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.

Regwon wrote:remeber the rules are exclusive rather than inclusive. if it doesnt say your cant do something, it doesnt mean you can.

I can't help thinking this is very closely tied to a statistic I heard a while back. Did you know there are more lawyers in Houston, Texas than all the island of Japan? This is because the Japanese's law is entirely based on an inclusive system. If the law doesn't say you can do it, you can't. This is how I go about reading the rules and my own rule of thumb when resolving rule disputes. I believe you cannot infer anything in the rules that is not specifically there. Your quote, much like the United States as a whole, and apparently Houston, makes people think they have fundamental rights and privileges based on the poor penmanship of those righting the rules and seek only loopholes which take away from what many call "the spirit of the game".

While I agree that "move normally" is not clearly defined, the rule should be able to be clearly defined by other uses of the term. Sadly the only reference I could find to this is in the Fall Back! section on page 45. It states that a unit that falls back must continue to do so in a "subsequent Movement phase" "instead of moving normally". Now, this seems to spell out that they expect this move to happen in the Movement phase only. Now, while I realize this connection is far from conclusive, you can clearly see the realistic intent in the wording. Would you try and bend the same premise only because it deals with something a little more acceptable but still clearly against all obvious intent? While I hate the very sound and implication of the word, "intent" is sometimes so obvious it cannot be ignored, even by the most clever of "logic".

Danny Internets wrote:Assuming Deocratus' premise to be true, since Ramming requires vehicles to move at maximum capable speed, this would disallow Fast vehicles from being able to perform a Ramming attack ever, RAW.

But the maximum possible movement in the shooting phase on a tank with Star Engines is 12", no?

No, you are right, it reads "capable" of, so no Ramming ever.

Flat Out is a normal movement, but only some certain vehicles are capable of it. Even the reference charts to vehicle movement list Flat Out as being a capable speed instead of referring it as some special rule with a page reference. Nowhere does it state that Flat Out is any kind of "special movement". Just because something states that it is going to begin to add definitions to standard rules does not make them special but only means that the subject in question is merely unique but still follows normal rules relative to itself.

Danny Internets wrote:Assuming Deocratus' premise to be true, since Ramming requires vehicles to move at maximum capable speed, this would disallow Fast vehicles from being able to perform a Ramming attack ever, RAW.

Deocratus' premise is based on an opinion, not a fact, and is thusly considered a false premise. He is basing it on his interpretation of what GW meant by "normally" on page 68, paragraph 4, sentence 1 of the BRB.

He thinks "normally" means "as presented on page 57 of the BRB," while the opposing faction (anyone who thinks Fast Vehicles can Ram/Tank Shock) thinks "normally" means "moving in the normal fashion (ie. not tank shocking or ramming)."

Similarly, DaBoss, I think that in, "When moving a tank, the player can declare that the vehicle is going to attempt to make a tank shock attack instead of moving normally," one can clearly see that the realistic intent of the wording and connotations indicate that normally means any non-tank-shock/ramming move. However, I do agree with you that Flat-Out is a normal type of movement.

Once again, I state that this has now turned into an opinion/interpretation-fest, and we all know what opinions are like.

Flat Out is a normal movement, but only some certain vehicles are capable of it.

One can likewise argue that using Star Engines is normal movement, but only some certain vehicles (those equipped with them) are capable of it.

Deocratus' premise is based on an opinion, not a fact, and is thusly considered a false premise. He is basing it on his interpretation of what GW meant by "normally" on page 68, paragraph 4, sentence 1 of the BRB.

He thinks "normally" means "as presented on page 57 of the BRB," while the opposing faction (anyone who thinks Fast Vehicles can Ram/Tank Shock) thinks "normally" means "moving in the normal fashion (ie. not tank shocking or ramming)."

Similarly, DaBoss, I think that in, "When moving a tank, the player can declare that the vehicle is going to attempt to make a tank shock attack instead of moving normally," one can clearly see that the realistic intent of the wording and connotations indicate that normally means any non-tank-shock/ramming move. However, I do agree with you that Flat-Out is a normal type of movement.

Once again, I state that this has now turned into an opinion/interpretation-fest, and we all know what opinions are like.

I agree it is an opinion, which is why I prefaced my post with "Assuming Democratus' premise to be true". I just wanted to make clear the ramifications of such an interpretation.

Danny Internets wrote:Assuming Deocratus' premise to be true, since Ramming requires vehicles to move at maximum capable speed, this would disallow Fast vehicles from being able to perform a Ramming attack ever, RAW.

if you have the BSB, you realize that there is no assumption necessary. DEocratus is right.

