Land raider popping smoke?

[Grey Mage]

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.

There is a difference. Bladestorm doesnt allow you to fire an extra weapon but rather an extra shot with a weapon. Increasing the effectiveness of a weapon does not allow you to fire a weapon by default.

 

Bladestorm has no bearing on this discussion one way or the other. Its infantry, not vehicle. It doesnt use the same wording. It has an entirely different effect.

[Gentlemanloser]

So in BladeStorms case 0+1=0?

 

What a difference 'shot' over 'weapon' makes eh? :cry:

[thade]

So in BladeStorms case 0+1=0?

 

What a difference 'shot' over 'weapon' makes eh? :D

 

You are taking things out of context in this case. There is no 0+1. It's N+1 where N >= 2 (as it's Assault 2). So it's either 3 or 0 (because they can't fire).

[Agrab]

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And as for it being out of date, tell me aobut it.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. :RTBBB:

 

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

 

That a very good point. :yes:

 

The PotMS LR could fire a 4 shot Assault Cannon with it's extra Weapon. :no:

 

Do the eldar have a POTMS in their rule set that we can use to apply? If they did, and they had it on the unit BSing, then the unit could indeed fire one more weapon the next turn then normal (in this case, one)

however, i dont think they do, so this is actually not a valid comparison

[Grey Mage]

So in BladeStorms case 0+1=0?

 

What a difference 'shot' over 'weapon' makes eh? :RTBBB:

It does indeed- example: Monstrous Creatures can fire two weapons on the move, but they cannot fire a single shot weapon twice, nor are they limited to two shots with a three shot weapon.

 

The terms are simply entirely different.

[njm3]

Didn't see this in the grey area listing and the thread doesn't seem to be resolved, so thought I'd throw in a summary to see if everyone agreed to disagree.

 

Two thoughts:

 

PotMS: "...one more weapon than would normally be permitted".

 

Side One's argument is:

Are you permitted to fire one weapon? Great, now you may fire two. If you are not allowed to fire, PoTMS doesn't add 1 to zero, you may not fire a weapon, unless a specific listing in the PoTMS rule allows firing in a situation where no weapons can normally be fired. Smoke isn't listed, so no firing. (Therefore is a closed list)

 

Side Two's argument is:

If zero are allowed to be fired, I can fire one. Any situation that no weapons can be fired gets a +1, so 0 + 1 = 1, I get to shoot through smoke. (Therefore listing isn't closed)

 

Two prohibitions against firing in the BRB:

58: "Vehicles that moved at cruising speed may not fire."

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

 

PoTMS entry (BA codex): "...a vehicle that [has] moved at cruising speed... can fire a single weapon"

 

Both smoke and crusing in the BRB say May not fire, but PoTMS provides an example that overrides "may not fire".

 

So is the "Therefore" list in PoTMS closed?

 

Dunno.... I'd say either agree before the game one way or the other or roll for it.

 

My thought is that "Therefore" is examples, but both sides have wiggle room.

 

Secondly (and brought up earlier in the thread), why does it seem that embarked passengers can fire from fire points when the vehicle pops smoke (and the vehicle can't fire)?

[thade]

The two arguments, as I recall...boiled down to whether the list of situations where PotMS allowed one more shot in it's entry was either exhaustive (the 0+1=0 camp) or non-exaustive/examples (the 0+1=1) camp. There are an obtuse number of places in the codecies and rulebook where examples are listed in that very same way and they are by no means exhaustive, leaving the 0+1=1 camp with a very strong basis...and that is that the codex rule supersedes the BRB rule, as codex rules are apt to do.

 

So I believe it didn't make the grey area because it doesn't belong there. All of the rules in the grey area have reasonably solid cases for both interpretations.

 

Now, shame on you for committing threadomancy. ;)

[FlameAnvil]

Well PotMS allows you to move 12 inches and fire one gun, if you are not Stuned, (Stuned, no Moving or shooting). If you are stuned you can move but not shoot!

So not stuned 12 inches fire smoke. (no guns) PotMS= Fire one more gun.

 

Logicly if smoke is covering you entire tank, how do you see what you shoot at?

PotMS: The tank shoots on its own, which is why you can target a diffrent uint.

Also, Smoke does not count as a gun you can move 12" and still use it.

So, the crew moves the tank and fires smoke.

The MS decides it wants to blow up that Tau tank, well the crew cant see (smoke) and you can not reason with a MS.

So.......the PotMS does what the **** it wants to do. Provided that is one thing, i.e; Moving, or shooting, or tank shock.

