Lumbering Behemoth, Shaken or Not?

[wkz]

Basically, we have 2 camps I guess:
(of course, for both, add "as long as the speed requirement is met")



The 'in addition' camp: If a vehicle is in a condition where no weapons is allowed to fire (such as Stunned), the Lumbering Behemoth rule switches off.

Reasoning: 'usually allowed to fire' is a condition: if the condition is not met, the result as said by the Lumbering Behemoth rule (main cannon switch on) does not occur.



The 'allowed to fire' camp: the Lumbering Behemoth ignores the vehicle's weapon's condition. It still can fire its turret weapon on top of weapons that are allowed/disallowed to fire.

Reasoning: whether or not the other weapons are 'allowed to fire', the Lumbering Behemoth rule allows one more weapon "in addition" on top of that.



Edit:

...
However, to add 2 eggs to a bowl of flour (while making a cake) is to place 2 eggs into an already existing flour.

Without the flour one cannot add the 2 eggs. They can simply have 2 eggs, or place 2 eggs.
....

This is very interesting, because rules usually are not supposed to be context sensitive. Plus, you got the context slightly wrong: The objective is not to make a cake. The objective is to dump as much stuff into the bowl as possible.

True, you cannot add flour because some idiot had snatched the bag of flour from your hands (Shaken). BUT you can still add the egg (Turret weapon) into the bowl (shooting) in addition to whether or not you had flour, correct?

[Nabterayl]

The (incorrect) interpretation of the Lumbering Behemoth rule that results in conclusion of being able to fire the main turret while shaken is brought about by a breakdown in the understanding of the English language, caused by ever having been taught math in your life ever.

The word add (or in this case addition) has multiple meanings that are context sensitive.

To add 2 and 2 produces 4 in the mathematical context. To add 0 and 1 produces 1. This is because in the mathematical context to add is to combine two number values into a single value.

However, to add 2 eggs to a bowl of flour (while making a cake) is to place 2 eggs into an already existing flour.

Without the flour one cannot add the 2 eggs. They can simply have 2 eggs, or place 2 eggs.

This is the meaning of the word in the Lumbering Behemoth rule.

Furthermore, the use of phrase "in addition to" in the English language carries an IDENTICAL meaning to the phrase "as well as".

In each case, (using add outside of a mathematical context, and the phrase "as well as") results in first requiring something to be added to.

In order to fire the turret weapon under the Lumbering Behemoth rule, the tank must first be allowed to fire any of its other weapons.

Just to be sure I understand you, since math is definitely not my strong suit, you are arguing that you cannot fire a turret weapon "in addition" to zero permissible weapons (LB), but you may have "one more" weapon than zero permissible weapons (PotMS)?

[Foreigner]

PotMS states that a vehicle may fire 1 more weapon than normally allowed. Then the sentence ends.

Lumbering Behemoth states that the tank may fire its turret weapon as well as any other weapons it is normally allowed.

[wkz]

PotMS states that a vehicle may fire 1 more weapon than normally allowed. Then the sentence ends.

Lumbering Behemoth states that the tank may fire its turret weapon as well as any other weapons it is normally allowed.

If Lumbering Behemoth stated similarly to PotMS, it would allow the side or hull weapons to get the shot instead of the Turret weapon. Thus the wording.

The interesting thing is does the Turret weapon gain something similar to PotMS in the fact it can fire that 1 more specific weapon than normally allowed?

[Foreigner]

If Lumbering Behemoth stated similarly to PotMS, it would allow the side or hull weapons to get the shot instead of the Turret weapon. Thus the wording.

The interesting thing is does the Turret weapon gain something similar to PotMS in the fact it can fire that 1 more specific weapon than normally allowed?

I only sort of understand what you just said, but if I have it right......

No. Lumbering Behemoth is not saying that the tank can fire 1 more weapon that normally allowed.

It is saying that the tank may also fire its turret weapon when firing any other weapons. (most typically overriding the ordinance weapons are the only weapons rule)

[Nabterayl]

PotMS states that a vehicle may fire 1 more weapon than normally allowed. Then the sentence ends.