DaBoss wrote:
I can't help thinking this is very closely tied to a statistic I heard a while back. Did you know there are more lawyers in Houston, Texas than all the island of Japan? This is because the Japanese's law is entirely based on an inclusive system. If the law doesn't say you can do it, you can't. This is how I go about reading the rules and my own rule of thumb when resolving rule disputes. I believe you cannot infer anything in the rules that is not specifically there. Your quote, much like the United States as a whole, and apparently Houston, makes people think they have fundamental rights and privileges based on the poor penmanship of those righting the rules and seek only loopholes which take away from what many call "the spirit of the game".

While I agree that "move normally" is not clearly defined, the rule should be able to be clearly defined by other uses of the term. Sadly the only reference I could find to this is in the Fall Back! section on page 45. It states that a unit that falls back must continue to do so in a "subsequent Movement phase" "instead of moving normally". Now, this seems to spell out that they expect this move to happen in the Movement phase only. Now, while I realize this connection is far from conclusive, you can clearly see the realistic intent in the wording. Would you try and bend the same premise only because it deals with something a little more acceptable but still clearly against all obvious intent? While I hate the very sound and implication of the word, "intent" is sometimes so obvious it cannot be ignored, even by the most clever of "logic".

I have been trying to put into words exactly what you put here. That sums up all my friends.. if it doesn't say no specifically, they claim they can do it. I ask them where it says they can and just restate it doesn't say I can't.. and I just walk away shaking my head.

Regwon wrote:Rules: exclusive, not inclusive.

That's a really dangerous view (and IMO not reading RAW). It means basically I can do what ever the hell I like as long as the rules don't say I can't do it.

The rules tell me how I can move.
The rules tell me how I can shoot.
The rules tell me how I take casualties.

The rules tell me what my models can do.

That's not exclusive, that's inclusive. The rules tell me what I can do in game and how I can do it. (In fact that's the true nature of MOST games).

Back on Topic:

The ramming rules simply state that you must move at "the highest speed it is capable of".

Unfortunatley that doesn't solve our double ram delema. As the Wave Serpent gets to move twice, and both times it moves it is can move at "the highest speed it is capable of".

Normal movement is movement in the MOVEMENT PHASE! IE when you NORMALLY MOVE craP! Star engines are NOT normal movement. You are moving in the phase not normally associated with with movement, so therefor its NOT normal movement (it requires war-gear so not normal for the vehicle) however flat-out movement IS normal, its done in the movement phase, as well as not requiring war-gear

Main Entry: 1nor·mal
Pronunciation: \ˈnȯr-məl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin normalis, from norma
Date: circa 1696
1: perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2 a: according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern

I hope we can all agree that defintion #1 doesn't apply here... Definition #2b: says conforming to a regular pattern... Within the 40k game, the normal pattern of movement occurs within the movement phase. If it is outside of the movement phase (or even not conforming to the movement pattern of other vehicles of that type) then it is abnormal movement. IMHO...

Double tank shocking is just too smelly by half...

Kallbrand wrote:I wouldnt classify star engines movement during the shootingphase as "normal movement" and cant see how anyone can see it as anything but a "special move".

Is it provided by the core rules? No. Then it's not 'normal' movement. If it's not in the core rules, then it's not a 'normal' rule but a special rule which modifies the 'normal' rules.

EDIT: Sorry, did not see the 't' making 'would' into 'would not'.

Even if the rules do not clearly disallow questionable tactics of this nature (which, in this case, it looks pretty clear cut that they do), do you really think it reflects the intention of the game design team for Wave Serpents to be ping-ponging around enemy armor?

Red_Lives, you're just deciding which interpretation of 'normal' to use, saying it in caps doesn't make it any more valid than any other person's assertion of what GW meant by it.

From another point of view, can anybody think of a good reason that a fast vehicle shouldn't be able to Ram? (From logic/fluff, not RAW- we've already hashed all of those out).

banik wrote:Red_Lives, you're just deciding which interpretation of 'normal' to use, saying it in caps doesn't make it any more valid than any other person's assertion of what GW meant by it.

From another point of view, can anybody think of a good reason that a fast vehicle shouldn't be able to Ram? (From logic/fluff, not RAW- we've already hashed all of those out).

Similarly (and not facetiously), can anyone think of a reason why a vehicle with Star Engines shouldn't be able to Ram? I can understand logic against the ping-pong tactic, but to not allow them to go 36" in a straight line in order to ram something at top speed seems silly.

Danny Internets wrote:

banik wrote:Red_Lives, you're just deciding which interpretation of 'normal' to use, saying it in caps doesn't make it any more valid than any other person's assertion of what GW meant by it.

