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.

1) yes it is a move. Get over it.

2) And? Lash is in the opponents shooting phase. So, you have no point

3) and yet it follows all normal movement rules, as the FAQ reminds you.

Sorry it IS movement. Barking and wrong tree

I am not the one that has a problem distinguishing between mechanics of an action and what constitutes movement. That would be you.

Kareen is not Movement even though the mechanics of Kareen involve moving the model.

That is as simple as it is. Notice how I don't need fluff to back it up? Argue on the merits of moving a model versus a model moving. There is a major difference there that you continue to fail to see.

I can not move, now I'm going to move as far as possible....

ChrisCP wrote:I can not move, now I'm going to move as far as possible....

Actually,

You can not move, now you are going to be moved as far as possible.

Did the Trukk Move or does it get moved? Not expecting you to understand it, but pointing it out to anyone else that might read your false logic.

Well the immobed result says "It may not move for the rest of the game." it makes no metion of 'may not make a normal move' or that this denial of movement is limited to this 'Movement' (whatever that is) you mention.

Ones has a rule telling you the trukk may not move for the rest of the game.

One also a rule telling you to move the model 3D6, as far as
possible.

Amazingly this means that 'as far as possible' is 0".

Chances are, if this does actually occur in a game, one or more of the players will have forgotten that the trukk is immobilized, and will move it anyways. Such is the chaos of a 40k game.

Smitty wrote:Chances are, if this does actually occur in a game, one or more of the players will have forgotten that the trukk is immobilized, and will move it anyways. Such is the chaos of a 40k game.

(=\ I'm pretty sure most of my opponents will remember when my Trukks been immobilised...

I guess I'm lucky...

ChrisCP wrote:Well the immobed result says "It may not move for the rest of the game." it makes no metion of 'may not make a normal move' or that this denial of movement is limited to this 'Movement' (whatever that is) you mention.

Ones has a rule telling you the trukk may not move for the rest of the game.

One also a rule telling you to move the model 3D6, as far as
possible.

Amazingly this means that 'as far as possible' is 0".

This is why the Vehicle does not move.

If you move the vehicle any distance has it moved?

The immobilized result says "It may not move for the rest of the game." so It may not move or be moved.

Moving it 3D6 would break the rule that it may not move,

Brother Ramses wrote:I am not the one that has a problem distinguishing between mechanics of an action and what constitutes movement. That would be you.

Kareen is not Movement even though the mechanics of Kareen involve moving the model.

That is as simple as it is. Notice how I don't need fluff to back it up? Argue on the merits of moving a model versus a model moving. There is a major difference there that you continue to fail to see.

So when your reasons for it not being a move are shown to be completely untrue, you fall back on insults?

Typical.

You are told to move the trukk 3D6", and are reminded about the normal movement rules you may not break. Apparently, despite all evidence to the contrary, you truly believe it isnt a move.

Oddly enough I've yet to use any fluff. You've also failed to use any actual rules, not that thats part of the rules of the forum or anything....

I have proven that Kareen! is not affected by Damaged - Immobilsed, that argument has yet to be invalidated. As far as I can tell, any mention of it has been ignored to attack jordan's rather ridiculous argumentation.

No you have not. You have not proven that the trukk is "being moved" by another model, such as tank shock, which is the only time that, so far, you can "be moved" as opposed to it being a movement.

How far is it possible for you to move when you cannot move? 0"

And, to be fair, we were distracted by two rediculous lines of arguments - dont forget BRs "its not really movement!!!!" attempt

Brother Ramses wrote:You mean like teleport shunt was a move despite it not being one?

And yet it is moved during an opponents Shooting phase, not the owning players Movement phase.

And yet it is moved based on the scatter dice and 3d6, not the movement rules for a Trukk.

And yet....

And yet....

The list goes on Nos that it is not what the BRB defines as Movement.

Again, the mechanics of what happens in a Kareem result involve physically moving the model, but do not fulfill the rules for Movement and thus are not restricted by an immobilized result. You are confusing the mechanics of a rule with what constitutes Movement in the BRB. To you, if the model moves or is moved, BAM, you start shouting from the rooftops that it is Movement.

Thank you very much...

As much as I cant believe this thread is still going with insults flying in both directions, this single post summarises some truth.

Can we please remember why we use scatter dice at all?

Because it's not 'movement', in a similar (but not same) understanding that running in the shooting phase is not really 'movement'.

Scatter dice tables represent events affecting models beyond their own control (So to speak).
Examples of scatter dice:
-Vehicle Damage chart
-Deep Strike Mishap chart
-Ramshackle chart

I'm sure there are probably other examples in codices but their use is always the same.

Once again, they are moved, not they are moving.

People, there really is no need to debase ourselves with insults and sly remarks. This is about rules, and the RAW or RAI of those respective rules.
Once again, I'm calling that we've reached an impass as both 'sides' (For the record, I dont like that word) are set in their ways (This is just a stament of observation, not any insult to anyone).

