Land raider popping smoke?

[thade]

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

 

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

 

Honestly, I'm not sure why. You summed it up marvelously with the lay out of all the lingo in your recent post there; but, it's up to you guys [the mods]. Makes me feel a little guilty for dropping out of the debate...but I took a nice family vacation which I feel took precedence. <3

[Koremu]

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how 0+1 doesn't equal 1.

[thade]

Yeah, they lost me there too.

[Acebaur]

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

 

Thank you all for keeping the conversation civil, and on topic.[/color]

 

Honestly, I'm not sure why. You summed it up marvelously with the lay out of all the lingo in your recent post there; but, it's up to you guys [the mods]. Makes me feel a little guilty for dropping out of the debate...but I took a nice family vacation which I feel took precedence. <3

 

 

The reason it's going there is because I(and several others) completely disagree with his (and yours) opinion on how it works

[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.[/color]

 

Honestly, I'm not sure why. You summed it up marvelously with the lay out of all the lingo in your recent post there; but, it's up to you guys [the mods]. Makes me feel a little guilty for dropping out of the debate...but I took a nice family vacation which I feel took precedence. <3

 

 

The reason it's going there is because I(and several others) completely disagree with his (and yours) opinion on how it works

Yep. Though I still cant wrap my head around how your coming to the conclusions you do, so I cant write anything just yet.

 

Explain it again?

[Meatman]

Yeah, no weapons normally allowed to fire, PotMS lets you fire a shot. All I wanted was to make sure :S

 

Now look what happened.

[thade]

It doesn't really belong in the Grey Area. :) All of those rules have well-supported arguments for both sides that are equally understandable and strong. Here we have one 0+1 = 1 argument, and a 0 + 1 = 0 argument. I've summed up the typical position (the one that I've seen) several times now. Let me see if I can sum up their position.

 

(0 + 1 = 0) The smoke rule is in the BRB. It states that no weapons may be fired after smoke has been used.

 

There ends their argument.

 

Here is my argument.

 

(0 + 1 = 1) PotMS appears in a codex. Codex rules trump BRB rules. How many guns are you allowed to fire after smoke has been used per BRB? Zero. PotMS lets us fire one more gun that we would normally be allowed to fire. After popping smoke, we are normally allowed to fire zero guns. PotMS lets us fire one.

 

Yea, I don't see their argument. Not after three pages of them saying "But the BRB says this and that's just the way it is," which seems to imply that codecies are not allowed to trump the BRB...even though they do all the time. We've gone in circles, each time they say "BRB says no" and we say "Codex trumps BRB." Which is correct? We all know which is really correct, at the core: codex trumps BRB. That's why codecies exist.

 

These people are all holding on to that weird-as-heck FAQ that is not GW sanctioned. It has no real basis and no explanations. We here have sound and valid explanations, and when they contradict non-GW material, I don't see why we wouldn't go with them? My club laughed in my face when I told them about this discussion (all forty of them) and said "0 + 1 = 1".

[Valerian]

Codex rules trump BRB rules.

 

I'm not arguing one way or the other regarding this issue, but just wanted to point out to you thade that codex rules only trump BRB rules when there is a direct conflict. That isn't necessarily the case here. The rules in the BRB describe how launching Smoke on a vehicle works, while various codices describe how using PotMS works. They aren't in conflict, necessarily, so the codices do not necessarily over-ride what has been written in the rulebook.

 

Consider the "order of operations", an important concept in math, for example, in which the order that you apply a rule makes a difference.

 

Let us use an example of a Land Raider Phobos (aka "Godhammer") which has moved at Combat Speed (5 inches). A standard vehicle that moves at Combat Speed is allowed to fire a single Main Weapon, plus any Defensive Weapons; which means our Land Raider would get to fire only a single Twin-linked Lascannon as its main weapon (it has no Defensive Weapons to worry about). Now if we apply the Smoke rule first, we remove that normally allowed Lascannon shot, as described in main rulebook. Then, if we consider the PotMS, which allows one additional Main Weapon shot than normal, we get to fire that Lascannon after all. Effectively giving us: (1 x 0) +1 = 1.

 

However, if we take the same example and change the order of operations we start with the ability to fire a single Twin-Linked Lascannon as the Main Weapon at Combat Speed. Then add the second Twin-Linked Lascannon for PotMS giving us a total of two shots. Lastly, however, we apply the Smoke rule, which takes away our ability to shoot weapons. Thus we finish with: (1+1) x 0 = 0.

 

It is up to you to determine the appropriate order of operations. I have my own opinion on that, but will keep it to myself for now.

