Knights Vs Skyshield: Under the Dome

[Caitsidhe]

Here is an interesting rules question. I've been reading the various books that apply and I think there is a problem area. I'm interested in how others interpret it. Consider the Skyshield; I'm talking about underneath not on top. The Knight can't get under there. It doesn't fit. The Skyshield is not ruins and so you can't just plow through it. You can either place the model or you cannot. This means, in theory, that a unit of Long Fangs (or anything with the right weapons really) could get below and just keep shooting at Knights all day long and be safe from close combat. Am I reading this wrong?

It would not, of course, protect them from ranged attacks (beyond what the Skyshield already provides) but nothing prevents other options underneath too to provide ample cover. I ask this because 3+ Knight lists aren't going away. They are, in fact, on the rise. People will be lookign to options to counter it. A building which cannot be destroyed but counts as battlefield debris sounds like such an option. The very size of the Knight (and rules on model placement) seems to prevent it from being able to reach the target in close combat.

[Path Walker]

It doesn't protect them from ranged attacks and has restricted line of sigh from the legs and as it has to be in your deployment zone, its easy enough for the knight to ignore your unit and move away, with Maelstrom missions encouraging you to move around the board, you wouldn't want to invest too much in this one particular anti knight tactic

[Caitsidhe]

It doesn't protect them from ranged attacks and has restricted line of sigh from the legs and as it has to be in your deployment zone, its easy enough for the knight to ignore your unit and move away, with Maelstrom missions encouraging you to move around the board, you wouldn't want to invest too much in this one particular anti knight tactic

At the risk of you insulting me as you did DA and say everything I say is "laughable," I will point out that I already said they were still vulnerable to ranged attacks. I will also point out that the kinds of units I'm talking about sticking under there are the very ones the Knight CANNOT ignore. The size of a Knight and the placement of a Skyshield make it very unlikely that a Knight can just walk around ignoring Heavy Weapons (of all kinds) zapping it from under such a place. In answer to your other comment, the Skyshield isn't expensive. If it locks Knights from ever reaching you in close combat, it is the best few points you ever spent. Maelstrom Mission are a totally different ball of wax and that is a big "what if" so i'm not going to get into that. It suffices to say that you will have plenty of other units to chase idiotic cards. The key heavy weapons or anti-Knight weapons can sit perfectly safe in position, quite likely will be camping a scoring objective at the same time. What I asked was whether I am reading the rules correctly about the Knight's ability to reach said units. This is a rules question, not a sales opportunity.

[Tynskel]

destroy the landing pad.
Done.
If it doesn't have rules for blowing it up, then look at the section of the book on how to classify a building, then shoot it and blow it up.

[Houghten]

Which would work, if it were a building...

[Tynskel]

It is a building, even if it isn't explicitly classified as a building.

[40kGamer]

It is a building, even if it isn't explicitly classified as a building.

What would be the AV and HPs for a nonspecified building?

[Tynskel]

What would be the AV and HPs for a nonspecified building?


Use the rules to determine that. There are rules in the rulebook for determining the armor value of buildings, etc.
By not having an AV and HP value, GW has declared that not all Landing Pads are created equal.

[Houghten]

Is there some other landing pad you're thinking of that it's unequal with?

Also, it being a building is still all in your head. Might as well say a Riptide is a Walker.

A Skyshield is open terrain, the moving on to / off of which requires a Difficult Terrain test. And that's all it is.

Can you destroy a Defence Line as if it were a Small Building?

[Tynskel]

Is there some other landing pad you're thinking of that it's unequal with?

Also, it being a building is still all in your head. Might as well say a Riptide is a Walker.

A Skyshield is open terrain, the moving on to / off of which requires a Difficult Terrain test. And that's all it is.

Can you destroy a Defence Line as if it were a Small Building?

That's silly:
Riptide cannot be a Walker, because it was declared a Monsterous Creature.

The Skyshield is not exactly open terrain, it is a facility with parts.
Again, not all Skyshield may be equal. I've seen people have it on the ground, and mounted on top of a tower.

You can destroy the defense line with weapons that remove terrain. The defenseline is considered battlefield debris. It's category inherently lets you know that it really can't be destroyed in the normal convention. You would just change the Defense line into ruins.

Nothing you are saying here says that you couldn't use the rules that the rulebook grants, and determine an armor value, etc.

[Charon]

Sure you can make something up.
But thats not covered by the rules of the platform. The platform is not classified as a building.


Terrain Type: Unusual. The top surface of the Skyshield Landing Pad is open ground. To move onto or off of
the landing pad counts as moving through difficult terrain.

So yes. If you chose to change the terrain type like you want, your opponent is allowed to change the avatar from MC into FMC... same as you try to change from "unusual" to "building".

[Path Walker]

At the risk of you insulting me as you did DA and say everything I say is "laughable," I will point out that I already said they were still vulnerable to ranged attacks. I will also point out that the kinds of units I'm talking about sticking under there are the very ones the Knight CANNOT ignore. The size of a Knight and the placement of a Skyshield make it very unlikely that a Knight can just walk around ignoring Heavy Weapons (of all kinds) zapping it from under such a place. In answer to your other comment, the Skyshield isn't expensive. If it locks Knights from ever reaching you in close combat, it is the best few points you ever spent. Maelstrom Mission are a totally different ball of wax and that is a big "what if" so i'm not going to get into that. It suffices to say that you will have plenty of other units to chase idiotic cards. The key heavy weapons or anti-Knight weapons can sit perfectly safe in position, quite likely will be camping a scoring objective at the same time. What I asked was whether I am reading the rules correctly about the Knight's ability to reach said units. This is a rules question, not a sales opportunity.

Ok, so, I'll reiterate, no, the Knight can't assault the unit under there.

No, this is not a clever or viable tactic in a game.

[Houghten]

Also, I can't find these rules for determining armour values you're talking about. All I can seer is page 110: "All buildings have an Armour Value listed on their terrain datasheet." The old table from 5th about the AV of corrugated iron versus ceramite is nowhere to be found.

- - - Updated - - -

As to the original question: if the anti-Knight units are hiding under the Skyshield, couldn't the Knight just climb on top to get out of their Line of Sight?

[Caitsidhe]

Also, I can't find these rules for determining armour values you're talking about. All I can seer is page 110: "All buildings have an Armour Value listed on their terrain datasheet." The old table from 5th about the AV of corrugated iron versus ceramite is nowhere to be found.

- - - Updated - - -

As to the original question: if the anti-Knight units are hiding under the Skyshield, couldn't the Knight just climb on top to get out of their Line of Sight?

He could. :D Of course a Knight who has jumped up on a Skyshield to keep his shins from being blown to crud is also somewhat neutralized. I would consider that win/win too. Knights do their most impressive damage in close combat. The key thing is that you want to be the one to determine if/when you go into close combat with a Knight. Having a place on the battlefield you can go while maintaining a good line of fire is quite useful. I played Tau just recently and used a Knight to crush their guys in suits with the big shoulder guns. Had they had another round to keep blasting me (i.e. not gotten assaulted) they would have killed my Knight. A Skyshield would serve them well.

[Path Walker]

He could. :D Of course a Knight who has jumped up on a Skyshield to keep his shins from being blown to crud is also somewhat neutralized. I would consider that win/win too. Knights do their most impressive damage in close combat. The key thing is that you want to be the one to determine if/when you go into close combat with a Knight. Having a place on the battlefield you can go while maintaining a good line of fire is quite useful. I played Tau just recently and used a Knight to crush their guys in suits with the big shoulder guns. Had they had another round to keep blasting me (i.e. not gotten assaulted) they would have killed my Knight. A Skyshield would serve them well.

Except they're probably too big to fit under there.

[Caitsidhe]

Except they're probably too big to fit under there.

It is possible. I haven't tried yet. I suspect they will as Terminators fit under there and my CSM Terminators are quite tall with their spikey bits.

[Charon]

As to the original question: if the anti-Knight units are hiding under the Skyshield, couldn't the Knight just climb on top to get out of their Line of Sight?

Tank traps could come in handy... cheap and impassable for knights. If you go crazy with them you could block them out of a huge portion of the table.

[Caitsidhe]

Tank traps could come in handy... cheap and impassable for knights. If you go crazy with them you could block them out of a huge portion of the table.

Yup, unless the Super Heavy Walkers have a special rule to ignore them. I'll go look.

- - - Updated - - -

It is as I feared; GW has struck again with their dreaded vague rules fog of war. :D Tank Traps are specifically listed and impassable to all vehicles except for key exceptions. Walkers are not listed among these. Under walkers it says they move like infantry. This will give some people the notion that Walkers ignore Tank Traps since they move as infantry. However, since they are STILL vehicles and not listed in the exemptions, the rules say they can't pass over them. Funny stuff and fodder for many arguments I'm sure.

[Tynskel]

Also, I can't find these rules for determining armour values you're talking about. All I can seer is page 110: "All buildings have an Armour Value listed on their terrain datasheet." The old table from 5th about the AV of corrugated iron versus ceramite is nowhere to be found.


I'm pretty sure they have this in the Stronghold Codex.

[Caitsidhe]

I'm pretty sure they have this in the Stronghold Codex.

I'll see if I have the book handy. It wouldn't matter in any event, the Skyshield is not a building and you don't get to change the classification on a whim. The damn thing is impossible to destroy.

[John Bower]

Yup, unless the Super Heavy Walkers have a special rule to ignore them. I'll go look.

- - - Updated - - -

It is as I feared; GW has struck again with their dreaded vague rules fog of war. :D Tank Traps are specifically listed and impassable to all vehicles except for key exceptions. Walkers are not listed among these. Under walkers it says they move like infantry. This will give some people the notion that Walkers ignore Tank Traps since they move as infantry. However, since they are STILL vehicles and not listed in the exemptions, the rules say they can't pass over them. Funny stuff and fodder for many arguments I'm sure.

I was under the (possibly incorrect) impression though that knights were super heavy; and that super heavy stuff ignored terrain for movement? I'm sure the Baneblade does. I don't even think it has to do DT tests.

[Caitsidhe]

I was under the (possibly incorrect) impression though that knights were super heavy; and that super heavy stuff ignored terrain for movement? I'm sure the Baneblade does. I don't even think it has to do DT tests.

Well give me a page number because I'm looking for it and so far come up with nothing of the sort. All I find Super Heavies got was "Move Through Cover".

[John Bower]

Well give me a page number because I'm looking for it and so far come up with nothing of the sort. All I find Super Heavies got was "Move Through Cover".

You are correct; but Move through cover means they also auto pass DT tests. :) So I was correct (partially) also.

[Caitsidhe]

You are correct; but Move through cover means they also auto pass DT tests. :) So I was correct (partially) also.

Partially yes, but Tank Traps are impassible so the fact remains that a cheap upgrade on the Aegis or the Skyshield make it them the ultimate defense against Knights and even Titans. :D I suppose one could block access to even getting on top of the Skyshield easily with them. :D

[Tynskel]

Yup, unless the Super Heavy Walkers have a special rule to ignore them. I'll go look.

- - - Updated - - -

It is as I feared; GW has struck again with their dreaded vague rules fog of war. :D Tank Traps are specifically listed and impassable to all vehicles except for key exceptions. Walkers are not listed among these. Under walkers it says they move like infantry. This will give some people the notion that Walkers ignore Tank Traps since they move as infantry. However, since they are STILL vehicles and not listed in the exemptions, the rules say they can't pass over them. Funny stuff and fodder for many arguments I'm sure.