Running in the shooting phase IS movement. It follows all normal movement rules, apart from the exceptions listed.

Ramshackle is movement, follows all normal movement rules as it rerminds you in the rules.

The trukk is not "moved", you move it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Running in the shooting phase IS movement. It follows all normal movement rules, apart from the exceptions listed.

Ramshackle is movement, follows all normal movement rules as it rerminds you in the rules.

The trukk is not "moved", you move it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Running in the shooting phase IS movement. It follows all normal movement rules, apart from the exceptions listed.

Ramshackle is movement, follows all normal movement rules as it rerminds you in the rules.

The trukk is not "moved", you move it.

for the sake of this argument, running is movement, I'm not going to argue the toss on that one. Moving on...

In all fairness, the rule does not 'remind' you of any movement rules which is the point here.
The last part of the 'Ramshackle - Kareen' rule sets limits for the 'Ramshackle - Kareen' event.

Example:

Kareen says:
"If the trukk would careen into enemy models or terrain, stop it 1" away."

In another part of the same codex (Zagstrukk p63), it says:
"(remember that with Zagstruk's Furios Charge this will be resolved at initiative 4)"

In the Rulebook it (BS of 6 p18), it says:
"Remember a dice can only ever be re-rolled once!"

In the Rulebook it (Complex Units p25), it says:
"Remember that any model in the unit can be wounded, not just those in range or in view."

In the Rulebook it (Heavy Weapons p29), it says:
"Remember that if any models move, their whole unit counts as having moved for that turn..."

In the Rulebook it (Assaulting p34), it says:
"Remember that the assaulting unit is not allowed to break its unit coherency"

...this is not an exaustive list.

My point is, notice where it says "remember"?

There are parts in the codex and Rulebook respectively that remind you of other rules, and parts where it states within the context of the rule you are reading.
I have supported my argument by showing the very clear pattern of how the rules are written.
In this case, the restrictions placed on 'Ramshackle - Kareen' are not a reminder, they are a restriction within 'Ramshackle - Kareen'.

There, I have presented what I think is a perfectly reasonable and rules-based argument to disprove what you have stated.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No you have not. You have not proven that the trukk is "being moved" by another model, such as tank shock, which is the only time that, so far, you can "be moved" as opposed to it being a movement.

How far is it possible for you to move when you cannot move? 0"

And, to be fair, we were distracted by two rediculous lines of arguments - dont forget BRs "its not really movement!!!!" attempt

I did prove that a model can be moved by action outside of it's own abilities. This does not have to be caused by a model, as the wording is very consistent on this case - I have yet to find any rule that addresses the player for an action that a model voluntarily takes, or a rule that says "a model does X", if X is not defined anywhere else. Magna grapple, Eldritch Storm, tank shock and many other rules use this exact kind of wording(do something to model) to describe movement which are not limited by movement rules, as they usually take place outside of the owning player's turn, move special distances or directions. Basically have nothing in common with regular movement. Any examples provided so far("Don't press dat!", shunt) use the other wording(model does something), limiting or changing one aspect of moving, and still taking place during your movement phase.

Bottom line: Even if a model may not move, it may be moved. Otherwise, there would be no reason for any other restrictions not apply. For example, a trukk would not be able to Kareen!, moved by Magna Grapple or Eldritch Storm if he disembarked passengers in his previous movement phase.

Plonka - remember is not required,

See the bike rule, which reiterates the ID rule about modifiers and instant death. No "remember" there.

Evidence of redundancy is NOT evidence of requirement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:
You are told to move the trukk 3D6", and are reminded about the normal movement rules you may not break.

Dude, I'm looking at the Ork Codex right now and nowhere in the entry for Kareen does it say anything about "normal movement" or even imply anything about "normal movement". It says "3D6", "scatter die", and "1 inch from an enemy model". Those are not normal movement rules.

Now you're just making stuff up.

I just wanted to add one more 'remember' reminder that I think might be a bit closer to home in this discussion.

Statement in question:
"If the trukk would careen into enemy models or terrain, stop it 1" away."

Compare to in the BRB (Aka Rulebook) rule for 'TRAPPED!' (p45):
"Sometimes a unit will find its fall back move blocked by impassable terrain, friendly models or enemy models (remember they have to stay 1" away from enemy models)."

So... to summarise (No particlar order):

-The 'Ramshackle - Kareen' restriction is a restriction within the rule, not a reminder as evidenced in the 'TRAPPED!' rule.
-The rule is also represented within a table like 'Deep Strike Mishap'. Tables in 40k remove control from models (Can the Deepstriking Termie dispute the mishap?).
-The use of scatter dice. Same as about tables, which removes control from the model.
-There is a specific listing of "3D6" as far as possible" movement within the specific 'Ramshackle - Kareen' rule.
-'Ramshackle - Kareen' usually occurs outside the players own movement phase.
-The wording of the rule: "Move the trukk" not "The trukk moves"
-The entire Ramshackle table is a direct drop-in replacement for the specific Vehicle Damge Chart results of 'Vehicle Destroyed!' or 'Vehicle Explodes!'. That is very specific.

