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.

Which is a meaningless distinction.


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

<pointlessly rude text redacted --Janthkin>

Reported.

Sigh.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Which is a meaningless distinction.


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

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

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

plonka2000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Which is a meaningless distinction.


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

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

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

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

Apologies for getting so off topic too...

Take care people.

I'm out! Boom!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

q.e.d.

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

Adding all parts of the problem one at time:

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

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

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

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

Good point though, very nicely put.

-cgmckenzie

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh.

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

The latter is the more specific situation

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

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

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

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

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

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

For case in point, see involuntary movement.

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:Not a troll.

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

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

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

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

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

solkan wrote:

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

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

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

For case in point, see involuntary movement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh.

What is the more specific situation.

A trukk suffering kareen!
The same trukk suffering immobilsed

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

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

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

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

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

Lone - I've tried this for 5 pages.

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

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

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

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

YOu have no permisison to move while immobilised. None.

Jidmah wrote:

solkan wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holy smoke, this is still going on?

Solution: Roll on it.

1, 2 or 3 = No move.

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

Lone Dragoon wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh.

What is the more specific situation.

A trukk suffering kareen!
The same trukk suffering immobilsed

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

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh.

What is the more specific situation.

A trukk suffering kareen!
The same trukk suffering immobilsed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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