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.

Monster Rain wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:You say "we know the vehicle has remained stationary". The vehicle hasn't had a turn, it's had no opportunity to move yet - it's speed is unknown.

Actually, it's speed is zero. It hasn't moved.

It hasn't been stationary either.

The vehicle has not had a turn in which to stay stationary, ergo it has not not moved. Not not moved is a double negative, so therefor it has moved.

How far has it moved? That is unknown, therefor it is unknown.

Most people play it as staying stationary regardless

It never moves in the opponents turn - does that mean it's speed is always zero in the opponents turn? No, it's speed is defined by it's movement in it's own turn. Since it hasn't has a turn yet it's speed is unknown.

What was it's speed last turn?

Its speed last turn is unknown....therefore it most vertainly was NOT stationary last turn. And since it had to be stationary last turn in order to be auto hit, that criteria has not been met. Its obvious that none of the three criteria to hit a vehicle have been met, so we either need to develop a house rule or else not allow vehciles to be hit in cc the first turn.

Because the vehicle hasnt had a turn to move, some people are very adamant about the only possible house rule that can be allowed is an auto hit.

Never mind the fluff idea that many battles are metting engagements, with the two armies attacking each other as they come into sight. Never mind the simple fact that at least one of the two armies HAD to approach th other in the very recent past. The only fluff they want to consider is thweir own version of the fluff.

Now as to interpretations of what actually physically happened on the table prior to the first turn....no, the units have not been there since the start of the game stationary.

Before the game begins, the game board is empty. The units are not set up by the TO for the players, the players physically move the units onto the table during deployment. So wow, how about that...the units have indeed been moved just before the game begins. Did they make a regular movement turn? No, but they werent stationary either. So by the physical reality of what has happened so far none of the criteria are met either.



It really does come down to trying to make a house rule that feels good, because none of the various choices have any better claim in reality.

Except perhaps that vehicles that have had a scout move have a better claim to 4+ or 6+ than anything else.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Its speed last turn is unknown....therefore it most vertainly was NOT stationary last turn. And since it had to be stationary last turn in order to be auto hit, that criteria has not been met. Its obvious that none of the three criteria to hit a vehicle have been met, so we either need to develop a house rule or else not allow vehciles to be hit in cc the first turn.

Because the vehicle hasnt had a turn to move, some people are very adamant about the only possible house rule that can be allowed is an auto hit.

Again, you're using an "Argument from Ignorance" to prove your point. The reason we're saying that is had remained stationary - no matter whether or not there has been a previous turn or not - is becuase no tape measure has been laid down, the player has not touched his model to move it. It physically has not been moved. Empirical evidence suggests that it has remained stationary, not that it has moved.

Sliggoth wrote:Never mind the fluff idea that many battles are metting engagements, with the two armies attacking each other as they come into sight. Never mind the simple fact that at least one of the two armies HAD to approach th other in the very recent past. The only fluff they want to consider is thweir own version of the fluff.

Exactly. Never use the fluff to justify a RAW reading. Whether it proves your case or doesn't. We've ignored the fluff because you're trying to take a pure RAW reading (asserting the fact that there has been no previous turn, etc.) and then trying to use fluff to also justify it.

Sliggoth wrote:Now as to interpretations of what actually physically happened on the table prior to the first turn....no, the units have not been there since the start of the game stationary.

Before the game begins, the game board is empty. The units are not set up by the TO for the players, the players physically move the units onto the table during deployment. So wow, how about that...the units have indeed been moved just before the game begins. Did they make a regular movement turn? No, but they werent stationary either. So by the physical reality of what has happened so far none of the criteria are met either.

So, again, you're calling deployment movement? Then let's start talking about taking dangerous terrain tests, let's talk about how exactly your devastators are making it to the top of that building, let's talk about all sorts of other sticky situations when deployment is considered movement. It's not. Your model's didn't move. They were placed. You're starting to take one definition of movement and trade it out with another to fit your argument. That's a sign that your argument is falling apart.

If one would actualy read what I said, then one would realize that no, Im not calling deployment movement in the rule sense of the word. But if we go by the rules, then vehicles are immune to cc on the first turn of the game, they cannot be hit.