I dont know what else to say... Someone please disprove these points here and the below statement:
'Ramshackle - Kareen' is a specific rule with explicit restrictions for its own scenario of movement within a table that does not reference any other rule(s).
Immobilised is a general rule with its own restriction(s) on normal movement of a model when it is moving using its own normal means of movement.

Therefore (deep breath), general rule of immobilised can be overruled by a specific rule of 'Ramshackle - Kareen' specifying its own movement outside the models own normal means of movement.

= move the trukk.

(applauds wildy)

Beige - remaining 1" from an enemy is bog standard, basic movement rules. Seriously. Claiming Im making things up while making a grievous error yourslef? Hilarious.

Plonka - seriously. Have a look at the BRB, Bikes entry.

Evidence of redundancy is NOT evidence of requirement.

Immobilised is a more specific situation, is referenced implicitly by the "as far as possible" (a redundant rule under your interpretation) and so, when immobilised and you cannot move at all - you dont move.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Beige - remaining 1" from an enemy is bog standard, basic movement rules. Seriously. Claiming Im making things up while making a grievous error yourslef? Hilarious.

Plonka - seriously. Have a look at the BRB, Bikes entry.

Evidence of redundancy is NOT evidence of requirement.

Immobilised is a more specific situation, is referenced implicitly by the "as far as possible" (a redundant rule under your interpretation) and so, when immobilised and you cannot move at all - you dont move.

You must mean on p53 where it says:
"Note that this increase does not affect the model’s Toughness for the purposes of instant death (see page 26)."

Dude, that is a clear reference to another rule within the Rulebook that even lists the page of the other rule. It's also listed in the section on bikes.
It does remind, because it basically says "Here is the rules for bikes, but if you're resolving Instant Death go to this page".

That is a clear reference within a rule to another rule, just like when something says "bla bla bla rules bla bla bla (remember x rule)".

I rest my case. This is gone on too long.

The trukk does not move, it is moved. Immobilized does not say "the vehicle can not be moved", but "the vehicle can not move on its own".

The rules described with kareen! are also definitively not the regular movement rules. No rule in the whole BRB ever requires you to stop 1" away from any terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
btw: I don't think "Dude,..." should be part of a polite rules discussion.

Enemy models are impassable terrain.

Kareen! requires you to stop 1" away from difficult and/or dangerous terrain. Not a movement rule.

Jidmah wrote:The trukk does not move, it is moved. Immobilized does not say "the vehicle can not be moved", but "the vehicle can not move on its own".

It says neither. It does say, "It may not move for the rest of the game."

Jidmah wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
btw: I don't think "Dude,..." should be part of a polite rules discussion.

Honestly, I'm sorry if I offended anyone by calling them dude.
I meant it more like the Big Lebowski 'dude', not the doodoo 'dude'.
My friends and I all call each other dude all the time, so it slips out sometimes even at work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Enemy models are impassable terrain.

Which is probably why its explicitly stated as part of this specific scenario.
There are many instances in the Rulebooks and Codices where things are repeated not referenced.
This is because they are for that scenario.

Example: Pain Boyz in the Nobz and Pain Boyz in the Flash Gitz profiles have separate specifics when becoming a Pain Boy.
In the Flash Gitz listing, they are specifically ordered to remove their Snazzguns as well as Gitfindas with Docs Tools and Syringe.

But dont people already know that Pain Boyz only have Docs Tools and Syringe?
No, because this is specific for a Flash Git being a Pain Boy opposed to a Nob being a Painboy even though the scenario is basically the same as another, it is not the same.

time wizard wrote:It says neither. It does say, "It may not move for the rest of the game."

Are we still arguing the toss on that, when the general vs specific (as I've been told to say it) means that immobilised is overruled anyway?
Please see my overly elaborate previous post.

Immobilised is NOT overruled - we've been through that.

The trukk tries to move. Immobilised kicks in. You may not move. Find the SPECIFIC allowance that lets you move. You're looking for the words "the trukk must move, even if immobilised, as far as possible"

It still lacks that rule. You still lack that rule. Your argument still fails.

And we're back at page 1. there have been absolutely no new arguments, and with certainty an immobilised trukk is not moving anywhere. It may BE moved, so its a good job this isnt the case.

Thread lock time? finally?

Wow, Plonka. You just come out of nowhere(literally, 20 posts!) and have what appears to be insight! I am impressed

Plonka raises some really great points, especially as the counter to the 'its just a reminder' argument. In other specific instances in the same codex, it does say 'remember' when reminding about the BRB rules. Kareen! does not have this addendum.

The restrictions listed in the rule/FAQ are the only restrictions. There is no 'etc' on the end or a reminder included in the statement, just a list of things the trukk cannot go through or touch.

-cgmckenzie

Yet the trukk is still moving. You dont need to be told you still follow a restriction, you need to be told you can ignore the restriction.

You may not move. Find a RULE allowing you to move. Needs to be explicit.