Lumbering Behemoth states that the tank may fire its turret weapon as well as any other weapons it is normally allowed.

I get that. But you're arguing that if I put you in Fort Knox and told you you could place one gold bar in your backpack as well as any bars of unobtainium you found, or in addition to any bars of unobtainium you found, my instructions would not permit you to place one gold bar in your backpack. That does not seem like the correct parsing of that sentence to me.

[Foreigner]

I get that. But you're arguing that if I put you in Fort Knox and told you you could place one gold bar in your backpack as well as any bars of unobtainium you found, or in addition to any bars of unobtainium you found, my instructions would not permit you to place one gold bar in your backpack. That does not seem like the correct parsing of that sentence to me.

Colloquialized English would have me walk out with 1 gold bar and a theoretical 0 unobtanium bars.

Correct English would leave me sadface with no gold were there to be no unobtanium.


EDIT: And the correct fictional example would be to say that I must leave Fort Knox with no more than 1 gold bar as well as ALL the unobtanium bars.

Double Edit: The previous edit implies there must be unobtanium for me to take.

[Nabterayl]

Fair enough. Can you explain on what basis you view LB as not describing a mathematical operation?

[Foreigner]

Fair enough. Can you explain on what basis you view LB as not describing a mathematical operation?

The assumption that it is describing a mathematical operation stems from the similarities of the words "in addition to" and the mathematical process of adding.

Adding, in math, is the combining of two given values into a single final value.

Adding, outside math, is the combining of two tangible real things into something. Outside of math the concept of nothing cannot exist. 0 is representative of the concept of nothing within mathematics. Outside math, 0 is a number, just like all other numbers, which are things(ideas). It is impossible to combine something with nothing outside of math.

The LB rule is not some tricky word problem wherein the tank can't shoot if you get a B- on your next test.

Instead the rule describes the process by which the tank shoots multiple weapons.

If a person chooses to fire only the turret weapon on the tank, there is no potential conflict with other weapons and they are free to do so under the normal rules for shooting. (TRUE for all vehicles).

Under the LB rule, the tank may instead choose to fire any of its normal(non-turret) weapons, then, in addition, fire the turret (which is typically ordnance). (FALSE for other vehicles).


edit: spelling, also going to sleep. will continue tomorrow if needed.

[wkz]

Colloquialized English would have me walk out with 1 gold bar and a theoretical 0 unobtanium bars.

Correct English would leave me sadface with no gold were there to be no unobtanium.


EDIT: And the correct fictional example would be to say that I must leave Fort Knox with no more than 1 gold bar as well as ALL the unobtanium bars.

Double Edit: The previous edit implies there must be unobtanium for me to take.

Lets put it this way:

If the Russ moved, it is NORMALLY allowed to fire ONE weapon. But you "can fire its turret weapon in addition" to that one weapon. Correct so far?

If the Russ is stationary, it is NORMALLY allowed to fire all its weapons. But you "can fire its turret weapon in addition" to all those weapons (overriding the turret weapon's Ordnance rule). Correct so far?

If the Russ is stunned, it is NORMALLY not allowed to fire... ... But you "can fire its turret weapon in addition" to all those weapons (overriding the vehicle's stunned status)

This is why Nabterayl came up with the Fort Knox example: If you are allowed a Gold Bar, over and beyond other <Mineral> bars you can take out of Fort Knox... just because you have an empty cart you cannot take said bar?


Also, another interesting interpretation: Now, you're saying you cannot fire "normal" weapons = you cannot fire the turret weapons, correct?

Well, if all your Hull/side weapons are "Weapon Destroyed"... you cannot fire "normal" weapons now, can you?
The original rule states "... can fire its turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it would normally be allowed to fire (even if the turret weapon is ordnance!)...". Well, you can't fire any other weapons! Will the turret weapon shut down in this case?

(Granted, you can just take the Turret weapon and fire it normally... or can you? Will the Lumbering Behemoth rule tangle up the tank at this stage?)

@Foreigner: I think my main beef is with your argument, rather than your stance. Curious, no?