I think it is totally up to what the terrain looks like.
If your model could actually stand on them (feet wise) it is passable (I would say dangerous, though). If the tank traps were spines, and your walker couldn't step over them, or fit in between, then it would be impassable.

Again, this is all stuff that should be discussed before the game begins...

[Caitsidhe]

I think it is totally up to what the terrain looks like.
If your model could actually stand on them (feet wise) it is passable (I would say dangerous, though). If the tank traps were spines, and your walker couldn't step over them, or fit in between, then it would be impassable.

Again, this is all stuff that should be discussed before the game begins...

If someone has paid for Tank Trap upgrades, they function as Tank Traps and function per the rules. If they are just random terrain pieces that happen to look like Tank Traps, I agree with you 100%.

[Caitsidhe]

Tank Traps appear to cost 15pts each and have a maximum length of 6" (so I guess you could make some that are square, 6" each length. You can buy up to six of them. In theory this means a Skyshield, for an extra 90pts could have 36" of protective barrier (which also provides 4+ cover save to those behind it). The Tank Traps themselves can be placed up to 6" away from the Skyshield so you could easily create a quite effective barrier. Interesting stuff. 75+90=165pts. It isn't cheap at that level of castling up but still a bargain if you find yourself facing certain kinds of opponents and are built around a fire base concept.

[Lord Krungharr]

Wouldn't a 6" x 6" tank trap be a tad like modeling to advantage? Not that I don't like the idea, especially of having 6 of those around my Skyshield :)

All that would make a fantastic AstraM zone, about as ideal as it gets! I wonder if maybe 3 tanglewires and 3 tank traps might be the way to go, sort of staggered to stop transports, then give some dangerous terrain to the best disembarkment spots.

[Caitsidhe]

Wouldn't a 6" x 6" tank trap be a tad like modeling to advantage? Not that I don't like the idea, especially of having 6 of those around my Skyshield :)

All that would make a fantastic AstraM zone, about as ideal as it gets! I wonder if maybe 3 tanglewires and 3 tank traps might be the way to go, sort of staggered to stop transports, then give some dangerous terrain to the best disembarkment spots.

Well it wouldn't be modeling for advantage so much as modeling to make people happy who insist on seeing Tank Trap big enough to justify the fact that Super Heavies can't cross them. :D A normal looking Tank Trap would probably be 6" long and 2-3" wide. Making it bigger would make people happy who demand a realistic rather than representative bit of terrain. I grant, however, that doing such would affect Infantry and Bikers in a negative way and thus would come across as modeling for advantage. You can't please both people. My advice is just make really cool looking Tank Traps at least 6" long and no deeper than 6". Most people are fine as long as they look cool.

[Tynskel]

If someone has paid for Tank Trap upgrades, they function as Tank Traps and function per the rules. If they are just random terrain pieces that happen to look like Tank Traps, I agree with you 100%.

You still have to abide by the rules. If you can walk over them, you are fine, but if you cannot actually have the model on top, that's impassible terrain, even if you 'move like infantry'.

[daboarder]

You still have to abide by the rules. If you can walk over them, you are fine, but if you cannot actually have the model on top, that's impassible terrain, even if you 'move like infantry'.

....really? got a quote for that "walk over them" rule?

[Krefey]

I would have thought the rules for walkers moving like infantry means they are treated as infantry for terrain purposes and that it would overrule the main rules for vehicles (in that they are a sub set of the vehicle rules which provides them with an exception to the normal vehicle rules).

But that's just me.

[Charon]

You still have to abide by the rules. If you can walk over them, you are fine, but if you cannot actually have the model on top, that's impassible terrain, even if you 'move like infantry'.

Could you please stop "inventing" random rules?
Literally NOTHING you said so far is in any way even remotely covered in the rules.


Impassable Terrain
Unless noted otherwise in their special rules, models cannot enter, cross or move into or through impassable terrain – they must go around. The exceptions tend to be things like Jump units and Skimmers.

Also the line can be longer than 36" as the model has to physically fit through the "holes" in the line (vehicle cant go between buildings whch are 2" - 3" apart) if it wants to go through. So you can get around 15" extra with good placement.

[LCS]

You still have to abide by the rules. If you can walk over them, you are fine, but if you cannot actually have the model on top, that's impassible terrain, even if you 'move like infantry'.

Lol no. Have you actually read the rules?

[Houghten]

....really? got a quote for that "walk over them" rule?

There's one in the Dropzone Commander rulebook.

[daboarder]

There's one in the Dropzone Commander rulebook.
well at least its a rule in somthing

[marful]

You still have to abide by the rules. If you can walk over them, you are fine, but if you cannot actually have the model on top, that's impassible terrain, even if you 'move like infantry'.
I'm pretty sure only skimmers, jump infantry, jump jet infantry and flyers can cross impassible terrain.

It doesn't matter if the "impassible" terrain is 0.125" tall, unless it is one of those it can't cross.


I.e, unless it's a model that has some rule that allows it to bypass impassible terrain it cannot cross it. Period.

[Anggul]

I'm pretty sure only skimmers, jump infantry, jump jet infantry and flyers can cross impassible terrain.

It doesn't matter if the "impassible" terrain is 0.125" tall, unless it is one of those it can't cross.


I.e, unless it's a model that has some rule that allows it to bypass impassible terrain it cannot cross it. Period.

Also jetbikes and flying monstrous creatures.

[Caitsidhe]

Tank Traps are "impassable terrain" to all vehicles except Skimmers (and Fliers who have their own rule which allows them to pass impassible just like Skimmers). We just have to accept that the Tank Traps are representative of things which will stop all vehicle in the same way having the poison rule somehow affects all the different races equally, i.e. the race using poison just loads said weapon with the correct substance for the battle at hand.

Do I think this is a weird Games Workshop oversight? I have no idea. Since the only way to get Tank Traps is to buy a Fortification, it is hard to say. The Super Heavies are damn near game breaking and perhaps they wanted to put something in there to mitigate them. With GW it could be a random fluke, an oversight, or an intention. All we have are the rules as written and they seem pretty clear for the time being.

[marful]

Also jetbikes and flying monstrous creatures.
Doh, I knew I forgot one, thanks!

[John Bower]

Tank Traps are "impassable terrain" to all vehicles except Skimmers (and Fliers who have their own rule which allows them to pass impassible just like Skimmers). We just have to accept that the Tank Traps are representative of things which will stop all vehicle in the same way having the poison rule somehow affects all the different races equally, i.e. the race using poison just loads said weapon with the correct substance for the battle at hand.

Do I think this is a weird Games Workshop oversight? I have no idea. Since the only way to get Tank Traps is to buy a Fortification, it is hard to say. The Super Heavies are damn near game breaking and perhaps they wanted to put something in there to mitigate them. With GW it could be a random fluke, an oversight, or an intention. All we have are the rules as written and they seem pretty clear for the time being.

I've just found this on Page 90 of the BRB:

"Walkers move using the movement rules for infantry...(bit about how far then...) Difficult Terrain affects walkers just as it does Infantry and only counts as Dangerous Terrain if it would do for Infantry." Which I would say means they can move over Tank traps, as for movement purposes they aren't vehicles. Something tells me an Errata or FAQ is needed for this.

[daboarder]

it mentions difficult and dangerous....not impassible, this seems like one that slipped through the cracks.

Personally I would be ok of using the precedent established to allow walkers to pass through tank traps.

[Charon]

I've just found this on Page 90 of the BRB:

"Walkers move using the movement rules for infantry...(bit about how far then...) Difficult Terrain affects walkers just as it does Infantry and only counts as Dangerous Terrain if it would do for Infantry." Which I would say means they can move over Tank traps, as for movement purposes they aren't vehicles. Something tells me an Errata or FAQ is needed for this.

There is nothing which lets you cross impassable terrain in this rule section. It just mentions that dangerous terrain.

[John Bower]

There is nothing which lets you cross impassable terrain in this rule section. It just mentions that dangerous terrain.

But since he is infantry for all intents and purposes, does that really affect him? Which rule over-rules the other rule? See my point is that for all movement purposes a walker is 'infantry', and since bikes can cross them why not a Dreadnought or especially something as large as a Stompa or Knight?

[daboarder]

But since he is infantry for all intents and purposes, does that really affect him? Which rule over-rules the other rule? See my point is that for all movement purposes a walker is 'infantry', and since bikes can cross them why not a Dreadnought or especially something as large as a Stompa or Knight?

he is not infantry for all intents an purposes.

He is only infantry for very specific cases, the rule you pointed out mentions those 2 cases but makes no mention of the 3rd

[CoffeeGrunt]

I think a Knight is fairly capable of stepping over a Tank Trap, but that's a Common Sense interpretation, not RAW.

[Caitsidhe]

I think a Knight is fairly capable of stepping over a Tank Trap, but that's a Common Sense interpretation, not RAW.

I think it is commonsense to think many units should be immune to poison. Necrons are machines, zombies are dead, and the Dreadknight is a big mechanical machine (although commonsense would also make that a vehicle rather than a MC). Commonsense has NOTHING to do with it. Some of the rules are representational. Am I certain this wasn't a mistake on GW's part? No. They are idiots. That is beside the point. What we have are rules and until they go down to the pub for another night of getting drunk and then throwing darts at their "rules board" we won't get any changes. Thus, for now at least, Super Heavies can't pass Tank Traps.

[Caitsidhe]

I've just found this on Page 90 of the BRB:

"Walkers move using the movement rules for infantry...(bit about how far then...) Difficult Terrain affects walkers just as it does Infantry and only counts as Dangerous Terrain if it would do for Infantry." Which I would say means they can move over Tank traps, as for movement purposes they aren't vehicles. Something tells me an Errata or FAQ is needed for this.

I actually pointed this passage out in the thread a good ways back, indicating that it is typical GW rules writing. Saying they move "like" infantry does not make them infantry. They would have to have a specific exemption on them like Skimmers and Flyers do. I don't disagree with you that a Faq/Errata might be needed, but until we have one, Tank Traps stop them.

[Tynskel]

I think it is commonsense to think many units should be immune to poison. Necrons are machines, zombies are dead, and the Dreadknight is a big mechanical machine (although commonsense would also make that a vehicle rather than a MC). Commonsense has NOTHING to do with it. Some of the rules are representational. Am I certain this wasn't a mistake on GW's part? No. They are idiots. That is beside the point. What we have are rules and until they go down to the pub for another night of getting drunk and then throwing darts at their "rules board" we won't get any changes. Thus, for now at least, Super Heavies can't pass Tank Traps.


Why not?
Poison includes reactants, radioactive elements, acids, bases, etc.

- - - Updated - - -


I actually pointed this passage out in the thread a good ways back, indicating that it is typical GW rules writing. Saying they move "like" infantry does not make them infantry. They would have to have a specific exemption on them like Skimmers and Flyers do. I don't disagree with you that a Faq/Errata might be needed, but until we have one, Tank Traps stop them.

Yes and no.
You can have your tank traps spaced such that walkers can pass, but tanks cannot.

[Caitsidhe]

Why not?
Poison includes reactants, radioactive elements, acids, bases, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

And by this same logic, perhaps the Tank Traps are fueled by "gravity wells" (we have seen gravity guns) and big Tanks/Walkers can't get past them. Perhaps the area around the Tank Traps are rigged with high explosives to stop certain things or cave in the ground so the appropriate vehicles just steer clear. See, I can play this game too. This makes Tank Traps "representational" rules like poison.



