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.

I have to go with the it moves camp, though I wish I wasn't. The RAW for Kareen! says, (as quoted many times) "Move the trukk 3D6" as far as possible in a random direction..." That is as written, the book says moving the dang Trukk. If there was an "or" in there as in 3D6" or as far as possible I would agree the immobilize effect takes precedence. Last time I checked there wasn't any blank faces or 0's on my d6. So it moves at least 3" unless during that movement it encounters an enemy unit or terrain.

My thoughts...

Jidmah wrote:So how is this different from kareen? The trukk is not moving, but the hit that destroyed it causes it to fly across the board before exploding. The wording is the same, so the effect must be, too.

It does not "fly across the board". The rule says to "Move the Trukk 3D6" as far as possible..." meaning the player moves the trukk.
It is not being moved by another model like Terror from the Deep or Magna-Grapple, it is being told to move as a result of damage.
Terror from the Deep specifically mentions what happens to immobile vehicles, but Magna-Grapple does not. So for Magna-grapple, you 'drag' the vehicle as per the MG rule, and then the next turn the vehicle goes back to moving as normal.
Ramshackle says to move "...as far as possible..." and has been pointed out already, an immobile vehicle cannot move for the rest of the game.
For the Ork Codex to override the main rules, the Codex would have to add that even immobilized vehicles will be moved by the Kareen result. Since the Codex doesn't say that, there is nothing in the Codex rule to override the immobile rule in the main rules.

Jidmah wrote:So how about the Blood Angel's Magna Grapple? It has the same wording as Kareen!, and has no exceptions for immobile vehicles. So immobile vehicles can't be pulled by the grapple?

Actually it's worded differently. It says move the vehicle 2d6 inches. It does not say move the vehicle 2d6" as far as possible towards the dread.

If it said move the vehicle as far as possible 2d6" towards the dread I would agree with you that it wouldn't work on an immobile vehicle, since it is not possible the vehicle can move. However when it simply tells you to move the distance, you move the distance.


And as for kareen! having a list of limitations, it doesn't. It is not giving limitations, it is telling you what happens in that situation. Look at the magna grapple, it tells you what to do in the situation. It tells you it cannot move within 1" of difficult terrain, impassible terrain, vehicle models (friend and foe), or units locked in combat. It DOES NOT limit what the magna grapple does, it DOES tell you how to play it in that situation.

You're confusing what the second part of the rule is about and taking it as a limitation, not an explanation. A good example of this is the Counterattack and Furious Charge debate that went on for quite a while. In the end it came down to the wording, that counterattack says it gains a +1 attack as if it had charged. That wording does not allow furious charge to kick in. If it had said under counterattack that models count as charging, we'd be seeing a lot more blood claws being played as they're rule would work, as would furious charge. Counterattack's wording is a limitation, Kareen's wording is not.

CGM - Kareen is NOT giving you an exhaustive list of limitations, and neither does the FAQ. That argument does not hold any water...

"as far as possible" for a vehicle which cannot move is 0". Break no rule - ifg you move you have broken a rule, if you dont move you break no rule.

Lone Dragoon wrote:

Jidmah wrote:So how about the Blood Angel's Magna Grapple? It has the same wording as Kareen!, and has no exceptions for immobile vehicles. So immobile vehicles can't be pulled by the grapple?

Actually it's worded differently. It says move the vehicle 2d6 inches. It does not say move the vehicle 2d6" as far as possible towards the dread.

If it said move the vehicle as far as possible 2d6" towards the dread I would agree with you that it wouldn't work on an immobile vehicle, since it is not possible the vehicle can move. However when it simply tells you to move the distance, you move the distance.

This is still not a move done by the vehicle, but by exterior influences. An immobilized vehicle is only forbidden from moving on its own.

And as for kareen! having a list of limitations, it doesn't. It is not giving limitations, it is telling you what happens in that situation. Look at the magna grapple, it tells you what to do in the situation. It tells you it cannot move within 1" of difficult terrain, impassible terrain, vehicle models (friend and foe), or units locked in combat. It DOES NOT limit what the magna grapple does, it DOES tell you how to play it in that situation.

Actually, when combined with the FAQ, the lists are almost identical except for the trukk not tankshocking allies. It tells you cannot move within of 1" of difficult terrain, impassible terrain, enemy models and stop when touching friendly models or the table edge.

