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.

And that's without being Immobilized, right?

See, it isn't the Trukk moving. The Trukk's lost all its wheels, and so can't move. Immobilized. Then it Kareens! out of control when a rocket hits it, or the ammo or fuel in the back explodes, moving it after it's expended all its movement.

...and none of the above is "rules"

As I was pointing out - trying to differentiate between object/player movement and 3rd party moving the object is fine - except there is no 3rd party here

There is no mawloc moving the trukk out the way
There is no lifta droppa moving the trukk out the way.

There is just a rule, of the vehicle, which is trying to get the vehicle to move. And this rule is less specific than the immobilsed rule.

Or rather, equally specific. I don't see anything in the Immobilized rule saying anything about "May not move for any reason, including the effects of Special Rules" anywhere there.

No it says "May not move for the rest of the game."....

ChrisCP wrote:No it says "May not move for the rest of the game."....

If I deep strike a monolith onto it it will move.

Yes it will, "instead move the models the minimum distance necessary to make space for the monolith."
Is quite different from "as far as possible" with a maximum distance of 0".

General Fuct wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:No it says "May not move for the rest of the game."....

If I deep strike a monolith onto it it will move.

Only if you roll a destoryed result. And, also, this is the 3rd party moving the trukk idea, not the object / player moving the trukk. The rules allow the former to move an otherwise immobile object, the latter you must has something specifically overriding the immobilised state.

Which kareen doesnt have.

Been busy for a few days, and will be again, but this thread is still going... wow.

ChrisCP wrote:Yes it will, "instead move the models the minimum distance necessary to make space for the monolith."
Is quite different from "as far as possible" with a maximum distance of 0".

Here is the operative part in that sentence: "move the models", not "the model moves"
For comparison, the Kareen rule says: "move the trukk", not "the trukk moves"

These are orders to the player to move the darn models over there so the game can continue. This isnt movement. There is no 0", there is only upto 3D6" (in this scenario).

There is clearly a link here. Precedent? How can this not make sense?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

General Fuct wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:No it says "May not move for the rest of the game."....

If I deep strike a monolith onto it it will move.

Only if you roll a destoryed result. And, also, this is the 3rd party moving the trukk idea, not the object / player moving the trukk. The rules allow the former to move an otherwise immobile object, the latter you must has something specifically overriding the immobilised state.

Which kareen doesnt have.

Once again, this is a rule in itself. It specifically tells the player to move the model, as we've repeated enough times.
There is no reference in this rule to another rule, and there needs to be none, because it has it's own explicit restrictions (1" away from models & terrain).

As we've said before, because of this same fact, the "as far as possible" in the rule is specific to the 3D6" in the same rule.

As I said earlier, the trukk is still immobilised, but the immobilised state is simply not relevant here. It's that simple.

There are plenty of instances when rules are just plain simple 'not relevant' because they dont apply in that instance.
Example: rules for shooting are irrelevant in assault phase, and so many other examples that i'd basically be repeating most of the rulebook.

Remember this?

time wizard wrote:

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.

By this example, You and I and everyone else are 'ignoring' shooting rules in the assault phase not because they are not relevant, but because we have all taken upon ourselves to actively 'cheat' by ignoring the rules.

It... is'nt... relevant.
Not all rules apply all the time in every scenario, especially when that scenario is a specific one.

Plonka - so you ignore that the movement rules in the rulebook *also* define that the player is the one moving the model?

Why is this any different? What reason have you got to simply make up a new way of doing things with nothing in the text that tells you to do so?

You are ignoring the movement rules for no good reason. None at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Plonka - so you ignore that the movement rules in the rulebook *also* define that the player is the one moving the model?

Why is this any different? What reason have you got to simply make up a new way of doing things with nothing in the text that tells you to do so?

You are ignoring the movement rules for no good reason. None at all.

I'm not ignoring anything, the rule is still there, and the trukk still cant go 'vroom vroom' and drive away (Unless of course it has Grot Riggers, but we'll come back to that ).

What I have said earlier, is that this is a particular scenario with its own restrictions further to the initial order to the player to move the model. There is no reference (reminder) to another rule, which you earlier claimed, and the trukk's status is still 'immobilised'.

What I am saying is this is:
not the model moving, this is part of the damage chart specifc scenario.

