If a trukk has been immobolized the previous turn, and then suffers a Kareen! result. Does the trukk start up again and move?

The game I play we ruled that it does move since it's orky and anything can happen.

This is actually kind of a tough one.

BRB states that an immobilized vehicle may not move for the rest of the game.

Ork Codex has the possiblity of rolling a Kareen! result on any Destroyed - Wrecked or Explodes result.

IMO, I think this is a case of specific>general. If an immobilzed vehicle suffers a Kareen! result, it would move the 3D6 inches.

Pretty much what Frostreaver said. Specific over General.

If you want to imagine what happens, the trukk loses its tires, then suddenly a strike to the gas tank causes an explosion underneath the trukk, flinging it through the air (3d6 randomly) before landing somewhere and exploding! ORKY!

No, its not a tough one.

The Trukk moves "as far as possible". How far is it possible for an immobilised trukk to move? 0"

Yep, missed that detail; Nos is right in that regard.

Ooh, good point. My bad

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, its not a tough one.

The Trukk moves "as far as possible". How far is it possible for an immobilised trukk to move? 0"

This is a miss Quote, This is a Special Rule and it does move. You dont know if there is rocket in the back of the trukk that got shot and it is making the trukk move. My point is this is RAI and RAW. Tell me or show me where it states other wise. The Quote says The shot sends the trukk out of controll. Move the trukk 3d6 as far as possible in a random direction[u](the Ork Player chooses if he rolls a Hit on the scatter dice). The apply the Kaboom result above. If the Trukk would kareen into enemy models or terrain, stop it 1" away.

Sorry, how is it a misquote?

You just restated what I said, and you position is not RAW. SOrry, it just isnt.

Move the trukk 3D6" as far as possible. How far is it possible for an immobilised trukk to move? 0"

"Cannot move" overrides "moves as far as possible". If you think otherwise, up to you to prove it. You cant, but give it a go.

The rule states "Move the Trukk 3D6 as far as possible..." The "as far as possible" is referring to the distance of the 3 dice, with consideration of what might be in the way, i.e, an enemy unit.

I'm going to say that Specific > General still applies.

"The shot sends the Trukk out of control." The rule doesn't say it was the momentum of the vehicle that was causing it to move. The blast could be pushing it, rolling it, etc.

I can not move, now I'm going to move as far as possible.

Rottooth wrote:The rule states "Move the Trukk 3D6 as far as possible..." The "as far as possible" is referring to the distance of the 3 dice, with consideration of what might be in the way, i.e, an enemy unit.

So you accept that it can move 0", if already in contact with a unit?

So a rule stating you cannot move within 1" of an enemy model still applies. Thats a BRB rule. The rule that you cannot move through other impassable terrain still applies. Thats a BRB rule.

So why are you suddenly ignoring the BRB rule that you cannot move if you are immobilised?

Rottooth wrote:I'm going to say that Specific > General still applies.

Yes, it does. What is more specific - a trukk trynig to move 3D6", or an IMMOBILISED trukk trying to move 3D6"?

Rottooth wrote:"The shot sends the Trukk out of control." The rule doesn't say it was the momentum of the vehicle that was causing it to move. The blast could be pushing it, rolling it, etc.

Fluff. Except for one instance (plasma syphon) fluff does not define rules.

Wow, amazing that people can come to the conclusion that an immobilized vehicle can move.

Take a look at the rules for the Kareen! and it tells you what to do if something gets in the way. Guess what, you didn't move the maximum distance on the 3d6 because a rule contradicted Kareen! The immobilized rule contradicts the Kareen! rule, and here's how. Kareen says MOVE the vehicle the distance rolled, it doesn't say pick up the vehicle and place it the number of inches rolled in the direction indicated, it specifically states move. As we all know the Immobilized result for vehicle damage says, "It may not move the rest of the game." You're trying to move a vehicle that cannot move.

Surely an immobilised vehicle is one which cannot move under its own normal power... however if massive rocket is stuck in the back it would be able to move because the rocket would push it forwards/backwards/up/down wherever and therefore the trukk could move...

Plux - yet it still has to follow the BRB rules on moving. As I pointed out.

If you cannot move you cannot move (you can be moved, but that isnt happening in this case) and therefore you stay still.

Fluff, except for one exception, is not rules.

Pluxtheduck wrote:Surely an immobilised vehicle is one which cannot move under its own normal power... however if massive rocket is stuck in the back it would be able to move because the rocket would push it forwards/backwards/up/down wherever and therefore the trukk could move...

The problem with that statement is that you, and the other people, are inferring that it is something pushing the trukk. When you point out specific RULES not fluff that say regardless of the vehicle being immobilized, then there might be something to that side of the argument. If they had said in the rule, role 3d6 and the scatter die, then pick up the vehicle model and place it that many inches in the indicated direction I would agree and you could make that argument. However since it says to move the vehicle, immobilized results prevent that particular string of events from playing out.

Assuming that an immobalized trukk cannot Kareen, what happens when a un-damaged trukk suffers both an immobalized and a wrecked in the same shooting?

It cannot move, so doesnt.
Not a tricky one there...

The wording of Kareen! says that the Trukk is sent out of control so that sounds like if it is immobilized it can't really go out of control and start moving. Then again there is the point of codex wins the rulebook. I'd still say that an immobilized vehicle cannot move in any way.

No, codex does not override the rulebook.

Specific overrides general. there is NOTHING in the Kareen! rule, absolutely nothing whatso-fething-ever, that overrides the very specific: immoblised vehicles cannot move.

Jordan - still waiting on your proof, or your response to my supposed "misquote" (which your own post proved was no such thing...)

If you are going to argue "general over specific" in this case, let me just point out that "immobilized" is a heck of a lot more specific that "may not move into or over enemy units" or even more generalised than the recently FAQ'ed "under no circumstances may a unit leave the board unless specifically allowed to".

The thing here is the Kareen allows for a limitation in the length of movement, and immobilised puts up a limitation to the length of any movement. (Also, according to the BRB, immobilization can be due to just about any reason such as losing the wheels, and any force which is capable of moving an Ork trukk 3D6 inches without the trukk itself doing the movement is more likely to smash the trukk into smithereens)

We also have to keep in mind that this is an ork trukk, not a rhino, or a landraider. Trukks are cobbled together with anyhting, its also orky for things just explode for the fun of it.

With this understanding, im saying that since the ramshakle rules says you roll 3d6 you move as far as possible related to thosae dice. This can be explained by a gas line going, or the engine exploding.

It can be argued that it doesn't even drive on the ground, since with the scatter role it is possible for the vehicle to move horizontally.

I think it should move, simply because that fits orks so very well. The tank has been immobilized, but something happens and it goes shooting off, presumably with boys and grots hanging to the sides, howling

It does break some rules about moving when you can't(you normally can't move during enemy shooting, while immobilized, etc) but a result can make it happen.

-cgmckenzie

Although Nos seems a bit moody, he is correct. Immobolized vehicles cannot move, at all, period. Moving as far as possible when you cannot move is what?

KingCracker wrote:Although Nos seems a bit moody, he is correct. Immobolized vehicles cannot move, at all, period. Moving as far as possible when you cannot move is what?

Yes he is, lets look at the Karren result RAW (specific over general)

1- The shot sends the Trukk out of Control.

Here, I think we all agree (everyone that drove a car at least) that you ahve to be moving to be out fo control. It does not say smoething blows behidn the trukk making it fly trough the air and landing furhter. It specifies that it goes out of control. So a stopped trukk gors out of control does not move.

2- Move the Trukk 3D6'' as far as possible in a random directon( The Ork player chooses if he rolls a Hit on the Scatter Dice)

Here again, the RAW does not say as far as possible according the the dice. But as far as apossible according to what the trukk can go. The next line will emphasise that part.

- Then apply Kaboom. If the Trukk would Kareen into enemy models or terrain, stop it 1'' away.

Here it is clearly said that the normal rules still applies since terrain will stop it so as enemy models. IN other words, this contradict the fluff versions of the Trukk flying trough the air since it is getting stopped by the 1st terran/ enemy units it encounter. If it was flying trough the air, it would do like JI and move over the terrain or enemy unit and not stop at it. Also, nowehere in the Kareen rule does it say the trukk move as far as possible according the the 3D6. The 3rd part clearly says that enemy models and terrain can stop it. Why not immobilized.

My 2 cents on that.

The rule states... The shot sends the trukk out of controll. Move the trukk 3d6 as far as possible in a random direction.... The rule tells you to MOVE the trukk 3d6 as far as possible. Where does it say it cannot move. I know how immobilised works. In this chase the rule is telling you to roll the dice since some weird gak just happen, like you shooting at a Trukk that is immobilised or a rocket going off in the bed. It does not say how the trukk is moving other then The shot sends the trukk out of control. This is where i say you move the trukk since there is a reason why it would move with out moving the trukk by its own wheels.

jordan23ryan wrote:The rule states... The shot sends the trukk out of controll. Move the trukk 3d6 as far as possible in a random direction.... The rule tells you to MOVE the trukk 3d6 as far as possible. Where does it say it cannot move. I know how immobilised works. In this chase the rule is telling you to roll the dice since some weird gak just happen, like you shooting at a Trukk that is immobilised or a rocket going off in the bed. It does not say how the trukk is moving other then The shot sends the trukk out of control. This is where i say you move the trukk since there is a reason why it would move with out moving the trukk by its own wheels.

Now you are repeating your self.

Can you please counter argue this:

The trukk MOVE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE. This is RAW.

Immobilised trukks can move to a maximum of 0''.

Also it is stated that units and terrain stops it. So RAW says that if something prevents the trukk from moving the total 3D6 range, it must stop don't you agree (if you don't, please read the last sentence of the Kareeen result description). THey gave as example terrain and units. Why would immobilized result not stop the trukk since it is but another factor that prevents the trukk from moving a FULL 3d6??


** thx jidmah, my error, I really did misunderstood RAI, made some ressearch to really understand it, edited

Objection. You don't know RAI, it might as well go the other way. Agree on the RAW thing, though I don't like it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, its not a tough one.

The Trukk moves "as far as possible". How far is it possible for an immobilised trukk to move? 0"

The Rule----- The shot sends the trukk out of controll. Move the trukk 3d6 as far as possible in a random direction[u](the Ork Player chooses if he rolls a Hit on the scatter dice). The apply the Kaboom result above. If the Trukk would kareen into enemy models or terrain, stop it 1" away.


What the rules says and what you said are different. How? Read it ! The Rule says MOVE THE TRUKK "as far as possible" . How you wrote it is misconstrued so you could get your point across.
You are saying The Trukk moves "as far as possible" when what it reallys says is to MOVE THE TRUKK 3d6 as far as possible. There is a difference of someone telling you, you can move and to Move.......... ? So this goes back to why i say the trukk can move because you have no idea why it is moving it just is !




It does not say ...

The trukk MOVE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE.

It says Move the trukk 3d6 as far as Possible.

The terrain/models that would be stopping it are the limiting factors, not the immobilized state of the trukk. The 'as far as possible' says you can't randomly choose to stop it in the middle of the 3D6" to blow up next to a juicy target, you must keep going until you hit the limit of the distance rolled or you run into a model/terrain.

-cgmckenzie

Jordan - you move the trukk
An immobilised trukk CANNOT MOVE

Please, find some rules to back your position. You have none so far

jordan23ryan wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, its not a tough one.

The Trukk moves "as far as possible". How far is it possible for an immobilised trukk to move? 0"

It does not say ...

The trukk MOVE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE.

It says Move the trukk 3d6 as far as Possible.

It still says 'as far as possible' though, and since you cannot move, the furthest possible is 0". If you roll the 3D6 and the result is 15, you move the greatest amount of those 15" as possible, which is 0" since you cannot move.

jordan23ryan wrote:It does not say ...

The trukk MOVES AS FAR AS POSSIBLE.

It says Move the trukk 3d6 as far as Possible.

Sorry but I edited the quote (highlighted red), because it reads better that way.
Anyway...

I have to admit, it sounds to me like it should be able to move.
It sounds pretty clear as an 'order to move' rather than a 'choice to move'.
Maybe the trukk doesnt have a choice here, even though it's immobilized.

Does it matter what if there is a contradiction because it's a very clear order that tells you to move the model?

Not trying to troll, just my 2 cents, for what its worth.

It tells you to move.

However the BRB restriction on not moving through impassable terrain still applies - so if you are 0" away from the terrain you would move (if you rolled that direction) 0"

And the restriction on not moving off the board still applies - and agian this can mean you move 0"

So why does another BRB restriction, that an immobilised vehicle CANNOT MOVE, get ignored?

Answer: it doesnt.

Actually, it just says to move it as far as possible. The next sentence about models and terrain stopping it is what makes impassable terrain or otherwise stop it, not the previous rules in the BGB.

The ramshackle rule is very points out what the limiting conditions are(enemy models and terrain). Friendly models and table edge were cleared up in the FAQ(spoiler, it stops as soon as it hits them). Anything else that would normally limit movement is ignored, such as having already moved flat out or being immobilized.

The rule only permits the restriction on the kareen to friendly/enemy models, terrain, table edge. Immobilized isn't in the list because it is a special move the will trump other movement rules for its turn.

-cgmckenzie

Move as far as possible - your maximum move when immobilized is 0

there is no specific override of this, si you still obey the base rule

Not that it's a rule here but where we play, we resolve any Codex/Rulebook contradiction by 'Codex always wins'.
If the codex overruled this then I guess the Trukk would move, but I think on this forum, maybe this is more of a perspective issue with the rules?

I've re-read both rules to make sure this makes sense.
I'm trying not to get fluffy here, but here I go:

-The 'Damaged - Immobilised' rule is worded very much as if the trukk itself may no longer move. "It may not move"
-On the other hand, the 'Kareen' rule is worded like the trukk is moved, rather than moving. "Move the Trukk"

Does this mean a vehicle that cannot move 'on its own steam' but rather that it has been effectively 'moved' by another force, possibly the force that brought about 'Kareen'?
This 'Kareen' movement may not be the Trukk moving itself, as it is out of control to the poor Orks that may be embarked inside.
This might be supported by the fact that a scatter dice has to be rolled as this is not in control of the models, and that it can move sideways?

To apply this to a game-world scenario (Here comes the fluffy bit):
The trukk is immobilised. The trukk is shot at, and maybe something explodes, pushing the trukk along the ground (or close enough to it) in a random direction.

That actually sounds quite logical. As a comparison a drop pod may never move, but can be moved by other effects, like a mawloc deep striking onto it.

You are told to move the trukk for this specific situation. The specificity of 'move the trukk this time' is more specific than 'immobilized vehicles cannot move'.

-cgmckenzie

BTW, is 'immobilized' spelled differently in the rest of the world or does GW just put 'immobilised' because they hate grammar?

cgmckenzie wrote:BTW, is 'immobilized' spelled differently in the rest of the world or does GW just put 'immobilised' because they hate grammar?

It's spelled that way because the rules are written by a company in England. Similay to 'armour' and colour' and many others.

And tonne is ton. Just go with it

For starters I'm in the "doesn't move" camp..however i am willing to play devil's advocate because I see the argument that both sides are making.Its just a matter of either side taking a different read on "as far as possible"

Jordan is reading the "as far as possible" in conjunction with the number 3d6 given. He reads it as if you roll a 12 you move 12, not 10, not 9, not 5...12. That is moving it "as far as possible". In the rule it didn't state, "ignore this result if vehicle immobilized".

Nos is reading the " as far as possible" in a different way. He sees the "as possible" to reference the state of the vehicle in the game. i.e...is it even mobile to begin with?

Both sides are following their own logic and both make sense. I would chalk this one up to sketchy rules explanation.

cgmckenzie wrote:Actually, it just says to move it as far as possible. The next sentence about models and terrain stopping it is what makes impassable terrain or otherwise stop it, not the previous rules in the BGB.

The ramshackle rule is very points out what the limiting conditions are(enemy models and terrain). Friendly models and table edge were cleared up in the FAQ(spoiler, it stops as soon as it hits them). Anything else that would normally limit movement is ignored, such as having already moved flat out or being immobilized.

The rule only permits the restriction on the kareen to friendly/enemy models, terrain, table edge. Immobilized isn't in the list because it is a special move the will trump other movement rules for its turn.

-cgmckenzie

Actually you have that kind of backwards. Kareen tells you what happens if it's in a position to break a rule in the book, namely if the vehicle would roll high enough it tells you that it cannot break the 1" rule.

Just to show you something though we'll go with your logic that the book will omit telling me what rules I can't break. Which means by that logic if I wanted to pick up someone's wonderfully painted army during a game then proceed to smash it to bits with a hammer I could. Why? Because the rulebook says it's all in fun, and maybe I'm having a bad day and want to be sadistic. Since the book did not tell me I can be a jerk, the rules support me being a jerk. That's the logic you're suggesting.

Just because Kareen! gives several limitations, does not mean that you have permission to ignore immobilized. In this situation of specific>general the more specific is immobilized, because immobilized tells you, a vehicle that is immobilized may not move. Nothing in the Kareen! result specifically overrides the immobilized rule.

I don't have either Codex in front of me, but if a Grey Knight vehicle is immobilized and a Librarian uses its Summoning power on it, would you say it could not be summoned? Again, I apologize if the wording is sufficiently different so as to not apply, but I would assume that if the wording is similar this would show that you can move a vehicle that has been Immobilized.

For what its worth, I am in the Trukk is moved camp.

Slow internet connection is slow...

flaim wrote:I don't have either Codex in front of me, but if a Grey Knight vehicle is immobilized and a Librarian uses its Summoning power on it, would you say it could not be summoned? Again, I apologize if the wording is sufficiently different so as to not apply, but I would assume that if the wording is similar this would show that you can move a vehicle that has been Immobilized.

For what its worth, I am in the Trukk is moved camp.

that would be a psychic power. If the kareen was a weird boy power, there would be no questions. I do not know the power you are talking about but it looks like it works like mek's tools and can allow vehicle to move again (repair the immobilised result??)

