And that's without being Immobilized, right?

See, it isn't the Trukk moving. The Trukk's lost all its wheels, and so can't move. Immobilized. Then it Kareens! out of control when a rocket hits it, or the ammo or fuel in the back explodes, moving it after it's expended all its movement.

...and none of the above is "rules"

As I was pointing out - trying to differentiate between object/player movement and 3rd party moving the object is fine - except there is no 3rd party here

There is no mawloc moving the trukk out the way
There is no lifta droppa moving the trukk out the way.

There is just a rule, of the vehicle, which is trying to get the vehicle to move. And this rule is less specific than the immobilsed rule.

Or rather, equally specific. I don't see anything in the Immobilized rule saying anything about "May not move for any reason, including the effects of Special Rules" anywhere there.

No it says "May not move for the rest of the game."....

ChrisCP wrote:No it says "May not move for the rest of the game."....

If I deep strike a monolith onto it it will move.

Yes it will, "instead move the models the minimum distance necessary to make space for the monolith."
Is quite different from "as far as possible" with a maximum distance of 0".

General Fuct wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:No it says "May not move for the rest of the game."....

If I deep strike a monolith onto it it will move.

Only if you roll a destoryed result. And, also, this is the 3rd party moving the trukk idea, not the object / player moving the trukk. The rules allow the former to move an otherwise immobile object, the latter you must has something specifically overriding the immobilised state.

Which kareen doesnt have.

Been busy for a few days, and will be again, but this thread is still going... wow.

ChrisCP wrote:Yes it will, "instead move the models the minimum distance necessary to make space for the monolith."
Is quite different from "as far as possible" with a maximum distance of 0".

Here is the operative part in that sentence: "move the models", not "the model moves"
For comparison, the Kareen rule says: "move the trukk", not "the trukk moves"

These are orders to the player to move the darn models over there so the game can continue. This isnt movement. There is no 0", there is only upto 3D6" (in this scenario).

There is clearly a link here. Precedent? How can this not make sense?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

General Fuct wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:No it says "May not move for the rest of the game."....

If I deep strike a monolith onto it it will move.

Only if you roll a destoryed result. And, also, this is the 3rd party moving the trukk idea, not the object / player moving the trukk. The rules allow the former to move an otherwise immobile object, the latter you must has something specifically overriding the immobilised state.

Which kareen doesnt have.

Once again, this is a rule in itself. It specifically tells the player to move the model, as we've repeated enough times.
There is no reference in this rule to another rule, and there needs to be none, because it has it's own explicit restrictions (1" away from models & terrain).

As we've said before, because of this same fact, the "as far as possible" in the rule is specific to the 3D6" in the same rule.

As I said earlier, the trukk is still immobilised, but the immobilised state is simply not relevant here. It's that simple.

There are plenty of instances when rules are just plain simple 'not relevant' because they dont apply in that instance.
Example: rules for shooting are irrelevant in assault phase, and so many other examples that i'd basically be repeating most of the rulebook.

Remember this?

time wizard wrote:

plonka2000 wrote: Nothing to do with immobilised at all, as far as I can tell. I'm not ignoring the rule, but it is not relevant.

If you are not applying a rule because you feel it is not relevant, you are indeed ignoring it.

By this example, You and I and everyone else are 'ignoring' shooting rules in the assault phase not because they are not relevant, but because we have all taken upon ourselves to actively 'cheat' by ignoring the rules.

It... is'nt... relevant.
Not all rules apply all the time in every scenario, especially when that scenario is a specific one.

Plonka - so you ignore that the movement rules in the rulebook *also* define that the player is the one moving the model?

Why is this any different? What reason have you got to simply make up a new way of doing things with nothing in the text that tells you to do so?

You are ignoring the movement rules for no good reason. None at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Plonka - so you ignore that the movement rules in the rulebook *also* define that the player is the one moving the model?

Why is this any different? What reason have you got to simply make up a new way of doing things with nothing in the text that tells you to do so?

You are ignoring the movement rules for no good reason. None at all.

I'm not ignoring anything, the rule is still there, and the trukk still cant go 'vroom vroom' and drive away (Unless of course it has Grot Riggers, but we'll come back to that ).

What I have said earlier, is that this is a particular scenario with its own restrictions further to the initial order to the player to move the model. There is no reference (reminder) to another rule, which you earlier claimed, and the trukk's status is still 'immobilised'.

What I am saying is this is:
not the model moving, this is part of the damage chart specifc scenario.

As I said earlier, charts are used in 40k as abstract scenarios for various different parts of the game with their own rules and limitations.
Remember when I made the deepstrike termie example earlier? It was stated that that is not relevant to movement because the model is in reserves, and quite right... but they both use TABLES.

That is the point here, not that reserves somehow have anything to do with movement, which is a strange assumption.

So, once again:

plonka2000 wrote:I dont know what else to say... Someone please disprove these points here and the below statement:
'Ramshackle - Kareen' is a specific rule with explicit restrictions for its own scenario of movement within a table that does not reference any other rule(s).
Immobilised is a general rule with its own restriction(s) on normal movement of a model when it is moving using its own normal means of movement.

The trukk is still immobilised. Move the trukk per the table result 'Kareen'.

The trukk is not moving. It is being moved.

Lastly, I loved this but people seem to have passed over it:

Brother Ramses wrote:You are suddenly paralyzed from the neck down. You cannot move for the rest of your life. A nurse puts you in a wheelchair, and pushes you down to the hospital cafeteria.

You are not moving, you are being moved.

Love it.

So, you still ignore that the rulebook defnies moving models as the model being moved by the player?

