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

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.