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.

Ok, let me break this down:

nosferatu1001 wrote: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"

Once again, immobilised is general, this is more specific. Overruled.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It still lacks that rule. You still lack that rule. Your argument still fails.

My argument does not fail because as I've said elsewhere, even though the rule is overruled, this is not the focus of the problem, so please stop falling back to that red herring argument repeatedly... please?
The focus problem for you is that the trukk is not moving... It is moved for all the reasons I have listed above.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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?

Yes we are back at page 1, because you are choosing to ignore the entire breakdown I listed above.
You have repeatedly repeated "It doesnt move, because something that cant move, cant move, because it doesnt move, because... it cant move... because..."

So once again:

General vs Specific - kareen is part of a specific replacement rule for the vehicle damage chart. Yes, that means it is specific.
Why is immobilised 'specific' on its own? Answer that as well as the other things in my other post... please?

But remember, this is not the problem issue, because this is not about the trukk moving... the trukk is moved (not moving) within its own specific rule scenario.

I dont mean to insult you, but you dont seem to have any other points than:
-Immobilised is somehow more specific than Ramshackle and Kareen (Remember you need to go to Ramshackle specifically then Kareen).
-The vehicle doesnt move, because immobile vehicles dont move... ever.

I've shown my logic in unedited black and white, I'm openly asking you to do the same...

EDIT:

nosferatu1001 wrote: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.

Added this quote in because once again you wont explain... you're just repeating.
The movement restriction is irrelivant because it is not specific and it has nothing to do with the trukk being moved, not moving. Again, I call red herring.
I have explained in very fine detail my rules-based logic and you are yet to disprove that.

plonka2000 wrote:

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?

I wasn't arguing anything with that post.
Jidmah misquoted the immobilized rule, I was merely correcting the misquote.

And as nosferatu said, there is no specific exemption in the kareem rule that says it overrides immobilized.

There is a specific instruction to stop 1" away from enemy models and terrain which overrides the section in the assault rules that allows a model to move within 1" of an enemy unit in the assault phase.
So if the trukk kareems in the enemy assault phase, it must still stop 1" away from enemy models.
Otherwise that would have been another rules question.
Oh, and when the kareem rule says stop 1" away from terrain, it doesn't specify difficult or dangerous, so it would stop 1" away from any piece of terrain.

time wizard wrote:

plonka2000 wrote:

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?

I wasn't arguing anything with that post.
Jidmah misquoted the immobilized rule, I was merely correcting the misquote.

And as nosferatu said, there is no specific exemption in the kareem rule that says it overrides immobilized.

There is a specific instruction to stop 1" away from enemy models and terrain which overrides the section in the assault rules that allows a model to move within 1" of an enemy unit in the assault phase.
So if the trukk kareems in the enemy assault phase, it must still stop 1" away from enemy models.
Otherwise that would have been another rules question.
Oh, and when the kareem rule says stop 1" away from terrain, it doesn't specify difficult or dangerous, so it would stop 1" away from any piece of terrain.

I'm very sorry, I misread your intentions.

plonka2000 wrote:So once again:

General vs Specific - kareen is part of a specific replacement rule for the vehicle damage chart. Yes, that means it is specific.
Why is immobilised 'specific' on its own? Answer that as well as the other things in my other post... please?

The kareen is a specific replacement for a part of the vehicle damage chart. I agree. But which one? Let's see.

"Ramshackle: If a Trukk suffers a Vehicle Destroyed! or Vehicle Explodes! (wrecked) result, roll on the Ramshackle table below and apply the result instead of the usual effects."

So the rule shows which part of the vehicle damage chart it specifically replaces, those being Vehicle Destroyed! and Vehicle Explodes! (wrecked). It does not specifically replace immobilized or even stunned.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

plonka2000 wrote:

I'm very sorry, I misread your intentions.

No offence taken.

Plonka - no, it is not a replacement for the damage chart. It replaces 2 damage results and 2 damage results ONLY.

So the trukk is still immobilised.

Yes, it is a specific replacement rule....for those two damage results only. It does not specifically override any other damage result.

Onus is on you to prove that it IS more specific.

I ahve not ignored your argument; your argument is flawed because you seem to think Kareen! applies to all the damage results. It doesnt.

So, to reiterate: an immobilised trukk suffering karreen! is MORE specific than a non-immobilised trukk suffering the same. There is NO WAY that you can argue that one is a larger set than the otehr.

This determines that an immobilised trukk needs a specific rule ALLOWING them to move. You have No such SPECIFIC rule.

Seriously. Have a look at ATSKNF and Sweeping Advance for waht "specific" ACTUALLY means in the context of GW rules, as you seem to not understand this point.

