'Bring it Down!' Tactic? RAW/RAI question

[nojinx]

Agreed, nicely presented and concluded by the OP.

I just want to make a clarification here.
This particular thread was one where a poster presented a rule that, technically speaking, functions as written. He tried to support an argument that it worked in another way by presenting not rules, but a perspective of the storyline, the fluff. This would be, in my opinion, a case where someone is using the "spirit" of the rules to argue against a RaW argument.

[BuFFo]

BuFFo - a little too unilateral, chill a bit.

You need to teach me how you can possibly read intention from non emotional lines of text on a computer screen. How can you possibly believe I am heated over this issue?

I didn't know typing in simple, straight to the point English was a sign of emotional instability...

[Aldramelech]

Ok, If you know that the rule is exactly what it says on the tin and your not trying to "bend" the rules to gain an advantage and this thread is not about gaging opinion to see if you can get away with it, Why ask the bloody question in the first place?

Perhaps I should start a thread "Can my Imperial Guard tunnel under the enemy and plant demo charges under them?"
Why not? It doesn't say they Cant in the rules.

[Jwolf]

Ok, If you know that the rule is exactly what it says on the tin and your not trying to "bend" the rules to gain an advantage and this thread is not about gaging opinion to see if you can get away with it, Why ask the bloody question in the first place?

Perhaps I should start a thread "Can my Imperial Guard tunnel under the enemy and plant demo charges under them?"
Why not? It doesn't say they Cant in the rules.

This is an example of the sort of comments I would like to avoid having on this forum - it adds nothing to the discussion, encourages bad behavior, makes accusations of malicious intent, and then segues into the absurd example.

[Aldramelech]

it adds nothing to the discussion In your opinion. My valid point in this discussion is that the rule is quite clear and needs no further interpretation.

encourages bad behavior How exactly? What particular behavior is being encouraged here? You don't agree with what I'm saying so your going to call me a bad dog? naughty schoolboy? send me to bed without any supper? Please.........

makes accusations of malicious intent If you regard any of the above as "Malicious" then you my friend have led a very sheltered life.

and then segues into the absurd example About as absurd as advocating ordering an out of range Hvy Wp team that has just moved to fire at a target it has no LOS to?

[tuffdart]

ASCII is notorious. Inflammatory is in the eye of the beholder or deep in the psyche.

Thanks Nojinx you're close. I really thought the rule might be written that way (loosely) for the purpose I described. It would be a great match to the fluff too!
I've humped an M1919, .30 cal before. True, it's a squad support weapon, technically, but even when I was 112 pounds I could heave it over a ridge line and start hammering away. (I know, game NOT simulation!)

You're welcome jwolf. But of course you know what a classy guy I am.
I didn't cry in front of you when I rolled a 3 for night fighting in the first round of gladiator.
The Adepts are still finding pieces of my Warhound and my neural interface still feels like molten glass.
I doubt if I'll ever pilot a Titan again.
But I do hold a grudge.

As to recent comments, oh well, water off a duck's back.
Thanks again to all the others. Sometimes I'm uncertain and it's nice to have a place to pose the question.

[Sam]

Of course the heavy weapons teams can fire if they have moved. They just have to fire their lasguns instead of their heavy weapons.

[Lerra]

Why ask the bloody question in the first place?

Personally, I like seeing threads like this where the rules are stretched to their limit, and people try to figure out where the line is between legal and illegal. I don't play guard, and earlier today, if someone were to attempt to use Bring it Down to fire heavy weapons teams that moved, I probably would have let them do it (I tend to give opponents the benefit of the doubt if they insist it's legal). Now I know for sure that it isn't legal, and I have some justifications I can use to argue my point.

I see no problem in searching for rules loopholes, both for your own army and as defense against other armies.

[Aldramelech]

Now I know for sure that it isn't legal, and I have some justifications I can use to argue my point.

A good point well made. I concede to that point.....

[Angrod]

here's a curveball
i remember reading that orders are done before movement...

just here to ruin your day.