I'm copying and pasting most of the arguments for both sides from the thread in the Tournament Forum.

asugradinwa wrote:Page 95 of BRB. It says that the vehicles count as having moved at cruising speed during the turn's shooting phase.

Danny Internets wrote:

asugradinwa wrote:Page 95 of BRB. It says that the vehicles count as having moved at cruising speed during the turn's shooting phase.

That doesn't answer my question. Your argument seems to hinge on the phrase "counts as" being utterly meaningless in game terms. Either it makes the vehicle count as, for all intents and purposes (not just some), having moved between 6 and 12 inches, or it does not.

For the record, I agree that Drop Pods should absolutely not count for extra kill points, but that's simply an opinion. I'm addressing the argument you have proposed, which is flawed.

Danny Internets wrote:Again, curious logic for the same reasons I have already presented. You are picking and choosing which situations "counts as" is allowed to satisfy without any justification.

In short, if a unit "counts as" satisfying the conditions for being restricted to shooting a single weapon, then it may only shoot a single weapon. If a unit "counts as" satisfying the conditions for moving more than 6" in a single phase, then it is worth 3 kill points.

On what grounds are you claiming the first argument is valid while the latter is not?

pretre wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

Please read more closely as I'm continually having to repeat myself and I already addressed this. The rules DO NOT say they count as moving at cruising speed with respect to shooting. The rules say that they count as moving at cruising speed in the Shooting phase. That is a very significant difference.

Drop pod counts as moving at cruising speed, even though it did not.

There you go. All fixed.

Drop pod never can move more than 6" during any phase. Even though it counts as moving more than 6", it never does or can. Hence the use of counts as.

Cruising speed is a state. You can be given it, or you can gain it by moving a certain distance.

Because you have it, does not mean you moved (and should be clear with quite casual observation).

The Ard Boy'z rule is pretty specific about units moving 6" for the VP. By RAW, being so specific excludes a drop pod, that "counts as" moving at cruising speed. No specific distance is given for cruising speed for a drop pod, 6" or 6 miles. Furthermore, if I remember correctly the rules, doesn't it say anything that can move over 6"? Drop pods never move, they deploy.

@Fearspect: I like that cruising speed is a state of being. I'll go with that.

Btw, thanks M for the move.

On this occasion, I find myself seeing Danny Internets’ point.

“Counts as” within the context of the 40k rules, means that even though a given thing is not another thing, or did not do a specified thing, for the purposes of other rules you treat it as if it had.

In the case of a Drop Pod, the fact that it counts as moving at cruising speed the turn it lands means it cannot fire a weapon that turn, since it is not a Fast vehicle.

In the case of a Blood Angels Land Raider, or a Land Speeder, the fact that it counts as moving at cruising speed means that in the following turn the enemy will need 6s to hit it in HTH, unless they first immobilize the vehicle.

Because the Deep Strike rules state that a vehicle arriving by than means counts as moving at cruising speed, then it does so for the purposes of all other rules.

Now, let’s take a look at the rules for the scenario:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1120521a_40KArdBoyzPrelimScenarios.pdf

3 kill points are awarded for each unit destroyed that
has the potential to move over 6” in a single phase of
the game turn. Running and fleeing units do not count.
For example, a unit of Necron Warriors being pulled
through a Monolith would not count for extra kill points.
A Librarian with Gate of Infinity is 3 kill points, though a
Space Marine Tactical Squad joining him is 1 KP.

This is a badly-worded rule. “Potential to move” is pretty vague. Overall, though, based on how “counts as” works, I tend to think that Drop Pods would generally fall into this category. That said, I agree with Danny that it certainly seems like an oversight, and I would be very happy to see GW issue a clarification. Right now I know of at least one location which has ruled that pods will be worth 3KPs, and it’s not cool for it to be inconsistent.

Mannahnin wrote:On this occasion, I find myself seeing Danny Internets’ point.

That's twice in one week, I think. Could become a habit.


I give up. It is quite possible my opinion of the intention is overruling my rational mind because I can't get around the whole counts as thing.

And I completely agree that they should define what does and does not count.

pretre wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:On this occasion, I find myself seeing Danny Internets’ point.

That's twice in one week, I think. Could become a habit.

You are a mean man.

I give up. It is quite possible my opinion of the intention is overruling my rational mind because I can't get around the whole counts as thing.

It is a weird situation. I keep going back and forth on it. From a game balance/intent perspective, is it even that unjust that a pod and a rhino count as the same number of KPs?

What about the fact that the drop pod deploys immobilized? Does that lend credibility to the fact that a drop pod shouldnt count as the 3 KP, I mean I can understand if the ruling anything that moves as cruising speed which I guess it does when it comes into play but it gains no benefits from moving at cruising speed because it comes into play immobilized.. hmm.. quite the conundrum.

Mannahnin wrote:
You are a mean man.

Sometimes.

Mannahnin wrote:
It is a weird situation. I keep going back and forth on it. From a game balance/intent perspective, is it even that unjust that a pod and a rhino count as the same number of KPs?

Rhinos are bunkers though. Drop pods are cool and all, but I would much rather have my rhinos. From an intent perspective, I think that the 'Kill da fast 'uns' thing would perhaps indicate tha drop pods aret:

a) ... ded killy and fast. Sum uv dem is even red. +3 KP
b) ... just a blowed up 'ole in da ground. Not wurf my time. +1 KP

Where as Rhinos are pretty much always A.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shatter.proof wrote:but it gains no benefits from moving at cruising speed because it comes into play immobilized.. hmm.. quite the conundrum.

Same with any skimmer that DSs into Difficult Terrain though.

Okay, totally deleted my posts and didn't move them over. That's coll I was just snarky earlier. This is basically how my rant went earlier:

[Rant]

Counts as does not mean did or did not move.

There is no phase of the game where a drop pod moves. Ever. Period.

If it actually moved there is no need to have counts as, RAW is exactly as written no interpretation allowed.


Count as does not actually make it so no matter how much people want to say that it does

[/Rant]

Honestly I don't care as I am playing Eldar. The real reason I jumped on this is people are too quick to say this is rules as written. And more often than not it is Rule as written and interpretted by me.

If you really want to know if you are using RAW read it out loud and don't think it means anything one way or the other. In fact I will often read it to someone that has no idea how the game is played and ask them what they heard. And i did this today.

Me: Listen to this sentence "yadda yadda counts as moving yadda yadda

Random College student in computer lab: Cool, *keeps clicking farm stuff on facebook*

Me: So did the drop pod move?

RCsicl: What? *More facebook games* Wait read it one more time.

Me: Yadda yadda "Counts As" yadda yadda. Did it actually move?

RCsicl: Well no, it justs counts as moving right?

Me: *Types furiously pointless rant on Dakka Dakka about RAW*

RCsicl: Can you accept my happy otter so I can find a whale egg

Me: What is a whale egg?

That should be the new RAW rule. 'Ask a Farmville Guy'

pretre wrote:That should be the new RAW rule. 'Ask a Farmville Guy'

QFT

In the end GW just needs to clarify this. I know at my LGS it is not going to count for 3KP's.

There is no clarification needed.

Did it move over 6" in a single phase? (yes/no)

I think it would be 3 KPs because my line of reasoning follows what Danny Internets has already stated. I do not think it should, and I don't think game balance is enhanced one iota by the silliness of this mission, but "counts as" means that for all practical purposes you are that thing, and counts as movement is the same as movement. Immobilization shouldn't have anything to do with it; if I Deep Strike a Blood Angels Land Raider into terrain and become immobilized, I never really had the potential to move at all either, but it should absolutely be 3 KPs.

In the same vein, the wording for Deep Strike states that on a scatter result, the model is moved 2d6"; this is why I think that any Deep Striking unit should count as well.

GW threw a ridiculously poorly worded scenario out for a rules lawyering 'Ard event without even an off-the-cuff clarification of all the stickier points. I have no idea what they intended or not, but the key words 'move' and 'potential' for some number over 6 are present for both pods and regular DSing units so I can only really conclude that this is as was intended.

Reading this rule to me is simply stated for vehicles/bikes/beasts and/or characters that have the ability to move like one of the three.

So sadly, yes the Pod would count being a vehicle, but it doesn't have the ability to move as it's immobile ALL THE TIME (though I could play it either way really).

There really is no need to continue hashing it out here as your TO will be the one making the final decision. And just like last years Deff Rolla argument, I know some TO allowed them to hit vehicles, some did not and it was not consistent throughout the different levels.

So relax, "communicate" with the store your playing at, don't cry, and bring your list.

Here's a better idea for those thinking they've got this round won - call the store you're going to next and ask them.

By RAW I'd say it's only worth 1 KP since it technically never moves further than 6", and from my perspective (this may or may not be RAI), the difference between a drop pod and other transports is that you can stay inside the latter and have protection until it is wrecked or explodes, whereas the former gives you no protection other than perhaps a cover save, and is more of a way to deploy troops than to have them moved around (more safely).

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Monolith being unable to move more than 6" at any time yet.

Mannahnin wrote:

I give up. It is quite possible my opinion of the intention is overruling my rational mind because I can't get around the whole counts as thing.

It is a weird situation. I keep going back and forth on it. From a game balance/intent perspective, is it even that unjust that a pod and a rhino count as the same number of KPs?

Funny thing, though - the Tyranid Spore Pods, not being vehicles, don't count as moving at Cruising speed.

Is it just that a "living" drop pod counts for 1 KP, while the mechanical one counts for 3? (Granted, the Drop Pod is quite a bit more robust.)

Remember the example given for a unit of tactical Marines depstriking with a Librarian that has cast GoI. The squad counts as 1 KP while the Librarian counts as 3 KP. So a squad of deepstriking terminators should count as 1 KP. Are you going to claim that an infantry unit embarked in a transport counts as 3 KP? The drop pod is a hard call but most everything else is simple if you use common sense.

G

Taking it up one notch - the SW Termies use pods instead of DS - but it's easy to draw a comparison to the unit "deep striking" via pod vs teleport.

I really don't have a cock in the fight as I'm DS and don't have pods in my army.

But I have no sympathy for all those Valks

Scenario 3 is one of the WORST missions I have ever seen in my life.

It does seem to imply that a unit with a Transport is worth 3KP, as well as the Transport itself being worth 3KP.

Hell, taking ANY transports means any unit that could possibly embark on them is worth 3KP.

It's a stupid attempt to try and "balance" mech armies that has failed massively. They should have just been honest and said "Vehicles are worth 3KP".

It in no way implies that Gwar.

G

Isn't the 'ard boyz created and run by US GW guys?

As such can't someone contact them and get clarification on stuff like this (apologies if this has been covered in the other thread already, I haven't read it yet)?

Deep strike is a deployment, not a movement. The drop pod is immobile. After is deploys, it's movement is 0.

Do deepstiking termi's count for 3?
Would you count outflanking units as moving over 6"? I'm pretty sure the answer is no for both.

@eimaj:
The issue is, units that are outlflanking and non-vehicle deepstrikers count as moving, but it doesn't indicate a specific distance moved.

Vehicles deepstriking have a specific distance they have 'count as' moved...to arrive at their destination.

Otherwise, it was stupidly written for the wrong event.

Deep Striking most certainly is movement. That's an old argument. The DS rules say or imply that it is movement three separate times in the text.

The fact that a pod is immobile on landing doesn't matter. So could be a land speeder or BA land raider if it lands in difficult terrain.

Our FLGS has ruled Pods and Monoliths will NOT be 3KP for this mission since they can't move more than 6" at any time. The Deep Strike itself is not being counted towards this rule. Terminators, Soul Grinders, etc will also not be 3KP.

