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.

Sorry, it was getting late and I went to bed - I'll try to address everyone. My answers may seem repetitive, but keep in mind that I DO think that beasts are SPECIFICALLY allowed a certain exception as given to them by the page on beasts.

Steelmage99 wrote:OK. Lets try this one on for size;

How far does Beasts assault?

12".

jgehunter wrote:I think this is a case of specific > general.

You normally move exactly like infantry but for that specific case you are not allowed to perform that action, climb up a ruin.

I believe that the rule listed on the page on beasts is a specific allowance to move into ruins.

grendel083 wrote:In the case of the Chaos Lord, he moves like jump infantry, but he isn't classed as jump infantry. Infantry can board a transport, jump infantry cannot (unless specified, like Stormravens). The Lord can board a transport, becasue even though he moves like jump infantry, he is still infantry.

Similar, beasts might move like infantry but they don't become infantry. They're still beasts and still restricted from the upper levels of ruins.

I mentioned earlier that beasts move like infantry sometimes. To clarify this infantry move 6" assault 6", beasts move 6" assault 12", they follow similar rules but they don't move like infantry all the time.

Edit: I don't have a Chaos Codex, I'm just going on the basis that wings don't change unit type as someone mentioned it didn't.

They move like infantry all the time in the movement phase - in other phases, they move like infantry with one specific exception. This exception is that, in the assault phase, they assault 12". Also, I'm not trying to say that having wings changes the unit type - in fact, I'm trying to say that it does NOT change the unit type. My main point in that example is that a character with wings can choose to move like infantry, in which case all of the rules for moving as they apply to infantry would apply to him, or they can choose to move like jump infantry, in which case all the rules for moving as they apply to jump infantry would apply to him. I believe one of these rules to be the rule on moving into ruins.

liturgies of blood wrote:Tangent as the rules for ruins comes after the bit that says beast move like cavalry that is introducing an exception to the previous allowances.

The listing of unit types is exhaustive as it deals with a more specific situation. And is a perfect example of specific rules having a greater standing then the general rules.

The listing of unit types, as I previously mentioned, is NOT exhaustive.

And is that really how it works? "Specific beats general" really means "later in the rulebook beats earlier in the rulebook"? If it does, I've been mistaken for a long time.

Avatar 720 wrote:

Tangent wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:It does not reference units until afterwards.

It states that "Accordingly, only infantry, jump infantry, jetbikes, monstrous creatures and walkers may move on the upper levels of a ruin - and only if the model can physically be placed there." They are all unit types, and so the rule can only be referring to unit type, unless you can find a unit in any codex called 'Walker' or 'Jetbike' (not Reaver Jetbike or Guardian Jetbike, just 'jetbike', since that is what is stated) then unit type must be what is referred to.

The line afterwards stating 'other units' has no affect on what was previously stated, and refers to units that do not have the types listed.

You are also ignoring the Walker argument; if they move "in exactly the same way as infantry" and were required to have specific permission, why would Beasts and Cavalry not require it?

To your first point, I believe that "Reaver Jetbike" would qualify as a "jetbike". Plus, as an example, "models equipped with wings move in the same way as jump infantry" according to the Chaos codex. I believe that this means that these models are treated as infantry for all purposes regarding movement. Apply this to beasts and infantry - beasts are treated as infantry for all purposes regarding movement, which means that if infantry can do it, beasts can too. As previously mentioned, this would not include things like embarking, which seems to be a specific action taken in the movement phase but which is not actually movement.

Not if you want it to refer to units. Having it mean Reaver Jetbike would support them referring to Unit Type; if you want them to refer to units themselves then it must be a unit called 'Jetbike'.

Where was it previously mentioned? A Chaos Lord with Wings may still embark, as the CSM FAQ states that he does not become Jump Infantry. As for embarking not being movement... it IS movement. It states that a unit wishing to embark must move so that all models in the unit are within 2" of an access point, so even if you start the game right up against an access point, you must still move in order to embark, since you not given permission to embark otherwise.

As for beasts being treated as infantry for movement, that is incorrect, they move as infantry. There is a very distinct difference, a unit 'moving as' does not become infantry at any point, they just move in a similar fashion; a unit that is treated as infantry is, for all intents and purposes, infantry. Neither Beasts nor Cavalry are treated as infantry, so you cannot claim that they can do everything infantry do.

