Land raider popping smoke?

[Koremu]

Just because it isn't specifically mentioned, does not mean it doesn't apply.

 

It's a set of examples, not an exhaustive list. Otherwise how could they update the game with new weapons or troop types that cause the same effect?

[shatter]

The rule does NOT actively state they're only examples. That's the official word. Gospel if you like.

 

Many people feel, despite this simple and I feel obvious fact, they are still only examples and therefore the rule officially supports their suggested augmentation.

 

It's an issue of belief on their part, not a literal break-down of the paragraph.

 

 

But getting back to the argument...

 

Popping smoke normally affects a removal of the shoot phase for a unit. Shooting in following phase is then not normal. One more than normal doesn't help here.

 

Here's some bogus code/equation to illustrate.

 

IF pop = Y THEN sphase =/= normal

 

IF sphase = normal AND sphaseShots < sphaseShotsmaximum THEN sphaseShots = sphaseShots +1PotMS

IF sphase =/= normal THEN sphaseShots = 0

[greatcrusade08]

IF pop = Y THEN sphase =/= normal

 

IF sphase = normal AND sphaseShots < sphaseShotsmaximum THEN sphaseShots = sphaseShots +1PotMS

IF sphase =/= normal THEN sphaseShots = 0

 

Wow what are you guys smoking, this is the second time ive seen complex equations in this rules debate..

Whats wrong with you all?

 

Before arguing what a rule means you need to come to the conclusion that its a game written by gamers, not mathematicians or english professors..

 

We need to look at RAW, whilst i understand the argument that the list of examples is exhaustive, unless it actually says "from this list only" or somesuch then its not RAW to come to that conclusion.. if this assumption were correct everytime GW wanted to update a new army with special rules they would have to revisit the whole rulebook.

 

Whatever conclusion we come to, must inevitably be arguable over a tabletop, which is where occums razor comes in:

its the simplest argument to say that smoke means no shooting, but potms says may fire one more than allowed, therefore one weapon may be fired..

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Let's all be grateful that no one can prove that. @_@

 

^_^ It can be chap. ;)

 

Whatever conclusion we come to, must inevitably be arguable over a tabletop, which is where occums razor comes in:

its the simplest argument to say that smoke means no shooting, but potms says may fire one more than allowed, therefore one weapon may be fired..

 

Phooey!

 

May not fire any off its weapons means *gasp* not at all :)

 

Stun/shaken reduces shooting to zero, as does cruising speed. In this case PotMS adds one shot to zero. Potential shots x zero + one = One

 

(Potential shots + one) x zero = zero.

 

You can blow it off as mathematical-magick because that suits your argument, but it is just a model for a table-top reality. I'm not pulling smoke-launchers and mirrors from under my hat, Rocky, I promise. :)

[Grey Mage]

Except if we accept that for popping smoke we have to accept that for cruising speed aswell because they are written with the same wording.

 

They use the same phrasing in all three cases, why have it be so different in just one?

[greatcrusade08]

If your going to be obtuse then at least get it right! ;)

 

(Potential shots + one) x zero = zero.

 

there is no multiplication involved, the potms adds 1 shot to the vehicles shooting.

 

smoke launchers say may not fire ANY weapons, cruising speed etc says may fire NO weapons, it all means the same .

If potms works for cruising speed then it does for smoke, and mothing anyone has said has disproven this via RAW yet.. so Mr Creed dont mess with the rock :P

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Except if we accept that for popping smoke we have to accept that for cruising speed aswell because they are written with the same wording.

 

They use the same phrasing in all three cases, why have it be so different in just one?

 

 

If your going to be obtuse then at least get it right! :cuss

 

(Potential shots + one) x zero = zero.

 

there is no multiplication involved, the potms adds 1 shot to the vehicles shooting.

 

smoke launchers say may not fire ANY weapons, cruising speed etc says may fire NO weapons, it all means the same .