Kareen is a rule special to the trukk.

The rules doesnt say the trukks moves on its own, but the players moves the trukk 3d6 as far as possible.

**EDIT: jidmah edited his post, lol, could not refer to that now

flaim wrote:I don't have either Codex in front of me, but if a Grey Knight vehicle is immobilized and a Librarian uses its Summoning power on it, would you say it could not be summoned? Again, I apologize if the wording is sufficiently different so as to not apply, but I would assume that if the wording is similar this would show that you can move a vehicle that has been Immobilized.

For what its worth, I am in the Trukk is moved camp.

The summoning (when used in conjunction with the warp stabilization field) doesn't actually interact with the immobilized rule. It tells you to remove the vehicle from the table top, and place it within 6" of the model using the power. It doesn't tell you to move the model to within 6" of the target. There is a difference between those two, subtle but there.

Why does everybody pull back to the 'it doesn't say i can't smash your models' argument?

Anyway, the rule for kareen! is more specific than immobilized; it applies only to trukks and only in this scenario. It says to move it, so you move it. Stop if you are going to run over any models, terrain, or board edge. Those are the only limits that have been put forward in both the BGB and the FAQ, so those are the only limits that apply.

Special rule for this one scenario overrides the general rule for immobilized vehicles in all scenarios.

-cgmckenzie

Serder wrote:**EDIT: jidmah edited his post, lol, could not refer to that now

I kinda broke the forum for me - when I posted it turned out to be double-posts, so I edited the last one, and then the first one was gone... I'll just retype it:

Immobilized prevents the trukk from moving on its own, but Kareen! does not tell the trukk to make a move("The trukk moves..."), but rather tells the player to move the trukk("Move the trukk..."). You find similar wordings when using Terror from The Deep, moving models out from under a tank or the Lifta-Droppa. Kareen! might as well be the result of the engine or fuel exploding and sending the trukk flying across the air, no matter how many wheels were left.

cgmckenzie wrote:Why does everybody pull back to the 'it doesn't say i can't smash your models' argument?

Anyway, the rule for kareen! is more specific than immobilized; it applies only to trukks and only in this scenario. It says to move it, so you move it. Stop if you are going to run over any models, terrain, or board edge. Those are the only limits that have been put forward in both the BGB and the FAQ, so those are the only limits that apply.

Special rule for this one scenario overrides the general rule for immobilized vehicles in all scenarios.

-cgmckenzie

The problem is you're saying that because a rule tells you to move, you move. What other people are trying to say is that a rule tells you not to move, you don't move. It's a matter of you have to have specific permission to move when you cannot move. Kareen! is not more specific. By your own words, you cannot kareen into another unit because it says in that case you do not move into them. Going with what your saying, there is precedent where you ignore the moving as far as possible 3d6 inches. If you roll 12, and are 2 inches from a unit, you only moved one inch and stopped dead in your tracks. You did NOT move 12 inches, hence you broke the kareen rule because it told you to break the rule. Where exactly does it tell you to break the rule on immobilized?

Assuming that Trukks aren't fast...

If the Kareen goes off and you role more than 12 on 3d6, does the rule limiting vehicles to 12" of movement stop the trukk at 12"? Or can a trukk that Kareens 18" move the full distance?

biccat wrote:Assuming that Trukks aren't fast...

If the Kareen goes off and you role more than 12 on 3d6, does the rule limiting vehicles to 12" of movement stop the trukk at 12"? Or can a trukk that Kareens 18" move the full distance?

Trukks are fast and open topped

Totally irrelevant since Trukks are fast, but the rule tells you you can move 3D6 and so you can move 3D6. That doesn't change the fact that if you cannot move at all you can't move.

biccat wrote:Assuming that Trukks aren't fast...

If the Kareen goes off and you role more than 12 on 3d6, does the rule limiting vehicles to 12" of movement stop the trukk at 12"? Or can a trukk that Kareens 18" move the full distance?

In that situation the rule tells you to move 3D6. One rule is telling you to move 3D6 inches which overrides the 12" movement if you roll higher than 12.

Jidmah wrote:
Immobilized prevents the trukk from moving on its own, but Kareen! does not tell the trukk to make a move("The trukk moves..."), but rather tells the player to move the trukk("Move the trukk..."). You find similar wordings when using Terror from The Deep, moving models out from under a tank or the Lifta-Droppa. Kareen! might as well be the result of the engine or fuel exploding and sending the trukk flying across the air, no matter how many wheels were left.

But the FAQ regarding moving mycetic spores says;

Q: A Mycetic Spore cannot move itself once it has
entered the battle, but can it be moved by another
model (e.g. by a Mawloc’s Terror from the Deep special
rule)?
A: Yes.

In this case, the trukk is not being moved by another model, it is suffering a damage result.

And Terror from the Deep even says that "Vehicles, including immobile vehicles, retain their original facing if they are moved."
So the specific rule allows an immobile vehicle to be moved out of the way by another model, but the point remains that an immobile vehicle cannot move for the rest of the game.

The ramshackle rule is similar to the 'Don't Press Dat' rule. That one says at the start of the ork movement phase you roll for the looted wagon and if a '1' is rolled the wagon, "...must move directly forward as far as possible..." and again, an immoblie vehicle cannot move at all, that is the farthest it can possibly go.

So how about the Blood Angel's Magna Grapple? It has the same wording as Kareen!, and has no exceptions for immobile vehicles. So immobile vehicles can't be pulled by the grapple?

Corrode wrote:Totally irrelevant since Trukks are fast, but the rule tells you you can move 3D6 and so you can move 3D6. That doesn't change the fact that if you cannot move at all you can't move.

Fair enough, thanks. My ork horde is full of footsloggin' boyz. We don't need no trukks!

Jidmah wrote:So how about the Blood Angel's Magna Grapple? It has the same wording as Kareen!, and has no exceptions for immobile vehicles. So immobile vehicles can't be pulled by the grapple?

Sure they can. The Magna-Grapple rule says if the vehicle isn't destroyed by the shot you roll and if the result is sufficient the dread can 'drag' the vehicle closer. The vehicle itself is not moving, the BA dread (another model) is causing the vehicle to move.
In fact, Magna-Grapple even ends by saying if the vehicle survives the ensuing assault it will be able to move normally in the next turn.
And if it's immobilized, its 'normal' move will be to remain in place.

So how is this different from kareen? The trukk is not moving, but the hit that destroyed it causes it to fly across the board before exploding. The wording is the same, so the effect must be, too.

Kareen! has a very specific list of limitations. It doesn't throw an 'etc' on the end like what is and isn't hull, so the only limits of its movement is what is listed and clarified in the FAQ.

Saying that because it tells you a limit gives you precedent for another limit that isn't mentioned is absurd. It is saying the only exceptions to the 'move the full 3D6 inches', not allowing new exceptions to that statement.

-cgmckenzie

Lone Dragoon wrote:

flaim wrote:I don't have either Codex in front of me, but if a Grey Knight vehicle is immobilized and a Librarian uses its Summoning power on it, would you say it could not be summoned? Again, I apologize if the wording is sufficiently different so as to not apply, but I would assume that if the wording is similar this would show that you can move a vehicle that has been Immobilized.

For what its worth, I am in the Trukk is moved camp.

The summoning (when used in conjunction with the warp stabilization field) doesn't actually interact with the immobilized rule. It tells you to remove the vehicle from the table top, and place it within 6" of the model using the power. It doesn't tell you to move the model to within 6" of the target. There is a difference between those two, subtle but there.

My emphasis on your quote there. Looks as if the wording is such that my reference does not apply.

I am still in the move category, simply was trying to find another side to the argument.

I have to go with the it moves camp, though I wish I wasn't. The RAW for Kareen! says, (as quoted many times) "Move the trukk 3D6" as far as possible in a random direction..." That is as written, the book says moving the dang Trukk. If there was an "or" in there as in 3D6" or as far as possible I would agree the immobilize effect takes precedence. Last time I checked there wasn't any blank faces or 0's on my d6. So it moves at least 3" unless during that movement it encounters an enemy unit or terrain.

My thoughts...

Jidmah wrote:So how is this different from kareen? The trukk is not moving, but the hit that destroyed it causes it to fly across the board before exploding. The wording is the same, so the effect must be, too.

It does not "fly across the board". The rule says to "Move the Trukk 3D6" as far as possible..." meaning the player moves the trukk.
It is not being moved by another model like Terror from the Deep or Magna-Grapple, it is being told to move as a result of damage.
Terror from the Deep specifically mentions what happens to immobile vehicles, but Magna-Grapple does not. So for Magna-grapple, you 'drag' the vehicle as per the MG rule, and then the next turn the vehicle goes back to moving as normal.
Ramshackle says to move "...as far as possible..." and has been pointed out already, an immobile vehicle cannot move for the rest of the game.
For the Ork Codex to override the main rules, the Codex would have to add that even immobilized vehicles will be moved by the Kareen result. Since the Codex doesn't say that, there is nothing in the Codex rule to override the immobile rule in the main rules.

Jidmah wrote:So how about the Blood Angel's Magna Grapple? It has the same wording as Kareen!, and has no exceptions for immobile vehicles. So immobile vehicles can't be pulled by the grapple?

Actually it's worded differently. It says move the vehicle 2d6 inches. It does not say move the vehicle 2d6" as far as possible towards the dread.

If it said move the vehicle as far as possible 2d6" towards the dread I would agree with you that it wouldn't work on an immobile vehicle, since it is not possible the vehicle can move. However when it simply tells you to move the distance, you move the distance.


And as for kareen! having a list of limitations, it doesn't. It is not giving limitations, it is telling you what happens in that situation. Look at the magna grapple, it tells you what to do in the situation. It tells you it cannot move within 1" of difficult terrain, impassible terrain, vehicle models (friend and foe), or units locked in combat. It DOES NOT limit what the magna grapple does, it DOES tell you how to play it in that situation.

You're confusing what the second part of the rule is about and taking it as a limitation, not an explanation. A good example of this is the Counterattack and Furious Charge debate that went on for quite a while. In the end it came down to the wording, that counterattack says it gains a +1 attack as if it had charged. That wording does not allow furious charge to kick in. If it had said under counterattack that models count as charging, we'd be seeing a lot more blood claws being played as they're rule would work, as would furious charge. Counterattack's wording is a limitation, Kareen's wording is not.

CGM - Kareen is NOT giving you an exhaustive list of limitations, and neither does the FAQ. That argument does not hold any water...

"as far as possible" for a vehicle which cannot move is 0". Break no rule - ifg you move you have broken a rule, if you dont move you break no rule.

Lone Dragoon wrote:

Jidmah wrote:So how about the Blood Angel's Magna Grapple? It has the same wording as Kareen!, and has no exceptions for immobile vehicles. So immobile vehicles can't be pulled by the grapple?

Actually it's worded differently. It says move the vehicle 2d6 inches. It does not say move the vehicle 2d6" as far as possible towards the dread.

If it said move the vehicle as far as possible 2d6" towards the dread I would agree with you that it wouldn't work on an immobile vehicle, since it is not possible the vehicle can move. However when it simply tells you to move the distance, you move the distance.

This is still not a move done by the vehicle, but by exterior influences. An immobilized vehicle is only forbidden from moving on its own.

And as for kareen! having a list of limitations, it doesn't. It is not giving limitations, it is telling you what happens in that situation. Look at the magna grapple, it tells you what to do in the situation. It tells you it cannot move within 1" of difficult terrain, impassible terrain, vehicle models (friend and foe), or units locked in combat. It DOES NOT limit what the magna grapple does, it DOES tell you how to play it in that situation.

Actually, when combined with the FAQ, the lists are almost identical except for the trukk not tankshocking allies. It tells you cannot move within of 1" of difficult terrain, impassible terrain, enemy models and stop when touching friendly models or the table edge.

You're confusing what the second part of the rule is about and taking it as a limitation, not an explanation. A good example of this is the Counterattack and Furious Charge debate that went on for quite a while. In the end it came down to the wording, that counterattack says it gains a +1 attack as if it had charged. That wording does not allow furious charge to kick in. If it had said under counterattack that models count as charging, we'd be seeing a lot more blood claws being played as they're rule would work, as would furious charge. Counterattack's wording is a limitation, Kareen's wording is not.

As far as I can tell, FC/Counterattack is a random analogy and has nothing in common with karren or magna grapple, but rather some of the "counts as" confusion GW has spread everywhere.

time wizard wrote:It is not being moved by another model like Terror from the Deep or Magna-Grapple, it is being told to move as a result of damage.

That's my whole point - the trukk is never told to move anywhere in any part of the ramshackle rules. He is moved(passive) by something else. For immobilize to have an effect, it should have been worded "The trukk moves 3d6" as far as possible".

Jidmah wrote:

You're confusing what the second part of the rule is about and taking it as a limitation, not an explanation. A good example of this is the Counterattack and Furious Charge debate that went on for quite a while. In the end it came down to the wording, that counterattack says it gains a +1 attack as if it had charged. That wording does not allow furious charge to kick in. If it had said under counterattack that models count as charging, we'd be seeing a lot more blood claws being played as they're rule would work, as would furious charge. Counterattack's wording is a limitation, Kareen's wording is not.

As far as I can tell, FC/Counterattack is a random analogy and has nothing in common with karren or magna grapple, but rather some of the "counts as" confusion GW has spread everywhere.

It wasn't a random analogy, it was meant to show what the difference between a limitation (as if it had charged not counts as charging) and the explanation of rules happens to be.

Jidmah wrote:

time wizard wrote:It is not being moved by another model like Terror from the Deep or Magna-Grapple, it is being told to move as a result of damage.

That's my whole point - the trukk is never told to move anywhere in any part of the ramshackle rules. He is moved(passive) by something else. For immobilize to have an effect, it should have been worded "The trukk moves 3d6" as far as possible".

How the rule is worded; Move the trukk 3d6" as far as possible... is just rearranging the words in the sentence. It does not change the meaning of the sentence. It is simply using a you as the understood subject. It's no different than saying, go to the store. The word you can be put in front of the sentence, and not change it at all. You move the trukk... The key here is the word MOVE, the key isn't that the sentence should be different to allow the immobilized result. The fact that you are moving the trukk is the center of the debate. If it said place the trukk 3d6 inches in a random direction because of the rule, I'd be on your side. As it stands though, it uses the word move, which immobile vehicles can no longer, "move" unless acted on by an outside rule, not a built in rule. Before you quote SM Rhinos, keep in mind it removes the immobilized result, it doesn't make it move.

As my group has played it....
The 3d6" Kareen movement does "NOT" apply if the trukk is immobilized!
It just goes Kaboom right away!

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, its not a tough one.

The Trukk moves "as far as possible". How far is it possible for an immobilised trukk to move? 0"

The topic has been discussed at length before, and Nos has it spot on.

Kareen moves the trukk "as fas as possible", which is nowhere if it has already been immobilized from a previous damage result.

ork_smash wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, its not a tough one.

The Trukk moves "as far as possible". How far is it possible for an immobilised trukk to move? 0"

The topic has been discussed at length before, and Nos has it spot on.

areen moves the trukk "as fas as possible", which is nowhere if it has already been immobilized from a previous damage result.

What would happen if a truck suffered a immobilized and wrecked result at the same time, which came first the immobilized or the karreen. Not to mention I fail to see how the truck is immobilized once it has suffered a wrecked result. It is no more, it ceased to be, and sprung its mortal coil.

You apply both simultaneously, meaning it still doesnt move.

Break. No. Rule.

Lone Dragoon wrote:How the rule is worded; Move the trukk 3d6" as far as possible... is just rearranging the words in the sentence. It does not change the meaning of the sentence. It is simply using a you as the understood subject. It's no different than saying, go to the store. The word you can be put in front of the sentence, and not change it at all. You move the trukk... The key here is the word MOVE, the key isn't that the sentence should be different to allow the immobilized result. The fact that you are moving the trukk is the center of the debate. If it said place the trukk 3d6 inches in a random direction because of the rule, I'd be on your side. As it stands though, it uses the word move, which immobile vehicles can no longer, "move" unless acted on by an outside rule, not a built in rule. Before you quote SM Rhinos, keep in mind it removes the immobilized result, it doesn't make it move.

I'm sorry guys but I have to chime in here again. Not trying to troll, offend anyone or get off topic but seriously?!

Let me extract the part of the above quote that I am referring to:

Lone Dragoon wrote:How the rule is worded; Move the trukk 3d6" as far as possible... is just rearranging the words in the sentence. It does not change the meaning of the sentence.

Again, dont mean to get off the subject, but isnt this is exactly how the english language works.

Example of 2 sentences using the same words:
-The trukk moved you
-You moved the trukk

There is an example of two simple 4-word sentences, with the words rearranged.
My point is that how the sentence is worded changes the perspective of the instruction. It changes from a first person "the trukk moves" to a 3rd person "move the trukk". Remember this is a game, where there are times that you have to for example take a 'models eye view' of things and times when the player is the proverbial 'hand of god' to manipulate things in the game.

This, in my opinion, is the crux of this disagreement and this destinction is important.
Lastly, sorry for getting off topic a bit, but I thought it was important to point this out.

The distinction isnt actually important; move is a defined term within 40k.

When you "move" something in 40k it has to obey all normal restrictions, unless you *specifically* let it do otherwise.

Ramshackle does no such thing, and the FAQ actually confirms this by simply reiterating the basic constraints you are under when moving: you may not move within 1" of an enemy , off the table, or at all if immobilised.

Neither is the trukk "being moved" by an externality, as is the case with a mycetic spore and being tank shocked. This is a special damage result that forces you to move the vehicle, according to specific constraints, but does not specifically override any normal BRB rules.

Nos I see where you're coming from but, as far as I know, 'move' is still a relative term that requires context to work.
I dont know where 'move' is explicitly defined in the rulebook as a definite term relative to the game, but I'd be interested to know.