Deep Striking Land Raiders and Speeders are 3KP because of their inherent movement abilities as are Jump Pack models, Deffkoptas, and Valkyries.

Mannahnin wrote:Deep Striking most certainly is movement. That's an old argument. The DS rules say or imply that it is movement three separate times in the text.

The fact that a pod is immobile on landing doesn't matter. So could be a land speeder or BA land raider if it lands in difficult terrain.

It does indeed matter, as both of those vehicles you use are still capable of moving in ensuing turns if they pass their DT test or land in open ground; a drop pod is always immobile.

The rules for ABM3 say that anything that can move more than 6" a turn is worth 3 KP, but there's no mention of actual distance when deep striking, only a type of speed. Now, if they specified cruising speed as a qualifier, then it would be different. What about something like Spore Pods, which don't qualify as moving at any sort of speed. Would they somehow be exempt and drop pods wouldn't?

on a unit potentially being able to move more then 6"


since the rules specifically mentions a Librarian with GoI i will use it as an example.

if the librarian is thought of as a "transport" and the tac squad as passangers then a Tac squad with a rhino is worth, 1 KP for the squad(2 if they combat squad) and 3 KPs for the rhino.


i think the argument about the DPs could go either way. they cost the same as a rhino so that supports the they are worth 3 KPs argument.

on the other hand they never move, ever. so are they worth 1 KP.



I definitly think this needs a FAQ from GW.

My opinion is they are worth 1 KP.


i come to this by defining movement as being able to move from point A to point B in the course of a movement phase.

models with the potential to move 6+ inches are under the 3KP catagory. so a DSing BA LR will count for 3 KP, even if it is immobilized.

a Drop pod never has the ability to move, so i say it is worth 1 KP.

This is probably unfair if you face a DP army with no vehicles besides dreadnoughts and drop pods in mission 3.


Monoliths are worth 1 KP as they can only ever move 6"

In response to Yakface, yes this is all created by the Trade guys who otherwise spend all their days sitting behind a big phone bank.

Any FLGS could contact thier rep and get the whole issue resolved. Its really that simple. They are ALL good guys. Some of the best at GW as far as concern for customers goes. And most likely one guy wrote this scenario and while tough as nails to play against and a real competitive player he often over estimates the intelligence of tourney players to understand what he means.

Someone call them and get this taken care of!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, if you count scatter I understand why drop pods would be 3KP. Can anyone show me in what phase a drop pod moves more than 6 inches?

Scattering isn't movement.

you don't hit where you want to go and then roll to see if you bounce.

The Green Git wrote:Our FLGS has ruled Pods and Monoliths will NOT be 3KP for this mission since they can't move more than 6" at any time. The Deep Strike itself is not being counted towards this rule. Terminators, Soul Grinders, etc will also not be 3KP.

Deep Striking Land Raiders and Speeders are 3KP because of their inherent movement abilities as are Jump Pack models, Deffkoptas, and Valkyries.

^^ This is win.

except soulgrinders have fleet.

Fleet is mentioned as a criteria for 3KPs

No, it doesn't. It says "single phase".

ok, i stand corrected.

I must say...

Okay, I'll give my 2 cents here.

Issue: Whether or not a Drop Pod, on a turn when it deploys, potentially moved more than 6" during any single phase of the said turn.

Rule: Drop Pods deep striking count as moving at cruising speed
Drop Pods are Immobile and therefore cannot move
Units that can potentially move over 6 inches are worth 3 kill points, KP for short.

Analysis: During a turn when a Drop Pod arrives, the Drop Pod, under the vehicle rules pg 98, count as moving at cruising speed. The Drop Pod under its own rules is immobile and therefore has no potential to move at all. Therefore the question is whether or not the Drop Pod has the potential to move more than 6 inches on the turn it Deep Strikes. When a Drop Pod arrives via Deep Striking did it have the potential to move more than 6 inches? It would seem that it does not have the ability to move at all. Deep Striking, even with deviation included, only pertains to where the final deployment of the unit. It can be construed "count as moving" under pg 98 of the main rulebook. In fact, the Drop Pod, potentially did not move at all from one point to another on the table. One may argue that the deviation is a movement. The fact is that when a unit Deep Strikes the target location is only a "potential" landing spot and not the final, conclusive location where the Deep Striking unit will land. Therefore the Deep Striking unit that deviates did not "potentially" move since that final location is the actual landing spot.

Deep Striking does not equate to potentially moving a unit from one spot to another. It is merely a rule utilized to ensure a final target location for a unit that arrives by Deep Striking to be deployed on the playing surface. Therefore, immobile vehicles that deep strikes onto the playing surface should not equate to "potentially" moved since it did not move from one point to another on the playing surface.

Throw another wrench. Someone earlier mentioned fleet as a prerequisite for the 3kp rule. How? The scenario says

"3 kill points are awarded for each unit destroyed that has the potential to move over 6” in a single phase of the game turn. "

Fleet is in a seperate phase to movement, its done in the shooting phase. Unless I misunderstood, then disregard my rant.

Just spoke with a rep GW and he related the following: "GW is aware of the issue with scenario 3's ruling on KP and they are going to be adding a clarification this week."

Thats all I got for now. So feel free to continue debating but soon we will have an answer.

yakface wrote:
Isn't the 'ard boyz created and run by US GW guys?

As such can't someone contact them and get clarification on stuff like this (apologies if this has been covered in the other thread already, I haven't read it yet)?

Taken from a local board near the GW HQ

http://icgc.users-board.net/tournaments-f11/may-15th-40k-ard-boyz-games-and-stuff-t563.htm#7365

joeneet @ GW wrote:Hello All,

My self and one of my fellow workers wrote these Ard Boys scenarios. For the Kill the Fast ones mission, the intent was as Matt pointed out, for units that moved once on the table. The Drop Pod is an oddity, and if anyone has written any scenarios before, you can never plan for every possible glitch or rules issue. Games Workshop made a choice to write new scenarios so that gamers would not have to play the same old ones from year to year. But from the apparent irritation of the community we should stick to the 3 missions and deployments from the core rulebook.

We should have a clarification up shortly to cover this unclear scenario.

Well that throws a whole new spin on drop pods just because they can't move 6" in a turn. They are by the very rules of drop pods only able to move the first turn they come in and its stated to act as cruising speed. Although it could be argued what exactly is cruising speed for a drop pod because no actual measurements are being given. I feel (and hope) that GW recognizes at least the very way they wrote the rules that drop pods and many other things can move 6"+ in a round but only once per game, like scout troops using scout movement before first turn, is that 3kp or 1?

Father Gabe wrote:Throw another wrench. Someone earlier mentioned fleet as a prerequisite for the 3kp rule. How? The scenario says

"3 kill points are awarded for each unit destroyed that has the potential to move over 6” in a single phase of the game turn. "

Fleet is in a seperate phase to movement, its done in the shooting phase. Unless I misunderstood, then disregard my rant.

Just spoke with a rep GW and he related the following: "GW is aware of the issue with scenario 3's ruling on KP and they are going to be adding a clarification this week."

Thats all I got for now. So feel free to continue debating but soon we will have an answer.

Fleet wouldn't be a qualifier for 3KP, since the initial movement, run, and then assault are all done in separate phases. So stuff like most Eldar units and Hormagaunts/Termagants don't count as 3KP since they never move more than 6" in any given phase of their own power.

The "scatter distance counting as moving" is also a bad idea because it means stuff like Terminators would count as 3KP when they move as infantry.

Valhallan42nd wrote:

joeneet @ GW wrote:Hello All,

My self and one of my fellow workers wrote these Ard Boys scenarios. For the Kill the Fast ones mission, the intent was as Matt pointed out, for units that moved once on the table. The Drop Pod is an oddity, and if anyone has written any scenarios before, you can never plan for every possible glitch or rules issue. Games Workshop made a choice to write new scenarios so that gamers would not have to play the same old ones from year to year. But from the apparent irritation of the community we should stick to the 3 missions and deployments from the core rulebook.

We should have a clarification up shortly to cover this unclear scenario.

I don't want to take this out of context, but I had a horrible idea that perhaps GW will not only issue a clarification on which are worth 3 KP, but perhaps entirely rework scenario 3. I barely can stand the qq from people with mech lists (I have one and am dealing with it,) but the qq from the opposite side if GW changes the scenario now would be horrible.

Not to say that this email makes me think they will be changing scenario 3, it's just a waking nightmare I had upon reading it.

Wow I am so nervous now about this clarification and its impact on the third mission. I mean this could be really heavy stuff. I may just stop reading the Internet for five years.

G

It sounds more like that quote is saying that they feel like they shouldn't have even bothered to do different missions since everyone got so pissy about it.

I get where they are coming from. There is/was a lot of 'OMG 3 KPS!!!ONE111!!! IT IS THE END OF THE 40K WORLD' and not a lot of 'YAYS FREE TOURNEYMENT FOR FREES!!!'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Black Blow Fly wrote:Wow I am so nervous now about this clarification and its impact on the third mission. I mean this could be really heavy stuff. I may just stop reading the Internet for five years.

G

Oh, that BBF. He's such a wacky guy.

I'm not seeing anyone actually having posted the text from the scenario...

• 3 kill points are awarded for each unit destroyed that
has the potential to move over 6” in a single phase of
the game turn. Running and fleeing units do not count.
For example, a unit of Necron Warriors being pulled
through a Monolith would not count for extra kill points.
A Librarian with Gate of Infinity is 3 kill points, though a
Space Marine Tactical Squad joining him is 1 KP.

• 2 kill points are awarded for each HQ unit killed.

• If an HQ unit has the potential to move over 6” it counts
for 3 kill points. Kill points are not cumulative for the
sake of killing one unit.

Drop pod enters play AT THE POINT OF THE SCATTER DICE RESOLUTION
Drop pod can no longer move

Is the above incorrect? How can a unit with no ability to move be considered to have the potential to move > 6" in a single game phase?

Fullybakedbear...stop making sense...really. Common sense is not a common virtue. We cannot have that sort of behaviour here.

As for you Pretre, I concour...YAY FREE TOURNAMENT...YAY WITH FREE PRIZES!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
With the wording on the 3kp, its based on if the unit can move more than 6" in any given phase of the game turn. It is looking like, deep strikers are the exception, unless they can move more than 6" in a turn...for example: A Space Marine Assault Squad can deep strike with Jump Packs, they can also move 12" in the movement phase, therefore they qualify for the 3kp rule. Or: Terminator squad deep strikes, can only move 6" max in any phase, they do not qualify for the 3kp.

To those that are on the count as cruising speed argument for drop pods, what is the distance defined as cruising speed of a drop pod?

You are comparing it to other vehicles whose cruising speed is over 6" yet a drop pod does not have a defined cruising speed. Cruising speed for a drop pod could be 7" or 1" but it isn't defined and therefore there is no basis to say that a drop pod moves over 6".

Just because it counts as moving at cruising speed does not mean it automatically moves like other vehicles that have a defined cruising speed distance.

All vehicles have a defined cruising speed - 6" - 12". So you know it has moved at least 6". Meaning it is 3KP.

Unless you can point to a line in the rulebook whcih states that cruising speed is variable below 6"?

And on the contrary - unless it has a *specific* rule overriding the BRB, we know *exactly* what what cruising speed is for a drop pod - same as any general vehicle.

nosferatu1001 wrote:All vehicles have a defined cruising speed - 6" - 12". So you know it has moved at least 6". Meaning it is 3KP.