If potms works for cruising speed then it does for smoke, and mothing anyone has said has disproven this via RAW yet.. so Mr Creed dont mess with the rock ;)

 

*cough* Well, actually, the wordings are different.

 

Vehicles moving at cruising speed may not fire (may not fire = 0 normal shots)

 

Stunned/Shaken; may not shoot until the end of its next player turn (may not fire = 0 normal shots)

 

PotMS; may fire one more weapon than would be normally permitted.

 

Smoke; may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used its SL. (may not fire any of its weapons = 0 normal & special shots)

 

+++

 

It is the same as the Flying Dreadnought. Wings allows movement as JP. But if it cannot move for the rest of the game, à la Immobilised, it doesn't matter that if you could clear difficult terrain and not roll dice for distance (which is what PotMS is like) because you cannot move, no matter how you would move if you could.

 

:P

[pingo]

Making an equation using arbitrary functions and variables to essentially re-cast your original interpretation in a formula is in no conceivable way proof of anything other than you can do maths.

[shatter]

We need to look at RAW, whilst i understand the argument that the list of examples is exhaustive, unless it actually says "from this list only" or somesuch then its not RAW to come to that conclusion.. if this assumption were correct everytime GW wanted to update a new army with special rules they would have to revisit the whole rulebook.

 

Nahh, they use the codex trumps BRB system.

 

You too believe they're just examples when the English of the paragraph doesn't present them as such. You need to prove it's not the complete list before you can add items to it. The only source of extra items on that list would be GW themselves in a statement specific to that paragraph (list).

 

Just because some rules are flawed doesn't mean we get to assume they're all (potentially) flawed and interpret beyond the text. That'll only make it worse.

 

By the way, have you made any C:BA scout army tactica yet? :)

[Grey Mage]

Except if we accept that for popping smoke we have to accept that for cruising speed aswell because they are written with the same wording.

 

They use the same phrasing in all three cases, why have it be so different in just one?

 

 

*cough* Well, actually, the wordings are different.

 

Vehicles moving at cruising speed may not fire (may not fire = 0 normal shots)

 

Stunned/Shaken; may not shoot until the end of its next player turn (may not fire = 0 normal shots)

 

PotMS; may fire one more weapon than would be normally permitted.

 

Smoke; may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used its SL. (may not fire any of its weapons = 0 normal & special shots)

No Marshal, your wrong- in all three cases it says they may not fire. So in all three cases it would be (may not fire= 0 normal shots).

[rat of vengence]

Rewriting rules to suit the argument ftw!

 

Come on fellas. Noone has yet explained how you can get the shot after moving at cruising, yet can't after smoke. Make up your mind guys!

 

Smoke still allows a PoTMS shot, until someone can ACCURATELY quote a rule that says it doesn't.

 

RoV

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Making an equation using arbitrary functions and variables to essentially re-cast your original interpretation in a formula is in no conceivable way proof of anything other than you can do maths.

 

No. I am not re-casting anything. All the maths is, is a model of the reality.

 

All that maths that we can learn in Yr 11 and 12, isn't some astral-travel to re-cast reality into what we would like it to be. Maths is reality. Maths is not a hypothetical construct because some chap spent too much time on his own in a room.

All those formulae are just a model for reality.

 

My construct is clearly based on what is written as the explanation for Shaken/Stunned, Cruising, PotMS and Smoke.

 

No Marshal, your wrong- in all three cases it says they may not fire. So in all three cases it would be (may not fire= 0 normal shots).

 

They do not say the same thing, they are written differently. If GW FAQs this and you are right, I am totally cool with it. In fact that would only bless me. But as it stands Smoke does have a different wording.

 

 

Rewriting rules to suit the argument ftw!

Come on fellas. Noone has yet explained how you can get the shot after moving at cruising, yet can't after smoke. Make up your mind guys!