This means that Kareen! is STILL a movement. It is still telling you to obey the normal restrictions on movement with *one* additional one, and it is still not possible for a model to move by player / object (as DIFFERENT to a 3rd party object, such as tank shocking a spore pod) when it is immobilised.

You claim is that this is not movement. That claim is false. Prove that this isnt movement, bearing in mind that the rulebook itself tells you that moving the model by the player IS movement, and you have an argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, you still ignore that the rulebook defnies moving models as the model being moved by the player?

No, because models are not magic they dont move on their own. Maybe you hae some of these. Can I have some of your magic models that move themselves?

Lets please rememeber that 40k is a game that is governed by players. There are times when players move models, roll scatter, etc, and there are times when the players act on behalf of the models within their allocations and restrictions according to rules (This is because the rest of us dont have magic models).

Your point is moot.

nosferatu1001 wrote:This means that Kareen! is STILL a movement. It is still telling you to obey the normal restrictions on movement with *one* additional one, and it is still not possible for a model to move by player / object (as DIFFERENT to a 3rd party object, such as tank shocking a spore pod) when it is immobilised.

It is a chart result with its own restrictions, remember?

Oh, wait, there is no remember in that specific rule remember?

nosferatu1001 wrote:You claim is that this is not movement. That claim is false. Prove that this isnt movement, bearing in mind that the rulebook itself tells you that moving the model by the player IS movement, and you have an argument.

I have proved enough times that this is not movement, you have not proved that it is movement, and you have still not proved that the 'immobilised' rule specifically relates to the 'Kareen' rule in any way.

I have shown that it doesnt relate.

This is not meant as an insult, but I think you're stuck in a logic loop...

Hmm, does the fact that the Kareen result is happening out of turn and phase have any effect? If it's in the opponent's shooting phase, in which vehicles cannot move, especially those on the other player's team, wouldn't (theoretically) it's maximum move distance always be 0"?

RAW, though, it doesn't move if immobilised. RAI it explodes in a massively Orky fashion, ideally into a squad of Boyz who then lose 25% of their numbers and run away.

Miraclefish wrote:Hmm, does the fact that the Kareen result is happening out of turn and phase have any effect? If it's in the opponent's shooting phase, in which vehicles cannot move, especially those on the other player's team, wouldn't (theoretically) it's maximum move distance always be 0"?

RAW, though, it doesn't move if immobilised. RAI it explodes in a massively Orky fashion, ideally into a squad of Boyz who then lose 25% of their numbers and run away.

You are correct, sir!

So why is it specifically noted to move 3D6"?
This is because it is it's own rule as part of the Ramshackle Table.

Not movement, model is moved and told to explode.
It does not have a choice in this matter, and equally cannot dispute the movement defined or the explosion.

This is dictated by the Kareen rule, and executed by the player, not on behalf of the model.
Therefore, the models restrictions of movement or fire-safety are not applicable... equally.

plonka2000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, you still ignore that the rulebook defnies moving models as the model being moved by the player?

No, because models are not magic they dont move on their own. Maybe you hae some of these. Can I have some of your magic models that move themselves?

Sigh. Idiotic comments dutifully ignored. Have you read the tenets of YMDC yet? I could mock your position very easily, but I dont.

Apparently you didnt get the point, then. Again

Your contention is that the model is being moved. Actually the model is, like any other model in the game NOT during Mawloc or tank shock, being moved by the player - as a standard movement.

Prove that is ISNT standard movement. You cannot, but keep trying!

plonka2000 wrote:Lets please rememeber that 40k is a game that is governed by players. There are times when players move models, roll scatter, etc, and there are times when the players act on behalf of the models within their allocations and restrictions according to rules (This is because the rest of us dont have magic models).

Your point is moot.

No, it really isnt. Your point is based on the incredibly flawed premise that the vehicle is being moved not by the player, but by Kareen. Except kareen doesnt say that. It really doesnt.

plonka2000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:This means that Kareen! is STILL a movement. It is still telling you to obey the normal restrictions on movement with *one* additional one, and it is still not possible for a model to move by player / object (as DIFFERENT to a 3rd party object, such as tank shocking a spore pod) when it is immobilised.

It is a chart result with its own restrictions, remember?

Oh, wait, there is no remember in that specific rule remember?

why bold "specific", you do realise that is nonsense, yes?

You are mixing up specific > general (and immobilised IS more specific than kareen, proven 3 times already) and your other argument which is that the move isnt, in fact, a move. Despite having no rules argument to back that asinine position up.

You are also, hilariously, claiming that evidence of redundancy is evidence of requirement, unless it has the word "remember" in it. Apparently "remember" is now a key rule term, as decided by you!

plonka2000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You claim is that this is not movement. That claim is false. Prove that this isnt movement, bearing in mind that the rulebook itself tells you that moving the model by the player IS movement, and you have an argument.

I have proved enough times that this is not movement, you have not proved that it is movement, and you have still not proved that the 'immobilised' rule specifically relates to the 'Kareen' rule in any way.

The default is that, when you are told to move, it is movement. I dont have to prove a negative.

And, in case yo umissed it: nothing you have written so far constitutes anything except a wilful blindness to the rules of 40k. SO no, you have not proven anything.

plonka2000 wrote:This is not meant as an insult, but I think you're stuck in a logic loop...

No, you are stuck in a illogic loop - that a "move" is not a "move". good luck with that one.

You can only "be moved" by a third party/object, like a Mawloc or tankshockiong. This is neither. Guess what that means?

0".
0"
0"

nosferatu1001 wrote:

plonka2000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, you still ignore that the rulebook defnies moving models as the model being moved by the player?

