Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

MinMax wrote:Nope. Good thing 'normal movement' isn't defined by those methods of movement appearing in the 5th edition rulebook.

Yes it is on several pages. The easiest example is on p. 70. "Fast vehicles follow the normal rules for vehicles, with the additions and exceptions given below."

That means that all normal rules for vehicles are covered in the vehicle section outside of the special sections. Otherwise every fast vehicle in the game can make a Star Engine speed boost if it was normal. The same applies for skimmers (p.71) and tanks (p.68). The rulebook explicitly declares the rules for vehicles in the BGB as normal except where there are "additions and exceptions" given.

So either every vehicle can move 12" in the movmement phase (being normal rules) or Star Engines do not use 'normal movement'.

insaniak wrote:Ghaz, can a vehicle with Star Engines normally move in the Shooting Phase?

insaniak, a WS with star engines can certainly move in the shooting phase, but to call that 'normal' movement flies in the face of every definiton of the word 'normal' vis-a-vis 40k. The definiton of 'normal' has been provided from the dictionary. If you have another dictionary definition of 'normal' that supports your assertion then provide it... Your (and others') argument reminds me of Bill Clinton arguing with a judge over the definition of 'is'. Completely ridiculous...

Trying to say that star engine movement is normal movement is the epitome of a RAI argument (and an extreme stretch at that). Provide some definitions and some specific quotes that would allow star engines to permit ramming and then we might get somewhere (remember the permissive nature of the rules...). So far this is completely laking in your position.

covenant84 wrote:
Does the eldar codex specify that using star engines is an exception to the normal movement rules? If it's not then logically it's considered normal.

You are still not getting the permissive ruleset thing I think... If the rulebook/codex doesn't specifically say you may do something, then you can't do it. If it doesn't say that star engine movement counts as normal movement, then it isn't normal movement. Permissive ruleset..... You may do what the rules tell you that you may do. If it's not written that you can do it then you can't...

Maybe they will add this into their next FAQ. But they just updated them, and didn't say WS/star engines can tank shock twice, so for now you can't...

Danny Internets wrote:Furthermore, myself and others have already expressed that it is possible for "normal movement" to be defined as whatever movement of which a vehicle is capable. Just because you choose to ignore this doesn't mean people haven't presented a good reason why "normal movement" shouldn't be restricted to movement detailed in the rulebook. A vehicle with Star Engines can normally use Star Engines to move in the Shooting Phase. Hence, normal. Yes, this too is an interpretation, not a RAW argument, just like yours.

You are viewing what you call 'normal' as it pertains to only one vehicle in the game. You would have been more accurate to say "A vehicle with Star Engines can ABnormally use Star Engines to move in the Shooting Phase." The rulebook was written to apply to ALL vehicles in the game. Individual vehicle/codex-upgrades to this all-encompassing ruleset are not 'normal' as it has been defined. Look again at the definition of 'normal' or go look it up for yourself. Your argument is so full of blatant holes and selective reading as to be almost comical.

Democratus wrote:

MinMax wrote:Nope. Good thing 'normal movement' isn't defined by those methods of movement appearing in the 5th edition rulebook.

Yes it is on several pages. The easiest example is on p. 70. "Fast vehicles follow the normal rules for vehicles, with the additions and exceptions given below."

That means that all normal rules for vehicles are covered in the vehicle section outside of the special sections. Otherwise every fast vehicle in the game can make a Star Engine speed boost if it was normal. The same applies for skimmers (p.71) and tanks (p.68). The rulebook explicitly declares the rules for vehicles in the BGB as normal except where there are "additions and exceptions" given.

So either every vehicle can move 12" in the movmement phase (being normal rules) or Star Engines do not use 'normal movement'.

"Normal rules for vehicles" and "normal movement" are not equivalent. Similarly, "normal rules for movement" and "normal movement" are also not equivalent. It's nitpicky, but it is an important point. A vehicle can move normally but make use of rules that are not normal movement rules. For example, it would be normal for a Wave Serpent equipped with Star Engines to use said Star Engines even though using them does not involve normal rules for movement.

Once again, it comes down to interpretation as to what is considered moving normally. Is it normal for that specific vehicle? Is it normal for all vehicles? It is normal for all vehicles of that subtype? etc

You are viewing 'normal' as it pertains to only one vehicle in the game. The rulebook was written to apply to ALL vehicles in the game. Individual vehicle/codex-upgrades to this all-encompassing ruleset are not 'normal' as it has been defined. Look again at the definition of 'normal' or go look it up for yourself. Your argument is so full of blatant holes and selective reading as to be almost comical.