Unless you can point to a line in the rulebook whcih states that cruising speed is variable below 6"?

And on the contrary - unless it has a *specific* rule overriding the BRB, we know *exactly* what what cruising speed is for a drop pod - same as any general vehicle.

No we don't since a drop pod has no listed distance for it's movement speed. So we cannot automatically assume that a drop pod's cruising speed distance is comparable to other vehicles when it "counts as" cruising speed.

You are taking a drop pod and giving it the cruising speed of what other vehicles have defined as cruising speed when it is not like the other vehicles at all in terms of movement.

Q:Is the drop pod a vehicle?

A:Yes.

Therefore it is a normal vehicle and follows all the normal rules for vehicles. Unless you have a RULE which states otherwise?

No? Then it has a defined set of speeds, of which cruising speed is well defined.

Don’t make me support Nos in an argument. He’s right. All non-walker, non-Fast vehicles have the same base cruising speed, which is over 6”, up to 12”.

Damn, knew you would have to at some point

Mannahnin wrote:Don’t make me support Nos in an argument. He’s right. All non-walker, non-Fast vehicles have the same base cruising speed, which is over 6”, up to 12”.

3 kill points are awarded for each unit destroyed that
has the potential to move over 6” in a single phase of
the game turn.

Ok, lets try this again with red text for more faster thinkinz.

The scenario does not say jack squat about the base cruising speed or being a vehicle.

POTENTIAL TO MOVE

read that again

POTENTIAL TO MOVE

One more time for the cheap seats

POTENTIAL TO MOVE

Now I haven't played 40k in over a decade but i'm still waiting for anyone to post a situation in which a drop pod, having landed after resolving scatter dice, ever has the POTENTIAL TO MOVE more than 6" in a single phase of the game turn.

If you can post one, you have perfect justification for calling a drop pod a 3 point kill.

Moving 6 to 12 = Cruising speed, not the other way around. Monoliths can deep strike and count as moving at cruising speed, but can never move further than 6" a turn.

Not to mention that argument of yours seems to unfairly benefit Spore Pods, since Cruising Speed doesn't apply to them at all.

So measure 6"+ for the drop pod for being at cruising speed to be counted as 3KP for the scenario.

I am not debating whether or not the drop pod counts as cruising speed. That is specifically in the rules. For the Ard Boy'z rule, it specifies the +6" which the drop pod can never measure in-game. It can count as moving over 6" but can never actually be measured to move 6" so therefore is not 3KP.

Fullybakedbear-
So are you saying that if, as a Blood Angels player, I Deep Strike one of my Land Raiders, and it scatters into terrain and becomes Immobilized, that the Land Raider will only be worth 1KP that game? Because it counts as moving at Cruising Speed the turn it lands, but after that is Immobilized. Just like a drop pod. How about a Rhino which is Immobiized in the shooting phase before its owner gets a turn? DURING the game it never has any potential to move at all.

Brother Ramses-
Can you just do us the courtesy of reading the comments on “counts as” in the first post of the thread? If something “counts as” being or doing something for one purpose, it counts doing so for all purposes.

Is deployment a phase of the game?

kirsanth wrote:Is deployment a phase of the game?

Are you implying that all deep strikers enter during deployment?

No, I am asking a question that is tangential.

fullybakedbear - the turn the drop pod arrives it counts as moving 6" - 12"

It is therefore 3KP.

Simple really. Sorry all drop pod armies, this scenario is not for you - however not liking a rule is not the same as the rule being incorrect.

Mannahnin wrote:Fullybakedbear-
So are you saying that if, as a Blood Angels player, I Deep Strike one of my Land Raiders, and it scatters into terrain and becomes Immobilized, that the Land Raider will only be worth 1KP that game? Because it counts as moving at Cruising Speed the turn it lands, but after that is Immobilized. Just like a drop pod. How about a Rhino which is Immobiized in the shooting phase before its owner gets a turn? DURING the game it never has any potential to move at all.

Do you even bother to read someone else's posts? Of course a Land Raider counts as 3KP because it has the potential to move 12" after landing, whereas a drop pod is supposed to be immobilized upon landing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:fullybakedbear - the turn the drop pod arrives it counts as moving 6" - 12"

It is therefore 3KP.

Simple really. Sorry all drop pod armies, this scenario is not for you - however not liking a rule is not the same as the rule being incorrect.

The same goes for you; a drop pod doesn't count as moving 6"-12", it counts as moving as cruising speed, but moving at cruising speed does not mean you moved 6-12"

His point was that, if you deepstrike a LR and it is immobilised it does NOT have the potential to move 6-12" under your definition - it is immoblised on deepstrike.

If you dont count deepstrike as moving 6"-12", which is the commutative part of cruising speed, then a LR that immobilises itself on landing is worth 1KP.

Our local store was told that there would be a forthcoming FAQ to "fix" this whole mess.

nosferatu1001 wrote:His point was that, if you deepstrike a LR and it is immobilised it does NOT have the potential to move 6-12" under your definition - it is immoblised on deepstrike.

If you dont count deepstrike as moving 6"-12", which is the commutative part of cruising speed, then a LR that immobilises itself on landing is worth 1KP.

And my point was, that immobilizing itself when it deep strikes every time is not part of the BA Land Raider's rules. What don't you get?

EDIT: How would you handle Monoliths, then? Or Spore Pods?

EDIT: Or Terminators or Soul Grinders or just about any unit in Codex: Chaos Daemons that is infantry I mean really

nosferatu1001 wrote:His point was that, if you deepstrike a LR and it is immobilised it does NOT have the potential to move 6-12" under your definition - it is immoblised on deepstrike.

If you dont count deepstrike as moving 6"-12", which is the commutative part of cruising speed, then a LR that immobilises itself on landing is worth 1KP.

By this stance, a Land Raider could be immobilized mid-game and go from 3KP to 1KP. Just because it may be immobilized on deep strike, a BA Land Raider when bought has the potential to move 6"+. A drop pod will never move 6"+.

Now back to the other point, I am not debating whether or not a drop pod counts as cruising speed when deep striking. That is clearly spelled out in the Warhammer 40k rules, however it has absolutely no bearing on how the Ard Boy'z rule is spelled out. At no time whatsoever does a drop pod have the potential to move 6"+, which is the requirement for them to count as 3KP.

Now for the counts as cruising speed for everything, what about assaulting drop pods on the turn after they arrive? Does it take a 6 to hit them or are the hits automatic? It counts as moving at cruising speed the previous turn, but was also immobilized the previous turn.

You would automatically hit because it was immobilized, which is the same for all vehicles.

bhsman:

So why does auto-immobilisation (drop pod) override the 3KP, in your view, when a LR that immobilises itself the turn it arrives (and therefore IN THE GAME never moved over 6", acording to your definitions) is in exactly the same boat?

What is so hard to understand that the two situations ARE analogous, and that your spurious auto-immob determiner to override the *fact* that it has moved over 6" is irrelevant?

How do i handle spore pods? Easy, they are NOT vehicles thereofre do not count as moving 6"+ and therefore do not give up 3KP. Sorry, called applying the rules. Again, just because you dont like the rules doesnt change what they are. Repeat for anything infnatry in codex daemon - if they are not a vehicle moving cruising speed they are not 3KP when they deepstrike. Easy.

Brother Ramses - that was the point. Being able to be immobilised is NOT a determiner as towhether it is 3KP. A drop pod DOES MOVE OVER 6" as that is what cruising speed is defined as - and is therefore worth 3KP.

You may not like it, it does not alter the rules.

It's not analogous because:

A) Your analogy only works in a very specific situation for the Land Raider (Deep Striking AND landing in terrain AND failing a DT test) to become immobilized, whereas if both were to land in open terrain only one would be immobilized.

B) Drop Pods actually cannot even land in terrain due to their special rule

C) You continue to promote the misconception that cruising speed always means something moved more than six inches. The other way around, for sure, but there's no indication in the rulebook that cruising speed = you moved 6-12", only that moving 6-12" = cruising speed. What you are doing here is not enforcing RAW or even RAI. On the contrary, is making stuff up.

Not to mention your logic is also contradictory in giving Spore Pods and Daemons a pass while being hung up on the fact that the drop pod is a vehicle. On that grounds alone I say your argument has no merit. By that logic a monolith can never Deep Strike because their rules prevent them from ever going faster than six inches.

Lastly, when you say stuff like:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Simple really. Sorry all drop pod armies, this scenario is not for you - however not liking a rule is not the same as the rule being incorrect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You may not like it, it does not alter the rules.

Don't. Unless I've been picking apart arguments made by Jervis Johnson himself you're just a nerd arguing with other nerds and being shown up by nerds in a forum dedicated to discussing rules, not prancing about and proclaiming that your way the one true way and everyone else is wrong just because.



EDIT: If the second half of this post is considered backseat modding feel free to remove it

bhsman wrote:B) Drop Pods actually cannot even land in terrain due to their special rule

I stopped reading here because this is completely wrong. Drop Pods can land in Terrain just fone.

Regarding Deep Striking Land Raiders, you are forgetting the wording of the scenario rule. Potential to move more than 6". A Deep Striking Land Raider always has the potential to move more than 6", but if immobilised fails to live up to it.

A) And that was the point - IN THAT GAME according to *your* logic the LR would only be worth 1KP, as it does not have the potential to move >6" - it was immobilised as it lands.

WHich is why it is analogous. Sorry if you cannot see this, but it is.

B) Wrong, SO SO SO wrong. Reread the drop pod rules. Notice the word "reduce" is in there, it is quite important. Now think what happens when you *aim* the pod to land in terrain and roll a "hit", or any scatter at all that leaves it still touching terrain. Understand yet?

C) it is commutative, which isnt making things up but applying the game rules.

Again, sorry you dont like the rule, doesnt alter it. I have shown why you are wrong, which is the opposite of prancing around - again, your posts come across as "this cant be right!" and so you find anything you can think of to determine that drop pods arent 3KP, when they are.

EDIT: sorry, just noticed another error in your post - why was it contradictory? Please show me in RULES where it states non-vehicle units count as moving at a specific speed? I'll give you a clue - there isnt anywhere.

So my logic is not contradictory, you are jsut making stuff up if you think that deep striking spore pods count as moving any specific distance at all - they simply count as moving, and cannot move any further. Hence they are not worth 3KP unless they are beasts or jump infantry. Normal infantry speed ones are worth a single KP even if they DS.

I'd rule Drop Pods as 1KP and Deep Striking Land Raiders as 3KP - A Drop Pod, being auto-immobilized, never has the potential to move more than 6", while a Land Raider does.

Masterslowpoke - except when it arrives it DOES move more than 6". just because it only did it once doesnt mean it is somehow exempt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

UltraPrime wrote:Regarding Deep Striking Land Raiders, you are forgetting the wording of the scenario rule. Potential to move more than 6". A Deep Striking Land Raider always has the potential to move more than 6", but if immobilised fails to live up to it.

Which is why drop pods are 3KP, because the turn they arrive they are moving more than 6".

Just becausse they are immediately immobilised does nto alter that fact. So any reliance on the auto immobilise exempting them is flawed, leaving only the fact they count as moving at cruising speed.

Things that Deep Strike merely count as moving combat speed, they don't actually go that fast. In fact, they're completely prohibited from moving.

Nos, I feel it's a big leap to say that "A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed." means that if something has been given the status of crusing speed it's moved 6".
We need to remeber that "Certain rare units are permanently immobile." and they arrive via deepstrike which counts as a move, and you're saying because of a status conferred to a vehicle that this allows you to say it has moved more than 6". 'Counts as' is not the same as 'has move more than 6" ' How can you try to make this claim?