To your second point, I'm not ignoring it - it came up today. My response is that I just don't know, but that doesn't mean it's not the case. I don't know why they forgot to put beasts in the list on page 83, or skimmers for that matter. I would also wonder why the section regarding walker movement is so much larger than the section on beast movement when they are essentially identical except for the facing rules for armor values with walkers. They write the rulebooks in ways that make no sense sometimes, but in this case they decided to leave skimmers and beasts off the list on page 83 and I can't explain it. *shrug*

You cannot know that they forgot, we have to assume that everything they have left out of the rulebook and the FAQs is purposeful, otherwise the game breaks, otherwise what prevents me from assuming that they forgot to add in a clause that says "Everytime you play Avatar 720, you automatically lose."?

The fact is that Walkers move in exactly the same way as infantry and were required to have explicit permission to move on the upper floors of ruins, what gives Beasts and Cavalry permission to ignore this obvious requirement? The answer? Nothing.

If the Rulebook doesn't let you, then you cannot; as I said earlier, we have to assume that everything that isn't in the rulebook or FAQ is like that on purpose, otherwise the game breaks. Just because Beasts and Cavalry move like Infantry does not allow them to ignore the requirement for specific permission.

You've got, by far, the best argument, Avatar. In response to your first part, when I said "previously mentioned" I was referring to a previous post of mine that mentioned the same thing. Embarking is not movement - the movement that must take place in order to be within range to take the specific action of "embark" is movement, but the actual embarking is not as the rules do not state that it is. I would still agree, though, that movement is required prior to embarking, and so a unit that cannot move also cannot embark. I agree that beasts are not treated as infantry for movement - maybe the need I feel to provide examples is muddying my only real point here. Beasts move as infantry. Infantry move in certain ways. Therefore beasts move in certain ways. One of these ways happens to be within ruins.

In response to the second part, we can definitely assume that everything they left off the list was purposeful. This means that, if there are any exceptions, we have to look elsewhere for them. We find one of these exceptions in the section on skimmers, and another in the section on beasts. I'm not assuming that they forgot to add the clause regarding beasts and skimmers for any other reason than the fact that beasts and skimmers WERE forgotten. I glean this information by finding exceptions for these two in other areas of the rulebook. I've never stated that artillery or other vehicles were "forgotten" because nowhere else in the rulebook is it stated that they should be able to make this kind of movement.

Regarding walkers, by that logic, beasts shouldn't be able to move as infantry at all, because the section concerning walker movement contains what is essentially a reprinting of the infantry movement rules from previous chapters. In comparison to the list on page 83, these would be "specific allowances" that beasts don't get. Now, I know this particular point is weak, but my overall point here is that beasts are NOT ignoring this requirement - they are MEETING this requirement as per the specific allowance granted to them in the section on beasts to be able to move like infantry. Since infantry move into ruins, beasts can, too.

Crablezworth wrote:By the rulebook skimmers cannot land on the upper floors of ruins and lets be honest, you need a pretty wide floor to accomodate a skimmer anyway and the rulebook says even stuff that is allowed to move on the upper levels of ruins can only do so if they physically fit, I take that to mean that large nid monsters or dreadnoughts aren't going to fit into too many ruins that I've seen.

The gaping hole with terrain is one of specificity. It's not always so simple to point at a terrain piece and define it as only 1 type of terrain and call it a day, it might have many different features and in the case of ruins, there's 4 full pages of rules and you're required to make decisions like whether you need a ladder to be able to climb or whether models treat walls as solid or not. I myself play ruins with no melting through walls and we basically define each wall as impassable. It's very important to have a detailed and in depth discussion about terrain because it will avoid arguments and add great depth to the game.

Myself and my Tau friend play that skimmers can land on the upper floors of ruins. I've seen the arguments to the contrary and never brought them up to him, primarily because he plays Tau and every game we play concludes with a discussion on how bad the Tau codex is. I don't feel like I'm "doing him a favor" or something - I just figured what the heck, you know? It is also worth mentioning that he and I did not have this argument during a game - it was had after a game and there is no bad blood between us. I'm debating it now because he and I already said what we had to say about it to each other, and honestly, Avatar is pretty close to convincing me. I play two fairly underpowered codexes as well, however, and I would probably say tit-for-tat in this case - if my beasts can't climb ruins, then your skimmers can't, either. Seems like an even trade, to me.