Actually, I'm viewing normal as it pertains to ANY one vehicle in the game. There is a difference. Using Star Engines is normal for models equipped with Star Engines, not just for Wave Serpents equipped with Star Engines. I know what the definition of "normal" is, and I recognize that its usage in this passage creates a situation with no clear resolution in the rules. Your obstinate refusal to even entertain the possibility that there may be more than one definition of what is considered "normal movement" is kind of absurd, frankly.

Well this assininity explains why they still make me roll Fleet in the shooting phase instead of rolling it as part of my Normal Movement. Pity that, it would save so much time.

sigh

Danny Internets wrote:
Using Star Engines is normal for models equipped with Star Engines, not just for Wave Serpents equipped with Star Engines. I know what the definition of "normal" is, and I recognize that its usage in this passage creates a situation with no clear resolution in the rules. Your obstinate refusal to even entertain the possibility that there may be more than one definition of what is considered "normal movement" is kind of absurd, frankly.

You are still viewing 'normal' as it pertains to only one vehicle in the game. The rulebook applies to ALL vehicles and spells out what normal movement is within the game of 40k. You clearly do not understand the definiton (or haven't actually read it) of 'normal' because it says:
Main Entry: 1nor·mal
Pronunciation: \ˈnȯr-məl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin normalis, from norma
Date: circa 1696
1: perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2 a: according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern

(highlight is mine)

I am not refusing to see your point of view. To the contrary, I fully understand it. But I am consistently showing it to be wrong. Now if the Eldar Codex actually stated that Star Engine movement counts as normal movement for the equipped vehicle, then you would have a great argument. But I have seen no such wording so you must go back to the BRB to see what normal movement is...

Aa a side note, I stated your argument was almost comical, not you personally. Saying I am absurd for what you view to be obstinacy is pretty close to a personal attack (verboten here). Not to worry though, I have the thickest of skin, so I am not offended.

kirsanth wrote:Well this assininity explains why they still make me roll Fleet in the shooting phase instead of rolling it as part of my Normal Movement. Pity that, it would save so much time.

sigh

Yeah, in friendly games, I always allow and even encourage my opponent to do fleet and their normal move all at once. Doing that in tournaments is another story for most people though as it can create holes for other units to move into that wouldn't normally exist in the movement phase.

Sorry for the topic deviation......

Ghaz wrote:Can it do so using just the rules in the 5th edition rulebook?

Sorry, is the Wave Serpent selected from the Rulebook in 5th edition? I hadn't noticed that change.

And yet again, how can anything be 'normal' for all vehicles when it's only an upgrade for a few vehicles in one codex?

Where does the Tank Shock section refer to movement that is normal for all vehicles?

It doesn't.

It simply says that the vehicle can perform a Tank Shock instead of moving normally.

Every vehicle in the game is not the subject of that sentence. The vehicle that is moving is. So if that vehicle can normally move in the shooting phase, that would mean that moving in the shooting phase, for that vehicle, is moving normally.

insaniak wrote:
Where does the Tank Shock section refer to movement that is normal for all vehicles?

It doesn't.

That's because Tank Shock can only be done by Tanks. Not "all vehicles".

Every vehicle in the game is not the subject of that sentence. The vehicle that is moving is. So if that vehicle can normally move in the shooting phase, that would mean that moving in the shooting phase, for that vehicle, is moving normally.

I'd like to see a proof that "moving normally" is the same as "normal movement" before I buy into this.

Man this is so complicated. For simplicity's sake, and because this will probably not even come up very often, I would just say this is illegal as a tournament organizer, and then just play it for the hell of it in friendly games. And even though I have an all mech serpent rush list, I don't think I will ever try and pull it off, just to avoid this situation. Gah..

For what its worth, I would probably lean towards allowing it from a RAW perspective, but not actually let it happen.

Democratus wrote:I'd like to see a proof that "moving normally" is the same as "normal movement" before I buy into this.

Why?

It's 'moving normally' (not 'normal movement') that is referenced by the Tank Shock rule.

The vehicle performs a Tank Shock instead of moving normally.

If that vehicle has star engines, it can move in the shooting phase.
If it is not performing a Tank Shock, the vehicle moves normally (ie: it follows the normal rules for movement, as they fit that vehicle).
If it is performing a Tank Shock, instead of moving normally, it tries to run people over.