Absent a rule *specifically* allowing you to move DESPITE being immobilised, you cannot move while immobilsed.

Yes, you can be moved. Kareen! is not the trukk being moved, so please stop going down that erroneous path, as you are confusing your own argument rather badly by doing so.

The trukk isn't moving. It is being moved.

The Rule for kareen! says to move the vehicle, while in other instances in the BGB(general vehicle/walkers/cavalry/etc) it all is written in a manner that says the unit is moving.

2 examples for Kodex: Orks:

"Move the trukk 3D6" for kareen.

"that vehicle must move directly forward" for 'DON'T PRESS DAT' on looted wagons.

The first one moves the vehicle, the second one has the vehicle doing the moving. Because the looted wagon is doing the moving, it is subject to immobilized. The turkk is being moved, so it is not.

-cgmckenzie

time wizard wrote:

plonka2000 wrote:So once again:

General vs Specific - kareen is part of a specific replacement rule for the vehicle damage chart. Yes, that means it is specific.
Why is immobilised 'specific' on its own? Answer that as well as the other things in my other post... please?

The kareen is a specific replacement for a part of the vehicle damage chart. I agree. But which one? Let's see.

"Ramshackle: If a Trukk suffers a Vehicle Destroyed! or Vehicle Explodes! (wrecked) result, roll on the Ramshackle table below and apply the result instead of the usual effects."

So the rule shows which part of the vehicle damage chart it specifically replaces, those being Vehicle Destroyed! and Vehicle Explodes! (wrecked). It does not specifically replace immobilized or even stunned.

Ok, bear with me here:

Here is the scenario:
You have an immobilised trukk. That trukk is then hit and suffers a Vehicle Destroyed or Vehicle Explodes result.

Here is my working:

A Kareen result is rolled.
(Because you are specifically told to roll for that and ignore the Vehicle Damage Chart, the rule is specific.

So, we have an immobilised vehicle that should/should-not Kareen.
Here lies the problem. Since the vehicle is immobilised it cant move by its own volition, however:

Since the Kareen 'movement' is part of the Kareen rule result which is from the Ramshackle Chart, which is a specifc replacement of specific results from the Vehicle Damage chart... This is not the vehicle moving (according to the rules), this is the vehicle exploding 'over there' for whatever reason you choose to make.

The part that says move "as far as possible" is not subject to immobilised, because immobilised is in no way related to the Vehicle Damage Chart (Remember the Damage chart is not to do with the model, but is an event). Like I said, this can be rashionalised by the player being the 'hand of god' that manipulates/actions these events despite whatever movement restrictions are applied to the model.

Example I made earlier of the poor Termie who is deepstriking and throws up a mishap.
The termie is placed on the board to say where the player wants him to land then roll for scatter. he scatters into difficult terrain and BAM! Mishap!
The termie has no control over any result of that mishap because none of his movement restrictions/allowances are taken into account when calculating his mishap result. This is the same across 'tables' in 40k. The player is in control at this point and it is nothing to do with the model or his restrictions. They are simply irrelivant.
To support this one result of the mishap table allows the "other player" to place the poor termie anywhere on the entire board.

Now, remember that no matter what happens, when you initially place your termie and scatter the end result of all this is that the termie can be places far far far away which would violate his movement rules otherwise. This is because the player is in control, without restrictions of the model (because the model is not 'running/walking' there).
If this was the other way around, then when you scattered and mishap, the other guy could still only place your poor termie 6" away from his intended deepstrike location instead of 40" on the other side of the board away from all the action that termies love.

Now apply that same logic back to the 3D6" movement of the trukk in a Kareen, and it makes sense to me that the trukk moves because it is part of the trukk exploding action that the trukk is moved as a specific instruction to the player in the rules. The immobilised is still applicable to the trukk, but not to Destroyed! or Explodes! on the Vehicle Damage chart because it is not moving by its own volition. See?

So move the trukk then explode, as Kareen says because it is abstract from immobilised.
Nothing to do with immobilised at all, as far as I can tell. I'm not ignoring the rule, but it is not relevant.
The rule is specific, because you have a Destroyed!/Explodes! that explicitly needs to be substituted with this result from this table, not that table.

This is a logical working through of the rules as far as I can tell...

Or should I just get my coat?

wow, good post.

-cgmckenzie

"because immobilised is in no way related to the Vehicle Damage Chart "
That right there is nonsense. You are only told to replace 2 results with Ramshackle, and only those two.

Stop pretending otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"because immobilised is in no way related to the Vehicle Damage Chart "
That right there is nonsense. You are only told to replace 2 results with Ramshackle, and only those two.