Tangent wrote:Sorry, it was getting late and I went to bed - I'll try to address everyone. My answers may seem repetitive, but keep in mind that I DO think that beasts are SPECIFICALLY allowed a certain exception as given to them by the page on beasts.

Steelmage99 wrote:OK. Lets try this one on for size;

How far does Beasts assault?

12".

So this is where I say; "No, They only assault 6" because that is how far Infantry assaults and Beasts move like Infantry".

Please, tell me why I am wrong.



...

Tangent what comes later in the book builds on what comes first. In general what comes later in each section is more specific then what comes first.

For example, you talk about taking saves on page 20 but on pg 25 it talks about how you take saves on complex units. The rules on page 25 take a more specific scenario and tell you how it resolves.

Moving through cover, which beasts can do just like infantry is a general scenario(taking difficult terrain tests where needed) while moving up through levels in a ruin is a more specific scenario.
Saying beasts move like infantry talks about their behaviour in the movement phase IN GENERAL while something that comes later builds on specific expamples such as when it comes to moving into transports and I THINK by extension buildings and how specifically they don't have permission to climb up a ruin.

Tangent wrote:Also, I'm not trying to say that having wings changes the unit type - in fact, I'm trying to say that it does NOT change the unit type. My main point in that example is that a character with wings can choose to move like infantry, in which case all of the rules for moving as they apply to infantry would apply to him, or they can choose to move like jump infantry, in which case all the rules for moving as they apply to jump infantry would apply to him. I believe one of these rules to be the rule on moving into ruins.

My point that his unit type is unchanged is the point why beasts can't use upper levels in a ruin.

The winged Chaos Lordis infantry, he can move like jump infantry but doesn't change unit type to jump infantry. Because of this he may still embark on transports (jump infantry can not embark).
Beasts move like infantry, but it doesn't change them to infantry. As such may not go into the upper levels of ruins.

By your logic the Chaos Lord would be unable to board a transport because he moves like jump infantry. He's still infantry so he can, beasts are still beasts so they can't enter ruins.

OK - the biggest point is that the arguement is trying to state that 'Moves like' is the same as 'Is'.

In most basic terms, If I 'Move Like' a monkey, does that mean that I 'Am' a monkey? No...

Like grendel said - the Unit Type determines what a unit can and cannot not do - what it can do is NOT determined by how it moves. Trying to draw a correlation from 'X moves like Y' and 'Y can do Z' to 'X can do Z' is wrong...in all senses. Logically, you qualifiers of 'moves like and can do MUST be the same or one of them must contain or reference the other.

If the book said 'all units that move like infantry can climb in ruins' then you have a valid argument....

How the model moves has no bearing on the question at hand. It is a straw man argument. The only consideration is the unit type. Beasts are specifically disallowed from moving to the upper levels of ruins due to their unit type not being listed as being able to do so. Being able to 'move like' infantry is inconsequential. They are not infantry.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Tangent wrote:Sorry, it was getting late and I went to bed - I'll try to address everyone. My answers may seem repetitive, but keep in mind that I DO think that beasts are SPECIFICALLY allowed a certain exception as given to them by the page on beasts.

Steelmage99 wrote:OK. Lets try this one on for size;

How far does Beasts assault?

12".

So this is where I say; "No, They only assault 6" because that is how far Infantry assaults and Beasts move like Infantry".

Please, tell me why I am wrong.

...

Because there is a specific allowance, written in the section on beasts, which allows them to assault 12". This allowance is stated because it differs from how infantry normally assault. You're also forgetting that it doesn't say that beasts assault like infantry - it says that they move like infantry. This is probably an important distinction, but I don't know for sure.

liturgies of blood wrote:Tangent what comes later in the book builds on what comes first. In general what comes later in each section is more specific then what comes first.

For example, you talk about taking saves on page 20 but on pg 25 it talks about how you take saves on complex units. The rules on page 25 take a more specific scenario and tell you how it resolves.