Yes and no.
You can have your tank traps spaced such that walkers can pass, but tanks cannot.

That depends entirely on how you CHOOSE to visualize how the Tank Trap works. There are literally hundred of Tank Trap designs and many would be just as good against Walkers as Tanks. You will note that I haven't taken a stand on whether this current rules interaction is right or wrong. I have no idea what GW intended. My opinion of their rules writing is well known. It is clear they THOUGHT about terrain because they specifically gave Super Heavies the "Move Through Cover" rule. That seems to indicate it wasn't an oversight. They thought about it and decided that is how much they would give them. Then again, perhaps they didn't think about Tank Traps (they don't test anything) so perhaps it is an oversight. I don't know, and neither do you. All we have are the rules as written and until they make their intention known, it isn't subjective.

[CoffeeGrunt]

One rule being silly doesn't then excuse you to make silly interpretations of the whole ruleset. For example, Hellfire Rounds are filled with a potent acid that likely burns through Necrodermis just as easily as flesh. Tyranid poisons likely operate on a more acidic principle too.

The main issue is that the Knight's base cannot pass through the Tank Traps, but over it is a different question. Anyway, why use Tank Traps when you can use Conscripts? They're cheaper, after all.

[Charon]

Anyway, why use Tank Traps when you can use Conscripts? They're cheaper, after all.

A single tank trap comes at the cost of 4 conscripts and cannot be stomped.


The main issue is that the Knight's base cannot pass through the Tank Traps, but over it is a different question.

No its no different question. The rule section is pretty clear that impassable terrain cannot be crossed (unless mentioned exceptions).

[Tynskel]

And by this same logic, perhaps the Tank Traps are fueled by "gravity wells" (we have seen gravity guns) and big Tanks/Walkers can't get past them. Perhaps the area around the Tank Traps are rigged with high explosives to stop certain things or cave in the ground so the appropriate vehicles just steer clear. See, I can play this game too. This makes Tank Traps "representational" rules like poison.




That depends entirely on how you CHOOSE to visualize how the Tank Trap works. There are literally hundred of Tank Trap designs and many would be just as good against Walkers as Tanks. You will note that I haven't taken a stand on whether this current rules interaction is right or wrong. I have no idea what GW intended. My opinion of their rules writing is well known. It is clear they THOUGHT about terrain because they specifically gave Super Heavies the "Move Through Cover" rule. That seems to indicate it wasn't an oversight. They thought about it and decided that is how much they would give them. Then again, perhaps they didn't think about Tank Traps (they don't test anything) so perhaps it is an oversight. I don't know, and neither do you. All we have are the rules as written and until they make their intention known, it isn't subjective.


This is getting redonkulous: You can TOTALLY model gravity wells as tank traps, if you want to.

And it doesn't matter if you can move as infantry, if you cannot fit through the the terrain, or cannot balance on the terrain, it is impassable.

those rules have been around since 3rd Edition. Possible even earlier.

[LCS]

This is getting redonkulous: You can TOTALLY model gravity wells as tank traps, if you want to.

And it doesn't matter if you can move as infantry, if you cannot fit through the the terrain, or cannot balance on the terrain, it is impassable.

those rules have been around since 3rd Edition. Possible even earlier.

Where does it say impassable terrain stops being impassable terrain if you can balance a model on it?

[DarkLink]

And under Wobbly Model Syndrome, it quite explicitly states that you do not need to be able to physically balance your models on terrain to move through it.

[Caitsidhe]

This is getting redonkulous: You can TOTALLY model gravity wells as tank traps, if you want to.

And it doesn't matter if you can move as infantry, if you cannot fit through the the terrain, or cannot balance on the terrain, it is impassable.

those rules have been around since 3rd Edition. Possible even earlier.

What is ridiculous is the fact that we seem to be talking about two different things. Tank Traps are listed specifically as being impassible terrain to all vehicles except Skimmers (and Flyers who have a rule letting them move over impassible). It has nothing to do with how the terrain feature looks. It is impassible because it is a purchased Tank Trap (or a Tank Trap the players agree to drop on the battlefield as general terrain). Modeling, size, and design has nothing to do with the issue. Why do you think it does?

We are talking about a specific rule. In the past, Super Heavies ignored all terrain. For whatever reason, Games Workshop decided that would no longer be the case. The simple rule allowing them to ignore such things is gone. Instead, they got "Move Through Cover". Whether or not they ever bothered to think about the implications is beside the point. The rules are crystal clear.

Do I think it is idiotic that something big enough to step over a house must stop at a Tank Trap? Perhaps. But the same Super Heavy can't just move through other models either without using a special rule of another sort. Right now Tank Traps are "representational" like poison and many other rules. We the players are supposed to provide the reasons for which this bit of terrain is impassible. For my own part, my Tank Traps will have EMP and Gravity fields which screw with vehicles too heavy and close to the ground. Or perhaps my Tank Traps look small but actually have spires that go down a hundred feet and when you try to drive over the spikes the weight triggers and they shoot upwards. It really doesn't matter.

What matters is that they are impassible to all vehicles except Skimmers and currently none of the Super Heavy vehicles has any kind of rule or exemption to that. I'm not arguing it is right or wrong. I'm as annoyed about it as most of you. I am simply pointing out the rule and the way it interacts. If I was doing the rules for Games Workshop the Super Heavy Walkers (but not Tanks) would be able to pass over Tank Traps. Normal Walkers would not. If I was doing the rules, the DreadKnight wouldn't be a damn Monstrous Creature. That was an idiotic move on their part because they knew all to well they were gutting vehicles back when it was about to come out and wanted it to be able to stand up. They tech simply didn't match their fluff, so they just gave it the tech of something else.

We all know that the rules will favor whatever it is they want to sell. It could be they are trying to move more Fortifications which are the only thing which allow you to put Tank Traps down. They might have decided that their Knights and Lords of War are a bit over the top and wanted a few annoying counters to them. They might simply have screwed the pooch as they have so many times before. I don't know, and neither do you. What we do know is the rules are clear until they give us a half *** Faq that only half answers the question. :D

[DWest]

That depends entirely on how you CHOOSE to visualize how the Tank Trap works. There are literally hundred of Tank Trap designs and many would be just as good against Walkers as Tanks.
I got the impression he meant "place two of your tank trap sections 60mm apart so that a Dreadnought can squeeze through, but a tank cannot".

[Caitsidhe]

I got the impression he meant "place two of your tank trap sections 60mm apart so that a Dreadnought can squeeze through, but a tank cannot".

Hrm. Yeah, I suppose he could have meant that.

[Tynskel]

And under Wobbly Model Syndrome, it quite explicitly states that you do not need to be able to physically balance your models on terrain to move through it.

That's "Wobbly Model Syndrome".
Not "can't even fit my model anywhere on the terrain piece"

Go to example of Wobbly Model Syndrome: 2nd Edition Hormogaunts. I have 30 of them. I pretty much just shove 'em around, otherwise, it would take 6 hours to move them, because of "Wobbly Model Syndrome".

[Tynskel]

Hrm. Yeah, I suppose he could have meant that.

That is part.

But you can imagine making giant spikes that have no real surface that a walker could use, but infantry could get through.


I play with lots of terrain. Terrain that comes in all sorts of sizes and shapes. Maybe the problem is that you don't have enough experience with different types of terrain.

[Charon]

Maybe the problem is that you discuss rules without even bother reading them?

[Caitsidhe]

That is part.

But you can imagine making giant spikes that have no real surface that a walker could use, but infantry could get through.


I play with lots of terrain. Terrain that comes in all sorts of sizes and shapes. Maybe the problem is that you don't have enough experience with different types of terrain.

We use lots of terrain too, but my point is the actual piece is irrelevant to the rule in this case. If it is a Tank Trap it is impassible. Most of us will try to make pretty nasty terrain pieces to showcase they stop super heavies, but that isn't required, anymore than the Rhino isn't required to be to scale to carry ten Power Armor Troops and a crew.

[Tynskel]

The rules for terrain are guidelines. Why? Because unlike the miniatures (which have defined bases and model sizes, etc.) Terrain is not defined equivocally.

Tank Traps are supposed to be Impassible for Tanks.
However, you could imagine making them impassible to everything but small based infantry. This is clearly something to discuss with your opponent *before* the game begins.

- - - Updated - - -


Maybe the problem is that you discuss rules without even bother reading them?

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?21435-Tynskel-s-Guide-to-Interpreting-Rules&p=194151&viewfull=1#post194151


Now that is cleared up...

[Charon]

So why dont you follow your Step 1 then?
I even quoted the relevant rules from BRB and SA and both contradict your statements.

TANK TRAPS are (like the miniatures) bought (with points) as an addition to Stronghold Assault Stuff. They have 100 % definied rules. One of them is that they are IMPASSABLE for vehicles (not "tanks"). This is not open to "discuss with your opponent" it is 100 % clear in the rules how much points they cost and which rules they follow. Unless of course your knight has av10 and 2hp as this is equally "open to discussion" then.

[Tynskel]

So why dont you follow your Step 1 then?
I even quoted the relevant rules from BRB and SA and both contradict your statements.

TANK TRAPS are (like the miniatures) bought (with points) as an addition to Stronghold Assault Stuff. They have 100 % definied rules. One of them is that they are IMPASSABLE for vehicles (not "tanks"). This is not open to "discuss with your opponent" it is 100 % clear in the rules how much points they cost and which rules they follow. Unless of course your knight has av10 and 2hp as this is equally "open to discussion" then.

Again, you need to read the rest of the terrain rules.
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?21435-Tynskel-s-Guide-to-Interpreting-Rules&p=194151&viewfull=1#post194151
Terrain is *subjective*. The size, shape, and distribution can be different (unlike units which have fixed base and heights). Terrain rules are guidelines.

You cannot just read one single rule. You need to read all the relevant rules.

[Charon]

Not if it has rules to it (like in this case).
The mantra you keep praying is for "neutral" terrain at setup. Not for Terrain pieces you BUY out of your Army allowance (which has a fixed ruleset).
According to your argumant, the aegis defense line (battlefied debries = terrain) could give a rerollable 2++ because I subjetively think it mine should have.

BRB:


TANK TRAPS
These obstacles allow all but vehicles to pass by unhindered.
Tank traps are impassable terrain to non-Skimmer vehicles, dangerous terrain to Bikes, and open ground for other units. A model in cover behind a tank trap has a 4+ cover save.

So, now please quote where the rules are "up to discussion"

[Tynskel]

Not if it has rules to it (like in this case).
The mantra you keep praying is for "neutral" terrain at setup. Not for Terrain pieces you BUY out of your Army allowance (which has a fixed ruleset).
According to your argumant, the aegis defense line (battlefied debries = terrain) could give a rerollable 2++ because I subjetively think it mine should have.

No. Your example does not work, because your rule is purely house based rule.
The tank trap is different, because it is a physical object. The movement section of the rules has specifics on *how* you move your models. Your terrain piece falls under the movement section of the rules. The actual piece is thus subjective. If you make your terrain piece have space that a model's base may fit through, then it is 'passible' terrain. However, if you make it such that model's base is not wide enough, then you add a layer of subjection. Does that terrain have surfaces that your 'counts as infantry' unit can clearly scale and stand on (regardless of the 'wobbly model syndrome')—if yes, then it requires a difficult terrain test. If that terrain has surfaces that would be outright hard for your 'counts as infantry' unit to stand on—then it requires a Dangerous Terrain Test. If the terrain piece has no surface that the 'counts as infantry' unit could stand on, then the piece of terrain is 'impassable'.