Stop pretending otherwise.

I'll get my coat.

Probably a good idea.

Your argument relies on asserting that Kareen! is more specific, and then wandering off into asserting that the vehicle is moved rather than moving.

The second argument would make the first null and void, if it were true.

plonka2000 wrote: Now, remember that no matter what happens, when you initially place your termie and scatter the end result of all this is that the termie can be places far far far away which would violate his movement rules otherwise. This is because the player is in control, without restrictions of the model (because the model is not 'running/walking' there).
If this was the other way around, then when you scattered and mishap, the other guy could still only place your poor termie 6" away from his intended deepstrike location instead of 40" on the other side of the board away from all the action that termies love.

The deep strike rules are really not applicable here. First they refer to units arriving from reserve. Those units arrive and deploy in the movement phase but clearly were not on the board in an earlier movement phase and so could not have been previously immobilized.
Second, the process ffor deep strike says you first place a model, then roll for scatter, then place the rest of the units models around the first one. Deep strike mishaps occur if the unit can't be deployed because it would land off the table, in impassable terrain, etc. Clearly, moving the deep striking unit a certain distance and direction due to scatter dice is part of the deployment process. And in the case of misplaced, the unit can be deployed many inches away because the rule allows your opponent to do so.

plonka2000 wrote:Now apply that same logic back to the 3D6" movement of the trukk in a Kareen, and it makes sense to me that the trukk moves because it is part of the trukk exploding action that the trukk is moved as a specific instruction to the player in the rules. The immobilised is still applicable to the trukk, but not to Destroyed! or Explodes! on the Vehicle Damage chart because it is not moving by its own volition. See?

So move the trukk then explode, as Kareen says because it is abstract from immobilised.

I still have not seen any proof, like the kareen result saying to ignore immobilized or stunned damage. But your opinion that it is abstract has been noted.

plonka2000 wrote: Nothing to do with immobilised at all, as far as I can tell. I'm not ignoring the rule, but it is not relevant.

If you are not applying a rule because you feel it is not relevant, you are indeed ignoring it.

plonka2000 wrote:Or should I just get my coat?

Don't leave just yet! The discussion has been interesting.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Probably a good idea.

Your argument relies on asserting that Kareen! is more specific, and then wandering off into asserting that the vehicle is moved rather than moving.

The second argument would make the first null and void, if it were true.

'Kareen' is more specific, because it is specifically specified... Is it only me that thinks like that?
Immobilised is not specific, because, well... it isnt... but also because you still fail to explain how, Nos?

For the record, I was referring to the 'effect' of an already immobilised vehicle when checking the Vehicle Damage chart for another result, not that applying a result of immobilised is irrelivant.

Way to pick up on one word and wipe the entire explanation with that brush.
I dont feel you read it, Nos. If you did, maybe you didnt understand, or maybe I'm high...

It makes sense to me, does anyone else agree?

How about time wizard? Whats your take on my working?

EDIT:
Got my answer, should have waited.

It specifieis WHAT, precisely

Again, pick up your SM / GK / BA / DA / SW / etc codex, if you have one, and note what specific truly means in this game of 40k.

Note it *specifically* mentions it works against Sweeping Advance

Now, when you read the Kareen! wording, does it SPECIFY that it works against Immobilised results, FORCING the vehicle to move even if immobilised?

No? THen it doesnt work

The farthest it is possible to move when you are immobilsed is 0". Thats it.

But don't ignore the entire post because of a single slip up. The rest of Plonka's logic is sound, and relating it to Deepstrike mishaps is apt, if not exactly similar. What seems to be the big 'deciding point' here, the thing that keeps everyone from agreeing one way or the other, is whether or not the Kareen is a Movement, or a movement (note the different capitalizations) So what should be determined, is if Kareen is the Trukk moving itself, in which case Immobilized obviously applies, or if it is the Trukk being moved by an outside force, in which case Immobilized doesn't apply.

I believe that the Trukk is being moved, as the rule says to "Move the trukk" as opposed to "the trukk moves", when there is precedent, as pointed out through the Don't Press Dat! rule, for a rule to tell a vehicle to 'move itself', within the rulebook.

That is not the case.

ACTUAL precedent: page 88 chaos marine codex, lash of submission:

p88 wrote:the target is moved 2D6" by the chaos player"

Lash is movement, as ruled b y the Chaos FAQ. And, this applies to the trukk

Anvildude wrote:I believe that the Trukk is being moved, as the rule says to "Move the trukk" as opposed to "the trukk moves", when there is precedent, as pointed out through the Don't Press Dat! rule, for a rule to tell a vehicle to 'move itself', within the rulebook.