Because "counts as" means in all respects - "counts as moving at cruising speed" means it HAS moved at cruising speed.

Being immobilised after landing does not exempt you from the speed you moved at before you landed - otherwise deepstriking landraiders that immobilise themselves are only worth 1KP that game. If you argue that immobilise-on-landing is the reason for only 1KP that is the end result.

No one is arguing that being immobilized removes the bonus killpoints - it's that a drop pod never has the potential to move more than 6".

Counting as moving cruising speed is not the same as actually moving more than 6".

Counts as == does this in all respects. So on the turn it arrives it HAS moved at cruising speed - Agreed?

There is a commutative definition for cruising speed which is 6" -> 12". So you HAVE moved when you arrive and you HAVE moved more than 6" in one phase. 3KP.

Some WERE arguing that immoblised means it has no potential, hence the DS LR corrolary.

Actually, my next argument was going to be that vehicles moving 6" to 12" are moving cruising speed is not commutative. Regardless I don't think it's possible for one of us to convince the other as the rules simply aren't clear enough.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because "counts as" means in all respects - "counts as moving at cruising speed" means it HAS moved at cruising speed.

I would like some proof for that statment Nos.
You're turning a 'counts as' into an 'it has actually moved more than 6 inches' I'm pretty sure that's a boo-boo - as you are never told how far a deep striking unit has moved - again - you're making the leap that 'counts as' means I have move more than 6". Proooof.

"A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed." Pg. 57

"In that turn’s Shooting phase, these units can fire (or run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved in the previous Movement phase. Vehicles count as having moved at cruising speed."

In fact they only count as CS for the shooting phase not even the whole turn.

Also you'd have a hard time swallowing someoen telling you 'counts as having assaulted' means they have assaulted.

Well you "count as"moving at cruising speed, which means every time you do something we can see if Cruising Speed would have an effect. You are the one artificially limiting "counts as" despite having no rule to that effect.

And so what if only one *phase* it counts as having moved at cruising speed? That is all 'ardboyz cares about! If it can move above 6" in *any one phase* it is 3KP. In the shooting phase it has counted as (which means has for determining how far it has moved) moving above 6", which is thedefinition for cruising speed, and therefore is worth 3KP.

Look up boarding planks - it uses "as if" which is similar to "counts as" in this instance. There a model hasnt actually assaulted, but counts as having done so - which is why it can attack a dreadnought without being attacked back.

I view it this way.

A suntan is defined as a tan obtained by the sun, and having a suntan gives you darker skin.

I can get a suntan by going out in the sun. Thus I have a suntan. This method of getting a suntan burns my skin.

I can use fake tan, so now I 'count as' having a suntan. Does this mean I also have burnt skin?

Pika_power wrote:I view it this way.

A suntan is defined as a tan obtained by the sun, and having a suntan gives you darker skin.

I can get a suntan by going out in the sun. Thus I have a suntan. This method of getting a suntan burns my skin.

I can use fake tan, so now I 'count as' having a suntan. Does this mean I also have burnt skin?

I like that. Sort of sums up the nonsense.

As far as the game is concerned you act as if you have burnt skin.

In other words, the game considers you to have moved 6+", so the scenario counts you for 3KP

Ladies and Gents, please please read previous posts, mine or others. To sit here and say this is the RULE or no this is the RULE, when your simply guessing just turns this into a giant rant and argument. GW is going to address this before the tournament (as posted before). Since the tourney is in 3 days, it stands to reason that we can chill out, watch here for the results, wait till the day of the tourney or go to GW's website for the results.

If GW drops the ball, then unless you are the TO for your store that has final say so, dont worry...just wait. It shouldnt change your outcome...its one scenario, you cannot cover every angle for every scenario for every possible opponent list. One last thing, remember this is a game, a friendly tournament that costs you nothing (money wise) and should be appreciative that GW is offering prize support free of charge. Have fun at this one, get ridiculus with your army lists (2500 is so much fun) and enjoy the day...oh...Good Luck, hope you dont face me and my uber killy army of silliness

This isnt guessing, it is applying the criteria the scenario gives and determining what is affected.

If people then dont get that 'arddboyz does, really, mean 'ardboyz and their precious all DP army is going to have a lot of immobile, 3KP scenery pieces that isnt the fault of those on here.

Hopefully they will clarify, and knowing GWs current lurve for all things drop poddy I imagine they WILL go for changing the rules to let DP only count as 1KP, unless and until they do so the RAW answer is 3KP, and this is (as with all things) up to the local TO to decide to change if they want.

I see your point. Im merely trying to calm things down and ask for everyone to sit back, relax and wait for the results to be 100% sure. It doesnt concern me since I dont have mycetic spores in this list but I would hate for someone to get screwed if the rules are unclear as they appear to be to the majority of players.

Mycetic spores wont be messed about with eitherway - it is only vehicles that count as moving at cruising speed (and thus at 6"+), they merely count as having moved - same for any infantry that deepstrikes

Though if it is 3kp for drop pods, then I will be happy in some sense cause there a couple of drop pod lists coming and I could enjoy easy kp's.

WHich is what it is no doubt designed to do - to give footslogging lists a balance against the prevalent mech. Not saying its the best system, but a drop pod SHOULD be equal to a rhino as it performs the primary objective for a transport (getting troops where they need to be faster than on foot) better than a rhino -or at least more reliably!

Haha, I honestly dropped the ball on that drop pod bit. My mistake.

Still, nos, you're still equivocating cruising speed = 6", which would technically screw over Monoliths, and unfairly giving Spore Pods and Daemons the go-ahead (which ironically gives some precedent to drop pods not counting as 1KP).

I'd also argue that a drop pod isn't the same as a rhino. A rhino can adjust it's position to go with the flow of your army, can keep your dudes inside nice and safe even when it blows up, etc. A drop pod is just a special way to deploy and provide some LOS blocking, but afterwards whatever was riding inside loses that protection.

It gives no precedent whatsoever - you are conflating vehicles with non-vehicles there. And why is it unfair for spore pods and daemons to not have 3KP? It isnt unfair at all, it is simply "the rules", and making an entire army count as at least 3KP for everything seems the very definition of "un"fair in anycase!

Plus please read what I *very* carefully said - a drop pod is far better at performing the TRANSPORT function of a transport vehicle than a rhino, as it will* land near its target and it can do so on the first turn, with no risk of being left footslogging*

*unless you scatter off the table edge, or decide to place it over a model. But thats your own damn fault

Drop pods offer much less protection than other transports, and carry the (slight) risk of mishap.

Personally, I'd side with drop pods counting as 1KP, as they do not have the potential to move fast enough to count as 3KP at any point.

Which is why I mentioned they are *better* than non-droppods at the transport side, with the tradeoff being that they dont let you hide out inside and you're stuck on foot after they land. Meaning they are about equal, surely?

So 3KP seems right.

Mannahnin wrote:Fullybakedbear-
So are you saying that if, as a Blood Angels player, I Deep Strike one of my Land Raiders, and it scatters into terrain and becomes Immobilized, that the Land Raider will only be worth 1KP that game? Because it counts as moving at Cruising Speed the turn it lands, but after that is Immobilized. Just like a drop pod. How about a Rhino which is Immobiized in the shooting phase before its owner gets a turn? DURING the game it never has any potential to move at all.

I don't have a rule book handy, but my impression is that Cruising Speed is not defined as being a move of 6=12", but is a trait applied to a vehicle that moves further than it's stock speed. That trait is then used to define a set of actions that the vehicle may or may not take (such as shooting iirc). That means that if a vehicle has a normal speed of 3" and moves 6", it could not shoot because it had moved at it's Cruising Speed.

What this means is that unless the definition of Cruising Speed in the rule book is "A vehicle that has moved between 6 and 12 inches", you guys have it wrong.

In the Land Raider instance, isn't it possible to repair the Land Raider and regain its' full movement potential? Regardless of repairs, the vehicle has the innate potential to move > 6" where a drop pod does not.

Aren't kill points defined outside of the game based on the army list?
Look at a list with a Drop Pod and a Land Raider.
Which one of those has the potential to move > 6"?

Can someone quote the definition of Crusing Speed from the rule book?

fullybakedbear wrote:What this means is that unless the definition of Cruising Speed in the rule book is "A vehicle that has moved between 6 and 12 inches", you guys have it wrong.

page 57:
"A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed."

And it was already quoted on the previous page.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/293991.page#1564027

It's much more polite to actually read what people post. If you don't believe us, you can ask for a page number, but in this case it was already posted.

"In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire (or
run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved
In the previous Movement phase . Vehicles count as
having moved at cruising speed ."

This a direct quote from BRB pg. 95 Under DeepStrike
Would that make the "count as" for the shooting phase for knowing what guns and how many you can shoot?

Mannahnin wrote:And it was already quoted on the previous page.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/293991.page#1564027

It's much more polite to actually read what people post. If you don't believe us, you can ask for a page number, but in this case it was already posted.

I now feel bad for starting this with Danny. I could have just waited 10 minutes and someone else would have used my exact same arguments without me having to expend the energy. And amusingly enough this cycle will continue until at least after 'Ard Boyz.

If I could harness this internet argument energy, I could probably solve our energy crisis.

Hmm....

I vote they count as 3 KP since CSM doesn't get the unit.

Reasoning? More KP for me.

torch1784 wrote:"In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire (or
run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved
In the previous Movement phase . Vehicles count as
having moved at cruising speed ."

This a direct quote from BRB pg. 95 Under DeepStrike
Would that make the "count as" for the shooting phase for knowing what guns and how many you can shoot?

Doesn't matter which phase; per the mission it's any phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:I now feel bad for starting this with Danny. I could have just waited 10 minutes and someone else would have used my exact same arguments without me having to expend the energy. And amusingly enough this cycle will continue until at least after 'Ard Boyz.

If I could harness this internet argument energy, I could probably solve our energy crisis.

It is funny. We need some sort of generator powered by the furious energy with which we hit the keys on our keyboards.

Mannahnin wrote:
It is funny. We need some sort of generator powered by the furious energy with which we hit the keys on our keyboards.

If we could also capture all of the tears from the GW Pricing threads, we could start a new society purely from Dakka.

We'd also need a team to go carefully through the collected tears and pick out the salt, so it would be usable. Maybe Gwar could head it up.

Mannahnin wrote:We'd also need a team to go carefully through the collected tears and pick out the salt, so it would be usable. Maybe Gwar could head it up.

He'd do it, but would need frequent breaks to avoid working his fingers RAW.

I don't know about that. IME he has no aversion to RAWness, and seems to need no breaks, either. Witness the post count.

torch1784 wrote:"In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire (or
run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved
In the previous Movement phase . Vehicles count as
having moved at cruising speed ."

This a direct quote from BRB pg. 95 Under DeepStrike
Would that make the "count as" for the shooting phase for knowing what guns and how many you can shoot?

Here is the rub. Based on the definition of cruising speed and the text you have quoted, it is murky tending towards 3kp because English is such a trashcan language.

If the Deepstrike rule said "Vehicles are considered to have moved at crusing speed for the purpose of choosing actions." then it would eliminate the 3kp resoning. If the rule said "A Deepstriking Vehicle is considered to have moved 12" during the previous movement phase" then it would eliminate all the 1kp arguments.

As it stands, the best I could say would be that because the text specifically concerns the allowable actions that can be taken by a Deepstriking unit in the shooting phase following its entrance, it 'counts' as an exception to the normal rules and as such does not apply to kill points.

