Special Rules, and wargear on top.

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.

**JinxDragon**

Oh I agree,
This is 'Lego Talk' for Rules, and do want the Mods to shut it down quite soon because it has long proven it's point.
I would just like one more post from Rigeld2 so I can maybe figure out where the discord is, why 'count as' can not simply be 'count as!'

**greatbigtree**

And there's another splash, calling a guy out over something that means nothing. You are so busy being clever, figure it out. It doesn't matter. Let it go.

There was a documentary about it. Something about an ice Princess that needed to "Let it go" so that spring could come, or something. I'm not a scientist, I just took a quick look at it while my kids were watching.

You know what the answer's going to be. Something you [plural] will needlessly disagree on. We all know that when something "Counts-as" you need to, at the very least temporarily, treat it as though it "is" for the game to work. Models that "count-as" being inside an exploding vehicle will take hits from the explosion damage. Whether the models actually "are" or "count-as being" inside the transport, you get the same results. A bunch of Guardsmen die, or a couple of Marines need to touch up the paint on their armour.

Let it go.

**Kriswall**

You guys seriously need to relax. I'm just debating rules as written and not intent or common sense. I don't appreciate the personal attacks.

I think we're done here.

**greatbigtree**

The rules aren't written to create a stalemate or any kind of impasse. Improper interpretation of the rules does that. You [plural] aren't debating. There's a master in front of that activity. You're [again, plural] creating imaginary loop holes to pork. It's fruitless.

**JinxDragon**

Interesting attitude to take on a Rule debate forum though, more so when we have already stated we would never play Rule as Written because... it's broken. *Gasp*
Still going to wait for Rigeld2's response because it would actually be interesting to read.

**rigeld2**

JinxDragon wrote:
okay, I am curious... your question was:
Please explain how to resolve the above Stabby Knife that Kriswall posted in an attack on a Vehicle.
Correct?

So how does this answer not fit:
A More advanced Rule (Special Rule - Poison) tells me to use a different value (1), so the original (-) is ignored entirely.

a) That wasn't your answer - you've modified it.
b) That's not an explanation of how to resolve it. It just points to different rules.

And I don't understand this whole 'it doesn't work' thing either so I am just going have to out right ask:

That's a first - instead of beating around the bush.

What do you think 'count as' means in the normal, everyday world?

You pretend X is Y.

And why do you think that can not be applied to situations where Game Workshop states 'Count X as Y?'

Because GW doesn't write rules to account for things that are pretending to be other things. The wording of something like that must be different if "counts as" and "is" are two different things..

Please explain how to resolve the above Stabby Knife that Kriswall posted in an attack on a Vehicle.

Well, we know that the S of the Knife is 1 and therefore use that.
Since your argument is that the S of the Knife is not 1, you cannot use it in the formula that asks for the S of the Knife.

**JinxDragon**

Thank you, I have all I need....
Not sure I am comfortable having run this experiment, with how damning the results where, but Mods can lock this thread now.

**Captyn_Bob**

Automatically Appended Next Post:

greatbigtree wrote:
Seriously, as soon as we appear to have all agreed that there is only one reasonable way to resolve the whole, "When does a model stop giving unit-wide benefits?" question, and then resolved that there's only one reasonable way to resolve "What's In Play, What's out of Play, and what does it matter?" question, we've now moved onto dissecting the difference between "Is" and "Counts-as?"

All because a vehicle model becomes a piece of terrain if it doesn't explode. I mean, really. What the feth is the point?

I'm more clever than you are!

I'm more clever than you are!

I'm more clever than you are, and my dick's bigger!

It all seems kind of masturbatory, and I'm sick of getting splash-over. Again, the working premise is that when something "Counts-as" you have to treat it as if it "is", even if it isn't. When you embark into a vehicle, you don't actually crush your models down until they fit inside the transport model. They are instead "counted as" being inside that vehicle for all gaming purposes, such as range, being able to use the firepoints, etc. There's no difference to how the rules work if you physically put models inside, or you just pretend they're in there.

Quit jerking off, trying to impress people with how cleverly you can point out flaws in the wording of a publication. You know how far I can kick a puppy? From my front door to the road, but I'm not going to get a medal for it. Maybe arrested, but no medals. How hard is it to point out that GW wrote rules that you can wiggle a needle into and then pull apart? Congratulations, you've won the special Olympics of lawyerdom. You know what's better than winning the special Olympics? Not being slowed. Stop being slowed. Discuss rules, not whether or not you can point out the inconsistencies in writing.

The fundamental flaw of that sort of activity is that it's not "right". You can't play a game when you apply those interpretations. Therefore, they are inimically "wrong", no matter how literally you can mince the words. If you mince the words, and create an irreconcilable state in the game, you have failed at correctly interpreting the rules. I've never had a game of 40k literally end in a stalemate. I've never once encountered a situation, no matter how poorly written the rules may be, that I couldn't complete a game from start to finish by using reason to determine the outcome of an inquiry.

This is possibly the best thing I've ever read in YMDC