This is all *clearly* defined in the movement section of the book.

read *all* the rules.
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?21435-Tynskel-s-Guide-to-Interpreting-Rules&p=194151&viewfull=1#post194151

I've seen all sorts of 'tank traps'. I've seen them as concrete slabs that terminator models could stand on. I've seen spaced apart that dreadnoughts can walk through. I've seen conical shaped tank traps that infantry could *not* stand on. I've seen them as Tau Repulsor droids. etc. etc.

You play to how the terrain is shaped.

[Charon]

Oh please quote the actual rules on this. This is purely houseruling on your side. Not even the wobbly model syndrom is correct here.


Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature damaged or even broken. In cases like this, we find it is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its ‘actual’ location. If, later on, your enemy is considering shooting at the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper place so he can check line of sight.

There is not even a single mention of any tests.
If something is declared as impassable you MAY NOT CROSS IT. Period. You may sneak betwenn two pieces of impassable terrain if your base is small enough (eg 2 Tank traps) but you cant cross the single piece. Thats the point. Nothing of your private statements reflect ANY 7th edition rules.
It does not matter if you can balance your tank on a tank trap. It is impassable. You may not cross, stan on or do anything else than moving around it.

[Tynskel]

Oh please quote the actual rules on this. This is purely houseruling on your side. Not even the wobbly model syndrom is correct here.


There is not even a single mention of any tests.
If something is declared as impassable you MAY NOT CROSS IT. Period. You may sneak betwenn two pieces of impassable terrain if your base is small enough (eg 2 Tank traps) but you cant cross the single piece. Thats the point. Nothing of your private statements reflect ANY 7th edition rules.

your quotation has nothing to do with this argument. You are quoting 'wobbly model syndrome'.

[Charon]

Your entire argument has nothing to do with this discussion. You cant even be bothered to give specific rule quotations.
The only thing I keep reading from you is your houserule interpretation which is not at all covered by any single 7th edition rule.

[Tynskel]

Your entire argument has nothing to do with this discussion. You cant even be bothered to give specific rule quotations.
The only thing I keep reading from you is your houserule interpretation which is not at all covered by any single 7th edition rule.

Look, I know this is difficult for you, but, stop reading only the 'tank trap' rule, and look through the movement rules, they explicitly state how to move miniatures. Nothing I have stated is a 'house rule'. These are all directly from how you move miniatures.

Terrain is purely subjective. This is why the rules explicitly state to discuss the terrain *before* the game starts.

here's an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone
You could not stand on those. If they are dense enough, larger 'counts as infantry' units couldn't pass through them.

here's another example:
http://www.guildangst.org/images/dakka/terrain/barriers/barricades-08.jpg
The spacing is large enough that just about all 'counts as infantry' units would pass through them, with a difficult terrain check. Obviously, a Knight would just pass over this like it was nothing.


Terrain is Purely subjective.

[daboarder]

Why not?
Poison includes reactants, radioactive elements, acids, bases, etc.


And tanks traps can be EMP fields, Magnetic or pressure mines. Giant spikes, Warp magic.

But nope, can't use your imagination here.....

[Tynskel]

And tanks traps can be EMP fields, Magnetic or pressure mines. Giant spikes, Warp magic.

But nope, can't use your imagination here.....

It looks like you agree with me. That can be all of these things, and therefore are subjective based upon the interpretation of the rules.

Poison is explicit for models with wounds. And there are no other rules to look at, in this case.
Tank Traps, however, are derived from a section that has subjective rules, in a section with many many many rules on how to move.

[daboarder]

Impassible terrain is pretty explicit.

And no, these arent subjective they are a purchased upgrade with specific rules.

[LCS]

Look, I know this is difficult for you, but, stop reading only the 'tank trap' rule, and look through the movement rules, they explicitly state how to move miniatures. Nothing I have stated is a 'house rule'. These are all directly from how you move miniatures.

Terrain is purely subjective. This is why the rules explicitly state to discuss the terrain *before* the game starts.

here's an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone
You could not stand on those. If they are dense enough, larger 'counts as infantry' units couldn't pass through them.

here's another example:
http://www.guildangst.org/images/dakka/terrain/barriers/barricades-08.jpg
The spacing is large enough that just about all 'counts as infantry' units would pass through them, with a difficult terrain check. Obviously, a Knight would just pass over this like it was nothing.


Terrain is Purely subjective.

Specific rules (which Tank Traps have) override general rules (which are the movement rules you are talking about). Why are you arguing this? You are wrong. It is that simple. Someone even linked the RULES FOR TANK TRAPS and you are still trying to say they aren't impassable. Please,cut your losses and stop. You are wrong. There are many things in this game that don't make sense, but sadly we have to follow the rules. If you want to house rule while you play with your friends, go for it. That is totally fine, and I encourage it (because these rules really don't make sense). But that doesn't mean you get to ignore rules when playing with people that don't agree with you.

[Allen Broussard]

The purchased upgrade of Tank Traps from stronghold assault is always Impassable for vehicles, no question or doubt.

However, knights (and all walkers for that matter) move like infantry and can thus go through them with a simple difficult terrain test.


There is no ambiguity here. You must follow all rules (and exceptions) if your talking about RAW.

[marful]

However, knights (and all walkers for that matter) move like infantry and can thus go through them with a simple difficult terrain test.
A knight is a vehicle, of type "super-heavy-walker".

Under the "walker" rules, it "moves like infantry".

However tank traps are "impassible" terrain to all non-skimmer/flyer vehicles.


Just because a Knight "moves like infantry" does not negate the fact that it is a vehicle and Tank Traps are impassible terrain to it.


Also, "moves like infantry" does not mean that it is actually infantry, it's still a vehicle, and thus tank traps are impassible. Now if it says "counts as infantry" then, that would be a different meaning.

[Tynskel]

Impassible terrain is pretty explicit.

And no, these arent subjective they are a purchased upgrade with specific rules.

This is getting really funny.
I am not doubting that the Tank Trap is impassable *for tanks*. It is the 'counts as infantry' unit that I am pointing out...

- - - Updated - - -


A knight is a vehicle, of type "super-heavy-walker".

Under the "walker" rules, it "moves like infantry".

However tank traps are "impassible" terrain to all non-skimmer/flyer vehicles.


Just because a Knight "moves like infantry" does not negate the fact that it is a vehicle and Tank Traps are impassible terrain to it.


Also, "moves like infantry" does not mean that it is actually infantry, it's still a vehicle, and thus tank traps are impassible. Now if it says "counts as infantry" then, that would be a different meaning.

dude. moves like infantry is the same thing as being infantry...

[Caitsidhe]

No. Moves like infantry is not the same as being infantry. Moving like infantry simply means it rolls dice as Infantry do when going into terrain. That's it. It isn't an exemption from Tank Traps. If Walkers had that exemption it would be listed under Tank Traps (or Walkers or Super Heavy Walkers). That is the entire point. Without an exemption to the rule which states that Tank Traps are impassible terrain to all vehicles except Skimmers, they don't get to walk through it. It can't be any clearer. I agree that they MIGHT Faq it later, but until that time, it is impassible terrain. It isn't subjective. It isn't bargained. It is impassible.

[marful]

This is getting really funny.
I am not doubting that the Tank Trap is impassable *for tanks*. It is the 'counts as infantry' unit that I am pointing out...

- - - Updated - - -

dude. moves like infantry is the same thing as being infantry...
No.

Infantry can do things like fire overwatch, enter buildings, go to ground and roll 2D6 and pick the highest to determine how far they move through difficult terrain.

Vehicles have a different set of rules governing them on the battle field. Vehicles cannot make overwatch shots. Vehicles cannot go to ground. Movement effects a vehicles shooting capabilities. When a vehicle moves through difficult terrain, it does not roll 2D6 and pick the highest for maximum distance moved, instead it makes a dangerous terrain tests. Vehicles do not run, they instead move "flat out".

If "moves as" equated to "is" then Walkers suddenly can go to ground, fire overwatch, enter buildings, etc. etc. Do you see the differences?


Under page 90 of the 7th ed BRB:

Moving Walkers
Walkers move using the movement rules for Infantry. They can move 6" in the Movement, Run in the Shooting phase, and charge in the Assault phase, just as Infantry can.
What the part in bold means, is that for movement purposes, and movement purposes only, you use the rules for Infantry movement. But at no point does the rules state that walkers are infantry, they are still vehicles.

The rules for Tank Traps says:

Tank Traps
These obstacles allow all but vehicles to pass by unhindered.
Tank traps are impassable terrain to non-Skimmer vehicles, dangerous terrain to Bikes, and open ground for all other units. A model in cover behind tank traps has a 4+ cover save.

This is very simple. If a Walker is a vehicle, which all Walkers are, then Tank Traps are impassible terrain to it, period. It doesn't matter whether or not it uses the rules for infantry movement, IT IS A VEHICLE. Ergo: impassible terrain.

[Caitsidhe]

And to bring a bit of humor back to this thread (it sorely needs it), let me point out that some people do argue without reading the rules. Some people argue simply because they want something to be true. Some people continue arguing long after they have been shown to be wrong and KNOW they are wrong. They just don't want to admit it. So all you Arthur Fonzarelli types should watch the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkqgDoo_eZE

[The Tisroc]

It's clear to me that a Knight would move through a tank trap just as easily as a Firewarrior would. Walkers have a specific rule that overrides the tanktrap's rules. Walkers are specifically allowed to move like infantry. The most specific allowance takes precedence in a permissive rule set. Walkers treat tank traps the same way infantry do. Cheers.

[Charon]

Yes they move like infantry. No they dont treat tank traps the same way as infantry does because they are not infantry. The "move as infantry" contains specific situations like dangerous and difficult terrain, not impassable terrain.

[The Tisroc]

So, Caitsidhe, my take on your thread is this: a Knight would have no good way of getting to a squad of Longfangs hiding under a Skyshield. Until they change the rules, that is just how it is. Jumping into the secondary question: a walker will move through tank traps because they are specifically given permission to do so by their rules.

- - - Updated - - -


Yes they move like infantry. No they dont treat tank traps the same way as infantry does because they are not infantry. The "move as infantry" contains specific situations like dangerous and difficult terrain, not impassable terrain. "Moves like infantry" means they move like infantry. I don't see what is confusing about that very specific permission.

[Charon]

"move like infanty" does not change your unit type to infantry. You are still a vehicle. And everything that permits or denies a venhicle is still affecting you.
Moves like Jump Pack does not permit you to deepstrike for example.
The exact rules for this are here:


Walkers move using the movement rules for Infantry. They can move 6" in the Movement phase, Run in the Shooting phase, and charge in the Assault phase, just as Infantry can. Difficult terrain affects Walkers just as it does Infantry, and only counts as dangerous terrain if it would do so for Infantry. If Walkers fail a Dangerous Terrain test, they are Immobilised. Unlike Infantry, a Walker has a facing, which influences where it can fire (see right) and its Armour Value when fired at.

No mention of impassable terrain at all.

[LCS]

My favorite thing about this thread is that Tynskel has been proven wrong several times. However, each time he ignores it and just says something along the lines of "I am right, because I am right and choose to ignore the rules."