When the group I play in plays, we use the player/model distinction because it resolves matters simply.
Is it an order to the player or to the model?
-If its to the model then other rules that are defined to the model, like immobilised, apply.
-If its to the player, then its more of an 'event' in the game as the player is not 'in' the game but rather manipulating it.

As I explained earlier, its only logical otherwise you end up in a disagreement/mess that this very thread is trying to resolve.

Also:
Is anyone able to extract the FAQ quote for posterity?
Is there a forum rule against directly quoting FAQ stuff here?

EDIT:
Just forgot to add, the Ramshackle rule is a codex-defined set of rules that explicitly overrides the vehicle damage chart, and this is where that is important.
Again, it explicitly overrides the vehicle damage chart, meaning its only for this situation with particular 'ramshackle' vehicles.
From that, my group would take it that:
1- Codex overrides rulebook (in our group at least anyway).
2- It is explicitly defined for this vehicle.
3- The 'Kareen' rule is worded that it is instructed to the player, not the model, as RAW. Ie: this is an 'event'.

what happens if the trukk suffers an immobilized and wrecked/kareen in the same round of shooting. Say a land raider landed two pens while firing both lascannons and both results were rolled. Would you just apply the higher result?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
never mind, my question was asked and answered before I finished posting it. I type WAY to slow in the morning

plonka2000 wrote:3- The 'Kareen' rule is worded that it is instructed to the player, not the model, as RAW. Ie: this is an 'event'.

This is what I am talking about. When going by rules vs. codex you have to look at it in order of 'events' not the rule book says you can't, if that were the case Blood Angels ability to scatter 1d6" on deep strike would be done away with because the rule book says you scatter 2d6". By the argument that the rulebook trumps everything, then what's the point of having codexes (codices?)? Because codexes are exceptions to the rules according to the various armies therein.

Your trukk just got shot, it was immobilized, you get penned a second time it is wrecked you roll on the chart you roll Kareen! You roll you scatter and move the trukk because that is the order of events.

It would be the same in any game where you have a rule set and then supplement books.

No, because the very specific DoA rule very specifically overrides the more general BRB rule.

Specific beats general. Repeat this ad nauseum. It is NOT "codex overrides rulebook".

The Kareen! rule does NOT specify that it overrides the immobilised result, thererfore it does not do so.

I am feeling that their are alot more arguments for the trukk to actually move, than against it...both logically, gramatically, and even within the rules itself.

The whole argument between "The trukk moves" and "Move the trukk" makes it very clear. The trukk is not moving on its own accords, the "hand of god" moves the trukk. All previous rules on the damage chart are ignored and the more specific ramshakle rules are used. It is quite specific on explaining what to do.

Yet it does not specifically override the BRB rules on mvoing off the board - so it doesnt

It doesnt specifically override the rules on moving when you are immobilised, so it doesnt override them

The trukk cannot move because it has no SPECIFIC permission to do so. An explicit permission would be "...possible, even if the trukk is immobilised"

The "as far as possible" entirely puts the nail through any argument as well. Is it possible to move when immobilised? No? Then you HAVE moved as far as possible.

NEITHER rule argument has been shown to be false.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet it does not specifically override the BRB rules on mvoing off the board - so it doesnt

It doesnt specifically override the rules on moving when you are immobilised, so it doesnt override them

The trukk cannot move because it has no SPECIFIC permission to do so. An explicit permission would be "...possible, even if the trukk is immobilised"

The "as far as possible" entirely puts the nail through any argument as well. Is it possible to move when immobilised? No? Then you HAVE moved as far as possible.

NEITHER rule argument has been shown to be false.

+1

Your whole argument is based on the fact that "it doesn't say it can so it can't". I can just easily say "it doesn't say I can't so I can" . The very fact that you can override the rules for wreak and destroyed with the ramshakle rule means logically it also overides the immobilized and stunned rules.

Hazard30 wrote:Your whole argument is based on the fact that "it doesn't say it can so it can't". I can just easily say "it doesn't say I can't so I can" . The very fact that you can override the rules for wreak and destroyed with the ramshakle rule means logically it also overrides the immobilized and stunned rules.

no, when overriding a BRB rule, the codexes specifies which part of the rule they override. In the case of the Ramshackle rule, it is only the wrecked and explodes result that are overridden and not all the possible results in the vehicle damage table.

Nowhere does it says it overrides the immobilized result which is why it cannot move if ti is immobilized on the roll of a kareen. I would say the same applies for stunned results.

This is tough, but i think in the end i am leaning towards moving it, if something is completely stationary, and has a bomb go off right by it, it flies away. I like to think of this in the kareen rule, the truck is not moving on its own accord, but past posters are correct. both sides just keep stating their point and not disproving the other in actuallity, imo

dajobe wrote:This is tough, but i think in the end i am leaning towards moving it, if something is completely stationary, and has a bomb go off right by it, it flies away. I like to think of this in the kareen rule, the truck is not moving on its own accord, but past posters are correct. both sides just keep stating their point and not disproving the other in actuallity, imo

that comment is more fluff related. And in the fluff part of the rule, the trukk does not "fly away". The ork driver lose control of it and crashes. That is why it has to stop at terrain, units and table borders. If it just went up in the air there would be no point say it has to stop at terrain. And how do you lsoe control of an immobilized trukk? You cannot.

there is no convincing either side on this arguement, we seemed to have reached an impass. it just comes down to extremely technical vs. more flexible playstyles

Hazard30 wrote:Your whole argument is based on the fact that "it doesn't say it can so it can't". I can just easily say "it doesn't say I can't so I can" . The very fact that you can override the rules for wreak and destroyed with the ramshakle rule means logically it also overides the immobilized and stunned rules.

+1

The Ramshackle table specifically overrides the 'Vehicle Destroyed' and 'Vehicle Explodes (Wrecked)' by name in the BRB Vehicle Damage Chart.
Yes, it does not specifically override the 'immobilised' rule by name, but there is specific clause that a part of this rule overrides a corrisponding part of the BRB rule.

In other words, when you apply a 'Destroyed' or 'Explodes (Wrecked)' rule, you specifically need to ignore that and roll on the Ork Codex 'Ramshackle' table.
If in that case you roll on the table and it results in 'Kareen', then that overrides the Rulebook Damage Chart.

By this documented process (and I'm not trying to twist the rules here) this seems (to me) as clearly a case of 'Codex overrides Rulebook'.
Once again, lets also not forget that the wording is to "Move the trukk", not "The trukk moves".

Surely this should indicate that this overrides the Rulebook, only in this case for this vehicle?

dajobe wrote:there is no convincing either side on this arguement, we seemed to have reached an impass. it just comes down to extremely technical vs. more flexible playstyles

I'm inclined to agree with this.

Hazard30 wrote:Your whole argument is based on the fact that "it doesn't say it can so it can't". I can just easily say "it doesn't say I can't so I can" .

No, you can't, because this is a game, and that's _not_ how games work. The rules tell you what you can do in the context of the game, so if they don't say you can do something, then you can't do it. That's why it's called a permissive ruleset. In all the variations of chess that I have seen, I've never seen one that specified you could not spin the board around and switch sides in the middle of the game, however, were you to actually try doing that, no one would be phased for a moment by your argument that, 'the rules don't say I can't.'

dajobe wrote:there is no convincing either side on this arguement, we seemed to have reached an impass. it just comes down to extremely technical vs. more flexible playstyles

Not really. This has come down to 'how the rules actually work' vs 'I don't care about the rules, this is how I think it should be.'

Stop saying codex overrides BGB, the rule is specific beats general. Mind you, codex is almost always more specific but there are times when it isn't.

Any way, back on topic.

The FAQ specifies that the trukk cannot drive off the board because of this. Before the FAQ, I would have said it is entirely plausible that it could(orks loose control and go driving off the battlefield, explosion on horizon ensues) but the specification of the FAQ clarifies that.

I believe it should move, because of rules, fluff, and sake of fun.

Rules- the rule is written like an order telling you to move it, not saying you can move it. It then says(in the FAQ and codex) what the limiting factors to that movement are. Immobilized isn't on that list.

Fluff-it's orks and this stuff just happens .

Fun-I tend to get into the role playing of the battles, and laughing at orks when they do something stupid or insane makes them even more fun. Also, a trukk driving off and exploding next to a unit(mine or yours) is much more fun than it just exploding right there.

Anywho, that's how I see it and I like to think it makes sense.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Stop saying codex overrides BGB, the rule is specific beats general. Mind you, codex is almost always more specific but there are times when it isn't.

Any way, back on topic.

The FAQ specifies that the trukk cannot drive off the board because of this. Before the FAQ, I would have said it is entirely plausible that it could(orks loose control and go driving off the battlefield, explosion on horizon ensues) but the specification of the FAQ clarifies that.

I believe it should move, because of rules, fluff, and sake of fun.

Rules- the rule is written like an order telling you to move it, not saying you can move it. It then says(in the FAQ and codex) what the limiting factors to that movement are. Immobilized isn't on that list.

Fluff-it's orks and this stuff just happens .

Fun-I tend to get into the role playing of the battles, and laughing at orks when they do something stupid or insane makes them even more fun. Also, a trukk driving off and exploding next to a unit(mine or yours) is much more fun than it just exploding right there.

Anywho, that's how I see it and I like to think it makes sense.

-cgmckenzie

QFT

cgmckenzie wrote:Stop saying codex overrides BGB, the rule is specific beats general. Mind you, codex is almost always more specific but there are times when it isn't.

Any way, back on topic.

The FAQ specifies that the trukk cannot drive off the board because of this. Before the FAQ, I would have said it is entirely plausible that it could(orks loose control and go driving off the battlefield, explosion on horizon ensues) but the specification of the FAQ clarifies that.

I believe it should move, because of rules, fluff, and sake of fun.

Rules- the rule is written like an order telling you to move it, not saying you can move it. It then says(in the FAQ and codex) what the limiting factors to that movement are. Immobilized isn't on that list.

Fluff-it's orks and this stuff just happens .

Fun-I tend to get into the role playing of the battles, and laughing at orks when they do something stupid or insane makes them even more fun. Also, a trukk driving off and exploding next to a unit(mine or yours) is much more fun than it just exploding right there.

Anywho, that's how I see it and I like to think it makes sense.

-cgmckenzie

I also agree with this, however, the 'Codex overrides Rulebook' is the same as saying 'Specific beats General'.
Each and every Codex is just a collection of specifics and elaborations that tie everything back to the 'General' Rulebook.

It's the same, so there is no reason to nitpick between those 2 statements, but I agree with your post. Make it fun, make it cinematic.

Wrong.

Sweeping advance vs WBB tells you you are wrong.

It IS specific vs general.

Yes, Kareen tells you to ignore the damage results for Wrecked and Explodes!, but ONLY THOSE RESULTS. Does it tell you to ignore results already obtained? NO

It tells you to move as far as possible

How far is it possible to move when you cannot move at all? 0"

CGM - as I tried to explain to you, the FAQ was truly a FAQ in this case - it didnt change the rules. The reminders are not an exhaustive list of which restrictions still apply.

Unless you are specifically told to ignore an already given rule, you may not ignore it. Ramshackle ignores precisely 0 normal BRB movement rules (off table, into enemy, impassable terrain, etc) so why suddenly decide it can ignore this one? Especially when the rule doesnt actually say you can...

One side has: this way is more fun. The other side has actual rules. 2 of them, in fact.

Point 1:
Once again, I think you're forgetting that according to RAW the trukk itself apparently is not moving, but is being moved.
I'm not making that up, the rule states "Move the trukk", not anything indicating that the immobilised trukk is moving by itself.
I've been over this a few times so I'm inclined to agree with dajobe. We're at an impass.

Point 2:
I've tried to make my points clear on what I think of this, but you're telling me I'm wrong by calling in obscure examples.

The truth is, there is always an exception or two to every rule and I'm not denying that.
Yes, there is going to be 1 or 2 general vs specific rules the other way around.
It does you no good to wave that exception in someones face, because it is still an exception.
The other truth is that the Codices are full of specifics, so as a relative comparison, you are wrong.

Point 3:
This game is supposed to be fun and cinematic. I'm with cgmckenzie there. That is how the group I play in plays.
We would rather have fun, some laughs and any disagreements can be sorted by some common sense and reasonable thinking. You can doggedly hold onto certain rules as much as you like, but in the real world, real people dont like playing with people who have that attitude to games. It's not cheating, its just no fun. Sure, the flexible attitude might not work on a forum whereby the rules are the rules, but I'm agreeing to disagree here.

It's still just a game.

Take care people, I'm off home to paint my trukk.

It's likely the "does not move" arguement. But I'm going to play it as "does move" in the unlikely event my immobilized truck gets hit and kareens. And I'll argue that while there's not any rule supporting it, it's pretty Orky. Most people I play with will go with that, because it's an unlikely situation and they're pretty laid back guys so they'll agree with me. We like to have fun.

But anyways, if you're playing with Nos, no the truck would move 0". As written.

Good point Plonka, i play to have fun, when me and my brother are argueing about a cover save because its debatable whether half the unit is in cover or whatever the issue is, i just say F*** it, how about i get a 5+ rather than a 4? We could get out a protractor, measure the angle, mark on the table where everyone is, and go through a lenghty technical process...so all of you who are saying "cant move" get out your metaphorical protractors and go have a blast

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet it does not specifically override the BRB rules on mvoing off the board - so it doesnt

There are no rules in the BRB for moving off the board
And the BRB FAQ states that models may not move of the table on their own.

Q: Can models move off the table? (p11)
A: Not unless a rule or the mission being played clearly
specify that they can.

Ramshackle is not the model moving on its own thus it could go off the table, but moving off the table was explicitly handled in the ork FAQ.

Q. If a Trukk suffers a ‘Kareen!’ result, what
happens if the random movement forces it into
friendly models or off the table?
A. The vehicle stops as soon as it comes into
contact with friendly models or the table’s edge.

It doesnt specifically override the rules on moving when you are immobilised, so it doesnt override them

The trukk cannot move because it has no SPECIFIC permission to do so. An explicit permission would be "...possible, even if the trukk is immobilised"

It does not need to, because the trukk is not moving by itself. Immobilized only prevents models from moving on their own.
"It may not move for the rest of the game."(BRB pg.61)
The trukk may not move, but the trukk may be moved.

The "as far as possible" entirely puts the nail through any argument as well. Is it possible to move when immobilised? No? Then you HAVE moved as far as possible.

As "as far as possible" obviously applies to the limits given in the rule and added by the FAQ.

jidmah's post just made me change camps. I do not see any hole in his arguments and reasoning. I'll have to reluctantly agree with him.

Jidmah wrote: There are no rules in the BRB for moving off the board

BRB page 95, "If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land off the table..."
There's one.

Jidmah wrote:It does not need to, because the trukk is not moving by itself. Immobilized only prevents models from moving on their own.
"It may not move for the rest of the game."(BRB pg.61)
The trukk may not move, but the trukk may be moved.

Technically speaking, the trukk (nor any other vehicle for that matter) never moves, it is moved by the player.

Using your logic, I may freely move any of my immobilized vehicles because the vehicle isn't moving, it is being moved. By me.

Jidmah wrote:As "as far as possible" obviously applies to the limits given in the rule and added by the FAQ.

And just ignores the "Immobilized" rule?
So then who decides which rules are ignored and which are applied.

Suppose you have a stunned looted wagon.
The looted wagon rule says at the start of the ork movement phase you roll a die and if a '1' is rolled the wagon moves forward as far as possible.
Since it is a tank, it can move 12".
So does "Don't Press Dat" let the looted wagon move 12" forward even if stunned (or immobilized)?

POint 1 - no, Im not ignoring it. I've covered and refuted that misleading argument.
The trukk is still moving, and is not BEING moved by another effect like tank shock.

Point 2: No, "specific beats general" is always right. And WBB versus Sweeping Advance is *not* obscure. You do realise that "codex trumps rulebook" leads to you always getting an armour save, even against power weapons, as your codex states you do?

So, stick with the actual rules basis for the game: the more specific rule WHEREEVER it is located beats the more general rule WHEREVER located. Easy. No exc eptions ever needed as well.

Jidmah - the BRB never gives you permission to move off the board, therefore you cannot. It has rules by omission - an inherent lack of permission to do something prevents you from doing it.

No, as far as possible does not mean that the examples given are meant to be exhaustive. The FAQ shows this by acting as a reminder that, no, you still follow the movement rules.

The Trukk follows *all* normal restrictions on movement. Every. Last. One. To suddenly claim it ignores such a basic rule as "you cannot move" is asinine.

Time wizard, all models are moved.BY ME. we are saying the trukk was moved somehow by another model's actions, instead of moving by its own actions. As much as i'd like to have the actual combat played out like a movie with explosions and real physics...guess what?Can't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:POint 1 - no, Im not ignoring it. I've covered and refuted that misleading argument.
The trukk is still moving, and is not BEING moved by another effect like tank shock.

Point 2: No, "specific beats general" is always right. And WBB versus Sweeping Advance is *not* obscure. You do realise that "codex trumps rulebook" leads to you always getting an armour save, even against power weapons, as your codex states you do?

So, stick with the actual rules basis for the game: the more specific rule WHEREEVER it is located beats the more general rule WHEREVER located. Easy. No exc eptions ever needed as well.

Jidmah - the BRB never gives you permission to move off the board, therefore you cannot. It has rules by omission - an inherent lack of permission to do something prevents you from doing it.

No, as far as possible does not mean that the examples given are meant to be exhaustive. The FAQ shows this by acting as a reminder that, no, you still follow the movement rules.

The Trukk follows *all* normal restrictions on movement. Every. Last. One. To suddenly claim it ignores such a basic rule as "you cannot move" is asinine.

And i would argue that the ramshakle rule is more specific then immobilized therefore overrides it.

