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.
Ceann wrote: I can also change if given supportable reason.
However all basic vs advanced tells us is that the basic rules are all you need to use Infantry. And because they don't have any special rules as a unit type, that statement is 100% accurate, if misleading.
However it does say the basic rules apply to ALL MODELS, not that the INFANTRY rules apply to all models.
And the basic rules do apply to all models. At least until their advanced rules kick in. You know, that whole, "until we're told otherwise". And let's face it, some of them do a lot.
Ceann wrote: I remain unconvinced that Infantry are the standard, it has not been clearly stated to my satisfaction.
That's your choice at this point.
Ceann wrote: If for the sake of argument, you take my stance, then disembarking is a basic rule for a transport, no issues from my perspective.
The friction is that you believe it contradicts an infantry standard, to me, each unit type has a standard. In this case the gate is using a basic rule for transports.
But I don't accept your stance as it violates the very definitions provided by the rulebook. Why should I accept an interpretation which violates the standard which I go by?
The Gate may use the Disembarking rules, but it violates many of the Disembarking rules while doing so. Not the least of which is Unit Type. The Monolith is not a Transport, nor does it have Transport Capacity, and it allows a unit which is not Embarked to Disembark.
Are you even aware of the "basic" rules for Disembark?
Ceann wrote: Yes, the gate does conflict with the BRB, however it is allowed too because it is a codex rule, by that virtue alone, it being an advanced rule is not a requirement to function.
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence."
Please note that it states a rule, not an advanced rule, if all of the codex rules were advanced rules, this statement would then be redundant and not required.
You are blinding yourself by lack of titles. There are advanced rules throughout the rulebook. None of the codex rules are basic, even if they call on basic ones here and there. They all fulfill the standards by which advanced rules are defined, and Basic vs Advanced doesn't separate them from advanced rules. We just call them "codex rules" to differentiate them from the rulebook's advanced rules that they take precedent over.
Ceann wrote: You ask for a quote... Both are from the Special Rules section of the BRB.
"Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule."
"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."
Nothing about this says anything about a "name". In fact, the term is not used anywhere in your quote.
Ceann wrote: I would argue that my definition is not showing edges.
As you clearly showed you have special rules, labeled as special rules.
I may have been mistaken about what Reserves is as a status, but that does not fault my premise.
It still is a rule for a mission, not a rule for a unit or model, it would be difficult to make it applicable in that regard.
Luckily it gives permission for other special rules to modify the reserves, which we have two that do, Outflank and Reserve.
Actually it does fault your premises. It demonstrates that Special Rules can be found outside of the Special Rules section of the rulebook. It also demonstrates that such can be found in their own areas.
The Terminator and Bike example also shows that special rules can be included on the model without using the Special Rules field on the army list entry.
Now, who or what do the rules of Reserves involve, the unit or the battlefield?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/27 22:56:09
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Special rules have name's.
There is no special rule listed as eternity gate.
The mission special rules would be just that, for missions.
They cannot be an advanced rule because they are not found on army list entry.
Any advanced rule that applies to a model will be listed on its data sheet. Again terminator armor is not an example in your favor. Terminator armor is listed on data sheets and it states on the wargear what special rules it does have. You must remember that the special rules section on a data sheet is for rules the UNIT has. There are units where only certain models can purchase certain gear, which is why the gear lists the special rules related to them.
The fact that it states what special rules it has shows us that anything that doesn't state it has them, does not. If you want to try to find an obvious hole in my interpretation feel free.
The rules for reserve would have to be rules for the battlefield as they are applied to your army, not a unit. If you look at night fighting for example it is clearly different from reserves.
Again, quote please. An assertion without a quote is rather baseless.
Ceann wrote: The mission special rules would be just that, for missions.
They cannot be an advanced rule because they are not found on army list entry.
They are not basic rules, either. What are they then?
I think you are still blinding yourself to matters of location defining what classifies as what type of rule, despite other definitions being applied.
Ceann wrote: Any advanced rule that applies to a model will be listed on its data sheet. Again terminator armor is not an example in your favor. Terminator armor is listed on data sheets and it states on the wargear what special rules it does have. You must remember that the special rules section on a data sheet is for rules the UNIT has. There are units where only certain models can purchase certain gear, which is why the gear lists the special rules related to them.
Actually, the Special Rules section states what special rules apply to the models on the list entry.
Terminator Armour is listed in the Wargear section of the army list entry, not the Special Rules section, and that is the point. Besides Relentless, they have the ability to prevent the unit from making a Sweeping Advance. That is not normal and definitely against the rules.
There are unit entries where only one of most of the models can purchase certain Wargear, such as Specialist and Heavy Weapons.
Ceann wrote: The fact that it states what special rules it has shows us that anything that doesn't state it has them, does not. If you want to try to find an obvious hole in my interpretation feel free.
I am saying that you can find special rules for a model in other places then the stodgy, hard-line approach with location you are limiting yourself to. Same can be said for advanced rules. In many cases they are not found in the Special Rules section of any book, but in the Unit Type section of the BRB or in the Armoury. These are then referred to by the army list entries by indicating them by Unit Type or Wargear, as well as the Special Rules section of book and army list entry.
Ceann wrote: The rules for reserve would have to be rules for the battlefield as they are applied to your army, not a unit. If you look at night fighting for example it is clearly different from reserves.
Then you may want to reread who is affected by the rules of Reserves. Here's hint: Reserves doesn't move Terrain.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
If things that "break or bend" the rules are represented by a special rule, and special rules have names, then any special rule would have to have a name to be represented as one. If you have some different interpretation of what these direct quotes from the special rules section mean, then do share. I feel like you have to adequately account for these in order to proceed with your stance on player identified special rules.
"Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule."
"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."
Wargear are not basic rules, why do missions have to be?
The special rules section of the data sheet states what special rules apply to the UNIT. The models have those rules by virtue of the unit.
If I make an Aquila Kill Team that has a biker in it, the unit may gain splitfire, but not relentless, because the model has relentless, not the unit. When the rules say models, they mean models, not units.
Terminator Armor is not from the BRB, it is from a codex. If it has a conflict with sweeping strikes, it supersedes that. The BvA only states if a RULE conflicts, not the type of rule.
Any of the special rules notated in the Unit Types section are notated in the special rules section. In the Unit Types section each type has a Special Rules: section. I don't see it as a hard-line approach. I look at my army list entry and anything listed on said entry is what I am permitted to use. If I want to use a lascannon, then the armory section of the codex will contain a reference telling me to consult the BRB.
Any special rule a unit has, will be listed on its Army List Entry sheet, or attached to another aspect of its data sheet and tell me that it is one. Such as wargear or unit type. If it doesn't tell me that it is one when referencing those items, then it isn't.
The index for BRB, if you search for advanced rules, takes you to page 13. That is it. Why clearly outline core rules section and the special rules and then just leave the rest "up to our wisdom" to determine which is which. That makes absolutely no sense at all.
In this circumstance the entire reason Deep Strike and Outflanking work properly are because they are special rules. If we didn't have a locked in precedence for certain rules and clear guidelines as to how we identify those rules we then enter into the world of players deciding what they think rules are on their own.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/28 00:43:05
Ceann wrote: If things that "break or bend" the rules are represented by a special rule, and special rules have names, then any special rule would have to have a name to be represented as one. If you have some different interpretation of what these direct quotes from the special rules section mean, then do share. I feel like you have to adequately account for these in order to proceed with your stance on player identified special rules.
I have already stated them and placed the burden of the "special rules have names" on you, as you have brought it up. At no point in anything you have so far quoted does it state that a Special Rule is required to have a name.
Ceann wrote: Wargear are not basic rules, why do missions have to be?
Indeed, why would they have to be? To be more clear, they, and the rules that govern them, are not included in any definition of basic rules.
That doesn't answer the question, though. If their rules are not basic rules, what are they?
Ceann wrote: The special rules section of the data sheet states what special rules apply to the UNIT. The models have those rules by virtue of the unit.
Not in argument or relevant. Demonstrate that this is the only place they may be found to support your premise.
Ceann wrote: If I make an Aquila Kill Team that has a biker in it, the unit may gain splitfire, but not relentless, because the model has relentless, not the unit. When the rules say models, they mean models, not units.
Indeed. A case I have made many times. And the pertinence of this statement is because?
I should note, again, be careful on automatically assigning split fire to a unit just because it includes a biker. This is not a rule attendant to the Bike Unit Type.
Ceann wrote: Terminator Armor is not from the BRB, it is from a codex. If it has a conflict with sweeping strikes, it supersedes that. The BvA only states if a RULE conflicts, not the type of rule.
Incorrect. BvA does state what type a rule is. It has to establish that in order to address how to resolve conflict because it is not established at any other point in such a manner.
And the Terminator Armour rule being discussed is neither an advanced rule or a special rule because...?
Ceann wrote: Any of the special rules notated in the Unit Types section are notated in the special rules section. In the Unit Types section each type has a Special Rules: section. I don't see it as a hard-line approach. I look at my army list entry and anything listed on said entry is what I am permitted to use. If I want to use a lascannon, then the armory section of the codex will contain a reference telling me to consult the BRB.
Any special rule a unit has, will be listed on its Army List Entry sheet, or attached to another aspect of its data sheet and tell me that it is one. Such as wargear or unit type. If it doesn't tell me that it is one when referencing those items, then it isn't.
Your hard-line premise is that Special Rules can only be found in the Special Rules section, period. This is grossly in error as I have demonstrated that they can be found in many places.
Let's take Hard To Hit for Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures. Most would consider this a special rule. It certainly classifies as such in every area except being listed in the Special Rules section. Why is not being in the Special Rules section allow you to dismiss this as being a special rule or an advanced rule?
Remember, location is not an acceptable answer, neither is the lack of self-definition. At no point are either of these what defines a special rule or an advanced rule.
Ceann wrote: The index for BRB, if you search for advanced rules, takes you to page 13. That is it. Why clearly outline core rules section and the special rules and then just leave the rest "up to our wisdom" to determine which is which. That makes absolutely no sense at all.
"Definition by Location" is not a thing unless we are told to refer to it as such. The definition is there, you just choose to ignore it. The purpose of a definition is so that you can apply it through the rest of the document. If you are not using that definition throughout the document, you are violating the rules.
Ceann wrote: In this circumstance the entire reason Deep Strike and Outflanking work properly are because they are special rules. If we didn't have a locked in precedence for certain rules and clear guidelines as to how we identify those rules we then enter into the world of players deciding what they think rules are on their own.
Agreed, so why are you trying to change the identity of those guidelines when they are well and properly established? Is it because you cannot understand the sentence as a definition, or you simply do not want to?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/28 01:26:08
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Ceann wrote: If things that "break or bend" the rules are represented by a special rule, and special rules have names, then any special rule would have to have a name to be represented as one. If you have some different interpretation of what these direct quotes from the special rules section mean, then do share. I feel like you have to adequately account for these in order to proceed with your stance on player identified special rules.
I have already stated them and placed the burden of the "special rules have names" on you, as you have brought it up. At no point in anything you have so far quoted does it state that a Special Rule is required to have a name.
Ceann wrote: Wargear are not basic rules, why do missions have to be?
Indeed, why would they have to be? To be more clear, they, and the rules that govern them, are not included in any definition of basic rules.
That doesn't answer the question, though. If their rules are not basic rules, what are they?
Ceann wrote: The special rules section of the data sheet states what special rules apply to the UNIT. The models have those rules by virtue of the unit.
Not in argument or relevant. Demonstrate that this is the only place they may be found to support your premise.
Ceann wrote: If I make an Aquila Kill Team that has a biker in it, the unit may gain splitfire, but not relentless, because the model has relentless, not the unit. When the rules say models, they mean models, not units.
Indeed. A case I have made many times. And the pertinence of this statement is because?
I should note, again, be careful on automatically assigning split fire to a unit just because it includes a biker. This is not a rule attendant to the Bike Unit Type.
Ceann wrote: Terminator Armor is not from the BRB, it is from a codex. If it has a conflict with sweeping strikes, it supersedes that. The BvA only states if a RULE conflicts, not the type of rule.
Incorrect. BvA does state what type a rule is. It has to establish that in order to address how to resolve conflict because it is not established at any other point in such a manner.
And the Terminator Armour rule being discussed is neither an advanced rule or a special rule because...?
Ceann wrote: Any of the special rules notated in the Unit Types section are notated in the special rules section. In the Unit Types section each type has a Special Rules: section. I don't see it as a hard-line approach. I look at my army list entry and anything listed on said entry is what I am permitted to use. If I want to use a lascannon, then the armory section of the codex will contain a reference telling me to consult the BRB.
Any special rule a unit has, will be listed on its Army List Entry sheet, or attached to another aspect of its data sheet and tell me that it is one. Such as wargear or unit type. If it doesn't tell me that it is one when referencing those items, then it isn't.
Your hard-line premise is that Special Rules can only be found in the Special Rules section, period. This is grossly in error as I have demonstrated that they can be found in many places.
Let's take Hard To Hit for Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures. Most would consider this a special rule. It certainly classifies as such in every area except being listed in the Special Rules section. Why is not being in the Special Rules section allow you to dismiss this as being a special rule or an advanced rule?
