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.

It is an assumption, Antonin.  I call it the conservation of meaning assumption.  It's one of the three basic assumptions that you have to make in order to logically interpret 40K rules.

Briefly, conservation of meaning is the assumption that (1) words have consistent meanings across rules and rulebooks and (2) words used in a special sense to describe rules do not also denote common usage meanings.

If you don't use this assumption then there's no point in even trying to logically interpet rules.  Otherwise you wind up with rules that say things like Space Marine Scouts get the Scouting special rule.

Pg 70 "If an infantry unit has to move in response to a tank shock, it must take a morale check."

Is the use of the word Move in this quote also "referring to the movement procedure (page 15)"? Because if so, well... tank shock doesn't work against anything since you can't do the movement procedure on page 15 during your opponent's turn.

A well-reasoned assumption, FI. Agreed that is a necessary unwritten rule for 40K.

Isn't it an assumption, however, to say that the "move" as set forth in "may not move in the Movement Phase" is being used in a special sense, and therefore an exception to the Conservation of Meaning, paragraph (1)? No-one is saying the model itself moves, so we are falling under that Conservation of Meaning already.

Moz, nice P+P=C. Any takers to try to disprove that? I will have to peruse my rulebook again when I get home.

Sometimes GW conveniently capitalizes special rules.

But when they dont, it's a kind of corillary of the assumption: if one meaning of a word like "move" creates a contradiction or a rule that cannot be applied, wheras the other meaning of the word creates a situation that functions in relation to other rules, then you pick the one that works with the other rules.

So saying that a model can't move (in the common usage sense) except to pile-in is not an applicable rule. Clearly they can "move" in that they can be jostled around by the cat or packed up if the game ends. The only reason why this rule would exist would be to say that the models can't "Move" in the sense of following the movement procedure.

If the tank shock rule really says that models can't "Move" in response to the tank shock, then that creates a contradiction with other rules. The rules don't allow friendly models to "Move" in the enemy movement phase and there's no rules that cover any other instance of friendly models being compelled to execute a "Move" by the action of any enemy model in the movement phase. But the term "move" in the common sense works there, so that can safely be assumed to be the right meaning.

It's still an assumption, but necessary.

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 08/25/2006 12:36 PM
Good try, but your friend is not right.

The word "move" on page 44 refers to the movement procedure (page 15) which is prohibited for units in assault. Your friend is confusing the everyday meaning of the word "move" with the rules-based, specialized meaning of "move" on page 44.

As the whole argument for why it should be allowed is purely based on the RAW and not on intent, i see this statement as being the one that is flawed. TheHod is correct as per the RAW. If the unit can not move in the movement phase due to being "locked" in assult, then anything that constitutes moving models in the moving phase regardless of the sorce would not be allowed.

Remeber RAW v. intent.

Thanks for the reminder, Darkness.  I'll try my best to remember the difference between RAW and intent.

Its tough sometimes. GW has proven this with the Nid FAQ.

So the P's a C's of it
P1: An infantry unit locked in combat cannot move in the movement phase
P2: An infantry unit must move in the movement phase in order to be tank shocked (specifically to be effected by the morale and death or glory rules)
C: An infantry unit locked in combat cannot be tank shocked.



P2 is backwards. It doesn't have to move in order to be Tank Shocked... rather Tank Shock forces the unit to move.

A more specific rule always over-rides a general rule. In this case, the general rule for combat (may not move while locked) is over-ridden by a specific situation (forced to move by a Tank Shock)

P2 is backwards. It doesn't have to move in order to be Tank Shocked... rather Tank Shock forces the unit to move.

A more specific rule always over-rides a general rule. In this case, the general rule for combat (may not move while locked) is over-ridden by a specific situation (forced to move by a Tank Shock)

A unit is not effected (as in doesn't check morale, cannot death or glory) by tank shock unless a model Moves to make way for the tank.  That's the RAW.

Now specific vs. general, well Tank Shock does come later in the book - Though the rules for it it don't seem any more a specific rule than the rules for 'Pile-in'.

