There's this: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=228065 where I thought the ATT RoE forum might yield more informed posts.

How do Seekers actually get used? Here's a scenario (I copied and pasted) I wrote to nail this down.

There are some ork boyz in ruins with an attached character. Pathfinder unit 'Spoon' gets a whopping 8 MLs on the lot. FW unit 'Spork' uses a few MLs to increase BS (2 MLs), slice off the Cover Save (3 MLs), and a couple minuses for pinning 2 MLs (there's the 'Ui's Gun Drone w/carbine in there), total 7 MLs used.

The orks get creamed, with only the Character left. And one MarkerLight. Now options:
1. Can the 'spork' unit *now* call in a Seeker, even though they've shot their rifles?
2. Or does it have to be another FW unit, say, 'Knife', to call in that last ML, summoning the Seeker? And thus committing unit 'Knife' to shoot at the character, even though there is another ork unit breathing down their necks?
3. Could an Ionhead, where the Seeker is hanging, use that ML to pound the last ork?

We all own the Codex:TE and I'd read it up for this. I'd like to hear from ATT's regulars.

I think I must be missing something ?

There seems to be no problem here, expend a ML token to fire a missile ??

hi BrotherErekose,

This topic has been discussed at length in this thread:
Seeker salvos and reducing cover saves with markerlights

However, it was in the context of another, related discussion so it I'm not surprised that you didn't find it
T'au Doran'ro brought up the question you are asking, and in my mind he provides a good summary and answers it at the end of the second page.

To summarize, the main question is in where the calling of seekers fits into the normal order of units firing. Is it the ML unit that must "request a seeker salvo"? Can the seeker be launched all on its own outside of the firing of another unit in response to a straggler ML token? Or does it have to be launched during the vehicle's normal firing despite the point that it "has no control" over seekers, "and cannot launch them itself". (quotes from pg 29-31 Codex: TE).

In my reading of this, and please see T'au Doran'ro's more complete analysis of the argument as I am really just summarizing him here, the key point lies in the markerlight rules themselves, on pg 29, where the entry states:
"Counters may be expended by subsequently firing units" ... "To allow a vehicle to fire a single seeker missile"

While there are definitely phrases that make the interpretation of this problem less than simple, these are the key passages that in my mind should guide interpretation.
The Pfinders that shot their ML's to put the ML counters on the board cannot "expend" the counters themselves to call in a seeker, because "Counters can only be expended by subsequently firing units".
Similarly, seekers cannot be called down outside of a the regular order of units' firing as those "Counters can only be expended by subsequently firing units". And the only unit that is specifically allowed to fire a seeker, as stated in the ML rules, is a "vehicle."
So, despite a number of confusing passages in the vehicle wargear section about the vehicle having "no control" over the firing of seekers (which simply describe the necessity for the seeker requester (ML) and the seeker carrier (vehicle) to cooperate to fire this weapon), the ML rules are actually very explicit that seekers can only be fired during a vehicle's normal shooting using any existing ML tokens on the board.

So, to answer your questions:
1) no
2) no
3) yes, provided the ionhead has not yet shot this shooting phase.

Cheers!

[Edit:] changed seeker user to seeker requester to maintain continuity with my following post.

There is a problem. I brought it up before. The problem is no unit is allowed to shoot out of his turn and his shooting must happen all at once.

The situation creates a cumbersome penalty for Tau and most people simply let it go and play as if it were 4th ed, but if you want to be very RAW and compliant to the max, you have several options you can follow:

1. According to fluff the SM is fired by the marker light operator who marked the target. Call the strike as soon as you hit with ML you want to use for the SM. It is a bit out of order, since you roll one weapon, then another, but at least you remain within that squad's turn of shooting (and the networked marker lights effectively work the same way, so there's precedence for it).

2. Any unit can call the missile, but to stay compliant to RAW, they must do it the same moment they declare their other weapons shooting. In other words, you have to say "I'm firing these 12 firewarriors, 2 gun drones and a seeker missile at the unit A". After that you roll all the shots.

In this scenario it isn't possible for the unit that killed almost all the orks to use the seeker missile to finish off the boss, because they have already finished shooting at that point. Moreover, another unit can call the missile, but then they waste a turn of shooting (because the boss becomes the units target and they may as well simply shoot it, without wasting the missile.