[marful]

So, Caitsidhe, my take on your thread is this: a Knight would have no good way of getting to a squad of Longfangs hiding under a Skyshield. Until they change the rules, that is just how it is. Jumping into the secondary question: a walker will move through tank traps because they are specifically given permission to do so by their rules.

- - - Updated - - -

"Moves like infantry" means they move like infantry. I don't see what is confusing about that very specific permission.
Oh god...


Just because a Vehicle: Walker "moves like" infantry, does not mean that it's Unit Type Vehicle: Walker changes to Unit Type Infantry.

And because it's unit type never changed, means that anything that affects a Unit Type Vehicle's movement, affects the Vehicle: Walker. At no point does a Vehicle: Walker ever NOT become a Vehicle.

[Allen Broussard]

Nobody said once that it changes unit types to infantry.


It just moves exactly like infantry.

Infantry moving through tank traps takes difficult terrain checks but is not impedded in any further manner. Walkers are the same.


Its a specific rule which overrides the basic movement rules.


Thats it, final word. You cannot argue it any other way.

[Tynskel]

No.

Infantry can do things like fire overwatch, enter buildings, go to ground and roll 2D6 and pick the highest to determine how far they move through difficult terrain.

Vehicles have a different set of rules governing them on the battle field. Vehicles cannot make overwatch shots. Vehicles cannot go to ground. Movement effects a vehicles shooting capabilities. When a vehicle moves through difficult terrain, it does not roll 2D6 and pick the highest for maximum distance moved, instead it makes a dangerous terrain tests. Vehicles do not run, they instead move "flat out".

If "moves as" equated to "is" then Walkers suddenly can go to ground, fire overwatch, enter buildings, etc. etc. Do you see the differences?


Under page 90 of the 7th ed BRB:

What the part in bold means, is that for movement purposes, and movement purposes only, you use the rules for Infantry movement. But at no point does the rules state that walkers are infantry, they are still vehicles.

The rules for Tank Traps says:


This is very simple. If a Walker is a vehicle, which all Walkers are, then Tank Traps are impassible terrain to it, period. It doesn't matter whether or not it uses the rules for infantry movement, IT IS A VEHICLE. Ergo: impassible terrain.


Derp:
You don't become Infantry for *all* infantry rules. You become infantry for the *movement* rules! aka how you actually move on the board. You move 6", you make terrain movements by rolling 2D6, etc. Moving like infantry does not mean you may enter buildings. Moving like infantry does not mean you take pinning checks and can 'go to ground'.

Again, this is becoming quite hilarious!
http://chaosorc.com/images/GF9BB517.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AG8tlr8EST0/UXYaE_ynpVI/AAAAAAAAAsQ/XoL0uVB0LtQ/s320/Siegfried-Line.jpg
http://www.40kterrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Cities_of_Death_326.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EBPFs4u5Nh8/UUOEPVJW65I/AAAAAAAAB3Q/cmjLpdhUhWw/s1600/Obstacles2.JPG
http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mCudjEPW_HKbNJ5DXWm20NA.jpg
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d7/99/fe/d799fe571855b9196f5869a545eb9882.jpg

All of these images would have different responses for units that 'move as infantry'. It depends on spacing, and whether or not a unit could actually 'climb' something effectively.

[Mr Mystery]

And to bring a bit of humor back to this thread (it sorely needs it), let me point out that some people do argue without reading the rules. Some people argue simply because they want something to be true. Some people continue arguing long after they have been shown to be wrong and KNOW they are wrong. They just don't want to admit it. So all you Arthur Fonzarelli types should watch the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkqgDoo_eZE

Worse, it seems some will simply decide what a rule should say, and then stick to that, even after reading it, declaring the rule poorly written because it doesn't allow them to do what they think it does.

This can be frustrating with edition drift (personal example? It's been yonks since Magic happened last thing in Warhammer, and I *still* forget that!). And there's nothing wrong with being wrong because a rule has changed, and you missed it. It becomes wrong and a pain in the arse when they go dragging up an old rule to justify how a new rule should work.

[daboarder]

Tynskel,

Your strongest argument is the "moves as infantry" argument.

How about your drop all the additional crap that doesn't mean jack and is likely trolling and just use the argument that is worth something

[Mr Mystery]

Is this the question about whether or not Walkers treat Tank Traps in the same way as Infantry?

Page 90 - Walkers move in the same way as Infantry, including when interacting with Difficult and Dangerous terrain, with the exception of becoming immobilised when failing a Dangerous Terrain check.

Page 109 - Non-Skimmer Vehicles treat Tank Traps as impassable. Bikers treat them as Dangerous Terrain. All other unit types treat them as open ground.

Thus, a Walker (unit type Vehicle, Walker) treat them as impassable.

Bish bash bosh.

[Allen Broussard]

Glad you completely ignore how i explained that they do not in fact treat them as impassable since they move through them just like infantry does.

[Path Walker]

Apply The Most Important Rule and move on

[Mr Mystery]

Glad you completely ignore how i explained that they do not in fact treat them as impassable since they move through them just like infantry does.

Dude, that's the rules for Walkers movement, and the rules for Tank Traps.

See my earlier comment about just reading what's there, and not what you would like to be there.

A Tank Trap is neither Difficult nor Dangerous Terrain. It's Battlefield Debris. That's what the rule can be found categorised under.

Tank Traps list what and how they effect. Infantry and Skimmers ignore them entirely. Bikers treat them as Dangerous Terrain. Everything else? Impassable.

Note that there is no such thing in the game as just a Walker. The categorisation is Vehicle, Walker. That's the important bit here. Vehicle comes first.

Another example of how a unit moves like another type, but doesn't become that type? Flying Monstrous Creatures. When Gliding, they move in the same manner as Jump Infantry. But, at no point do they actually become Jump Infantry. At all times they remain FMC. Otherwise one could argue once they chose Gliding, they cannot go back to Swooping, as only FMC can swoop (well, and Heldrakes), and when Gliding they aren't FMC but Jump Infantry because reasons. And I'm sure everyone finds that interpretation as patently silly as I do.

[Tynskel]

Tynskel,

Your strongest argument is the "moves as infantry" argument.

How about your drop all the additional crap that doesn't mean jack and is likely trolling and just use the argument that is worth something

???

I've been sticking to the 'moves as infantry' the *entire* time.
Then I give examples.

What do you think I should say?

- - - Updated - - -


Dude, that's the rules for Walkers movement, and the rules for Tank Traps.

See my earlier comment about just reading what's there, and not what you would like to be there.

A Tank Trap is neither Difficult nor Dangerous Terrain. It's Battlefield Debris. That's what the rule can be found categorised under.

Tank Traps list what and how they effect. Infantry and Skimmers ignore them entirely. Bikers treat them as Dangerous Terrain. Everything else? Impassable.

Note that there is no such thing in the game as just a Walker. The categorisation is Vehicle, Walker. That's the important bit here. Vehicle comes first.

Another example of how a unit moves like another type, but doesn't become that type? Flying Monstrous Creatures. When Gliding, they move in the same manner as Jump Infantry. But, at no point do they actually become Jump Infantry. At all times they remain FMC. Otherwise one could argue once they chose Gliding, they cannot go back to Swooping, as only FMC can swoop (well, and Heldrakes), and when Gliding they aren't FMC but Jump Infantry because reasons. And I'm sure everyone finds that interpretation as patently silly as I do.

Walkers 'move as infantry'—infantry may attempt to pass through a Tank Trap.

Battlefield Debris does not state that a piece of terrain may or may not include other rules. That's why I use the pictures. The pictures are *quite* clear what types of terrain your models are running on.

If the Tank Trap has tons of 'stuff' sticking out (like twisted metal, for example), then the terrain is probably 'dangerous' for Units that 'move as infantry'.
http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af178/alexcragg/Picture284.jpg

If the Tank Trap is just flat surface, then it is no check for 'moves like infantry', unless the spacing is closer together than your mode
http://chaosorc.com/images/GF9BB517.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EBPFs4u5Nh8/UUOEPVJW65I/AAAAAAAAB3Q/cmjLpdhUhWw/s1600/Obstacles2.JPG

If the trap is close together, and has no real surface that 'moves like infantry' model could truly walk on, then it is 'difficult terrain'—ie causes reduced movement speeds.
http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mCudjEPW_HKbNJ5DXWm20NA.jpg

- - - Updated - - -


Dude, that's the rules for Walkers movement, and the rules for Tank Traps.

See my earlier comment about just reading what's there, and not what you would like to be there.

A Tank Trap is neither Difficult nor Dangerous Terrain. It's Battlefield Debris. That's what the rule can be found categorised under.

Tank Traps list what and how they effect. Infantry and Skimmers ignore them entirely. Bikers treat them as Dangerous Terrain. Everything else? Impassable.

Note that there is no such thing in the game as just a Walker. The categorisation is Vehicle, Walker. That's the important bit here. Vehicle comes first.

Another example of how a unit moves like another type, but doesn't become that type? Flying Monstrous Creatures. When Gliding, they move in the same manner as Jump Infantry. But, at no point do they actually become Jump Infantry. At all times they remain FMC. Otherwise one could argue once they chose Gliding, they cannot go back to Swooping, as only FMC can swoop (well, and Heldrakes), and when Gliding they aren't FMC but Jump Infantry because reasons. And I'm sure everyone finds that interpretation as patently silly as I do.

Walkers 'move as infantry'—infantry may attempt to pass through a Tank Trap.

Battlefield Debris does not state that a piece of terrain may or may not include other rules. That's why I use the pictures. The pictures are *quite* clear what types of terrain your models are running on.

If the Tank Trap has tons of 'stuff' sticking out (like twisted metal, for example), then the terrain is probably 'dangerous' for Units that 'move as infantry'.
http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af178/alexcragg/Picture284.jpg

If the Tank Trap is just flat surface, then it is no check for 'moves like infantry', unless the spacing is closer together than your mode
http://chaosorc.com/images/GF9BB517.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EBPFs4u5Nh8/UUOEPVJW65I/AAAAAAAAB3Q/cmjLpdhUhWw/s1600/Obstacles2.JPG

If the trap is close together, and has no real surface that 'moves like infantry' model could truly walk on, then it is 'difficult terrain'—ie causes reduced movement speeds.
http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mCudjEPW_HKbNJ5DXWm20NA.jpg

[Mr Mystery]

Moving as an infantry type does not make you that infantry type.

Tank Traps have specific rules, and exclusions.

Again, at no point does a unit with the 'Vehicle, Walker' class become Infantry.

Tank Traps state Infantry treat them as open ground, not units moving as if they were Infantry.

[Charon]

If the Tank Trap has tons of 'stuff' sticking out (like twisted metal, for example), then the terrain is probably 'dangerous' for Units that 'move as infantry'.
http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af178/alexcragg/Picture284.jpg

If the Tank Trap is just flat surface, then it is no check for 'moves like infantry', unless the spacing is closer together than your mode
http://chaosorc.com/images/GF9BB517.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EBPFs4u5Nh8/UUOEPVJW65I/AAAAAAAAB3Q/cmjLpdhUhWw/s1600/Obstacles2.JPG

If the trap is close together, and has no real surface that 'moves like infantry' model could truly walk on, then it is 'difficult terrain'—ie causes reduced movement speeds.
http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mCudjEPW_HKbNJ5DXWm20NA.jpg

It does not matter at all how they are represented. They all follow exactly the same rules for tank traps. No matter how they look like, no matter how flat, no matter how high or broad. They all follow exactly the same set of rules.
Thats like saying one of these awesome exodite avatar conversions is not immune to melters/templates because it is not modelled like molten metal. This unit follows exactly the same rules like every other model with the "avatar" ruleset. Same as every single tank trap no matter how they look like use the same rules presented for "tank traps".