No, because models are not magic they dont move on their own. Maybe you hae some of these. Can I have some of your magic models that move themselves?

Sigh. Idiotic comments dutifully ignored. Have you read the tenets of YMDC yet? I could mock your position very easily, but I dont.

Apparently you didnt get the point, then. Again

Your contention is that the model is being moved. Actually the model is, like any other model in the game NOT during Mawloc or tank shock, being moved by the player - as a standard movement.

Prove that is ISNT standard movement. You cannot, but keep trying!

I have read the YMDC, and this is where I think you are apparently confused. I also dont need to prove this to you, this is to others who read this for clarity.
So no, I dont need to 'keep trying' as that would be a pointless and seemingly eternal waste of my time. I have shown, but I have seen little back but denial.

The YMDC states that 40k and real life are not the same. You seem to believe that 'movement is movement is movement is movement' ad nauseam which is correct, in real life, but not in 40k as we all know.
There are often times in 40k when things are moved according to rules and its not 'movement'. This is when players move things according to what the rules telling them to do so. To claim that the models would otherwise calculate their own mishaps, explosions, damage, range, etc is... well... Do you still have those magic models?

If this were to be applied to your logic of thinking, we (Thats we in real life) would often see giant hands (and probably measuring tapes) descend from the sky to rearrange things regularly.
I have not seen any of these things, so this logic is not applied to 40k. Movement is not movement is not movement is not movement. There is a difference with something moving and something being moved by players according to rule scenarios.
Players still move everything, so us even discussing this is really quite silly.

I dont get how you dont get that... But maybe you cant see it like I do because your models apparently move themselves.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

plonka2000 wrote:Lets please rememeber that 40k is a game that is governed by players. There are times when players move models, roll scatter, etc, and there are times when the players act on behalf of the models within their allocations and restrictions according to rules (This is because the rest of us dont have magic models).

Your point is moot.

No, it really isnt. Your point is based on the incredibly flawed premise that the vehicle is being moved not by the player, but by Kareen. Except kareen doesnt say that. It really doesnt.

Kareen says "move the trukk", from the table/chart result that can be got to from any phase of the game.
It is written like this because it is what it is. There are no tricks. A scenario rule, like the Vehicle Damage chart that specifically tells you to apply other rules.
This tells you to apply these rules, there is no reference to anything else.

Scenario:
There is a trukk, with Orks in. Cant think of how many orks, but I'm digressing...
Now this trukk in question has moved its maximum allocation of movement, flat out 18".
In the next players turn, the trukk is then shot at and suffers destroyed result. The specific rule says go to the Ramshackle table.
Rolling on the Ramshackle table results in Kareen. According to your logic, 'movement is movement is movement is movement' so that trukk should not move at all despite the specific rule that it should.
Also, guess what? This particular trukk isnt even immobilised... So why cant it move?

This is where your logic is flawed, because the trukk is moved its full capacity, so cant move any more by your logic even though the rule tells it to.

Flawed, broken, infexible logic. This is again why you appear to be stuck in a logic loop.

On top of that:
-This is outside the movement phase of the trukk
-This is outside the player controlling the trukks turn

How then is this 'movement' by the trukk using its own means, according to rules that immobilised would apply if it was immobilised?

It is not. This is the model being moved by the player as dictated by the Kareen rule in this specific scenario.

It is a specific rule, in that it specifically tells you to ignore the other table and roll the Ramshackle table/chart and apply the result.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

plonka2000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:This means that Kareen! is STILL a movement. It is still telling you to obey the normal restrictions on movement with *one* additional one, and it is still not possible for a model to move by player / object (as DIFFERENT to a 3rd party object, such as tank shocking a spore pod) when it is immobilised.

It is a chart result with its own restrictions, remember?

Oh, wait, there is no remember in that specific rule remember?

why bold "specific", you do realise that is nonsense, yes?

You are mixing up specific > general (and immobilised IS more specific than kareen, proven 3 times already) and your other argument which is that the move isnt, in fact, a move. Despite having no rules argument to back that asinine position up.

You are also, hilariously, claiming that evidence of redundancy is evidence of requirement, unless it has the word "remember" in it. Apparently "remember" is now a key rule term, as decided by you!

I'm doing that because I'm trying to show that this is a specific scenario, which it is, but you dont understand.

It has its own rules, which are not referred or copied (Like the Chaos Lash FAQ rules are a copy of the movement rules, not movement). They are defined.
It's right there how far to move and what to do if you encounter something. There is not any ambiguity, because the Ork FAQ even cleared up what to do if you hit a table edge.

How is this nonsense and how have you 'proven' that immobilised is a specific rule?

Immobilised is a general rule that applies to all vehicle movement allocation.
Kareen is specific to this vehicle in that specific scenario, which the player is specifically told to substitute a chart rule for another chart result.

That's not specific enough?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

plonka2000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You claim is that this is not movement. That claim is false. Prove that this isnt movement, bearing in mind that the rulebook itself tells you that moving the model by the player IS movement, and you have an argument.

I have proved enough times that this is not movement, you have not proved that it is movement, and you have still not proved that the 'immobilised' rule specifically relates to the 'Kareen' rule in any way.

The default is that, when you are told to move, it is movement. I dont have to prove a negative.

And, in case yo umissed it: nothing you have written so far constitutes anything except a wilful blindness to the rules of 40k. SO no, you have not proven anything.

Now you're just trying to hurt my feelings, but 'meh'.

Please quote this specific part of the rulebook where any and all movement involvement by player is apparently contrained to the models allocation of movement and limitations.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

plonka2000 wrote:This is not meant as an insult, but I think you're stuck in a logic loop...