[Cornishman]

I think PoTMS does allow the firing of a single weapon after activating smoke launchers:

PoTMS allows one more weapon than usually permitted to fire. Just like when moving at the vehicles top speed (usually crusing speed), or has suffered the shaken/ stunned damage result, activating smoke launchers means that the 'vehicle may not fire...'. Given the similarity in wording I do not see any reason why PoTMS wouldn’t apply after activating smoke launchers. Granted the wording for Smoke Launchers also specifies ‘any weapon’ but I would say ‘may not fire’ is the more severe restriction is it removes the ability to fire, period.

The second paragraph begins ‘therefore’; this means that what follows are examples of how the rule is applied in different situations. It does not mean that these are the only situations in which the rule applies, and there is nothing to suggest that the situations listed are indeed an exhaustive list of the situations in which it applies.

So I reason that PoTMS operates in any situation where the vehicle usually has the opportunity to fire (i.e. only during its own shooting phase), and working in conjunction with the other rules (e.g. vehicle moving and shooting and damage results) determines how many weapons it may fire, and how it may direct those attacks.

 

I would agree that it may not make sense that a vehicle may use PoTMS to fire after activating smoke launchers but many rules don’t make ‘sense’ for instance:

The way Infantry and Jump Infantry are different types of units yet Jet Bikes are just a subcategory of Bikes.

The way a unit cannot split weapon fire against multiple targets, and must fire all weapons at a single target.

 

However given the often loose way in which rules are defined it would seem impossible to create a case for either argument without some 'grey' areas. I would say the argument that ‘one more than usually permitted’ allows you to shot in your opponents turn (or say during any phase of the game) is flawed as PoTMS does not overcome the usual restrictions on when you can fire (i.e. in your shooting phase). Just as how ‘Assault’ Vehicle does not allow a unit to assault if it disembarks during your opponents turn (due to the vehicle being wrecked) nor does it allow a unit to assault if the unit deep strikes that turn (just like how Fleet does not allow a unit to assault after running if it also deep strike that turn).

[Brother_Dan'l]

I'd imagine this has all been mentioned before but...

 

Smoke is discharged in the shooting phase. All shooting is simultaneous and the PotMS specifically allows you to fire a weapon at a target other than the one chosen by crew. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that you can launch smoke and fire the one PotMS shot in the same shooting phase.

 

As to wether or not this is an intentional interaction I couldn't say. But it certainly makes for some interesting tactical options. Most of them useless, but interesting nonetheless.

[Warprat]

I'm siding with the PoTMS may not fire through smoke camp. No weapons may fire is not the same as zero weapons may fire. A no is not a zero... No is, in this case, the opposite of infinity, where there is no possible existence. You cannot have infinity +1, neither can you have nothing +1.

 

No is the absense of all numbers, including 0.

 

Warprat ;)

[Agrab]

I'm siding with the PoTMS may not fire through smoke camp. No weapons may fire is not the same as zero weapons may fire. A no is not a zero... No is, in this case, the opposite of infinity, where there is no possible existence. You cannot have infinity +1, neither can you have nothing +1.

 

No is the absense of all numbers, including 0.

 

Warprat :)

 

actually, there are several different infinities, so your example does not work. In fact, you can say infinity plus one and be valid, as there is infinity, a bigger infinity, and a smaller one

 

that said, there is no firing through smoke, as the wording clearly says the smoke occurs during the next shooting phase (not there until the opponent starts to shoot)

 

I'd imagine this has all been mentioned before but...

 

Smoke is discharged in the shooting phase. All shooting is simultaneous and the PotMS specifically allows you to fire a weapon at a target other than the one chosen by crew. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that you can launch smoke and fire the one PotMS shot in the same shooting phase.

 

As to wether or not this is an intentional interaction I couldn't say. But it certainly makes for some interesting tactical options. Most of them useless, but interesting nonetheless.

 

side point being that smoke is actually not fired until the next persons shooting phase

[Acebaur]

Lol I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this. This arguement has been going in circles more times than a NASCAR race.

 

I'm through discussing whether or not you can shoot through smoke, but I will say this. Smoke is launched "after completing it's move" per the BRB pg 62. This means that it fires them, right after moving, not in the shooting phase.

[SeattleDV8]

Lol I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this. This arguement has been going in circles more times than a NASCAR race.

 

I'm through discussing whether or not you can shoot through smoke, but I will say this. Smoke is launched "after completing it's move" per the BRB pg 62. This means that it fires them, right after moving, not in the shooting phase.

LOL....Unless you're a walker , they can 'trigger' smoke in the shooting phase if they run.

[Grey Mage]

I'm siding with the PoTMS may not fire through smoke camp. No weapons may fire is not the same as zero weapons may fire. A no is not a zero... No is, in this case, the opposite of infinity, where there is no possible existence. You cannot have infinity +1, neither can you have nothing +1.