Remember, location is not an acceptable answer, neither is the lack of self-definition. At no point are either of these what defines a special rule or an advanced rule.
Ceann wrote: The index for BRB, if you search for advanced rules, takes you to page 13. That is it. Why clearly outline core rules section and the special rules and then just leave the rest "up to our wisdom" to determine which is which. That makes absolutely no sense at all.
"Definition by Location" is not a thing unless we are told to refer to it as such. The definition is there, you just choose to ignore it. The purpose of a definition is so that you can apply it through the rest of the document. If you are not using that definition throughout the document, you are violating the rules.
Ceann wrote: In this circumstance the entire reason Deep Strike and Outflanking work properly are because they are special rules. If we didn't have a locked in precedence for certain rules and clear guidelines as to how we identify those rules we then enter into the world of players deciding what they think rules are on their own.
Agreed, so why are you trying to change the identity of those guidelines when they are well and properly established? Is it because you cannot understand the sentence as a definition, or you simply do not want to?
I have posted many times, verbatim text, from both the data sheet and the BRB stating the locations of Special Rules. You merely disregard them in favor of using your own brush to determine what is and is not a special rule, without providing any justification for being allowed to do so. Unless you are using some house rules, you are not permitted to decide what type of a rule, a rule is. The BvA statement is about informing you of the existence of special rules, it is not permission to decide them on your own. If anything you need to demonstrate you have permission to do this.
As for missions, I don't see why they can't have basic and special rules just like units do, I see no qualms with this.
Demonstrate for like 50th time? I don't know how else to tell you.
"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."
Terminator Armor isn't a special rule because it doesn't need to be one. It has the appropriate special rules it needs and the sweeping strike conflict is resolved by virtue of being a codex rule.
Lets look at some other examples, Nightmare Shroud has the Fear special rule, The Solar Staff has the Solar Pulse special rule, it is notated as such on the wargear. If these items were just advanced rules by default there would be no reason to draw the distinction, of when they have special rules and not have special rules, if they were all already special rules in the first place.
Hard to hit flyers and FMC...
Riddle me this. Why do all unit types have a special rules section then? If all of their rules were special rules, then clearly all of their rules would be listed under Special Rules then for the unit type, wouldn't they?
Are we told about the extra special, special rules? I don't think that is the case. Why do I not consider them special rules? Because I haven't been told otherwise.
"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."
I am aware that bikes do not inherently have splitfire in general, however DW Bikers do, which is why I used them for the example.
How is definition by location not a thing? Your entire argument about Infantry rules being the standard is predicated upon the explanation of Infantry in the core rules section.
If you see my view as wrong, then clearly yours is also entirely wrong and that is putting aside my qualms with the assertion in the first place.
The only guideline we have is that you and others are asserting what are and are not special or advanced rules on your own. I follow each trail located on the Army List Entry and identify each circumstance of "Special Rule" and only attribute those, rather than a freelance opinion of what I think they are.
Ceann wrote: I have posted many times, verbatim text, from both the data sheet and the BRB stating the locations of Special Rules. You merely disregard them in favor of using your own brush to determine what is and is not a special rule, without providing any justification for being allowed to do so. Unless you are using some house rules, you are not permitted to decide what type of a rule, a rule is. The BvA statement is about informing you of the existence of special rules, it is not permission to decide them on your own. If anything you need to demonstrate you have permission to do this.
I have never stated that the individual player decides on it. That has been a leap that you have invented. I have stated that we follow the definitions provided. A very very clear difference. I have presented that definition numerous times.
I have no problems with finding special rules located in a section marked "Special Rules". My problem is your insistence that special rules may only be found where marked as such, when such a direction or distinction does not ever exist. In everything you have quoted on location of special rules, not once has it been as an exclusive statement as you would have me believe.
In addition, at no point has the identity of special rules been limited by requiring a name.
Ceann wrote: As for missions, I don't see why they can't have basic and special rules just like units do, I see no qualms with this.
Again, basic to the game or not? Basic to themselves is not in consideration with this conversation. We are considering them as if they are basic to the game, as that is the definition under debate.
Ceann wrote: Demonstrate for like 50th time? I don't know how else to tell you.
"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."
And having it by virtue of Wargear or Unit Type doesn't count? Even if those special rules are defined only within the same and not in the Special Rules section of a book?
Ceann wrote: Terminator Armor isn't a special rule because it doesn't need to be one. It has the appropriate special rules it needs and the sweeping strike conflict is resolved by virtue of being a codex rule.
Lets look at some other examples, Nightmare Shroud has the Fear special rule, The Solar Staff has the Solar Pulse special rule, it is notated as such on the wargear. If these items were just advanced rules by default there would be no reason to draw the distinction, of when they have special rules and not have special rules, if they were all already special rules in the first place.
Fear is a noted USR, but what about the other affect it has in the Shooting phase? Is this a normal operation in the game? If it is not normal, then how it is not a special rule? The same applies to the Terminator's Armour affect on Sweeping Advance (there is no Sweeping Strike).
Weapons are a little more weird in how they are set up. It used to be that equipped special rules were kept off the Weapon's Type. Sometime in 6th or early 7th Edition, they switched it so they were all on the Weapon's Type. Since it is on the Type, it needs a name. Why is a name so necessary for you to consider something as a special rule when the game does not?
Ceann wrote: Hard to hit flyers and FMC...
Riddle me this. Why do all unit types have a special rules section then? If all of their rules were special rules, then clearly all of their rules would be listed under Special Rules then for the unit type, wouldn't they?
Are we told about the extra special, special rules? I don't think that is the case. Why do I not consider them special rules? Because I haven't been told otherwise.
"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."
But you have been told they have these rules, and they fit the definition of special rules, so that quote seems rather non sequitur in nature.
Is the self-identity in this matter so important for you to classify them as such? Why can you not go by the definitions provided in the rulebook instead? Do you really need them nailed down like a computer does?
Ceann wrote: I am aware that bikes do not inherently have splitfire in general, however DW Bikers do, which is why I used them for the example.
So, they don't have it as part of their Type, which led to the confusion regarding it. Previously, you were not specifying the type of Biker.
Ceann wrote: How is definition by location not a thing? Your entire argument about Infantry rules being the standard is predicated upon the explanation of Infantry in the core rules section.
If you see my view as wrong, then clearly yours is also entirely wrong and that is putting aside my qualms with the assertion in the first place.
It is not a thing because we have not been told to identify special rules by their location. We have not been told to identify advanced rules by their location except that they are not where the basic rules are. The basic rules are identified by location and we are specifically directed so.
My argument about Infantry rules being the standard is based on explanations in General Principles, Movement Phase, and Unit Type. Unit Type is not part of the Core Rules section.
As an interesting side note, in 5th Edition Infantry rules we are specifically told that all the basic rules are presented on the basis that the models referred to them are Infantry. It has no bearing now, but one can see the imprints and assumptions of it in the current rulebook if one is aware of the possibility of the concept.
Ceann wrote: The only guideline we have is that you and others are asserting what are and are not special or advanced rules on your own. I follow each trail located on the Army List Entry and identify each circumstance of "Special Rule" and only attribute those, rather than a freelance opinion of what I think they are.
In other words, you do not accept what we present as guidelines and definitions as any of the kind. Which returns back to the question of, is it because you cannot understand them as a definition, or that you simply do not want to?
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2017/04/28 14:31:57
Subject: Re:Deep Striking/Outflanking and Reserves
I see you haven't done what I said; it doesn't appear that you have even contemplated what I am saying. But,I do have to say that if there is no classification of a unit as a Deep Striking unit, then you can not use the Deep Strike rules as it only covers how to handle the arrival of Deep Striking Units. Go ahead and check that out, the classification is not made up. GW made up the classification and put it in their rules. Should we iignore it because GW made it up?
Again, please do what I asked you to do about providing a reference to your outflank quotation that you haven't yet. I will add to it by asking that you type the quotation for the Outflank special rule itself so that we can tell you actually bothered to go read it. After that we can discuss how the contrast between the two versions.
We are dealing with the Rules As Written. Let's stick to what the rules actually say. I am not going to take a trip down 'Speculation Road' with you and start guessing at what GW intended.
If you have something to prove with a rules quote then prove it.
Otherwise, there is no rule preventing a unit that has been place in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves from simply walking on the battlefield from Reserves.
Summary of Argument
Spoiler:
The rules indicate that only those units that 'must arrive by Deep Strike' will have no choice but to arrive by Deep Strike.
Some units must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike.
A unit with the Deep Strike rule could choose to instead arrive from Reserves invoking normal infantry permissions and walking on the battlefield.
The Deep Strike rules require that you merely announce that you will be arriving via Deep Strike. But announcing does not restrict you from arriving via the general permission to walk on the battlefield from Reserves. The general permission is still completely available and has not been removed by any rule, special or otherwise. The Deep Strike rule specifically places you in Reserves AND Deep Strike Reserves, keeping the option to walk on the battlefield from Reserves open.
For comparison, note that Outflank is written in such a way that all other options are removed.
Outflank
During deployment, players can declare that any unit that contains at least one modelwith this special rule is attempting to Outflank the enemy.
When this unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve, the controlling player rolls a D6: on a 1-2, the unit comes in from the table edge to the left of their controlling player’s own table edge; on a 3-4, they come on from the right; on a 5-6, the player can choose left or right. Models move onto the table as described for other Reserves.
Outflank takes away the permission to walk on from Reserves. Deep Strike does not. A unit that has announced that it will be Deep Striking is placed both in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves, leaving the option open to walk on from Reserves when it comes time to roll for Reserves.
The player must announce that the unit will be arriving by Deep Strike, but - and this is the big but - there is no rule in place requiring the player to actually have that unit arrive by Deep Strike. Outflank provides this but Deep Strike does not.
Announcing is not levying a restriction.
When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve).
The rule is 100% satisfied by merely telling your opponent "the unit will be arriving by Deep Strike". End of story. That's what the rule literally requires. What amounts to 'a declaration of intent to Deep Strike'.
If you later change your mind and have the unit walk on the battlefield from Reserves the rule is still satisfied. You told your opponent "the unit will be arriving by Deep Strike" and that act of telling (declaring intent) is all that was required.
Pay attention to what the rule is actually requiring and not what you think it is requiring.
"You must tell your opponent that [the unit] will be arriving by Deep Strike" does not mean "the unit must arrive by Deep Strike".
Technically, the player still has the option of changing his mind when it comes to Rolling for Reserves and having the unit walk on the battlefield and not Deep Strike onto the battlefield.
Okay, if that's how you want to be, then I'll have to engage you on the subject by first challenging your outflanking quote.
From Outflank (the Special Rule), page 168 "When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserves, the controlling player rolls a D6..." This is not matching up with your quotation for Outflank. It does not say " When this unit arrives from Reserves". Provide your quotation with a page reference, then discuss any differences you see between the statements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Unless you are using some house rules, you are not permitted to decide what type of a rule, a rule is.
Then how do you determine if a rule is a basic or an advanced rule if you have two rules in conflict. In order to apply the Basic versus Advanced rules, you must be able to determine if a rule is basic or advanced. Your argument fails.
Ceann wrote: Riddle me this. Why do all unit types have a special rules section then? If all of their rules were special rules, then clearly all of their rules would be listed under Special Rules then for the unit type, wouldn't they?
The Special Rules seciton defines which USRs in the book from the Special Rules section. It does not define all their rules. In fact, it's a moot point whether you treat the other rules for the units as special rules or not. They are all advanced rules. Not all advanced rules have to be special rules, even if all special rules have to be advanced rules. They are rules that override basic rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/28 15:01:13
2017/04/28 15:21:23
Subject: Re:Deep Striking/Outflanking and Reserves
Ceann wrote: Unless you are using some house rules, you are not permitted to decide what type of a rule, a rule is.
Then how do you determine if a rule is a basic or an advanced rule if you have two rules in conflict. In order to apply the Basic versus Advanced rules, you must be able to determine if a rule is basic or advanced. Your argument fails.
Ceann wrote: Riddle me this. Why do all unit types have a special rules section then? If all of their rules were special rules, then clearly all of their rules would be listed under Special Rules then for the unit type, wouldn't they?
The Special Rules section defines which USRs in the book from the Special Rules section. It does not define all their rules. In fact, it's a moot point whether you treat the other rules for the units as special rules or not. They are all advanced rules. Not all advanced rules have to be special rules, even if all special rules have to be advanced rules. They are rules that override basic rules.
In regards to Outflanking, I could find no relevant FAQ's to the discussion.
The physical BRBpg 168 states
"When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve..."
Digital copy...
"When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve..."
Exactly the same on both, physical and digitial, verbatim.
Regardless of this segmented approach of a handful of words, outflanking is an entire rule from the point of being declare at deployment, to the point they arrive, we cannot look at partial statements. We have to look at them contextually as a whole. The primary flaw in the arguments, as a rule of thumb, is not looking at an entire set of rules and state "what is this rule telling us to do". Instead looks for "what the rule is telling us we can't do" and assuming anything undeclared is an action we can take because we were not told we couldn't. The rules are ultimately permissive, if you are not told you can do something, then you cannot.