Theoretically speaking, there's also a benefit to this solution - if the shooting of the Seeker Missile is in fact done by a concrete unit on the table within that unit's turn of shooting, then we can assume all the marker light counters used by that unit to lower cover saves apply to the SM shot as well.

3. Regardless of who "calls" the missile, it's still the vehicle that fires it. IMHO it goes against the fluff and some of the SM wording, but can be supported with statements from the marker light rules. This option was recently favoured in an argument I had with the player (sorry for forgetting the nick, but I have to run and can't search for the old thread now) believing that the vehicle firing the SM can also consume other marker light counters to lower the cover saves on the SM's target). The RAW consequence of this approach is that all the seeker missiles you fire must be fired within the vehicle's shooting turn. Not much of a problem for Sky Ray, but can be cumbersome for other SM carriers.


Whichever option you choose, one thing is sure - per RAW someone must be shooting the missile and that missile must be shoot in that someone's shooting turn. The way we all play it (i.e. call the strike whenever you like - usually after you tried all the other options, as a last ditch attempt) is the least supportable by the rules. Unfortunately it is the most useful and the least cumbersome one too. If my opponent had a real issue with it though, I'd opt for the option 1 or 2 as I feel those two are the closest to the missile fluff (1 is probably the closest).

Is the earlier discussion you refer to Q'iq'el, the one that I linked to? If so lets put aside my original question about seeker salvos as it isn't necessarily relevant to this topic - though you are right, how this question is answered will impact any interpretation of the original Q...

So, I don't quite follow you on this point:


I skimmed over the warseer discussion, and it seems to be an assumption that many others have as well. I don't see where anyone would assume that third party units are in any way involved in this. The only units that are involved are the ML unit and the seeker carrier. It does say something general and fluffy in the seeker entry on pg 30-31 about "seeker missile arrays are provided to allow fire caste infantry to immediately obtain fire support", but this is immediately followed by a more specific statement that only "a markerlight may request a seeker salvo as per the markerlight rules". Similarly, in the ML entry on pg 29, while it provides the general rules that "Counters may be expended by subsequently firing Tau", this is a general statement setting up for the specific rules as clarified in the bullets that follow, i.e. "To allow a vehicle to fire a single seeker missile"
There is no "calling" of the seeker. The ML user requests it, and the vehicle fires it during its turn at shooting. The ML user does not have to decide on shooting that his shot is a "request", he simply shoots, and any counters can be used subsequently by vehicles carrying seekers as "requests". The fact that the vehicle "ordinarily" has no control over the seekers simply explains that "the mechanism is remote, and responds only to Markerlight users."

I agree that this solution (#3)can be a bit cumbersome, but I think it fits both fluff and gameplay and to my reading is supported by RAW.
I also agree that

And finally I agree that your option #1 fits the closest to how it is supposed to work in fluff, but this is clearly not allowed by RAW as I described in my earlier post, unfortunately.

Well, there are things the basic rules simply don't tell us. Does it have to be the model which fired the marker light or any marker light user (the wording seems to point to the later - the requirement is to have a marker light, not to be the one firing it)? Or perhaps any unit being able to receive the transmission from marker light user? The problematic part is the rules are incomplete and in such case using fluff to imagine how the weapon works is better than absolutely arbitrary decision. A Shas'Ui of a Fire Warrior unit may have a marker light emitter and all Fire Warriors have receivers. Fluff-wise, what stops them from being the ones who transmit the target data to the Seeker Missile carrier?

I'm not saying it's RAW as for the Seeker Missile shooting wording, but it is compliant to RAW when it comes to declaring shooting and shooting all the weapons in the unit's shooting turn. In other words, this solution is a compromise between 1 & 3, which are more restrictive, but also compliant to the RAW of the codex as far as possible (given the lack of other information).



The problem I have with your argument is, you assume #1 is fluff driven and #3 is rules driven. The fact is both #1 and #3 are RAW driven, they just draw upon different and conflicting rules. The part on the page 30 is not fluff - it's the RAW on how SM work, just as valid as the marker light rules on page 29. Only the first sentence of the page 30 wording can be considered as fluff.