Personally I don't have a vested interest. It is a random factor (since I don't have drop pods in an Ork army) as to whether or not I'll even face a drop pod.

If you want to avoid RAWness then you need to use lube...

Although that leads to some disturbing images around tears, frustrated keyboard bashing etc...

nosferatu1001 wrote:If you want to avoid RAWness then you need to use lube...

Although that leads to some disturbing images around tears, frustrated keyboard bashing etc...

First fullybakedbear pulls us painfully back to the actual topic of the thread and then you plunge us fully over the line.

My plans for a utopian society powered by internet anger and fed by QQ are dashed!

As the scenario is written it seems pretty clear to me:

"A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed."

"In that turns Shooting phase, these units can fire (or run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved in the previous Movement phase. Vehicles count as having moved at cruising speed."

Not only does a drop pod have the potential to move over 6" in a single phase of the game turn, it actually has moved over 6" in the previous movement phase when it arrived.

Gwar! wrote:page 57: "A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed."

Is there a sentence that says "A vehicle that travels at cruising speed has moved more than 6" and up to 12", however?

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:page 57: "A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed."

Is there a sentence that says "A vehicle that travels at cruising speed has moved more than 6" and up to 12", however?

page 57: "A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed."

That's the definition of Cruising Speed on pg 57 under 'Vehicles and Movement'.



Seriously. There are two camps of answers now. Both camps have good ideas, but ultimately neither is right until GW gives us an answer.

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:page 57: "A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed."

Is there a sentence that says "A vehicle that travels at cruising speed has moved more than 6" and up to 12", however?

All I'm concerned about is that cruising speed counts as moving over 6", that deep striking vehicles count as cruising, and that the scenario applies 3KP to such units.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As far as the game is concerned you act as if you have burnt skin.

In other words, the game considers you to have moved 6+", so the scenario counts you for 3KP

I act as if I have darker skin, because that is the effect of the status 'suntan'. The normal method of acquiring 'suntan' means I get burned, but I didn't use the normal method, I used a fake tan, which 'counts as suntan', meaning I get the suntan without the burn.

In this situation, the 'suntan' is 'cruising speed'. The effect of it is an inability to fire certain weapons. The normal method of getting it means I move 6-12", a.k.a. getting burnt skin. Hower if I apply a 'fake tan'/deepstrike I count-as having a tan/cruising speed, but I haven't actually burnt my skin or moved 7".

That's how I see it.

Except, as has been mentioned, the game treats you as if you HAVE moved over 6" - which is all the scenario cares about.

we know you *havent*, but as far as the *game* is concerned you HAVE.

No, the scenario specifically states the potential to move 6"+. The drop pod can NEVER move. Being counted as moving does not equal moving.

This is seriously a counts as jump infantry but is not jump infantry argument.

The drop pod never moves, only counts as moving. The Ard Boyz rule only stipulates units that have the potential to move. It is either shoddy rule writing on the Ard Boyz or they are very specific and people are just trying to include drop pods based on their own bias.

As a committed gamer, the suntan analogy is entirely lost on me. Can you come up with something a pudgy pale basement dweller can relate to?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except, as has been mentioned, the game treats you as if you HAVE moved over 6" - which is all the scenario cares about.

we know you *havent*, but as far as the *game* is concerned you HAVE.

No, the scenario specifically states potential to move 6"+. That is where your argument falls apart. The game treats you as IF you have moved 6"+, the scenario only cares if you CAN move 6"+.

By the Authority of the Immortal Emperor of Mankind, this thread must be purged and locked![/

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:page 57: "A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed."

Is there a sentence that says "A vehicle that travels at cruising speed has moved more than 6" and up to 12", however?

bhsman is exactly correct.

The relationship described in the rules quote above is, in terms of actual logical study, is called implication (or entailment, if you prefer).

Given two propositions p and q, it is typically expressed in a form similar to "If p then q", as above (given that p is "a vehicle travels more than 6" and up to 12"" and q is "a vehicle is moving at cruising speed" ).

The standard notation is: p -> q. (*)

Now, logic dictates that while the contrapositive of the assertion (!q -> !p, or, in this case, "a vehicle that is not moving cruising speed has not moved between 6" and 12"" ) is true. (And, logically, it is -- clearly, though, there are special rules within 40k that can change this, but those are, specifically, exceptions)

However, the claim q -> p is not a logical deduction from p -> q. Said claim is actually a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. You can find a brief description of the fallacy here.



* - My formal logic training was within the field of computer science; other mathematical fields may prefer different notation. Like set theorists, who I'm convinced just like to make up symbols to make themselves feel better about having chosen set theory as a career.**

** - Yes, that's a (bad) joke. One of my best friends is a set theorist. Honest.

BR - and as has been mentioned previously, the game f 40k consisders "counts as" as meaning "you are" for the purposes of rules interactions.

Lowinor wrote:

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:page 57: "A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed."

Is there a sentence that says "A vehicle that travels at cruising speed has moved more than 6" and up to 12", however?

bhsman is exactly correct.

The relationship described in the rules quote above is, in terms of actual logical study, is called implication (or entailment, if you prefer).

Given two propositions p and q, it is typically expressed in a form similar to "If p then q", as above (given that p is "a vehicle travels more than 6" and up to 12"" and q is "a vehicle is moving at cruising speed".

The standard notation is: p -> q. (*)

Now, logic dictates that while the contrapositive of the assertion (!q -> !p, or, in this case, "a vehicle that is not moving cruising speed has not moved between 6" and 12"" ) is true. (And, logically, it is -- clearly, though, there are special rules within 40k that can change this, but those are, specifically, exceptions)

However, the claim q -> p is not a logical deduction from p -> q. Said claim is actually a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. You can find a brief description of the fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent.



* - My formal logic training was within the field of computer science; other mathematical fields may prefer different notation. Like set theorists, who I'm convinced just like to make up symbols to make themselves feel better about having chosen set theory as a career.**

** - Yes, that's a (bad) joke. One of my best friends is a set theorist. Honest.

YOU DIVIDED BY ZERO!?


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Brother Ramses wrote:No, the scenario specifically states the potential to move 6"+. The drop pod can NEVER move. Being counted as moving does not equal moving.

Yes it does. The meaning of “counts as” is that even if the thing did not do a given thing, we treat it as if it had, for all purposes. There’s no basis for differentiating between the shooting restrictions and the higher KP value.

As Kirby pointed out, by Deep Striking a vehicle DOES move onto the table. As the DS rules tell us, when it does so, it counts as moving at Cruising Speed. And as the vehicle rules tell us, Cruising Speed = more than 6”, up to 12”.

Brother Ramses wrote:This is seriously a counts as jump infantry but is not jump infantry argument.

I don’t believe the two are parallel, because units which count as jump infantry for purposes of movement specify that they count as jump infantry “for purposes of movement”. This is an explicit limiter, which the DS rules lack.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lowinor- It’s not affirming the consequent, because the rules actually tell us both. As Pretre already pointed out, page 57 gives that line as a definition of Cruising Speed. So they are telling us that “cruising speed = <6”-12” and <6”-12” = cruising speed.

Lowinor wrote:bhsman is exactly correct.

The relationship described in the rules quote above is, in terms of actual logical study, is called implication (or entailment, if you prefer).

Given two propositions p and q, it is typically expressed in a form similar to "If p then q", as above (given that p is "a vehicle travels more than 6" and up to 12"" and q is "a vehicle is moving at cruising speed" ).

The standard notation is: p -> q. (*)

Now, logic dictates that while the contrapositive of the assertion (!q -> !p, or, in this case, "a vehicle that is not moving cruising speed has not moved between 6" and 12"" ) is true. (And, logically, it is -- clearly, though, there are special rules within 40k that can change this, but those are, specifically, exceptions)

However, the claim q -> p is not a logical deduction from p -> q. Said claim is actually a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. You can find a brief description of the fallacy here.



* - My formal logic training was within the field of computer science; other mathematical fields may prefer different notation. Like set theorists, who I'm convinced just like to make up symbols to make themselves feel better about having chosen set theory as a career.**

** - Yes, that's a (bad) joke. One of my best friends is a set theorist. Honest.

What he said.

Nosferatu, outside of this weekend what does your newfound perspective on this ruling say about Monoliths who can only move 6" of their own accord but somehow count as moving at cruising speed when they Deep Strike. I noticed you haven't even mentioned them once, considering how important they are to this discussion...

If the Monolith arrives by deepstrike, it is 3KP.

If it doesnt, it is 1KP.

Exactly like a combat squadded unit is 2KP, not combat squadded is 1KP, before people say this is inconsistent. You have a *choice* and you determine if this is worth it to you.

I havent mentioend it as, frankly, it is nothing more than an extension of the drop pod "immobilised on landing should count!!!" argument that had already been debunked.

This is getting repetitive,

I understand that for they count as cruising speed. That cruising speed is 6-12". Yes, yes, yes, you have made that clear and I know it is in the BRB. The Ard Boyz rule doesn't care about that. The Ard Boyz rule is very specific in their use of the word "potential".

So again, the drop pod is treated as IF it moved 6-12" but the Ard Boyz rule is specific that it only cares if the drop pod CAN move 6-12". The scenario rule trumps the BRB in being specific about "counting as" versus actually being able to physically move 6-12".

This is specific (scenario) over general ruling (BRB) here.

Except it does not do so, as has already been shown to you repeatedly.

You may not agree with this, but not sure how it can be explained any more simply than it has been by Mannaheim.

No, I understand that your argument is only based on your continued use of the BRB wording of what cruising speed means with total disregard as to what the scenario rules specifically tells you what qualifies as 3kp.

Done with this one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:If the Monolith arrives by deepstrike, it is 3KP.

If it doesnt, it is 1KP.

Well then, we'll just have to agree to disagree and wait for the mission FAQ to be released. You've made your argument and Lowinor made mine.

Because damn if that idea of yours isn't so silly I don't even know what to say about it. Yeesh.

EDIT:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it does not do so, as has already been shown to you repeatedly.

You may not agree with this, but not sure how it can be explained any more simply than it has been by Mannaheim.

Repeating a claim ad naseum =/= make you right. Lowinor hit it on the head.

All tigers are big cats. Not all big cats are tigers.

Models that move 6-12" have moved at cruising speed. Not all models that move at cruising speed move 6-12".

Just take a Lash Sorc. Then your opponent's entire army would be worth 3 KP, because the entire army has the "potential" to move over 6" in one phase (except walkers).

Mannahnin wrote:Lowinor- It’s not affirming the consequent, because the rules actually tell us both. As Pretre already pointed out, page 57 gives that line as a definition of Cruising Speed. So they are telling us that “cruising speed = <6”-12” and <6”-12” = cruising speed.

No. This, simply, is not correct.

The rule says, verbatim:"A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed."

It does not say: "A vehicle moving at cruising speed is traveling more than 6" and up to 12"" (which is a different assertion)

Making the second deduction from the first is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

To rephrase, the rules assign the property of "moving at cruising speed" to vehicles that are moving from 6"-12". It does not assign the property of moving 6"-12" to vehicles that are moving at cruising speed. Claiming it does so is, by definition, illogical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:Just take a Lash Sorc. Then your opponent's entire army would be worth 3 KP, because the entire army has the "potential" to move over 6" in one phase (except walkers).

Or a Land Raider, for that matter, which can Tank Shock things over 6".

But really, there's a distinction between "move" and "be moved" which applies here, but that's actually subtle, while there seems to be a problem grasping the idea that implication is distinct from equivalence, and that's pretty simple.