I determine if a rule is a basic rule or an advanced rule based on whether it is a special rule or not. If it is labled as a special rule, then it is advanced, if it is not labeled as one, it is basic.
So far, from a procedural standpoint I have not run into any issues with my interpretations in action that "breaks the game" or anything along those lines.
Notice that besides this one section of the BRB "Basic vs Advanced" to my knowledge, no codex ever mentions "advanced" no rule ever mentions "advanced" and the example provided in basic vs advanced demonstrates a special rule being used as and advanced rule.
The special rules section of a unit type does not define all special rules, for example Chariots, have in their special rules a notation that the rider of a chariot fires in overwatch and that the chariot's weapons cannot.
This is not a USR, it is a special rule attributed to chariots. If it was an advanced rule as you say, then there would be no need for them to add the statement to it's special rules section.
At the end of the day, I don't think we have been handed a paint brush and the ability to determine a rules classification.
We are told when advanced rules are applied.
We are told where advanced rules are indicated for units.
We are told that if there is a conflict between a codex and the BRB, that the codex takes precedence.
We don't really need to know, or guess anything else, for the rules function.
A paint brush is not required.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/28 15:25:09
2017/04/28 15:49:09
Subject: Re:Deep Striking/Outflanking and Reserves
Ceann wrote: Unless you are using some house rules, you are not permitted to decide what type of a rule, a rule is.
Then how do you determine if a rule is a basic or an advanced rule if you have two rules in conflict. In order to apply the Basic versus Advanced rules, you must be able to determine if a rule is basic or advanced. Your argument fails.
Ceann wrote: Riddle me this. Why do all unit types have a special rules section then? If all of their rules were special rules, then clearly all of their rules would be listed under Special Rules then for the unit type, wouldn't they?
The Special Rules section defines which USRs in the book from the Special Rules section. It does not define all their rules. In fact, it's a moot point whether you treat the other rules for the units as special rules or not. They are all advanced rules. Not all advanced rules have to be special rules, even if all special rules have to be advanced rules. They are rules that override basic rules.
In regards to Outflanking, I could find no relevant FAQ's to the discussion.
The physical BRBpg 168 states
"When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve..."
Digital copy...
"When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve..."
Exactly the same on both, physical and digitial, verbatim.
Regardless of this segmented approach of a handful of words, outflanking is an entire rule from the point of being declare at deployment, to the point they arrive, we cannot look at partial statements. We have to look at them contextually as a whole. The primary flaw in the arguments, as a rule of thumb, is not looking at an entire set of rules and state "what is this rule telling us to do". Instead looks for "what the rule is telling us we can't do" and assuming anything undeclared is an action we can take because we were not told we couldn't. The rules are ultimately permissive, if you are not told you can do something, then you cannot..
That had been directed at col impact, not you. I think it's more a case of engaging him on what it says for Outflank in the outflanking rule as compared to what it says for outflanking as subsections of Scout or Infiltrate. Do the digital versions in those sections match up with what it says in the Outflank special rule, or with the print version of what col impact quoted?
Ceann wrote: I determine if a rule is a basic rule or an advanced rule based on whether it is a special rule or not. If it is labled as a special rule, then it is advanced, if it is not labeled as one, it is basic.
This is where your analysis falls apart. The second paragraph in the Basic versus Advanced section tells you about advanced rules and gives some different categories for classifying advanced rules. At no point in this does it say "Special Rules". That means you do not get to make the assumption that only Special Rules are advanced rules. You have to go by their classification for advanced rules, which is larger than merely "Special Rules"
Ceann wrote: So far, from a procedural standpoint I have not run into any issues with my interpretations in action that "breaks the game" or anything along those lines.
Notice that besides this one section of the BRB "Basic vs Advanced" to my knowledge, no codex ever mentions "advanced" no rule ever mentions "advanced" and the example provided in basic vs advanced demonstrates a special rule being used as and advanced rule.
Most likely because they defined the Core Rules section as containing "all the basic rules that you will need in order to command your army and fight your Warhammer 40,000 battles", and given their Basic versus Advanced rules figured that people playing the game would be able to understand that if it's not a rule in the section that contains all of the basic rules, that it's an advanced rule.
Ceann wrote: The special rules section of a unit type does not define all special rules, for example Chariots, have in their special rules a notation that the rider of a chariot fires in overwatch and that the chariot's weapons cannot.
This is not a USR, it is a special rule attributed to chariots. If it was an advanced rule as you say, then there would be no need for them to add the statement to it's special rules section.
Irrelevant, as all the rules dealing with vehicles are advanced rules, as per the classification of advanced rules on page 13 and on none of the vehicle rules being in the Core Rules section. This is where I disagree somewhat with Charistoph - there are references to location based rules; it's that all the basic rules are in the core rules section of the book (their location), and rules outside that section that are not merely saying "see page xx" for a rule in the core rules section are advanced rules.
Ceann wrote: At the end of the day, I don't think we have been handed a paint brush and the ability to determine a rules classification.
Not a paintbrush, but a classification guide, and instructions on where all the basic rules are contained. If you can not determine if a rule is basic or advanced based on those classifications, you aren't following the rules. Saying that Special Rules are the only advanced rules are not following the rules on page 13. GW gave us the tools for the job; if you can't make the determination properly it is not due to lack of instruction on their part.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/28 15:50:02
2017/04/28 16:07:21
Subject: Re:Deep Striking/Outflanking and Reserves
Ceann wrote: I determine if a rule is a basic rule or an advanced rule based on whether it is a special rule or not. If it is labled as a special rule, then it is advanced, if it is not labeled as one, it is basic.
And where do you find this standard that is in conflict with Basic vs Advanced?
Ceann wrote: So far, from a procedural standpoint I have not run into any issues with my interpretations in action that "breaks the game" or anything along those lines.
Notice that besides this one section of the BRB "Basic vs Advanced" to my knowledge, no codex ever mentions "advanced" no rule ever mentions "advanced" and the example provided in basic vs advanced demonstrates a special rule being used as and advanced rule.
Why does it need to when it is defined already in one spot? Why does it need to be repeated? The standard for Special Rules is not repeated in the codex, either, so why define advanced rules in such a manner?
Ceann wrote: The special rules section of a unit type does not define all special rules, for example Chariots, have in their special rules a notation that the rider of a chariot fires in overwatch and that the chariot's weapons cannot.
This is not a USR, it is a special rule attributed to chariots. If it was an advanced rule as you say, then there would be no need for them to add the statement to it's special rules section.
But it is not listed in the Special Rule section of the book, which has been your defined standard in all of this. And, interestingly enough, similar rules are not listed under other unit type's special rules, but as part of their rules involved with either Assault or Shooting. To be honest, I was surprised to find that under Special Rules.
Ceann wrote: At the end of the day, I don't think we have been handed a paint brush and the ability to determine a rules classification.
And neither do we, yet you accuse us of doing so with statements like this.
Ceann wrote: We are told when advanced rules are applied.
Yet, you continue to ignore this in recognizing what is the difference between basic and advanced rules. It is you who are using a paintbrush to try and blend your basic paint over the advanced rules in this instance.
It specifically tells you that advanced rules apply when it is a unit type other than Infantry, but you paint Bikes and Chariots as basic rules, instead of the same color we are told to paint unusual skills.
It specifically tells you that advanced rules apply when they have unusual skills, but apparently you think that Wargear cannot have unusual skills, so you paint them with the brush of "not advanced", which is counter to this.
At no point does this classification of advanced rules state that codex rules are not advanced rules. It notes the difference for which takes precedence, but any title is our construct, not the rulebook's.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
doctortom wrote: Irrelevant, as all the rules dealing with vehicles are advanced rules, as per the classification of advanced rules on page 13 and on none of the vehicle rules being in the Core Rules section. This is where I disagree somewhat with Charistoph - there are references to location based rules; it's that all the basic rules are in the core rules section of the book (their location), and rules outside that section that are not merely saying "see page xx" for a rule in the core rules section are advanced rules.
Why do people always miss terms like "if" and "unless"?
Yes, we are told where we will find Basic Rules, and we are given no other definition to stand by. That is part of what I meant by, "unless we are told otherwise".
The "definition by location" was in referring to the defining of Special Rules. Caenn was stating that Special Rules can only be found in the Special Rules section, which goes against the definition provided by the introduction of the Special Rules section. This becomes even more apparent when we do find rules which fit that category under many different areas of the rules other than what is listed under Special Rules sections.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/28 16:13:22
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Ceann wrote: I have posted many times, verbatim text, from both the data sheet and the BRB stating the locations of Special Rules. You merely disregard them in favor of using your own brush to determine what is and is not a special rule, without providing any justification for being allowed to do so. Unless you are using some house rules, you are not permitted to decide what type of a rule, a rule is. The BvA statement is about informing you of the existence of special rules, it is not permission to decide them on your own. If anything you need to demonstrate you have permission to do this.
I have never stated that the individual player decides on it. That has been a leap that you have invented. I have stated that we follow the definitions provided. A very very clear difference. I have presented that definition numerous times.
I have no problems with finding special rules located in a section marked "Special Rules". My problem is your insistence that special rules may only be found where marked as such, when such a direction or distinction does not ever exist. In everything you have quoted on location of special rules, not once has it been as an exclusive statement as you would have me believe.
In addition, at no point has the identity of special rules been limited by requiring a name.
Ceann wrote: As for missions, I don't see why they can't have basic and special rules just like units do, I see no qualms with this.
Again, basic to the game or not? Basic to themselves is not in consideration with this conversation. We are considering them as if they are basic to the game, as that is the definition under debate.
Ceann wrote: Demonstrate for like 50th time? I don't know how else to tell you.
"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."
And having it by virtue of Wargear or Unit Type doesn't count? Even if those special rules are defined only within the same and not in the Special Rules section of a book?
Ceann wrote: Terminator Armor isn't a special rule because it doesn't need to be one. It has the appropriate special rules it needs and the sweeping strike conflict is resolved by virtue of being a codex rule.
Lets look at some other examples, Nightmare Shroud has the Fear special rule, The Solar Staff has the Solar Pulse special rule, it is notated as such on the wargear. If these items were just advanced rules by default there would be no reason to draw the distinction, of when they have special rules and not have special rules, if they were all already special rules in the first place.
Fear is a noted USR, but what about the other affect it has in the Shooting phase? Is this a normal operation in the game? If it is not normal, then how it is not a special rule? The same applies to the Terminator's Armour affect on Sweeping Advance (there is no Sweeping Strike).
Weapons are a little more weird in how they are set up. It used to be that equipped special rules were kept off the Weapon's Type. Sometime in 6th or early 7th Edition, they switched it so they were all on the Weapon's Type. Since it is on the Type, it needs a name. Why is a name so necessary for you to consider something as a special rule when the game does not?
Ceann wrote: Hard to hit flyers and FMC...
Riddle me this. Why do all unit types have a special rules section then? If all of their rules were special rules, then clearly all of their rules would be listed under Special Rules then for the unit type, wouldn't they?
Are we told about the extra special, special rules? I don't think that is the case. Why do I not consider them special rules? Because I haven't been told otherwise.
"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."
But you have been told they have these rules, and they fit the definition of special rules, so that quote seems rather non sequitur in nature.
Is the self-identity in this matter so important for you to classify them as such? Why can you not go by the definitions provided in the rulebook instead? Do you really need them nailed down like a computer does?
Ceann wrote: I am aware that bikes do not inherently have splitfire in general, however DW Bikers do, which is why I used them for the example.
So, they don't have it as part of their Type, which led to the confusion regarding it. Previously, you were not specifying the type of Biker.
Ceann wrote: How is definition by location not a thing? Your entire argument about Infantry rules being the standard is predicated upon the explanation of Infantry in the core rules section.
If you see my view as wrong, then clearly yours is also entirely wrong and that is putting aside my qualms with the assertion in the first place.
It is not a thing because we have not been told to identify special rules by their location. We have not been told to identify advanced rules by their location except that they are not where the basic rules are. The basic rules are identified by location and we are specifically directed so.
My argument about Infantry rules being the standard is based on explanations in General Principles, Movement Phase, and Unit Type. Unit Type is not part of the Core Rules section.
As an interesting side note, in 5th Edition Infantry rules we are specifically told that all the basic rules are presented on the basis that the models referred to them are Infantry. It has no bearing now, but one can see the imprints and assumptions of it in the current rulebook if one is aware of the possibility of the concept.
Ceann wrote: The only guideline we have is that you and others are asserting what are and are not special or advanced rules on your own. I follow each trail located on the Army List Entry and identify each circumstance of "Special Rule" and only attribute those, rather than a freelance opinion of what I think they are.
In other words, you do not accept what we present as guidelines and definitions as any of the kind. Which returns back to the question of, is it because you cannot understand them as a definition, or that you simply do not want to?
What is wrong with my insistence of only looking at labeled Special Rules and only considering those as such? I recall previously you were stating "if i read the rules like a computer" in your arguments and your statements now contradict that.