Fleet is a more specific rule, are we fleeting out of combat?

To digress slightly:

If the conservation of meaning assumption applies to the word 'move', then does that mean that units on top of a Castellan Minefield (from a Whirlwind) would only take damage if they 'Move' (during their own movement phase)? Rather than every time they 'move' (eg move + assault + pile in = 3x chances to eat a mine every turn).

This would seem to be a similar situation to the use of the word 'move' in the Tank Shock rules...

When we start arguing about the definition of a what a word really means that is pretty sad. Just use an online dictionary.

A unit is not effected (as in doesn't check morale, cannot death or glory) by tank shock unless a model Moves to make way for the tank.  That's the RAW.

Of course it is. But the model moving does not cause the Tank Shock. The Tank Shock causes the model to move.



Now specific vs. general, well Tank Shock does come later in the book - Though the rules for it it don't seem any more a specific rule than the rules for 'Pile-in'.

It doesn't need to be more specific than the rules for Piling In... it simply needs to be more specific than the rule forbidding models to move while locked... which it is.

'Models locked in combat may not move' is a general rule that applies to any models in combat.

'Models must move out of the way of a Tank Shock' is a more specific rule, because it only applies to those models in combat if they get Tank Shocked. If they are in combat and don't get Tank Shocked, then the Tank Shock rules don't apply to them.


Fleet is a more specific rule, are we fleeting out of combat?

While there would certainly be a case for it, I would go with no, because Fleet doesn't force them to move, as Tank Shock does.

It's not specifically spelt out in the rules, but I've always taken Fleet as an action performed instead of shooting. Therefore, if the model cannot shoot, it also can not Fleet.
 

We used to play fleet that way as well, until we realized hormagaunts can never shoot, so could never fleet.  Didn't sit well with the 'Nid player.

- Oaka

That's not what I meant.

The only thing stopping Hormagaunts from shooting is lack of a weapon.

In a normal shooting phase with no other rules in the way, models without a weapon are still allowed to shoot... they just don't have a weapon to do it with.

Fleet is allowed any time the model is not specifically prevented from shooting.

Circular logic.

Posted By insaniak on 08/25/2006 6:46 PM
A unit is not effected (as in doesn't check morale, cannot death or glory) by tank shock unless a model Moves to make way for the tank.  That's the RAW.

Of course it is. But the model moving does not cause the Tank Shock. The Tank Shock causes the model to move.



Now specific vs. general, well Tank Shock does come later in the book - Though the rules for it it don't seem any more a specific rule than the rules for 'Pile-in'.

It doesn't need to be more specific than the rules for Piling In... it simply needs to be more specific than the rule forbidding models to move while locked... which it is.

'Models locked in combat may not move' is a general rule that applies to any models in combat.

'Models must move out of the way of a Tank Shock' is a more specific rule, because it only applies to those models in combat if they get Tank Shocked. If they are in combat and don't get Tank Shocked, then the Tank Shock rules don't apply to them.


Fleet is a more specific rule, are we fleeting out of combat?

While there would certainly be a case for it, I would go with no, because Fleet doesn't force them to move, as Tank Shock does.

It's not specifically spelt out in the rules, but I've always taken Fleet as an action performed instead of shooting. Therefore, if the model cannot shoot, it also can not Fleet.
 

If a unit can not fleet because it is locked in combat and therefore can not shoot, then the same is true for tank shock. A model can not move because it is locked in combat.

Hmmm...what happens when a Tau ethereal buys it? Don't any Tau locked in combat have to all of a sudden make a morale roll and fallback if they fail? Even if the ethereal was killed by, say, a lasgun in the shooting phase?

That would be a case of being forced to move out of combat when it's not the assault phase. Analagous?

Of course, this is all theoretical since Tau never survive to remain 'locked' in combat...

Actually it's only Tau in CC who don't have to take a morale roll on seeing (LoS required) an Ethereal buy the farm.