Moving through cover, which beasts can do just like infantry is a general scenario(taking difficult terrain tests where needed) while moving up through levels in a ruin is a more specific scenario.
Saying beasts move like infantry talks about their behaviour in the movement phase IN GENERAL while something that comes later builds on specific expamples such as when it comes to moving into transports and I THINK by extension buildings and how specifically they don't have permission to climb up a ruin.

Fair enough - though I think there are probably enough examples of this NOT being the case to warrant not stating it like this, but I haven't looked and I don't think it's relevant to the argument. As a counter-example, the allowance for skimmers to move into the upper levels of ruins is actually BEFORE page 83. Again, I don't think it actually matters where in the rulebook a "more specific" rule shows up. The only thing that matters is that it DOES show up, and I believe it does in the section concerning beasts (just like it does in the section concerning skimmers).

grendel083 wrote:

Tangent wrote:Also, I'm not trying to say that having wings changes the unit type - in fact, I'm trying to say that it does NOT change the unit type. My main point in that example is that a character with wings can choose to move like infantry, in which case all of the rules for moving as they apply to infantry would apply to him, or they can choose to move like jump infantry, in which case all the rules for moving as they apply to jump infantry would apply to him. I believe one of these rules to be the rule on moving into ruins.

My point that his unit type is unchanged is the point why beasts can't use upper levels in a ruin.

The winged Chaos Lordis infantry, he can move like jump infantry but doesn't change unit type to jump infantry. Because of this he may still embark on transports (jump infantry can not embark).
Beasts move like infantry, but it doesn't change them to infantry. As such may not go into the upper levels of ruins.

By your logic the Chaos Lord would be unable to board a transport because he moves like jump infantry. He's still infantry so he can, beasts are still beasts so they can't enter ruins.

My logic is NOT that a Chaos Lord, who uses his wings to move to within 2" of a transport's access point, becomes jump infantry and so cannot embark. In fact, the section on embarkation does not specify what type of movement (jumping, flying, walking, running, whatever) is required before embarkation - it only states that some movement is required.

Regardless, this is now the ump-teenth argument that I feel like I should not be having, and now feel very strongly that my argument is being muddied by all of these tangential points. Beasts CAN move into the upper levels of ruins because they are given an exception to do so. All of this other stuff is only confusing me, and, at this point, I feel like the only person who is debating my actual points is Avatar.

Amaraxis wrote:OK - the biggest point is that the arguement is trying to state that 'Moves like' is the same as 'Is'.

This is wrong. I have never stated that "moves like" is the same as "is". I have, many times, stated the opposite.

Ghaz wrote:How the model moves has no bearing on the question at hand. It is a straw man argument. The only consideration is the unit type. Beasts are specifically disallowed from moving to the upper levels of ruins due to their unit type not being listed as being able to do so. Being able to 'move like' infantry is inconsequential. They are not infantry.

How the model moves absolutely does bear weight on the question. The reason is that the paragraph on page 83 talks about how infantry move into the upper levels of ruins. We then see that beasts move like infantry. X is like Y, Y can do Z, therefore X can do Z. It would be different if the same language wasn't used in both sections, strongly associating the two. It would be different if the paragraph on page 83 used the word "type" or "category" when referring to the units which are allowed to move into ruins. It would be different if the last sentence wasn't an outright lie (as per skimmers).

...

I'll be reading everyone's posts but I'll probably only respond to Avatar and Steelmage (because it seems like he has a point brewing and I would hate to leave him hanging before he reaches a satisfying conclusion) because I feel like I'm just talking in circles at this point and it takes a really long time to respond to everyone. Sorry guys. Thanks for your input and I see what you guys are saying and/or trying to say, but I just don't agree for the reasons I stated in the paragraph just above this one.

No it does not. Where do the rules ever say that models that "move like" infantry can enter the upper levels of ruins? It does not. In order to do so, you must be one of the unit types listed and not just "move like" them. Your argument has no basis in the rules to support it.

Ghaz wrote:No it does not. Where do the rules ever say that models that "move like" infantry can enter the upper levels of ruins? It does not. In order to do so, you must be one of the unit types listed and not just "move like" them. Your argument has no basis in the rules to support it.

To follow up Ghaz' post...