Lowinor wrote:

No. This, simply, is not correct..

RTFM

BRB wrote:
Vehicles and Movement
The distance a vehicle moves influences the amount of weapons it may fire and how easy a target the vehicle will be if assaulted, as described later.

* A vehicle that remains stationary will be able to bring its full firepower to bear on the enemy.

* A vehicle that travels up to 6" is moving at combat speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly in order to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower.

* A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed. This represents the vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible without firing its guns.

The only definition of Cruising, Stationary and Combat Speed is right there. Page 57.

So yes, according to that Cruising Speed = 6" to 12".

Lowinor wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Lowinor- It’s not affirming the consequent, because the rules actually tell us both. As Pretre already pointed out, page 57 gives that line as a definition of Cruising Speed. So they are telling us that “cruising speed = <6”-12” and <6”-12” = cruising speed.

No. This, simply, is not correct.

The rule says, verbatim:"A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed."

It does not say: "A vehicle moving at cruising speed is traveling more than 6" and up to 12"" (which is a different assertion)

Making the second deduction from the first is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

To rephrase, the rules assign the property of "moving at cruising speed" to vehicles that are moving from 6"-12". It does not assign the property of moving 6"-12" to vehicles that are moving at cruising speed. Claiming it does so is, by definition, illogical.

This is correct. Cruising speed may be 6"-12". But a fast skimmer moving at cruising speed may not be moving 6"-12". One does not equal the other. Or a drop pod, which moved at cruising speed, moved 0".

Lowinor wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:Just take a Lash Sorc. Then your opponent's entire army would be worth 3 KP, because the entire army has the "potential" to move over 6" in one phase (except walkers).

Or a Land Raider, for that matter, which can Tank Shock things over 6".

But really, there's a distinction between "move" and "be moved" which applies here, but that's actually subtle, while there seems to be a problem grasping the idea that implication is distinct from equivalence, and that's pretty simple.

But I don't believe the rule for Lash says "be moved". I believe it reads, "move the target unit".

puma713 wrote:
This is correct. Cruising speed may be 6"-12". But a fast skimmer moving at cruising speed may not be moving 6"-12". One does not equal the other. Or a drop pod, which moved at cruising speed, moved 0".

Wrong. Fast Skimmers move 6-12" for Cruising Speed. There is no difference.

P70 BRB "Fast Vehicles follow the normal rules for vehicles, wit the additions and exceptions given below"

"Moving Fast Vehicles. Fast vehicles are capable of a third level of speed, called "flat out". A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18"

P71 BRB " A skimmer that is also fast and moving flat out can move up to 24""

Mannahnin wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:No, the scenario specifically states the potential to move 6"+. The drop pod can NEVER move. Being counted as moving does not equal moving.

Yes it does. The meaning of “counts as” is that even if the thing did not do a given thing, we treat it as if it had, for all purposes. There’s no basis for differentiating between the shooting restrictions and the higher KP value.
As Kirby pointed out, by Deep Striking a vehicle DOES move onto the table. As the DS rules tell us, when it does so, it counts as moving at Cruising Speed. And as the vehicle rules tell us, Cruising Speed = more than 6”, up to 12”.

Brother Ramses wrote:This is seriously a counts as jump infantry but is not jump infantry argument.

I don’t believe the two are parallel, because units which count as jump infantry for purposes of movement specify that they count as jump infantry “for purposes of movement”. This is an explicit limiter, which the DS rules lack.

Now, just for the pure sake of argument, lets look at the bolded text and the Deepstrike rules.

The Deepstrike rules specifically refer to the shooting phase of the turn in which the deepstriking unit arrives.

"In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire (or
run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved
In the previous Movement phase . Vehicles count as
having moved at cruising speed ."

Would anyone argue the the final sentence of that quote applies to anything other than a deepstriking vehicle during the turn in which it arrives and ONLY on that turn? If that sentence is not defnitively limited to the deepstiking vehicle during that one turn, would it not apply to all vehicles at all time?

Under the proposition that the Crusing Speed application is explicitly limited as in the jump infantry scenario, is it not reasonable to consider, as a basis for differentation, that the Kill Point variation applies to a unit throughout the game regardless of whether or not it utilizes its' potential to move at cruising speed and the application of the "having moved at Cruising Speed" trait applys to a single shooting phase on a single turn and has no effect during other game periods?

pretre wrote:

So yes, according to that Cruising Speed = 6" to 12".

So, a drop pod that physically moved 0" counts as something that moved 6"-12". The rule says that anything with the potential to "move". Not the potential to "count as moving". No matter what the Drop Pod "counts as", can it move over 6"?

pretre wrote:RTFM

Wonderful response seeing as how I quoted the actual source material.

Here, about this one: Take a (expletive) class in logic.

There, that help clear things up? At least as much as your outburst.

The only definition of Cruising, Stationary and Combat Speed is right there. Page 57.

Correct.

So yes, according to that Cruising Speed = 6" to 12".

No.

Moving 6" to 12" is cruising speed.

Cruising speed is not necessarily moving 6" to 12". Cruising speed may be a consequence of 6" to 12", but they are not equivalent.

pretre wrote:

puma713 wrote:
This is correct. Cruising speed may be 6"-12". But a fast skimmer moving at cruising speed may not be moving 6"-12". One does not equal the other. Or a drop pod, which moved at cruising speed, moved 0".

Wrong. Fast Skimmers move 6-12" for Cruising Speed. There is no difference.

P70 BRB "Fast Vehicles follow the normal rules for vehicles, wit the additions and exceptions given below"

"Moving Fast Vehicles. Fast vehicles are capable of a third level of speed, called "flat out". A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18"

P71 BRB " A skimmer that is also fast and moving flat out can move up to 24""

Yeah, you may be right there. It may be the shooting rules I'm thinking of. At work without my BGB

Lowinor wrote:
Wonderful response seeing as how I quoted the actual source material.

Thanks

Lowinor wrote:
Here, about this one: Take a (expletive) class in logic.

You must be unfamiliar with GW if you think logic trumps rulebook.

Lowinor wrote:

The only definition of Cruising, Stationary and Combat Speed is right there. Page 57.

Correct.

So yes, according to that Cruising Speed = 6" to 12".

No.

Moving 6" to 12" is cruising speed.

Cruising speed is not necessarily moving 6" to 12". Cruising speed may be a consequence of 6" to 12", but they are not equivalent.

Okay, so where, logically, is the definition of Cruising Speed, if it is not exactly where I just showed it was (in the rulebook in the section marked 'Vehicles and Movement')?

If you say 'Well it's not defined.' then the deepstrike rules are broken as 'Vehicles arriving from deep strike 'count as' moving cruising speed' has no meaning.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:
So, a drop pod that physically moved 0" counts as something that moved 6"-12". The rule says that anything with the potential to "move". Not the potential to "count as moving". No matter what the Drop Pod "counts as", can it move over 6"?

Read back a couple pages so you can catch up with where Lowinor and I are at at this point please.

Pika_power wrote:All tigers are big cats. Not all big cats are tigers.

Models that move 6-12" have moved at cruising speed. Not all models that move at cruising speed move 6-12".

As this seems to have been missed, and is relevant to the current discussion.

Please go and look at your nearest house-cat. If you conclude it is not a tiger, please return here and acknowledge my point. (If, by some chance you keep a tiger as a pet, I fully concede, because I can't win against someone that awesome.)

Pika_power wrote:

Pika_power wrote:All tigers are big cats. Not all big cats are tigers.

Models that move 6-12" have moved at cruising speed. Not all models that move at cruising speed move 6-12".

As this seems to have been missed, and is relevant to the current discussion.

Name a time when Cruising Speed does not equal 6-12".

I can think of one. (Roads)

Now name a time when Cruising Speed does not mean >6. (the important part of this argument.)

You can't think of one.

pretre wrote:

Read back a couple pages so you can catch up with where Lowinor and I are at at this point please.

I have been reading. I've been following the argument. And you still haven't answered that question. Neither did Nos, so stop being so snide.

pretre wrote:

Pika_power wrote:

Pika_power wrote:All tigers are big cats. Not all big cats are tigers.

Models that move 6-12" have moved at cruising speed. Not all models that move at cruising speed move 6-12".

As this seems to have been missed, and is relevant to the current discussion.

Name a time when Cruising Speed does not equal 6-12".

I can think of one. (Roads)

Now name a time when Cruising Speed does not mean >6. (the important part of this argument.)

You can't think of one.

Drop pods.

puma713 wrote:

Drop pods.

I deserved that one. That's the argument, so that doesn't really count now does it?

puma713 wrote:
So, a drop pod that physically moved 0" counts as something that moved 6"-12". The rule says that anything with the potential to "move". Not the potential to "count as moving". No matter what the Drop Pod "counts as", can it move over 6"?

Seriously. Mannahnin has answered this like 3 times. It counts as moving 'Cruising Speed' in deployment, which is the first part of the movement phase. So it has the potential to move at Cruising Speed during any game where it is deployed using Deep Strike.

And Cruising Speed is defined as moving 6-12".

It's the whole crux of like 3 pages of argument. So pardon me for being a little snide in having to repeat it again

pretre wrote:Okay, so where, logically, is the definition of Cruising Speed, if it is not exactly where I just showed it was (in the rulebook in the section marked 'Vehicles and Movement')?

If you say 'Well it's not defined.' then the deepstrike rules are broken as 'Vehicles arriving from deep strike 'count as' moving cruising speed' has no meaning.

In the sense you're looking for, "Cruising Speed" is not strictly defined. This, however, does not mean it is meaningless, as we do have a set of relationships listed:

- A vehicle moving 6"-12" is moving at Cruising Speed
- A vehicle Deep Striking is moving at Cruising Speed
- A vehicle that moved at Cruising Speed may not fire in the same turn (subject to other rules omitted here for brevity)
- A vehicle that moved at Cruising Speed is hit on 6+ in assault

So, we have two things that assign Cruising Speed to a vehicle (moving 6"-12" and Deep Striking) and two things that use that property of a vehicle (shooting and being assaulted).

So we have multiple relationships that involve Cruising Speed, but we don't have a specific definition in the terms you're looking for -- the rules don't say "Cruising Speed is defined as blah blah blah", they say "blah blah blah grants Cruising Speed" in a couple of places. And there's a pretty important distinction between the two.

pretre wrote:

puma713 wrote:
So, a drop pod that physically moved 0" counts as something that moved 6"-12". The rule says that anything with the potential to "move". Not the potential to "count as moving". No matter what the Drop Pod "counts as", can it move over 6"?

Seriously. Mannahnin has answered this like 3 times. It counts as moving 'Cruising Speed' in deployment, which is the first part of the movement phase. So it has the potential to move at Cruising Speed during any game where it is deployed using Deep Strike.

And Cruising Speed is defined as moving 6-12".

It's the whole crux of like 3 pages of argument. So pardon me for being a little snide in having to repeat it again

MasterSlowPoke wrote:No one is arguing that being immobilized removes the bonus killpoints - it's that a drop pod never has the potential to move more than 6".

Counting as moving cruising speed is not the same as actually moving more than 6".

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Actually, my next argument was going to be that vehicles moving 6" to 12" are moving cruising speed is not commutative. Regardless I don't think it's possible for one of us to convince the other as the rules simply aren't clear enough.

ChrisCP wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because "counts as" means in all respects - "counts as moving at cruising speed" means it HAS moved at cruising speed.