It's worth noting that you don't exactly electively move models in the enemies turn unless they've done something that causes your model or a unit to move IE fall back and so on, this isn't elective, the ramshackle table is telling you to do so. This is like arguing that a lifta droppa wouldn't move an immobilized vehicle because its immobile. It's also worth pointing out that a trukk that simply didn't move in its movement phase can still end up to 3D6 inches away if that result comes up on the ramshackle table, momentum has never been a pre-requisite for this to occur.

It's not like immobile ever meant much to an army that can take grot riggers for 5pts. In any case, the assumption is being made that immobile vehicles just ignore certain results of the ramshackle table and that's simply not supported by the rules.

My point from the start. It tells you to Move but now how it was moved. This can be done by Many different ways. The rule states things go out of control. So there is a reason why it moves but you can use your head to think of better ways.

The lash of submision can move units that would otherwise be unable to move, i.e gone to ground.

So there is precidence for moving unmovable models.

Besides its a non-voluntary forced move as a result of a damage table result.

Your not even in the movement phase so realy you could argue you should always move it 0" as your only alowed to move in the movment phase any way, right?

Or running in the shooting/assaulting in the assault phase. But enemy shooting/assault phase, normal movement would be 0". Good point.

-cgmckenzie

Solourus - erm, no. Lash cannot move units that have gtg - see the FAQ.

youbedead - how are you arguing that? Given that the Ramshackle rule applies to all trukks, not just trukks that are immobilised, in order to be more specific it would have to SPECIFY (gee, whod have thought a more specific rule may specify what it is overruling....) that it worked against immobilised results.

And it doesnt. So it doesnt.

Really that simple.

Ramshackle is more specific than immobilized.

Immobilized applies to all vehicles, ramshackle applies only to a specific vehicle, trukks.

-cgmckenzie

Sigh.

What is more specific? Ramshackle on any trukk, or Ramshackle on an already immobilised trukk

The latter is the more specific situation

It MUST specify that it works against immobilised, otherwise it does not.

I say again: Ramshackle follows ALL normal movement rules, all of them - yet you are trying to claim, with no rules argument against the two rules proving you wrong (as far as possible, move) for doing so.

A FAQ reminding you that you cannot move off the table unless told you can does not mean this is an explicit restriction, and you get to ignore anything not explicitly listed as a restriction. That is "it doesnt say I cant", and is a crap rules argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh.

What is more specific? Ramshackle on any trukk, or Ramshackle on an already immobilised trukk

The latter is the more specific situation

It MUST specify that it works against immobilised, otherwise it does not.

I say again: Ramshackle follows ALL normal movement rules, all of them - yet you are trying to claim, with no rules argument against the two rules proving you wrong (as far as possible, move) for doing so.

A FAQ reminding you that you cannot move off the table unless told you can does not mean this is an explicit restriction, and you get to ignore anything not explicitly listed as a restriction. That is "it doesnt say I cant", and is a crap rules argument.

Under that reasoning, doesnt the trukk move because of the specific 'ramshackle' rule specifying to "move the trukk" overrides the general 'immobilised' rule?
Once again, this is because there is an order to "Move the trukk x", not "the trukk moves x". This order is to the player, not to the model.

Unless I've missed something, I have seen no credible reason against this reasonable statement so far...

time wizard wrote:

Jidmah wrote: There are no rules in the BRB for moving off the board

BRB page 95, "If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land off the table..."
There's one.

Fine, you win the nitpicking war

Technically speaking, the trukk (nor any other vehicle for that matter) never moves, it is moved by the player.

This would be an incorrect assumption - no rule ever states that you may shoot the enemy models, but always refers to the model(s) shooting. So, in context, models are able to act.
And yeah, I checked any codex and rule I got my hands on for this, because I wanted a RAW for shooting my enemy models with rubber bands
Sadly no such rule was ever written. I wonder if GW thought of this.

Using your logic, I may freely move any of my immobilized vehicles because the vehicle isn't moving, it is being moved. By me.

You don't have permission to move models unless told to do so. Permissive ruleset.

Jidmah wrote:As "as far as possible" obviously applies to the limits given in the rule and added by the FAQ.

And just ignores the "Immobilized" rule?
So then who decides which rules are ignored and which are applied.

The rules do. Skimmers ignore intervening terrain, feel no pain ignores wounds, moral checks ignore casualties caused in close combat.
Or maybe a more fitting example: Infantry ignores the vehicle damage chart.

Suppose you have a stunned looted wagon.
The looted wagon rule says at the start of the ork movement phase you roll a die and if a '1' is rolled the wagon moves forward as far as possible.
Since it is a tank, it can move 12".
So does "Don't Press Dat" let the looted wagon move 12" forward even if stunned (or immobilized)?

"Don't Press Dat" is worded so that the looted wagon is told to take action, as opposed to telling the player what to do. So no problem here, as "the looted wagon may not move" trumps "the looted wagon must move". If anything, it indicates that my interpretation is right.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh.

What is more specific? Ramshackle on any trukk, or Ramshackle on an already immobilised trukk

Ramshackle on an already immobilized trukk is not a rule. Immobilized is - thus neither is clearly more specific.

The latter is the more specific situation

It MUST specify that it works against immobilised, otherwise it does not.

It does not have to specify to work against a rule that does not apply.

I say again: Ramshackle follows ALL normal movement rules, all of them - yet you are trying to claim, with no rules argument against the two rules proving you wrong (as far as possible, move) for doing so.

I did provide a rules argument, you are just choosing to ignore it. All movement rules and restrictions, save for the summary at the beginning of the chapter, talk about units taking actions to move. Ramshackle does not ask an action of the trukk, but rather of a player, as opposed to "Don't press dat!". The wording is even consistent across forced moves caused by special rules(for example, Magna Grapple).

A FAQ reminding you that you cannot move off the table unless told you can does not mean this is an explicit restriction, and you get to ignore anything not explicitly listed as a restriction. That is "it doesnt say I cant", and is a crap rules argument.

Those rules never apply, as all of them restrict actions taken by models, not by players. You also stated you proved the argument "Trukk moves != Trukk is moved" as false, but I can't see where.

Jidmah - yet you have not proven that the rule does not apply.

The rule requires the trukk to move 3D6". The trukk is not "is moved" by an external event.

The more specific situation is an immobilised trukk with Kareen!. Thats how specific vs general works.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rule requires the trukk to move 3D6". The trukk is not "is moved" by an external event.

The more specific situation is an immobilised trukk with Kareen!. Thats how specific vs general works.

Which was also my point about looted wagons and Don't Press Dat. Similar to Kareen.

Don't Press Dat says you must roll a dice, ir it's a '1' you must move forward as far as possible.

And if immobilized the farthest it can move, as nosferatu repeats, is 0".

Immobilized means the vehicle can't move for the rest of the game. Can't even pivot.
It is just that simple.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Jidmah - yet you have not proven that the rule does not apply.

The rule requires the trukk to move 3D6". The trukk is not "is moved" by an external event.

The more specific situation is an immobilised trukk with Kareen!. Thats how specific vs general works.

It says move the truck. It does not say the trukk is making a move action or the trukk makes a normal move action.

Time wizard, you obviously have been missing the point for the last 4 pages, when something becomes immobilized, its not like it suddenly has 5000 foot pylons that dig into the ground and is magnetically attached to whatever terrain happens to be below it...its like the engine got shot up or wheels shot off...guess what, still has a gas tank that can explode and push it somewhere even if stationairy, rockets can still randomly land nearby and throw the vehicle somewhere!

dajobe wrote:Time wizard, you obviously have been missing the point for the last 4 pages, when something becomes immobilized, its not like it suddenly has 5000 foot pylons that dig into the ground and is magnetically attached to whatever terrain happens to be below it...its like the engine got shot up or wheels shot off...guess what, still has a gas tank that can explode and push it somewhere even if stationairy, rockets can still randomly land nearby and throw the vehicle somewhere!

Missing the point? I think not.
Kareem says the trukk moves 3D6". Not that the gas tank blows up and it is propelled 3D6", not that a rocket hit nearby and rolled it 3D6", it says it moves 3D6".
And vehicles that are immobilized may not move for the rest of the game.
Guess what, it got its wheels blown off, or the tranny blew up, or it threw a track, or its gas tank got punctured. So what? It doesn't matter, it can't move.
And that has been the point for the last 4 pages.

im done with this thread, i guess were all just gonna have to agree to disagree

+1

I've seen threads on this forum spanning 14 pages where opposing opinions got locked in a repetitive loop.
The longer this goes on, the harder it is for someone who wants an answer, because they will need to read through all this.

I propose that both sides have made their point and leave it to whoever reads this to decide on their own terms.

dajobe wrote:im done with this thread, i guess were all just gonna have to agree to disagree

Fair enough - I agree that there are 2 proven rules (moves, as far as possible) and no rules argument against them.

Your "side" keeps returning to fluff. Fluff, apart from one specified instance, has no place in rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

dajobe wrote:im done with this thread, i guess were all just gonna have to agree to disagree

Fair enough - I agree that there are 2 proven rules (moves, as far as possible) and no rules argument against them.

Your "side" keeps returning to fluff. Fluff, apart from one specified instance, has no place in rules.

You're at risk of sounding like a troll, dude.

Not a troll.

I've given reasoned, rules based arguments, based on the way the game is put together (specific beating general)

In return, even 4 pages in, peopole are still claiming a move isnt a move, and you get to ignore the normal rules for moving - despite the FAQ confirming that you dont actually do so.

I will let this die for me with this last post. Feel free to ignore it if you wish.

The rule says move it 3D6 inches. You will be moving at least 3" as far as possible is 3" or 18" unless you encounter a enemy unit or terrain. It doesn't get more specific than that. You roll 3 d6's and move it as far as the dice tell you to that is as far as possible unless your run into an enemy unit or terrain.

Ok I'm now done and agree with everyone to agree to disagree.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Not a troll.

I've given reasoned, rules based arguments, based on the way the game is put together (specific beating general)

In return, even 4 pages in, peopole are still claiming a move isnt a move, and you get to ignore the normal rules for moving - despite the FAQ confirming that you dont actually do so.

No one is denying your arguments, least of all me. We're just agreeing to disagree because the alternative appears to be to argue ad nauseam.

What you are doing is trying to provoke an emotional response by the classic "fine, but i'm still right" comment... which is trolling.

Let it be known, also, that I did not call you a troll but said you're at risk of sounding like one.

Which is a meaningless distinction.


Its similar to ending an offensive statement with "no offence"

<pointlessly rude text redacted --Janthkin>

Reported.

Sigh.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Which is a meaningless distinction.


Its similar to ending an offensive statement with "no offence"

Or when someone says "but..." after a statement of agreement (See we can agree on something ).
The distinction is not meaningless, otherwise it wouldnt exist or be taken so seriously by forum mods.

Ok I apologise if I offended you (here it comes) but I stand by what I said.
What you did just now was provocation, because it followed someone else attempting to be reasonable.

plonka2000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Which is a meaningless distinction.


Its similar to ending an offensive statement with "no offence"

Or when someone says "but..." after a statement of agreement (See we can agree on something ).
The distinction is not meaningless, otherwise it wouldnt exist or be taken so seriously by forum mods.

Ok I apologise if I offended you (here it comes) but I stand by what I said.
What you did just now was provocation, because it followed someone else attempting to be reasonable.

QFT, even if my responding statement was...more harsh than neededb be.

Apologies for getting so off topic too...

Take care people.

I'm out! Boom!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Jidmah - yet you have not proven that the rule does not apply.

The rule requires the trukk to move 3D6". The trukk is not "is moved" by an external event.

So, I'll try to prove it:
Presets:
1) Shooting is always described as the model shooting its weapon. Moving is always described as the model moving into/through/out of something or somewhere. Coherence rules require the models to move in such a way that they stay in coherence. Assaults describe the models as moving into assault and trading blows. Multiple instances of rules describe the models choosing to use special rules, wargear or psychic powers.
-> A model can take actions.
2) Removing casualties, deep striking, deploying, moving models after a tank shock all tell the player to take action, as opposed to the affected models.
-> A player can take actions.

Claim:
1) and 2) are distinct.
Prove by disproving the opposite. The opposite would be 1) and 2) are the same. If they are the same, every action taken by models may be taken by players, and vice versa.
I. Every action taken by models may be taken by players.
Models may shoot models, players may not shoot models. -> conflict
II. Every action taken by players may be taken by models.
Players may deploy units. Units may not deploy themselves or other units. -> conflict
I.+II.
-> 1) and 2) are not the same.
-> 3) A player taking action is distinct from a model taking action.

Claim:
Some rules do not affect players and their actions.
Prove by disproving the opposite. The opposite would be that all rules affect players and their actions.
I. The movement of a model is restricted by distance and to the tabletop.
II. During deployment, when removing casualties or while resolving a deep strike, a player may move models as far as he wishes, even outside the table borders.
I.+II.
-> There are restrictions that do not affect player actions.
-> 4) Some restrictions apply only to models.

3)+4)
-> 5) Any rules states whether they affect player actions, model actions or both. Assuming that no indication of which one a rule affects means both.

Claim:
"Destroyed - Immobilised" does not affect players.
Prove by disproving the opposite. The opposite would be that immobilized does affect player actions.
I. A vehicle can still be removed from the table by player action, for example by Destroyed - Explode
II. A vehicle can be moved by players if special rules call for it, for example by the Magna Grapple or Eldritch Storm
III. As per 5) the rule should states that it affects players or both. It says the vehicle may not move.
I.+II.+III.
-> conflict
-> 6) It does not affect players or both.

Claim:
Kareen! is an action taken by a player.
Prove by disproving the opposite. The opposite as per 3) is Kareen! is an action taken by the trukk itself.
I. Kareen! addresses the player.
II. Kareen! does not tell the trukk to move.
-> conflict
-> 7)Kareen is not an action taken by the trukk.

6)+7)
-> Immobilized does not affect Kareen.

q.e.d.

The more specific situation is an immobilised trukk with Kareen!. Thats how specific vs general works.

Adding all parts of the problem one at time:

Most general: A vehicle
Very general: An immobilized vehicle
Less general: An immobilzed trukk
Specific: An immobilized trukk suffering kareen!

Most general: A vehicle
Very general: A trukk
Less generall: A trukk suffering kareen!
Specific: An immobilized trukk suffering kareen!

So, which one is more specific? The immobilized trukk specifically suffering kareen! or the trukk suffering kareen! specifcally being immobilized?

Gah!! Logic!! I hated that class in college and hoped to never see it again, thanks for that :(

Good point though, very nicely put.

-cgmckenzie

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh.

What is more specific? Ramshackle on any trukk, or Ramshackle on an already immobilised trukk

The latter is the more specific situation

It MUST specify that it works against immobilised, otherwise it does not.

I say again: Ramshackle follows ALL normal movement rules, all of them - yet you are trying to claim, with no rules argument against the two rules proving you wrong (as far as possible, move) for doing so.

A FAQ reminding you that you cannot move off the table unless told you can does not mean this is an explicit restriction, and you get to ignore anything not explicitly listed as a restriction. That is "it doesnt say I cant", and is a crap rules argument.

"Immobilized Ramshackle" isn't a rule. Ramshackle is a rule, and Immobilization is a rule. Immobilization applies to all vehicles, Ramshackle only applies to Trukks. By definition, it is a more specific rule than Immobilization (or rather, the rule that the Vehicle Damage Chart applies to vehicles instead of the wounds rules).

Jidmah wrote:
Claim:
1) and 2) are distinct.
Prove by disproving the opposite. The opposite would be 1) and 2) are the same. If they are the same, every action taken by models may be taken by players, and vice versa.
I. Every action taken by models may be taken by players.
Models may shoot models, players may not shoot models. -> conflict
II. Every action taken by players may be taken by models.
Players may deploy units. Units may not deploy themselves or other units. -> conflict
I.+II.
-> 1) and 2) are not the same.
-> 3) A player taking action is distinct from a model taking action.

Your proof fails at step one because it fails to demonstrate that the GW cleanly distinguishes between actions taken by the model and actions taken by the player.

For case in point, see involuntary movement.

Also, the rage rules for Chaos Dreadnoughts and the Rage USR, all of which require a model to move, in comparison to the deep strike rules, which require a model to move.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Not a troll.

I've given reasoned, rules based arguments, based on the way the game is put together (specific beating general)

In return, even 4 pages in, people are still claiming a move inst a move, and you get to ignore the normal rules for moving - despite the FAQ confirming that you dont actually do so.

I think you are wrong. You bring good points up but the rule is the Rule. It is the same as the Trukk saying Move 3d6, So what if i roll 3 6's, i would be moving flat out and it tells me i can Get out, which is breaking one of those rules of yours.
The "as far as possible " part is 3d6 inches, unless you run into other models or terrain. not if you are broke down and cant drive !

Jordan - yet you dont have any rules argument, and havent since page 1.

Anvil - The more specific situation is an immobilised trukk suffering kareen versus a normal trukk suffering kareen. Thats how you work out the more specific instance.

solkan wrote:

Jidmah wrote:
Claim:
1) and 2) are distinct.
Prove by disproving the opposite. The opposite would be 1) and 2) are the same. If they are the same, every action taken by models may be taken by players, and vice versa.
I. Every action taken by models may be taken by players.
Models may shoot models, players may not shoot models. -> conflict
II. Every action taken by players may be taken by models.
Players may deploy units. Units may not deploy themselves or other units. -> conflict
I.+II.
-> 1) and 2) are not the same.
-> 3) A player taking action is distinct from a model taking action.

Your proof fails at step one because it fails to demonstrate that the GW cleanly distinguishes between actions taken by the model and actions taken by the player.

I disproved that they do not distinguish, which is the same as proving that they do. Try searching for proof by contradiction (also known as reductio ad absurdum) if you question this.

For case in point, see involuntary movement.

Involuntary movement explicitly talks about model actions. Nothing there contradicts my argument.

Also, the rage rules for Chaos Dreadnoughts and the Rage USR, all of which require a model to move, in comparison to the deep strike rules, which require a model to move.