No, you are stuck in a illogic loop - that a "move" is not a "move". good luck with that one.

You can only "be moved" by a third party/object, like a Mawloc or tankshockiong. This is neither. Guess what that means?

0".
0"
0"

Trying to explain this repeatedly is tiring.

What you have described is very static and does not take into account anything I have shown.

I have shown, clearly, why this is what it is.

All I have seen back is reluctance to explain, yet insistence to deny.

The sheer length of this thread and the variety of my posts is proof.
It's all there, in black & white.

Good day, you have failed.

That is another good point. If the Trukk has moved 18" and then gets a Kareen result, the furthest it can move is surely 0"?

The rule says to move it as far as possible, rather than something more useful like 'as far as it is able to move when subject to speed moved last turn, vehicle immobilised results and other factors'.

In light of this, I'd lean towards saying that the Kareen result is independent of all other factors in the game and, when activated, you do what it says regardless of any flags, modifiers and previous actions of the Trukk.

Sigh.

Fair enough. Your blindness to the rules can continue. RAW and RAP are clear, however.

How far is it possible to move a trukk that cannot move? 0"

Plain. Simple. Logically consistent with the rest of 40k, and doesnt involve a wilful misreading of the rules to construe something alien.

I love that you reference the FAQ - that wouldbe the faq that clarified that you still follow the normal movement rules, which is that you dont get to move off the table unless specifically allowed to? Please, that proves your point is WRONG in so many ways...its just laughable really.

The length of your posts, and the invariance of them (your central point remains: an unproven assertion that movement isnt actually movement) proves only one thing, and it isnt that you are right on the rules.

(Oh, and how have i failed? My point isnt to convince you - you are entirely irrelevant. Its to make sure that people dont miscontrue your argument as anything to be taken for actual rules. In tht i have hopefully succeeded.)

To try to shwo your errors in a little more detail:

1) the tenets of YMDC are to not insult people, and provide rules quotes. You've done one and not the other. Twice now.

2) Mishaps arenot 40k movement. That is why you "place" the model on the table. So, your example is, like your argument, flawed.

3) When you are told to move the trukk, you decide this isnt a move but something else? You have no rules basis for this - page and paragraph that tells you this "move" is not a "move" as we know it in 40k, but a speical move where you ignore the rules and use something else? Bare in mind that the FAQ for Orks proves you wrong, I'd avoid referencing it again.

4) Your scenario is....fine, your conclusions arent. Yes, the trukk can move - because it has been told to mveo a set distance, and is not prohibited from moving otherwise.

Your broken understanding of a very simple premise is tiring.

5) Your "on top of that"

Lash is outsiide of the normal movement phase for the affected player, but is still movement - its even outside of the players turn. Counterpoint to your argument, showing that it is not a sufficient condition to prove it is not "movement"

Oh, and just for some more for you - running and assault moves are movement, performed outside of the movement phase, but are all, still, movement.

Your broken logic mmeans they arent.

6) Yes, it specifically tells you to ignore the two single results wrecked and explodes and no other damage table effects, so stop misrepresenting this as something it isnt

Does it tell you to ignore any results already obtained? If Kareen! told you to shoot the trukks bigshoota again, would you claim you could now shoot a destroyed gun?

Your logic is hilariously bad.

You still really truly dont understand what specific means.

Please, go away and look up ATSKNF and compare it to sweeping advance, and maybe, just maybe you can finally understand what "specific" means.

I'm not trying to change your mind - this is a foolish hope to have. I'm just trying to make sure your flawed arguments are clear for everyone else to see.

Plonk it is really a lost cause. Nos took the same stance with trying to justify teleport shunting during the Scout move.

His argument was based on the mechanics of the the teleport shunt telling you that you physically moved the model so therefore it was Movement. He failed to grasp the concept there and even after the FAQ, he now just insists that GW is wrong.

So once again he is not grasping the concept that mechanics of a rule that call for moving a model does not always fulfill the BRB definition for Movement. He insists that any and all movement of a model is Movement which as you point out pretty much goes against he YMDC tenet of applying real world definitions to the rules of World of Warhammer 40k.

its been a lost cause for the last 5 pages...

BR - give it a rest. You know full well GW regularly changes rules and disguises them as a FAQ. Pretending otherwise is laughable, and disingenuous on your part.

Oh, and it has nothing to do with real life. Youre the one who brings flawed real world examples in, not me. Ive quoted from the BRB more than your....contributions have.

This is a move, hence why the Ork FAQ reminds you that normal rules of movement (you cannot move off the table, unless you're specifically allowed to) apply here. Same as Lash is movement.

Dajobe - consistent since page 1, along with the majority who cant see why, when youre told to move something that cannot move, youre claiming this isnt "real" movement. You guys are the lsot cause.

i know you have been consistent since page one, i will give you that, and 5 pages was an estimate, before it turned into Nos vs plonka. I will say here what I have said to my mom, sister, Dad friends, peers all sorts of people (i am sure I am guilty of it as well, as demonstrated by this thread). Not everything is your way or the highway, earlier in this thread I said that there are multiple ways of looking
at this thread, to which (i forget who) someone replied that this thread is trying to figure out what to do when a rule situation arises, and that there can only be one correct answer. I dont believe that is right, and since this thread has gotten NOWHERE since page 1, i'd say that there are 2 ways of looking at it, it all depends on how you think the BRB is worded and your take on what specific is.

sigh...

i am willing to bet that i get a "your stupid for thinking differently than me!" response to this, as i have in the past...

sigh...

i think im starting to catch up on the sighs in this thread, lol

You never got that response, actually.

