Land Raiders & POTMS & Smoke

[zebanash]

So.... Land Raider moves 12", Pops smoke... are they allowed to still shoot one weapon via POTMS?

 

just something i thought of and i'm not sure about.

[Acebaur]

Oh god, here we go again. It as already been discussed ad nauseum. Here is the link to the thread

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=201869

 

Let's not open this can of worms again.

[zebanash]

Ah, didn't see the other thread, my bad.

[Isiah]

No worries zebanash the topic was quite old... searchy is often your friend though ;).

[Commander Sasha]

Oh god, here we go again. It as already been discussed ad nauseum...Let's not open this can of worms again.

This is the wrong answer.

 

No worries zebanash the topic was quite old... searchy is often your friend though ;).

This is the right one!

(Notice Zeb only joined last month..?)

[dswanick]

No worries zebanash the topic was quite old... searchy is often your friend though ;).

And in zebs defense - I've been on this forum long enough to remember the thread and I still couldn't find it with search (even knowing that it was there somewhere). ;)

[Grey Mage]

Summary-

 

Some people think you can, using the basic logic that 0 shots +1 shots = 1 shot.

 

Some people think you cant, using the logic that smoke precludes all shots.

[Marshal Serion]

Summary-

 

Some people think you can, using the basic logic that 0 shots +1 shots = 1 shot.

 

Some people think you cant, using the logic that smoke precludes all shots.

 

Your 2nd point is somewhat correct, but doesn't include the major "Against" point of view.

 

The "Against" argument is that in the paragraph on page 81 of C:SM, in the description of PoTMS, the two cases that are mentioned after the "Therefore, " are exclusive -- meaning that only in those two situations is PoTMS allowed to add an extra shot. Whether this language is, in fact, exclusive or not is a matter of interpretation, not RAW.

 

 

I have to admit that i'm with the "For" group, but the language in the Codex seems to be exclusive. In my tournament scene, there is a good majority of Marine players and our TO has decided to uphold the "Against" point of view. It hasn't really been that big of a deal in game play. Land Raiders are still quite nasty without smoke+shot.

 

Edit: clarification added, typo corrected.

[thade]

Oh man. Memories. ^_^

[Acebaur]

Oh god, here we go again. It as already been discussed ad nauseum...Let's not open this can of worms again.

This is the wrong answer.

 

No worries zebanash the topic was quite old... searchy is often your friend though :blush:.

This is the right one!

(Notice Zeb only joined last month..?)

 

 

There's no reason to jump down my throat because I was trying to head off another 5 page discussion in which we accomplish nothing. I dont think I was rude or mean to the OP. It was more a a general statement about the topic itself.

 

As you said the thread was quite far down(I had to search through 5 pages to find it.) I meant no offense to the OP I was merely showing my displeasure at the thought of discussing it again.

[Isiah]

That's fine Acebaur. Your point has been noted.

 

Just to add that as the original topic is still open, anyone is free to add more to it provided it is actually a new slant and not just worthless threadomancy. The +OR+ and larger B&C mod team are here to make those decisions.

 

Cheers

I

[Meatman]

That thread was painful to read. Just kept going around in circles :tu:

[thade]

That thread was painful to read. Just kept going around in circles :P

 

Hush, now. Do not disturb it in its slumber, lest ye awaken the beast.

 

It must rest. <3

[shatter]

I vote this issue be inducted into the gray area rules thread!

[Isiah]

OK yes that might be a good idea. Need to peruse the original topic again for all the salient points.

[thade]

As much as I hate to go against my own advice and rouse this weird beast, I really must contest it going into the Grey Area. The opposition really boiled down to whether the list of cases under PotMS for it's usage was exhaustive or not. Since lists in 40k rulebooks are seldom exhaustive, it's too weak a point to cement it's position on. Without a firmer point, I don't see how it merited the support it got; certainly not enough to go in the grey zone.

[Isiah]

Like I said the original post needs a good read through again to bring out the salient points. If if there's an obvious single solution then it shan't go in, but if it's at all ambiguous its a grey area entry.

[thade]

I trust your judgement, man; just speaking my mind.