 

Valerian

[thade]

Applying Order of Operations to this would be magnificent as it's clear and solid; if only they would've written the rules so that could happen. =( Magic the Gathering (at least in the state it was in when I played it in the late 90s) was very much like this, with the stack making it very clear what spells resolved when and how. There is no such rigid structure in Warhammer, and to impose one again falls into the realm of RAI, somewhere we can't go. But, for sake of argument, let's go there. =)

 

Order of Operations gets tricky. If you are curious, do a search for the several discussion threads we've had here regarding when precisely Smoke is applied. This is important in the case of a Rhino carrying a Tac Squad, for instance: the Rhino forgoes it's shooting for the turn when it pops smoke, but the Tac squad does not. How do they fire out from the smoke screen? RAW they can and it's not really relevant how...but as we like to make sense of things, we've several times now settled on the thought that Smoke pops at the end of the Shooting phase (after all other shooting has taken place). If THAT is the case, then PotMS can indeed fire before the Smoke Screen resolves at all - in the same way as a Tactical Squad Missile Launcher model can fire from the Rhino before Smoke is popped. This is RAI...but then again, imposing Order of Ops is RAI too.

 

Maybe we'll luck out with the next edition of 40k's rules and get a clearer ruleset. ;) But I'll not hold my breath.

[Agrab]

Applying Order of Operations to this would be magnificent as it's clear and solid; if only they would've written the rules so that could happen. =( Magic the Gathering (at least in the state it was in when I played it in the late 90s) was very much like this, with the stack making it very clear what spells resolved when and how. There is no such rigid structure in Warhammer, and to impose one again falls into the realm of RAI, somewhere we can't go. But, for sake of argument, let's go there. =)

 

Order of Operations gets tricky. If you are curious, do a search for the several discussion threads we've had here regarding when precisely Smoke is applied. This is important in the case of a Rhino carrying a Tac Squad, for instance: the Rhino forgoes it's shooting for the turn when it pops smoke, but the Tac squad does not. How do they fire out from the smoke screen? RAW they can and it's not really relevant how...but as we like to make sense of things, we've several times now settled on the thought that Smoke pops at the end of the Shooting phase (after all other shooting has taken place). If THAT is the case, then PotMS can indeed fire before the Smoke Screen resolves at all - in the same way as a Tactical Squad Missile Launcher model can fire from the Rhino before Smoke is popped. This is RAI...but then again, imposing Order of Ops is RAI too.

 

Maybe we'll luck out with the next edition of 40k's rules and get a clearer ruleset. ;) But I'll not hold my breath.

 

side point, the rules clearly state that smoke only occurs during the opps. shooting phase, thus not blocking LOS or anything during yours

 

that said, I think that the order is obvious. The tank declares that it is now shooting, pops smoke, then states that it has one more shot (per POTMS) and shoots the las.

[thade]

side point, the rules clearly state that smoke only occurs during the opps. shooting phase, thus not blocking LOS or anything during yours

 

Refer to BRB p. 62, bottom right. Smoke launchers are fired "after the vehicle has completed it's move". Since embarked models can fire from the fire points, and Dreads can still run, it seems to make sense that they are fired at the end of the Shooting phase (no one else is moving and LOS/cover during my shooting phase isn't an issue). Though, given the writing of the rule, you are right in that it may as well not take affect until the opponent's following shooting phase (as that's the only time it mattered, and the rules state that it must matter then). So, I think I like your reading of it. ;) It clears up a lot.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, it seems that 0 + 1 does in fact equal 1.

[Agrab]

side point, the rules clearly state that smoke only occurs during the opps. shooting phase, thus not blocking LOS or anything during yours

 

Refer to BRB p. 62, bottom right. Smoke launchers are fired "after the vehicle has completed it's move". Since embarked models can fire from the fire points, and Dreads can still run, it seems to make sense that they are fired at the end of the Shooting phase (no one else is moving and LOS/cover during my shooting phase isn't an issue). Though, given the writing of the rule, you are right in that it may as well not take affect until the opponent's following shooting phase (as that's the only time it mattered, and the rules state that it must matter then). So, I think I like your reading of it. It clears up a lot.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, it seems that 0 + 1 does in fact equal 1.

 

It is obscured during their shooting, which makes me think that it only works then, even if fired earlier

anyways, i am with you with the shot with smoke, and am planning on using it a ton

[thade]

It's been that way at every tournie and table I've been to so far; seems reasonable to me.

[Acebaur]

Well Thade, if you actually read what we wrote you would realize that we didn't just keep posting for 3 pages about the BRB says no so you can't. Nor did I mention the INAT more than once which I did only as an aside. So for the last time I'll explain myself because I grow tired of this now useless discussion.