I would like some proof for that statment Nos.
You're turning a 'counts as' into an 'it has actually moved more than 6 inches' I'm pretty sure that's a boo-boo - as you are never told how far a deep striking unit has moved - again - you're making the leap that 'counts as' means I have move more than 6". Proooof.

"A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed." Pg. 57

"In that turn’s Shooting phase, these units can fire (or run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved in the previous Movement phase. Vehicles count as having moved at cruising speed."

In fact they only count as CS for the shooting phase not even the whole turn.

Also you'd have a hard time swallowing someoen telling you 'counts as having assaulted' means they have assaulted.

Yeah, I'm sure we all know how you feel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Drop pods.

I deserved that one. That's the argument, so that doesn't really count now does it?

Sure it does. How far did the Drop pod model actually move? 0". How fast did it go? Cruising speed.

Lowinor wrote:
So we have multiple relationships that involve Cruising Speed, but we don't have a specific definition in the terms you're looking for -- the rules don't say "Cruising Speed is defined as blah blah blah", they say "blah blah blah grants Cruising Speed" in a couple of places. And there's a pretty important distinction between the two.

We'll have to be irreconcilable on this because you don't believe the phrase

'Moving 6 to 12" is moving Cruising Speed' is the same as 'Cruising Speed is moving 6 to 12"' when in the context of the movement rules and I do.

So it comes back to what we've said for 4 pages now. We need a FAQ.

For the love of the Emperor let this thread die.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:
Sure it does. How far did the Drop pod model actually move? 0". How fast did it go? Cruising speed.

GJ. You win. I missed it before.

Seriously though. 2 arguments in this thread.

1) Counts As means it moved >6" for all intents and purposes.

2) Counts As only counts for Shooting and Assault. It didn't actually move.


They haven't changed for 4+ pages, they won't change for 200 more. Although to be fair, I've switched sides of the argument a few times now.

pretre wrote:'Moving 6 to 12" is moving Cruising Speed' is the same as 'Cruising Speed is moving 6 to 12"'

A someone else said, a tiger is a cat, but a cat isn't necessarily a tiger. It's irreconcilable because you don't seem to understand logic.

Lowinor wrote:

pretre wrote:'Moving 6 to 12" is moving Cruising Speed' is the same as 'Cruising Speed is moving 6 to 12"'

A someone else said, a tiger is a cat, but a cat isn't necessarily a tiger. It's irreconcilable because you don't seem to understand logic.

Con-text.

Bonus points for chopping my sentence to take me out of context as well.

pretre wrote:

Lowinor wrote:

pretre wrote:'Moving 6 to 12" is moving Cruising Speed' is the same as 'Cruising Speed is moving 6 to 12"'

A someone else said, a tiger is a cat, but a cat isn't necessarily a tiger. It's irreconcilable because you don't seem to understand logic.

Con-text.

Lo-gic.

Replace every incident of "Cruising Speed" with "cat", and "moving 6"-12"" with "tiger" in the past four pages and you get the exact same argument.

Lowinor wrote:
Replace every incident of "Cruising Speed" with "cat", and "moving 6"-12"" with "tiger" in the past four pages and you get the exact same argument.

Just doesn't work the same. Mostly because the pesky rest of the rules in the Vehicles and Movement section that give context to the phrase 'Tigers is Cats' and explain why it is there.

The phrase 'Moving more than 6 and less than 12 is Cruising Speed' also makes no sense without the context of the Vehicle Section and the BRB to assist it. Although I completely aggree that Mmt6alt12 is CS does not = CS is mmt6alt12 in any other context.

2+2=1 is not true except in the context of quarters and dollars.

BRB wrote:
Vehicles and Movement
The distance a vehicle moves influences the amount of weapons it may fire and how easy a target the vehicle will be if assaulted, as described later.

* A vehicle that remains stationary will be able to bring its full firepower to bear on the enemy.

* A vehicle that travels up to 6" is moving at combat speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly in order to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower.

* A vehicle that travels tiger is cats. This represents the vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible without firing its guns.

I have a very simple solution to the Ard Boyz scenario's. If you don't like the way they are worded don't play in the tournament. And instead of arguing about it just leave it up to your tournament organizer to decide how many kill points your pods are worth. Or here is a shocker just make a list with out them.

wilsmire wrote:I have a very simple solution to the Ard Boyz scenario's. If you don't like the way they are worded don't play in the tournament. And instead of arguing about it just leave it up to your tournament organizer to decide how many kill points your pods are worth. Or here is a shocker just make a list with out them.

Thanks for that. You've been real helpful.

Or we could discuss rules in the You Make Da Call forum.

pretre wrote:Or we could discuss rules in the You Make Da Call forum.

Exactly.

Yea but you all have been saying the same thing over and over for the last 5 pages so I think its apparent you can not make the call.

wilsmire wrote:Yea but you all have been saying the same thing over and over for the last 5 pages so I think its apparent you can not make the call.

Foool!

You know that lame fluff in the BA codex about two sworn enemies uniting to defeat an even greater threat?

Yeah...

Stop trolling us so Lowinor and I can go back to beating each other's faces in.

pretre wrote:The phrase 'Moving more than 6 and less than 12 is Cruising Speed' also makes no sense without the context of the Vehicle Section and the BRB to assist it.

Actually, it does. It pretty clearly states that a vehicle that has moved between 6" and 12" has moved at Cruising Speed. It doesn't define what Cruising Speed is (other than a consequence of moving 6"-12" ), but the rules reference that property elsewhere.

Although I completely aggree that Mmt6alt12 is CS does not = CS is mmt6alt12 in any other context.

But there's nothing in the context that says otherwise. No rules that say to treat the word "is" any differently in that section than any other.

Given the lack of a specific definition of a term, there is no onus to exactly define it based on its first appearance. You're making an inductive leap that there's no reason for -- the rules say 6-12 is Cruising, you're arguing Cruising is 6-12 because you don't see Cruising defined elsewhere.

That's exactly seeing the text "tigers are cats" and arguing "cats are tigers" because you don't have another definition of cats.

Lowinor wrote:

That's exactly seeing the text "tigers are cats" and arguing "cats are tigers" because you don't have another definition of cats.

Exactly. In fact if the only place we saw the word Cats used was in the phase 'Tigers are cats' in the section of the Tiger book called 'Defining what Tigers are', we could pretty safely assume that Cats had a lot to do with Tigers.

Btw, I hate Pika for using the Cats/Tigers thing.

pretre wrote:Stop trolling us so Lowinor and I can go back to beating each other's faces in.

I was not trying to troll I was just offering another point. And with that said I will not say anything else and just watch until your fingers turn to bloody pulps or someone has some real info to give.

pretre wrote:Exactly. In fact if the only place we saw the word Cats used was in the phase 'Tigers are cats' in the section of the Tiger book called 'Defining what Tigers are', we could pretty safely assume that Cats had a lot to do with Tigers.

Then we have a fundamental, irreconcilable break; you claim that (p -> q) -> (q -> p) for some situations (i.e., the above -- p is "something is a tiger", q is "something is a cat", p -> q is "tigers are cats", q -> p is "cats are tigers" ).

(p -> q) -> (q -> p) is, not only mathematically wrong, but it's the logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.

The core problem is "safely assume" is not logical.

Btw, I hate Pika for using the Cats/Tigers thing.

We can do quarterbacks are athletes if you prefer


Edit -

Stop trolling us so Lowinor and I can go back to beating each other's faces in.

Also, sigged.

The tigers and cats argument (I usually use dogs and collies, but YMMV) is dependent on their being identifying characteristics by which one can distinguish between the larger category and the smaller sub-set.

In the 40k rules, there are no kinds of Cruising Speed which are not moving 6-12”. So vehicles moving 6-12” cannot be a smaller sub-set of the larger cruising speed category. The two are synonymous. If all the cats other than tigers in the world went extinct, one could rightly infer that any given cat presently under discussion must be a tiger.

Lowinor wrote:
it's the logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.

Aha. I just took a class in Logic!


Cases where affirming the consequent is valid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent wrote:

This is also the case for definitions. For example.

If a man is a bachelor, then he's an unmarried male
John is an unmarried male.
Therefore, John is a bachelor.

In everyday discourse, however, such cases are rare...

Affirming the consequent can be correct in definitions, which from the context of the Vehicles and Movements section, these bullets are.

Mannahnin wrote:The tigers and cats argument (I usually use dogs and collies, but YMMV) is dependent on their being identifying characteristics by which one can distinguish between the larger category and the smaller sub-set.

That's not how it works.

The tigers/cats arguments works because it's a clear example of phrasing something in the form X is/are Y and demonstrating that Y is/are X is not also necessarily true; this is not a property of the groups tigers and cats, but instead a property of logic (and, really, the word "is" or "are" and the fact that they both differentiate the subject from the object).

X is Y, therefore Y is X is pretty much the definition of the affirming the consequent fallacy.

There's a brief discussion of the fallacy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

In the 40k rules, there are no kinds of Cruising Speed which are not moving 6-12”.

This is irrelevant and not strictly true as Deep Strike causes Cruising Speed as well.

So vehicles moving 6-12” cannot be a smaller sub-set of the larger cruising speed category. The two are synonymous.

This is an invalid inductive leap; there are no rules which state this. It's basically a rephrasing of the affirming the consequent fallacy; you're given p -> q, and assuming that without any other information about q, that q -> p also holds.

I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but the reason that the formal logical fallacies have names is because they come up a lot, and they come up a lot largely because the logical errors they're based off of aren't necessarily intuitive and are often subtle.

If all the cats other than tigers in the world went extinct, one could rightly infer that any given cat presently under discussion must be a tiger.

But then we'd need more data than p -> q, and that's all the rules give us.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:Affirming the consequent can be correct in definitions, which from the context of the Vehicles and Movements section, these bullets are.

Except there's no reason to determine it a definition. In the non-fallacious form you quote, for it to be non-fallacious there has to be an external definition of one of the terms, which we lack.

Lowinor wrote:Except there's no reason to determine it a definition. In the non-fallacious form you quote, for it to be non-fallacious there has to be an external definition of one of the terms, which we lack.

No, in the example listed on the wiki, Bachelor is defined by just that statement and that is listed as a valid exception to the whole thing.

If a man is a bachelor, then he's an unmarried male
John is an unmarried male.
Therefore, John is a bachelor.

Oh and it is in a Rulebook under the Vehicles and Movement section. Kinda a good reason to think there might be definitions lurking about somewhere.

The drop pod 'counts as' moving at cruising speed.
Cruising speed is when a vehicle moves at least 6" and no more than 12".

The drop pod 'counts as' moving at least 6" and no more than 12".

The 'Ard Boyz scenario states that any vehicle capable of moving more than 6" counts for 3 KP when destroyed.

The drop pod cannot move.
It is not capable of moving at cruising speed.
It is worth only 1 KP normally.


'Counts as' does not mean it invariably is, only that for that turn it arrives it is treated as if it was moving at cruising speed, not that it actually moved or is capable of moving.

I'd likely only play it as being worth 1 KP at all times just to avoid confusion... but from what I can gather from the rules the following is absolute;

> The drop pod cannot move.
> All vehicles capable of moving more than 6" in a single phase are worth 3 KP when destroyed.
> The drop pod therefore is only worth 1 KP rather than 3 because it cannot move at all (therefore does not qualify as "being capable of moving more than 6".

Take these two sentences in context only to themselves;
"John's boat sails the seas."
"John built a boat in order to sail the seas."