Semantics notwithstanding, there are other rules that use the word 'move'.
Take Mycetic Spores. Once they enter the battle, they "...cannot move for any reason." So you can't pick them up and move them.

Except that;
Q: A Mycetic Spore cannot move itself once it has
entered the battle, but can it be moved by another
model (e.g. by a Mawloc’s Terror from the Deep special
rule)?
A: Yes.

And yes, I know that this particular argument was brought up a number of pages back. So what's the point?

Simple. Once a Mycetic Spore enters the battle it cannot move for any reason.
Once a vehicle is stunned, it may not move nor shoot until the end of its next player turn.
Once a vehicle is immobilized, it may not move for the rest of the game.
That is the detail that random and compulsory movement on page 11 talks about.
Kareen is a random movement;
Q. If a Trukk suffers a ‘Kareen!’ result, what
happens if the random movement forces it into
friendly models or off the table?
A. The vehicle stops as soon as it comes into
contact with friendly models or the table’s edge.

So the trukk is to move 3D6 as far as possible.
And as had been repeated ad infinitum, it is not possible for a trukk to move.
It might be able to be moved (displaced, replaced, dragged, snagged, or anything else) by other models (lash, grapple) but the only possible move it can make is 0" if immobilized or stunned.

nosferatu1001 wrote:That is not the case.

ACTUAL precedent: page 88 chaos marine codex, lash of submission:

p88 wrote:the target is moved 2D6" by the chaos player"

Lash is movement, as ruled b y the Chaos FAQ. And, this applies to the trukk

Actually, I might think you have that wrong.
Quote from FAQ:
"The move created by this power is exected exactly like a normal move, except that it's not slowed by difficult terrain"

Seriously, it says its executed like a normal move, not IT IS a normal move.

Fact is, although Lash is moving something, it is not a move. What you said is misleading, especially since you paraphased without quoting.

Nos, how is your precedent from a different codex more applicable than the precedent we are calling from the ork kodex?(and yes, I am going to keep spelling it with a 'k')

Once the kareen! has been rolled, it is moved 3D6 inches, limited by models, terrain, and board edge. The mycetic spore argument simply shows that an immobilized vehicle can be moved under circumstances when it is told to move.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Nos, how is your precedent from a different codex more applicable than the precedent we are calling from the ork kodex?(and yes, I am going to keep spelling it with a 'k')

Once the kareen! has been rolled, it is moved 3D6 inches, limited by models, terrain, and board edge. The mycetic spore argument simply shows that an immobilized vehicle can be moved under circumstances when it is told to move.

-cgmckenzie

Actually, this is a very good point but I'm not sure how this applies at all despite Nos' claim.

Lash of submission is a move performed by a model on another model directly.

As in, he lashed him and dragged him over there.
Nos, this has nothing to do with what I have said about this being a random table choice, with scatter dice, that is involuntary.

Care to explain, as well as why you're misquoting the chaos FAQ?

plonka2000 wrote:

Care to explain, as well as why you're misquoting the chaos FAQ?

He didn't quote the FAQ.
He quoted the Chaos Space Marine Codex, page 88, under Lash of Submission about halfway through.

"If the test is successful, the target is moved 2D6" by the Chaos player."

Also Lash would ignore immobilized results.

Yeah he did, take a look about 2 posts before that.

"Lash is movement etc..." statement is untrue, and that this statement directly applies to trukks is also untrue.

time wizard wrote:

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."

Which is an active form of 'move', rather than passive if my grammar doesn't fail me. This underlines perfectly what I'm trying to say.
By the way, I wasn't quoting, I'd have given page numbers then.

It might be able to be moved (displaced, replaced, dragged, snagged, or anything else) by other models (lash, grapple) but the only possible move it can make is 0" if immobilized or stunned.

I think everything but this part of your post is right. Are you able to backup this conclusion with any part of the rules, directly or indirectly? Nowhere in the rules is forced movement limited to being caused by other models. Orks are quite unique in causing problems to themselves, but nothing, really nothing points to Kareen! being any different than the things you named. For argument's sake, Kareen! can never be triggered by the trukk itself, but only by different models.

Unless you can backup this with a rule I must have missed, this conclusion is flat out wrong. And please don't requote "Don't press dat!", I've explained numerous times why the rules are different.

nos: A rule basically rewritten by the FAQ doesn't really hold a stick as precedent. You also ignored that Kareen! does not describe regular movement rules, as you claim.

Also Lash would ignore immobilized results.

Of course it would, as it can't target vehicles.
However, I'm curious about why you came to that conclusion? Just because it is caused by a different model?