I can understand why someone may try to read it as not a "normal" move, however at every instance GW have avoided that situation - Lash, the Ork FAq clarifying normal rules still apply, etc. Only something truly out of the ordinary (Mawlocs) break this. On balance given the really epic acrobatics you have to go through to even attempt to justify it Plonkas way - doesnt that tell you something about the rules argument youre going down?

Brother Ramses: Don't be ridiculous. The shunt move discussion is something totally different, and you didn't prove your claim now or then with even one rule. Also note that basically everyone in those discussions agreed how the FAQ would and did turn out.

nos: Every model moving is a player moving a model, but not every time a player moves a model, it's a move done by a model. Just like every duck is a bird, but not every bird is a duck.
So don't brush off that argument just yet. There is also still no proof that forced movements can only be caused by models. You base your point of view on a handful of unproven claims, so no reason to call us a lost cause.

i think its a complicated situation, and i think it all boils down to how an individual defines specific. and yes i did get that response, i dont think it was you, but i did get it.
SEARCHING THROUGH THE THREAD I GO!, if i cant find it, my bad

More like - the only time you have ever had a "be moved" it was from another model, the Mawloc or tank shocking spore mines.

Bookwrack wrote:

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

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

found it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
not that it really has to do with the current arguement...

Missed that one - my bad. However at that point most it-can-move ended up basing it on fluff, saying how orky it would be.

Its just as orky that it tries to explode forwards, but instead throws itslef 40 feet into the air before collapsing into a heap, without havingt moved forwards at all.

I did not think of the 40 feet in the air thing, but that is what the scatter dice is for. a directly on target is like it flew 3D6 feet in the air and landed right where it started or it could get blown away in some random direction by the arrow. But, i dont even know what to think about the topic anymore, both sides have given a convincing arguement and as i said before, for me it comes down to how you read the rules. Even though i rarely play orks, i think in my case, we'll just roll to see what happens.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You never got that response, actually.

I can understand why someone may try to read it as not a "normal" move, however at every instance GW have avoided that situation - Lash, the Ork FAq clarifying normal rules still apply, etc. Only something truly out of the ordinary (Mawlocs) break this. On balance given the really epic acrobatics you have to go through to even attempt to justify it Plonkas way - doesnt that tell you something about the rules argument youre going down?

Look, there's enough stuff in all the various rulebooks and codices that say "using normal ______ rules" or "as per ______ rules" to know that if the Ork FAQ was trying to "clarify" what you're saying, it would say "using normal movement rules".

Anyways, I'm not arguing about this anymore. It's going nowhere. I've discussed this with most people I play with and they agree that an immoblisied Trukk suffering from Kareen would move. Nos, you don't have too I suppose. I feel this needs clarification, in a FAQ or whatever. Saying "no, it just doesn't get over it" or "but you're wrong in the first place" won't make that not true. There's been enough arguement on both sides, whether one wants to believe it or not.

And yes Nos, you have been giving rather rude responses here and there. Calling arguements "laughable" and "hilarious" is uncalled for.

Everyone ive ever played with plays it as the vehicle not moving. EVery single ork player.

However, the wording is the same for all these rules. Ramshackle is a unique rule, as usually vehicles are the most reliable parts of the army. Orks are a unique army, with almost every second rule having the possibility of going bad, including Kareen!. Just because it's unique in causing forced movement onto itself, it isn't forced movement anymore?

Also if it isn't forced movement done by the player, why is it only limited by immobilized, and not disembarking and maximum movement speed?

Also note that the Ork FAQ predated the BRB FAQ introducing the "can't move of the table"-rule. One of my LFGS actually played it as destroying models tankshocking, hit&running or otherwise speeding off the table by accident. So the Ork FAQ actually did add something to the usual movement rules. It simply was unclear what happens when flying into friendly models or off the table before. I've also heard of it passing through friendly models as well as tankshocking them before the FAQ.

I'd also appreciate an actual response to my arguments rather than a more nicely worded "don't be silly".

Kareen! has the same wording as Lash - and lash is movement.

The BRB FAQ of "no moving off the table" wasnt a new rule - you were never allowed to move off the table, unless you were falling back or had another special rule allowing you to. So you never had permission to move off the table, therefore never could.

Lash has almost completely been replaced by a FAQ, it isn't really an example. That would be like using Nemesis Falchions as precedent for Mork's Teeth, which iirc we both agreed on that RAW was +2A.
Still, it describes a forced move with almost all limitations of a regular move. This does not necessarily make it a regular move, and much less does it make all forced moves regular moves.

Sure, you didn't have permission to move off the table freely back then. But what if a model did have to move off the table? While the rule of the LFGS might border a house rule, it's not that far fetched.

Jidmah wrote:Brother Ramses: Don't be ridiculous. The shunt move discussion is something totally different, and you didn't prove your claim now or then with even one rule. Also note that basically everyone in those discussions agreed how the FAQ would and did turn out.

nos: Every model moving is a player moving a model, but not every time a player moves a model, it's a move done by a model. Just like every duck is a bird, but not every bird is a duck.
So don't brush off that argument just yet. There is also still no proof that forced movements can only be caused by models. You base your point of view on a handful of unproven claims, so no reason to call us a lost cause.

It is the same argument.

Both you and Nos were claiming that because the mechanics of a teleport shunt involved physically moving the model, that it was normal movement and could be done during the Scout Move. Now Nos is claiming that because the mechanics of Kareen physically move the model, it is normal movement and does not override an Immobilized result.