Both rage and all chaos dreadnoughts 'crazed'-results require a model to take action. Deep strike tells a player to put a model on the table, roll for scatter and then place all further models in a circle around it. Nothing of this contradicts my argument.

Anvil - The more specific situation is an immobilised trukk suffering kareen versus a normal trukk suffering kareen. Thats how you work out the more specific instance.

Unless you can proof that a an immobilized trukk is more specific than a trukk suffering kareen, you can not claim this as true.

Anvil - The more specific situation is an immobilised trukk suffering kareen versus a normal trukk suffering kareen. Thats how you work out the more specific instance.

Unless you can proof that a an immobilized trukk is more specific than a trukk suffering kareen, you can not claim this as true.

Sigh.

What is the more specific situation.

A trukk suffering kareen!
The same trukk suffering immobilsed

All trukks suffer Kareen, only some suffer it while immobilised.

Proven. Please provide a rules argument otherwise. Or are we back to "but but rockets! explosions!" as a "rules" argument?

jordan23ryan wrote:
This is how i see it. You tell me where the Immobilized over turns this special Rule ?

That's a really easy one. Page 61 of the BRB, here's how it's written word for word, "The vehicle has taken a hit that has crippled a wheel, track, grav plate, jet or leg. It may not move for the rest of the game."

There are a lot of examples where it tells that a certain rule, or piece of wargear does not work with the more general rules. For example models wearing terminator armor cannot make a sweeping advance, even though every model with a WS that wins combat can make one unless they are still in combat with another unit, or have rules that prevent it. That rule specifically overrides sweeping advance. That means the ball is in your court, prove where Kareen! (or the ramshackle rule in general) specifically overrides the immobilized result.

Lone - I've tried this for 5 pages.

It devolves back into "but explodes! stuff happens! bad fluff explanation!!!"

I know, and I've been here trying to get the point across since page 1. The problem is, if they were able to point out a specific statement in Kareen! that says to apply this even to immobilized vehicles I'd be on their side, but there's no such luck on finding the rule, unless someone writes it in with magic marker.

And that was the point I've been trying to make.

You're told two things, to move the trukk and do so as far as possible. You're then reminded of a whole load of standard movement rules that you arent allowed to break, yet apparently some believe you can break one of them.

YOu have no permisison to move while immobilised. None.

Jidmah wrote:

solkan wrote:

Jidmah wrote:
Claim:
1) and 2) are distinct.
Prove by disproving the opposite. The opposite would be 1) and 2) are the same. If they are the same, every action taken by models may be taken by players, and vice versa.
I. Every action taken by models may be taken by players.
Models may shoot models, players may not shoot models. -> conflict
II. Every action taken by players may be taken by models.
Players may deploy units. Units may not deploy themselves or other units. -> conflict
I.+II.
-> 1) and 2) are not the same.
-> 3) A player taking action is distinct from a model taking action.

Your proof fails at step one because it fails to demonstrate that the GW cleanly distinguishes between actions taken by the model and actions taken by the player.

I disproved that they do not distinguish, which is the same as proving that they do. Try searching for proof by contradiction (also known as reductio ad absurdum) if you question this.

And I suggest you search for the term "fallacy of the excluded middle" if you don't understand the problem with your proof.

You cannot take a statement P, attempt to prove that NOT P cannot be true, and conclude that P must therefore be true unless you can demonstrate that both P and NOT P exhaust the universe of possibilities.

That means that every step of your proof is open to the counter claim that P and NOT P are exhaustive possibilities.

Special rules restrict what a player can do with a model. That means that there are rules which affect both players and models. Therefore there are special rules which apply to both models and players. This fact refutes your step of the proof.

Holy smoke, this is still going on?

Solution: Roll on it.

1, 2 or 3 = No move.

4, 5 or 6 = It's a rolling fireball.

Lone Dragoon wrote:

jordan23ryan wrote:
This is how i see it. You tell me where the Immobilized over turns this special Rule ?

That's a really easy one. Page 61 of the BRB, here's how it's written word for word, "The vehicle has taken a hit that has crippled a wheel, track, grav plate, jet or leg. It may not move for the rest of the game."

There are a lot of examples where it tells that a certain rule, or piece of wargear does not work with the more general rules. For example models wearing terminator armor cannot make a sweeping advance, even though every model with a WS that wins combat can make one unless they are still in combat with another unit, or have rules that prevent it. That rule specifically overrides sweeping advance. That means the ball is in your court, prove where Kareen! (or the ramshackle rule in general) specifically overrides the immobilized result.

And that's a situation where a rule, about Sweeping Advances (the Terminator rule that you cannot make them) is more Specific than a rule about Sweeping Advances (the BGB rule, explaining that WS units can make them). It's two rules about a situation- Sweeping Advance. One of the rules is a 'general' rule- that is, a rule that applies to every model that has the correct properties- and one of the rules is a 'specific' rule- a rule that applies to every model that has the correct properties as well, only in this case, fewer models have that property.

Immobilized is a General rule- one that applies to all vehicles that have been hit with a glancing or penetrating hit, and rolled a modified or unmodified 4 on the Vehicle Damage chart. Ramshackle is a Specific rule, one that applies to all Vehicles that have the Ramshackle Special Rule that have suffered a modified or unmodified 5 or 6 on the Vehicle Damage chart. Fewer models can be effected by the Ramshackle rule, therefore it is by definition a more Specific rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh.

What is the more specific situation.

A trukk suffering kareen!
The same trukk suffering immobilsed

All trukks suffer Kareen, only some suffer it while immobilised.

Proven. Please provide a rules argument otherwise. Or are we back to "but but rockets! explosions!" as a "rules" argument?

Yes, that is a more specific situation. However, the 'rule' of General<Specific is not about situations, but about rules. Ramshackle is a more specific rule than Immobilized/Following the Vehicle Damage Chart.>

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh.

What is the more specific situation.

A trukk suffering kareen!
The same trukk suffering immobilsed

All trukks suffer Kareen, only some suffer it while immobilised.

Proven. Please provide a rules argument otherwise. Or are we back to "but but rockets! explosions!" as a "rules" argument?

You realize this "proof" works exactly the same the other way around? A trukk can be immobilized and never suffer kareen easily - due to not being destroyed or just not getting kareen! on the ramshackle table. In fact, it is way more likely for an immobilized trukk not to kareen, as multiple destroyed results will cause multiple rolls, from which the lowest is taken. Due to the fragile nature of trukks multiple damage results are likely, and Kareen! is only a one in three chance in the first place. Not to mention the unlikeliness of someone wasting bullets on an immobilized trukk in an objective game.

You also need to find a more specific rule, not a more specific situation. There is not "Immobilized Trukk suffering kareen!"-rule. If there was, there wouldn't be an argument. There is a "Destroyed - Immobilized" and a "Ramshackle - Kareen!" rule. If both conflict, you'd have to show that one is more specific than the other, which you can't, as neither depends on the other. If anything a rule only applying sometimes to ork trukks when being damaged is more specific than a rule applying more often to all vehicles being damaged.

I also can't help that it you decide to ignore my argument and claim to have proven it wrong when you haven't. No need to keep beating on irrelevant fluff.

And I suggest you search for the term "fallacy of the excluded middle" if you don't understand the problem with your proof.

You cannot take a statement P, attempt to prove that NOT P cannot be true, and conclude that P must therefore be true unless you can demonstrate that both P and NOT P exhaust the universe of possibilities.

That means that every step of your proof is open to the counter claim that P and NOT P are exhaustive possibilities.

I see, but is there actually an error or just a formal thing? As far a I can tell 1) and 2) describe all actions possible in the game, as there are no rules for divine intervention or supernatural phenomena.
So my statement would be:
P: 1) != 2) (rather than 1) ∩ 2) = {})
NOT P: 1) = 2)
Mind you, I'm not trying to show that 1) and 2) have no rules in common, as it would make no difference to the argument. At least one rule existing in 1) and not in 2) is enough for my argument, see 5) for explicitly taking into account that a rule belongs to 1) and 2). Probably a misuse of the word 'distinct' on my side here.
It would be possible to show that every single rule in the BRB is either 1) or 2), but I doubt anyone would read that or even care. I have yet to find a rule that does not either addresses a player or talks about a model taking some action. I've even reread the BRB to confirm that.

Special rules restrict what a player can do with a model. That means that there are rules which affect both players and models. Therefore there are special rules which apply to both models and players. This fact refutes your step of the proof.

Can you quote such a rule? Of course, in the end the player is taking all actions of the game, but the rules seem to distinguish between the model acting by the 'physical laws' of the game and the player intervening and taking action outside of those law.

As I read this thread the other day, I thought "This never happens, why are they going round and round about it?"

Well. it happened to me tonight. I brought this thread up and his response was "Just roll on the damn chart and see what happens." Of course it kareened and we moved the trukk.

And, for the record, I am still in the move the trukk camp. I understand the logic from both sides and to me it comes down to this. I "move" my trukk in the movement phase. This is taking place outside of that phase (i.e. my opponent's shooting or assault phase) and does not fall under "movement." Yes, I realize it actually moves on the table, but it is not "movement" as defined by 40k's 3 steps to warfare in the 41st millenium (ie. move, shoot, assault).

A similar ruling is that "running" is not "movement." While the models move while running, they are not moving. I reference the FAQ on Mad Dok that states he has the option to shoot or run in the shooting phase at the player's discretion. (See ad nauseum other threads where people claim he has to run every turn because he must move "as fast as possible" towards the enemy unit).

I may of course be wrong. If I played someone like Nosferatu, I would just want it clariified up front (if possible). The actual ruling one way or another matters little to me as long as its applied consistently throughout the course of the game. I am not going to get bent out of shape over it during a game of army men.

Anvildude wrote:
And that's a situation where a rule, about Sweeping Advances (the Terminator rule that you cannot make them) is more Specific than a rule about Sweeping Advances (the BGB rule, explaining that WS units can make them). It's two rules about a situation- Sweeping Advance. One of the rules is a 'general' rule- that is, a rule that applies to every model that has the correct properties- and one of the rules is a 'specific' rule- a rule that applies to every model that has the correct properties as well, only in this case, fewer models have that property.

Immobilized is a General rule- one that applies to all vehicles that have been hit with a glancing or penetrating hit, and rolled a modified or unmodified 4 on the Vehicle Damage chart. Ramshackle is a Specific rule, one that applies to all Vehicles that have the Ramshackle Special Rule that have suffered a modified or unmodified 5 or 6 on the Vehicle Damage chart. Fewer models can be effected by the Ramshackle rule, therefore it is by definition a more Specific rule.

I used the terminator armour as an example where it shows the overriding of a rule. It is specifically spelled out in black and white. It is a general rule that all models that meet the conditions have sweeping advance. However terminators have it specifically revoked by their rule. There's a reason I'm using the bold to point out that same word over and over again, because it is explicitly saying sweeping advance does not work due to wargear or rule. There is no ambiguity whatsoever about it.

The mistake you're making, is immobilized is a general rule. It's not. Rolling on the damage chart is a general rule, and immobilized is the specific rule in this case. It specifically states what happens when that particular result on the general vehicle damage rules occurs. Taking damage is the general rule, immobilized is the specific rule in this case. Now the error that many of the people are making is that they are stating that Kareen is the more specific rule. However, if it WAS the more specific rule it would say to move the distance of 3d6 regardless of whether it is immobilized or not. When you can show me the, regardless of whether it is immobilized or not I'll agree that ramshackle is more specific. Until someone can show that it overrides immobilized, kareen will not work with it.

JIdmah - no, it is the more specific situation, and that is what matters. The subset of trukks suffering kareen while immobilised is less than the set of trukks suffering kareen.

seems to me immobilized overrides. it can not move, think up whatever fluff you want. rules say it dosent and cant move. to keep kareem rules however it would be thus:

immobilized result on trukk - immobilized
next hit = wreck
ramshackle overrides normal damage, kareem rolled.
truck unable to move, therefore does not "moving as far as POSSIBLE" (wich is 0 due to immobilized) and then applies the kaboom result as per ramshackle. simple.

and really... if your so worried about immobilized trukks i have a nice 5 point upgrade for you called grot riggers! work great!

nosferatu1001 wrote:JIdmah - no, it is the more specific situation, and that is what matters. The subset of trukks suffering kareen while immobilised is less than the set of trukks suffering kareen.

The subset of of trukks suffering kareen! while immobilized is also less than the set of trukks being immobilized, while statistically less trukks suffer kareen! than immobilized. It's highly likely that there is some type of logical law or rule to handle this kind of situation, but I'm kind of a miss for how to explain it or resolve it.

All trukks suffering a wrecked or destroyed result suffer kareen. Only some of them will have already been immobilised. Same as only some of them will have lost a big shoota. So on.

Oh, they don't. Some suffer Kerrunch! or Kaboom!, with Kaboom! being much more likely than Kareen!. This makes Kareen! just as likely as immobilized for a single penetrating hit, and much less likely for a glancing hit, with the odds getting worse for Karreen! with each additional hit.

All trukks can be immobilized, but only some of them will suffer Kareen! afterwards. Unless you can construct a case where you can't switch Kareen! and immobilized without making the sentence untrue, you can't really accept immobilized being more specific.

Except it is all about the situation.

When you are immobilised, you CANNOT move. This is the base case.

You get kareen!, which tells you to move if possible. It does not tell you you must move, even if you cannot normally move. It does not tell you to ignore any previous damage results. It even makes it explicit that the move is conditional by telling you to do this "as far as possible", and *reminds* you that the normal movement rules apply

Every single part of kareen tells you that this is a normal move. Can you move when you are immobilised? No. not unless the rule *specifically* tells you you can.

True, but this is not a case of specific vs general, as the rules do not conflict, neither by your nor by my interpretation.

Your interpretation is that a player moving a model is the same as a model moving on it's own. Kareen! clearly tells the player to move the model.

I have shown that the rules actually make a difference between models moving and models being moved by players. Movement rules, including immobilized, are written about a model moving, not a player moving a model.

Dude it doesn't really say or imply anywhere in the rules for Kareen! that it is a normal move. I'm looking at it with my own eyeball.

I mean, come on. You do it in a random direction. With a scatter die. That's got to be one of the least normal moves you can find.

There is nothing in the rule that says it is an optional move. You must move 3D6 when kareen! is rolled. The 'move as far as possible' is telling you move the 3D6 and stop only when you go the entire distance/run into an obstacle specified in the rule/FAQ.

It is an order to move the trukk, not a suggestion or option. Move it.

-cgmckenzie

nosferatu1001 wrote:JIdmah - no, it is the more specific situation, and that is what matters. The subset of trukks suffering kareen while immobilised is less than the set of trukks suffering kareen.

How can you say that ? IT is a Special rule. Both point have been made. This is not the first time you have tried to pick a special rule apart. There is a reason why they are special. Yes they are more specific then normal rules. The BRB says this, which you have already said that it does not. Just because it names a small amount of them, that does not mean that is all of them. As i have said before, a special rule can override 2 or more normal rules if it written that way.


This is right from the book. If you READ the first Part it says THIS IS A SUMMARY........ Do i need to get a Definition of SUMMARY...?

As this is just a summary, if any of the Codexes
include one of these special rules and the rule is
different, the one in the Codex takes precedence
(and this represents how the general special rule
applies to that specific race).


So since this is a SUMMARY that means there are more rules not listed here ?

jordan23ryan wrote:
As this is just a summary, if any of the Codexes
include one of these special rules and the rule is
different, the one in the Codex takes precedence
(and this represents how the general special rule
applies to that specific race).

I put emphasis one one of the parts.
This quote is from page 74, Universal Special Rules.
Is Ramshackle a USR? No.
Is immobilized a USR? No.
Does this quote from the Universal Special Rules section apply to either Ramshackle, Kareem or immobilized rules? No.

what are talking about? A header to the page ? Read it again.
It is stating that there are a large number of special rules that are not specific to just a single army so they listed a SUMMARY of these to be in the BRB. This is not all of them by any chance.

Sighl

way to take something entirely out of context. You do realise that this entire part of the BRB (nice C&P from an illegal PDF, btw) rules is talking about special rules that are *identically* named, one in the codex and one in the BRB?

Is Kareen a USR? No? Then that ENTIRE Page does NOT apply to it. Sorry, no matter how you attempt to twist and obfuscate this, it is irrelevant.

Typing 'sigh' at the beginning of all your posts doesn't help your argument, just makes you sound pompous. If it is so tedious posting in a topic, avoid it.

The ramshackle rule and the kareen! subset are more specific than the universal vehicle damage table results, purely by the fact that it applies only to trukks. Immobilized can and does apply to trukks, but when the special rule for trukks is in conflict with the rule for immobilized, the special rule is going to apply.

-cgmckenzie

Object can not move, now move object as far as possible.

That's all it is, seriously.

cgmckenzie wrote:Typing 'sigh' at the beginning of all your posts doesn't help your argument, just makes you sound pompous. If it is so tedious posting in a topic, avoid it.

The ramshackle rule and the kareen! subset are more specific than the universal vehicle damage table results, purely by the fact that it applies only to trukks. Immobilized can and does apply to trukks, but when the special rule for trukks is in conflict with the rule for immobilized, the special rule is going to apply.

-cgmckenzie

So you would argue that the "Don't Press Dat" rule would also take precedence over a looted wagon being immobilized?

I don't have my codex with me now, so I need to double check the wording of it.

But just as the idea, no. The 'don't press dat' is during the owner's movement phase, is a result of your moving, and the distance isn't specified in the rule as being XD6 inches, so the move is either until it hits an obstacle or you exhaust the limit of regular looted wagon movement.

But again, I need to double check the codex to be sure.