Having said that, I'll reiterate again that I'm not actually arguing that the WS should be allowed two rams in a turn. It's a grey area, depending on how you want to interpret 'moving normally'... I personally think the rules allow it, but wouldn't spend a great deal of effort trying to argue the point on the table... particularly since the chances of the situation actually arising are, I think, fairly slim.

insaniak wrote:It's 'moving normally' (not 'normal movement') that is referenced by the Tank Shock rule.

The vehicle performs a Tank Shock instead of moving normally.

If that vehicle has star engines, it can move in the shooting phase.
If it is not performing a Tank Shock, the vehicle moves normally (ie: it follows the normal rules for movement, as they fit that vehicle).
If it is performing a Tank Shock, instead of moving normally, it tries to run people over.

I think that hits the nail on the head for this as far as RAW is concerned.

I do also agree with Insaniak that even though strictly the rules allow it ... it should be looked upon as a "dirty" tactic.

I think the only situation where you would see this in play is if the eldar player has been all but wiped out and is desperate for options.

Meep357 wrote:I do also agree with Insaniak that even though strictly the rules allow it ... it should be looked upon as a "dirty" tactic.

I never said that.

Beast wrote:You are still viewing 'normal' as it pertains to only one vehicle in the game. The rulebook applies to ALL vehicles and spells out what normal movement is within the game of 40k. You clearly do not understand the definiton (or haven't actually read it) of 'normal' because it says:
Main Entry: 1nor·mal
Pronunciation: \ˈnȯr-məl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin normalis, from norma
Date: circa 1696
1: perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2 a: according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern

(highlight is mine)

I thought I made it very explicit that I am not referring to a single vehicle, but any single vehicle that is undergoing a Tank Shock move. The rulebook does indeed apply to all vehicles, but, as already pointed out by another poster, you are assuming that phrases in the Tank Shock and Ramming sections are present when they are not. It says "moving normally" not "moving according to the normal vehicle movement rules."

I have quoted your definition of normal for convenience. The highlight is mine this time. The regular pattern of movement for a vehicle with Star Engines is to use Star Engines, hence normal movement. You can disagree all you want, it's simply a different interpretation. Unless you can refer me to a section of the rules where "normal movement" is explicitly defined then your argument is based on conjecture.

On a somewhat different note, I have skimmed the rulebook for other instances of "normal x" and have made some interesting discoveries.

If one is to argue that when the rules say "normal movement" the developers actually mean movement described in the core rulebook and nowhere else, then this leads to some significant problems elsewhere in the book. For instance, the Regrouping section says the following: "Once a unit has regrouped, it cannot otherwise move during that Movement phase, but otherwise it behaves as normal." According to your logic, behaving as normal would mean behaving as described in the core rulebook and nowhere else. This would mean that units that have regrouped can never make use of special rules or wargear that deviate from behavior as described in the core rules (think Target Locks, Multi-trackers, Warp Spider jumping, etc). This also crops up in the Going to Ground section in similar fashion.

Aa a side note, I stated your argument was almost comical, not you personally. Saying I am absurd for what you view to be obstinacy is pretty close to a personal attack (verboten here). Not to worry though, I have the thickest of skin, so I am not offended.

Also as a side note, I stated that your close-minded arguing was absurd, not you personally. Being obstinate in a genuine discussion is entirely pointless as you will end up just arguing past the person whose position you will not even attempt to understand. You are searching for an ad hominem attack where there is none.

Danny Internets wrote:

I have quoted your definition of normal for convenience. The highlight is mine this time. The regular pattern of movement for a vehicle with Star Engines is to use Star Engines, hence normal movement. You can disagree all you want, it's simply a different interpretation. Unless you can refer me to a section of the rules where "normal movement" is explicitly defined then your argument is based on conjecture.

On a somewhat different note, I have skimmed the rulebook for other instances of "normal x" and have made some interesting discoveries.

If one is to argue that when the rules say "normal movement" the developers actually mean movement described in the core rulebook and nowhere else, then this leads to some significant problems elsewhere in the book. For instance, the Regrouping section says the following: "Once a unit has regrouped, it cannot otherwise move during that Movement phase, but otherwise it behaves as normal." According to your logic, behaving as normal would mean behaving as described in the core rulebook and nowhere else. This would mean that units that have regrouped can never make use of special rules or wargear that deviate from behavior as described in the core rules (think Target Locks, Multi-trackers, Warp Spider jumping, etc). This also crops up in the Going to Ground section in similar fashion.

Aa a side note, I stated your argument was almost comical, not you personally. Saying I am absurd for what you view to be obstinacy is pretty close to a personal attack (verboten here). Not to worry though, I have the thickest of skin, so I am not offended.