As I said earlier, charts are used in 40k as abstract scenarios for various different parts of the game with their own rules and limitations.
Remember when I made the deepstrike termie example earlier? It was stated that that is not relevant to movement because the model is in reserves, and quite right... but they both use TABLES.

That is the point here, not that reserves somehow have anything to do with movement, which is a strange assumption.

So, once again:

plonka2000 wrote:I dont know what else to say... Someone please disprove these points here and the below statement:
'Ramshackle - Kareen' is a specific rule with explicit restrictions for its own scenario of movement within a table that does not reference any other rule(s).
Immobilised is a general rule with its own restriction(s) on normal movement of a model when it is moving using its own normal means of movement.

The trukk is still immobilised. Move the trukk per the table result 'Kareen'.

The trukk is not moving. It is being moved.

Lastly, I loved this but people seem to have passed over it:

Brother Ramses wrote:You are suddenly paralyzed from the neck down. You cannot move for the rest of your life. A nurse puts you in a wheelchair, and pushes you down to the hospital cafeteria.

You are not moving, you are being moved.

Love it.

So, you still ignore that the rulebook defnies moving models as the model being moved by the player?

This means that Kareen! is STILL a movement. It is still telling you to obey the normal restrictions on movement with *one* additional one, and it is still not possible for a model to move by player / object (as DIFFERENT to a 3rd party object, such as tank shocking a spore pod) when it is immobilised.

You claim is that this is not movement. That claim is false. Prove that this isnt movement, bearing in mind that the rulebook itself tells you that moving the model by the player IS movement, and you have an argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, you still ignore that the rulebook defnies moving models as the model being moved by the player?

No, because models are not magic they dont move on their own. Maybe you hae some of these. Can I have some of your magic models that move themselves?

Lets please rememeber that 40k is a game that is governed by players. There are times when players move models, roll scatter, etc, and there are times when the players act on behalf of the models within their allocations and restrictions according to rules (This is because the rest of us dont have magic models).

Your point is moot.

nosferatu1001 wrote:This means that Kareen! is STILL a movement. It is still telling you to obey the normal restrictions on movement with *one* additional one, and it is still not possible for a model to move by player / object (as DIFFERENT to a 3rd party object, such as tank shocking a spore pod) when it is immobilised.

It is a chart result with its own restrictions, remember?

Oh, wait, there is no remember in that specific rule remember?

nosferatu1001 wrote:You claim is that this is not movement. That claim is false. Prove that this isnt movement, bearing in mind that the rulebook itself tells you that moving the model by the player IS movement, and you have an argument.

I have proved enough times that this is not movement, you have not proved that it is movement, and you have still not proved that the 'immobilised' rule specifically relates to the 'Kareen' rule in any way.

I have shown that it doesnt relate.

This is not meant as an insult, but I think you're stuck in a logic loop...

Hmm, does the fact that the Kareen result is happening out of turn and phase have any effect? If it's in the opponent's shooting phase, in which vehicles cannot move, especially those on the other player's team, wouldn't (theoretically) it's maximum move distance always be 0"?

RAW, though, it doesn't move if immobilised. RAI it explodes in a massively Orky fashion, ideally into a squad of Boyz who then lose 25% of their numbers and run away.

Miraclefish wrote:Hmm, does the fact that the Kareen result is happening out of turn and phase have any effect? If it's in the opponent's shooting phase, in which vehicles cannot move, especially those on the other player's team, wouldn't (theoretically) it's maximum move distance always be 0"?

RAW, though, it doesn't move if immobilised. RAI it explodes in a massively Orky fashion, ideally into a squad of Boyz who then lose 25% of their numbers and run away.

You are correct, sir!

So why is it specifically noted to move 3D6"?
This is because it is it's own rule as part of the Ramshackle Table.

Not movement, model is moved and told to explode.
It does not have a choice in this matter, and equally cannot dispute the movement defined or the explosion.

This is dictated by the Kareen rule, and executed by the player, not on behalf of the model.
Therefore, the models restrictions of movement or fire-safety are not applicable... equally.

plonka2000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, you still ignore that the rulebook defnies moving models as the model being moved by the player?

No, because models are not magic they dont move on their own. Maybe you hae some of these. Can I have some of your magic models that move themselves?