[Tynskel]

It does not matter at all how they are represented. They all follow exactly the same rules for tank traps. No matter how they look like, no matter how flat, no matter how high or broad. They all follow exactly the same set of rules.
Thats like saying one of these awesome exodite avatar conversions is not immune to melters/templates because it is not modelled like molten metal. This unit follows exactly the same rules like every other model with the "avatar" ruleset. Same as every single tank trap no matter how they look like use the same rules presented for "tank traps".

I completely disagree. If terrain was that abstract, I could make my tank trap as tall as I want, and it would never block line of sight, etc. You need to consider all the terrain and terrain related rules when you are making your terrain.

No, before the game begins, you discuss the terrain on the board. You and your opponent declare how the terrain operates. "Tank Trap" means, at minimum impassible terrain to vehicles. However, if you have other things in your tank trap, it does more.

I'm pretty sure the issue at hand here is that tournaments never use terrain, and as such, most people never actually encounter this issue.

Really, this is a perfect example of what I am talking about. People are ignoring all the other rules because it says 'tank trap'. That is not how the rulebook works.

[Charon]

You still fail to quote "all the other rules".


No, before the game begins, you discuss the terrain on the board.

Already an issue here. Purchased tank traps (not speaking of neural terrain, but purchased from your army allowance) are NOT placed before game begins. So it is not "terrain on the board".
You place it together with your army.

[Tynskel]

You still fail to quote "all the other rules".



Already an issue here. Purchased tank traps (not speaking of neural terrain, but purchased from your army allowance) are NOT placed before game begins. So it is not "terrain on the board".
You place it together with your army.

what are you talking about? You need to read the rules! The game begins when you start turn 1.
You are still in 'set up'.

Nor have you addressed the issue about 'how big' the terrain is. It is *subjective*. Just like *all* other terrain rules.

[Charon]

what are you talking about? You need to read the rules! The game begins when you start turn 1.
You are still in 'set up'.

Nope. Read again plz.


or have you addressed the issue about 'how big' the terrain is. It is *subjective*. Just like *all* other terrain rules.

As big as GW tells us. And if there is no model yet, its up to your educated guess. No model for Void shield generators did not make the rules for them "up to discussion" just the size (and not even that most of the time).
No model for trueborn Kabalites do not make their rules *subjective*. You can make an educated guess about "how big" they are. Their rules are still not up to discussion.

Same here. Tank traps have 100 % clearly definded rules. There is no model (yet) so its up to your guess withtin reasonable bounds which are presented in the stronghold rules:


Obstacle upgrades are small sections (each up to 6" in length) of battlefield debris (see opposite). A fortification
can purchase up to six sections of obstacles, in any combination, from the list below. These are placed at the
same time as the fortification they were brought alongside and must be placed wholly within 6" of their
fortification.

[Tynskel]

Nope. Read again plz.

Nope. Turn 1 is when the game begins. :)

Now that is out of the way, again, you need to address how you build your tank traps. That's subjective!

[Charon]

Your trolling really gets tiresome:


During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens ‘before the game begins’. Examples of such events include generating Warlord Traits and psychic powers. These are always resolved before the armies deploy for battle.

[Tynskel]

Your trolling really gets tiresome:

Oh wow, you found a quotation that doesn't explicitly state the game had begun.

No, again, you haven't started the game. You are still in 'set up'.
Additionally, you have yet to address the *subjective* part of terrain design. How big are the 'Tank Traps'? Unlike units in 40k, which have a explicit model design and base size, the terrain is *subjective*.

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure scouting happens 'before the game begins'

[The Tisroc]

If I were in a game and someone insisted that my walker couldn't move through tank traps like infantry (even though my walker has a very specific rule that it moves like infantry) I guess we'd have to dice for it and move on. I'd likely go forward continuing to believe them wrong (and visa versa). Note: not once have I said that walkers become infantry. That's a silly straw man argument. I just say that they move exactly like infantry. I can't see how the rule could be any clearer. Cheers.

[Charon]

Oh wow, you found a quotation that doesn't explicitly state the game had begun. Good for you.

unlike you who managed not to provide a single rule.


No, again, you haven't started the game. You are still in 'set up'.

There is no phase called "set up". Its "before the game begins", "game" and "after game ended".
There is no "setup". Stop making things up.


Additionally, you have yet to address the *subjective* part of terrain design. How big are the 'Tank Traps'? Unlike units in 40k, which have a explicit model design and base size, the terrain is *subjective*.

Did this in a previous post. Again unlike you I provided my part.


Hmmm... I'm pretty sure scouting happens 'before the game begins' Oh noes! How do you scout without models on the board!

And again your "pretty sure" is not even remotely a rule.


After both sides have deployed (including Infiltrators), but before the first player begins his first turn, a unit containing at least one model with this special rule can choose to redeploy.

And as for Infiltrate:


Units that contain at least one model with this special rule are deployed last, after all other units (friend and foe) have been deployed.

Also no mention of "before the game begins"

the two rules combined:


If a unit has both the Infiltrate and Scout special rule, that unit can deploy as per the Infiltrate special rule and then redeploy as per the Scout special rule.

So. Are you gonna try your own step 1 now or are you gonna continue to fire blind guesses?

[LCS]

See, no one is saying they don't move exactly like infantry. Because they do. So the walker approaches the tank traps, moving as infantry. Now, the walker wants to walk over the tank traps, or through them. But wait! The tank trap rules state that they are impassable to vehicles. So the walker, which is a VEHICLE that moves as infantry, cannot enter the tank traps. Because they are impassable to vehicles, and the walker is still a vehicle. Even though it moves as if it was infantry, it does not stop being a vehicle. Do you get it yet?

[The Tisroc]

But wait! The tank trap rules state that they are impassable to vehicles. So the walker, which is a VEHICLE that moves as infantry, cannot enter the tank traps. Because they are impassable to vehicles, and the walker is still a vehicle. Even though it moves as if it was infantry, it does not stop being a vehicle. Do you get it yet? No. Because the rule that allows the walker to treat the tank traps just like infantry would kick in. However, if we were gaming I'd be OK with us dicing for it and moving on. I think you are wrong and you think I am wrong. Thank God we have a way to resolve it game by game...

[Tynskel]

unlike you who managed not to provide a single rule.



There is no phase called "set up". Its "before the game begins", "game" and "after game ended".
There is no "setup". Stop making things up.



Did this in a previous post. Again unlike you I provided my part.



And again your "pretty sure" is not even remotely a rule.



And as for Infiltrate:



Also no mention of "before the game begins"

the two rules combined:


So. Are you gonna try your own step 1 now or are you gonna continue to fire blind guesses?

Bwhahah!
SO, you are telling me, you have no argument. Dude. The game begins on Turn 1. Bwhahahahah!

Sure.
You still haven't answered how to make tank traps, too.
But, that's because you don't want to talk about the *subjective* parts of the rules. That would ruin your argument.

Remember folks. When debating the rules, all the rules are in the debate. Why? Because the rules interact with each other. You can't just pick n' choose which rules to ignore and which ones to adhere to.

I suggest looking at the pretty pictures of Tank Traps!:
Wow! Razorwire!
http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc52/Esinhorn/015-24.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tg8V_I-eyGo/T1PbJa2oHJI/AAAAAAAAAsM/MQyrUXoEm0I/s400/Cityfight+11.jpg
http://www.ailarian.com/folera/batreps/blood-conquers-all/blood-conquers-4/bc-4-1a-baal-charge.JPG

Wow!
clear terrain, with a crater in the corner. The crater is difficult terrain!
http://i.imgur.com/Pv0iPWA.jpg
More Difficult Terrain!
http://www.librarium-online.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/dscf0903.jpg

Wow! Clear Terrain!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PUDRHq8Gtz0/UtCckwgt1CI/AAAAAAAAAFo/Bn_3fYv3cE8/s1600/casts.JPG


Wow! This internet thing is really cool! Shows all sorts of examples of how 'Tank Traps' is just the guidelines!

Oh wait! Ferro-concrete! That's a 4+ covers save. The crosses are 5+ cover save!
Are you telling me that the Tank Trap rules are...

subjective to what is *in* the tank trap?

[Charon]

The game begins with deployment. I also quoted that rule. Now im sure you are trolling.

I have answered the measurement for tank traps (as provided in the stronghold rules).

When debating rules, actually READ the rules. Also QUOTE the rules. Instead of spreading your own houserules as actual rules. So again. Follow your own step one and READ the rules.


Wow! This internet thing is really cool! Shows all sorts of examples of how 'Tank Traps' is just the guidelines!

Oh wait! Ferro-concrete! That's a 4+ covers save. The crosses are 5+ cover save!
Are you telling me that the Tank Trap rules are...

subjective to what is *in* the tank trap?

Nope. I tell you the following.
If you want to use ANY of them as actual tank traps as described in the stronghold assault rules they are:

Up to 6" in lenght (which invalidates some of them)
grant a 4+ cover save (no matter if it is ferro concrete or a cross)
and is impassable terrain for vehicles, dangerous to bikes and open ground to all other.

Thats it. No matter how they look, no matter which material. If you want to use them as tank traps, they follow EXACTLY these rules. Nothing *subjective* involved.
Oh no wait there is... you can decide to make them shorter than 6"

[John Bower]

Nope. Read again plz.


As big as GW tells us. And if there is no model yet, its up to your educated guess. No model for Void shield generators did not make the rules for them "up to discussion" just the size (and not even that most of the time).
No model for trueborn Kabalites do not make their rules *subjective*. You can make an educated guess about "how big" they are. Their rules are still not up to discussion.

Same here. Tank traps have 100 % clearly definded rules. There is no model (yet) so its up to your guess withtin reasonable bounds which are presented in the stronghold rules:

But eventually they 'did' make a model for the VSG, and in fact it was approximately the size of a Bastion base (footprint anyhow) and a bit taller than a Knight. Though why on Earth they chose to make it a Limited run is beyond anyone's guess. should've been plastic and a proper kit.

[Tynskel]

The game begins with deployment. I also quoted that rule. Now im sure you are trolling.

I have answered the measurement for tank traps (as provided in the stronghold rules).

When debating rules, actually READ the rules. Also QUOTE the rules. Instead of spreading your own houserules as actual rules. So again. Follow your own step one and READ the rules.



Nope. I tell you the following.
If you want to use ANY of them as actual tank traps as described in the stronghold assault rules they are:

Up to 6" in lenght (which invalidates some of them)
grant a 4+ cover save (no matter if it is ferro concrete or a cross)
and is impassable terrain for vehicles, dangerous to bikes and open ground to all other.

Thats it. No matter how they look, no matter which material. If you want to use them as tank traps, they follow EXACTLY these rules. Nothing *subjective* involved.
Oh no wait there is... you can decide to make them shorter than 6"

Bwhahah!
That's hilarious. Because you didn't answer my question. I said how big!
You are stating how much area they take up.

And if they were flat. They would not provide *any* cover.
Again, the Tank Trap is subjective! You could make them 3ft tall if you wanted too. You could make them 6" wide.
All of that is subjective. Which means that the way you treat the models moving *through* them, differently—depending on the size!

Trueborn are just elite warriors. There's nothing to suggest that you need different models for them from warriors. Just add some bling.