"X is like Y, Y can do Z, therefore X can do Z."

This is your logical failure. You're making a bad application of transitive logic.

The correct formula for a transitive relationship is:

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.

The failure in your argument, Tangent, is that Beast moving like Infantry does not make Beast equal to infantry. If beasts are not equal to infantry, then the result of the logical formula falls apart. If A != B, then it doesn't matter whether or not B = C if trying to prove A = C.

In this example, since Beasts != Infantry, it is immaterial what Infantry are capable of doing in this argument.

So, you need to get away from the whole "moves like" argument, because that doesn't achieve what you need to achieve to prove your position. You need to prove that Beasts = Infantry; "moves like" isn't a strong enough relationship.

Tangent wrote:How the model moves absolutely does bear weight on the question. The reason is that the paragraph on page 83 talks about how infantry move into the upper levels of ruins. We then see that beasts move like infantry. X is like Y, Y can do Z, therefore X can do Z. It would be different if the same language wasn't used in both sections, strongly associating the two. It would be different if the paragraph on page 83 used the word "type" or "category" when referring to the units which are allowed to move into ruins. It would be different if the last sentence wasn't an outright lie (as per skimmers).


I'll be reading everyone's posts but I'll probably only respond to Avatar and Steelmage (because it seems like he has a point brewing and I would hate to leave him hanging before he reaches a satisfying conclusion) because I feel like I'm just talking in circles at this point and it takes a really long time to respond to everyone. Sorry guys. Thanks for your input and I see what you guys are saying and/or trying to say, but I just don't agree for the reasons I stated in the paragraph just above this one.

I can understand that you don't agree. I am only jumping in here because you are making flawed logical arguments.

X is like Y, Y can do Z, therefore X can do Z.

Okay, a whale (X) is like a fish (Y), they both live in the water, they both swim. A fish (Y) can breathe underwater (Z). Therefore a whale (X) can breathe underwater (Z). Only a whale can't breathe underwater, it breathes air. See? The argument is flawed.

Page 83 does not pertain to any particular unit's movement per se, it instead refers to movement with a specific area, in this case ruins. Ruins are a category of terrain, classified as difficult. You and your opponent could mutually agree that a ruin is also dangerous or even impassable, but lets just look at the basic ruin, classified as difficult terrain.

Normally, any unit on the board can move into, out of and through difficult terrain. Nothing on page 83 prevents any unit from moving into, out of or through ruins. But page 83 does specify exactly which units can move on the upper floors of the ruins. Those units include infantry, but do not include beasts. It does not say only troops that move like infantry are permitted to move on the upper floors of the ruin, it says only infantry, jump infantry, etc. Are beasts listed as one of the "onlys" that can move on the upper floors? No? Then they can't. They can still move on the ground floor however, like any of the units not specifically given permission in the second sentence.

Tangent wrote:
I'll be reading everyone's posts but I'll probably only respond to Avatar and Steelmage (because it seems like he has a point brewing and I would hate to leave him hanging before he reaches a satisfying conclusion) because I feel like I'm just talking in circles at this point and it takes a really long time to respond to everyone. Sorry guys. Thanks for your input and I see what you guys are saying and/or trying to say, but I just don't agree for the reasons I stated in the paragraph just above this one.

Ah hear now, that is the biggest case of putting fingers in your ears and singing ever. You can't/won't accept our analysis that moving through ruins is a unit type based restricted list and argue that unit type is meaningless because of similarities in how they behave in certain situations despite being treated differently in others.

All units move like Infantry, insofar as the base rules are written for Infantry, and other unit types function the same way except where specifically designated otherwise.

One of the areas designated otherwise is the Ruins rules, where only a specific list of unit types are given permission to move above the ground level of a ruin. Beasts are not on the list.

Tangent wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Tangent wrote:Sorry, it was getting late and I went to bed - I'll try to address everyone. My answers may seem repetitive, but keep in mind that I DO think that beasts are SPECIFICALLY allowed a certain exception as given to them by the page on beasts.

Steelmage99 wrote:OK. Lets try this one on for size;

How far does Beasts assault?

12".

So this is where I say; "No, They only assault 6" because that is how far Infantry assaults and Beasts move like Infantry".

Please, tell me why I am wrong.