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.

It is for infantry, yes. A Trukk is a vehicle. Vehicles cannot move over friendly models, but I see nothing else in the BRB that says anything about 1". Furthermore, a normal move for a vehicle would be 6"(combat speed) or 12"(cruising speed). This movement is 3D6 in a random direction determined by a scatter die as far as possible, stopping 1" from any models or terrain it would hit. And even that cannot be misunderstood as a normal move, since vehicles can move into difficult and dangerous terrain OR enemy models(tank shock). In that situation, it WOULD NOT tank shock because it stops 1" before hitting any(friendly or enemy) models.

There is no way this is a normal movement.

Ahhh, another golden argument where Move versus move. At least I am glad to see that others easily recognize the difference between the mechanics of Kareen versus the mechanics of what entails Movement.

As snide as some would like to be in regard to my argument that physically moving a model does not always fulfill the BRB definition of Movemeent, GW has ruled exactly that way in the past.

The vehicle may not move......

versus

The vehicle is moved.....

If you cannot see the grammatical difference in those statements, then you shoud probably not even be in the argument. It is almost deliberate ignorance to not see the difference in those statements.

RAW and RAI, no moving for you mistah trukk!

Rules as we use them? Hell yeah it scoots off! For the love of all that's orky, whats more fun?!

beige - then youre missing the basic rules knowledge needed to comment further. Reread your rulebook and note that *everything* that happens to infantry happens to every unit type in the book, except where specified otherwise.

That includes not moving within 1" of an enemy model when moving, unless making an assault move.

So, as I said, basic rules knowledge.

Plonka - note the lack of quotation marks? Difficult to misquote when you dont quote.

Something executed EXACTLY LIKE movement makes something actually movement. If it isnt exactly like movement, then you have broken the rules.

Which makes it applies to trukks. Even when the trukk "is" moved it is still movement, despite your contention otherwise

Wrong.

Something that is executed exactly like movement is not movement, it is whatever it is called whether that be slogging, grigging, or Kareening (made up words before Kareening by the way).

All you keep doing Nos, is taking a Merriam or Websters definition of movement and apply it to defining movement in the World of Warhammer 40k. That is why you are wrong. Motion of a model in Warhammer 40k does not always fulfill the BRB definition of movement.

A Trukk suffering Kareen is not making a 3d6 move as defined by the BRB as Movement. It is being moved 3d6 by what is defined by the rules of Kareen.

nosferatu1001 wrote:beige - then youre missing the basic rules knowledge needed to comment further. Reread your rulebook and note that *everything* that happens to infantry happens to every unit type in the book, except where specified otherwise.

Yeah, page 11 in the BRB. I have the LittleRedBook but I assume it's got the same rules. It didn't say that "everything that happens to infantry happens to every unit type in the book, except where specified otherwise". Or even imply that. If there is a certain passage in the book that you're refering to please point it out to me. Is your rulebook and my rulebook different somehow? Even at the top, in bold, before it starts talking about movement rules, it says "...we'll just explain how squads of infantry move..." and right after that it says "Vehicles, jump infantry, bikes and certain other units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be discussed in detail later.

And then there's a section later on in the book talking about how vehicles move. And nowhere in there does it state that they have to stop 1" from an enemy model, because they don't have to.

What I'm trying to get at is that "...stop 1" from any model or terrain" is not a normal move, as per the vehicle movement rule.

On a side note, I wonder how many times this has actually come up in a game throughout the world.

beigeknight wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:beige - then youre missing the basic rules knowledge needed to comment further. Reread your rulebook and note that *everything* that happens to infantry happens to every unit type in the book, except where specified otherwise.

Yeah, page 11 in the BRB. I have the LittleRedBook but I assume it's got the same rules. It didn't say that "everything that happens to infantry happens to every unit type in the book, except where specified otherwise". Or even imply that. If there is a certain passage in the book that you're refering to please point it out to me. Is your rulebook and my rulebook different somehow? Even at the top, in bold, before it starts talking about movement rules, it says "...we'll just explain how squads of infantry move..." and right after that it says "Vehicles, jump infantry, bikes and certain other units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be discussed in detail later.

And then there's a section later on in the book talking about how vehicles move. And nowhere in there does it state that they have to stop 1" from an enemy model, because they don't have to.

What I'm trying to get at is that "...stop 1" from any model or terrain" is not a normal move, as per the vehicle movement rule.

On a side note, I wonder how many times this has actually come up in a game throughout the world.

from my experience, the little red book just does not contain the 200 pages or lore. It only contains the 100 ish pages of rules. So they have the same rules.