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.

Haha, I honestly dropped the ball on that drop pod bit. My mistake.

Still, nos, you're still equivocating cruising speed = 6", which would technically screw over Monoliths, and unfairly giving Spore Pods and Daemons the go-ahead (which ironically gives some precedent to drop pods not counting as 1KP).

I'd also argue that a drop pod isn't the same as a rhino. A rhino can adjust it's position to go with the flow of your army, can keep your dudes inside nice and safe even when it blows up, etc. A drop pod is just a special way to deploy and provide some LOS blocking, but afterwards whatever was riding inside loses that protection.

It gives no precedent whatsoever - you are conflating vehicles with non-vehicles there. And why is it unfair for spore pods and daemons to not have 3KP? It isnt unfair at all, it is simply "the rules", and making an entire army count as at least 3KP for everything seems the very definition of "un"fair in anycase!

Plus please read what I *very* carefully said - a drop pod is far better at performing the TRANSPORT function of a transport vehicle than a rhino, as it will* land near its target and it can do so on the first turn, with no risk of being left footslogging*

*unless you scatter off the table edge, or decide to place it over a model. But thats your own damn fault

Drop pods offer much less protection than other transports, and carry the (slight) risk of mishap.

Personally, I'd side with drop pods counting as 1KP, as they do not have the potential to move fast enough to count as 3KP at any point.

Which is why I mentioned they are *better* than non-droppods at the transport side, with the tradeoff being that they dont let you hide out inside and you're stuck on foot after they land. Meaning they are about equal, surely?

So 3KP seems right.

Mannahnin wrote:Fullybakedbear-
So are you saying that if, as a Blood Angels player, I Deep Strike one of my Land Raiders, and it scatters into terrain and becomes Immobilized, that the Land Raider will only be worth 1KP that game? Because it counts as moving at Cruising Speed the turn it lands, but after that is Immobilized. Just like a drop pod. How about a Rhino which is Immobiized in the shooting phase before its owner gets a turn? DURING the game it never has any potential to move at all.

I don't have a rule book handy, but my impression is that Cruising Speed is not defined as being a move of 6=12", but is a trait applied to a vehicle that moves further than it's stock speed. That trait is then used to define a set of actions that the vehicle may or may not take (such as shooting iirc). That means that if a vehicle has a normal speed of 3" and moves 6", it could not shoot because it had moved at it's Cruising Speed.

What this means is that unless the definition of Cruising Speed in the rule book is "A vehicle that has moved between 6 and 12 inches", you guys have it wrong.

In the Land Raider instance, isn't it possible to repair the Land Raider and regain its' full movement potential? Regardless of repairs, the vehicle has the innate potential to move > 6" where a drop pod does not.

Aren't kill points defined outside of the game based on the army list?
Look at a list with a Drop Pod and a Land Raider.
Which one of those has the potential to move > 6"?

Can someone quote the definition of Crusing Speed from the rule book?

fullybakedbear wrote:What this means is that unless the definition of Cruising Speed in the rule book is "A vehicle that has moved between 6 and 12 inches", you guys have it wrong.

page 57:
"A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed."

And it was already quoted on the previous page.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/293991.page#1564027

It's much more polite to actually read what people post. If you don't believe us, you can ask for a page number, but in this case it was already posted.

"In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire (or
run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved
In the previous Movement phase . Vehicles count as
having moved at cruising speed ."

This a direct quote from BRB pg. 95 Under DeepStrike
Would that make the "count as" for the shooting phase for knowing what guns and how many you can shoot?

Mannahnin wrote:And it was already quoted on the previous page.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/293991.page#1564027

It's much more polite to actually read what people post. If you don't believe us, you can ask for a page number, but in this case it was already posted.

I now feel bad for starting this with Danny. I could have just waited 10 minutes and someone else would have used my exact same arguments without me having to expend the energy. And amusingly enough this cycle will continue until at least after 'Ard Boyz.

If I could harness this internet argument energy, I could probably solve our energy crisis.

Hmm....

I vote they count as 3 KP since CSM doesn't get the unit.

Reasoning? More KP for me.

torch1784 wrote:"In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire (or
run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved
In the previous Movement phase . Vehicles count as
having moved at cruising speed ."

This a direct quote from BRB pg. 95 Under DeepStrike
Would that make the "count as" for the shooting phase for knowing what guns and how many you can shoot?

Doesn't matter which phase; per the mission it's any phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:I now feel bad for starting this with Danny. I could have just waited 10 minutes and someone else would have used my exact same arguments without me having to expend the energy. And amusingly enough this cycle will continue until at least after 'Ard Boyz.

If I could harness this internet argument energy, I could probably solve our energy crisis.

It is funny. We need some sort of generator powered by the furious energy with which we hit the keys on our keyboards.

Mannahnin wrote:
It is funny. We need some sort of generator powered by the furious energy with which we hit the keys on our keyboards.

If we could also capture all of the tears from the GW Pricing threads, we could start a new society purely from Dakka.

We'd also need a team to go carefully through the collected tears and pick out the salt, so it would be usable. Maybe Gwar could head it up.

Mannahnin wrote:We'd also need a team to go carefully through the collected tears and pick out the salt, so it would be usable. Maybe Gwar could head it up.

He'd do it, but would need frequent breaks to avoid working his fingers RAW.

I don't know about that. IME he has no aversion to RAWness, and seems to need no breaks, either. Witness the post count.

torch1784 wrote:"In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire (or
run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved
In the previous Movement phase . Vehicles count as
having moved at cruising speed ."