From another point of view, can anybody think of a good reason that a fast vehicle shouldn't be able to Ram? (From logic/fluff, not RAW- we've already hashed all of those out).

Similarly (and not facetiously), can anyone think of a reason why a vehicle with Star Engines shouldn't be able to Ram? I can understand logic against the ping-pong tactic, but to not allow them to go 36" in a straight line in order to ram something at top speed seems silly.

Star Engines' move is in the Shooting Phase, so if you Ram in the Movement phase you're only going 24" max.

sourclams wrote:Even if the rules do not clearly disallow questionable tactics of this nature (which, in this case, it looks pretty clear cut that they do), do you really think it reflects the intention of the game design team for Wave Serpents to be ping-ponging around enemy armor?

No, which is why I prefaced the original most with "IMHO Terrible RAW interpretation follows". But there are several things that could answered and resolved besides: can you ram with Star Engines in shooting? Is ramming considered "close combat" between vehicles? Or even, does a Death or Glory attack operate inside the WS Energy Field?

my take on it

RAW - 'normal movement - any move which a unit may normally do, ie 'movement distance p11, random and compulsary movement is an exception - it has it's own paragraph, and is referred to as an exception. Moving fast vehicles - p70 states that a fast vehcile moving 18" flat out is treated in all respcts as a normal moving at cruising. However, the previous paragraph states this as an exception, hence not normal movement. p69 - ramming is a special type of tank shock, therefore anything which may tankshock, may ram. p 68 - when moving a tank, the player can declare that the vehicle is going to attempt to make a tank shock attack instead of moving normally. A vehicle does not have to move normall to perform a ram, therefore a fast skimmer MAY ram for the first time.

2nd ram - the rules state nothing about movement during the movement phase, merly that the vehicle cannot shoot. It already cannot due to the first ram. The rules even suggest a circumstance where a tank may be unable to shoot but is still allowed to ram. If the star engines are classed as a 'normal' move, then the 2nd ram is allowed. I don't have an eldar codex to check sorry, but from what I understand, it is. If you take the rules in the same way as magic rules, litterally as written, the shooting phase is a separate phase from the movement phase, therefore any movement that may normally occur in the shooting phase IS normal movement, it doesn't matter what has happened before as the phases don't stack. Other models which may move NORMALLY in the shooting phase - jet bikes, tau battle suits?.

Even if you apply logic to the situation - if a vehicle is equiped with a piece of battlefield equipment, you would assume that it normal to use it. We don't give troops takes and say, "actually, humans have legs so it's normal to walk, we don't wantyou to actually use the tank, unless walking isn't normal. If your going to swim the channel then feel free to hop in, heck you might even drive instead of swim, just make sure you have an oxygen supply (not normally supplied, troops should purchase this just incase the situation arrises)

to conclude (my heads a little pickled after this)

a tank shock/ram is performed instead of a normal move. There are some models which may have two moves, unless stated otherwise, this is normal. Therefore it is plausible for a skimmer to be able to ram twice in one turn.

Using the shield as protection? nope can't be used. Normally a model may not move within 1" of an enemy, a tank shock is not normal. It's a point blank range attack which is not an assault. RAW

Please argue with me, I'm going to be on the recieving end of this! Logically though, if a tank gets two moves then surly they can ram twice? The rules say that they are an interpreation of hundreds of things going on, the 2nd ram could simply be a skimmer going to fast, bouncing off the first target tank and the pilot forcing it into a 2nd availble target. I'll allow it until I find concrete evidence sayng no. If your daft enough to get into a situation where an iopponent can do this to you, then really you deserve it. Their simply using tools at their disposal to win the battle, whoever said war was fair?

Again, is that second move allowed by the core rules that are common to all vehicles? If not, then it is not a normal move.

covenant84 wrote: the shooting phase is a separate phase from the movement phase, therefore any movement that may normally occur in the shooting phase IS normal movement, it doesn't matter what has happened before as the phases don't stack. Other models which may move NORMALLY in the shooting phase - jet bikes, tau battle suits?.
Even if you apply logic to the situation - if a vehicle is equiped with a piece of battlefield equipment, you would assume that it normal to use it. We don't give troops takes and say, "actually, humans have legs so it's normal to walk, we don't wantyou to actually use the tank, unless walking isn't normal. If your going to swim the channel then feel free to hop in, heck you might even drive instead of swim, just make sure you have an oxygen supply (not normally supplied, troops should purchase this just incase the situation arrises)
to conclude (my heads a little pickled after this)
a tank shock/ram is performed instead of a normal move. There are some models which may have two moves, unless stated otherwise, this is normal. Therefore it is plausible for a skimmer to be able to ram twice in one turn.