Personally I think #1 is the solution most compliant to the RAW. It observes all the rules and doesn't really conflict with the page 29 wording. The #2 is a compromise based on the wording that you need to be equipped with a marker light to be able to call the missile (and then, your fire warrior Shas'Ui probably needs a marker light to o it, even if he doesn't fire it). #3 ignores page 30 rules (unless it's a Sky Ray, the vehicle doesn't have marker lights, so how can it shoot the missile and remain in accordance with page 30 wording?) in hope for gaining a bonus with marker light tokens to remove cover saves. Note that #1 doesn't allow for it, unless the unit calling the Seeker Missile is a unit having several networked marker lights (otherwise they cannot use their own marker light tokens for anything else than the seeker missile).

I don't follow, what rule on pg 30 does point #3 ignore?

"Any model equipped with a markerlight may request a Seeker Missile salvo". (defines the active part)
"...the vehicle carrying the seeker missiles <cut> cannot launch them itself". (straight contradiction of the page 29 wording if we interpret it your way).

The remaining wording of the Seeker Missile rules on the page 30 & 31 further hint at the vehicle not being the unit shooting the Seeker Missiles.

The problem is not that the #3 is entirely wrong. The thing is #1 is less wrong and #2 is about just as wrong (when it comes to ignoring the inconvenient wording).

If I were the one writing our codex, I'd replace the word "shoot" on page 29 with the word "launch". That way it'd be clear the vehicle is merely a carrier taking no part in actual shooting.

The way it is, #1 violates the least of the conflicting rules (basically it's in conflict only with page 29 and even that depending on how you interpete it). #2 violates the page 29 part but stays roughly in compliance with page 30&31 (as long as the 'Ui has the marker light or we assume the ability to use marker light tokens is enough, which is a bit of a stretch, but a workable compromise). #3 violates all the rules on page 30&31 and has the literal interpretation of rules on page 29 as it's only support.

That it violates the rules for Seeker Missiles and complies with the Marker Light rules is the biggest problem I have here. The logical way of going around the conflicting wording is to assume marker light rules apply to the marker light end of the business (that is explain what the token can be used for and you shouldn't read more into that), and the Seeker Missile rules describe how the Seeker Missile is actually employed (and you should comply with everything in these rules).

The vehicle, in most cases, doesn't even carry the marker light (which is one of the requirements). If you assume the vehicle's ability to receive marker light transmission is enough to call the strike, then it's no different from #2 to begin with and still contradicts some points of the page 30 & 31 rules.

This made me laugh a lot. Thanks!

Yes, those passages prohibits vehicles from firing their seekers themselves.
I totally agree. I wasn't sure that was what you were referring to because the meat of the passage is on pg 31...
But, there is no contradiction. This is why it says that "ordinarily the vehicle carrying the seeker missiles has no control over them and cannot launch them itself.”
The vehicle does not launch the seekers itself. It does not shoot its own seeker missiles. It fires them in response to a request from a markerlight user during its shooting turn. I don’t see the parts on 30 and 31 as fluff, they simply delineate, albeit not very clearly, the unique cooperation that must exist between two units in order for the seeker to fire.



except for the explicit statement on pg 29 that it is the vehicle that fires the seeker.



I guess I don't see the rules as in conflict with each other as much as you do. THey are very poorly written, and lead to obvious confusions, but what you see as a conflict I see as an attempt to explain a very unorthodox relationship in this game.

From what I can see, the sequence is as follows: See Page 29-31 of Codex Tau Empire
assuming Markerlights from a pathfinder team
"...any subsequently firing unit may expend counters....to allow a vehicle to fire a single seeker at the marked unit..."
"...vehicles cannot normally launch the seeker missiles themselves..."
"...seekers may always be fired...at different targets...regardless of the distance...any weapons fired...shaken affecting the vehicle"

RAW: basically, any unit except the marking pathfinder unit shooting at the marked target may expend a markerlight to ALLOW a vehicle to fire a seeker at the target (thus momentarily overriding the second rule) regardless of what the vehicle has done that turn

Implications:
-The unit expending the counter overrides the vehicle seeker restriction to allow the vehicle to fire the seeker at the designated target regardless of what has happened to the vehicle (except Shaken), this also implies that the vehicle can shoot beforehand and still fire the seeker
-the seekers don't have to be fired at the same target as the vehicle's own shooting
-the Pathfinders which fired the batch of markerlights themselves can't request seekers (though this is moot when Networked markers are in effect)
-the vehicle holding the seekers can initate a seeker salvo from itself if it hasn't yet fired (because you need to fire at the marked target to expend markerlight counters)


"In any case, the use of a counter must be declared before any to hit rolls are made by the firing unit....."