#1: The first sentence affirms that John's boat is seaworthy.
#2: The second sentence just tells us that John's boat is intended to go on the water, not that it was in fact sail the seas successfully.

Likewise, the BRB says this regarding cruising speed (please tell me if I didn't paraphrase correctly);
"Any vehicle moving more than 6" and up to 12" is considered to be moving at cruising speed."

The Drop Pod entry says;
"Counts as moving at cruising speed."

So we gather the following;
#1: If a vehicle moves more than 6" and up to 12" it is considered to be moving at cruising speed.
#2: The drop pod counts as moving at cruising speed on the turn it arrives.
#3: There is no definition for any other way to achieve cruising speed.
#4: The drop pod cannot move.
#5: The drop pod never explicitly states that the drop pod achieves cruising speed by movement, only that its arrival makes it count as if it is/was.

Because there is no definitive explanation as to how the drop pod achieves cruising speed, it does not count as being capable of moving more than 6" and up to 12" to qualify as a 3 KP kill.

I'm done for reals now. All you, M.

Well, this has been beat to death.

The real issue here is that the word potential has been used in the mission rules.

Mission rules in this case will trump BRB.

The drop pod never has potential for movement. While it counts as moving it never actually does.

Spoke with some of the trade guys, as to whether this is FAQed; jury is out. They may leave it up to each TO.

The drop pod is a model that effectively moves 0" and counts as moving 6"-12" since that is the definition of cruising.

The guys I spoke to said they are leaning to 1KP for a drop pod since it just sits there waiting to be killed.

They aren't even considering all the things that are being argued. Like I said they are pretty good guys who just want people to have as much fun as possible.

If I have to rely on drop pods to win at round one of 'Ardboyz please some one laugh in my face, call me a sissy girl and tell me to go home and cry on the internet about it. Come on!

Basically if your army uses Drop Pods or Spore Pods or any infantry that can or must Deep Strike (Daemons, Terminators, Grey Knight Teleportation squads - hey, it could happen) or Monoliths, do yourself a favor and call ahead to make sure what the ruling is going to be.

And in the case of Monoliths if someone gives you any of the above argument the next time you want to Deep Strike it, just break the thing over his head. There's not a jury alive that would convict.

*Edit*
I hate being a dumb-arse.
*Edit*

I don't believe I made the case that Spore Pods are vehicles, ever.

Quite right I became all excited and confused making a point that you already knew, that was had no relevance to the point / this actual discussion.

Sorry about that.

Nah it's cool man, my only point with Spore Pods is that, if you accept the argument that cruising speed = a state and not a distance, that Spore Pods and Drop Pods should be treated the same and vice versa.

Yeah gotcha if cruising speed can't be 'granted' then the pod must have moved over 6" and so that means all the other DS goodies have moved over 6".

3KP for deep-striking would be brutal...

Except that is a fallacious statement, as ONLY vehicles are considered to have moved a specific distance -everything else just counts as having "moved", with no further definition.

bhsman - please explain *why* you think infantry and MC (sporepods) deepstriking would be worth 3KP? Some appeal to rules wouldbe useful here, as I have shown repeatedly that they are definitely NOT worth 3KP.

If your say that a DS drop pod has moved over 6" how can you say that aDS squad hasn't done the same?

nosferatu1001 wrote:bhsman - please explain *why* you think infantry and MC (sporepods) deepstriking would be worth 3KP? Some appeal to rules wouldbe useful here, as I have shown repeatedly that they are definitely NOT worth 3KP.

Wait, have you been arguing that they are only 1KP as well this whole time? My point about cruising speed was that it didn't count towards the potential to move 6-12" in a phase, therefore Drop Pods, Monoliths, Spore Pods, Deep-Striking infantry are only worth 1KP.

Gorkamorka wrote:Hint: Spore pods and deep striking infantry don't count as moving cruising speed.

Anything else you feel like pointing out while you're here? Color of the sky, how many hours in the day, the name of the website we're posting on, one only imagines the veritable wealth of information you hold.

bhsman wrote:
Wait, have you been arguing that they are only 1KP as well this whole time? My point about cruising speed was that it didn't count towards the potential to move 6-12" in a phase, therefore Drop Pods, Monoliths, Spore Pods, Deep-Striking infantry are only worth 1KP.

Hint: Spore pods and deep striking infantry don't count as moving cruising speed.

Which really is not relevant, the relevant point is that they deepstrike. The question is "Does a deep striking unit move more than 6"?" The answer is "No, a deepstriking unit just counts as moving it has not actually moved x", in the case of vehicles they count as moving at cruising speed and receive the appropriate penalties/boons."

None of the Chaos players I know field war machines that harness the fell energies of the warp to spew foul corruptions causing madness in the minds of mortal men. They field small models made of plastic.

That being the case, we should probably pause for a moment before making the straight-faced claim that A "counting as" B is different from A actually being B.

GW has stated that they're going to officially clear this up before the tournament. And when they do, I believe that they will rule that Drop Pods are 1 KP. But until then, let's try to avoid waging war on the fundamentals of rules writing in order to shave a few KPs off of our army.

Lets for a minute pretend that there is no 'counts as moving cruising speed' rule, and Drop Pods are just considered as having moved. Lets see what problems that would have led to.

Shooting Phase. Can it fire any weapons? And how many, if it had multiple?

Assault Phase. If it gets assaulted, what do enemy models need to hit it?

Both these situations are handled by the 'counts-as' rule, which is a much easier way of handling it than putting specific rules next to the two problems above. I think that is the only reason the rule is there, the movement distance is irrelevant. All you have to do is think about it, really.

bhsman wrote:Wait, have you been arguing that they are only 1KP as well this whole time? My point about cruising speed was that it didn't count towards the potential to move 6-12" in a phase, therefore Drop Pods, Monoliths, Spore Pods, Deep-Striking infantry are only worth 1KP.

Well - yes. Infantry that DS are only worth 1KP - I said this repeatedly.

The act of deepstriking itself is not what determines that DP and DS monoliths are worth 3KP, it is that they deepstrike *and* are vehicles. AS they are vehicles you *know* they have moved at cruising speed, whereas infantry only "move" - therefore one has moved between 6 and 12" and one hasnt.

Your "therefore" is incorrect - therefore a Drop Pod, DS Monolith are worth 3KP, a non-DS Monolith is worth 1KP and infantry, no matter how they turn up, are also worth 1KP.

bhsman wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:Hint: Spore pods and deep striking infantry don't count as moving cruising speed.

Anything else you feel like pointing out while you're here? Color of the sky, how many hours in the day, the name of the website we're posting on, one only imagines the veritable wealth of information you hold.

Actually, Gorka was correct to point this out - THIS is the reason a DS vehicle is different to infantry, as infantry only "move", not "move at cruising speed".

All of our questions are answered!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/294541.page

^^^Spoilsport

nosferatu1001 wrote:Well - yes. Infantry that DS are only worth 1KP - I said this repeatedly.

The act of deepstriking itself is not what determines that DP and DS monoliths are worth 3KP, it is that they deepstrike *and* are vehicles. AS they are vehicles you *know* they have moved at cruising speed, whereas infantry only "move" - therefore one has moved between 6 and 12" and one hasnt.

Your "therefore" is incorrect - therefore a Drop Pod, DS Monolith are worth 3KP, a non-DS Monolith is worth 1KP and infantry, no matter how they turn up, are also worth 1KP.

You're just going to have to accept that I'm not changing my mind on the 6-12" issue as it stands. Lowinor and I have both given what I feel is strong evidence: "Cruising speed is a state, not a distance; one way it can be achieved is by moving 6-12", but it can also be gained by Deep Striking. Deep Striking alone does not mean, in game terms, that a vehicle has moved or has the potential to move greater than 6"."

If you agree? That's fine, though you should still talk to your tournament organizer if you plan to participate to make sure of how they are running it. Don't agree? Fine, and by all means play it that way. If you want to continue arguing, that too is fine, but the burden of proof does not rest with our side but with yours. Why do you think cruising speed = 6-12"? Give me a reason besides that one line you have from the rulebook, because I know what you think of it, and you know what I think of it. Posting it only means that you've got nothing else to stand on, and by equivocating, you are still just making stuff up.

Also, the reason I keep saying your proposal to deal with the Monolith is silly and dumb isn't because of the KP variable; in fact I could see that working in the rules depending on the unit. But no, the reason I think your Monolith proposal is silly and dumb because, under your reasoning, the Monolith cannot Deep Strike at all.

Duh.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Actually, Gorka was correct to point this out - THIS is the reason a DS vehicle is different to infantry, as infantry only "move", not "move at cruising speed".

Alright, I'll make this simple: if you agree with the argument as laid out by Lowinor and myself, that cruising speed does not necessarily mean you moved 6-12", then treating a spore pod as counting as 1KP for this mission but drop pods as 3KP, then you are hypocritical and probably get off by lighting boxes of kittens on fire.

So there.

A monolith *can* still deepstrike, even if it counts as moving above its maximum move - because it is specifically given an allowance TO deepstrike. Duh.

Yuor "keep it simple" - Except that is not what I am saying, at all. Therefore I am not being hypocritical.

Moving 6"+ makes you 3KP. If you accept that DS vehicles move above 6" when they DS they are worth 3KP. Spore Pods, NOT being vehicles, DO NOT count as moving above 6" and therefore are *never* worth 3KP.

Haha, I like you Nosferatu. You keep the crazy going 24/7. Now can we get a mod to close this thing since the FAQ is now out?

EDIT: Hahaha, jeez man it looks like you didn't even read my post: You have to accept my argument about cruising speed, which you don't, to even be called hypocritical of me. What's hypocritical is your Monolith ruling. A poster who doesn't follow his own rules argument, a shameful poster.

Lowinor wrote:

In the 40k rules, there are no kinds of Cruising Speed which are not moving 6-12”.

This is irrelevant and not strictly true as Deep Strike causes Cruising Speed as well.

That’s circular reasoning. You’re making your conclusion one of your premises.

Lowinor wrote:

So vehicles moving 6-12” cannot be a smaller sub-set of the larger cruising speed category. The two are synonymous.

This is an invalid inductive leap; there are no rules which state this. It's basically a rephrasing of the affirming the consequent fallacy; you're given p -> q, and assuming that without any other information about q, that q -> p also holds.

As Pretre pointed out, page 57 defines the different speeds a vehicle can move. We are given a list of speeds and their definitions. While the phrasing “'Moving more than 6 and less than 12 is Cruising Speed” is basically backwards of what we want, it seems clear to me within the context of the rules on that page and how they are organized that this is intended to be a definition, telling us how to tell that a vehicle is moving at Cruising Speed.

Affirming the consequent doesn’t apply because a) this is a definition, and b) there are no other items which can also fall into the “cruising speed” category, besides vehicles moving over 6”, up to 12”. So the two items are indeed synonymous.

bhsman wrote:Haha, I like you Nosferatu. You keep the crazy going 24/7. Now can we get a mod to close this thing since the FAQ is now out?

EDIT: Hahaha, jeez man it looks like you didn't even read my post: You have to accept my argument about cruising speed, which you don't, to even be called hypocritical of me. What's hypocritical is your Monolith ruling. A poster who doesn't follow his own rules argument, a shameful poster.

BHS, Nos’ arguments in this thread are entirely consistent. The DS rules specify that a vehicle which is Deep Striking counts as moving at Cruising Speed. Other unit types are only considered to be moving, with no indication that they are moving over 6”.

Anyway, since Trade Sales has now done us the favor of fixing the mission, we can all pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves for helping make the issue clear to the organizers, so they did something about it.

Locking thread.