I just find it hilarious that you are trying to tell me that a tank trap that is 3" tall is a standard terrain for infantry to move through.

[Allen Broussard]

I completely agree that purchased terrain should work exactly as it is explained in the Stronghold Assault book.


What you guys are ignoring or just flat out being blind too is that when somthing "moves as infantry" then they consider terrain in the same manner that infantry do. It really is that simple.


The general rule of tank traps being impassable terrain for vehicles is overrided by the specific rule that walkers (which can only be vehicles) move like infantry. When there is a conflict in the rules, the specific rule beats the general rule.


Now, until you can find anything that says in the book that moving like infantry counts as moving as a vehicle for walkers (which you wont) your concession is accepted.

[marful]

Walkers 'move as infantry'—infantry may attempt to pass through a Tank Trap.
The part in bold is where you are wrong. As I stated earlier, at no point does a Walker become infantry.

When a Walker moves, it is still a Vehicle: Walker. It may use the rules for infantry movement, but at not point does it become infantry.

And because at no point does it become infantry, it it is still a Vehicle. And as a Vehicle it treats Tank Traps as impassible.

If the Tank Traps exemption said "Models that move like infantry treat it as... blah blah blah" instead of "Infantry Models", THEN a Vehicle: Walker would not treat Tank Traps as impassible terrain. The exemption for treating Tank Traps as impassible Terrain is a check of the Unit Type attempting to move through them. Not the Movement Type. If the unit attempting to move through is of type "Infantry" then it is not impassible.

So, ask yourself this: Does a Walker become Unit Type: Infantry when it moves?

The answer is no. It only uses the rules for movement when it moves, nowhere does it state it becomes infantry when it moves. The rules are very explicit in this by clearly stating that the differences under Walker Movement rules.


Ergo, Walkers are Vehicles, Vehicles treat Tank Traps as Impassible terrain. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

[Allen Broussard]

concession accepted.


You have not posted anything saying that even though walkers move like infantry they count as having moved like vehicles and are restricted to the same penalties as vehicles in the movement phase.


What you quoted is acctually correct so stop spreading lies.

[marful]

concession accepted.


You have not posted anything saying that even though walkers move like infantry they count as having moved like vehicles and are restricted to the same penalties as vehicles in the movement phase.


What you quoted is acctually correct so stop spreading lies.
This is irrelevant, as the rules for Tank Traps don't check what movement type a unit attempting to move through them is, but instead checks the Unit Type.

Unit Type: Vehicle, that are not skimmers or flyers, treat it as impassible.

Unit Type: Infantry, do not treat it as impassible.


Just because a vehicle may "move like" infantry, or infantry may "move like vehicle", the evaluation as to which effect to apply to them, as per the rules for Tank Traps in Stronghold Assault, is based upon their actual Unit Type, which never changes when they move.

Ergo, Walkers are Vehicles, Vehicles treat Tank Traps as Impassible terrain. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

[LCS]

concession accepted.


You have not posted anything saying that even though walkers move like infantry they count as having moved like vehicles and are restricted to the same penalties as vehicles in the movement phase.


What you quoted is acctually correct so stop spreading lies.

Your logic is flawed. The rules for walkers say they move as infantry, yes. The rules for tank traps state how they interact with infantry, and how they interact with vehicles. A walker both a) moves as infantry and is b) a vehicle. So they would be able to walk through/over/in tank traps because they move as infantry, except that they are still a vehicle. And vehicles treat tank traps as impassable terrain. No where are we saying that a walker moves as a vehicle, because it doesn't and we aren't. It moves as infantry until it hits the tank trap, at which point it must stop or go around. Whether or not this rule makes sense is another matter, but this is the rule.

Also everything Tynskel is saying about terrain being subjective is basically wrong. Yes, all terrain can be different shapes and sizes. But if you assign them rules, then they follow those rules. A Wraithknight with 5% of his base standing in 1 centimeter high rubble can claim the cover save, even though that does not make sense. When it comes to terrain and buildings that have a rule, they have the rule regardless of whether or not you think it looks like they should. So if you put down flat disks on the ground that have fancy nubs sticking out of them and claim they are a combo grav/melta tank trap, they are still impassable for vehicles if you paid the points for them. Should they be modeled better? Most definitely. But just because they aren't giant awkward rocks doesn't mean you can park a vehicle on them simply because it fits. Impassable means just that.... impassable.

[marful]

So they would be able to walk through/over/in tank traps because they move as infantry, except that they are still a vehicle.While I agree with the general outcome of your premise...

I must point out a distinction here. Even though a Walker Moves Like Infantry, at no point does it become infantry. Which is the distinction I've been trying to point out, but ignored in favor of imaginary rules that do not exist in the rule book.

Only models of Unit Type: Infantry, may move through Tank Traps. And a Vehicle: Walker, is still a Vehicle, despite however it moves.

[Allen Broussard]

My logic is not flawed, your is. But its ok, since you dont seem to be able to comprehend what we have posted.


I wont ever be able to convince you so im gonna stop trying.


Just understand that most people will know how to do it correctly should you go to a tournament and that your way wont fly.

[Mr Mystery]

According to your logic, if something moves like a certain unit class, it becomes that unit class.

So returning to my example of a Flying Monstrous Creature moving via Gliding, where it uses the same rules as Jump Infantry, it then cannot go back to Swooping, because it's now Jump Infantry, and not a Flying Monstrous Creature, and only Flying Monstrous Creatures can Swoop. It would also lose all benefits associated with Monstrous Creatures, because it's now just jump infantry.

We're also the ones you know, reading what is actually there, instead of deciding it just works another way.

[marful]

My logic is not flawed, your is. But its ok, since you dont seem to be able to comprehend what we have posted.

I wont ever be able to convince you so im gonna stop trying.Please explain how the logic is flawed.

Please explain the relationship of "Moves Like" vs. an actual change of unit type, and how the former causes a unit to temporarily become a different unit type.

Please explain how a vehicle suddenly becomes not a vehicle, only for this one phase.

Some of us have clearly, definitively and repeatedly explained why we feel your premise is wrong. We have supported these premises with arguments and quotes from the rule book. If your premise is correct then explain to us why our arguments are incorrect and thus our premise invalid.

This is how a logical argument is conducted. You state your premise, and then you support it with arguments. These supporting arguments can either clarify opposing arguments, dismantle opposing arguments, provide examples in support of your argument, or generally explain in detail an reasoning, step by step in a deductive fashion.

Merely stating your premise is not sufficient to render an argument as valid.



Just understand that most people will know how to do it correctly should you go to a tournament and that your way wont fly.I'm confused, if this question was "simple" that "most people will know how to do it correctly" (and by "correctly" you imply as you believe it to be), you should have been able to disprove your opponents arguments and support your position.

You have not done so.

That tells me it's not so "simple".

[Charon]

As long as it is consistent I can live with both. If you think a knight should step over a Tank trap as it "moves like infantry" the same knight gets wrapped up in tanglewire as this has special rules against infantry.
And tbh the mighty knight losing a hp to a piece of wire is a little bit awkward.


But eventually they 'did' make a model for the VSG, and in fact it was approximately the size of a Bastion base (footprint anyhow) and a bit taller than a Knight. Though why on Earth they chose to make it a Limited run is beyond anyone's guess. should've been plastic and a proper kit.

Thats still promethium relay pipes missing. Suggesting that all existing home-made pipes are illegal or have completely different rules just because we dont know the exact dimensions yet?


And if they were flat. They would not provide *any* cover.
Again, the Tank Trap is subjective! You could make them 3ft tall if you wanted too. You could make them 6" wide.
All of that is subjective. Which means that the way you treat the models moving *through* them, differently—depending on the size!

If they are completely flat... guess what they provide a 4+ cover save. Because thats the rules for tank traps. It does not matter how they are represented. The model is just a representation. It sollows exactly the same rules. Its up to the player to think of "how is that possible". The burried grav mines could cause a local grav distortion which as a negative influence on shots fired through that area, thus providing a 4+ cover save.
No matter how it is modelled, its still a 4+ cover. even if it is completely flat.


Trueborn are just elite warriors. There's nothing to suggest that you need different models for them from warriors. Just add some bling.

Thats your *subjective* opinion. As you said before we dont kow how big they are or what their base size is so their rules are up to discussion. The "more bling" provides a 2+ armor save as I can model them that way. Also their weapons can come twinlinked, as, you know, without an official model this is also *subjective*


I just find it hilarious that you are trying to tell me that a tank trap that is 3" tall is a standard terrain for infantry to move through.

You can find it hilarious as much as you want. Fact is that tank traps are open ground for infantry. The model is just a representation.

[Allen Broussard]

I have already proven that walkers are not affected by tank traps. You just choose to ignore the proof.
I'll explain it one final time though.

Tank traps are impassable terrain for vehicles. We all agree on this. When does the impassable terrain rules ever come up? In the movement phase.
In the movement phase, Walkers (which can only be vehicles) are considered to move "as infantry". This is a specific rule that overrides the rules for normal vehicle movement.
Infantry treats tank traps as "open ground" during the movement phase, therefore, walkers also consider tank traps open ground since they move in the exact same way as infantry does. There is no other way to interpret this (if your following the rules).

They don't move like vehicles (which would treat it as impassable and not be allowed to move onto or through it), they move like infantry. They never become infantry, and they don't need to, as they only move as infantry. Its extremely clear and written out in the rules. Do not try to overthink or complicate it any further, as that is breaking rules.


Charon, this does indeed mean, for consistency's sake and as far as the rules are concerned, that tanglewire does in fact hamper the movement of walkers more than tank traps do. Since tanglewire works againgst infantry moving through it, it also affects walkers, which move like infantry. Remember however, that walkers have the "move through cover" USR and so are not affected by the dangerous terrain tests much.

Also, terrain has been changed considerably in this edition and you actually have to have 25% concealment in order to receive a cover save for any piece of terrain with the exception of ruins (which state you get the save just for being inside the boundaries of the ruins). No other terrain has this rule and thus you receive no cover save unless you are 25% obscured. The BRB does go on to state however that you can make dataslates for all your scratchbuilt terrain and can stat it out how you want.

[marful]

I have already proven that walkers are not affected by tank traps. You just choose to ignore the proof.
I'll explain it one final time though.
Thank you for being the first amongst the dissenting position to actually clarify their argument with actual supporting arguments instead of merely stating and opinion and declaring it fact.

However, I find at fault a single critical element, of which your entire premise is based upon. I shall clarify this further in what follows...

Tank traps are impassable terrain for vehicles. We all agree on this. When does the impassable terrain rules ever come up? In the movement phase.
In the movement phase, Walkers (which can only be vehicles) are considered to move "as infantry". This is a specific rule that overrides the rules for normal vehicle movement.
Infantry treats tank traps as "open ground" during the movement phase, therefore, walkers also consider tank traps open ground since they move in the exact same way as infantry does. There is no other way to interpret this (if your following the rules).
Let me quote the rules for Tank Traps.

Tank Traps
These obstacles allow all but vehicles to pass by unhindered.
Tank traps are impassable terrain to non-Skimmer vehicles, dangerous terrain to Bikes, and open ground for all other units. A model in cover behind tank traps has a 4+ cover save.

Now, let me quote the rules for Walkers and Movement:

Moving Walkers
Walkers move using the movement rules for Infantry. They can move 6" in the Movement, Run in the Shooting phase, and charge in the Assault phase, just as Infantry can.