RAW: Markerlight benefits must be declared before the reqesting unit shoots

Implications:
-the unit using the markerlight must declare its use before actually shooting i.e. a unit which has used markerlights and shot cannot expend markers to fire seeker missiles for a finishing shot

In Summary
-units which fired the conventional markerlight can't request seekers from their own counters
-seekers shots must be declared by a unit at the same time as any other buffs (e.g. BS boosts, Cover save -ve etc), therefore, no finishing shots from the same unit
-A vehicle carrying seekers is prohibited from firing those seekers
-when a markerlight counter is expended as per restrictions, the firing prohibition on the vehicle is exmepted for a single missile provided that the missle is directed at the marked target
-the vehicle can request seeker missiles from itself by expending markerlight counters under the guidelines provided above but this can only be done once per shooting phase concurrently with the vehicle's conventional shooting and at the same target
-The vehicle cannot fire seekers if it is Shaken



Phew what a rant but underneath the inelagantly defined rules, there actually is a wee bit of logic

Except that there's also that weird condition of having to be equipped with a marker light to be able to request a SM salvo.

I agree.

DBM, Your summary explains my own position on this succinctly.
[edit:] I just re-read your post and realized that I in fact disagree with parts... sorry ;-) Only the vehicle carrying the seekers can fire the seekers. Units other than the ML user and the vehicle do not enter into it. See my above posts for explanation.


I realize that in trying to explain the weirdness of these rules, I was kind of just re-stating my premise. Let me try to set out exactly why think there is no conflict in these rules.

The big part which seems to confuse the proposition that the vehicle must fire the seeker, as per the rules on pg 29, is the section on pg 30-31. Lets dissect that section more carefully.

On pg 31 it says:
“ordinarily the vehicle carrying the seeker missiles has no control over them and cannot launch them itself.”
This is easily interpreted to say that “the vehicle carrying the seeker missiles … cannot launch them itself.” But this is not what it says. It says, “ordinarily ….” (my emphasis).
This means, that under normal circumstances, the vehicle cannot fire the seeker missile. However, if we assume that it can never fire seeker missiles itself, why does it say “ordinarily”?
The answer is, that there must be some inordinate situations where it can, in fact, fire the seeker missiles. And the instructions as to what and when those inordinate situations are, are stated in the same section, only slightly earlier:
"Any model equipped with a markerlight may request a Seeker Missile salvo"
So, once the inordinate situation of a markerlight request has occured, via a ML user (either from the same unit in the case of a skyray with a NWML, or another unit such as PFinders or MD’s) placing a token on a target, the vehicle can then, in fact, fire the seeker missile at the target which has been selected by the markerlight, as per the rules on pg 29.
The ML requests, the vehicle delivers.

So, while there are other interpretations of this process, as Q’iq’el described, they all have some conflict in the ways they interpret the rules. Following this interpretation, there is in fact no conflict.

[edit: 2]
@ DBM, I just realized from your post why people are thinking that third party units can "call" seekers down, thank you!

You interpret the rules thus:

However, these are not one sentence. You cannot ignore the intervening sentences to make these distinct points one.
The rules say:
"Counters may be expended by subsequently firing Tau ... firing at the marked unit. Every counter expended grants the firing unit one of the following effects, which may be combined."
Then, a bullet says:
"to allow a vehicle to fire a single seeker at the marked unit."
Every other point specifies that it applies to a unit. This bullet only applies to a vehicle. It does not mean that non-vehicle Tau units can use a counter "to allow a vehicle to fire a single seeker at the marked unit", it means that a vehicle can use a counter "fire a single seeker at the marked unit".

That is my reading of it anyway.

ahhh I see, basically, I should've put this:
-Vehicles are prohibited from firing seeker missiles they carry
-Everytime a marker counter is expended, the above rule is exempted for 1 single missile provided the missle is fired at the target which the marker was placed
-however, the missile itself is treated as being fired from the vehicle thus anything for the benefit of that seeker shot must be directed at the vehicle (e.g. other markers to reduce cover saves)
-as a consequence of the vehicle being treated as the firer, Shaken results will prohibit any seeker missile shots

I stand corrected, I'll add the edit to the summary

Except that the entire set of conditions may be read the other way around. There really is a lot of free will involved.