Moving that occurs in the shooting phase is precisely NOT normal movement if you use the basic definition of 'normal' quoted previously. The vast majority of vehicles in the game may not move in the shooting phase, so it logically follows that such movement is not normal within the game. (And your example of jetbikes and Tau battlesuits is apples to oranges- they aren't vehicles, can't tank shock, and have their own abnormal/exceptional rules of their own).

Being equipped with Star Engines and using them does not mean the WS is moving normally. Your analogy about tanks and swimming the channel is ,respectfully, just bizarre and not at all parallel to this situation- not too sure what you were trying to show there...

IMHO, I just can't see a star engine move ever being considered as 'normal movement'. Any movement besides what is done in the Movement Phase under the basic rules is by definition abnormal movement. Certainly the WS can ram in his movement phase and then subsequently use his star engines to move again in the shooting phase. But this second move is certainly not normal (within the 40k normal rules for movement) and by RAW, cannot therefore be eligible for a second ram.

Again, is that second move allowed by the core rules that are common to all vehicles? If not, then it is not a normal move.

Yes, we understand that is how you, Ghaz, define the term "normal movement". We're more interested in how GW defines it, unfortunately (they don't). One opinion is as good as the next without support from the text.

Star Engines' move is in the Shooting Phase, so if you Ram in the Movement phase you're only going 24" max.

Ramming rules say you use the total distance moved over the turn, not the phase, in determining the Strength of the hit. Regardless, the question was not asking for rules support, but rather for a common sense perspective.

Moving that occurs in the shooting phase is precisely NOT normal movement if you use the basic definition of 'normal' quoted previously. The vast majority of vehicles in the game may not move in the shooting phase, so it logically follows that such movement is not normal within the game. (And your example of jetbikes and Tau battlesuits is apples to oranges- they aren't vehicles, can't tank shock, and have their own abnormal/exceptional rules of their own).

Your logic also dictates that because most vehicles are not classified as "fast", moving over 12" is also not considered "normal" movement. This leads to a conclusion where fast tanks cannot ever make a Ramming attack because moving at the maximum speed, as required by the Ramming rules, would constitute abnormal movement.

Ghaz wrote:Again, is that second move allowed by the core rules that are common to all vehicles? If not, then it is not a normal move.

Which is fine, if you can point to a definition of 'normal movement' in the rules.

If you forget about the term 'normal movement' for a moment and look at the rules in context, you can just as easily argue that 'instead of moving normally' simply means 'instead of going from A to B without running over something...'

It's not just about the meaning of 'normal movement'... (a term that doesn't even appear in the rule in question)... it's about the meaning of the statement as a whole.

Frankly, the whole thing simply comes down to your own personal interpretation of what 'moving normally' means in the context of the rule.

SO: Dice for it, or don't do it.

Danny Internets wrote:Yes, we understand that is how you, Ghaz, define the term "normal movement". We're more interested in how GW defines it, unfortunately (they don't). One opinion is as good as the next without support from the text.

Yet you want to keep defining it to mean what you want, so it seems like the pot is calling the kettle black so to speak. And no, one opinion is not as good as another. You have yet to explain how something not in the core rules but is only provided by one piece of wargear can considered to be 'normal'. Try actually supporting your position for a change instead of trying to disprove everyone else's who disagrees with you. Seems to me that you can't without so many twists of logic and jumping through so many loopholes it's clear that Star Engines do NOT provide 'normal' movement.

Ghaz, can a vehicle with Star Engines normally move in the Shooting Phase?

insaniak wrote:Ghaz, can a vehicle with Star Engines normally move in the Shooting Phase?

And i will forever blame YAK for ruling it that way and causing this problem in the 1st place. *nods*

The vast majority of vehicles in the game may not move in the shooting phase, so it logically follows that such movement is not normal within the game

the mass majority cannot, therefore the minority can. The BRB does not define 'normal movement' howver it DOES give definaitions of abnormal movement. e.g. falling back, tank shocking. If a WS is euiped with something, then it would be 'normal' to use it. Back to my badly explained point, if it's not normal for something to use a piece of wargear, it wouldn't have it.

And your example of jetbikes and Tau battlesuits is apples to oranges- they aren't vehicles, can't tank shock, and have their own abnormal/exceptional rules of their own

I wasn't making the point that other tanks can move normally, but that other models can. Does it say anywhere that jetbike movement is not normal or is an exception? (again sorry, i don't have the codex to check this). If not then it's normal for them to do this. Both you and your opponent expect it, therefore it would be abnormal for them not to have the 2nd move - it's what they're designed for....