Sigh. Idiotic comments dutifully ignored. Have you read the tenets of YMDC yet? I could mock your position very easily, but I dont.

Apparently you didnt get the point, then. Again

Your contention is that the model is being moved. Actually the model is, like any other model in the game NOT during Mawloc or tank shock, being moved by the player - as a standard movement.

Prove that is ISNT standard movement. You cannot, but keep trying!

plonka2000 wrote:Lets please rememeber that 40k is a game that is governed by players. There are times when players move models, roll scatter, etc, and there are times when the players act on behalf of the models within their allocations and restrictions according to rules (This is because the rest of us dont have magic models).

Your point is moot.

No, it really isnt. Your point is based on the incredibly flawed premise that the vehicle is being moved not by the player, but by Kareen. Except kareen doesnt say that. It really doesnt.

plonka2000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:This means that Kareen! is STILL a movement. It is still telling you to obey the normal restrictions on movement with *one* additional one, and it is still not possible for a model to move by player / object (as DIFFERENT to a 3rd party object, such as tank shocking a spore pod) when it is immobilised.

It is a chart result with its own restrictions, remember?

Oh, wait, there is no remember in that specific rule remember?

why bold "specific", you do realise that is nonsense, yes?

You are mixing up specific > general (and immobilised IS more specific than kareen, proven 3 times already) and your other argument which is that the move isnt, in fact, a move. Despite having no rules argument to back that asinine position up.

You are also, hilariously, claiming that evidence of redundancy is evidence of requirement, unless it has the word "remember" in it. Apparently "remember" is now a key rule term, as decided by you!

plonka2000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You claim is that this is not movement. That claim is false. Prove that this isnt movement, bearing in mind that the rulebook itself tells you that moving the model by the player IS movement, and you have an argument.

I have proved enough times that this is not movement, you have not proved that it is movement, and you have still not proved that the 'immobilised' rule specifically relates to the 'Kareen' rule in any way.

The default is that, when you are told to move, it is movement. I dont have to prove a negative.

And, in case yo umissed it: nothing you have written so far constitutes anything except a wilful blindness to the rules of 40k. SO no, you have not proven anything.

plonka2000 wrote:This is not meant as an insult, but I think you're stuck in a logic loop...

No, you are stuck in a illogic loop - that a "move" is not a "move". good luck with that one.

You can only "be moved" by a third party/object, like a Mawloc or tankshockiong. This is neither. Guess what that means?

0".
0"
0"

nosferatu1001 wrote:

plonka2000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, you still ignore that the rulebook defnies moving models as the model being moved by the player?

No, because models are not magic they dont move on their own. Maybe you hae some of these. Can I have some of your magic models that move themselves?

Sigh. Idiotic comments dutifully ignored. Have you read the tenets of YMDC yet? I could mock your position very easily, but I dont.

Apparently you didnt get the point, then. Again

Your contention is that the model is being moved. Actually the model is, like any other model in the game NOT during Mawloc or tank shock, being moved by the player - as a standard movement.

Prove that is ISNT standard movement. You cannot, but keep trying!

I have read the YMDC, and this is where I think you are apparently confused. I also dont need to prove this to you, this is to others who read this for clarity.
So no, I dont need to 'keep trying' as that would be a pointless and seemingly eternal waste of my time. I have shown, but I have seen little back but denial.

The YMDC states that 40k and real life are not the same. You seem to believe that 'movement is movement is movement is movement' ad nauseam which is correct, in real life, but not in 40k as we all know.
There are often times in 40k when things are moved according to rules and its not 'movement'. This is when players move things according to what the rules telling them to do so. To claim that the models would otherwise calculate their own mishaps, explosions, damage, range, etc is... well... Do you still have those magic models?

If this were to be applied to your logic of thinking, we (Thats we in real life) would often see giant hands (and probably measuring tapes) descend from the sky to rearrange things regularly.
I have not seen any of these things, so this logic is not applied to 40k. Movement is not movement is not movement is not movement. There is a difference with something moving and something being moved by players according to rule scenarios.
Players still move everything, so us even discussing this is really quite silly.

I dont get how you dont get that... But maybe you cant see it like I do because your models apparently move themselves.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

plonka2000 wrote:Lets please rememeber that 40k is a game that is governed by players. There are times when players move models, roll scatter, etc, and there are times when the players act on behalf of the models within their allocations and restrictions according to rules (This is because the rest of us dont have magic models).