1. Any unit equipped with markerlight can shot the missile, as long as they declare the shot together with their other shooting.

2. A unit which marked the target may not call the Seeker Missile shot, unless it's a networked marker light.

3. A unit which has networked marker light can always shot the missile, even with its own counter, but it has to declare the missile shot at the same time it shots its other weapons (i.e first roll for the marks, then for the regular shots and the missile. Target for the regular shots and missile must be the same, unless there are target locks involved).

4. A vehicle can shot a seeker missile if its equipped with marker lights (Sky Rays, Tetras, some apocalypse variants of Devilfish).

5. No unit without marker light can shoot the missile, though such vehicles can "launch" missiles if another units call the strikes.

I must admit that I find the whole sequence of SM a little confusing. I am totally unclear as to why a stunned result would allow you to fire a SM, while a shaken does not. The rules go to great lengths to say that the SM is fired independent of the vehicle.

Since the wording on P31 refers to the ML rules on P29, where it states the vehicle fires, that part seems clear. What is not clear is, can the missile be fired under any condition that the vehicle is in? On the surface it would seem yes. The last sentence on P31 seems to be an additional comment added for clarity to 4th edition. It does seem odd that shaken prevents firing yet stunned, which is a worse condition, allows it. I cannot believe that was the intention. If a vehicle can fire a missile when it can neither fire nor move, then it surely can fire a missile when it cannot fire but can move. It can fire a missile if it moves more than 12 inches and it certainly cannot fire in this condition either as the crew are otherwise occupied! This leads me to the conclusion that firing the missile is completely independent of the vehicle for firing purposes.

The Sky Ray has networked ML, so it can fire the SM without outside assistance. It does mean that the firing sequence has to be ML first and then SM.

My 2 cents. I wonder if they will ever clear the wording up on this, if and when 5th edition is released?

@Q'iq'el,

I agree that mine is still an interpretation, and that the rules are very confusing, but I really don't think they leave things as ambiguous as you present.


The rules on pg 29 disagree, only subsequent vehicle units can utilize counters to fire seekers.


NW-ML's do not change the above, except in the specific case of the sky ray where it is very clearly stated.


Again you are confusing the important and explicit distinction between "requesting" a seeker, and "firing a seeker". In no place does it say that Markerlight users can fire a seeker. Only vehicles can do this.


Yes, in the case of a skyray and apoc vehicles. Tetra's cannot mount seekers, though, with their ML's they can request them to be launched by other vehicles.


Sort of. Markerlight users cannot "shoot" the missile, they request it. The vehicle fires the missile, upon the request of a ML, during its normal round of firing.

[edit:] sorry Horsa, I pressed submit too quickly. I agree that the entry on pg 31 which only states they can ignore stunned results is unfortunate. I take it to mean, as you say, that since the stunned result is the more severe one, it can fire if stunned or shaken, but then again I don't play in tourneys so I don't know what the strict RAW is on this. By RAW it does, unfortunately seem to say that they can't fire seekers if they are stunned, but I really don't think that this is RAI... for whatever that is worth. Thankfully my friends are understanding on things like this!

@Gniknok

I realize this is the difference in interpretation, I think I get yours, but I think you don't get mine.

What you say, essentially, is: Per rule on page 29 the vehicle must shoot the SM. Everything on page 30 and 31 has to conform to this basic rule, so we interpret it as follows. The line about vehicle having no control and not being able to launch the missiles itself points merely to the fact the missile needs the marker light to be shot.

What I say is: Rules on the page 29 are the marker light rules which merely introduce the concept of SM and explain how to place marker light token and how to use them (also for SM launch). What they refer to, when they say the vehicle shoots the missile, must be a mere act of missile launch, because the rules on the page 30 and 31 describe the shooting procedure differently.

Rules on the page 30&31 say, first and foremost, SM are weapon provided to Fire Warrior teams. Then it goes to say that any model with markerlight may request them. Then it goes to define the vehicle as unable to shoot the missiles on its own (with the exception of Sky Ray) and it defines the shooting mechanism as remote. Finally it unties the missile shooting from vehicle movement and state (as long as its not destroyed).

I understand your insistence on respecting the line from page 29. All I can say, it's your choice, because it's no more RAW than insisting on what the Seeker Missile rules actually say and then treating Marker Light rules as secondary to it, what I'm trying to do.

