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.

So, as I understand it, if a model with a minimum move moves less than its move distance, it is destroyed. This normally applies to supersonic flyers and is often considered negative due to the loss of said flyer. But is it possible to deliberately cause this to happen? For me, this has relevance for the ork burna bommer, which other than its bombs has only a small selection of machine guns. However, it detonates on a 4+, and causes 3 mortal wounds. Would it be possible to fly this up to an enemy, or in the middle of his castle, then next turn move it 0.001" and kamikaze it? As a follow on, when would the explosion be resolved if I were to move the plane say, 16". Would it be from where the move started or where it finished?

Booger ork wrote:
So, as I understand it, if a model with a minimum move moves less than its move distance, it is destroyed. This normally applies to supersonic flyers and is often considered negative due to the loss of said flyer. But is it possible to deliberately cause this to happen? For me, this has relevance for the ork burna bommer, which other than its bombs has only a small selection of machine guns. However, it detonates on a 4+, and causes 3 mortal wounds. Would it be possible to fly this up to an enemy, or in the middle of his castle, then next turn move it 0.001" and kamikaze it? As a follow on, when would the explosion be resolved if I were to move the plane say, 16". Would it be from where the move started or where it finished?

No. The vehicle has a minimum movement of 20". The 0.001" is not equal to or greater than the minimum movement.

Agreed. You can't choose to move less than the minimum move, you can only be forced to.

Then comes the question when does it blow up if you can't put it in anywhere legally. Blow up where it was?

Put it in a corner facing the corner. Then next turn you can pivot it 90 degrees but it will fly of the table and die. Do not know if it will explode or not but it’s the only tactic I can think off. If not your opponent has placed units on the table and you placed the flyer in previous turn a little bad so if you can not move due to models in the way or so, it will die.

tneva82 wrote:
Then comes the question when does it blow up if you can't put it in anywhere legally. Blow up where it was?

It's an interesting question, I don't think there is a clear answer to.

I would lean towards it exploding where it starts, it can't move at all. But the rule also says it might be forced to move off the battlefield, can't normally happen for any reason!

Booger ork wrote:
So, as I understand it, if a model with a minimum move moves less than its move distance, it is destroyed. This normally applies to supersonic flyers and is often considered negative due to the loss of said flyer. But is it possible to deliberately cause this to happen? For me, this has relevance for the ork burna bommer, which other than its bombs has only a small selection of machine guns. However, it detonates on a 4+, and causes 3 mortal wounds. Would it be possible to fly this up to an enemy, or in the middle of his castle, then next turn move it 0.001" and kamikaze it? As a follow on, when would the explosion be resolved if I were to move the plane say, 16". Would it be from where the move started or where it finished?

While you cannot choose to not make your minimum move and cause your Flyer to crash, it's perfectly legal to engineer a situation where you cannot legally make your minimum move, and thus cause it to be destroyed. For example, if you slap a non-Eldar flyer into a corner at an angle of 45 degrees, when you next move there is no possible place for it to move to without being "forced to move off the battlefield" and is thus destroyed.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Then comes the question when does it blow up if you can't put it in anywhere legally. Blow up where it was?

It's an interesting question, I don't think there is a clear answer to.

I would lean towards it exploding where it starts, it can't move at all. But the rule also says it might be forced to move off the battlefield, can't normally happen for any reason!

Actually, a model that is destroyed but not reduced to 0 wounds does not trigger 'Explodes' or 'Crash and Burn'. Being reduced to 0 wounds causes a model to be slain (which FAQ decrees is synonymous with destroyed) but the reverse is not actually true. For more information, please see this thread. I am not intending to bring this argument back to the forefront, just stating what the rules actually say, the previous discussion on the matter and I will leave it at that.

When checking the rules for this question, it did occur to me that that may well be the case - that it doesn't explode.

If there is an extensive debate on that already I'm happy to leave it out of this thread though!

For once I agree that BaconCatBug isn't splitting hairs - flyers may need to leave the table to achieve their minimum move. In this case they are destroyed and removed from the battlefield. Crash and burn is triggered by being reduced to 0 wounds, but that didn't happen so it's not triggered. A model that is destroyed and removed from the battlefield is further described as having stalled and crashed or been forced to abandon the battle. Destroyed and removed from the battlefield is just a more thematic way of saying removed from play.

Slain = 0 wounds. Page 7 of the rules sheet under inflict damage.

Any vehicle slain has a chance to explode if it has the explodes rule.

So you can engineer a situation where you cannot legally make your minimum move, and thus cause it to be destroyed. And that will have a chance to explode.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Slain = 0 wounds. Page 7 of the rules sheet under inflict damage.

Any vehicle slain has a chance to explode if it has the explodes rule.

So you can engineer a situation where you cannot legally make your minimum move, and thus cause it to be destroyed. And that will have a chance to explode.

For the purposes of clearing up misinformation, zero Wounds causes a model to be slain. The reverse is not true. It's not a two way equivalence.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Slain = 0 wounds. Page 7 of the rules sheet under inflict damage.

Any vehicle slain has a chance to explode if it has the explodes rule.

So you can engineer a situation where you cannot legally make your minimum move, and thus cause it to be destroyed. And that will have a chance to explode.

For the purposes of clearing up misinformation, zero Wounds causes a model to be slain. The reverse is not true. It's not a two way equivalence.

I have given no misinformation.

Zero Wounds causes a model to be slain. The reverse is true as well.

Page 7 equates the two. Do not ignore the context of the rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Slain = 0 wounds. Page 7 of the rules sheet under inflict damage.