-cgmckenzie

In a nutshell it says that at the start of the Ork Mvement phase the player must] roll a dice and on a roll of '1' the player must move the looted wagon "...directly forward as far as possible...".

time wizard wrote:In a nutshell it says that at the start of the Ork Mvement phase the player must] roll a dice and on a roll of '1' the player must move the looted wagon "...directly forward as far as possible...".

and 3d6 as far as possible on a trukk isss

....
....
....
....
0''

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sighl

way to take something entirely out of context. You do realise that this entire part of the BRB (nice C&P from an illegal PDF, btw) rules is talking about special rules that are *identically* named, one in the codex and one in the BRB?

Is Kareen a USR? No? Then that ENTIRE Page does NOT apply to it. Sorry, no matter how you attempt to twist and obfuscate this, it is irrelevant.

I did not take it from a pdf downloaded , it came from Please do not post urls that link people to bootleg copies of the rules. Thanks, Manchu. Since you cant get to the point I was trying to making using my Illegal PDF. I C&P it because I did not want to do what you do and add my own words into it. I guess you can read this more then one way. Since this is a Summary of some of these, i guess we need not to worry about the ones not listed right ?


So here is a better Copy and Paste Job for you.....

Summary.....
sum·ma·ry
   [suhm-uh-ree] Show IPA noun, plural -ries, adjective
–noun
1.
a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation, or compendium of previously stated facts or statements.
–adjective
2.
brief and comprehensive; concise.
3.
direct and prompt; unceremoniously fast: to treat someone with summary dispatch.
4.
(of legal proceedings, jurisdiction, etc.) conducted without, or exempt from, the various steps and delays of a formal trial

UNIVERSAL
SPECIAL RULES


As the number of Warhammer 40,000 armies has increased through the years, it has become apparent that there are a large number of special rules that are not specific to just a single army, and that these universal special rules really belong here in the Warhammer 40,000 rule book.

As this is just a summary, if any of the Codexes
include one of these special rules and the rule is
different, the one in the Codex takes precedence
(and this represents how the general special rule
applies to that specific race).

The Special Rules marked with an asterisk (*) are
automatically lost by an independent character
joining a unit that does not have the same special
rule. These rules are also lost by a unit that is
joined by an independent character that does not
have the same special rule.

So, to pick apart your failed argument a little more, as you still missed the point:

Heading is Universal Special rules.

Is Kareen! a universal special rule? No
Is Immobilised a USR? No

Does this section therefore apply to either of those rules? NO

Your argument has no merit by going along these lines. Seriously. Reread it, and note the context. It says "these special rules" - so you cannot simply apply them to ANY special rule, as they apply ONLY to the USRs listed

CGM- i have proven which is more specific, and shown you exactly what is required for a rule to override another (see ATSKNF and Sweeping Advance for what "specify" means), and Kareen! does not do that. Your argument is still null

Rottooth wrote:Holy smoke, this is still going on?

Solution: Roll on it.

1, 2 or 3 = No move.

4, 5 or 6 = It's a rolling fireball.

QFT, if i was playing with my friends, that would always be a rolling fireball, if it was with someone willing to compromise, we would roll for it, if i was playing with nosferatu or time wizard or anyone else who refuses be flexible or open up the blinders a bit, i'd probably just leave because i dont have fun in that type of game. I am not saying that either my style or "the other side's" style of play is wrong, but it has become obvious neither side is going to give in, and unless someone is friends with whoever writes the official rules and can get them to give their opinion, i think its going to stay that way. So everyone, enjoy the game whether it be strict or flexible, but as i have said before in this thread, we have reached an impass.

dajobe wrote:QFT, if i was playing with my friends, that would always be a rolling fireball, if it was with someone willing to compromise, we would roll for it, if i was playing with nosferatu or time wizard or anyone else who refuses be flexible or open up the blinders a bit, i'd probably just leave because i dont have fun in that type of game. I am not saying that either my style or "the other side's" style of play is wrong, but it has become obvious neither side is going to give in, and unless someone is friends with whoever writes the official rules and can get them to give their opinion, i think its going to stay that way. So everyone, enjoy the game whether it be strict or flexible, but as i have said before in this thread, we have reached an impass.

Maybe you shouldn't read YMDC then? Or at least the tenets of it. The whole point of this forum is to get strict and inflexible with the rules, the vast majority of us won't open a rules debate of this magnitude during a game. Usually I believe my opponent's interpretation to be right on his army, and check or argue here later. If he is trying to pull really funky things, dice off.

unless someone is friends with whoever writes the official rules and can get them to give their opinion, i think its going to stay that way.

It even stays this way if whoever wrote the official rules did give his opinion, the KFF debate is perfect proof of that

no, i enjoy ymdc, but if 6 pages of the same post basically being copy pasted over and over, its not really so much an arguement but more a two people with a sound proof wall between them and just keep talking and neither side is listening

My "feelings" on this rule are that I think the Trukk should move. I think it's Orky, and it sounds at first glace as is if that is the way the rule is meant to be interpreted.

However, the Ork FAQ on this changes my mind.

"Don't Press Dat" specifically mentions that the Looted Wagon still "counts" as moving even if it can't, as in if it's immobilized. "Don't Press Dat" works remarkably similar to "Kareen", and seems subject to the normal rules for vehicle movement, including immobilized results.

When a "Kareen" event happens, I believe the 3D6 movement happens just as normal vehicle movement would, with the only restrictions that the "Kareen" special rule places on it, such that it stops 1" away from terrain or enemy models. This means that if the Trukk is immobilized, it may not Kareen. I really wish it could though.

dajobe wrote:QFT, if i was playing with my friends, that would always be a rolling fireball, if it was with someone willing to compromise, we would roll for it, if i was playing with nosferatu or time wizard or anyone else who refuses be flexible or open up the blinders a bit, i'd probably just leave because i dont have fun in that type of game.

Wow. I never thought of myself as being inflexible or having blinders on regarding the rules. This forum discusses how the rules are written, not necessarily how you would play them in a game.
In every game I play, if there is a question on how a rule can be applied and my opponent and I can't immediately agree, we roll off and discuss it later over a drink.
I've never had an opponent just pick up and leave because of the "type of game" I was playing.
Normally I wouldn't even respond to what you said, but you are wrong about me. Completely.

dajobe wrote: I am not saying that either my style or "the other side's" style of play is wrong, but it has become obvious neither side is going to give in, and unless someone is friends with whoever writes the official rules and can get them to give their opinion, i think its going to stay that way. So everyone, enjoy the game whether it be strict or flexible, but as i have said before in this thread, we have reached an impass.

I would not say that anyone's style of play is wrong unless I have actually played against them.
As far as rules debates go, I have a very good knowledge and understanding of the rules, but I am certainly not infallable or never wrong.
When I am presented with an argument that shows my position was in error, I have no problem admitting it and also have been known to change my opinion on rules matters from time to time when a number of different factors have been presented.
In this, I seem to be clearly in the minority.
More's the pity.

*reserved*

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, to pick apart your failed argument a little more, as you still missed the point:

Heading is Universal Special rules.

Is Kareen! a universal special rule? No
Is Immobilised a USR? No

Does this section therefore apply to either of those rules? NO

Your argument has no merit by going along these lines. Seriously. Reread it, and note the context. It says "these special rules" - so you cannot simply apply them to ANY special rule, as they apply ONLY to the USRs listed

CGM- i have proven which is more specific, and shown you exactly what is required for a rule to override another (see ATSKNF and Sweeping Advance for what "specify" means), and Kareen! does not do that. Your argument is still null

It says these Special rules but also dont forget that this is not all of them. There are more and Since you dont understand what Summary means. There is no getting through to you. You are going off a header and you want to stay strict to the words written but only to the ones you like. You are right on how it is talking about the special rules but you are still forgeting about the ones not listed. It might be written wrong but that is how it is written and it is now talking about all special rules.


This is how you read it,

If any of the Codexes
include one of these special rules and the rule is
different, the one in the Codex takes precedence
(and this represents how the general special rule
applies to that specific race).

This is what it says....

As this is just a summary, if any of the Codexes
include one of these special rules and the rule is
different, the one in the Codex takes precedence
(and this represents how the general special rule
applies to that specific race).

jordan23ryan wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, to pick apart your failed argument a little more, as you still missed the point:

Heading is Universal Special rules.

Is Kareen! a universal special rule? No
Is Immobilised a USR? No

Does this section therefore apply to either of those rules? NO

Your argument has no merit by going along these lines. Seriously. Reread it, and note the context. It says "these special rules" - so you cannot simply apply them to ANY special rule, as they apply ONLY to the USRs listed

CGM- i have proven which is more specific, and shown you exactly what is required for a rule to override another (see ATSKNF and Sweeping Advance for what "specify" means), and Kareen! does not do that. Your argument is still null

It says these Special rules but also dont forget that this is not all of them. There are more and Since you dont understand what Summary means. There is no getting through to you. You are going off a header and you want to stay strict to the words written but only to the ones you like. You are right on how it is talking about the special rules but you are still forgeting about the ones not listed. It might be written wrong but that is how it is written and it is now talking about all special rules.


This is how you read it,

If any of the Codexes
include one of these special rules and the rule is
different, the one in the Codex takes precedence
(and this represents how the general special rule
applies to that specific race).

This is what it says....

As this is just a summary, if any of the Codexes
include one of these special rules and the rule is
different, the one in the Codex takes precedence
(and this represents how the general special rule
applies to that specific race).

So if I read that correctly, you are saying that Kareen specifically says that it overides immobilized result. Can you please quote that part of the rule because IIRC, it only applies on a 3 or 4 on the ramshackle rules which only overides the wrecked and explodes results.

Jordan - no, simply no. Apparently there is no explaining this to you.

The heading is USR. It then says THESE SPECIAL RULES. WHich special rules would those be? Why, the UNIVERSAL SPECIAL RULES that the section is entitled!

If you dont understand really simple context such as that there really is no hope here.

If you move 12" in a trukk and try to ram a tank. My trukk blows up so i then have to roll on the ramshackle table. I roll three 6's which means i have to move 18". This would make 30" so far. Then it tells me to get out take a pinning test and those who live are good. Where in this rule does it tell me i can get out since i have move FLATOUT ? No where other then the special rule tells me i can. On top of that. I move 2 times, which is breaking the rules and on that my guys can get out and Assasult which is breaking the rules ? This is my point if you want to pick every damn special rule apart then you should not play with any since some people dont like them. You are asking for every special rule to state it is overriding all the plain rules but if you read what i have written about the SUMMARY part then this all starts making since to me, But hell that is just me !

jordan23ryan wrote: If you move 12" in a trukk and try to ram a tank. My trukk blows up so i then have to roll on the ramshackle table. I roll three 6's which means i have to move 18". This would make 30" so far. Then it tells me to get out take a pinning test and those who live are good. Where in this rule does it tell me i can get out since i have move FLATOUT ? No where other then the special rule tells me i can. On top of that. I move 2 times, which is breaking the rules and on that my guys can get out and Assasult which is breaking the rules ? This is my point if you want to pick every damn special rule apart then you should not play with any since some people dont like them. You are asking for every special rule to state it is overriding all the plan rules but if you read what i have written about the SUMMARY part then this all starts making since to me, But hell that is just me !

#1 you mvoed 12'' which is not flat out. Flat out for fast vehicle is 18''.

#2 If you read kaboom, you'll see that you apply the disembarking rule (or whatever the name of that rule). The d6 S3 damage is for those outside of the wagon (vehicle explodes). So fi you moved flatout and then kareen and then kaboom. The surviving passenger must disembark and do a pining test. Guess what, all the passengers are dead because you moved flat out.

#3, Just to really point that out. The rules says the surviving passengers disembark. So you must take the wounds of the explosion b4 getting out of the trukks. A pinning test does NOT kill models. It makes a unit go to ground.

What ?

Did you no understand what i was saying ? It's my fault.


12 is not flatout, when i role a 3 or 4 on ramshackle and then i have to move over 12" when i have to roll 3d6 that is moving flat out. In the rule it says you can get out after all the other stuff. In the BRB it says when you move flatout you may not ever get out ? This is my whole point, The special rule overrides what tjhe BRB says in the rule, the only thing it does not do is say This overrides flatout disembarking ? get it ?

jordan23ryan wrote:What ?

Did you no understand what i was saying ? It's my fault.


12 is not flatout, when i role a 3 or 4 on ramshackle and then i have to move over 12" when i have to roll 3d6 that is moving flat out. In the rule it says you can get out after all the other stuff. In the BRB it says when you move flatout you may not ever get out ? This is my whole point, The special rule overrides what tjhe BRB says in the rule, the only thing it does not do is say This overrides flatout disembarking ? get it ?

wow, you really like to bend the rules to your liking right???

I will quote the codex here:
Kaboom! blablabla. The truk is destroyed, All Passengers and models at D6 distance takes a S3 hit. Surviving passengers must disembark and take a pinnign test.

They disembark, can you disembark from a vehicle that moved flat out, no. Surviving passengers, none.

That is how I see it, and how my friends see it too.

Now, how is this even backing your argument on Kareen since Kareen does not say anything about overriding Immobilized results and (Let's say you are right about Kaboom) Kaboom does specify the disembark part??

-------------RAMSHACKLE------------------
If a trukk suffers a vehicle Destroyed! or Vehicle Explodes!(wrecked) result, roll on the Ramshaackle table below and apply the result instead of the usual Effects.If the trukk suffers more then one vechicle Destoryed! or Vehicle Explodes ! result, roll one dice per result on the ramshackle table, but only apply the lowest dice roll.

1-2 Kaboom-- The trukk explodes, catapulting flaming debris and stunned orks in all directions. The trukk is destoryed. all passengers and modles within D6" takes a str 3 hit. Surviving Passengers must disembark and take a pinning Test.

3-4 Kareen-- The shot sends the trukk out of controll. Move the trukk 3d6 as far as possible in a random direction(the Ork Player chooses if he rolls a Hit on the scatter dice). The apply the Kaboom result above. If the Trukk would kareen into enemy models or terrain, stop it 1" away.

5-6 Kerrunch-- Something Vital Gives, but the ork passengers bail out of there vehicle before it falls apart with a noise like a meganob falling down a spiral staircase. [b]The ork passengers take no damage but MUST immediately disembark. The Trukk is then wrecked.








Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bend what rules ? RAI and Raw are the most talked about items on this forum..... Right ? I am just making a point. Watch how you respond. You might get Flamed by nosferatu1001 lol Jk.

now you are just repeating your self again........

And I won't go trough the loop again because you highlights what backs your arguments and forgets what does not like the as far as possible part

Serder wrote:They disembark, can you disembark from a vehicle that moved flat out, no. Surviving passengers, none.

So if a Trukk moves 6" during the movement phase, rams, gets blown up, then Kareen!s 13", the vehicle counts as moving flat out and all of the models inside are destroyed?

What if a trukk moves 18" and suffers a Kerrunch, can the passengers disembark?

The surviving part refers to surviving the str 3 hits, not disembarking. So, once the trukk has gone kaboom, the models not destroyed by the explosion disembark.

It makes sense to think about it as a balance thing; if you move your trukk flatout, you understand the inherent risks but if it is forced upon you, that's not exactly fair.

BTW, I seem to remember a thread earlier about how if a skimmer went flatout and is destroyed in the opponents turn, they can still disembark because the models weren't trying to get out during the same movement phase. I'll try and find it.

-cgmckenzie

biccat wrote:

Serder wrote:They disembark, can you disembark from a vehicle that moved flat out, no. Surviving passengers, none.

So if a Trukk moves 6" during the movement phase, rams, gets blown up, then Kareen!s 13", the vehicle counts as moving flat out and all of the models inside are destroyed?

What if a trukk moves 18" and suffers a Kerrunch, can the passengers disembark?

I would have to say no, they are all dead. I checked the wording of Kerrunch and they say the passenger disembark. And again, can you disembark from a vehicle that moved flat out??. No you cannot.

But the topic is immobilized with Kareen here, not Kaboom ro Kerrunch, back on topic!!!

cgmckenzie wrote:The surviving part refers to surviving the str 3 hits, not disembarking. So, once the trukk has gone kaboom, the models not destroyed by the explosion disembark.

It makes sense to think about it as a balance thing; if you move your trukk flatout, you understand the inherent risks but if it is forced upon you, that's not exactly fair.

BTW, I seem to remember a thread earlier about how if a skimmer went flatout and is destroyed in the opponents turn, they can still disembark because the models weren't trying to get out during the same movement phase. I'll try and find it.

-cgmckenzie

I remember seeing that too. IIRC, it ended up being that they are killed. Also, the example biccat gave was the vehicle karrening during the movement phase it went flat out.

If the trukkk moves 12'' than ont he opponet player's turn, gets a kareen of 18'', I don,t think that is considered moving flat out sicne it is nto the palyers movement phase

1) Jordan i havent ever flamed you. I do note, however, that youve finally stopped claiming that the rule about USRs somehow means *all* special rules, which is something at least. A simple admission you were in error would also help.

2) If you are forced to disembark from a vehicle that went flat out! that turn, you are dead. No ifs and buts.

SO no, the "must" does not override because, and this is where we really ARE repeating ourselves, it does not *specify* that it overrides the may-not-disembark rules.

Total and utter consistency.

biccat wrote:

Serder wrote:They disembark, can you disembark from a vehicle that moved flat out, no. Surviving passengers, none.

So if a Trukk moves 6" during the movement phase, rams, gets blown up, then Kareen!s 13", the vehicle counts as moving flat out and all of the models inside are destroyed?

What if a trukk moves 18" and suffers a Kerrunch, can the passengers disembark?

How i see it is this is a special rule that tells you how things go only when a trukk is wrecked or destoryed. Now i did not think i was going to hear someone say when i roll the 3d6 part of kereen and I roll over 12" my guys die. Because that is what is being said. Back to the real fight. It is still a special rule and they should be the rule that is being using. Since they are Special. Unless you we can take the word SPECIAL out of the BRB and just have RULES. This was it is all liberal and we all can be happy and sing songs together !