So we are into the realm of making a house rule....and im suggesting that the idea that vehicles were stationary since before the game began is simply not true. The vehicles werent on the game table when the game began. We have several stages of the game before the vehciles appear on the game table, so Im saying that in a real physical sense the vehicles havent been sitting there since before the game began.

To remain stationary means both that the model not be moved (ie had a movement phase) AND that it not have been moved by some other agency. Yes, vehicles that are moved by an incoming Mawloc arent stationary...one does understand that its possible to be moved while not actually move via the movement rules?

So no, stationary is not the same as not having had a movement phase.


Sliggoth

Monster Rain wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:You say "we know the vehicle has remained stationary". The vehicle hasn't had a turn, it's had no opportunity to move yet - it's speed is unknown.

Actually, it's speed is zero. It hasn't moved.

No, it's speed is undefined.

I don't know why people keep arguing this. The rule asks for how far did it move in the PREVIOUS MOVEMENT PHASE.

On turn 1, there was no previous movement phase, therefore there is no value assigned to that condition. Lack of information does not equal zero.

As stated, the game breaks, and anything used is a house rule. Not sure why there is any discussion beyond that point.

Monster Rain wrote:
Because we've already explained our positions, and our conclusions are different from each others' we should explain our positions again? Do you enjoy circular arguments that much?

You repeat over and over again that you have already shown your point. Another sure sign that you have no point.

puma713 wrote:
Except our point-of-view actually has bearing. The vehicle has not physically moved. It has been in the same position the entire game. There's no way to twist that. It hasn't moved. That's all we need for our side of the argument to validate itself. You ask, why do you see it this way? That is why. The vehicle hasn't moved. No matter what kind of fluff you give it, no matter what sort of twisting you try to do - the vehicle was stationary since the game began. Has the little model rhino moved since where you put it at deployment? No? Is it fair to say that it hasn't moved, then? I would think so.

This might actually matter if you change the rules.

puma713 wrote:In our case, we -know- the vehicle has remained stationary. Why? Because it hasn't moved. The game just began. Physically, all semantics aside, the model hasn't been moved.

You are either lying or intentionally messing around with context. We know this just as much as we know the vehicle has moved.

Monster Rain wrote:
Actually, it's speed is zero. It hasn't moved.

This is based on what, exactly? Are you changing the context so that "last turn" means "the start of the game"?

puma713 wrote:
For your assumption to work, you have to know that the vehicle has not remained stationary and there is nothing that backs that up. There is nothing to suggest that it has not remained stationary, whereas there is evidence that it has not moved (the lack of it actually being moved).

This is just ridiculous. I have NEVER used any kind of assumption like this, it was all you. Your second sentence is incredibly circular. Your evidence for it being stationary is that it has not moved, while your evidence for it not having moved is that we do not know it has moved. Therefore, you assume it was stationary because we cannot say with certainty that it has moved. I showed why the exact opposite would be equally valid.

puma713 wrote:When something cannot be proven false, it automatically makes it true.

This has to be one of the dumbest logic statements I have ever heard. Note that I only used this to humor you after you used it.

puma713 wrote:
When something cannot be proven false, it automatically makes it true.

Lolwut?

If you're writing up a truth table for an assertion, actually, the OPPOSITE is true. If a statement cannot be proven true, it is automatically false.

EDIT: Ah, this was an example. Never mind me.

thebetter1 wrote:

puma713 wrote:
Except our point-of-view actually has bearing. The vehicle has not physically moved. It has been in the same position the entire game. There's no way to twist that. It hasn't moved. That's all we need for our side of the argument to validate itself. You ask, why do you see it this way? That is why. The vehicle hasn't moved. No matter what kind of fluff you give it, no matter what sort of twisting you try to do - the vehicle was stationary since the game began. Has the little model rhino moved since where you put it at deployment? No? Is it fair to say that it hasn't moved, then? I would think so.

This might actually matter if you change the rules.

Okay. Explain.

thebetter1 wrote:

puma713 wrote:In our case, we -know- the vehicle has remained stationary. Why? Because it hasn't moved. The game just began. Physically, all semantics aside, the model hasn't been moved.