Smoke still allows a PoTMS shot, until someone can ACCURATELY quote a rule that says it doesn't.

RoV

 

I have not re-written anything. ftw or otherwise.

I have explained it. The explanations for Shaken/Stunned and Cruising are written differently from Smoke.

I can accurately quote a rule, and have.

 

The response the "fors" give is, 0 + 1 = 1. Well woop de doo. That is not more valid than what I have given and mine is based on a far more strict RAW than the "fors" are using. When I give a model (the only one that reflects strict RAW) people get excited as if I am using sorcery for bringing Maths into it.

 

I don't know if those people are allergic to Maths because of a bad experience during schooling or there brains haven't been made to appreciate Maths. People get shirty when mathhammer is used. Why? It is reality based and is a prediction of what is reasonable to expect. It is a scientific prediction. Far better than superstitious "I feel this unit is the awesome and so should smack down that unit" or "my experience tells me xxx".

Sure that experience is reality based too, but Maths is a far better framework to view things through.

"I have experienced muggings from tall men, therefore tall men are to be avoided..." :P What a load of bunkum.

[Grey Mage]

No Marshal, your wrong- in all three cases it says they may not fire. So in all three cases it would be (may not fire= 0 normal shots).

 

They do not say the same thing, they are written differently. If GW FAQs this and you are right, I am totally cool with it. In fact that would only bless me. But as it stands Smoke does have a different wording.

1) A mathematical formula can be correct in and of itself without being at all applicaple to the situation at hand. If I were to use the pythagorian theorem to calculate a ballistic trajectory I would not come up with the correct answer, or even one that made much sense. Just because you can fit a mathematical formula to something doesnt mean your right, or that your formula is topical.

 

You have no proofs to show your theory accurately, and it is based entirely upon the idea that your opinion is the only possibility. What you have given us here for math is worthless for debate, no matter how illustrative it might be, because it depends on the debate to prove it.

 

To quote a friend of mine 'I am always right. Why am I always right? Because I said I am, and since Im always right it must be as I said.'

 

2) again lets look at the rules:

 

For smoke launchers: 'The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers, ....'

For cruising speed: 'Vehicles that moved at cruising speed may not fire.'

This is the same. And in fact it also has the exact same meaning as:

For Shaken: 'The vehicle may not shoot until the end of its next player turn.'

And is encompassed by the meaning of:

For Stunned: 'The vehicle may not move nor shoot until the end of its next player turn.'

 

And for PotMS: 'A Landraider can fire one more weapon than would be normally permitted.'

 

They do not have a different phrasing at all between smoke launchers and cruising speed, and they have an identical meaning to the shaken stunned results. Thus- if you can fire one extra weapon while moving at cruising speed, or shaken/stunned, then you can do so while using smoke launchers.

 

Edit:

But, bringing in mathematical jargon, lets look at 'Therefore' shall we?

 

Therefore means in english: 'for that reason' or 'on that grounds'. This means that anything prefaced by 'Therefore' is an extrapolation, but doesnt mean that the list is all inclusive.

 

For example: We know the pythagorean theorem is correct, therefore we can show that a triangle with side A being 3" long and side B being 4" long will have a side C that is 5" long.

 

Therefore doesnt mean that its the only thing you can get based off the previous facts, just that what theyre about to say is some of the things that can be known based on previous facts.

[shatter]

*snip*

Therefore means in english: 'for that reason' or 'on that grounds'. This means that anything prefaced by 'Therefore' is an extrapolation, but doesnt mean that the list is all inclusive.

*snip*

 

Nope.

You cannot use the word 'anything' as you've done above. Some sentences would give you nothing to do... but that's a different issue.

 

It (therefore) can be used as you say but in this specific example, it is not so as the rest of the grammar and punctuation presents a discrete list.

 

"You've been a good boy, Tommy. Therefore you can have a treat, an apple, an orange or a pear."

 

"Awesome! Beers all 'round! WAHOOO!"