You're confusing what the second part of the rule is about and taking it as a limitation, not an explanation. A good example of this is the Counterattack and Furious Charge debate that went on for quite a while. In the end it came down to the wording, that counterattack says it gains a +1 attack as if it had charged. That wording does not allow furious charge to kick in. If it had said under counterattack that models count as charging, we'd be seeing a lot more blood claws being played as they're rule would work, as would furious charge. Counterattack's wording is a limitation, Kareen's wording is not.

As far as I can tell, FC/Counterattack is a random analogy and has nothing in common with karren or magna grapple, but rather some of the "counts as" confusion GW has spread everywhere.

time wizard wrote:It is not being moved by another model like Terror from the Deep or Magna-Grapple, it is being told to move as a result of damage.

That's my whole point - the trukk is never told to move anywhere in any part of the ramshackle rules. He is moved(passive) by something else. For immobilize to have an effect, it should have been worded "The trukk moves 3d6" as far as possible".

Jidmah wrote:

You're confusing what the second part of the rule is about and taking it as a limitation, not an explanation. A good example of this is the Counterattack and Furious Charge debate that went on for quite a while. In the end it came down to the wording, that counterattack says it gains a +1 attack as if it had charged. That wording does not allow furious charge to kick in. If it had said under counterattack that models count as charging, we'd be seeing a lot more blood claws being played as they're rule would work, as would furious charge. Counterattack's wording is a limitation, Kareen's wording is not.

As far as I can tell, FC/Counterattack is a random analogy and has nothing in common with karren or magna grapple, but rather some of the "counts as" confusion GW has spread everywhere.

It wasn't a random analogy, it was meant to show what the difference between a limitation (as if it had charged not counts as charging) and the explanation of rules happens to be.

Jidmah wrote:

time wizard wrote:It is not being moved by another model like Terror from the Deep or Magna-Grapple, it is being told to move as a result of damage.

That's my whole point - the trukk is never told to move anywhere in any part of the ramshackle rules. He is moved(passive) by something else. For immobilize to have an effect, it should have been worded "The trukk moves 3d6" as far as possible".

How the rule is worded; Move the trukk 3d6" as far as possible... is just rearranging the words in the sentence. It does not change the meaning of the sentence. It is simply using a you as the understood subject. It's no different than saying, go to the store. The word you can be put in front of the sentence, and not change it at all. You move the trukk... The key here is the word MOVE, the key isn't that the sentence should be different to allow the immobilized result. The fact that you are moving the trukk is the center of the debate. If it said place the trukk 3d6 inches in a random direction because of the rule, I'd be on your side. As it stands though, it uses the word move, which immobile vehicles can no longer, "move" unless acted on by an outside rule, not a built in rule. Before you quote SM Rhinos, keep in mind it removes the immobilized result, it doesn't make it move.

As my group has played it....
The 3d6" Kareen movement does "NOT" apply if the trukk is immobilized!
It just goes Kaboom right away!

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, its not a tough one.

The Trukk moves "as far as possible". How far is it possible for an immobilised trukk to move? 0"

The topic has been discussed at length before, and Nos has it spot on.

Kareen moves the trukk "as fas as possible", which is nowhere if it has already been immobilized from a previous damage result.

ork_smash wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, its not a tough one.

The Trukk moves "as far as possible". How far is it possible for an immobilised trukk to move? 0"

The topic has been discussed at length before, and Nos has it spot on.

areen moves the trukk "as fas as possible", which is nowhere if it has already been immobilized from a previous damage result.

What would happen if a truck suffered a immobilized and wrecked result at the same time, which came first the immobilized or the karreen. Not to mention I fail to see how the truck is immobilized once it has suffered a wrecked result. It is no more, it ceased to be, and sprung its mortal coil.

You apply both simultaneously, meaning it still doesnt move.

Break. No. Rule.

Lone Dragoon wrote:How the rule is worded; Move the trukk 3d6" as far as possible... is just rearranging the words in the sentence. It does not change the meaning of the sentence. It is simply using a you as the understood subject. It's no different than saying, go to the store. The word you can be put in front of the sentence, and not change it at all. You move the trukk... The key here is the word MOVE, the key isn't that the sentence should be different to allow the immobilized result. The fact that you are moving the trukk is the center of the debate. If it said place the trukk 3d6 inches in a random direction because of the rule, I'd be on your side. As it stands though, it uses the word move, which immobile vehicles can no longer, "move" unless acted on by an outside rule, not a built in rule. Before you quote SM Rhinos, keep in mind it removes the immobilized result, it doesn't make it move.

