Power of the Machine Spirit VS Ordnance

[DR.V]

Hello BOLS

An odd thought came to my mind as I was looking over the changes to the Engiseers in the IG codex. Could I use there new ability to give a vehicle Power of the Machine Spirit to override the snap shots the ordnance gives? We already use it to override the snap shots that come from moving, so I think it would work but I am still new so I cant pretend to know how well the rules work.

Power of the Machine spirit says as long as you did not move flat out or used smoke launchers you can fire one more weapon at full ballistic skill than normally permitted.

Ordnance for vehicle says that it can only make snap shots for it other weapons if it fires an ordnance weapon that turn.

Just a thought
DR.V

[Denzark]

Codex overrules BRB, I think this is exactly the sort of use intended.

[Tynskel]

Codex overrules BRB, I think this is exactly the sort of use intended.

Power of the Machine Spirit is *not* a codex rule. That's a USR.

Don't forget that you fire at full BS, modified by modifiers... in this case, Snap Fire because of the ordnance. Aka, you get to fire 1 more gun, at BS1.

[Denzark]

A good point of which I forgot it is now a USR. However, where in either an old codex with 5th ed rules, or in the BRB, does the caveat 'modified by modifiers' appear? It says full BS.

[Nabterayl]

It has never been particularly clear what Power of the Machine Spirit actually means. It doesn't work on Zooming flyers or Swooping flying monstrous creatures, against whom you can only fire Snap Shots. It doesn't work if you've moved Flat Out, which restricts you to only firing Snap Shots. Those examples suggest that what the rule actually means is that if a vehicle has moved at a speed that entitles it to fire one or more weapons at its full Ballistic Skill, the number of weapons it can fire at full Ballistic Skill due to its movement speed is increased by one.

But that isn't what they wrote. What they actually wrote was an absolute rule that doesn't apply to two situations, both of which are analogous to firing an ordnance weapon. One of those exceptions is explicit in the rule. The other is implicit but GW seems to think it's relatively obvious.

In my opinion the answer to this question is that there is no answer. However, I think the better way to jump is Tynskel's.

[Katharon]

I think that, as far as RAI goes, that GW meant this power to allow tanks to fire their hull mount weapons at regular ballistic skill even after firing ordnance as well. It is our unfortunate lot, as Nabterayl points out, that GW seemingly doesn't have time to FAQ or fix this seemingly (FREAKING DUH) large gap in the logic of an important rule.

Considering that this question will be on the minds of practically *every* IG player out there, I think it is safe to assume (we all know what that does...) that GW will eventually give us an answer in an FAQ.

[Nabterayl]

Another relevant data point - Heavy vehicles "For the purposes of determining which weapons a Heavy vehicle, can fire (and at what Ballistic Skill), Heavy vehicles are always treated as having remained Stationary." Yet Heavy does not override Ordnance. One could see a similarity between Heavy and Power of the Machine Spirit, inasmuch as both start off talking about movement-based restrictions on how many weapons a vehicle can fire, and at what Ballistic Skill.

[Tynskel]

I think that, as far as RAI goes, that GW meant this power to allow tanks to fire their hull mount weapons at regular ballistic skill even after firing ordnance as well. It is our unfortunate lot, as Nabterayl points out, that GW seemingly doesn't have time to FAQ or fix this seemingly (FREAKING DUH) large gap in the logic of an important rule.

Considering that this question will be on the minds of practically *every* IG player out there, I think it is safe to assume (we all know what that does...) that GW will eventually give us an answer in an FAQ.

The thing is that the rule doesn't say that. It says you get to fire an extra weapon at BS, if you can fire weapons at all. However, we all know that set modifiers trump all, unless explicitly stated otherwise. PotMS does not actually state that the rule overrides set modifiers.

So, for example, flyers: you would get to fire 3 missiles instead of 2, because you have the capability of firing a weapon.

[This Dave]

I think that, as far as RAI goes, that GW meant this power to allow tanks to fire their hull mount weapons at regular ballistic skill even after firing ordnance as well. It is our unfortunate lot, as Nabterayl points out, that GW seemingly doesn't have time to FAQ or fix this seemingly (FREAKING DUH) large gap in the logic of an important rule.

Considering that this question will be on the minds of practically *every* IG player out there, I think it is safe to assume (we all know what that does...) that GW will eventually give us an answer in an FAQ.

I've gotten emails from people at Forgeworld that say the rule is that stationary vehicles can fire Ordnance and other weapons at full BS. So if that's the way they're playing it GW may never bother FAQing it despite the requests for it. Since this is indeed one way to read the rule and it makes Leman Russes actually useful I tend to go with this.

[Wildcard]

@Tynskel: Rules for one-shot weapons (i assume you meant those with flyer missiler) are explicitly restricted to 2 / shooting phase. Given the wording of the PotMS there is a line saying that it follows the normal rules for shooting, and as such does not overwrite that one-shot weapon restriction.

Aside from firing one more weapon with full ballistic skill than normally allowed, one major point on PotMS is the ability to fire that weapon at a different target. Ofc this is much more potent in those russes that do not have ordnance guns (allowing firing sponsons and hull mounted weapon at one target and turret at another for example).


Also it just came to my mind that both wywern and hydra are stated to have 2x of the similar weapons. Is it as per RAI that you could shoot those at a different target with PotMS?

Edit: @Dave: You got any of those mails to share with us?