And my point with teleport was right on. I told you that it wasn't normal movement because it was done instead of moving and would not be allowed to be done during the Scout move unless specified by a FAQ like smoke launchers. The FAQ that was released did not allow it thus clarifying that it isn't normal movement as the both of you claimed.

I am actually suprised to see you acknowledging the 3d6 Kareen movement as a rules mechanic and not Movement when you could not acknowledge the 30" movement of a Teleport Shunt as a rule mechanic and not Movement.

Miraclefish wrote:That is another good point. If the Trukk has moved 18" and then gets a Kareen result, the furthest it can move is surely 0"?

The rule says to move it as far as possible, rather than something more useful like 'as far as it is able to move when subject to speed moved last turn, vehicle immobilised results and other factors'.

In light of this, I'd lean towards saying that the Kareen result is independent of all other factors in the game and, when activated, you do what it says regardless of any flags, modifiers and previous actions of the Trukk.

Bold added. This neatly sums up any objection about a vehicle being moved during the Kareem result. Slam Dunk.

Well, yes. It sums up all the objections.

That doesn't mean all those objections are necessarily correct.

BR - no, the claim that it was movement is that it states, 3 times, that it is a move. It was fairly clear. GW, from a balance perspective mainly, ignored their own precedent and ruled against it. Doesnt change the rules however.

I must say that it seems if this problem ever arises in a game I will propose a roll of as somebody suggested here. 1-3 the trukk will sit where it is 4-6 a rolling fireball of debris.

Ramses: You fail to understand my argument, and basically your own too. Even by my argument, the distinction between a model moving and a model being moved, shunt would still be a move done by the model, because first, it is worded that way, and second, it even explicitly says so. Don't compare apples to oranges.

You also shouldn't argue stuff that has already been ruled by GW. Nobody cares who was right before, unless you are in need for a confirmation to boost your ego.

So how far does a Trukk rolling a total of 11" on a Kareen result move after having moved the full flat out 18" in its turn?

Miraclefish wrote:So how far does a Trukk rolling a total of 11" on a Kareen result move after having moved the full flat out 18" in its turn?

That's an easy one. It moves 11".

it is easy because you guys want the rules to favor how you read it. A trukk can never move past 18" inches unless on the road ? Max 24 right ? But when you have to roll Kereem you get to move up to 18" move. My point is that because the rule for Ramshackle tell you to move 3d6 you are able to move again when you are not allowed to move again. The it tell you to get out too. ( Miraclefish ) is saying the same thing. How can you read the rule one way but not the other way >?

jordan23ryan wrote:it is easy because you guys want the rules to favor how you read it. A trukk can never move past 18" inches unless on the road ? Max 24 right ? But when you have to roll Kereem you get to move up to 18" move. My point is that because the rule for Ramshackle tell you to move 3d6 you are able to move again when you are not allowed to move again. The it tell you to get out too. ( Miraclefish ) is saying the same thing. How can you read the rule one way but not the other way >?

Look at the "Moving Fast Vehicles" section on page 70. It says, "A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18"."
Nowhere in there does it say that a fast vehicle can never move past 18".
It just can't be moved farther in that movement phase.
Same with passengers in a vehicle that moved flat out. They can't embark or disembark that Movement phase.
So in the next player turn, the vehicle can move due to a kareen result (unless stunned or immobilized) and the passengers can be forced to disembark.

Yes it does. It tells you that 12 is the Max and then you get to fast and it tells you they have a extra gear to move up to 18. PAGE 57 is what you want to read. If you listen to nosferatu1001 then there is no way to move anymore, Hell since Red Paint Job does not state that it overrides the Movement it only states you add to your movement then that is not a real rule and you should not be able to use it since it does not override a USR ? The hypocrisy is getting out of control.

jordan23ryan wrote:Yes it does. It tells you that 12 is the Max and then you get to fast and it tells you they have a extra gear to move up to 18. PAGE 57 is what you want to read. If you listen to nosferatu1001 then there is no way to move anymore, Hell since Red Paint Job does not state that it overrides the Movement it only states you add to your movement then that is not a real rule and you should not be able to use it since it does not override a USR ? The hypocrisy is getting out of control.

Well it seems you are getting voluntary and compulsory movement mixed up.

With you moving the vehicle 18" in the movement phase that is voluntary movement.

The 3D6 from Kareen is compulsory movement so it is not limited to the maximum voluntary movement speed of the vehicle.

Neither of which can take place if the vehicle is immobile since the vehicle can not move for the rest of the game.

Its like regular infantry move 6" in the movement phase, but when falling back they move 2D6 (That is a Max move of 12") and can travel more than 6" because of the falling back rules.

Can you quote rules to proof your claim?

jordan23ryan wrote:Yes it does. It tells you that 12 is the Max and then you get to fast and it tells you they have a extra gear to move up to 18. PAGE 57 is what you want to read.

Page 57 says nothing about any "extra gears".
Page 70 is the page that talks about fast vehicles and moving flat out,
And you might want to look at page 11 regrding random and compulsory movement.

So, how about kareening after moving and disembarking units?

jordan23ryan wrote:Yes it does. It tells you that 12 is the Max and then you get to fast and it tells you they have a extra gear to move up to 18. PAGE 57 is what you want to read. If you listen to nosferatu1001 then there is no way to move anymore, Hell since Red Paint Job does not state that it overrides the Movement it only states you add to your movement then that is not a real rule and you should not be able to use it since it does not override a USR ? The hypocrisy is getting out of control.

Seriously, please quote a rule, just once. Please.

No hypocrisy.

You cannot move, ever, while immobilised.

The maximum you can choose to move a trukk is 18". Is kareen a choice? No. Is a rule limitiing you to a specific distance when choosing to move applicable to a compulsory move? No

No hypocrisy, just applyhing the right rules in the right situations. You know, all of them, not just the ones you like.