This a direct quote from BRB pg. 95 Under DeepStrike
Would that make the "count as" for the shooting phase for knowing what guns and how many you can shoot?

Here is the rub. Based on the definition of cruising speed and the text you have quoted, it is murky tending towards 3kp because English is such a trashcan language.

If the Deepstrike rule said "Vehicles are considered to have moved at crusing speed for the purpose of choosing actions." then it would eliminate the 3kp resoning. If the rule said "A Deepstriking Vehicle is considered to have moved 12" during the previous movement phase" then it would eliminate all the 1kp arguments.

As it stands, the best I could say would be that because the text specifically concerns the allowable actions that can be taken by a Deepstriking unit in the shooting phase following its entrance, it 'counts' as an exception to the normal rules and as such does not apply to kill points.

Personally I don't have a vested interest. It is a random factor (since I don't have drop pods in an Ork army) as to whether or not I'll even face a drop pod.

If you want to avoid RAWness then you need to use lube...

Although that leads to some disturbing images around tears, frustrated keyboard bashing etc...

nosferatu1001 wrote:If you want to avoid RAWness then you need to use lube...

Although that leads to some disturbing images around tears, frustrated keyboard bashing etc...

First fullybakedbear pulls us painfully back to the actual topic of the thread and then you plunge us fully over the line.

My plans for a utopian society powered by internet anger and fed by QQ are dashed!

As the scenario is written it seems pretty clear to me:

"A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed."

"In that turns Shooting phase, these units can fire (or run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved in the previous Movement phase. Vehicles count as having moved at cruising speed."

Not only does a drop pod have the potential to move over 6" in a single phase of the game turn, it actually has moved over 6" in the previous movement phase when it arrived.

Gwar! wrote:page 57: "A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed."

Is there a sentence that says "A vehicle that travels at cruising speed has moved more than 6" and up to 12", however?

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:page 57: "A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed."

Is there a sentence that says "A vehicle that travels at cruising speed has moved more than 6" and up to 12", however?

page 57: "A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed."

That's the definition of Cruising Speed on pg 57 under 'Vehicles and Movement'.



Seriously. There are two camps of answers now. Both camps have good ideas, but ultimately neither is right until GW gives us an answer.

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:page 57: "A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed."

Is there a sentence that says "A vehicle that travels at cruising speed has moved more than 6" and up to 12", however?

All I'm concerned about is that cruising speed counts as moving over 6", that deep striking vehicles count as cruising, and that the scenario applies 3KP to such units.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As far as the game is concerned you act as if you have burnt skin.

In other words, the game considers you to have moved 6+", so the scenario counts you for 3KP

I act as if I have darker skin, because that is the effect of the status 'suntan'. The normal method of acquiring 'suntan' means I get burned, but I didn't use the normal method, I used a fake tan, which 'counts as suntan', meaning I get the suntan without the burn.

In this situation, the 'suntan' is 'cruising speed'. The effect of it is an inability to fire certain weapons. The normal method of getting it means I move 6-12", a.k.a. getting burnt skin. Hower if I apply a 'fake tan'/deepstrike I count-as having a tan/cruising speed, but I haven't actually burnt my skin or moved 7".

That's how I see it.

Except, as has been mentioned, the game treats you as if you HAVE moved over 6" - which is all the scenario cares about.

we know you *havent*, but as far as the *game* is concerned you HAVE.

No, the scenario specifically states the potential to move 6"+. The drop pod can NEVER move. Being counted as moving does not equal moving.

This is seriously a counts as jump infantry but is not jump infantry argument.

The drop pod never moves, only counts as moving. The Ard Boyz rule only stipulates units that have the potential to move. It is either shoddy rule writing on the Ard Boyz or they are very specific and people are just trying to include drop pods based on their own bias.

As a committed gamer, the suntan analogy is entirely lost on me. Can you come up with something a pudgy pale basement dweller can relate to?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except, as has been mentioned, the game treats you as if you HAVE moved over 6" - which is all the scenario cares about.

we know you *havent*, but as far as the *game* is concerned you HAVE.

No, the scenario specifically states potential to move 6"+. That is where your argument falls apart. The game treats you as IF you have moved 6"+, the scenario only cares if you CAN move 6"+.

By the Authority of the Immortal Emperor of Mankind, this thread must be purged and locked![/

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:page 57: "A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed."

Is there a sentence that says "A vehicle that travels at cruising speed has moved more than 6" and up to 12", however?

bhsman is exactly correct.

The relationship described in the rules quote above is, in terms of actual logical study, is called implication (or entailment, if you prefer).

Given two propositions p and q, it is typically expressed in a form similar to "If p then q", as above (given that p is "a vehicle travels more than 6" and up to 12"" and q is "a vehicle is moving at cruising speed" ).

The standard notation is: p -> q. (*)

Now, logic dictates that while the contrapositive of the assertion (!q -> !p, or, in this case, "a vehicle that is not moving cruising speed has not moved between 6" and 12"" ) is true. (And, logically, it is -- clearly, though, there are special rules within 40k that can change this, but those are, specifically, exceptions)

However, the claim q -> p is not a logical deduction from p -> q. Said claim is actually a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. You can find a brief description of the fallacy here.



* - My formal logic training was within the field of computer science; other mathematical fields may prefer different notation. Like set theorists, who I'm convinced just like to make up symbols to make themselves feel better about having chosen set theory as a career.**

** - Yes, that's a (bad) joke. One of my best friends is a set theorist. Honest.

BR - and as has been mentioned previously, the game f 40k consisders "counts as" as meaning "you are" for the purposes of rules interactions.