Drat. Thought I was onto something there. Thanks Killkrazy!

I really only wanted to make that funny about Tau in CC anyways...

"If a unit can not fleet because it is locked in combat and therefore can not shoot, then the same is true for tank shock. A model can not move because it is locked in combat."

Fleet is a choice. Tank Shock is a forced move. Not even remotely the same thing.

Fairly similar in the context of:
A-6. Conflicts With Another Rule
If you?ve provided a set of premises that support your argument, but they are in conflict with another rule, your argument will not hold. It?s important to remember to Break No Rule.

Does "Fleet" require a model to be able to shoot, and voluntarily forgo shooting? I saw it as models that don't shoot, can Fleet -- i.e. a model without a gun would not shoot, therefore could Fleet (subject to other possible restrictions.)

Posted By insaniak on 08/25/2006 6:46 PM
'Models locked in combat may not move' is a general rule that applies to any models in combat.

'Models must move out of the way of a Tank Shock' is a more specific rule, because it only applies to those models in combat if they get Tank Shocked. If they are in combat and don't get Tank Shocked, then the Tank Shock rules don't apply to them. 

I can't remember if this applies to 40k but I know in most games, Can't always beats Can.

Whilst I realise that Must isn't Can, i would still hold the view that Can't Move is stronger for the same reason.

 

And another thing was mentioned earlier in the thread.

If you were to fall back from the combat, would you be auto destroyed?

I don't think so. When falling back you never count the unit you were in combat with. Is there any where that says you aren't in combat during the Movement phase?

The rule you are referring to says that when falling back, you do not count enemy models that the falling back unit fought in close combat with that turn.  Since they are falling back in the movement phase, they haven't fought in close combat that turn, so you have to count those models that they are in base contact with.  Hence, the unit is destroyed while attempting to fall back.

- Oaka

If GW ever does decide to answer this question and the answer in turn turns out to be yes, I quarentee alot of Emperor's Children armies will be popingup with their whole -4 to tank shocking.

Troops being Tank Shocked don't Fall Back until they have failed their morale check. But they do have to move out of the way of the oncoming tank. It has been held in previous Dakka YMTC threads that models moving away from the vehicle move however far is needed not to be unerneath it, without being harmed at all.

The 1 inch restriction of movement only applies to one's own Movement Phase.

The 1 inch restriction of movement does not include movement away from an enemy model, it means movement towards an enemy model.

Darkness- If a unit can not fleet because it is locked in combat and therefore can not shoot, then the same is true for tank shock. A model can not move because it is locked in combat.

Those are different issues, the first being a voluntary move the second being a forced move. The conclusion does not follow from the premise other than by assumption.  If the second statement was true, the models couldn't be moved, (which I do not think is correct) wouldn't they be killed outright if overun? Are you really proposing that even unengaged locked models would stop a tank shock?

Darkness- If GW ever does decide to answer this question and the answer in turn turns out to be yes, I quarentee alot of Emperor's Children armies will be popingup with their whole -4 to tank shocking.

Unlikely, because non skimmer, slow tanks will have a hard time avoiding their own models, a smart pile in move could easily insulate a unit form asuch an attack, are you sure?

The reason fleet doesn't apply is because Fleet requires that you are able to shoot a weapon, and INSTEAD you move1d6 inches. HOWEVER, in an assault the rules CLEARLY state you aren't allowed to shoot weapons thus you can't utilize the INSTEAD operator for fleet. Much like shooting phase psychic powers.

There are people awaiting the outcome of this discussion that are ready to add warp amps to their Rhinos. Don't be a f00.

>>The reason fleet doesn't apply is because Fleet requires that you are able to shoot a weapon, and INSTEAD you move1d6 inches.

I'm not arguing for tank shocking into CC but does the Fleet rule actually require your unit to have a weapon and forgo shooting? My reading is different. The rule says "models... that do not shoot... can move an additional D6 inches." Ths is different to 'instead of shooting, models may move and extra D6.'