Your point is moot.

No, it really isnt. Your point is based on the incredibly flawed premise that the vehicle is being moved not by the player, but by Kareen. Except kareen doesnt say that. It really doesnt.

Kareen says "move the trukk", from the table/chart result that can be got to from any phase of the game.
It is written like this because it is what it is. There are no tricks. A scenario rule, like the Vehicle Damage chart that specifically tells you to apply other rules.
This tells you to apply these rules, there is no reference to anything else.

Scenario:
There is a trukk, with Orks in. Cant think of how many orks, but I'm digressing...
Now this trukk in question has moved its maximum allocation of movement, flat out 18".
In the next players turn, the trukk is then shot at and suffers destroyed result. The specific rule says go to the Ramshackle table.
Rolling on the Ramshackle table results in Kareen. According to your logic, 'movement is movement is movement is movement' so that trukk should not move at all despite the specific rule that it should.
Also, guess what? This particular trukk isnt even immobilised... So why cant it move?

This is where your logic is flawed, because the trukk is moved its full capacity, so cant move any more by your logic even though the rule tells it to.

Flawed, broken, infexible logic. This is again why you appear to be stuck in a logic loop.

On top of that:
-This is outside the movement phase of the trukk
-This is outside the player controlling the trukks turn

How then is this 'movement' by the trukk using its own means, according to rules that immobilised would apply if it was immobilised?

It is not. This is the model being moved by the player as dictated by the Kareen rule in this specific scenario.

It is a specific rule, in that it specifically tells you to ignore the other table and roll the Ramshackle table/chart and apply the result.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

plonka2000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:This means that Kareen! is STILL a movement. It is still telling you to obey the normal restrictions on movement with *one* additional one, and it is still not possible for a model to move by player / object (as DIFFERENT to a 3rd party object, such as tank shocking a spore pod) when it is immobilised.

It is a chart result with its own restrictions, remember?

Oh, wait, there is no remember in that specific rule remember?

why bold "specific", you do realise that is nonsense, yes?

You are mixing up specific > general (and immobilised IS more specific than kareen, proven 3 times already) and your other argument which is that the move isnt, in fact, a move. Despite having no rules argument to back that asinine position up.

You are also, hilariously, claiming that evidence of redundancy is evidence of requirement, unless it has the word "remember" in it. Apparently "remember" is now a key rule term, as decided by you!

I'm doing that because I'm trying to show that this is a specific scenario, which it is, but you dont understand.

It has its own rules, which are not referred or copied (Like the Chaos Lash FAQ rules are a copy of the movement rules, not movement). They are defined.
It's right there how far to move and what to do if you encounter something. There is not any ambiguity, because the Ork FAQ even cleared up what to do if you hit a table edge.

How is this nonsense and how have you 'proven' that immobilised is a specific rule?

Immobilised is a general rule that applies to all vehicle movement allocation.
Kareen is specific to this vehicle in that specific scenario, which the player is specifically told to substitute a chart rule for another chart result.

That's not specific enough?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

plonka2000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You claim is that this is not movement. That claim is false. Prove that this isnt movement, bearing in mind that the rulebook itself tells you that moving the model by the player IS movement, and you have an argument.

I have proved enough times that this is not movement, you have not proved that it is movement, and you have still not proved that the 'immobilised' rule specifically relates to the 'Kareen' rule in any way.

The default is that, when you are told to move, it is movement. I dont have to prove a negative.

And, in case yo umissed it: nothing you have written so far constitutes anything except a wilful blindness to the rules of 40k. SO no, you have not proven anything.

Now you're just trying to hurt my feelings, but 'meh'.

Please quote this specific part of the rulebook where any and all movement involvement by player is apparently contrained to the models allocation of movement and limitations.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

plonka2000 wrote:This is not meant as an insult, but I think you're stuck in a logic loop...

No, you are stuck in a illogic loop - that a "move" is not a "move". good luck with that one.

You can only "be moved" by a third party/object, like a Mawloc or tankshockiong. This is neither. Guess what that means?

0".
0"
0"

Trying to explain this repeatedly is tiring.

What you have described is very static and does not take into account anything I have shown.