 

There are only 3 times when you can't shoot a weapon from a vehicle in 40K(barring destroyed/wrecked damage)

 

1. You are suffering from "Crew Shaken" or "Crew Stunned"

 

2. You moved at Crusing Speed and are not a Fast vehicle

 

3. You popped smoke.

 

 

*Note: deepstriking doesn't count here because the BRB says that vehicles that deepstrike count as moving at Cruising Speed.

 

 

Looking at the PotMS rule in the C:SM it says you can shoot one more weapon than normal. It then goes on to list the occasions when this is applicable, siting the first two reasons I mentioned above. It leaves out smoke because it is not on the list of permitted times to use PotMS. This is not a list of examples because everywhere that I can find where GW gives a list of examples they start with "For example" and/or end with "etc..." Both of which are absent from the PotMS rule. Furthermore why if there are only 3 times when you can't shoot a weapon, why would they leave out popping smoke? Because it is a list of times when it is permitted(because 40K is a permissive rule set) not a list of examples.

 

This is my reasoning why you can't do it. Your argument of 0+1=1 is only part of the picture. You can't cherry pick which parts of the rule you want to use. Ultimately this arguement comes down to how you interpret the second paragraph in the PotMS rule. I interpret it as a list of when you can fire for the reasons above. If you don't like it, fine that's your opinion.

[thade]

Ultimately this arguement comes down to how you interpret the second paragraph in the PotMS rule. I interpret it as a list of when you can fire for the reasons above.

 

The list of examples that people wish to maintain is completely exhaustive? I agree that it is the crux of your argument, but I can't see how it can hold. Exhaustive lists are pretty clear when they're done in the codecies; usually with a phrase like this: "[this power] can be used in the following circumstances only." The word "only" does not appear in the PotMS paragraph that you all fixate on. A list of examples, not exhaustive. It shouldn't surprise anyone that it's not exhaustive, as many things in the rules are not. The ruleset is massive and the only want to be comprehensive is to state a rule as clearly as possible and submit examples where appropriate. Do not be confused by examples; they are just that. Examples.

 

I still don't see that as fodder for the Grey Area; but it's not up to me.

[Agrab]

Well Thade, if you actually read what we wrote you would realize that we didn't just keep posting for 3 pages about the BRB says no so you can't. Nor did I mention the INAT more than once which I did only as an aside. So for the last time I'll explain myself because I grow tired of this now useless discussion.

 

There are only 3 times when you can't shoot a weapon from a vehicle in 40K(barring destroyed/wrecked damage)

 

1. You are suffering from "Crew Shaken" or "Crew Stunned"

 

2. You moved at Crusing Speed and are not a Fast vehicle

 

3. You popped smoke.

 

 

*Note: deepstriking doesn't count here because the BRB says that vehicles that deepstrike count as moving at Cruising Speed.

 

 

Looking at the PotMS rule in the C:SM it says you can shoot one more weapon than normal. It then goes on to list the occasions when this is applicable, siting the first two reasons I mentioned above. It leaves out smoke because it is not on the list of permitted times to use PotMS. This is not a list of examples because everywhere that I can find where GW gives a list of examples they start with "For example" and/or end with "etc..." Both of which are absent from the PotMS rule. Furthermore why if there are only 3 times when you can't shoot a weapon, why would they leave out popping smoke? Because it is a list of times when it is permitted(because 40K is a permissive rule set) not a list of examples.

 

This is my reasoning why you can't do it. Your argument of 0+1=1 is only part of the picture. You can't cherry pick which parts of the rule you want to use. Ultimately this arguement comes down to how you interpret the second paragraph in the PotMS rule. I interpret it as a list of when you can fire for the reasons above. If you don't like it, fine that's your opinion.

 

almost none of the 'examples' in the BRB are exclusive (i.e. only these situations) and most are inclusive (i.e. including (but not limited to) these situations). Why would this one be any different?

furthermore, as it does not say 'only in these situations' it is logical to assume that IDENTICAL WORDING receives the same result

[thade]

Were the word "only" in that list of examples, then by that writing Smoke would prevent PotMS from firing. As it does not say "only", by RAW it's allowed it to fire as I've previously explained.

 

How many guns can normally fire when Smoke is up? Zero. PotMS allows us to fire one more gun than we would normally be able to. How many guns can we fire with PotMS when Smoke is up? One.

 

How did it work in previous editions? Were there smoke launchers? Could PotMS fire through them (albeit at it's lesser BS)?

[Gentlemanloser]

The comparison to Bladestorm was really quite interesitng, I'd like to revisit it for a minute.