Any movement besides what is done in the Movement Phase under the basic rules is by definition abnormal movement

the rules do not say this, it is an opinion rather than RAW, the rules give examples of abnormal movement, and this is not included, therefore it's normal. the way in which GW has written the rules (the american way) anything not stated as being abnormal is therefore normal. Abnormal movement causes exceptions to the rules, and exceptions are stated in the BRB in black and white text. Anything which is not an exception is not an exception....effectivly meaning if the BRB says it's not an additional rule to 'standard' then it's normal by any other definition.

as for the strength issue of the attack....we're all arguing about how to take advantage of a loophole anyway, the example is not covered and obviously didn't come up in testing so I have no answer. I would personally argue that the 2nd ram would be at a lower strength...Theory behind this...the 1st ram is dealt with at the max speed during the movement phase as normal, the WS ricochets into another tank for the 2nd ram, losing momentum and energy so the 2nd ram will not be as powerful. I'd allow a house rule for my opponent saying that if the ws happend to miss the 1st target (i.e. a skimmer doeges) then the 2nd ram may be taken at the full distance moved over the turn (no loss of energy from a ram that didn't occur).

I'd say that if a plyer took advantage of this unusual, but perfectly normal, situation, fair play to them. If they turned up with an army geared towards this tactic that would be beardy and I would be more than happy to walk away with a morale victory (unless I also happened to have a beardy force!)

covenant84 wrote:the way in which GW has written the rules (the american way) anything not stated as being abnormal is therefore normal. Abnormal movement causes exceptions to the rules, and exceptions are stated in the BRB in black and white text. Anything which is not an exception is not an exception....effectivly meaning if the BRB says it's not an additional rule to 'standard' then it's normal by any other definition

I must say I don't like this method of interpreting the rule set and you can't call it strictly RAW.

You're saying that the rules don't say I can't; therefore I can. That's not RAW.

If you're going to try and use RAW to argue a point you really need to come from the rules are "permisive" side of the table. The rules say I can do this; with this exception; therfore I can.

I would also like to point out that the rules were written the British way .... and as we all know the way the British use the English language differs greatly from the way the Americans do (just look at the spelling for starters).

Now ... can a wave serpent tank shock with it's star engines?

yes, reading that it doesn't make too much sense.

So to the star engine thing. nowhere says it can or it can't in black and white so it comes down to the question, is using a star engine normal movement in the shooting phase alone?

I believe it to be, but as said before lack of a codex means i can't check my argument. Does the eldar codex specify that using star engines is an exception to the normal movement rules? If it's not then logically it's considered normal.

insaniak wrote:Ghaz, can a vehicle with Star Engines normally move in the Shooting Phase?

Can it do so using just the rules in the 5th edition rulebook?

Ghaz wrote:

insaniak wrote:Ghaz, can a vehicle with Star Engines normally move in the Shooting Phase?

Can it do so using just the rules in the 5th edition rulebook?

Nope. Good thing 'normal movement' isn't defined by those methods of movement appearing in the 5th edition rulebook.

And yet again, how can anything be 'normal' for all vehicles when it's only an upgrade for a few vehicles in one codex? You can keep going on and on about how 'normal movement' isn't defined by the rulebook yet you can't give a good reason why it's not as I and some of the others have stated. How can something that applies to only a few vehicles be considered normal for all of them? It can not. Try covering the gaping holes in your position instead of the tiny one in the other position instead.

Ghaz, we get it, you can interpret it any way you like and that's perfectly fine, but don't try and pretend that you are presenting a RAW argument. You are presenting your opinion, evidenced by the fact that none of your arguments actually cite any part of the rules in support, other than the nebulous phrase "normal movement" which is the topic of discussion.

How can something that applies to only a few vehicles be considered normal for all of them? It can not. Try covering the gaping holes in your position instead of the tiny one in the other position instead.

Hypocritically, you tell others to address the holes in their argument while you consistently ignore the gaping hole in yours. If you're going to define abnormal movement as movement that only a few vehicles are capable of then you need to address the fact that this leads to a conclusion where fast vehicles cannot ram because moving more than 12" is abnormal. Clearly, that is absurd, but that is what your reasoning dictates.

Furthermore, myself and others have already expressed that it is possible for "normal movement" to be defined as whatever movement of which a vehicle is capable. Just because you choose to ignore this doesn't mean people haven't presented a good reason why "normal movement" shouldn't be restricted to movement detailed in the rulebook. A vehicle with Star Engines can normally use Star Engines to move in the Shooting Phase. Hence, normal. Yes, this too is an interpretation, not a RAW argument, just like yours.