I have shown, clearly, why this is what it is.

All I have seen back is reluctance to explain, yet insistence to deny.

The sheer length of this thread and the variety of my posts is proof.
It's all there, in black & white.

Good day, you have failed.

That is another good point. If the Trukk has moved 18" and then gets a Kareen result, the furthest it can move is surely 0"?

The rule says to move it as far as possible, rather than something more useful like 'as far as it is able to move when subject to speed moved last turn, vehicle immobilised results and other factors'.

In light of this, I'd lean towards saying that the Kareen result is independent of all other factors in the game and, when activated, you do what it says regardless of any flags, modifiers and previous actions of the Trukk.

Sigh.

Fair enough. Your blindness to the rules can continue. RAW and RAP are clear, however.

How far is it possible to move a trukk that cannot move? 0"

Plain. Simple. Logically consistent with the rest of 40k, and doesnt involve a wilful misreading of the rules to construe something alien.

I love that you reference the FAQ - that wouldbe the faq that clarified that you still follow the normal movement rules, which is that you dont get to move off the table unless specifically allowed to? Please, that proves your point is WRONG in so many ways...its just laughable really.

The length of your posts, and the invariance of them (your central point remains: an unproven assertion that movement isnt actually movement) proves only one thing, and it isnt that you are right on the rules.

(Oh, and how have i failed? My point isnt to convince you - you are entirely irrelevant. Its to make sure that people dont miscontrue your argument as anything to be taken for actual rules. In tht i have hopefully succeeded.)

To try to shwo your errors in a little more detail:

1) the tenets of YMDC are to not insult people, and provide rules quotes. You've done one and not the other. Twice now.

2) Mishaps arenot 40k movement. That is why you "place" the model on the table. So, your example is, like your argument, flawed.

3) When you are told to move the trukk, you decide this isnt a move but something else? You have no rules basis for this - page and paragraph that tells you this "move" is not a "move" as we know it in 40k, but a speical move where you ignore the rules and use something else? Bare in mind that the FAQ for Orks proves you wrong, I'd avoid referencing it again.

4) Your scenario is....fine, your conclusions arent. Yes, the trukk can move - because it has been told to mveo a set distance, and is not prohibited from moving otherwise.

Your broken understanding of a very simple premise is tiring.

5) Your "on top of that"

Lash is outsiide of the normal movement phase for the affected player, but is still movement - its even outside of the players turn. Counterpoint to your argument, showing that it is not a sufficient condition to prove it is not "movement"

Oh, and just for some more for you - running and assault moves are movement, performed outside of the movement phase, but are all, still, movement.

Your broken logic mmeans they arent.

6) Yes, it specifically tells you to ignore the two single results wrecked and explodes and no other damage table effects, so stop misrepresenting this as something it isnt

Does it tell you to ignore any results already obtained? If Kareen! told you to shoot the trukks bigshoota again, would you claim you could now shoot a destroyed gun?

Your logic is hilariously bad.

You still really truly dont understand what specific means.

Please, go away and look up ATSKNF and compare it to sweeping advance, and maybe, just maybe you can finally understand what "specific" means.

I'm not trying to change your mind - this is a foolish hope to have. I'm just trying to make sure your flawed arguments are clear for everyone else to see.

Plonk it is really a lost cause. Nos took the same stance with trying to justify teleport shunting during the Scout move.

His argument was based on the mechanics of the the teleport shunt telling you that you physically moved the model so therefore it was Movement. He failed to grasp the concept there and even after the FAQ, he now just insists that GW is wrong.

So once again he is not grasping the concept that mechanics of a rule that call for moving a model does not always fulfill the BRB definition for Movement. He insists that any and all movement of a model is Movement which as you point out pretty much goes against he YMDC tenet of applying real world definitions to the rules of World of Warhammer 40k.

its been a lost cause for the last 5 pages...

BR - give it a rest. You know full well GW regularly changes rules and disguises them as a FAQ. Pretending otherwise is laughable, and disingenuous on your part.

Oh, and it has nothing to do with real life. Youre the one who brings flawed real world examples in, not me. Ive quoted from the BRB more than your....contributions have.

This is a move, hence why the Ork FAQ reminds you that normal rules of movement (you cannot move off the table, unless you're specifically allowed to) apply here. Same as Lash is movement.