Also as a side note, I stated that your close-minded arguing was absurd, not you personally. Being obstinate in a genuine discussion is entirely pointless as you will end up just arguing past the person whose position you will not even attempt to understand. You are searching for an ad hominem attack where there is none.

Sigh. The BRB describes normal movement for the game of 40k. If you dispute that, then it is pointless to have this discussion. If you claim that a piece of wargear (star engines, Machine Spirit, etc) bestows a new definiton of 'normal' movement for that particular vehicle, then fine do so and be comfortable in your world. But codeci don't change the basic (normal) movement rules for the game of 40k. Codeci describe and define exceptions to the normal rules of the game. If you want to play semantic games and re-define 'normal' and wave your hands at us and try to convince us that now codeci change the core rules- good luck...

You quote about regrouping actually undermines your own argument. It describes an exception to the movement rules and then says that besides this exception the unit behaves as normal (iaw the rest of the normal rules)... Your grasp of 'my logic' is completely erroneous (and I can only guess this is intentional). Codeci-specific rules always trump the BRB (and are therefore specific "exceptions" to the normal rules). I am certain you are aware of this... SE grant a move in the shooting phase. This is an exception to the normal 40k rules. The fact that vehicles with this upgrade/exception may always move in the shooting phase does not change the basic, normal rules for movement in the game of 40k. Normal movement is that which is described in the BRB. Modifications to normal movement (therefore abnormal movement) is any movement that a codex allows which contravenes the BRB normal ruleset. If you don't get that, then I certainly can't help you and am not going to even try beyond what I have already said.

On the side note- I am about the last guy you will meet who goes out looking for ad hominem attacks. But once they are in front of my face I will call you out on them. Attack the opponents argument, not the opponent. Don't call him (or some action of his- like his supposed obstinacy) absurd- prove his argument is absurd. If you don't want to be bothered by his tone or position then feel free to hit the 'Ignore' button. You haven't even come close to proving my position to be absurd (or incorrect ftm). On the other hand, I have shown that you would gain an advantage in the game by using a RAI argument ('normal' applies only to the individual WS/SE?). Lastly, even if you claim I am also using a RAI argument (which I am not), my argument is the least powerful interpretation of the two... As you know, in a discussion where there is no clear resolution (which I don't admit is the case here), GW tells us to use the least powerful interpretation. Lastly, as I have said before, I fully understand your argument and the reasoning behind it. I have shown through dictionary definitions and examples how your argument flies in the face of the English language and the BRB. Beyond that, your interpretation is certainly not game-breaking and would be so rarely an issue that it is actually a bit silly we have spent this much time discussing it. Have fun with your games. Let us all know if your interpretation flies in the Tourney circuit. In friendly games, I would probably let the Eldar do it, just for the humor factor.

edit - missed a post in this thread

Beast wrote:Sigh. The BRB describes normal movement for the game of 40k. If you dispute that, then it is pointless to have this discussion. If you claim that a piece of wargear (star engines, Machine Spirit, etc) bestows a new definiton of 'normal' movement for that particular vehicle, then fine do so and be comfortable in your world. But codeci don't change the basic (normal) movement rules for the game of 40k. Codeci describe and define exceptions to the normal rules of the game. If you want to play semantic games and re-define 'normal' and wave your hands at us and try to convince us that now codeci change the core rules- good luck...

I am not denying that the rulebook describes normal movement rules, I made this clear already. This is the reason why I differentiated between the phrases "normal movement rules" and "moving normally." Using the English definition of normal, as you already quoted it, it is perfectly reasonable to interpret "moving normally" as either "moving accordance with the normal rules for movement" or "moving in accordance with the vehicle's typical pattern of movement." I'm sorry you don't agree, but I can't make it any plainer than that.

You quote about regrouping actually undermines your own argument. It describes an exception to the movement rules and then says that besides this exception the unit behaves as normal (iaw the rest of the normal rules)... Your grasp of 'my logic' is completely erroneous (and I can only guess this is intentional). Codeci-specific rules always trump the BRB (and are therefore specific "exceptions" to the normal rules). I am certain you are aware of this... SE grant a move in the shooting phase. This is an exception to the normal 40k rules. The fact that vehicles with this upgrade/exception may always move in the shooting phase does not change the basic, normal rules for movement in the game of 40k. Normal movement is that which is described in the BRB. Modifications to normal movement (therefore abnormal movement) is any movement that a codex allows which contravenes the BRB normal ruleset. If you don't get that, then I certainly can't help you and am not going to even try beyond what I have already said.