Wargear and Unit Type, both state what special rules they have. Terminator armor states it has the "Bulky, Deepstrike and Relentless" special rules. So if it states it has a special rule then it does, if it does not state that then it does not. As per the special rules section where it has "unless stated otherwise". In the case of sweeping advance, there are vehicles that have in their basic rules they cannot perform sweeping advances. The wargear is referencing a basic rule outside of their unit type, just like the monolith references rules for transports to disembark, they are still using basic rules nonetheless.
Is self identity so important? It is very important. I only perform exactly what I am told to do and perform. The rulebook does not provide a definition you just think that it does and I feel like that is where the misunderstanding lies. Lets break this down to my point...
"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because"... reasons
You are being given reasons as why advanced rules would apply to specific types of models, you are not being told what the advanced rules are, you are being told CIRCUMSTANCES that something would have them. You are considering the circumstances, the definition, they are not.
Then we have...
"The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry."
Why would it tell us to look at the Army List Entry, if the advanced rules that apply to a unit are located in another section of the book?
The rules tell us where to find the rules for other unit types, it tells us where to find the rules for vehicles, it even includes page numbers in the physical BRB.
But to "advanced rules" there is not a reference insight other than to check the Army List Entry.
We are told in those sections the following things...
1. In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section.
Notice the infantry unit type is not treated any differently than anything else.
2. Vehicle characteristics are described in the vehicles section.
3.For the time being, we’ll just explain how squads of Infantry move, as they are by far the most common units in the game. Vehicles, Jump units, Bikes and certain other
units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be discussed in full detail later in the book, in the Unit Types section.
Many of these references, and I can provide more, all include page numbers on those quotes in the physical brb, referencing the Unit Types section.
How many page references does BvA have to the unit types section? Zero.
But you consider it to be the more valid statement?
The splash page on the physical BRB for the Appendix states....
This section contains a collection of advanced rules, weaponry and abilities that you can use...
Note that NOWHERE in this book, besides page 13, are advanced rules mentioned, other than the splash page of the the Appendix.
What are the three sections of the Appendix? Special Rules, Weaponry, and Psyker Powers.
Advanced rules = Special Rules at this point is not a stretch, especially after in the only example provided in BvA, stated a special rule was the advanced rule.
Are the rules for unit types located in the Appendix? No.
Are the special rules notated in the special rules section of each unit type, located in the Appendix? Yes.
The only logical conclusion is that all special rules are located in the appendix and unit types are not located in the appendix.
They can therefore only be basic rules for the unit of their type, short of the specifically mentioned special rules.
Ceann wrote: What is wrong with my insistence of only looking at labeled Special Rules and only considering those as such?
Because it means that you are classifying some advanced rules as basic rules. It's as simple as that.
Ceann wrote: Advanced rules = Special Rules at this point is not a stretch, especially after in the only example provided in BvA, stated a special rule was the advanced rule.
It really is. Advanced rules =/= basic rules. That is what is not a stretch. If it's not a basic rule, it's an advanced rule. What are the basic rules? The rules in the Core Rules section. Any other rules that are not merely referencing rules from the core rules section are advanced rules. Advanced rules=rules not in the Core Rules section.
Ceann wrote: The only logical conclusion is that all special rules are located in the appendix and unit types are not located in the appendix.
Not even remotely logical. It shows a basic failure of reading comprehension to come to that conclusion, to be honest.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/04/28 16:30:43
2017/04/28 16:44:16
Subject: Re:Deep Striking/Outflanking and Reserves
Ceann wrote: Unless you are using some house rules, you are not permitted to decide what type of a rule, a rule is.
Then how do you determine if a rule is a basic or an advanced rule if you have two rules in conflict. In order to apply the Basic versus Advanced rules, you must be able to determine if a rule is basic or advanced. Your argument fails.
Ceann wrote: Riddle me this. Why do all unit types have a special rules section then? If all of their rules were special rules, then clearly all of their rules would be listed under Special Rules then for the unit type, wouldn't they?
The Special Rules section defines which USRs in the book from the Special Rules section. It does not define all their rules. In fact, it's a moot point whether you treat the other rules for the units as special rules or not. They are all advanced rules. Not all advanced rules have to be special rules, even if all special rules have to be advanced rules. They are rules that override basic rules.
In regards to Outflanking, I could find no relevant FAQ's to the discussion.
The physical BRBpg 168 states
"When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve..."
Digital copy...
"When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve..."
Exactly the same on both, physical and digitial, verbatim.
Regardless of this segmented approach of a handful of words, outflanking is an entire rule from the point of being declare at deployment, to the point they arrive, we cannot look at partial statements. We have to look at them contextually as a whole. The primary flaw in the arguments, as a rule of thumb, is not looking at an entire set of rules and state "what is this rule telling us to do". Instead looks for "what the rule is telling us we can't do" and assuming anything undeclared is an action we can take because we were not told we couldn't. The rules are ultimately permissive, if you are not told you can do something, then you cannot..
That had been directed at col impact, not you. I think it's more a case of engaging him on what it says for Outflank in the outflanking rule as compared to what it says for outflanking as subsections of Scout or Infiltrate. Do the digital versions in those sections match up with what it says in the Outflank special rule, or with the print version of what col impact quoted?
Ceann wrote: I determine if a rule is a basic rule or an advanced rule based on whether it is a special rule or not. If it is labled as a special rule, then it is advanced, if it is not labeled as one, it is basic.
This is where your analysis falls apart. The second paragraph in the Basic versus Advanced section tells you about advanced rules and gives some different categories for classifying advanced rules. At no point in this does it say "Special Rules". That means you do not get to make the assumption that only Special Rules are advanced rules. You have to go by their classification for advanced rules, which is larger than merely "Special Rules"
Ceann wrote: So far, from a procedural standpoint I have not run into any issues with my interpretations in action that "breaks the game" or anything along those lines.
Notice that besides this one section of the BRB "Basic vs Advanced" to my knowledge, no codex ever mentions "advanced" no rule ever mentions "advanced" and the example provided in basic vs advanced demonstrates a special rule being used as and advanced rule.
Most likely because they defined the Core Rules section as containing "all the basic rules that you will need in order to command your army and fight your Warhammer 40,000 battles", and given their Basic versus Advanced rules figured that people playing the game would be able to understand that if it's not a rule in the section that contains all of the basic rules, that it's an advanced rule.
Ceann wrote: The special rules section of a unit type does not define all special rules, for example Chariots, have in their special rules a notation that the rider of a chariot fires in overwatch and that the chariot's weapons cannot.
This is not a USR, it is a special rule attributed to chariots. If it was an advanced rule as you say, then there would be no need for them to add the statement to it's special rules section.
Irrelevant, as all the rules dealing with vehicles are advanced rules, as per the classification of advanced rules on page 13 and on none of the vehicle rules being in the Core Rules section. This is where I disagree somewhat with Charistoph - there are references to location based rules; it's that all the basic rules are in the core rules section of the book (their location), and rules outside that section that are not merely saying "see page xx" for a rule in the core rules section are advanced rules.
Ceann wrote: At the end of the day, I don't think we have been handed a paint brush and the ability to determine a rules classification.
Not a paintbrush, but a classification guide, and instructions on where all the basic rules are contained. If you can not determine if a rule is basic or advanced based on those classifications, you aren't following the rules. Saying that Special Rules are the only advanced rules are not following the rules on page 13. GW gave us the tools for the job; if you can't make the determination properly it is not due to lack of instruction on their part.
I know it was directed at Col, I was providing you the information to support your case. I have both the digital and physical copies of the rules.
They say the exact same thing. So any terms he is claiming exist there, do not appear to exist there as I have read it.
The phrasing between the two was exactly the same and I found no FAQ that contradicted that.
The second paragraph of BvA does not tell you that those ARE advanced rules, they tell you circumstances in which advanced rules would apply. I think that is the fault in phrasing of the statement.
I think we can both agree that "boltgun" is not an advanced rule. But clearly a combi-melta, would be. The only direction we are given to find advanced rules is to consult an Army List Entry, not to consult the Unit Type section. Also note that there are NO page references to the unit type section anywhere in BvA, the only reference it gives you is Army List Entry's. Whereas in the core rules, there are many references, with page numbers provided to the different unit types. Also the only thing in BvA that is stated as a verbatim EXAMPLE of an advanced rule is one use to prevent morale roll and it states that a special rule is the advanced rule.
I would assert my point has more evidence to support it.
The issue is that at the beginning of the movement phase rules, it tells us that they will EXPLAIN the rules using Infantry, so everything that follows is using them to explain the rules.
This leads, in my mind, to a misunderstanding that Infantry are the rules, even though we were told they would be used as an explanation.
The core rules explains the processes of moving, shooting, assaulting and morale. Infantry are used to explain the rules for ease of use, because they have no innate special rules. It would be much more confusing to a player if they tried to explain the rules using FMC's. Using the simplest and most common unit is the easiest way. If you flip to the start of the Unit Types section, Infantry is the first thing there, right there alongside its more complicated brethren.
All the rules dealing with vehicles are not advanced rules those. Vehicles possess their own basic rules just like Infantry possess their own basic rules. Infantry just have no special rules, which is noted by them not having a special rules section. All unit types can follow the same processes for movement, shooting, assaulting and morale just like the others. The rules are just explained from the perspective of Infantry being plugged into the process. You could take "move 6" and "Special Rules: This unit has no special rules" slam Infantry into the unit types section and then explain the rules using bikes, while pointing out the special rules. The process would be exactly the same, just more complicated to understand. The core rules is about the PHASES and what units do in the phases, not about Infantry. The physic phase is located in the core rules, but I don't see any of you trying to claim that IG Conscripts are ML1 because its a basic rule.
We are not given a classification guide anywhere, you guys are assuming this. Just like using the "breaks or bends a rule" but leaving off the end part of the sentence stating "represented by a special rule".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/28 16:46:46
2017/04/28 17:06:39
Subject: Re:Deep Striking/Outflanking and Reserves
Ceann wrote: I determine if a rule is a basic rule or an advanced rule based on whether it is a special rule or not. If it is labled as a special rule, then it is advanced, if it is not labeled as one, it is basic.
And where do you find this standard that is in conflict with Basic vs Advanced?
Ceann wrote: So far, from a procedural standpoint I have not run into any issues with my interpretations in action that "breaks the game" or anything along those lines.
Notice that besides this one section of the BRB "Basic vs Advanced" to my knowledge, no codex ever mentions "advanced" no rule ever mentions "advanced" and the example provided in basic vs advanced demonstrates a special rule being used as and advanced rule.
Why does it need to when it is defined already in one spot? Why does it need to be repeated? The standard for Special Rules is not repeated in the codex, either, so why define advanced rules in such a manner?
Ceann wrote: The special rules section of a unit type does not define all special rules, for example Chariots, have in their special rules a notation that the rider of a chariot fires in overwatch and that the chariot's weapons cannot.
This is not a USR, it is a special rule attributed to chariots. If it was an advanced rule as you say, then there would be no need for them to add the statement to it's special rules section.
But it is not listed in the Special Rule section of the book, which has been your defined standard in all of this. And, interestingly enough, similar rules are not listed under other unit type's special rules, but as part of their rules involved with either Assault or Shooting. To be honest, I was surprised to find that under Special Rules.
Ceann wrote: At the end of the day, I don't think we have been handed a paint brush and the ability to determine a rules classification.
And neither do we, yet you accuse us of doing so with statements like this.
Ceann wrote: We are told when advanced rules are applied.
Yet, you continue to ignore this in recognizing what is the difference between basic and advanced rules. It is you who are using a paintbrush to try and blend your basic paint over the advanced rules in this instance.
It specifically tells you that advanced rules apply when it is a unit type other than Infantry, but you paint Bikes and Chariots as basic rules, instead of the same color we are told to paint unusual skills.
It specifically tells you that advanced rules apply when they have unusual skills, but apparently you think that Wargear cannot have unusual skills, so you paint them with the brush of "not advanced", which is counter to this.
At no point does this classification of advanced rules state that codex rules are not advanced rules. It notes the difference for which takes precedence, but any title is our construct, not the rulebook's.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
doctortom wrote: Irrelevant, as all the rules dealing with vehicles are advanced rules, as per the classification of advanced rules on page 13 and on none of the vehicle rules being in the Core Rules section. This is where I disagree somewhat with Charistoph - there are references to location based rules; it's that all the basic rules are in the core rules section of the book (their location), and rules outside that section that are not merely saying "see page xx" for a rule in the core rules section are advanced rules.
Why do people always miss terms like "if" and "unless"?
Yes, we are told where we will find Basic Rules, and we are given no other definition to stand by. That is part of what I meant by, "unless we are told otherwise".
The "definition by location" was in referring to the defining of Special Rules. Caenn was stating that Special Rules can only be found in the Special Rules section, which goes against the definition provided by the introduction of the Special Rules section. This becomes even more apparent when we do find rules which fit that category under many different areas of the rules other than what is listed under Special Rules sections.
Let's try to simplify this.
The question at hand is what determines what precedence a rule has.
We know that Deep Strike and Outflank are special rules.
The question of how they can deploy leads us to determining why they have precedence.
Why they have precedence leads us to BvA.
BvA leads us to how we classify rules.
So I would like to break down BvA and see if we can assess what it is actually saying, please note where we agree or disagree.
1. Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale.
These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.
When it states all models, this to me, applies to all unit types and those rules are listed above. I see this as the rules that govern those phases.
"These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models." This statement exists because infantry have no innate special rules.
2. Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because...
Now remember, we have to read this from the perspective of someone reading the book from the first time and just reaching this page. We don't know what the unit types are yet, we don't know what a "bolt gun" is or any of the other terms it states. All we are able to gather from this statement is "advanced rules apply, because" it doesn't tell us what those rules ARE. It just tells us why something would have them.
3. The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry.
This provide a location, of where to find out, what advanced rules are on a unit.
4. Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.
I don't think we have any issues with this statement. The issue we have is with classification.
5. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that
model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence.
Now this is the only EXAMPLE, provided in the statement of BvA. Note it has the word example. It also notes that a special rule, is the advanced rule, which takes precedence. We have no other example telling us that an advanced rule is anything but a special rule.
6. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.
I don't think we have any issues with this statement that won't be automatically resolved by resolving the other statements.
By my reckoning if we follow this as laid out. The rules for Reserves are not located in the codex of a unit that is using Deep Strike or Outflanking. Deepstrike and Outflanking would be located in the codex for that unit. They would then have precedence over the rules for Reserves, which are only mentioned in the BRB.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/28 17:08:01
Ceann wrote:What is wrong with my insistence of only looking at labeled Special Rules and only considering those as such? I recall previously you were stating "if i read the rules like a computer" in your arguments and your statements now contradict that.
Because by doing so you are ignoring the definition provided for it.
Ceann wrote:Wargear and Unit Type, both state what special rules they have. Terminator armor states it has the "Bulky, Deepstrike and Relentless" special rules. So if it states it has a special rule then it does, if it does not state that then it does not. As per the special rules section where it has "unless stated otherwise". In the case of sweeping advance, there are vehicles that have in their basic rules they cannot perform sweeping advances. The wargear is referencing a basic rule outside of their unit type, just like the monolith references rules for transports to disembark, they are still using basic rules nonetheless.
Those are not basic rules, though. You cannot find them in the realm of what is defined as basic rules. They are never stated that they are basic to the unit. This concept is a construct of the user, not the rulebook.
Ceann wrote:Is self identity so important? It is very important. I only perform exactly what I am told to do and perform. The rulebook does not provide a definition you just think that it does and I feel like that is where the misunderstanding lies. Lets break this down to my point...
Okay, so your answer, is, "you cannot understand them as definitions". Was that really that hard?
Ceann wrote:"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because"... reasons
You are being given reasons as why advanced rules would apply to specific types of models, you are not being told what the advanced rules are, you are being told CIRCUMSTANCES that something would have them. You are considering the circumstances, the definition, they are not.
There are many ways to provide a definition. One of the purposes of a definition is to provide a thing which is the act of defining. One of the purposes of defining is to state or set for the meaning of, and another is to determin or fix the boundaries or extent of something. Sometimes it is in a literal (i.e. written) sense, sometimes it is in defining the areas they cover. "The prison yard was defined by the high walls covered in razor wire," is a perfectly valid sentence.
This definition of advanced rules is providing use the extent or boundaries under which advanced rules are defined. Yes, that includes circumstances. The same thing applies to special rules.
Ceann wrote:Then we have...
"The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry."
Why would it tell us to look at the Army List Entry, if the advanced rules that apply to a unit are located in another section of the book?
The rules tell us where to find the rules for other unit types, it tells us where to find the rules for vehicles, it even includes page numbers in the physical BRB.
But to "advanced rules" there is not a reference insight other than to check the Army List Entry.
Are not Unit Entries and Wargear not indicated on an army list entry? How does requiring it to be on an Army List Entry exclude these from being advanced rules?
Ceann wrote:We are told in those sections the following things...
1. In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section.
Notice the infantry unit type is not treated any differently than anything else.
2. Vehicle characteristics are described in the vehicles section.
3.For the time being, we’ll just explain how squads of Infantry move, as they are by far the most common units in the game. Vehicles, Jump units, Bikes and certain other
units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be discussed in full detail later in the book, in the Unit Types section.
Again, having a unit type does not make it an advanced rule. Having a unit type other than Infantry is covered by advanced rules. Being a Vehicle is a Unit Type. Unit Types are not covered in The Core Rules. Therefore, anything about being a bike, a vehicle, or a beast would be advanced rules.
Ceann wrote:Many of these references, and I can provide more, all include page numbers on those quotes in the physical brb, referencing the Unit Types section.
How many page references does BvA have to the unit types section? Zero.
But you consider it to be the more valid statement?
This assertion falls flat on its face as it is in error. What is a Bike or a Tank but a Unit Type? What is a Character but a Unit Type? Both of these are referenced as why advanced rules are being used. They are part of the definition.
Ceann wrote:The splash page on the physical BRB for the Appendix states....
This section contains a collection of advanced rules, weaponry and abilities that you can use...
Note that NOWHERE in this book, besides page 13, are advanced rules mentioned, other than the splash page of the the Appendix.
What are the three sections of the Appendix? Special Rules, Weaponry, and Psyker Powers.
Everything from Bikes and Jetbikes on in the rulebook is considered advanced rules based on what we are told on page 13. Why does it have to repeat itself at every turn? You have yet to explain a reason for this.
Ceann wrote:Advanced rules = Special Rules at this point is not a stretch, especially after in the only example provided in BvA, stated a special rule was the advanced rule.
Are the rules for unit types located in the Appendix? No.
Are the special rules notated in the special rules section of each unit type, located in the Appendix? Yes.
The only logical conclusion is that all special rules are located in the appendix and unit types are not located in the appendix.
They can therefore only be basic rules for the unit of their type, short of the specifically mentioned special rules.
Are special rules, advanced rules? You bet. They either fall under the "unusual skills" concept. Sometimes those "unusual skills" are also provided by "a special kind of weapon", but that's belaboring, I think.
Are speclal rules the only advanced rules? No. As this would counter every reason why advanced rules would apply in its boundary-defining statement.
Ceann wrote:1. Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale.
These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.
When it states all models, this to me, applies to all unit types and those rules are listed above. I see this as the rules that govern those phases.
"These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models." This statement exists because infantry have no innate special rules.
So long as you don't forget the "unless stated otherwise" phrase.
Ceann wrote:2. Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because...
Now remember, we have to read this from the perspective of someone reading the book from the first time and just reaching this page. We don't know what the unit types are yet, we don't know what a "bolt gun" is or any of the other terms it states. All we are able to gather from this statement is "advanced rules apply, because" it doesn't tell us what those rules ARE. It just tells us why something would have them.
Why do we have to read this from the perspective of someone reading the book for the first time, and not going back to look it up? This logic makes no sense.
When something states, "because", it is giving the reasons for it. It is defining the limits and boundaries that it entails. Your biggest problem is that you stop with the comma and ignore everything else because you do not think it is pertinent. We are telling you that it is pertinent.
Ceann wrote:3. The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry.
This provide a location, of where to find out, what advanced rules are on a unit.
Irrelevant, as I pointed out above. There are many things which are indicated on the army list entry which you are not classifying as advanced rules.
Ceann wrote:5. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that
model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence.
Now this is the only EXAMPLE, provided in the statement of BvA. Note it has the word example. It also notes that a special rule, is the advanced rule, which takes precedence. We have no other example telling us that an advanced rule is anything but a special rule.
Maybe you need to review the use of "such as" in an english sentence and then come back and tell me that it is the only example. If "such as" is not providing an example, what is its purpose in the earlier sentence?
Ceann wrote:6. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.
I don't think we have any issues with this statement that won't be automatically resolved by resolving the other statements.
By my reckoning if we follow this as laid out. The rules for Reserves are not located in the codex of a unit that is using Deep Strike or Outflanking. Deepstrike and Outflanking would be located in the codex for that unit. They would then have precedence over the rules for Reserves, which are only mentioned in the BRB.
So a unit cannot use Reserves unless it is Deep Striking or Outflanking? That is what I take from this summation.
In addition, while Deep Strike and Outflank may be indicated on an army list entry in a codex, they do not come from the codex. They are still rules defined in the BRB. "Indicate" does not mean what you seem to think it means.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/28 18:17:38
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2017/04/28 18:11:49
Subject: Re:Deep Striking/Outflanking and Reserves
The issue is that at the beginning of the movement phase rules, it tells us that they will EXPLAIN the rules using Infantry, so everything that follows is using them to explain the rules..
Everything in the core rules section. Not everything dealing with movement.
Ceann wrote: This leads, in my mind, to a misunderstanding that Infantry are the rules, even though we were told they would be used as an explanation.
This is ignoring that you get advanced rules "because they are not normal infantry models". In conjunction with having been told that all the basic rules are in the core rules section and that you have advanced rules with models that aren't infantry models, the rules for units that are not infantry units that are not merely referring you to a page number would be advanced rules. They're advanced rules whether or not they are in the special rule section. Any rule for a unit type that changes the distance the unit moves is an advanced rule because it overrides the basic rule "Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase." (1st sentence in Movement Distance section, page 18). This is not a case of infantry being a standard here, as infantry are not mentioned in that rule at all. This is a case of some units being told they move 12", or any of the flying rules for Flying Monstrous Creatures, or for any of the vehicle movement rules. These override that basic rule of models moving only 6" yet are not listed as a special rule. They can not override the basic statement of models moving only 6" if they are a basic rule, yet we know they do override it. Therefore, these are advanced rules (which matches up with what we are told on page 13 - other types of units having advanced rules). This means, therefore, that Special Rules are not the only form of advanced rules.
Ceann wrote: The core rules explains the processes of moving, shooting, assaulting and morale. Infantry are used to explain the rules for ease of use, because they have no innate special rules. It would be much more confusing to a player if they tried to explain the rules using FMC's. Using the simplest and most common unit is the easiest way. If you flip to the start of the Unit Types section, Infantry is the first thing there, right there alongside its more complicated brethren.
All the rules dealing with vehicles are not advanced rules those. Vehicles possess their own basic rules just like Infantry possess their own basic rules. Infantry just have no special rules, which is noted by them not having a special rules section. All unit types can follow the same processes for movement, shooting, assaulting and morale just like the others. The rules are just explained from the perspective of Infantry being plugged into the process. You could take "move 6" and "Special Rules: This unit has no special rules" slam Infantry into the unit types section and then explain the rules using bikes, while pointing out the special rules. The process would be exactly the same, just more complicated to understand. The core rules is about the PHASES and what units do in the phases, not about Infantry. The physic phase is located in the core rules, but I don't see any of you trying to claim that IG Conscripts are ML1 because its a basic rule.
Yes, vehicle rules are advanced rules when the rules are not covered in the core rulebook section. Are vehicles "all the models in the game"? That's what basic rules apply to. Are vehicle rules in the Core Rules section? Most assuredly not. Are we told that the Core Rules section contains all the basic rules we need? Yes we are. This indicates and corroborates that vehicle rules are in fact advanced rules.
Ceann wrote: We are not given a classification guide anywhere, you guys are assuming this. Just like using the "breaks or bends a rule" but leaving off the end part of the sentence stating "represented by a special rule".
I am sorry, but you are suffering a misconception if you think we are not given a classification system anywhere.
Classification system one. 1) Advanced rules are for different types of models - classifications that they list include a) "they have a special kind of weapon", b) "unusual skills" c) "they are different from their fellows9such as a unit leader or a heroic character), d) "because they are not normal infantry models" . We are given a second classification method - at the beginning of the core rulebook section we are specifically told"This section contains all the basic rules that you will need in order to command your army and fight your Warhammer 40,0000 battles." It's the only sentence on that page (the only other writing on the page is "Core Rules"), so citing this is not cherry picking at all. This seems to be a pretty important piece of information. So, we can also classify rules into basic or advanced by whether or not they appear in the core rules section. Now, I have to bring up again a question you consistently dodged in the previous thread - where do you say the Core Rules section ends? We can not treat the statement on page 7 as a false statement. The classification system on page 13 does not contradict this, in fact it works with this.. No, you are wrong in asserting we are not given a classification guide anywhere when I am able to quote 2 systems from the rulebook.
2. Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because...
Now remember, we have to read this from the perspective of someone reading the book from the first time and just reaching this page. We don't know what the unit types are yet, we don't know what a "bolt gun" is or any of the other terms it states. All we are able to gather from this statement is "advanced rules apply, because" it doesn't tell us what those rules ARE. It just tells us why something would have them.
Remember that this someone reading the book from the first time and just reaching this page has already read the page that states all the basic rules you need are in the Core Rules section. He might not know what a "boltgun" is or any of the other terms, but he would be able to tell from the table of contents and also when he reaches the end of the core rules section that he has passed out of where basic rules are, and has started in a section that has advanced rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/28 18:17:47
Ceann wrote:What is wrong with my insistence of only looking at labeled Special Rules and only considering those as such? I recall previously you were stating "if i read the rules like a computer" in your arguments and your statements now contradict that.
Because by doing so you are ignoring the definition provided for it.