** edit, got beated to it, appended to previous post

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) Jordan i havent ever flamed you. I do note, however, that youve finally stopped claiming that the rule about USRs somehow means *all* special rules, which is something at least. A simple admission you were in error would also help.

2) If you are forced to disembark from a vehicle that went flat out! that turn, you are dead. No ifs and buts.

SO no, the "must" does not override because, and this is where we really ARE repeating ourselves, it does not *specify* that it overrides the may-not-disembark rules.

Total and utter consistency.

You have gone Mad !!!! I do not agree with this at all other then the part about you Flaming me. I was kidding. I founf out the issue, You Hate Special Rules !! lol. All special rules now have to be rewritten since they do not state every part you need to see word for word replacement. I disagree with this and I will never come over to the dark side !

jordan23ryan wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) Jordan i havent ever flamed you. I do note, however, that youve finally stopped claiming that the rule about USRs somehow means *all* special rules, which is something at least. A simple admission you were in error would also help.

2) If you are forced to disembark from a vehicle that went flat out! that turn, you are dead. No ifs and buts.

SO no, the "must" does not override because, and this is where we really ARE repeating ourselves, it does not *specify* that it overrides the may-not-disembark rules.

Total and utter consistency.

You have gone Mad !!!! I do not agree with this at all other then the part about you Flaming me. I was kidding. I founf out the issue, You Hate Special Rules !! lol. All special rules now have to be rewritten since they do not state every part you need to see word for word replacement. I disagree with this and I will never come over to the dark side !

...

raging much?

can you find an argument that has not been countered to back your "light" side??

you should report all insults against you

jordan23ryan wrote:How i see it is this is a special rule that tells you how things go only when a trukk is wrecked or destoryed. Now i did not think i was going to hear someone say when i roll the 3d6 part of kereen and I roll over 12" my guys die. Because that is what is being said.

Passengers are only prohibited from disembarking if the vehicle "has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that Movement phase." So only if the vehicle dies during the movement phase or your own shooting or assault phase will it blow up.

I was just presenting a similar issue (conflict between ordinary vehicle rules and Kareen!) to see if it would be any more helpful in understanding how the rules interact. It appears it has not, so back on track.

Jordan - no, what I object to is people blatantly taking phrases out of context, being corrected on this and attempting to still claim it is something other than the plain English meaning.

A special rule needs to actually specify it overrules something in order to actually overrule it. Thats it. Nothing else.

The entire game is written as specific > general, the. entire. game.

Please, find a rules quote to back your position, one that actually supports it and isnt irrelevant, like the USR quote, would be useful.

biccat wrote:

jordan23ryan wrote:How i see it is this is a special rule that tells you how things go only when a trukk is wrecked or destoryed. Now i did not think i was going to hear someone say when i roll the 3d6 part of kereen and I roll over 12" my guys die. Because that is what is being said.

Passengers are only prohibited from disembarking if the vehicle "has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that Movement phase." So only if the vehicle dies during the movement phase or your own shooting or assault phase will it blow up.

I was just presenting a similar issue (conflict between ordinary vehicle rules and Kareen!) to see if it would be any more helpful in understanding how the rules interact. It appears it has not, so back on track.

I get what you are saying. I am just pointing out how this do not makes any sense. If i were to move 12". In my movement phase. It is ok then to move 18" from kereem if in my asssult phase and get out of the trukk unharmed if everything goes well.I know bring logic in to WH40k is pointless. There needs to be more that proves this on both issue. I would like a FAQ on special rules. If they say I am wrong then, I will Make a Thread saying i am wrong ! Until then special rules can over rule more then one normal rule.

no i was saying that because nosferatu reported my comment earlier

dajobe wrote:no i was saying that because nosferatu reported my comment earlier

My bad, I was reported for using Copy and paste too. But i have a word doc of the rules and i can use them how i see fit. I made this doc from my book i bought. I uesd the online pdf from that website i posted because i was at work. I will use my .doc next time !!!

On the post you are talking about. I would agree with you. I dont think it is blinders, i think they are WAAC players. I am one too but I will just do a role off if we can not agree. Sometimes that is not enough either. Playing orks roll offs are fun since that is how ork are played just about.

thats ok, and i agree, let the immobilized kareen roam free!

In terms of what is the most orky and totally awesome, the kareen! while immobilized wins. Unfortunately, the mixing of 4th ed codex and 5th ed rules and general vagueness makes this a 7 page conversation/argument.

I am hoping they address this in an FAQ or the next version of the codex. It really doesn't matter to me that much either way, so if I have an opponent or TO that says it is one way or the other, I will gladly agree. Friendly games, however, should be full of as many things going fast and exploding as possible

-cgmckenzie

PS- this thread has gotten weird, I'm bailing *kareens away in immobilized trukk*

Jordan - you cannot Kareen! in your assault phase. Either you do it in your movemet phase (by ramming a vehicle, for example) OR you do it on their movement / shooting phase.

Or in their Assault phase. And if there's any special rules that reflect damage back, or allow one to 'counterattack' anything that damages it, it'd be possible for it to Ramshackle in your own assault phase as well, with a Wrekkin' Ball.

How does the wrecking ball on your own trukk damage the trukk?

Being lazy about finding ork dex....

It doesn't, but it attacks in the Assault phase, so if someone had a 'reflect damage' special rule, it might go back and wreck it in your own assault phase.

Scattering shots on a blast weapon, or a :1: on a Bomb Squig roll could do it otherwise.

Ah right, I just cannot think of any effects that ever reflect damage

Anything that allows a sort of 'strike back' against attacks? Doesn't the Tyranid Acid Blood thing do that?

If you cause a wound on them you take an I test or take a wound, no armour saves allowed, from memory. Doesnt hurt vehicles.

Looks like another case of some people confusing Moving and moving.

Not the first time that the physical action of moving a model is confused with the BRB considers Movement of a model.

Ramshackle moves the Trukk. Ramshackle does not Move the Trukk. There is the key difference that is once again lost on some posters here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:How does the wrecking ball on your own trukk damage the trukk?

Being lazy about finding ork dex....

You don't have an Ork Codex?

I have been playing for a year now but just bought kodex: orks a week ago. I have been wondering how I got by for a year without it! Truly, a modern literary masterpiece for our time!

But seriously, Nos. Buy one. It is needed for any 40K library. Simply hilarious and fun!

-cgmckenzie

nosferatu1001 wrote:Jordan - you cannot Kareen! in your assault phase. Either you do it in your movemet phase (by ramming a vehicle, for example) OR you do it on their movement / shooting phase.

In assault phase this can happen. I will copy and paste the rule for you lol. Now the point i was trying to make you would not be able to use Successive Turns but just to show you I am right, it can be done!
Successive turns

If a vehicle that has been assaulted, and has
survived, does not move at all in its successive
Movement phase, enemy models will still be in
base contact with it during its Shooting and
Assault phase. Enemy models that are in base
contact with a vehicle with no WS are not classed
as Locked, and can therefore be shot at during the
Shooting phase (just bear in mind that Blast
markers may scatter!).

Enemies that are still in base contact with a vehicle
in its own Assault phase, may attack it again, in
the same way as they did in their own turn (this
includes all models that would count as engaged
in a normal assault

Now while in my shooting Phase all kinds of cool/bad stuff can happen. Hell anything with a scatter die can make this happen.
Weirdboy can cause kereem in shoot Phase
Tankbusta can Cause Kereem in shoot phase with bomb squids !
Mekboy can cause kereem with a SAG

I do have a codex, I just literally couldnt be bothered to find which case it was in.....had it since launch day.

BR - it is a move acording to the BRB, given it follows all the BRB limitations on moving....

You mean like teleport shunt was a move despite it not being one?

And yet it is moved during an opponents Shooting phase, not the owning players Movement phase.

And yet it is moved based on the scatter dice and 3d6, not the movement rules for a Trukk.

And yet....

And yet....

The list goes on Nos that it is not what the BRB defines as Movement.

Again, the mechanics of what happens in a Kareem result involve physically moving the model, but do not fulfill the rules for Movement and thus are not restricted by an immobilized result. You are confusing the mechanics of a rule with what constitutes Movement in the BRB. To you, if the model moves or is moved, BAM, you start shouting from the rooftops that it is Movement.

1) yes it is a move. Get over it.

2) And? Lash is in the opponents shooting phase. So, you have no point

3) and yet it follows all normal movement rules, as the FAQ reminds you.

Sorry it IS movement. Barking and wrong tree

I am not the one that has a problem distinguishing between mechanics of an action and what constitutes movement. That would be you.

Kareen is not Movement even though the mechanics of Kareen involve moving the model.

That is as simple as it is. Notice how I don't need fluff to back it up? Argue on the merits of moving a model versus a model moving. There is a major difference there that you continue to fail to see.

I can not move, now I'm going to move as far as possible....

ChrisCP wrote:I can not move, now I'm going to move as far as possible....

Actually,

You can not move, now you are going to be moved as far as possible.

Did the Trukk Move or does it get moved? Not expecting you to understand it, but pointing it out to anyone else that might read your false logic.

Well the immobed result says "It may not move for the rest of the game." it makes no metion of 'may not make a normal move' or that this denial of movement is limited to this 'Movement' (whatever that is) you mention.

Ones has a rule telling you the trukk may not move for the rest of the game.

One also a rule telling you to move the model 3D6, as far as
possible.

Amazingly this means that 'as far as possible' is 0".

Chances are, if this does actually occur in a game, one or more of the players will have forgotten that the trukk is immobilized, and will move it anyways. Such is the chaos of a 40k game.

Smitty wrote:Chances are, if this does actually occur in a game, one or more of the players will have forgotten that the trukk is immobilized, and will move it anyways. Such is the chaos of a 40k game.

(=\ I'm pretty sure most of my opponents will remember when my Trukks been immobilised...

I guess I'm lucky...

ChrisCP wrote:Well the immobed result says "It may not move for the rest of the game." it makes no metion of 'may not make a normal move' or that this denial of movement is limited to this 'Movement' (whatever that is) you mention.

Ones has a rule telling you the trukk may not move for the rest of the game.

One also a rule telling you to move the model 3D6, as far as
possible.

Amazingly this means that 'as far as possible' is 0".

This is why the Vehicle does not move.

If you move the vehicle any distance has it moved?

The immobilized result says "It may not move for the rest of the game." so It may not move or be moved.

Moving it 3D6 would break the rule that it may not move,

Brother Ramses wrote:I am not the one that has a problem distinguishing between mechanics of an action and what constitutes movement. That would be you.

Kareen is not Movement even though the mechanics of Kareen involve moving the model.

That is as simple as it is. Notice how I don't need fluff to back it up? Argue on the merits of moving a model versus a model moving. There is a major difference there that you continue to fail to see.

So when your reasons for it not being a move are shown to be completely untrue, you fall back on insults?

Typical.

You are told to move the trukk 3D6", and are reminded about the normal movement rules you may not break. Apparently, despite all evidence to the contrary, you truly believe it isnt a move.

Oddly enough I've yet to use any fluff. You've also failed to use any actual rules, not that thats part of the rules of the forum or anything....

I have proven that Kareen! is not affected by Damaged - Immobilsed, that argument has yet to be invalidated. As far as I can tell, any mention of it has been ignored to attack jordan's rather ridiculous argumentation.

No you have not. You have not proven that the trukk is "being moved" by another model, such as tank shock, which is the only time that, so far, you can "be moved" as opposed to it being a movement.

How far is it possible for you to move when you cannot move? 0"

And, to be fair, we were distracted by two rediculous lines of arguments - dont forget BRs "its not really movement!!!!" attempt

Brother Ramses wrote:You mean like teleport shunt was a move despite it not being one?

And yet it is moved during an opponents Shooting phase, not the owning players Movement phase.

And yet it is moved based on the scatter dice and 3d6, not the movement rules for a Trukk.

And yet....

And yet....

The list goes on Nos that it is not what the BRB defines as Movement.

Again, the mechanics of what happens in a Kareem result involve physically moving the model, but do not fulfill the rules for Movement and thus are not restricted by an immobilized result. You are confusing the mechanics of a rule with what constitutes Movement in the BRB. To you, if the model moves or is moved, BAM, you start shouting from the rooftops that it is Movement.

Thank you very much...

As much as I cant believe this thread is still going with insults flying in both directions, this single post summarises some truth.

Can we please remember why we use scatter dice at all?

Because it's not 'movement', in a similar (but not same) understanding that running in the shooting phase is not really 'movement'.

Scatter dice tables represent events affecting models beyond their own control (So to speak).
Examples of scatter dice:
-Vehicle Damage chart
-Deep Strike Mishap chart
-Ramshackle chart

I'm sure there are probably other examples in codices but their use is always the same.

Once again, they are moved, not they are moving.

People, there really is no need to debase ourselves with insults and sly remarks. This is about rules, and the RAW or RAI of those respective rules.
Once again, I'm calling that we've reached an impass as both 'sides' (For the record, I dont like that word) are set in their ways (This is just a stament of observation, not any insult to anyone).

Running in the shooting phase IS movement. It follows all normal movement rules, apart from the exceptions listed.

Ramshackle is movement, follows all normal movement rules as it rerminds you in the rules.

The trukk is not "moved", you move it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Running in the shooting phase IS movement. It follows all normal movement rules, apart from the exceptions listed.

Ramshackle is movement, follows all normal movement rules as it rerminds you in the rules.

The trukk is not "moved", you move it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Running in the shooting phase IS movement. It follows all normal movement rules, apart from the exceptions listed.

Ramshackle is movement, follows all normal movement rules as it rerminds you in the rules.

The trukk is not "moved", you move it.

for the sake of this argument, running is movement, I'm not going to argue the toss on that one. Moving on...

In all fairness, the rule does not 'remind' you of any movement rules which is the point here.
The last part of the 'Ramshackle - Kareen' rule sets limits for the 'Ramshackle - Kareen' event.

Example:

Kareen says:
"If the trukk would careen into enemy models or terrain, stop it 1" away."

In another part of the same codex (Zagstrukk p63), it says:
"(remember that with Zagstruk's Furios Charge this will be resolved at initiative 4)"

In the Rulebook it (BS of 6 p18), it says:
"Remember a dice can only ever be re-rolled once!"

In the Rulebook it (Complex Units p25), it says:
"Remember that any model in the unit can be wounded, not just those in range or in view."

In the Rulebook it (Heavy Weapons p29), it says:
"Remember that if any models move, their whole unit counts as having moved for that turn..."

In the Rulebook it (Assaulting p34), it says:
"Remember that the assaulting unit is not allowed to break its unit coherency"

...this is not an exaustive list.

My point is, notice where it says "remember"?

There are parts in the codex and Rulebook respectively that remind you of other rules, and parts where it states within the context of the rule you are reading.
I have supported my argument by showing the very clear pattern of how the rules are written.
In this case, the restrictions placed on 'Ramshackle - Kareen' are not a reminder, they are a restriction within 'Ramshackle - Kareen'.

There, I have presented what I think is a perfectly reasonable and rules-based argument to disprove what you have stated.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No you have not. You have not proven that the trukk is "being moved" by another model, such as tank shock, which is the only time that, so far, you can "be moved" as opposed to it being a movement.

How far is it possible for you to move when you cannot move? 0"

And, to be fair, we were distracted by two rediculous lines of arguments - dont forget BRs "its not really movement!!!!" attempt

I did prove that a model can be moved by action outside of it's own abilities. This does not have to be caused by a model, as the wording is very consistent on this case - I have yet to find any rule that addresses the player for an action that a model voluntarily takes, or a rule that says "a model does X", if X is not defined anywhere else. Magna grapple, Eldritch Storm, tank shock and many other rules use this exact kind of wording(do something to model) to describe movement which are not limited by movement rules, as they usually take place outside of the owning player's turn, move special distances or directions. Basically have nothing in common with regular movement. Any examples provided so far("Don't press dat!", shunt) use the other wording(model does something), limiting or changing one aspect of moving, and still taking place during your movement phase.

Bottom line: Even if a model may not move, it may be moved. Otherwise, there would be no reason for any other restrictions not apply. For example, a trukk would not be able to Kareen!, moved by Magna Grapple or Eldritch Storm if he disembarked passengers in his previous movement phase.

Plonka - remember is not required,

See the bike rule, which reiterates the ID rule about modifiers and instant death. No "remember" there.

Evidence of redundancy is NOT evidence of requirement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:
You are told to move the trukk 3D6", and are reminded about the normal movement rules you may not break.

Dude, I'm looking at the Ork Codex right now and nowhere in the entry for Kareen does it say anything about "normal movement" or even imply anything about "normal movement". It says "3D6", "scatter die", and "1 inch from an enemy model". Those are not normal movement rules.

Now you're just making stuff up.

I just wanted to add one more 'remember' reminder that I think might be a bit closer to home in this discussion.

Statement in question:
"If the trukk would careen into enemy models or terrain, stop it 1" away."

Compare to in the BRB (Aka Rulebook) rule for 'TRAPPED!' (p45):
"Sometimes a unit will find its fall back move blocked by impassable terrain, friendly models or enemy models (remember they have to stay 1" away from enemy models)."

So... to summarise (No particlar order):

-The 'Ramshackle - Kareen' restriction is a restriction within the rule, not a reminder as evidenced in the 'TRAPPED!' rule.
-The rule is also represented within a table like 'Deep Strike Mishap'. Tables in 40k remove control from models (Can the Deepstriking Termie dispute the mishap?).
-The use of scatter dice. Same as about tables, which removes control from the model.
-There is a specific listing of "3D6" as far as possible" movement within the specific 'Ramshackle - Kareen' rule.
-'Ramshackle - Kareen' usually occurs outside the players own movement phase.
-The wording of the rule: "Move the trukk" not "The trukk moves"
-The entire Ramshackle table is a direct drop-in replacement for the specific Vehicle Damge Chart results of 'Vehicle Destroyed!' or 'Vehicle Explodes!'. That is very specific.