I'm sorry guys but I have to chime in here again. Not trying to troll, offend anyone or get off topic but seriously?!

Let me extract the part of the above quote that I am referring to:

Lone Dragoon wrote:How the rule is worded; Move the trukk 3d6" as far as possible... is just rearranging the words in the sentence. It does not change the meaning of the sentence.

Again, dont mean to get off the subject, but isnt this is exactly how the english language works.

Example of 2 sentences using the same words:
-The trukk moved you
-You moved the trukk

There is an example of two simple 4-word sentences, with the words rearranged.
My point is that how the sentence is worded changes the perspective of the instruction. It changes from a first person "the trukk moves" to a 3rd person "move the trukk". Remember this is a game, where there are times that you have to for example take a 'models eye view' of things and times when the player is the proverbial 'hand of god' to manipulate things in the game.

This, in my opinion, is the crux of this disagreement and this destinction is important.
Lastly, sorry for getting off topic a bit, but I thought it was important to point this out.

The distinction isnt actually important; move is a defined term within 40k.

When you "move" something in 40k it has to obey all normal restrictions, unless you *specifically* let it do otherwise.

Ramshackle does no such thing, and the FAQ actually confirms this by simply reiterating the basic constraints you are under when moving: you may not move within 1" of an enemy , off the table, or at all if immobilised.

Neither is the trukk "being moved" by an externality, as is the case with a mycetic spore and being tank shocked. This is a special damage result that forces you to move the vehicle, according to specific constraints, but does not specifically override any normal BRB rules.

Nos I see where you're coming from but, as far as I know, 'move' is still a relative term that requires context to work.
I dont know where 'move' is explicitly defined in the rulebook as a definite term relative to the game, but I'd be interested to know.

When the group I play in plays, we use the player/model distinction because it resolves matters simply.
Is it an order to the player or to the model?
-If its to the model then other rules that are defined to the model, like immobilised, apply.
-If its to the player, then its more of an 'event' in the game as the player is not 'in' the game but rather manipulating it.

As I explained earlier, its only logical otherwise you end up in a disagreement/mess that this very thread is trying to resolve.

Also:
Is anyone able to extract the FAQ quote for posterity?
Is there a forum rule against directly quoting FAQ stuff here?

EDIT:
Just forgot to add, the Ramshackle rule is a codex-defined set of rules that explicitly overrides the vehicle damage chart, and this is where that is important.
Again, it explicitly overrides the vehicle damage chart, meaning its only for this situation with particular 'ramshackle' vehicles.
From that, my group would take it that:
1- Codex overrides rulebook (in our group at least anyway).
2- It is explicitly defined for this vehicle.
3- The 'Kareen' rule is worded that it is instructed to the player, not the model, as RAW. Ie: this is an 'event'.

what happens if the trukk suffers an immobilized and wrecked/kareen in the same round of shooting. Say a land raider landed two pens while firing both lascannons and both results were rolled. Would you just apply the higher result?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
never mind, my question was asked and answered before I finished posting it. I type WAY to slow in the morning

plonka2000 wrote:3- The 'Kareen' rule is worded that it is instructed to the player, not the model, as RAW. Ie: this is an 'event'.

This is what I am talking about. When going by rules vs. codex you have to look at it in order of 'events' not the rule book says you can't, if that were the case Blood Angels ability to scatter 1d6" on deep strike would be done away with because the rule book says you scatter 2d6". By the argument that the rulebook trumps everything, then what's the point of having codexes (codices?)? Because codexes are exceptions to the rules according to the various armies therein.

Your trukk just got shot, it was immobilized, you get penned a second time it is wrecked you roll on the chart you roll Kareen! You roll you scatter and move the trukk because that is the order of events.

It would be the same in any game where you have a rule set and then supplement books.

No, because the very specific DoA rule very specifically overrides the more general BRB rule.

Specific beats general. Repeat this ad nauseum. It is NOT "codex overrides rulebook".

The Kareen! rule does NOT specify that it overrides the immobilised result, thererfore it does not do so.

I am feeling that their are alot more arguments for the trukk to actually move, than against it...both logically, gramatically, and even within the rules itself.