The kareen rule says if kareen happens "The Shot" moves the truck 3d6. So under the rules that an immobilized vehicle cannot move is true. The shot affecting the vehicle moves it, so IMO the truck follows the Kareen rule and moves the 3d6.

I agree, Immobilised trukks can move as far as 0'' Though I think its lame its the rule. Its hazy on both sides of the argument but less hazy on this side.

time wizard wrote:

jordan23ryan wrote:Yes it does. It tells you that 12 is the Max and then you get to fast and it tells you they have a extra gear to move up to 18. PAGE 57 is what you want to read.

Page 57 says nothing about any "extra gears".
Page 70 is the page that talks about fast vehicles and moving flat out,
And you might want to look at page 11 regrding random and compulsory movement.

There is a Important Paragraph you need to read then the Rules might make since to you for Vehicles... Here is the Very first Paragraph for Vehicles. Did you not read the part where I put " then you get to fast" I was meaning Fast Vehicles. I should have made it very clear. I am typing as if everyone knows the rules. Sorry i will Be more clear for the people who dont know the rules.



The first part of this section presents the rules
common to all vehicles. Each of the vehicle types
has a separate entry at the back of the vehicle
section, listing their unique rules and the
exceptions to the normal vehicle rules (walkers
being by far the most different).

Just throwing this in there....

Type

Vehicles come in all sorts of different types, some
are faster than others while some are able to fly or
walk instead of driving along on wheels or tracks.
The different types are Fast, Tank, Open-topped,
Skimmer and Walker. These traits can be combined
to define, for example, a Fast Skimmer or an
Open-topped Walker, in which case the vehicle has
all of the rules for all of its types

nosferatu1001 last time I quoted a Rule you said I was using a illegal copy of the BRB codex. Man you are Picky ! I will do this for you again. So have fun picking it apart.

Unless differently specified, vehicles can either
remain stationary or move at one of two different
speeds – Combat Speed and Cruising Speed.

The speed at which 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 moves at Combat Speed if it moves up to 6". This represents the vehicle advancing slowly in order to keep firing, albeit with a reduced
firepower.

A vehicle moves at Cruising Speed if it moves more
than 6" and up to 12". This represents the vehicle
concentrating on moving as fast as possible
without firing its guns.

Moving a maximum of 12" may seem relatively
slow for a vehicle, but it represents a cross-country
speed rather than moving flat out on a road

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". This
represents the vehicle moving at top speed,
without firing its guns (in the same way as a non-
fast vehicle would when moving at Cruising
Speed)

ROADS

Vehicles – with the exception of walkers and
skimmers – that follow a road for their entire
Movement phase (including entering along it
if coming from reserve) may move up to
double their maximum speed, but only if they
do not do anything else that turn. They do
not gain this benefit if any of the following
apply: Difficult Terrain tests, shooting,
embark or disembark passengers, or the use
of any vehicle upgrades (such as smoke
launchers or searchlights). In essence, the
vehicle must concentrate on moving down
the road and nothing else.


So can we Agree that fast vehicles can move up to 18" and 24" on the road. You can not move any further. This rules does not state in the movement phase nor any other. Lets go back to a trukk moving 25" "RPJ" and then getting a Kareem later in the Shooting phase. I then roll 18". The question i have is How can i move 18" more if i have already move 25" ?

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


Ramshackle does not state anything about overriding the movement, only the wrecked or Destroyed ? Before I go any further.......... is this right ?

#1 Dont block quote rules. Read the rules of the forum.
#2 if you are going to block quote from a PDF, at least put it within quote tags and remove the extra carriage returns, so it doesnt take up a whole page of one thin column
#3 you seem to have missed that kareen is a compulsory and not voluntary action. Voluntary movement is what you have just described, and kareen is not voluntary.

nosferatu1001 wrote:#1 Dont block quote rules. Read the rules of the forum.
#2 if you are going to block quote from a PDF, at least put it within quote tags and remove the extra carriage returns, so it doesnt take up a whole page of one thin column
#3 you seem to have missed that kareen is a compulsory and not voluntary action. Voluntary movement is what you have just described, and kareen is not voluntary.

First, I did this from my word Doc that i have of the BRB. If i stated something wrong , point it out. Stop being a sissy and hiding behind your # 1 and # 2 answers. Mind Your Business. I know the rules and have talked to a Mod about this already. I put it this way so everyone can read and have there own opinion about this and it is clear since it is broke down.

Just like i thought. You makeno damn since. You know the answer to the question i had. You don't want to come right out and say it. At least you are saying that Kereen is a Rule. You already stated that special rules do not override USR or rules unless they state it otherwise. Kareen does not talk about movement. If you want to say that it is not voluntary action then there are a few people here that say since that would be the case, you would then Move 3d6 since the trukk is moving on its own. So which is it ?

Sorry, struggling with that paragraph here.

I have never, ever, ever denied that Kareen! is a rule. Stop suggesting otherwise. Its not only a ridiculous position for you to suggest, it also makes your argument weaker.

Secondly, enough with the false dichotomy. Seriously.

I have said that specific overrides general. Normal movement is voluntary, so a compulsion to move would override a normal restriction on voluntary movement.

Immobilised stops all forms of movement by the trukk, compulsory or not.

Finally - yes, Kareen talks about movement. Hint: the word "move" is used.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Finally - yes, Kareen talks about movement. Hint: the word "move" is used.

You are right, the rule does state that there is movement. Immobilized is a Rule and Ramshackle is a More Specific rule. You just stated that.