...

1. Because there is a specific allowance, written in the section on beasts, which allows them to assault 12". This allowance is stated because it differs from how infantry normally assault.

2. You're also forgetting that it doesn't say that beasts assault like infantry - it says that they move like infantry. This is probably an important distinction, but I don't know for sure.

1. So we have now established that a specific exception can indeed move Beasts away from the base-line rule of "move like Infantry".
This is important because there is also a specific allowance for certain units to move up levels within ruins (and it follows that units not given that specific allowance are forbidden from performing that action), written in the section on Ruins.
Why is one specific allowance modifying a units movement (in the general sense) more important than the other. Surely both specific exceptions to the general rule of "move like Infantry" must apply, right?

The section on Transport Capacity in the Transport Vehicles (page 66) section only allows for Infantry to embark on vehicles. Can Beast embark on vehicles? Of course, they can't. Even though they move like Infantry they are still not Infantry, they are Beast. A unit (sub)type that has a series of restrictions/special allowances on their movement (in the general sense).

2. Rulebook, Page 51.

"In this section, you will find rules for each of these unit types, namely Monstrous Creatures, Jump Infantry,....*snip*".
"Except for the rules detailed in this section for each unit type, these units follow the same rules as Infantry".




...

Ghaz wrote:No it does not. Where do the rules ever say that models that "move like" infantry can enter the upper levels of ruins? It does not. In order to do so, you must be one of the unit types listed and not just "move like" them. Your argument has no basis in the rules to support it.

The rules say that when it talks about how infantry get to the upper levels of ruins.

Saldiven wrote:

Ghaz wrote:No it does not. Where do the rules ever say that models that "move like" infantry can enter the upper levels of ruins? It does not. In order to do so, you must be one of the unit types listed and not just "move like" them. Your argument has no basis in the rules to support it.

To follow up Ghaz' post...

"X is like Y, Y can do Z, therefore X can do Z."

This is your logical failure. You're making a bad application of transitive logic.

The correct formula for a transitive relationship is:

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.

The failure in your argument, Tangent, is that Beast moving like Infantry does not make Beast equal to infantry. If beasts are not equal to infantry, then the result of the logical formula falls apart. If A != B, then it doesn't matter whether or not B = C if trying to prove A = C.

In this example, since Beasts != Infantry, it is immaterial what Infantry are capable of doing in this argument.

So, you need to get away from the whole "moves like" argument, because that doesn't achieve what you need to achieve to prove your position. You need to prove that Beasts = Infantry; "moves like" isn't a strong enough relationship.

I wasn't trying to apply definitive transitive logic - I was merely using a shorthand way of illuminating my point. Since people seem to love arguing the wrong points... I'll be more descriptive: Beasts move like infantry, infantry can move in certain ways, therefore beasts can move in certain ways. I've said this multiple times in other posts. Further, beasts moving like infantry IS a strong enough relationship because the paragraph isn't referring to unit "type" (as it never uses the word "type") and because it does reference how those listed units access ruins.

time wizard wrote:

Tangent wrote:How the model moves absolutely does bear weight on the question. The reason is that the paragraph on page 83 talks about how infantry move into the upper levels of ruins. We then see that beasts move like infantry. X is like Y, Y can do Z, therefore X can do Z. It would be different if the same language wasn't used in both sections, strongly associating the two. It would be different if the paragraph on page 83 used the word "type" or "category" when referring to the units which are allowed to move into ruins. It would be different if the last sentence wasn't an outright lie (as per skimmers).


I'll be reading everyone's posts but I'll probably only respond to Avatar and Steelmage (because it seems like he has a point brewing and I would hate to leave him hanging before he reaches a satisfying conclusion) because I feel like I'm just talking in circles at this point and it takes a really long time to respond to everyone. Sorry guys. Thanks for your input and I see what you guys are saying and/or trying to say, but I just don't agree for the reasons I stated in the paragraph just above this one.

I can understand that you don't agree. I am only jumping in here because you are making flawed logical arguments.

X is like Y, Y can do Z, therefore X can do Z.

Okay, a whale (X) is like a fish (Y), they both live in the water, they both swim. A fish (Y) can breathe underwater (Z). Therefore a whale (X) can breathe underwater (Z). Only a whale can't breathe underwater, it breathes air. See? The argument is flawed.