The whole argument between "The trukk moves" and "Move the trukk" makes it very clear. The trukk is not moving on its own accords, the "hand of god" moves the trukk. All previous rules on the damage chart are ignored and the more specific ramshakle rules are used. It is quite specific on explaining what to do.

Yet it does not specifically override the BRB rules on mvoing off the board - so it doesnt

It doesnt specifically override the rules on moving when you are immobilised, so it doesnt override them

The trukk cannot move because it has no SPECIFIC permission to do so. An explicit permission would be "...possible, even if the trukk is immobilised"

The "as far as possible" entirely puts the nail through any argument as well. Is it possible to move when immobilised? No? Then you HAVE moved as far as possible.

NEITHER rule argument has been shown to be false.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet it does not specifically override the BRB rules on mvoing off the board - so it doesnt

It doesnt specifically override the rules on moving when you are immobilised, so it doesnt override them

The trukk cannot move because it has no SPECIFIC permission to do so. An explicit permission would be "...possible, even if the trukk is immobilised"

The "as far as possible" entirely puts the nail through any argument as well. Is it possible to move when immobilised? No? Then you HAVE moved as far as possible.

NEITHER rule argument has been shown to be false.

+1

Your whole argument is based on the fact that "it doesn't say it can so it can't". I can just easily say "it doesn't say I can't so I can" . The very fact that you can override the rules for wreak and destroyed with the ramshakle rule means logically it also overides the immobilized and stunned rules.

Hazard30 wrote:Your whole argument is based on the fact that "it doesn't say it can so it can't". I can just easily say "it doesn't say I can't so I can" . The very fact that you can override the rules for wreak and destroyed with the ramshakle rule means logically it also overrides the immobilized and stunned rules.

no, when overriding a BRB rule, the codexes specifies which part of the rule they override. In the case of the Ramshackle rule, it is only the wrecked and explodes result that are overridden and not all the possible results in the vehicle damage table.

Nowhere does it says it overrides the immobilized result which is why it cannot move if ti is immobilized on the roll of a kareen. I would say the same applies for stunned results.

This is tough, but i think in the end i am leaning towards moving it, if something is completely stationary, and has a bomb go off right by it, it flies away. I like to think of this in the kareen rule, the truck is not moving on its own accord, but past posters are correct. both sides just keep stating their point and not disproving the other in actuallity, imo

dajobe wrote:This is tough, but i think in the end i am leaning towards moving it, if something is completely stationary, and has a bomb go off right by it, it flies away. I like to think of this in the kareen rule, the truck is not moving on its own accord, but past posters are correct. both sides just keep stating their point and not disproving the other in actuallity, imo

that comment is more fluff related. And in the fluff part of the rule, the trukk does not "fly away". The ork driver lose control of it and crashes. That is why it has to stop at terrain, units and table borders. If it just went up in the air there would be no point say it has to stop at terrain. And how do you lsoe control of an immobilized trukk? You cannot.

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

Hazard30 wrote:Your whole argument is based on the fact that "it doesn't say it can so it can't". I can just easily say "it doesn't say I can't so I can" . The very fact that you can override the rules for wreak and destroyed with the ramshakle rule means logically it also overides the immobilized and stunned rules.

+1

The Ramshackle table specifically overrides the 'Vehicle Destroyed' and 'Vehicle Explodes (Wrecked)' by name in the BRB Vehicle Damage Chart.
Yes, it does not specifically override the 'immobilised' rule by name, but there is specific clause that a part of this rule overrides a corrisponding part of the BRB rule.

In other words, when you apply a 'Destroyed' or 'Explodes (Wrecked)' rule, you specifically need to ignore that and roll on the Ork Codex 'Ramshackle' table.
If in that case you roll on the table and it results in 'Kareen', then that overrides the Rulebook Damage Chart.

By this documented process (and I'm not trying to twist the rules here) this seems (to me) as clearly a case of 'Codex overrides Rulebook'.
Once again, lets also not forget that the wording is to "Move the trukk", not "The trukk moves".

Surely this should indicate that this overrides the Rulebook, only in this case for this vehicle?

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

I'm inclined to agree with this.

Hazard30 wrote:Your whole argument is based on the fact that "it doesn't say it can so it can't". I can just easily say "it doesn't say I can't so I can" .