 

No is the absense of all numbers, including 0.

 

Warprat :)

Of course, you cant fire any weapons on the turn you move 12" either.

 

And if you cant have nothing +1 then you should get rid of all your miniatures, because there was a point when your army was "nothing".

[dswanick]

My two cents:

BRB, pg66, Fire Points - "A transport vehicle may have a number of fire points defined in its entry. A fire point is a hatch or gun slit from which one passenger inside the vehicle may fire.", "Models firing from a vehicle count as moving if the vehicle moves, and may not fire at all if the vehicle moved at cruising speed that turn."

 

BRB, pg62, Smoke Launchers - "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 shooting turn as it used its smoke launchers, but will count as obscured in the next enemy shooting phase, recieving a 4+ cover save.".

 

So can a Rhino transporting a Tac squad move 6", pop smoke, and the Tac's Missile Launcher still shoots through the firepoint? If yes, then couldn't you argue that PotMS works in the same way? Allowing the PotMS to function in the same way as a transported squad armed with any of the heavy weapons mounted on the LR?

[Grey Mage]

You couldnt do that because a missile launcher is a heavy weapon.

 

But you could fire a meltagun.

[dswanick]

You couldnt do that because a missile launcher is a heavy weapon.

 

But you could fire a meltagun.

 

Good point, consider the above modified (ML to MG).

[Agrab]

Lol I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this. This arguement has been going in circles more times than a NASCAR race.

 

I'm through discussing whether or not you can shoot through smoke, but I will say this. Smoke is launched "after completing it's move" per the BRB pg 62. This means that it fires them, right after moving, not in the shooting phase.

 

But it doesn't count as obscured until the next opponent's shooting phase

[ChessMaster]

I do not want to bring bad memories or anything by digging up an old post. I just wanted to say that firing 1 weapon with POTMS after popping smoke was how we played it, until we took part in the Throne of Sculls Tournament (Battle Bunker Club, Greece). I played against a Blood Angel player and I was in a table near the judges. He moved with his Redemmer and popped smoke, but the moment he was ready to fire his Multi-Melta a judge came and told us that if you pop smoke you CANNOT fire ANY weapons, even with POTMS. We are playing it with this rules ever since.

[thade]

I do not want to bring bad memories or anything by digging up an old post. I just wanted to say that firing 1 weapon with POTMS after popping smoke was how we played it, until we took part in the Throne of Sculls Tournament (Battle Bunker Club, Greece). I played against a Blood Angel player and I was in a table near the judges. He moved with his Redemmer and popped smoke, but the moment he was ready to fire his Multi-Melta a judge came and told us that if you pop smoke you CANNOT fire ANY weapons, even with POTMS. We are playing it with this rules ever since.

 

INAT silliness that. Sorry you had to weather such a judge. <3

[dswanick]

Actually this thread was mostly resolved by the v1.1 FAQ released by GW recently. 1>A transported unit may not fire from firepoints of a vehicle which has used smoke, and 2>Dreads may not trigger smoke after running, it's done after their normal movement phase. Although they didn't clearly answer if PoTMS can do the same - it seems clearer to me that no it should not allow a weapon to be fired through a smoke screen.

[thade]

Actually this thread was mostly resolved by the v1.1 FAQ released by GW recently. 1>A transported unit may not fire from firepoints of a vehicle which has used smoke, and 2>Dreads may not trigger smoke after running, it's done after their normal movement phase. Although they didn't clearly answer if PoTMS can do the same - it seems clearer to me that no it should not allow a weapon to be fired through a smoke screen.

 

I still disagree, based on Occam's Razor. POTMS allows you to fire one more gun than you'd normally be allowed to. We are normally allowed to fire zero guns when smoke is popped; one more gun than zero is one gun. It can't be any clearer than that.

[dswanick]

Round and round she goes, were she'll stop, nobody knows...

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

I see you point, but I also see the point of those taking the position that it's not saying the vehicle may fire zero weapons - it's removing the permission of the vehicle to fire any weapons. Any = greater than zero, so 0(smoke) + 1(PoTMS) = 1 weapon fired (1=any so smoke disallows this amount of weapons firing). Especially in light of the FAQ that disallows transported passengers from shooting even though the RAW only says the vehicle may not fire any weapons.

 

Back to your regularly scheduled merry-go-round...;)

[thade]

How many guns are you allowed to fire if you many not fire any guns? The assertion that "none" and "zero" are different quantities doesn't get a grip here as they're not expecting us to operate on this with a basic understanding of set theory; they expect us to operate with a basic understanding of arithmetic. In simple arithmetic, zero was created to represent the absence of the object in question. We are allowed to fire no guns; one more than no guns is one guns.

 

It's not a merry-go-round. It's insanity.