Page 83 does not pertain to any particular unit's movement per se, it instead refers to movement with a specific area, in this case ruins. Ruins are a category of terrain, classified as difficult. You and your opponent could mutually agree that a ruin is also dangerous or even impassable, but lets just look at the basic ruin, classified as difficult terrain.

Normally, any unit on the board can move into, out of and through difficult terrain. Nothing on page 83 prevents any unit from moving into, out of or through ruins. But page 83 does specify exactly which units can move on the upper floors of the ruins. Those units include infantry, but do not include beasts. It does not say only troops that move like infantry are permitted to move on the upper floors of the ruin, it says only infantry, jump infantry, etc. Are beasts listed as one of the "onlys" that can move on the upper floors? No? Then they can't. They can still move on the ground floor however, like any of the units not specifically given permission in the second sentence.

Again, the transitive logic argument is not the argument I'm trying to make. Page 83 does reference many particular units' movement when it talks about how they get into ruins - it says they move.

liturgies of blood wrote:

Tangent wrote:
I'll be reading everyone's posts but I'll probably only respond to Avatar and Steelmage (because it seems like he has a point brewing and I would hate to leave him hanging before he reaches a satisfying conclusion) because I feel like I'm just talking in circles at this point and it takes a really long time to respond to everyone. Sorry guys. Thanks for your input and I see what you guys are saying and/or trying to say, but I just don't agree for the reasons I stated in the paragraph just above this one.

Ah hear now, that is the biggest case of putting fingers in your ears and singing ever. You can't/won't accept our analysis that moving through ruins is a unit type based restricted list and argue that unit type is meaningless because of similarities in how they behave in certain situations despite being treated differently in others.

That's certainly not why I don't want to respond to posts that aren't debating the only relevant points. Why would YOU want to waste your time? I've answered everyone's questions so far and I disagree that it is a "unit-type based restricted list". At the same time, this is the only relevant point, and I'm sure you can find about 10 people trying to argue other points than this one. I don't know what else there is to say and I don't think that's a fair accusation you've leveled at me here.

Mannahnin wrote:All units move like Infantry, insofar as the base rules are written for Infantry, and other unit types function the same way except where specifically designated otherwise.

One of the areas designated otherwise is the Ruins rules, where only a specific list of unit types are given permission to move above the ground level of a ruin. Beasts are not on the list.

Neither are skimmers, and the paragraph on page 83 doesn't reference unit "type".

Steelmage99 wrote:

Tangent wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Tangent wrote:Sorry, it was getting late and I went to bed - I'll try to address everyone. My answers may seem repetitive, but keep in mind that I DO think that beasts are SPECIFICALLY allowed a certain exception as given to them by the page on beasts.

Steelmage99 wrote:OK. Lets try this one on for size;

How far does Beasts assault?

12".

So this is where I say; "No, They only assault 6" because that is how far Infantry assaults and Beasts move like Infantry".

Please, tell me why I am wrong.

...

1. Because there is a specific allowance, written in the section on beasts, which allows them to assault 12". This allowance is stated because it differs from how infantry normally assault.

2. You're also forgetting that it doesn't say that beasts assault like infantry - it says that they move like infantry. This is probably an important distinction, but I don't know for sure.

1. So we have now established that a specific exception can indeed move Beasts away from the base-line rule of "move like Infantry".
This is important because there is also a specific allowance for certain units to move up levels within ruins (and it follows that units not given that specific allowance are forbidden from performing that action), written in the section on Ruins.
Why is one specific allowance modifying a units movement (in the general sense) more important than the other. Surely both specific exceptions to the general rule of "move like Infantry" must apply, right?

The section on Transport Capacity in the Transport Vehicles (page 66) section only allows for Infantry to embark on vehicles. Can Beast embark on vehicles? Of course, they can't. Even though they move like Infantry they are still not Infantry, they are Beast. A unit (sub)type that has a series of restrictions/special allowances on their movement (in the general sense).

2. Rulebook, Page 51.

"In this section, you will find rules for each of these unit types, namely Monstrous Creatures, Jump Infantry,....*snip*".
"Except for the rules detailed in this section for each unit type, these units follow the same rules as Infantry".