You are either lying or intentionally messing around with context. We know this just as much as we know the vehicle has moved.

No, we don't know that the vehicle has moved. You're using the "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy (explained below). You're saying that since we don't know something to be false, it must be true. Whereas we have empirical evidence that something is true. I mean, if you're not going off of empirical evidence and nothing else tells you that something has moved, then you have to assume something has moved to make it non-stationary. We're basing rules off of assumptions now rather than what we can see and what is placed in front of us and told to us?

What would happen if you asked your opponent just as the game began how far his vehicles had moved? What would he say? Since he hasn't moved them at all, would he say, "Well, I don't know, the game just started." Or would he say, "The game just started, they haven't moved at all." And look at you funny?

thebetter1 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
Actually, it's speed is zero. It hasn't moved.

This is based on what, exactly? Are you changing the context so that "last turn" means "the start of the game"?

Based on the fact that a movement hasn't been measured. There was no movement measured, therefore, it hasn't moved. You're saying that, since we don't know that it hasn't moved, it must have moved, which is a logical fallacy.

thebetter1 wrote:

puma713 wrote:
For your assumption to work, you have to know that the vehicle has not remained stationary and there is nothing that backs that up. There is nothing to suggest that it has not remained stationary, whereas there is evidence that it has not moved (the lack of it actually being moved).

This is just ridiculous. I have NEVER used any kind of assumption like this, it was all you. Your second sentence is incredibly circular. Your evidence for it being stationary is that it has not moved, while your evidence for it not having moved is that we do not know it has moved. Therefore, you assume it was stationary because we cannot say with certainty that it has moved. I showed why the exact opposite would be equally valid.

Yes you have. We used the sentence: You know that the vehicle has not moved, therefore it is stationary. And then you tried to flip it, saying: You know the vehicle has not remained stationary, therefore it has moved. The first sentence has empirical evidence to back it up. The second sentence is not only a logical fallacy, but it is an assumption on your part that the vehicle has not remained stationary. There is nothing backing it up, save for your own assumptions.

thebetter1 wrote:

puma713 wrote:When something cannot be proven false, it automatically makes it true.

This has to be one of the dumbest logic statements I have ever heard. Note that I only used this to humor you after you used it.

You're the one who said you went to logic class. You should recognize that sentence as an "Argument from Ignorance" logical fallacy. That is what you're committing. I guess if you find logical fallacies stupid, then you wasted your time in that class, huh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

puma713 wrote:
When something cannot be proven false, it automatically makes it true.

Lolwut?

If you're writing up a truth table for an assertion, actually, the OPPOSITE is true. If a statement cannot be proven true, it is automatically false.

EDIT: Ah, this was an example. Never mind me.

Again, I was pointing out the use of a logical fallacy: "Argument from Ignorance". That is the basis of the logical fallacy: When something cannot be proven false, it automatically makes it true.

Edit: There, changed my original post to make it easier to read.

There is proof that the vehicle hasnt been stationary since th beginning of the game...thats what I have said more than once. Lets try it again, more slowly:


At the start of the game there are no units on the table. Zip, zero, nothing to be seen on the table. We then prcoeed to start the game and we eventually get to deployment, at which point units begin to be placed on the table.

Now, if a vehicle isnt even on the table at the start of the game....there is no way that the vehicle can be stationary since the start of the game. Thats the crux of the problem, none of the conditions listed in the rules can be met either for the previous turn (since there wasnt one) nor since the start of the game (except for vehicles with a scout move, which can at least have moved some distance since the start of the game).

Being placed during deployment obviously cant be considered movement by the rules, so its not useful as a guide to say that the vehcile has moved in its previous turn (start of game). But by that very same token it is not at all useful for the stationary arguement, since the vehicle cannot have remained stationary since the start of the game.

Not having moved via the movement rules is not the same thing at all as remaining stationary.

So counting it as an autohit is just as much of a house rule, and based just as much on whim, as counting it as a 4+ to hit.

Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:There is proof that the vehicle hasnt been stationary since th beginning of the game...thats what I have said more than once. Lets try it again, more slowly:


At the start of the game there are no units on the table. Zip, zero, nothing to be seen on the table. We then prcoeed to start the game and we eventually get to deployment, at which point units begin to be placed on the table.

Now, if a vehicle isnt even on the table at the start of the game....there is no way that the vehicle can be stationary since the start of the game.

Thats the crux of the problem, none of the conditions listed in the rules can be met either for the previous turn (since there wasnt one) nor since the start of the game (except for vehicles with a scout move, which can at least have moved some distance since the start of the game).

Being placed during deployment obviously cant be considered movement by the rules, so its not useful as a guide to say that the vehcile has moved in its previous turn (start of game). But by that very same token it is not at all useful for the stationary arguement, since the vehicle cannot have remained stationary since the start of the game.

Except, you forgot the part that deployment doesn't happen after the start of the game. It happens before the start. So yes, vehicles have been stationary since the start of the game.

Sliggoth wrote:Not having moved via the movement rules is not the same thing at all as remaining stationary.

Yeah, you're making my head swim. I'm going to stick with the Occam's Razor approach: the simplest answer is most often the correct one. Has the vehicle moved since the game started? No. It has been stationary then? Yes. Instead of trying to somehow prove that deployment, which happens before you start the game, is tied into movement, so you must assume that the vehicles has moved. . . . .yadda yadda yadda.

There are a few different places in the rules where the start of the game is implied...I suppose this is another area where we may be having some confusion.


Not having moved at some speed according to the movement rules simply is not the same as being stationary.

Stationary is a requirement that the vehicle be in the same place, and since vehciles can be moved as well as move via the movement rules the auto hit rules have a serious gap. Its quite possible for a vehicle to not have remained stationary yet not have moved at any speed.


Sliggoth

I always go by step 5: Startt the Game! as the actual start of the game - which is after deployment and scout moves.

But then there are other things that suggest the game may actually be going on before starting the first turn. The first that pops to mind is Brother Corbulo's ability to reroll a die once per game, which includes things like seizing the initiative. So its another of htose lovely grey areas that 40k is so stuffed full of.


Sliggoth

Well seeing as its based off of last turn, think back to the game you last played and see if it moved nothing, combat speed, or cruising speed, seeing as it was its last turn. RAW anybody.

"Start the Game" doesn't mean that the game starts, and "Stationary" doesn't mean that something hasn't moved. And I'm the one arguing a nonsensical point?

Stastionary isnt determined only by the vehciles own movement allowance.

To be stationary, a vehicle would need to be in the same spot during the time being considered, be that a turn, since th start of the game, or since last game.

There are a number of ways in which a vehicle can not be stationary but not have moved in its own movemnt phase....this is clear and understandable, yes? Simple and direct, what part dont you understand?



Sliggoth

Wow, another 5 page post of 4 pages of each side saying basically the same thing. Good luckpersuading TO's to your view. In my experience it will be played about 99% of the time as the vehicle counts as stationary. Have a good argument and you may get the 4+, or you may get a TO that gets ticked at you. Be prepared to play either way and you probably won't get too upset.

Yup rules are not explicit here. Game Developers give people too much credit in some cases and are still bewildered byt he interwebs posters in others.

When rules aren't explicit people can complain and argue all day long. That's why we have the TFG in our Dakka vocabulary. Doubt anyone has anything new to add to this on either side, but I expect the posting to continue for 3 more pages at least.

This rule is a bit different than not being explicit, as was shown back on the first page. The rules quite simply do not apply at all to the first turn CC.


Why are people interested in this? If it was only ork copters that could do it then it would be mildly troubling to games with orks, since there really is no good way to avoid a first turn charge by ork copters.

But SM bikes can scout, infiltrate and equpi their sgt with a power fist. Three auto hit str 8 hits in cc from a unit that can infiltrate and make a scout move of 24" could change some army lists, since this squad costs less than 100 points. In a BA army an interesting list with Brother corbulo could let the BA player have the first turn about two thirds of the time and give some of those squads furious chrge...so it would be three str 9 auto hits...


Even IG can get into the act with a fist and krak grenades in a valk.


Sliggoth