I have said that specific overrides general. Normal movement is voluntary, so a compulsion to move would override a normal restriction on voluntary movement or involuntary

I added or involuntary since the rules don't say or suggest there is a deference. If I am wrong please point this out to me.

Ramshackle is a More specific rule and it tells you to Move if you roll Kereem. So why can a rule that is more specific not move you when the rule does have movement in it? Why would this not override immobilized ? You have Rule vs Rule but one is more Specific and seems to me like a Special rule would win this battle ?

So can we Agree that fast vehicles can move up to 18" and 24" on the road. You can not move any further. This rules does not state in the movement phase nor any other. Lets go back to a trukk moving 25" "RPJ" and then getting a Kareem later in the Shooting phase. I then roll 18". The question i have is How can i move 18" more if i have already move 25" ?

The answer to this would be, A Rule that is More Specific lets you move again. Special is the same as Specific.

No, kareen is a less specific rule. We've been over this. I've shown how it is less specific, you keep asserting it isnt. One is a gooda rgument, the other isnt.

Stop talking about "special" as if it means anything. It doesnt. An immobilised trukk suffering kareen is more specific than a trukk suffering kareen. Done.

Special /= specific. Thats an inane attempt at conflating two terms. Dont.

You have you own idea how it works. You really have not proved anything to anyone but to yourself how you seem to pick or choose what is more specific.

I see it the other way. I dont see how Kareem is less specific when in the rule itself, Ramshackle is more specific. It covers movement and Destroyed or Wrecked.

Yet says nothing about immobilised. Not. One. Jot.

You have yet to show any reasoned argument why Kareen is more specific, apart from trying to claim that "special" is the same as "specific". Which it isnt.

The rules tells you to Move, not if you wanna move you can.

It says Move 3d6. Not you may not move 3d6 because you trukk is immobilized.

As far as Possible , means as far as possible as long as you don't run into area terrain or other models. It does not state anything about Immobilized? Can you show me where it says this ?

Sigh. Do you just not bother reading the posts? Note where I state that the lack of "move, even if immobilised" means it is NOT specific enough to override immobilised?

You are told you cannot do some thing (move when immobilised)
You need to be told you can do something in order to override this (needs to say "yes, even if you're immobilised")

Seriously, after 13 pages you're still trying this? Can you, for once, cite some actual rules?

You are siting any rules at all. You are siting opinions based on what you have read.

Where in the rules does it state that i have to be told to do something to override ? Page please so i can read it..... please !

Here is a Rule.

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


What so hard about the rule that tells you to do something and when not too ! Move the trukk 3d6 as far as possible unless one of these other things happen like running into enemy models or terrain.

No, I AM citing rules, and have done since the start. It is also entirely logically consistent and doesnt require assuming they didnt REALLY mean "move" when they wrote "move"

Clearly you just dont understand what specific > general actually means. Truly.

Go, have a read of Sweeping Advance. Then, read And They Shall Know No Fear. Note what "specific" truly means in this ruleset.

I'm done here. "move" and "as far as possible" all tell you that an immobilised trukk isnt going anywhere. 13 pages of no new rules to contradict this shows this plain and simply.

You have not proved me wrong yet. Give me some page numbers. If you can show me where in the rules it states what you are saying i will agree but i don't think you can. you are not siting rules but interpretation of the rules you have read. when i post a rule as written in the BRB and give page numbers, you say I am not siting any rules.


Please again show me where it says what you are referring too.


GW does not use the same writers for all of there books. This guys made it clear. Not all the Codexes out there are this black and white. Just because you can pick a rule out like this does not mean anything. I am sure I can go to a faq and show this does not always work the same way. I will for you !

Go, have a read of Sweeping Advance. Then, read And They Shall Know No Fear. Note what "specific" truly means in this ruleset.

Here is" And they shall know fear"
Space Marines automatically pass tests to regroup, and can take such tests even if the squad has been reduced to less than half strength by casualties, though all other criteria
apply. Usually troops that regroup cannot move normally and always count as moving whether they do or not, but these restrictions do not apply to models subject to this special
rule. If Space Marines are caught by a sweeping advance, they are not destroyed and will instead continue to fight normally. If this happens then the unit is subject to the No
Retreat! rule in this round of close combat and might therefore suffer additional casualties.Units which include Servitors are still subject to this rule, providing that the unit contains at least one Space Marine.

SWEEPING ADVANCES

When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance, attempting to cut down the retreating enemies.

If the victor has models still engaged in combat with other units that are not falling back, the victors do not get a chance to execute a sweeping advance and the retreating enemy falls back safely

You (and others) have shown, Jordan23, many examples of "immobilized" items beeing moved in 40K. It does happen. Kareem (In My Opinion) is one of those instances.

It will take a black and white FAQ to finally settle this for some of those who have posted in this thread.

I would agree, It needs to be and to bad there is not away to get a lot of these items looked at and FAQ'ed faster. I think GW does a lot of this crap on purpose.

jordan23ryan wrote:I think GW does a lot of this crap on purpose.

On purpose to annoy you? or on purpose because 99.9% of people play the rule as it is written?

Jordan - now you've got both rules, do you see where ATSKNF *specifies* trhat is works against Sweeping Advance?

That is an example of specific > general.

Now show, finally, where Kareen SPECIFICALLY overrides Immobilised. AS in, where Kareen states "move the model, even if the model is immobilised"

Oh wait, you cant. Kareen is NOT more specific than Immobilised.

You're done.

I think after 13 pages, with, if we're honest, pretty much just the same points being hammered back and forth, we are all done.

.. least we can agree on that eh ? [/optimism]