1) No, we have established that beasts assault like beasts and move like infantry. Since infantry move into ruins... These are two different things (moving and assaulting), and these are the things that I was referring to when I mentioned that the difference between moving and assaulting is probably an important distinction. Essentially what I'm trying to say is that even though beasts may assault like beasts, they move like infantry, and this is the same language used when describing how infantry access the upper levels of ruins. In my opinion, which is obviously all this is, this is a strong correlation.

I've already mentioned my thoughts on embarkation elsewhere, but long-story-short, it doesn't matter and/or is a bad example. But again, I'm not debating that beasts ARE infantry just because they move like infantry - I'm debating the point that moving like infantry is the only requirement (in this case) for being able to access the upper levels of ruins.

2) This seems to support my argument, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Tangent:

What non-vehicle types do you think the ruins rules are written to prevent from ascending into ruins?

If the purpose of the rule was simply to prevent non-walker vehicles from ascending into ruins, don't you think they would have said as much?


More importantly, why bother to waste time with an argument that is so clearly against what the vast majority of fellow players think? I believe if you were to run a poll of how people play this rule, I think you'll find that more than 85% of people disagree with what you're saying...so what is the point of continuing on and on and on?

What I'm saying is that, even if somehow you are the one reading the rules right and everyone else is wrong, if you're the only person who reads it that way, you're never going to find opponents and tournament judges to agree with you, so at some point it kind of becomes a moot point to spin your wheels.

Random thought
The sky is blue everyone knows the sky is blue.

But someone says that the sky isn't blue because clouds are white because clouds are in the sky.

Ask any 5 year old what color the sky is and he'll say blue

I think that's similar to the arguments presented here.

Tangent wrote:Further, beasts moving like infantry IS a strong enough relationship because the paragraph isn't referring to unit "type" (as it never uses the word "type") and because it does reference how those listed units access ruins.

If you don't think that sentence is referring to unit type - then what is it referring to? Everything listed is a unit type. If you assume it's not, the sentence doesn't restrict anything.

Exactly. Every single thing on that list is a unit type. Beasts are not on that list, so cannot move in ruins.

THat is literally the end of the argument.

It would be cool if your two story tall monster could attack guys on the 2nd level of a ruin, but unfortunately the rules are just not that broad to allow that kind of interaction.

I give up.

"I wasn't trying to apply definitive transitive logic - I was merely using a shorthand way of illuminating my point. Since people seem to love arguing the wrong points... I'll be more descriptive: Beasts move like infantry, infantry can move in certain ways, therefore beasts can move in certain ways. I've said this multiple times in other posts. Further, beasts moving like infantry IS a strong enough relationship because the paragraph isn't referring to unit "type" (as it never uses the word "type") and because it does reference how those listed units access ruins."

Once again "like" doesn't mean "equals," as in "like" doesn't mean "exactly like."

It is perfectly permissible for something to be like something else without being identical. One thing being like another doesn't mean it's identical to another. "Like" means something is "similar" or "bears a resemblance."

Beasts "moving like infantry" is simply not a strong enough statement to infer that the rules for Beasts movement exactly mirror the rules for Infantry in all respects. If that were the case, then there would be a rules contradiction where Beasts are allowed to assault 12" because Infantry can only assault 6". If we assume that Beasts can assault 12", we have to accept that Beasts do not exactly follow the rules for Infantry movement in all cases. Consequently, we cannot use the assertion that Beasts "move like infantry" to give Beasts all the same movement abilities that are available to Infantry.

In short form, either Beasts "move as infantry" in all cases, or there are exceptions to this rule. If Beasts "move as infantry" in all cases, then Beasts cannot assault 12". If there are exceptions to Beasts "moving as infantry," then your entire argument falls apart.

I already tried that approach, Saldiven.
He didn't get then. Maybe You'll have better luck.

I never noticed that assault was prevented.

At least something was gained.

yakface wrote:
What I'm saying is that, even if somehow you are the one reading the rules right and everyone else is wrong, if you're the only person who reads it that way, you're never going to find opponents and tournament judges to agree with you, so at some point it kind of becomes a moot point to spin your wheels.

Fair enough. Thanks everybody.