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.

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

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

Thanks for that. You've been real helpful.

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

Foool!

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

Yeah...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lowinor wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can do quarterbacks are athletes if you prefer


Edit -

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

Also, sigged.

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

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

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

Aha. I just took a class in Logic!


Cases where affirming the consequent is valid

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

This is also the case for definitions. For example.

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

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

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

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

That's not how it works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, this has been beat to death.

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

Mission rules in this case will trump BRB.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry about that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bhsman wrote:

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

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

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