As you explained, for movement purposes (i.e. any time the vehicle moves or runs or assaults), when the time comes to move a Walker, instead of using the Vehicle Rules, we instead use the rules for Infantry.

However the Walker has now come across some Tank Traps and wishes to pass through them.


According to the rules for Tank Traps, the Tank Traps are Impassible Terrain to Vehicles but Open Ground for Infantry (falling under the "all other units" exemption).

So the critical question becomes: Is a Walker a Vehicle or Infantry??


A Walker IS a vehicle. This is not in dispute. The operative argument being evaluated here, is that for "movement purposes" a Walker is Infantry and thus able to bypass things like Tank Traps.

The question for whether Tank Traps is Impassible Terrain, Dangerous Terrain or Open Ground to a model is a test that evaluates the Unit Type of a model attempting to interact with the terrain.


In other words: Is the model (Walker) a Vehicle or Infantry as it moves?


No where in the rules for Walkers does it state that a Walker changes it's Unit Type from "Vehicle: Walker" to "Infantry". It is still a Unit Type Vehicle: Walker. It is just using the movement rules for Infantry models instead of Vehicles.

I.E. It is a Vehicle moving like Infantry but it has not at any point become Infantry (changed it's Unit Type). Changing it's Unit Type is completely different than moving in a similar fashion to. At no point does a Walker's Unit Type change.


The conditional as to whether Tank Traps affect a model makes no mention of how a model moves. The only thing that is evaluated is the Unit Type of a model that is interacting with it. Infantry are able to treat Tank Traps as Open Ground, not because of any particular way in which they move, but because of their Unit Type which is "Infantry".

And this is why Tank Traps affect units that are Unit Type Vehicle:Walker. A Vehicle: Walker is a Vehicle and is never anything but a Vehicle.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum (again)

[Allen Broussard]

Well then were just going around in circles.

In the 40k BRB, anytime something is treated as something else (even if only for the phase), then it is treated exactly as that, in all forms unless specifically (to the T) called out to not act in that way.

When it is stated that a walker counts as infantry in the movement phase, it is allowed and in fact has to, move exactly as infantry would on the table. It therefore ignores anything that has to do with its actual unit type of vehicle, since it is not moving like a vehicle.

The unit type is completely irrelevant and overridden by the specific rule of moving like infantry for the movement phase. Even though the walker itself is always considered a vehicle for unit type, it is not considered a vehicle for movement purposes.

[marful]

Well then were just going around in circles.

In the 40k BRB, anytime something is treated as something else (even if only for the phase), then it is treated exactly as that, in all forms unless specifically (to the T) called out to not act in that way.
No where in the Walker section does the rules say "Count the model as Infantry for the purposes of movement".

It only uses the rules for infantry movement. It doesn't become Infantry, it doesn't "count" as Infantry, it doesn't change it's Unit Type to Infantry; it only uses the rules for movement for infantry.

The rules then very specifically detail what these "movement rules for infantry are". Moving 6" in the Movement phase. Running in the Shooting phase. How a Walker is affected by difficult terrain. And whether a Walker can Charge in the Assault phase.

This is a very specific and very precise limitation explicitly described.



When it is stated that a walker counts as infantry in the movement phase, it is allowed and in fact has to, move exactly as infantry would on the table. It therefore ignores anything that has to do with its actual unit type of vehicle, since it is not moving like a vehicle

The unit type is completely irrelevant and overridden by the specific rule of moving like infantry for the movement phase. Even though the walker itself is always considered a vehicle for unit type, it is not considered a vehicle for movement purposes.Using the rules for Infantry Movement is completely different than changing a model's Unit Type.

A Vehicle: Walker is a vehicle that gets to use the Infantry rules for movement instead of the vehicle rules for movement, however at no point does it ever become infantry.

[Houghten]

If they are completely flat... guess what they provide a 4+ cover save. Because thats the rules for tank traps. It does not matter how they are represented. The model is just a representation. It sollows exactly the same rules. Its up to the player to think of "how is that possible". The burried grav mines could cause a local grav distortion which as a negative influence on shots fired through that area, thus providing a 4+ cover save.
No matter how it is modelled, its still a 4+ cover. even if it is completely flat.

Uh, no.

A model that is at least 25% obscured by terrain (from the POV of at least one firing model) has a cover save, as per page 37 of The Rules.
Flat traps aren't going to obscure anything.



Thats your *subjective* opinion. As you said before we dont kow how big they are or what their base size is so their rules are up to discussion. The "more bling" provides a 2+ armor save as I can model them that way. Also their weapons can come twinlinked, as, you know, without an official model this is also *subjective*

*twitch*

I'll grant you that we don't know what the base sizes are going to be (I had Gitz pegged for 25mm but they ended up on 40mm, presumably to stop them falling over, yet Meganobz seem to have defied the Tyrant Guard / Centurions convention and stayed on their 40mm bases instead of getting shiny new 50mm ones), but you don't get to just pull an improved armour save out of your rectum because your models are shiny. Trueborn have no access to 2+ armour saves or twin-linked weapons through their army list entry (splinter racks are a thing, but a different thing).

[marful]

Uh, no.

A model that is at least 25% obscured by terrain (from the POV of at least one firing model) has a cover save, as per page 37 of The Rules.
Flat traps aren't going to obscure anything.
Just to affirm this...

From the rulebook under Terrain Types, First Paragraph:

When one of the following rules refers to a model being 'in cover behind' a piece of terrain, this means that the model is at least 25% obscured by the scenery, and therefor eligible for a cover save (pg 37). On the other hand, when one of the following rules refers to a model being 'in' a piece of terrain, this means that model, or some part of it, is actually standing on the piece of scenery, whether it is obscured from view or not.

If a model is "in cover behind" the tank traps, it would need to be 25% obscured. However if it has any part of it "on" the terrain piece, it receives full cover save bonus.

[Houghten]

Also no. Per the rule you have just quoted, a model on a tank trap receives no particular benefit for it, because page 109 uses the first wording and not the second: "A model in cover behind a tank trap has a 4+ cover save." (italics mine)

[Mr Mystery]

Right, final contribution time from me.

Stop wanting the rules to back you up, and just read what is there. Vehicle, Walker class unit move as if they are infantry. They do not become Infantry. They do not pass go. They do not collect £200.

Tank Traps are impassable to Vehicle units which do not have the Skimmer rule.

Ipso facto, Walkers treat Tank Traps as impassable terrain.

And now, a tribute to the futility of my further participation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhNneU5shTs

[The Tisroc]

Nailed it! Nicely and concisely stated! Again, if this came up during a game I was playing and my opponent and I simply couldn't agree (going around and around like this thread) I'd be willing to dice off for it. I'd still maintain that the other side has misread the rules but sometimes it's best to keep the game moving...


Tank traps are impassable terrain for vehicles. We all agree on this. When does the impassable terrain rules ever come up? In the movement phase.
In the movement phase, Walkers (which can only be vehicles) are considered to move "as infantry". This is a specific rule that overrides the rules for normal vehicle movement.
Infantry treats tank traps as "open ground" during the movement phase, therefore, walkers also consider tank traps open ground since they move in the exact same way as infantry does. There is no other way to interpret this (if your following the rules).

They don't move like vehicles (which would treat it as impassable and not be allowed to move onto or through it), they move like infantry. They never become infantry, and they don't need to, as they only move as infantry. Its extremely clear and written out in the rules. Do not try to overthink or complicate it any further, as that is breaking rules.

[marful]

Also no. Per the rule you have just quoted, a model on a tank trap receives no particular benefit for it, because page 109 uses the first wording and not the second: "A model in cover behind a tank trap has a 4+ cover save." (italics mine)
Ah, so you are correct!

[Caitsidhe]

I want to take a moment to thank Games Workshop for the fascinating fubar they created here. They could have been helpful. They could have been concise and well-worded. Instead, they were so much less. Consider the following:

1. If Knights (or any super heavy walker or super heavy for that matter) were supposed to ignore Tank Traps the who issue could have been avoided with a SINGLE sentence.

"Tank Traps are impassible terrain to all vehicles except non-skimmer or walker vehicles." *Obviously that could just say "or Super Heavy" and so on on.

2. If Tank Traps are supposed to stop such things a better name could have been used, i.e. leave Tank out of the name. Call it "Blockage" and state. "The placed 6" units of Blockage are used to represent a wide range of possible things which prevent all but specific unit Types from passing over them. Only Infantry Units may pass through them freely, Bike Units treat them as Dangerous Terrain, and so on..."

Some people can't get around the name "Tank Trap" and hence can't focus on the rules. Some people seem to be clinging like baby lemurs to "moves like infantry" rather than simply accept the fact that the rule isn't locked to movement (it only proscribes a certain type of movement) but rather to unit type. As I said when I first started this tangent, the rules are just poorly written enough to cause problems. It is, what we have come to expect from Games Workshop. Thanks again, jerks.

[Mr Mystery]

Rules aren't poorly written at all.

It's all there. It's just some don't want it to be so, and this pluck nonsense out the air.

[Caitsidhe]

Rules aren't poorly written at all.

It's all there. It's just some don't want it to be so, and this pluck nonsense out the air.

I agree with you. I said from the start it was all there. I just wish it was a bit more "crystal" for those not able to follow rules as written. It would make all our lives so much easier.

[Allen Broussard]

My god..........


Well im done here. Cant teach what wont learn.

[Charon]

Cant teach what I don't know myself.

Fixed it for you

[Tynskel]

I want to take a moment to thank Games Workshop for the fascinating fubar they created here. They could have been helpful. They could have been concise and well-worded. Instead, they were so much less. Consider the following:


go play a different game.

The movement phase is where moving applies. Tank Traps stop vehicles.
Walkers are not 'vehicles' in the movement phase—they are infantry.

Thus you need to consider the infantry unit movement rules (and this applies to all infantry movement) when using tank traps.
Since terrain is 'whatever you want' you need to consider how it's made. The terrain rules are subjective (as I've said over and over), and thus you may have situations where tank traps do more than just stop tanks.

[Charon]

Walkers are not 'vehicles' in the movement phase—they are infantry.


they are not. They move like infantry with SPECIFIC mention of what that actually means.



The terrain rules are subjective (as I've said over and over), and thus you may have situations where tank traps do more than just stop tanks.

Just because you keep repeating a lie, it does not become truth. You still brought not a single hard evidence of your claim. Because there is none. Nobody is going to tell you "dont houserule this" but please keep your houserules out of general rules discussions or start quoting actual rules to prove your point.

THIS is the only correct statement so far you provided:


The movement phase is where moving applies. Tank Traps stop vehicles.

[Tynskel]

they are not. They move like infantry with SPECIFIC mention of what that actually means.




Just because you keep repeating a lie, it does not become truth. You still brought not a single hard evidence of your claim. Because there is none. Nobody is going to tell you "dont houserule this" but please keep your houserules out of general rules discussions or start quoting actual rules to prove your point.

THIS is the only correct statement so far you provided:

You can say I'm lying, but I have shown you *pictures*.
They don't operate the same way.
They aren't even the same size!

Look at the keyword 'vehicle', and then look up 'stop'. Oh my, it is referring to *movement* rules! Oh wow! I can read! So I go to the movement rules, and, low and behold, the Walker is not a vehicle when it comes to moving!!

Woah, dude! This is so hard. I know, I know. You have to read multiple rules at the same time. It's hard to keep this all in your head.