Ceann wrote:Wargear and Unit Type, both state what special rules they have. Terminator armor states it has the "Bulky, Deepstrike and Relentless" special rules. So if it states it has a special rule then it does, if it does not state that then it does not. As per the special rules section where it has "unless stated otherwise". In the case of sweeping advance, there are vehicles that have in their basic rules they cannot perform sweeping advances. The wargear is referencing a basic rule outside of their unit type, just like the monolith references rules for transports to disembark, they are still using basic rules nonetheless.
Those are not basic rules, though. You cannot find them in the realm of what is defined as basic rules. They are never stated that they are basic to the unit. This concept is a construct of the user, not the rulebook.
Ceann wrote:Is self identity so important? It is very important. I only perform exactly what I am told to do and perform. The rulebook does not provide a definition you just think that it does and I feel like that is where the misunderstanding lies. Lets break this down to my point...
Okay, so your answer, is, "you cannot understand them as definitions". Was that really that hard?
Ceann wrote:"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because"... reasons
You are being given reasons as why advanced rules would apply to specific types of models, you are not being told what the advanced rules are, you are being told CIRCUMSTANCES that something would have them. You are considering the circumstances, the definition, they are not.
There are many ways to provide a definition. One of the purposes of a definition is to provide a thing which is the act of defining. One of the purposes of defining is to state or set for the meaning of, and another is to determin or fix the boundaries or extent of something. Sometimes it is in a literal (i.e. written) sense, sometimes it is in defining the areas they cover. "The prison yard was defined by the high walls covered in razor wire," is a perfectly valid sentence.
This definition of advanced rules is providing use the extent or boundaries under which advanced rules are defined. Yes, that includes circumstances. The same thing applies to special rules.
Ceann wrote:Then we have...
"The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry."
Why would it tell us to look at the Army List Entry, if the advanced rules that apply to a unit are located in another section of the book?
The rules tell us where to find the rules for other unit types, it tells us where to find the rules for vehicles, it even includes page numbers in the physical BRB.
But to "advanced rules" there is not a reference insight other than to check the Army List Entry.
Are not Unit Entries and Wargear not indicated on an army list entry? How does requiring it to be on an Army List Entry exclude these from being advanced rules?
Ceann wrote:We are told in those sections the following things...
1. In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section.
Notice the infantry unit type is not treated any differently than anything else.
2. Vehicle characteristics are described in the vehicles section.
3.For the time being, we’ll just explain how squads of Infantry move, as they are by far the most common units in the game. Vehicles, Jump units, Bikes and certain other
units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be discussed in full detail later in the book, in the Unit Types section.
Again, having a unit type does not make it an advanced rule. Having a unit type other than Infantry is covered by advanced rules. Being a Vehicle is a Unit Type. Unit Types are not covered in The Core Rules. Therefore, anything about being a bike, a vehicle, or a beast would be advanced rules.
Ceann wrote:Many of these references, and I can provide more, all include page numbers on those quotes in the physical brb, referencing the Unit Types section.
How many page references does BvA have to the unit types section? Zero.
But you consider it to be the more valid statement?
This assertion falls flat on its face as it is in error. What is a Bike or a Tank but a Unit Type? What is a Character but a Unit Type? Both of these are referenced as why advanced rules are being used. They are part of the definition.
Ceann wrote:The splash page on the physical BRB for the Appendix states....
This section contains a collection of advanced rules, weaponry and abilities that you can use...
Note that NOWHERE in this book, besides page 13, are advanced rules mentioned, other than the splash page of the the Appendix.
What are the three sections of the Appendix? Special Rules, Weaponry, and Psyker Powers.
Everything from Bikes and Jetbikes on in the rulebook is considered advanced rules based on what we are told on page 13. Why does it have to repeat itself at every turn? You have yet to explain a reason for this.
Ceann wrote:Advanced rules = Special Rules at this point is not a stretch, especially after in the only example provided in BvA, stated a special rule was the advanced rule.
Are the rules for unit types located in the Appendix? No.
Are the special rules notated in the special rules section of each unit type, located in the Appendix? Yes.
The only logical conclusion is that all special rules are located in the appendix and unit types are not located in the appendix.
They can therefore only be basic rules for the unit of their type, short of the specifically mentioned special rules.
Are special rules, advanced rules? You bet. They either fall under the "unusual skills" concept. Sometimes those "unusual skills" are also provided by "a special kind of weapon", but that's belaboring, I think.
Are speclal rules the only advanced rules? No. As this would counter every reason why advanced rules would apply in its boundary-defining statement.
Ceann wrote:1. Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale.
These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.
When it states all models, this to me, applies to all unit types and those rules are listed above. I see this as the rules that govern those phases.
"These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models." This statement exists because infantry have no innate special rules.
So long as you don't forget the "unless stated otherwise" phrase.
Ceann wrote:2. Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because...
Now remember, we have to read this from the perspective of someone reading the book from the first time and just reaching this page. We don't know what the unit types are yet, we don't know what a "bolt gun" is or any of the other terms it states. All we are able to gather from this statement is "advanced rules apply, because" it doesn't tell us what those rules ARE. It just tells us why something would have them.
Why do we have to read this from the perspective of someone reading the book for the first time, and not going back to look it up? This logic makes no sense.
When something states, "because", it is giving the reasons for it. It is defining the limits and boundaries that it entails. Your biggest problem is that you stop with the comma and ignore everything else because you do not think it is pertinent. We are telling you that it is pertinent.
Ceann wrote:3. The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry.
This provide a location, of where to find out, what advanced rules are on a unit.
Irrelevant, as I pointed out above. There are many things which are indicated on the army list entry which you are not classifying as advanced rules.
Ceann wrote:5. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that
model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence.
Now this is the only EXAMPLE, provided in the statement of BvA. Note it has the word example. It also notes that a special rule, is the advanced rule, which takes precedence. We have no other example telling us that an advanced rule is anything but a special rule.
Maybe you need to review the use of "such as" in an english sentence and then come back and tell me that it is the only example. If "such as" is not providing an example, what is its purpose in the earlier sentence?
Ceann wrote:6. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.
I don't think we have any issues with this statement that won't be automatically resolved by resolving the other statements.
By my reckoning if we follow this as laid out. The rules for Reserves are not located in the codex of a unit that is using Deep Strike or Outflanking. Deepstrike and Outflanking would be located in the codex for that unit. They would then have precedence over the rules for Reserves, which are only mentioned in the BRB.
So a unit cannot use Reserves unless it is Deep Striking or Outflanking? That is what I take from this summation.
In addition, while Deep Strike and Outflank may be indicated on an army list entry in a codex, they do not come from the codex. They are still rules defined in the BRB.
As I said, lets simplify this.
If you want to talk about definitions, flip the the page labeled The Turn and look at the Turn Summary.
Those are a summary of the basic rules, Infantry are not mentioned at all. You have an exaggerated dedicated to a particular sentence of BvA, all based on an assumption that Infantry are the standard. All other issues to being discussed are contingent upon this assertion being true.
The basic rules are the PHASES and the sequences for the phases. Infantry are a unit type, they are not basic rules. Your entire arguments are Infantry are the standard is the premise for all of the BvA arguments.
No one can point to a line that contradicts that the rules will be explained using Infantry.
The movement phase states "In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance."
If a Calvary unit is moving 12", then it is not breaking any rule, so it cannot be an advanced rule. That is the bold statement per the BRB in the introduction.
"As you read through the rules, you will notice some of the text is bold, like this This highlights the most important elements of the rule in question and helps bring it to your eyes when skimming a page."
Meaning that moving your maximum distance is the MOST IMPORTANT element of the rule in question.
So you want to ignore what the movement phase states as the most important part of the rule. In favor of extrapolating some Infantry standard from BvA.
2017/04/28 19:07:48
Subject: Re:Deep Striking/Outflanking and Reserves
The issue is that at the beginning of the movement phase rules, it tells us that they will EXPLAIN the rules using Infantry, so everything that follows is using them to explain the rules..
Everything in the core rules section. Not everything dealing with movement.
Ceann wrote: This leads, in my mind, to a misunderstanding that Infantry are the rules, even though we were told they would be used as an explanation.
This is ignoring that you get advanced rules "because they are not normal infantry models". In conjunction with having been told that all the basic rules are in the core rules section and that you have advanced rules with models that aren't infantry models, the rules for units that are not infantry units that are not merely referring you to a page number would be advanced rules. They're advanced rules whether or not they are in the special rule section. Any rule for a unit type that changes the distance the unit moves is an advanced rule because it overrides the basic rule "Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase." (1st sentence in Movement Distance section, page 18). This is not a case of infantry being a standard here, as infantry are not mentioned in that rule at all. This is a case of some units being told they move 12", or any of the flying rules for Flying Monstrous Creatures, or for any of the vehicle movement rules. These override that basic rule of models moving only 6" yet are not listed as a special rule. They can not override the basic statement of models moving only 6" if they are a basic rule, yet we know they do override it. Therefore, these are advanced rules (which matches up with what we are told on page 13 - other types of units having advanced rules). This means, therefore, that Special Rules are not the only form of advanced rules.
Ceann wrote: The core rules explains the processes of moving, shooting, assaulting and morale. Infantry are used to explain the rules for ease of use, because they have no innate special rules. It would be much more confusing to a player if they tried to explain the rules using FMC's. Using the simplest and most common unit is the easiest way. If you flip to the start of the Unit Types section, Infantry is the first thing there, right there alongside its more complicated brethren.
All the rules dealing with vehicles are not advanced rules those. Vehicles possess their own basic rules just like Infantry possess their own basic rules. Infantry just have no special rules, which is noted by them not having a special rules section. All unit types can follow the same processes for movement, shooting, assaulting and morale just like the others. The rules are just explained from the perspective of Infantry being plugged into the process. You could take "move 6" and "Special Rules: This unit has no special rules" slam Infantry into the unit types section and then explain the rules using bikes, while pointing out the special rules. The process would be exactly the same, just more complicated to understand. The core rules is about the PHASES and what units do in the phases, not about Infantry. The physic phase is located in the core rules, but I don't see any of you trying to claim that IG Conscripts are ML1 because its a basic rule.
Yes, vehicle rules are advanced rules when the rules are not covered in the core rulebook section. Are vehicles "all the models in the game"? That's what basic rules apply to. Are vehicle rules in the Core Rules section? Most assuredly not. Are we told that the Core Rules section contains all the basic rules we need? Yes we are. This indicates and corroborates that vehicle rules are in fact advanced rules.
Ceann wrote: We are not given a classification guide anywhere, you guys are assuming this. Just like using the "breaks or bends a rule" but leaving off the end part of the sentence stating "represented by a special rule".
I am sorry, but you are suffering a misconception if you think we are not given a classification system anywhere.
Classification system one. 1) Advanced rules are for different types of models - classifications that they list include a) "they have a special kind of weapon", b) "unusual skills" c) "they are different from their fellows9such as a unit leader or a heroic character), d) "because they are not normal infantry models" . We are given a second classification method - at the beginning of the core rulebook section we are specifically told"This section contains all the basic rules that you will need in order to command your army and fight your Warhammer 40,0000 battles." It's the only sentence on that page (the only other writing on the page is "Core Rules"), so citing this is not cherry picking at all. This seems to be a pretty important piece of information. So, we can also classify rules into basic or advanced by whether or not they appear in the core rules section. Now, I have to bring up again a question you consistently dodged in the previous thread - where do you say the Core Rules section ends? We can not treat the statement on page 7 as a false statement. The classification system on page 13 does not contradict this, in fact it works with this.. No, you are wrong in asserting we are not given a classification guide anywhere when I am able to quote 2 systems from the rulebook.
2. Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because...
Now remember, we have to read this from the perspective of someone reading the book from the first time and just reaching this page. We don't know what the unit types are yet, we don't know what a "bolt gun" is or any of the other terms it states. All we are able to gather from this statement is "advanced rules apply, because" it doesn't tell us what those rules ARE. It just tells us why something would have them.
Remember that this someone reading the book from the first time and just reaching this page has already read the page that states all the basic rules you need are in the Core Rules section. He might not know what a "boltgun" is or any of the other terms, but he would be able to tell from the table of contents and also when he reaches the end of the core rules section that he has passed out of where basic rules are, and has started in a section that has advanced rules.
You guys and definitions.
Models are not units, models go in units.
Units are units and models are models.
Are the rules in Unit Types, for models? No. They are for Units.
So if you want to go by definition of models, then we also have to go by the definition of units.
Unit Types are not models, models are models.
You want to claim you are following the definition for advanced rules, while ignoring the definition of models, this is hypocrisy.
The place we are told to find the advanced rules for UNITS is on the Army List Entry, not in the Unit Type section.
The line you guys love to quote talks about specific models.
So how can you claim to be, being precisely definition oriented, while using a statement that talks about SPECIFIC MODELS and then using that to apply it to UNITS.
A specific model would be an IC who purchased a bike in a tactical marine squad. The IC and the Sargent would specific models, because of options available to them, as specific models.
They are not units, they are models in a unit.
This "models move 6" is PRECEDED by "For the time being, we’ll just explain how squads of Infantry move"
Explaining how something works, is not the standard for how something works.
If I explain to you how a car engine, on a car with 4 doors works. It will still work the same as a car with 2 doors works, the engine is what is explained.