 

Imagine that Smokes made you unable to fire in the subsequent Shooting Phase, instead of the current one.

 

Is the wording of PotMS then any different to that of Bladestorm?

 

So if in *any* phase the number of shots you can make is zero, PotMS gives you +1.

 

If in *any* phase the number of shots you can make is zero, BS gives you +1.

 

How are they any different, other than Smoke (ore movement to be complete) applying the firing restriciton to the current phase, and BS to the subsequent?

 

 

I have a problem claiming that BS makes you have zero shots, therefore you can't fire your +1 (As there is absolutly no restirion on when BS can be used or how many itmes it can be used...), when the exact same arguement is being used to allow it for PotMS.

[Agrab]

The comparison to Bladestorm was really quite interesitng, I'd like to revisit it for a minute.

 

Imagine that Smokes made you unable to fire in the subsequent Shooting Phase, instead of the current one.

 

Is the wording of PotMS then any different to that of Bladestorm?

 

So if in *any* phase the number of shots you can make is zero, PotMS gives you +1.

 

If in *any* phase the number of shots you can make is zero, BS gives you +1.

 

How are they any different, other than Smoke (ore movement to be complete) applying the firing restriciton to the current phase, and BS to the subsequent?

 

 

I have a problem claiming that BS makes you have zero shots, therefore you can't fire your +1 (As there is absolutly no restirion on when BS can be used or how many itmes it can be used...), when the exact same arguement is being used to allow it for PotMS.

 

If BS was in the BRB and your vehicle has POTMS then you would be right

however, BS in in your codex, which means that it wins out as it is more specific and in the codex.

 

 

could you possibly quote BS though, make it easier?

"Once per game, after completing its move, a vehicle with smoke launchers can trigger them... The

vehicle may not fire any of its weapons In the same turn as it used its smoke launchers" - smokie

 

*edit*

BS=add one to the number of shots allowed

POTMS= one more weapon

 

that is the difference. BS does not allow the firing of extra weapons, POTMS does

[thade]

Yep, the wording between Bladestorm and PotMS was different in one key way. PotMS says "you may fire one more weapon than you would normally be allowed" and Bladestorm says "[the unit] may choose to add one to the number of shots they each fire with shuriken weapons that turn. If they do so they may not fire in the subsequent shooting phase."

 

So, by that writing, if you want to really get picky, they can Bladestorm each turn...but only fire one shot each turn (making their Assault 2 weapons an Assault 1 weapon). If they don't skip on firing for a turn, they will always fall pray to the "You can't fire next turn" Bladestorm consequence.

 

PotMS has no such consequence.

 

EDIT: May I also add that the Eldar codex is a 4th Ed codex. It's grandfathered in so it may be used, but it's an inadequate precedent for 5th ed. material.

[Gentlemanloser]

Exactly.

 

I don't tihnk it is being picky. In this thread, 'one more' is being used as +1, or 'add one'. No difference.

 

Wasn't a lot of the thread about 0+1=1? And smoke just setting the number of wepaons you can fire to zero?

 

If you BS with Dire Avengers, it *might* be potentially better to get another round of shooting in as Assault 1 (after the Assault 3 previously), than taking the turn not shooting at all.

 

It's nice to know the option is there.

 

And as for it being out of date, tell me aobut it. My army are Grey Knights. ;)

 

that is the difference. BS does not allow the firing of extra weapons, POTMS does

 

That a very good point. :)

 

The PotMS LR could fire a 4 shot Assault Cannon with it's extra Weapon. ;)

[thade]

I should add that BSing to fire once a turn is shenanigan-y as it's contrary to fluff...they are reloading their guns. You can't fire while you're reloading. :) But RAW is indifferent, so there it is.

[Gentlemanloser]

Some might feel that shooting out of smoke is the same deal.

[thade]

Some might feel that shooting out of smoke is the same deal.

 

Which would be RAI, not RAW.

 

But while we're talking RAI, we have on the one hand a unit of Eldar that's reloading it's guns...and they can't really fire when their guns have no ammo in them. On the other hand we have a giant tank with one gun being guided by a supernatural force that derives from the Immortal Emperor of Mankind. Something tells me the Machine Spirit's "vision" is not obscured by smoke from it's own tank. :) Probably because the smoke doesn't fire out until the end of the Shooting Phase (or, at the latest, the start of the opponent's Shooting Phase).

[Gentlemanloser]

Then you start getting into the sticky 'realism' discussion. :)

 

Like why then does enemy Smoke still give the 4+ Cover save to shots from your PotMS attacks, which as a supernatural extension of the emperors will, can see through smoke. :P