Any vehicle slain has a chance to explode if it has the explodes rule.

So you can engineer a situation where you cannot legally make your minimum move, and thus cause it to be destroyed. And that will have a chance to explode.

For the purposes of clearing up misinformation, zero Wounds causes a model to be slain. The reverse is not true. It's not a two way equivalence.

I have given no misinformation.

Zero Wounds causes a model to be slain. The reverse is true as well.

Page 7 equates the two. Do not ignore the context of the rules.

Ok, let's break it down.

If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play.

This is the actual rule. The rule says If A, then B. It does not follow that If B, then A is true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysippus#Propositions

Another example: When rolling to wound: "If the roll is less than the required number, the attack fails and the attack sequence ends." If A, then B. It doesn't make logical sense to then deduce that if the attack fails, you roll is less than the required number. The attack could have failed for any number of other reasons.

Bah, I'm letting myself be baited again by people intentionally spreading misinformation to rile me up. I'll drop the matter, for reals this time, and let people make their own conclusions.

Slain = 0 wounds. Page 7 of the rules sheet under inflict damage.

The rules equate Slain and 0 wounds.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Slain = 0 wounds. Page 7 of the rules sheet under inflict damage.

The rules equate Slain and 0 wounds.

I'm not seeing anything on the rules sheet that equates the two. It says that a model reduced to 0 wounds is slain. It doesn't say that a model slain is reduced to 0 wounds.

A statement that a model that has 'x' happen to it is subject to 'y' condition does not equate the two. It's a cause and effect statement.

A car that runs out of petrol will stop moving. But a car that stops moving hasn't necessarily run out of petrol... running out of petrol is just one effect that can cause the stated outcome.




To be clear - establishing whether or not slain = 0 wounds is relevant, since it affects the answer to one of the original questions in the OP (ie: Does the flyer explode?). Unless there has been something said about it in another document, though, I'm not seeing any grey area here.

 insaniak wrote:
It says that a model reduced to 0 wounds is slain.

Right there.

That is what equates 0 wounds and slain.

Except it doesn't.

Refer to my previous car analogy.

0 wounds is equal to slain/destroyed as per Page 7

So you said. Repeating yourself doesn't suddenly make it true.

You're going to have to explain how you have reached that conclusion. Or why the opposing conclusion is incorrect.

I have posted rules that equate 0 wounds with slain.

Clearly we disagree on that point. So there is no need to discuss it further.

OP discuss it with your opponent until a FaQ comes out.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
It says that a model reduced to 0 wounds is slain.

Right there.

That is what equates 0 wounds and slain.

Here's your logic.

All rectangles are squares (this is true). Therefore using your logic all squares are rectangles (absolutely not true). They are not equals.

All oranges are fruits... but not all fruits are oranges. Not equal.

The logic is same for "If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play."



Also consider this, everyone else on the boards so far is of the same mindset, and the last thread you were on got locked because you refused to listen. Send an email to GW, see what they say. otherwise it seems this topic has played itself out.

 Sazzlefrats wrote:


Here's your logic.

All rectangles are squares (this is true). Therefore using your logic all squares are rectangles (absolutely not true). They are not equals.

All oranges are fruits... but not all fruits are oranges. Not equal.

The logic is same for "If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play."

Not the same situation at all.

Please explain why.

At the end of the day, no you can't move your flyer off the table to cause it to crash and burn on the table and damage your opponent.

DeathReaper, you need to brush up on your logical fallacies. In particular, look at Example 3 in that article. That is exactly the mistake you are making here.

 insaniak wrote:
Please explain why.

I have, the rules equate slain with 0 wound. it has nothing to do with fruit or shapes.

If you do not ignore the context of the rules then you will see that 0 woulds = slain.

But as I said Clearly we disagree on that point. So there is no need to discuss it further.

OP discuss it with your opponent until a FaQ comes out.

 DeathReaper wrote:

I have, the rules equate slain with 0 wound..

No, you haven't. You've repeatedly claimed that the rules say something that they don't. If you're not prepared to explain why you think that, then all you're doing is pointlessly spamming the thread.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Please explain why.

I have, the rules equate slain with 0 wound. it has nothing to do with fruit or shapes.

If you do not ignore the context of the rules then you will see that 0 woulds = slain.

But as I said Clearly we disagree on that point. So there is no need to discuss it further.

OP discuss it with your opponent until a FaQ comes out.

DeathReaper, as many others have said, you are incorrect.

A>B does not mean B>A.

The full text of the sentence you're referring to is:

If a model's wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play.

The full text of the relevant sentence in the Movement rules is:

If a model cannot make its minimum move, or is forced to move off the battlefield because of its minimum speed, it is destroyed and removed from the battlefield - the model has either stalled and crashed or been forced to abandon the battle.

What you're doing is assuming that the rule about being reduced to 0 wounds is saying that "reduced to 0" and "slain" are equivalent, when what the rules are actually saying is being reduced to 0 wounds results in the model being slain. This can be shown by the fact that the movement rules show another way that a model can be destroyed without any reference to being reduced to 0 wounds.

If you truly believe you are correct (and aren't just trolling), can you provide any reasoning to support your argument? Because regurgitating the same false statement isn't contributing at this point.

 insaniak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

I have, the rules equate slain with 0 wound..

No, you haven't.

If you don't ignore the context, then you will understand that I have.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

I have, the rules equate slain with 0 wound..

No, you haven't.

If you don't ignore the context, then you will understand that I have.

If that was true, we'd all be agreeing with you already.