It's interesting however, that the general community doesn't care either way and plays the missiles in completely different fashion. I'm pretty sure in the next Codex GW will recognize the community choice and word the missile that way - that's what they've been doing with many of the codexes recently. Unless they have no clue whatsoever how we play the seeker missiles.

I appreciate that you are still coming to this with both an open mind and sense of humour, thanks!
I love these nitpicky discussions; they help me to think through and understand the rules better, and I'm glad that we can debate this, possibly disagree, and still think highly of one another. Cheers!

I think I do see what you are trying to say here. you are emphasizing the primary role the seekers play as fire support to infantry, and thus it should operate in such a way as more of the 'control' is in the hands of the markerlight wielding infantry. I also see the distinction you are making between the ML rules, and the seeker rules.

My only response is that I do not think that these rule sets are distinct, I think they are overlapping. The main point that drives this home to me is the phrase on pg 3-31 where it says "Any model equipped with a markerlight may request a Seeker Missile salvo, as detailed in the markerlight rules" This point is key, and perhaps I should have emphasized it earlier. It tells me that when trying to distinguish how to resolve this confusing "requesting" of a seeker missile, I should refer back to the ML rules, and the most salient points that I see in the ML rules are the distinction that a only a subsequent unit can use a counter, and only a vehicle can fire the missile. Given this emphasis on the ML rules in the SM rules themselves, I am prompted to read the rest of the SM rules as an explanation for how and why the rules work the way they do. So I guess you are right, that I am holding up the ML rules over the SM section, but only because the SM rules tell me to do so.

I do think that this interpretation is more RAW than the other, but I definitely agree that it really doesn't matter much. People actually tend to play it the exact opposite way, such that the seekers can just be shot off at will outside of the normal unit firing order. A practice I think we both agree is not correct, as far as the rules go
As far as what they'll do in the next codex? Who knows... I do hope they clear this up, but even if they do I'm sure they'll leave some gargantuan loopholes elsewhere for us to debate endlessly!

Even if we don't agree, I'm more than happy to agree to disagree.
It's been a pleasure!

Well, I too pay special attention to that part, even if I didn't touch it directly. To me the quoted line from the page 30-31 establishes a different kind of relation. To me, it means the model with marker light actually shoots the missile (request the salvo) and it is played by removing the token from the table and launching the missile from the vehicle as the rules on the page 29 describe.

I agree the rules overlap. I just think the way they overlap is open to discussion. The reason why I try to retain the distinction between Marker Light rules and Seeker Missile rules is that I think this division in our Codex does speak about the purpose of each section. Seeker Missile section could contain its own Marker Light rules or it could be incorporated within Marker Light frame. Instead the author has chosen to give Seeker Missiles quite a lengthy passage and merely link it to the Marker Light usage procedure. To me it points towards the center of gravity - the basic defining rules are in the Seeker Missile section and whatever is in the attachment cannot actually be the underlying groundwork for the SM usage. But of course, that is just may way of dealing with the text. All I'm saying is I don't miss the fact the rules overlap - I just place the centre of gravity on the page 30-31, rather than 29.

I understand, and I didn't mean to say this in a way to denigrate you, I just don't agree with you.

And I also see what you are saying about the gravity of the different sections, ther is an awful lot of emphasis on the vehicle not being able to fire the seeker on its own on pg 31. But I read this as the designer's attempts to make sure that people didn't just try to have their vehicles firing off their own seekers without ML requests, as if they were HK missiles.

I mainly think that to read it the way you propose, having the ML user calling the seekers himself, results in an unreconciled conflict, as you pointed out earlier.
-What you are doing is allowing the markerlight user to expend a counter, which pg 29 explicitly says only subsequent units (vehicle units in my opinion, but subsequent units regardless...) may do.
-Similarly, I do not read "requesting" as synonymous with "shooting" or "firing", since the word "firing", or "to fire" does actually appear in the rules. If they wanted the ML user to fire the missile, why didn't they just say so?

Whereas reading it the other way can reconcile the conflict. Even if it appears to go against what the rules on pg 30-31 seem to say, I think that there is a way to read that section, emphasizing the reference to the ML rules, and the all important word "ordinarily" so that there is no conflict. Which is why I follow the vehicle firing interpretation.