

 

No, because cruising speed is given only as an example in the rules, it also says that it can fire in under any other conditions it normally wouldn't be able to.

[Praeger]

Could you please post an exact rules quote?

 

As noted I do not have my codex at the moment and so it would be nice to see some evidence to back up such ideas :)

[Isiah]

Smoke launchers (p63 Rulebook):

Once per game, after completing its move, a vehicle with smoke launchers can trigger them (it doesn't matter how far it moved). [...] The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers. [...]

 

However PoTMS (p81 C:SM):

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.

 

--------

 

As I see it, because because PoTMS says you can fire one weapon more than normally permitted it overides smoke allowing no firing at all. Therefore with smoke one weapon can be fired, even at cruising speed.

[Lord Humongous]

Direct rules conflict. Dice for it. Happily, this has the exact same effect as giving the target a 4+ cover save, which would be appropriate for firing through smoke...

[Brother Gothard]

Smoke launchers (p63 Rulebook):

Once per game, after completing its move, a vehicle with smoke launchers can trigger them (it doesn't matter how far it moved). [...] The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers. [...]

 

However PoTMS (p81 C:SM):

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.

That's very compelling.

 

Do we now just sit back and wait for for someone to say "may not fire any" does not equal "may fire zero," and therefore "one more weapon" does not apply?

 

Direct rules conflict. Dice for it.

It would be, except that rules in the codex supersede those of the rulebook.

[Tanker11]

The next question if you allow it to fire is...Would the target then get a cover save since they are obscured (as you are) from being seen?

[Frosty the Pyro]

The next question if you allow it to fire is...Would the target then get a cover save since they are obscured (as you are) from being seen?

 

Though it would make sense, the answer is no (at least they dont get a cover save from your smoke, other sources of cover are still viable), as the definition of being obscured does not make enemies obscured. (aka smoke doesnt say so, PotMS doesnt say so, and the definition of obscured doesnt says so, so it is not so)