 

Dammit Tommy, why wont you take what mommy offers you? You know the rules, son. In mommy's house you live by mommy's rules.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

It seems to me that this is an intractable position argument. Fors and Againsts are both happy with there arguments. However, if someone raises doubt on your understanding, and with a reasonable claim - not "just because", isn't it the thing to be self-deprecating and not claim the line ball advantage?

 

In cricket, the rulings go 'give the benefit of the doubt to the batsmen'. The bowling team are trying to get him out. That is there job. If he could be or might be out, and even after video reviewal (and they have a sound-meter, heat-meter and projected flight-meter) if nothing is definitive, the batsmen gets the benefit of the doubt.

 

In that case, rule the line-ball call against yourself, so not to be consumed with white-line-fever.

[Acebaur]

And for those Americans(like me :rolleyes: ) who have no idea what he is talking about it's like in baseball where the tie goes to the runner. In other words, err on the side of caution.

[Grey Mage]

And in a Gentlemans game I certainly would, but I also have some real jerks in my neck of the woods sometimes, and on this Ill not budge for them.

[Velkairiwyth]

Wow, this is quite a long debate ^.^

 

I dont honestly see a final concusion being drawn on this topic, there is two arguments: For shooting and Against shooting. Both have valid rules supporting them - regardless of which side of the argument you take, its pretty clear the opposed arguments premises will support their conclusion as strongly as your ones support yours... Its a completely circular argument :s

 

Hmm... Maybe this is one that should be added to the Sticky topic of unagreed rules arguments ^.^ (If it is not already)

 

 

Personally - I would vouch for allowing the vehicle to shoot - in the flow of battle the vehicle is going to be trundling along, tracking systems are going to lock on and remember targets etc etc. If its my land-raider - Ill check with the oponnent - most I suspect would be fine, its not a game breaker (unless very very very lucky with that one shot you might get off once in the game), and I would certainly let my opponent do this with theirs. More of a "custom rule" / permission if you will, but perhaps in light of the situation its just how it will need to go :s.

[Sparhawk]

My group is playing it that you can shoot after popping but the enemy will receive a cover save since you're shooting through smoke. I always thought this was the most even-handed way to deal with the situation.

[Grey Mage]

This will go up into the "Grey Area" rules in a few days.

 

Thank you all for keeping the conversation civil, and on topic.

[Meatman]

Wow, I didn't think this was going to cause such a huge debate lol.

 

Thanks for the replies :)

[pingo]

My group is playing it that you can shoot after popping but the enemy will receive a cover save since you're shooting through smoke. I always thought this was the most even-handed way to deal with the situation.

 

Can't say fairer than that. I think this is how I will play it.

 

I actually prefer that then either the 'can' or 'can't' argument :)

[Agrab]

Guys, by your logic, it can still fire when wrecked and pre-deployment. Those are times when vehicles normally cannot fire, no?

 

You can't pick and choose beyond the list given. It's a list of the times it is allowed. It doesn't say they're just examples, yet you do.

 

Why? What is it about that sentence that does it for you? I just don't see it!!eleven!!1

 

a destroyed vehicle is not there, not is one that is not on the table

to shoot you must draw a line from a model to a target, there is no model here, so it doesn't work

 

 

the list is examples, look at the wording of it. Furthermore, smoke has the same wording as crusing speed, and we all agree you can use it then.

[Agrab]

Let's all be grateful that no one can prove that. @_@

I had a physics student prove 0=1 on a test. Didn't even realize his answer was wrong too.

 

divided by x-y when x=y??

[Agrab]

My group is playing it that you can shoot after popping but the enemy will receive a cover save since you're shooting through smoke. I always thought this was the most even-handed way to deal with the situation.

 

The book clearly says that the tank is obscured in the opponents next shooting phase (making it interesting for multi-people games), thus not obscuring any shots from the tank right now.