No, you can't, because this is a game, and that's _not_ how games work. The rules tell you what you can do in the context of the game, so if they don't say you can do something, then you can't do it. That's why it's called a permissive ruleset. In all the variations of chess that I have seen, I've never seen one that specified you could not spin the board around and switch sides in the middle of the game, however, were you to actually try doing that, no one would be phased for a moment by your argument that, 'the rules don't say I can't.'

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.'

Stop saying codex overrides BGB, the rule is specific beats general. Mind you, codex is almost always more specific but there are times when it isn't.

Any way, back on topic.

The FAQ specifies that the trukk cannot drive off the board because of this. Before the FAQ, I would have said it is entirely plausible that it could(orks loose control and go driving off the battlefield, explosion on horizon ensues) but the specification of the FAQ clarifies that.

I believe it should move, because of rules, fluff, and sake of fun.

Rules- the rule is written like an order telling you to move it, not saying you can move it. It then says(in the FAQ and codex) what the limiting factors to that movement are. Immobilized isn't on that list.

Fluff-it's orks and this stuff just happens .

Fun-I tend to get into the role playing of the battles, and laughing at orks when they do something stupid or insane makes them even more fun. Also, a trukk driving off and exploding next to a unit(mine or yours) is much more fun than it just exploding right there.

Anywho, that's how I see it and I like to think it makes sense.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Stop saying codex overrides BGB, the rule is specific beats general. Mind you, codex is almost always more specific but there are times when it isn't.

Any way, back on topic.

The FAQ specifies that the trukk cannot drive off the board because of this. Before the FAQ, I would have said it is entirely plausible that it could(orks loose control and go driving off the battlefield, explosion on horizon ensues) but the specification of the FAQ clarifies that.

I believe it should move, because of rules, fluff, and sake of fun.

Rules- the rule is written like an order telling you to move it, not saying you can move it. It then says(in the FAQ and codex) what the limiting factors to that movement are. Immobilized isn't on that list.

Fluff-it's orks and this stuff just happens .

Fun-I tend to get into the role playing of the battles, and laughing at orks when they do something stupid or insane makes them even more fun. Also, a trukk driving off and exploding next to a unit(mine or yours) is much more fun than it just exploding right there.

Anywho, that's how I see it and I like to think it makes sense.

-cgmckenzie

QFT

cgmckenzie wrote:Stop saying codex overrides BGB, the rule is specific beats general. Mind you, codex is almost always more specific but there are times when it isn't.

Any way, back on topic.

The FAQ specifies that the trukk cannot drive off the board because of this. Before the FAQ, I would have said it is entirely plausible that it could(orks loose control and go driving off the battlefield, explosion on horizon ensues) but the specification of the FAQ clarifies that.

I believe it should move, because of rules, fluff, and sake of fun.

Rules- the rule is written like an order telling you to move it, not saying you can move it. It then says(in the FAQ and codex) what the limiting factors to that movement are. Immobilized isn't on that list.

Fluff-it's orks and this stuff just happens .

Fun-I tend to get into the role playing of the battles, and laughing at orks when they do something stupid or insane makes them even more fun. Also, a trukk driving off and exploding next to a unit(mine or yours) is much more fun than it just exploding right there.

Anywho, that's how I see it and I like to think it makes sense.

-cgmckenzie

I also agree with this, however, the 'Codex overrides Rulebook' is the same as saying 'Specific beats General'.
Each and every Codex is just a collection of specifics and elaborations that tie everything back to the 'General' Rulebook.

It's the same, so there is no reason to nitpick between those 2 statements, but I agree with your post. Make it fun, make it cinematic.

Wrong.

Sweeping advance vs WBB tells you you are wrong.

It IS specific vs general.

Yes, Kareen tells you to ignore the damage results for Wrecked and Explodes!, but ONLY THOSE RESULTS. Does it tell you to ignore results already obtained? NO

It tells you to move as far as possible

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

CGM - as I tried to explain to you, the FAQ was truly a FAQ in this case - it didnt change the rules. The reminders are not an exhaustive list of which restrictions still apply.

Unless you are specifically told to ignore an already given rule, you may not ignore it. Ramshackle ignores precisely 0 normal BRB movement rules (off table, into enemy, impassable terrain, etc) so why suddenly decide it can ignore this one? Especially when the rule doesnt actually say you can...

One side has: this way is more fun. The other side has actual rules. 2 of them, in fact.