I dont know what else to say... Someone please disprove these points here and the below statement:
'Ramshackle - Kareen' is a specific rule with explicit restrictions for its own scenario of movement within a table that does not reference any other rule(s).
Immobilised is a general rule with its own restriction(s) on normal movement of a model when it is moving using its own normal means of movement.

Therefore (deep breath), general rule of immobilised can be overruled by a specific rule of 'Ramshackle - Kareen' specifying its own movement outside the models own normal means of movement.

= move the trukk.

(applauds wildy)

Beige - remaining 1" from an enemy is bog standard, basic movement rules. Seriously. Claiming Im making things up while making a grievous error yourslef? Hilarious.

Plonka - seriously. Have a look at the BRB, Bikes entry.

Evidence of redundancy is NOT evidence of requirement.

Immobilised is a more specific situation, is referenced implicitly by the "as far as possible" (a redundant rule under your interpretation) and so, when immobilised and you cannot move at all - you dont move.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Beige - remaining 1" from an enemy is bog standard, basic movement rules. Seriously. Claiming Im making things up while making a grievous error yourslef? Hilarious.

Plonka - seriously. Have a look at the BRB, Bikes entry.

Evidence of redundancy is NOT evidence of requirement.

Immobilised is a more specific situation, is referenced implicitly by the "as far as possible" (a redundant rule under your interpretation) and so, when immobilised and you cannot move at all - you dont move.

You must mean on p53 where it says:
"Note that this increase does not affect the model’s Toughness for the purposes of instant death (see page 26)."

Dude, that is a clear reference to another rule within the Rulebook that even lists the page of the other rule. It's also listed in the section on bikes.
It does remind, because it basically says "Here is the rules for bikes, but if you're resolving Instant Death go to this page".

That is a clear reference within a rule to another rule, just like when something says "bla bla bla rules bla bla bla (remember x rule)".

I rest my case. This is gone on too long.

The trukk does not move, it is moved. Immobilized does not say "the vehicle can not be moved", but "the vehicle can not move on its own".

The rules described with kareen! are also definitively not the regular movement rules. No rule in the whole BRB ever requires you to stop 1" away from any terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
btw: I don't think "Dude,..." should be part of a polite rules discussion.

Enemy models are impassable terrain.

Kareen! requires you to stop 1" away from difficult and/or dangerous terrain. Not a movement rule.

Jidmah wrote:The trukk does not move, it is moved. Immobilized does not say "the vehicle can not be moved", but "the vehicle can not move on its own".

It says neither. It does say, "It may not move for the rest of the game."

Jidmah wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
btw: I don't think "Dude,..." should be part of a polite rules discussion.

Honestly, I'm sorry if I offended anyone by calling them dude.
I meant it more like the Big Lebowski 'dude', not the doodoo 'dude'.
My friends and I all call each other dude all the time, so it slips out sometimes even at work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Enemy models are impassable terrain.

Which is probably why its explicitly stated as part of this specific scenario.
There are many instances in the Rulebooks and Codices where things are repeated not referenced.
This is because they are for that scenario.

Example: Pain Boyz in the Nobz and Pain Boyz in the Flash Gitz profiles have separate specifics when becoming a Pain Boy.
In the Flash Gitz listing, they are specifically ordered to remove their Snazzguns as well as Gitfindas with Docs Tools and Syringe.

But dont people already know that Pain Boyz only have Docs Tools and Syringe?
No, because this is specific for a Flash Git being a Pain Boy opposed to a Nob being a Painboy even though the scenario is basically the same as another, it is not the same.

time wizard wrote:It says neither. It does say, "It may not move for the rest of the game."

Are we still arguing the toss on that, when the general vs specific (as I've been told to say it) means that immobilised is overruled anyway?
Please see my overly elaborate previous post.

Immobilised is NOT overruled - we've been through that.

The trukk tries to move. Immobilised kicks in. You may not move. Find the SPECIFIC allowance that lets you move. You're looking for the words "the trukk must move, even if immobilised, as far as possible"

It still lacks that rule. You still lack that rule. Your argument still fails.

And we're back at page 1. there have been absolutely no new arguments, and with certainty an immobilised trukk is not moving anywhere. It may BE moved, so its a good job this isnt the case.

Thread lock time? finally?

Wow, Plonka. You just come out of nowhere(literally, 20 posts!) and have what appears to be insight! I am impressed

Plonka raises some really great points, especially as the counter to the 'its just a reminder' argument. In other specific instances in the same codex, it does say 'remember' when reminding about the BRB rules. Kareen! does not have this addendum.

The restrictions listed in the rule/FAQ are the only restrictions. There is no 'etc' on the end or a reminder included in the statement, just a list of things the trukk cannot go through or touch.

-cgmckenzie

Yet the trukk is still moving. You dont need to be told you still follow a restriction, you need to be told you can ignore the restriction.

You may not move. Find a RULE allowing you to move. Needs to be explicit.

Ok, let me break this down:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Immobilised is NOT overruled - we've been through that.

The trukk tries to move. Immobilised kicks in. You may not move. Find the SPECIFIC allowance that lets you move. You're looking for the words "the trukk must move, even if immobilised, as far as possible"

Once again, immobilised is general, this is more specific. Overruled.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It still lacks that rule. You still lack that rule. Your argument still fails.

My argument does not fail because as I've said elsewhere, even though the rule is overruled, this is not the focus of the problem, so please stop falling back to that red herring argument repeatedly... please?
The focus problem for you is that the trukk is not moving... It is moved for all the reasons I have listed above.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And we're back at page 1. there have been absolutely no new arguments, and with certainty an immobilised trukk is not moving anywhere. It may BE moved, so its a good job this isnt the case.

Thread lock time? finally?

Yes we are back at page 1, because you are choosing to ignore the entire breakdown I listed above.
You have repeatedly repeated "It doesnt move, because something that cant move, cant move, because it doesnt move, because... it cant move... because..."

So once again:

General vs Specific - kareen is part of a specific replacement rule for the vehicle damage chart. Yes, that means it is specific.
Why is immobilised 'specific' on its own? Answer that as well as the other things in my other post... please?

But remember, this is not the problem issue, because this is not about the trukk moving... the trukk is moved (not moving) within its own specific rule scenario.

I dont mean to insult you, but you dont seem to have any other points than:
-Immobilised is somehow more specific than Ramshackle and Kareen (Remember you need to go to Ramshackle specifically then Kareen).
-The vehicle doesnt move, because immobile vehicles dont move... ever.

I've shown my logic in unedited black and white, I'm openly asking you to do the same...

EDIT:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet the trukk is still moving. You dont need to be told you still follow a restriction, you need to be told you can ignore the restriction.

You may not move. Find a RULE allowing you to move. Needs to be explicit.

Added this quote in because once again you wont explain... you're just repeating.
The movement restriction is irrelivant because it is not specific and it has nothing to do with the trukk being moved, not moving. Again, I call red herring.
I have explained in very fine detail my rules-based logic and you are yet to disprove that.

plonka2000 wrote:

time wizard wrote:It says neither. It does say, "It may not move for the rest of the game."

Are we still arguing the toss on that, when the general vs specific (as I've been told to say it) means that immobilised is overruled anyway?

I wasn't arguing anything with that post.
Jidmah misquoted the immobilized rule, I was merely correcting the misquote.

And as nosferatu said, there is no specific exemption in the kareem rule that says it overrides immobilized.

There is a specific instruction to stop 1" away from enemy models and terrain which overrides the section in the assault rules that allows a model to move within 1" of an enemy unit in the assault phase.
So if the trukk kareems in the enemy assault phase, it must still stop 1" away from enemy models.
Otherwise that would have been another rules question.
Oh, and when the kareem rule says stop 1" away from terrain, it doesn't specify difficult or dangerous, so it would stop 1" away from any piece of terrain.

time wizard wrote:

plonka2000 wrote:

time wizard wrote:It says neither. It does say, "It may not move for the rest of the game."

Are we still arguing the toss on that, when the general vs specific (as I've been told to say it) means that immobilised is overruled anyway?

I wasn't arguing anything with that post.
Jidmah misquoted the immobilized rule, I was merely correcting the misquote.

And as nosferatu said, there is no specific exemption in the kareem rule that says it overrides immobilized.

There is a specific instruction to stop 1" away from enemy models and terrain which overrides the section in the assault rules that allows a model to move within 1" of an enemy unit in the assault phase.
So if the trukk kareems in the enemy assault phase, it must still stop 1" away from enemy models.
Otherwise that would have been another rules question.
Oh, and when the kareem rule says stop 1" away from terrain, it doesn't specify difficult or dangerous, so it would stop 1" away from any piece of terrain.

I'm very sorry, I misread your intentions.

plonka2000 wrote:So once again:

General vs Specific - kareen is part of a specific replacement rule for the vehicle damage chart. Yes, that means it is specific.
Why is immobilised 'specific' on its own? Answer that as well as the other things in my other post... please?

The kareen is a specific replacement for a part of the vehicle damage chart. I agree. But which one? Let's see.

"Ramshackle: If a Trukk suffers a Vehicle Destroyed! or Vehicle Explodes! (wrecked) result, roll on the Ramshackle table below and apply the result instead of the usual effects."

So the rule shows which part of the vehicle damage chart it specifically replaces, those being Vehicle Destroyed! and Vehicle Explodes! (wrecked). It does not specifically replace immobilized or even stunned.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

plonka2000 wrote:

I'm very sorry, I misread your intentions.

No offence taken.

Plonka - no, it is not a replacement for the damage chart. It replaces 2 damage results and 2 damage results ONLY.

So the trukk is still immobilised.

Yes, it is a specific replacement rule....for those two damage results only. It does not specifically override any other damage result.

Onus is on you to prove that it IS more specific.

I ahve not ignored your argument; your argument is flawed because you seem to think Kareen! applies to all the damage results. It doesnt.

So, to reiterate: an immobilised trukk suffering karreen! is MORE specific than a non-immobilised trukk suffering the same. There is NO WAY that you can argue that one is a larger set than the otehr.

This determines that an immobilised trukk needs a specific rule ALLOWING them to move. You have No such SPECIFIC rule.

Seriously. Have a look at ATSKNF and Sweeping Advance for waht "specific" ACTUALLY means in the context of GW rules, as you seem to not understand this point.

Absent a rule *specifically* allowing you to move DESPITE being immobilised, you cannot move while immobilsed.

Yes, you can be moved. Kareen! is not the trukk being moved, so please stop going down that erroneous path, as you are confusing your own argument rather badly by doing so.

The trukk isn't moving. It is being moved.

The Rule for kareen! says to move the vehicle, while in other instances in the BGB(general vehicle/walkers/cavalry/etc) it all is written in a manner that says the unit is moving.

2 examples for Kodex: Orks:

"Move the trukk 3D6" for kareen.

"that vehicle must move directly forward" for 'DON'T PRESS DAT' on looted wagons.

The first one moves the vehicle, the second one has the vehicle doing the moving. Because the looted wagon is doing the moving, it is subject to immobilized. The turkk is being moved, so it is not.

-cgmckenzie

time wizard wrote:

plonka2000 wrote:So once again:

General vs Specific - kareen is part of a specific replacement rule for the vehicle damage chart. Yes, that means it is specific.
Why is immobilised 'specific' on its own? Answer that as well as the other things in my other post... please?

The kareen is a specific replacement for a part of the vehicle damage chart. I agree. But which one? Let's see.

"Ramshackle: If a Trukk suffers a Vehicle Destroyed! or Vehicle Explodes! (wrecked) result, roll on the Ramshackle table below and apply the result instead of the usual effects."

So the rule shows which part of the vehicle damage chart it specifically replaces, those being Vehicle Destroyed! and Vehicle Explodes! (wrecked). It does not specifically replace immobilized or even stunned.

Ok, bear with me here:

Here is the scenario:
You have an immobilised trukk. That trukk is then hit and suffers a Vehicle Destroyed or Vehicle Explodes result.

Here is my working:

A Kareen result is rolled.
(Because you are specifically told to roll for that and ignore the Vehicle Damage Chart, the rule is specific.

So, we have an immobilised vehicle that should/should-not Kareen.
Here lies the problem. Since the vehicle is immobilised it cant move by its own volition, however:

Since the Kareen 'movement' is part of the Kareen rule result which is from the Ramshackle Chart, which is a specifc replacement of specific results from the Vehicle Damage chart... This is not the vehicle moving (according to the rules), this is the vehicle exploding 'over there' for whatever reason you choose to make.

The part that says move "as far as possible" is not subject to immobilised, because immobilised is in no way related to the Vehicle Damage Chart (Remember the Damage chart is not to do with the model, but is an event). Like I said, this can be rashionalised by the player being the 'hand of god' that manipulates/actions these events despite whatever movement restrictions are applied to the model.

Example I made earlier of the poor Termie who is deepstriking and throws up a mishap.
The termie is placed on the board to say where the player wants him to land then roll for scatter. he scatters into difficult terrain and BAM! Mishap!
The termie has no control over any result of that mishap because none of his movement restrictions/allowances are taken into account when calculating his mishap result. This is the same across 'tables' in 40k. The player is in control at this point and it is nothing to do with the model or his restrictions. They are simply irrelivant.
To support this one result of the mishap table allows the "other player" to place the poor termie anywhere on the entire board.

Now, remember that no matter what happens, when you initially place your termie and scatter the end result of all this is that the termie can be places far far far away which would violate his movement rules otherwise. This is because the player is in control, without restrictions of the model (because the model is not 'running/walking' there).
If this was the other way around, then when you scattered and mishap, the other guy could still only place your poor termie 6" away from his intended deepstrike location instead of 40" on the other side of the board away from all the action that termies love.

Now apply that same logic back to the 3D6" movement of the trukk in a Kareen, and it makes sense to me that the trukk moves because it is part of the trukk exploding action that the trukk is moved as a specific instruction to the player in the rules. The immobilised is still applicable to the trukk, but not to Destroyed! or Explodes! on the Vehicle Damage chart because it is not moving by its own volition. See?

So move the trukk then explode, as Kareen says because it is abstract from immobilised.
Nothing to do with immobilised at all, as far as I can tell. I'm not ignoring the rule, but it is not relevant.
The rule is specific, because you have a Destroyed!/Explodes! that explicitly needs to be substituted with this result from this table, not that table.

This is a logical working through of the rules as far as I can tell...

Or should I just get my coat?

wow, good post.

-cgmckenzie

"because immobilised is in no way related to the Vehicle Damage Chart "
That right there is nonsense. You are only told to replace 2 results with Ramshackle, and only those two.

Stop pretending otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"because immobilised is in no way related to the Vehicle Damage Chart "
That right there is nonsense. You are only told to replace 2 results with Ramshackle, and only those two.

Stop pretending otherwise.

I'll get my coat.

Probably a good idea.

Your argument relies on asserting that Kareen! is more specific, and then wandering off into asserting that the vehicle is moved rather than moving.

The second argument would make the first null and void, if it were true.

plonka2000 wrote: Now, remember that no matter what happens, when you initially place your termie and scatter the end result of all this is that the termie can be places far far far away which would violate his movement rules otherwise. This is because the player is in control, without restrictions of the model (because the model is not 'running/walking' there).
If this was the other way around, then when you scattered and mishap, the other guy could still only place your poor termie 6" away from his intended deepstrike location instead of 40" on the other side of the board away from all the action that termies love.

The deep strike rules are really not applicable here. First they refer to units arriving from reserve. Those units arrive and deploy in the movement phase but clearly were not on the board in an earlier movement phase and so could not have been previously immobilized.
Second, the process ffor deep strike says you first place a model, then roll for scatter, then place the rest of the units models around the first one. Deep strike mishaps occur if the unit can't be deployed because it would land off the table, in impassable terrain, etc. Clearly, moving the deep striking unit a certain distance and direction due to scatter dice is part of the deployment process. And in the case of misplaced, the unit can be deployed many inches away because the rule allows your opponent to do so.

plonka2000 wrote:Now apply that same logic back to the 3D6" movement of the trukk in a Kareen, and it makes sense to me that the trukk moves because it is part of the trukk exploding action that the trukk is moved as a specific instruction to the player in the rules. The immobilised is still applicable to the trukk, but not to Destroyed! or Explodes! on the Vehicle Damage chart because it is not moving by its own volition. See?

So move the trukk then explode, as Kareen says because it is abstract from immobilised.

I still have not seen any proof, like the kareen result saying to ignore immobilized or stunned damage. But your opinion that it is abstract has been noted.

plonka2000 wrote: Nothing to do with immobilised at all, as far as I can tell. I'm not ignoring the rule, but it is not relevant.

If you are not applying a rule because you feel it is not relevant, you are indeed ignoring it.

plonka2000 wrote:Or should I just get my coat?

Don't leave just yet! The discussion has been interesting.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Probably a good idea.

Your argument relies on asserting that Kareen! is more specific, and then wandering off into asserting that the vehicle is moved rather than moving.

The second argument would make the first null and void, if it were true.

'Kareen' is more specific, because it is specifically specified... Is it only me that thinks like that?
Immobilised is not specific, because, well... it isnt... but also because you still fail to explain how, Nos?

For the record, I was referring to the 'effect' of an already immobilised vehicle when checking the Vehicle Damage chart for another result, not that applying a result of immobilised is irrelivant.

Way to pick up on one word and wipe the entire explanation with that brush.
I dont feel you read it, Nos. If you did, maybe you didnt understand, or maybe I'm high...

It makes sense to me, does anyone else agree?

How about time wizard? Whats your take on my working?

EDIT:
Got my answer, should have waited.

It specifieis WHAT, precisely

Again, pick up your SM / GK / BA / DA / SW / etc codex, if you have one, and note what specific truly means in this game of 40k.

Note it *specifically* mentions it works against Sweeping Advance

Now, when you read the Kareen! wording, does it SPECIFY that it works against Immobilised results, FORCING the vehicle to move even if immobilised?

No? THen it doesnt work

The farthest it is possible to move when you are immobilsed is 0". Thats it.