Dajobe - consistent since page 1, along with the majority who cant see why, when youre told to move something that cannot move, youre claiming this isnt "real" movement. You guys are the lsot cause.

i know you have been consistent since page one, i will give you that, and 5 pages was an estimate, before it turned into Nos vs plonka. I will say here what I have said to my mom, sister, Dad friends, peers all sorts of people (i am sure I am guilty of it as well, as demonstrated by this thread). Not everything is your way or the highway, earlier in this thread I said that there are multiple ways of looking
at this thread, to which (i forget who) someone replied that this thread is trying to figure out what to do when a rule situation arises, and that there can only be one correct answer. I dont believe that is right, and since this thread has gotten NOWHERE since page 1, i'd say that there are 2 ways of looking at it, it all depends on how you think the BRB is worded and your take on what specific is.

sigh...

i am willing to bet that i get a "your stupid for thinking differently than me!" response to this, as i have in the past...

sigh...

i think im starting to catch up on the sighs in this thread, lol

You never got that response, actually.

I can understand why someone may try to read it as not a "normal" move, however at every instance GW have avoided that situation - Lash, the Ork FAq clarifying normal rules still apply, etc. Only something truly out of the ordinary (Mawlocs) break this. On balance given the really epic acrobatics you have to go through to even attempt to justify it Plonkas way - doesnt that tell you something about the rules argument youre going down?

Brother Ramses: Don't be ridiculous. The shunt move discussion is something totally different, and you didn't prove your claim now or then with even one rule. Also note that basically everyone in those discussions agreed how the FAQ would and did turn out.

nos: Every model moving is a player moving a model, but not every time a player moves a model, it's a move done by a model. Just like every duck is a bird, but not every bird is a duck.
So don't brush off that argument just yet. There is also still no proof that forced movements can only be caused by models. You base your point of view on a handful of unproven claims, so no reason to call us a lost cause.

i think its a complicated situation, and i think it all boils down to how an individual defines specific. and yes i did get that response, i dont think it was you, but i did get it.
SEARCHING THROUGH THE THREAD I GO!, if i cant find it, my bad

More like - the only time you have ever had a "be moved" it was from another model, the Mawloc or tank shocking spore mines.

Bookwrack wrote:

dajobe wrote:there is no convincing either side on this arguement, we seemed to have reached an impass. it just comes down to extremely technical vs. more flexible playstyles

Not really. This has come down to 'how the rules actually work' vs 'I don't care about the rules, this is how I think it should be.'

found it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
not that it really has to do with the current arguement...

Missed that one - my bad. However at that point most it-can-move ended up basing it on fluff, saying how orky it would be.

Its just as orky that it tries to explode forwards, but instead throws itslef 40 feet into the air before collapsing into a heap, without havingt moved forwards at all.

I did not think of the 40 feet in the air thing, but that is what the scatter dice is for. a directly on target is like it flew 3D6 feet in the air and landed right where it started or it could get blown away in some random direction by the arrow. But, i dont even know what to think about the topic anymore, both sides have given a convincing arguement and as i said before, for me it comes down to how you read the rules. Even though i rarely play orks, i think in my case, we'll just roll to see what happens.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You never got that response, actually.

I can understand why someone may try to read it as not a "normal" move, however at every instance GW have avoided that situation - Lash, the Ork FAq clarifying normal rules still apply, etc. Only something truly out of the ordinary (Mawlocs) break this. On balance given the really epic acrobatics you have to go through to even attempt to justify it Plonkas way - doesnt that tell you something about the rules argument youre going down?

Look, there's enough stuff in all the various rulebooks and codices that say "using normal ______ rules" or "as per ______ rules" to know that if the Ork FAQ was trying to "clarify" what you're saying, it would say "using normal movement rules".

Anyways, I'm not arguing about this anymore. It's going nowhere. I've discussed this with most people I play with and they agree that an immoblisied Trukk suffering from Kareen would move. Nos, you don't have too I suppose. I feel this needs clarification, in a FAQ or whatever. Saying "no, it just doesn't get over it" or "but you're wrong in the first place" won't make that not true. There's been enough arguement on both sides, whether one wants to believe it or not.

And yes Nos, you have been giving rather rude responses here and there. Calling arguements "laughable" and "hilarious" is uncalled for.