You guys are concerned about the number of doors matching what was used in the explanation, which is irrelevant.
The basic rules are the rules for the phases and the sequences of those phases.
The rules for Infantry are part of their characteristic profiles, just like every unit has a characteristic profile.
Characteristic profiles are basic rules, not THE basic rules. The profile tells you HOW the unit interacts with the rules.
Lets take a real word example. You have two football teams.
Does everyone on each team, run the same speed, have the same weight and profile in regards to the role they are fulfilling?
No, they don't. Each team still plays the game the same way, following the same set of rules.
Each team still has the same positions filled. The individual characteristics on each time might be different, but the rules are the same.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/28 19:17:56
2017/04/28 19:21:08
Subject: Re:Deep Striking/Outflanking and Reserves
The question at hand is what determines what precedence a rule has.
No, the question at hand is whether or not you can change your mind after declaring your intent. The discussion on Basic rules vs Advanced rules was locked for a reason.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
2017/04/28 19:24:22
Subject: Re:Deep Striking/Outflanking and Reserves
The issue is that at the beginning of the movement phase rules, it tells us that they will EXPLAIN the rules using Infantry, so everything that follows is using them to explain the rules..
Everything in the core rules section. Not everything dealing with movement.
Ceann wrote: This leads, in my mind, to a misunderstanding that Infantry are the rules, even though we were told they would be used as an explanation.
This is ignoring that you get advanced rules "because they are not normal infantry models". In conjunction with having been told that all the basic rules are in the core rules section and that you have advanced rules with models that aren't infantry models, the rules for units that are not infantry units that are not merely referring you to a page number would be advanced rules. They're advanced rules whether or not they are in the special rule section. Any rule for a unit type that changes the distance the unit moves is an advanced rule because it overrides the basic rule "Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase." (1st sentence in Movement Distance section, page 18). This is not a case of infantry being a standard here, as infantry are not mentioned in that rule at all. This is a case of some units being told they move 12", or any of the flying rules for Flying Monstrous Creatures, or for any of the vehicle movement rules. These override that basic rule of models moving only 6" yet are not listed as a special rule. They can not override the basic statement of models moving only 6" if they are a basic rule, yet we know they do override it. Therefore, these are advanced rules (which matches up with what we are told on page 13 - other types of units having advanced rules). This means, therefore, that Special Rules are not the only form of advanced rules.
Ceann wrote: The core rules explains the processes of moving, shooting, assaulting and morale. Infantry are used to explain the rules for ease of use, because they have no innate special rules. It would be much more confusing to a player if they tried to explain the rules using FMC's. Using the simplest and most common unit is the easiest way. If you flip to the start of the Unit Types section, Infantry is the first thing there, right there alongside its more complicated brethren.
All the rules dealing with vehicles are not advanced rules those. Vehicles possess their own basic rules just like Infantry possess their own basic rules. Infantry just have no special rules, which is noted by them not having a special rules section. All unit types can follow the same processes for movement, shooting, assaulting and morale just like the others. The rules are just explained from the perspective of Infantry being plugged into the process. You could take "move 6" and "Special Rules: This unit has no special rules" slam Infantry into the unit types section and then explain the rules using bikes, while pointing out the special rules. The process would be exactly the same, just more complicated to understand. The core rules is about the PHASES and what units do in the phases, not about Infantry. The physic phase is located in the core rules, but I don't see any of you trying to claim that IG Conscripts are ML1 because its a basic rule.
Yes, vehicle rules are advanced rules when the rules are not covered in the core rulebook section. Are vehicles "all the models in the game"? That's what basic rules apply to. Are vehicle rules in the Core Rules section? Most assuredly not. Are we told that the Core Rules section contains all the basic rules we need? Yes we are. This indicates and corroborates that vehicle rules are in fact advanced rules.
Ceann wrote: We are not given a classification guide anywhere, you guys are assuming this. Just like using the "breaks or bends a rule" but leaving off the end part of the sentence stating "represented by a special rule".
I am sorry, but you are suffering a misconception if you think we are not given a classification system anywhere.
Classification system one. 1) Advanced rules are for different types of models - classifications that they list include a) "they have a special kind of weapon", b) "unusual skills" c) "they are different from their fellows9such as a unit leader or a heroic character), d) "because they are not normal infantry models" . We are given a second classification method - at the beginning of the core rulebook section we are specifically told"This section contains all the basic rules that you will need in order to command your army and fight your Warhammer 40,0000 battles." It's the only sentence on that page (the only other writing on the page is "Core Rules"), so citing this is not cherry picking at all. This seems to be a pretty important piece of information. So, we can also classify rules into basic or advanced by whether or not they appear in the core rules section. Now, I have to bring up again a question you consistently dodged in the previous thread - where do you say the Core Rules section ends? We can not treat the statement on page 7 as a false statement. The classification system on page 13 does not contradict this, in fact it works with this.. No, you are wrong in asserting we are not given a classification guide anywhere when I am able to quote 2 systems from the rulebook.
2. Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because...
Now remember, we have to read this from the perspective of someone reading the book from the first time and just reaching this page. We don't know what the unit types are yet, we don't know what a "bolt gun" is or any of the other terms it states. All we are able to gather from this statement is "advanced rules apply, because" it doesn't tell us what those rules ARE. It just tells us why something would have them.
Remember that this someone reading the book from the first time and just reaching this page has already read the page that states all the basic rules you need are in the Core Rules section. He might not know what a "boltgun" is or any of the other terms, but he would be able to tell from the table of contents and also when he reaches the end of the core rules section that he has passed out of where basic rules are, and has started in a section that has advanced rules.
You guys and definitions.
Models are not units, models go in units.
Units are units and models are models.
Are the rules in Unit Types, for models? No. They are for Units.
So if you want to go by definition of models, then we also have to go by the definition of units.
Unit Types are not models, models are models.
You want to claim you are following the definition for advanced rules, while ignoring the definition of models, this is hypocrisy.
The place we are told to find the advanced rules for UNITS is on the Army List Entry, not in the Unit Type section.
The line you guys love to quote talks about specific models.
So how can you claim to be, being precisely definition oriented, while using a statement that talks about SPECIFIC MODELS and then using that to apply it to SPECIFIC UNITS.
A specific model would be an IC who purchased a bike in a tactical marine squad. The IC and the Sargent would specific models, because of options available to them, as specific models.
They are not units, they are models in a unit.
This "models move 6" is PRECEDED by "For the time being, we’ll just explain how squads of Infantry move"
Explaining how something works, is not the standard for how something works.
If I explain to you how a car engine, on a car with 4 doors works. It will still work the same as a car with 2 doors works, the engine is what is explained.
You guys are concerned about the number of doors matching the explanation, which has nothing to do with how the engine works.
The basic rules are the rules for the phases and the sequences of those phases.
The rules for Infantry are part of their characteristic profiles, just like every unit has a characteristic profile.
Characteristic profiles are basic rules, not THE basic rules. The profile tells you HOW the unit interacts with the rules.
Lets take a rea lword example. You have two football teams.
Does everyone on each team, run the same speed, have the same weight and profile in regards to the role they are fulfilling?
No, they don't. Each team still plays the game the same way, following the same set of rules.
Each team still has the same positions filled. The individual characteristics on each time might be different, but the rules are the same.
Yet again you dodge. I'm sorry, but we address your points directly with responses to your quotes. We ask for an answer from you? Nope.
For the umpteen jillionth time: "This section contains all the basic rules that you will need in order to command your army and fight your Warhammer 40,0000 battles." Where do you say the Core Rules section ends? You are classifying rules outside what the rulebook indicates is the core rules section as basic rules, so you need to answer the question on where you think the core section ends. A subsequent question would probably be "Why do you think you get to classify rules outside the section said to contain all the basic rules as basic rules themselves?", but you really need to answer where the core rules section ends. We've been indulging you, and answering "riddle me this"es and the like; it's your turn to reciprocate and show that you want to have a reasonable debate on this and not just have things at the level of Col Impact's Cut-N-Paste (TM pending). This seems to be a very vital point, so you need to clarify your position on this.
That sounds like more of a case of a lack of desire to pursue the questions I asked, especially as you diverge from the topics at hand and bring up things from other threads.
Ceann wrote: If you want to talk about definitions, flip the the page labeled The Turn and look at the Turn Summary.
Those are a summary of the basic rules, Infantry are not mentioned at all. You have an exaggerated dedicated to a particular sentence of BvA, all based on an assumption that Infantry are the standard. All other issues to being discussed are contingent upon this assertion being true.
It is not just that sentence of BvA. It is also stated in numerous other places, too, which have been referenced.
Why does concept this trouble you so much?
Ceann wrote: The basic rules are the PHASES and the sequences for the phases. Infantry are a unit type, they are not basic rules. Your entire arguments are Infantry are the standard is the premise for all of the BvA arguments.
Morale is also part of the basic rules, and that potentially involves every Phase (yes, you can be forced to make a Morale Check in the Movement Phase due to Dangerous Terrain).
Ceann wrote: No one can point to a line that contradicts that the rules will be explained using Infantry.
No one is trying to contradict the line that the rules are explained using Infantry. When we remember what Basic vs Advanced states about Infantry and see what Unit Types states about Infantry, we see why the basic rules are explained using Infantry. This is not a great logical leap.
Ceann wrote: The movement phase states "In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance."
If a Calvary unit is moving 12", then it is not breaking any rule, so it cannot be an advanced rule. That is the bold statement per the BRB in the introduction.
"As you read through the rules, you will notice some of the text is bold, like this This highlights the most important elements of the rule in question and helps bring it to your eyes when skimming a page."
Meaning that moving your maximum distance is the MOST IMPORTANT element of the rule in question.
So you want to ignore what the movement phase states as the most important part of the rule. In favor of extrapolating some Infantry standard from BvA.
Regarding Movement Distance, does the Movement Phase ever allow a movement distance greater than 6"? Allowance for variant distances is not an excuse as it does not state any of these distances will be greater than 6".
Does moving greater than 6" come from a unit type? Yes. Is this from a unit type other than Infantry? Yes. Is being different than an Infantry model involve advanced rules? Yes. Is moving more than 6" breaking the above stated rule? Yes.
If you can provide a movement distance greater than 6" provided in the Movement Phase or an instruction telling us that the Movement Distance will be found in the Unit Type, please provide it. You have been asked numerous times, but revert to things which never actually state as such.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2017/04/28 19:45:39
Subject: Re:Deep Striking/Outflanking and Reserves
The question at hand is what determines what precedence a rule has.
No, the question at hand is whether or not you can change your mind after declaring your intent. The discussion on Basic rules vs Advanced rules was locked for a reason.
Yes, that is the question at hand. To be fair, though, the discussion on basic vs advanced was locked because of the back and forth between Ceann and col impact. They're not having the back and forth here like they were there, and I'm waiting for col impact to respond to my last reply to him to see if he's willing to engage in an honest discussion on this.
For the point at hand, I think the differiing outflank rules make clear their intent on how to handle similar situations (of which deep strike is one) even if you are not willing to accept the RAW - we have "When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves" in the Special rules for Outflank, but "When this unit arrives from Reserves" for ouflanking embedded in Infiltrate and in Scout special rules. Since they're supposed to be the same rule, it's obvious that "this unit" = "an Outflanking unit". It treats the way it is coming out of Reserves as a qualifier and applies it to the unit; from the two statements they indicate that it is treated as an Outflanking unit from the point it declares it will Outflank and it can't change its mind (otherwise, saying "this unit" forces the unit to Outflank wouldn't be true. So, if that's true that an Outflanking unit is a unit that has declared it it coming in from Reserves via Outflank, then a Deep Striking unit would be a unit that has declared that it will deep strike and will have to follow the rules for bringing in Deep Striking units from the board.
2017/04/28 19:56:17
Subject: Re:Deep Striking/Outflanking and Reserves
For the umpteen jillionth time: "This section contains all the basic rules that you will need in order to command your army and fight your Warhammer 40,0000 battles." Where do you say the Core Rules section ends? You are classifying rules outside what the rulebook indicates is the core rules section as basic rules, so you need to answer the question on where you think the core section ends. A subsequent question would probably be "Why do you think you get to classify rules outside the section said to contain all the basic rules as basic rules themselves?", but you really need to answer where the core rules section ends. We've been indulging you, and answering "riddle me this"es and the like; it's your turn to reciprocate and show that you want to have a reasonable debate on this and not just have things at the level of Col Impact's Cut-N-Paste (TM pending). This seems to be a very vital point, so you need to clarify your position on this.
The core rules explains the following.
Units, models and their characteristics.
The basic phases and the sequencing of each phase.
Weapons are chosen as part of the "choose a weapon to fire" in the sequence of the shooting phase.
Weapons are not located in the core rules section, does that make weapons advanced rules? No. It makes them profiles for weapons.
Just like Unit Types are the profiles for units.Las cannons and stormbolters are used as examples to explain firing weapons, yet no one claims they are the basic weapons and all the others are advanced.
They are not rules, they are profiles for Units that fit into the basic rules. The only rules there are the special rules, which are notated as such.
The unit types does nothing except give you the profiles for how those units "move, shoot,assault or have morale" no new basic rules are explained there.