Actually, I will concede this point. My reasoning using the other two uses of "normal x" found in the text do not appear support what I said.

On the side note- I am about the last guy you will meet who goes out looking for ad hominem attacks. But once they are in front of my face I will call you out on them. Attack the opponents argument, not the opponent. Don't call him (or some action of his- like his supposed obstinacy) absurd- prove his argument is absurd. If you don't want to be bothered by his tone or position then feel free to hit the 'Ignore' button. You haven't even come close to proving my position to be absurd (or incorrect ftm). On the other hand, I have shown that you would gain an advantage in the game by using a RAI argument ('normal' applies only to the individual WS/SE?). Lastly, even if you claim I am also using a RAI argument (which I am not), my argument is the least powerful interpretation of the two... As you know, in a discussion where there is no clear resolution (which I don't admit is the case here), GW tells us to use the least powerful interpretation. Lastly, as I have said before, I fully understand your argument and the reasoning behind it. I have shown through dictionary definitions and examples how your argument flies in the face of the English language and the BRB. Beyond that, your interpretation is certainly not game-breaking and would be so rarely an issue that it is actually a bit silly we have spent this much time discussing it. Have fun with your games. Let us all know if your interpretation flies in the Tourney circuit. In friendly games, I would probably let the Eldar do it, just for the humor factor.

Very touchy for someone who claims to have thick skin. Sorry if you got so hot and bothered by my comment on your method of discussion. Just as your comments weren't personal, neither were mine.

Furthermore, reading comprehension would benefit you here. At no point have I called your argument (or yourself, for that matter) absurd. In fact, I have said that your interpretation is valid multiple times. I simply think that it relies on a definition of "moving normally" that is too narrow and which results in other problems when extended to other situations, and that an alternative interpretation is superior.

Finally, you can call it a RAW argument until you are the blue in the face, but the fact that your entire argument hinges on using only one of several meanings of the word "normal" instead of anything actually in the rulebook says otherwise.

Danny Internets wrote:Very touchy for someone who claims to have thick skin. Sorry if you got so hot and bothered by my comment on your method of discussion. Just as your comments weren't personal, neither were mine.

Furthermore, reading comprehension would benefit you here. At no point have I called your argument (or yourself, for that matter) absurd. In fact, I have said that your interpretation is valid multiple times. I simply think that it relies on a definition of "moving normally" that is too narrow and which results in other problems when extended to other situations, and that an alternative interpretation is superior.

Finally, you can call it a RAW argument until you are the blue in the face, but the fact that your entire argument hinges on using only one of several meanings of the word "normal" instead of anything actually in the rulebook says otherwise.

I'm not at all touchy my friend and my reading comprehension is just fine. I saw that you had a low post count on Dakka and thought you might not be aware of yak's posting rules. Glad you are aware of them. Suggest you review the subject/verb/adverb of your post in question and you will see what I mean and then compare it to what I said about your argument. Then tell me if you don't see a difference.

It is your definition of 'normal' which is too narrow. Mine covers the entire game of 40K as laid out in the BRB. Your definition pertains to 'normality' vis-a-vis one vehicle upgrade in one codex. The meaning of 'normal' as it is defined in the dictionary is really the only way we, English speakers, can take it. take a look at the other meanings of 'normal' in the dictionary my friend and tell me how they could possibly apply. This is from another dictionary (this on is Webster's online):

1. According to an established norm, rule, or principle; conformed to a type, standard, or regular form; performing the proper functions; not abnormal; regular; natural; analogical.
Deviations from the normal type.
- Hallam.
2. (Geom.) According to a square or rule; perpendicular; forming a right angle; as, a line normal to the base. Specifically: Of or pertaining to a normal.
3. (Chem.) Standard; original; exact; typical.Normal equations
(Method of Least Squares) a set of equations of the first degree equal in number to the number of unknown quantities, and derived from the observations by a specified process. The solution of the normal equations gives the most probable values of the unknown quantities.

Now you tell me which one of these several applies here... And then elucidate me as to how I should be using another meaning of 'normal'. I'll be open to your interpretation if you can provide another definition that supports you.

When I read the ramming rules it seemed to me that it could only be done in the movement phase, trust me I was dreaming of a Str 10 ram with my wave serpents. ^_^ However I have been able to test a full speed ram aginst an ork trukk and wartruck at the same time. That was
A. Funny as hell
B. So worth it.
C. Made up for the fact his rocket took out my shooting.