I have tried to simplify the questions because there are too many tangents and I feel like the core issue is here.
That sounds like more of a case of a lack of desire to pursue the questions I asked, especially as you diverge from the topics at hand and bring up things from other threads.
Ceann wrote: If you want to talk about definitions, flip the the page labeled The Turn and look at the Turn Summary.
Those are a summary of the basic rules, Infantry are not mentioned at all. You have an exaggerated dedicated to a particular sentence of BvA, all based on an assumption that Infantry are the standard. All other issues to being discussed are contingent upon this assertion being true.
It is not just that sentence of BvA. It is also stated in numerous other places, too, which have been referenced.
Why does concept this trouble you so much?
Ceann wrote: The basic rules are the PHASES and the sequences for the phases. Infantry are a unit type, they are not basic rules. Your entire arguments are Infantry are the standard is the premise for all of the BvA arguments.
Morale is also part of the basic rules, and that potentially involves every Phase (yes, you can be forced to make a Morale Check in the Movement Phase due to Dangerous Terrain).
Ceann wrote: No one can point to a line that contradicts that the rules will be explained using Infantry.
No one is trying to contradict the line that the rules are explained using Infantry. When we remember what Basic vs Advanced states about Infantry and see what Unit Types states about Infantry, we see why the basic rules are explained using Infantry. This is not a great logical leap.
Ceann wrote: The movement phase states "In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance."
If a Calvary unit is moving 12", then it is not breaking any rule, so it cannot be an advanced rule. That is the bold statement per the BRB in the introduction.
"As you read through the rules, you will notice some of the text is bold, like this This highlights the most important elements of the rule in question and helps bring it to your eyes when skimming a page."
Meaning that moving your maximum distance is the MOST IMPORTANT element of the rule in question.
So you want to ignore what the movement phase states as the most important part of the rule. In favor of extrapolating some Infantry standard from BvA.
Regarding Movement Distance, does the Movement Phase ever allow a movement distance greater than 6"? Allowance for variant distances is not an excuse as it does not state any of these distances will be greater than 6".
Does moving greater than 6" come from a unit type? Yes. Is this from a unit type other than Infantry? Yes. Is being different than an Infantry model involve advanced rules? Yes. Is moving more than 6" breaking the above stated rule? Yes.
If you can provide a movement distance greater than 6" provided in the Movement Phase or an instruction telling us that the Movement Distance will be found in the Unit Type, please provide it. You have been asked numerous times, but revert to things which never actually state as such.
No, actually it sounds like I wish to simply the issue, both are perspectives are based entirely off of how we view the application of the rules at a basic level. What we were doing was discussing more and more tangents, which frankly will all be resolved by addressing the core issue.
It troubles me because as I have read the rules I have not come to your conclusion. I see logical reasons to not have this conclusion.
As far as I am aware you roll to see if you are wounded for dangerous terrain, not for morale.
I have provided, countless times, the references, yet you choose to ignore them. I will post it again.
"For the time being, we’ll just explain how squads of Infantry move, as they are by far the most common units in the game. Vehicles, Jump units, Bikes and certain other
units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be discussed in full detail later in the book, in the Unit Types section (pg61-71).
So you want to acknowledge "models move 6"" but ignore "For the time being, we’ll just explain". The preceding statement clearly invalidates "models move 6" as we were just told we were going to explained the rules for Infantry, not that they were a standard.
Then you also want to ignore " ]Vehicles, Jump units, Bikes and certain other units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be discussed in full detail later in the book, in the Unit Types section (pg61-71). So if anything, it would seem that you are reading what you want to read and ignoring the rest. You also ignore that I have pointed out that the introduction tells us that the most important part of a rule will be bold and the bold part is that models may move their maximum distance. What I need to understand is why you are ignoring the entire section labeled "The Movement Phase" and skipping right over to a subsection that we were just told was going to explain infantry to us and then proclaim it gospel.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/28 20:09:04
2017/04/28 20:48:01
Subject: Re:Deep Striking/Outflanking and Reserves
The core rules explains the following.
Units, models and their characteristics.
The basic phases and the sequencing of each phase.
Weapons are chosen as part of the "choose a weapon to fire" in the sequence of the shooting phase.
Weapons are not located in the core rules section, does that make weapons advanced rules? No. It makes them profiles for weapons.
Just like Unit Types are the profiles for units.Las cannons and stormbolters are used as examples to explain firing weapons, yet no one claims they are the basic weapons and all the others are advanced.
They are not rules, they are profiles for Units that fit into the basic rules. The only rules there are the special rules, which are notated as such.
The unit types does nothing except give you the profiles for how those units "move, shoot,assault or have morale" no new basic rules are explained there.
I have tried to simplify the questions because there are too many tangents and I feel like the core issue is here.
You should try to keep my quotes attributed, for people trying to follow this.
I'm sorry, but you're taking a key word "core rules" and heading off into your own spin without directly addressing the question.. What page number does the "core rules" end on? You seem to be having problems with the simple questions.
***
As a point - models with special kinds of weapons such as a boltgun are treated as having advanced rules - the rules for the boltgun are advanced rules. Yes, they are profiles for weapons. Not every weapon or every model has that weapon profile. The basic rules state that weapons have a profile and list the types of weapon. A specific profile would not be basic rules though according to a specific example on page 13 (citing boltgun as an example - feel free to explain where the advanced rules they say a model with a boltgun has if you're saying that the rules associated with them are basic rules yet the rulebook cites a model with one as having advanced rules).
No, actually it sounds like I wish to simply the issue
Really? The question I gave you can't be much simpler - where does the core rulebook section end, and you managed to run off on a tangent instead of giving a simple answer. That doesn't simplify things. The quote about all the basic rules being in the core section, and asking you where the core section ends is getting back to first principles.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/28 20:51:24
2017/04/28 21:15:19
Subject: Re:Deep Striking/Outflanking and Reserves
The core rules explains the following.
Units, models and their characteristics.
The basic phases and the sequencing of each phase.
Weapons are chosen as part of the "choose a weapon to fire" in the sequence of the shooting phase.
Weapons are not located in the core rules section, does that make weapons advanced rules? No. It makes them profiles for weapons.
Just like Unit Types are the profiles for units.Las cannons and stormbolters are used as examples to explain firing weapons, yet no one claims they are the basic weapons and all the others are advanced.
They are not rules, they are profiles for Units that fit into the basic rules. The only rules there are the special rules, which are notated as such.
The unit types does nothing except give you the profiles for how those units "move, shoot,assault or have morale" no new basic rules are explained there.
I have tried to simplify the questions because there are too many tangents and I feel like the core issue is here.
You should try to keep my quotes attributed, for people trying to follow this.
I'm sorry, but you're taking a key word "core rules" and heading off into your own spin without directly addressing the question.. What page number does the "core rules" end on? You seem to be having problems with the simple questions.
***
As a point - models with special kinds of weapons such as a boltgun are treated as having advanced rules - the rules for the boltgun are advanced rules. Yes, they are profiles for weapons. Not every weapon or every model has that weapon profile. The basic rules state that weapons have a profile and list the types of weapon. A specific profile would not be basic rules though according to a specific example on page 13 (citing boltgun as an example - feel free to explain where the advanced rules they say a model with a boltgun has if you're saying that the rules associated with them are basic rules yet the rulebook cites a model with one as having advanced rules).
No, actually it sounds like I wish to simply the issue
Really? The question I gave you can't be much simpler - where does the core rulebook section end, and you managed to run off on a tangent instead of giving a simple answer. That doesn't simplify things. The quote about all the basic rules being in the core section, and asking you where the core section ends is getting back to first principles.
The core rules section ends on page 59.
Unit types starts on page 62 with the first unit type listed as Infantry.
If your logic is that any words written after the morale page are advanced rules, then Infantry breaks your logic by virtue of their Unit Type being located on page 62. As they are being attributed too as a standard.
If the core rules section contains ALL basic rules, then anything located in them would be a basic rule. Unit Types are part of the core rules, just like weapon profiles are part of the core rules and psyker powers are part of the core rules. Unit types are referenced and discussed inside the core rules, namely in the Models and Units section. The actual listing of each of those things is not located in core rules section, precisely because they are not rules, they are profiles. Units have profiles, weapons have profiles and psyker powers have profiles.
A specific model, with a special weapon that is a boltgun... So... A tactical marine Sargent, who is a specific model, with a combi-melta, which is a boltgun with a special rule melta.
That is an application of advanced rules rules applying to a specific model. Not every model in the unit has a combi-melta, a specific model in a unit does. Use some logic here please, if a boltgun is a special kind of weapon, then all weapons are special kinds of weapons, therefore none of them would be special because everyone would have a special kind of weapon. You need to have some specific criteria, such as a special rule, to make it, a special kind of weapon. Special means different from usual. This makes a lot more sense than "all boltgun are special".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/28 21:19:51
2017/04/28 21:34:09
Subject: Re:Deep Striking/Outflanking and Reserves
The core rules explains the following.
Units, models and their characteristics.
The basic phases and the sequencing of each phase.
Weapons are chosen as part of the "choose a weapon to fire" in the sequence of the shooting phase.
Weapons are not located in the core rules section, does that make weapons advanced rules? No. It makes them profiles for weapons.
Just like Unit Types are the profiles for units.Las cannons and stormbolters are used as examples to explain firing weapons, yet no one claims they are the basic weapons and all the others are advanced.
They are not rules, they are profiles for Units that fit into the basic rules. The only rules there are the special rules, which are notated as such.
The unit types does nothing except give you the profiles for how those units "move, shoot,assault or have morale" no new basic rules are explained there.
I have tried to simplify the questions because there are too many tangents and I feel like the core issue is here.
You should try to keep my quotes attributed, for people trying to follow this.
I'm sorry, but you're taking a key word "core rules" and heading off into your own spin without directly addressing the question.. What page number does the "core rules" end on? You seem to be having problems with the simple questions.
***
As a point - models with special kinds of weapons such as a boltgun are treated as having advanced rules - the rules for the boltgun are advanced rules. Yes, they are profiles for weapons. Not every weapon or every model has that weapon profile. The basic rules state that weapons have a profile and list the types of weapon. A specific profile would not be basic rules though according to a specific example on page 13 (citing boltgun as an example - feel free to explain where the advanced rules they say a model with a boltgun has if you're saying that the rules associated with them are basic rules yet the rulebook cites a model with one as having advanced rules).
No, actually it sounds like I wish to simply the issue
Really? The question I gave you can't be much simpler - where does the core rulebook section end, and you managed to run off on a tangent instead of giving a simple answer. That doesn't simplify things. The quote about all the basic rules being in the core section, and asking you where the core section ends is getting back to first principles.
The core rules section ends on page 59.
Unit types starts on page 62 with the first unit type listed as Infantry.
If your logic is that any words written after the morale page are advanced rules, then Infantry breaks your logic by virtue of their Unit Type being located on page 62. As they are being attributed too as a standard.
That goes to show how much you've actually been paying attention to what I've been typing. I said any new rules not contained in the core rules section would be advanced rules. Infantry does not contain any new rules; therefore infantry does not break this. Sorry, try again.
Ceann wrote: If the core rules section contains ALL basic rules, then anything located in them would be a basic rule. Unit Types are part of the core rules, just like weapon profiles are part of the core rules and psyker powers are part of the core rules. The actual listing of each of those things is not located in core rules section, precisely because they are not rules, they are profiles for the processes of the rules.
Containing "all the basic rules you need" does not mean that it does not contain references to advanced rules, at least to provide some basic definitionis. The basic rules for Unit types are that each unit has a unit type. What rules are associated with unit types come later - these are advanced rules. Weapon basic rules are that weapons have profiles; the specifics of the profile (what weapon has what profile) is not in the basic rules. (The ones in the core rulebook are in the appendix, after the Special Rules you tout as being advanced rules).
Ceann wrote: A specific model, with a special weapon that is a boltgun... So... A tactical marine Sargent, who is a specific model, with a combi-melta, which is a boltgun with a special rule melta.
That is an application of advanced rules rules applying to a specific model. Not every model in the unit has a combi-melta, a specific model in a unit does. Use some logic here please, if a boltgun is a special kind of weapon, then all weapons are special kinds of weapons
you're starting to catch on, with some caveats...
Ceann wrote: , therefore none of them would be special because everyone would have a special kind of weapon.
ANNNND you lost it again. Maybe it's because you are continuing to refer to any advanced rules as Special Rules. STOP IT. Even you can't (legitimately) deny that a model having a boltgun is specifically mentioned as an example of models having advanced rules. Therefore, the rules for specific weapons - their profile are treated as adavanced rules as we are told to treat boltguns as having special rules on page 13.
Ceann wrote: ,You need to have some specific criteria, such as a special rule, to make it, a special kind of weapon. Special means different from usual. This makes a lot more sense than "all boltgun are special".
I do have specific criteria. If it's not in the core rules section, it's an advanced rule. Just as the main rulebook instructs me by saying all the basic rules are in the core rules section. I do not find any new rules outside that section that are basic rules. They are not all special rules, which is where you keep having your stumbling point, but they ARE all advanced ruless.
