Knights assaulting through Tank Traps

[Lord Krungharr]

So coming off the heated Skyshield thread, which quickly turned into the Tank Trap thread, it ended with Knights, being Walkers, can move through Tank Traps like Infantry vs being blocked because they're vehicles.

Since they move like Infantry, does this mean they can assault through Tank Traps like Infantry as well? Just checking, seems like yes to me.

[Charon]

Still on the "no" side.

[40kGamer]

I would say no as well... "move like infantry" <> " is infantry"

[Nefarius Drapesh]

By the logic about assaulting through tank traps a knight could also assault a unit on a tower/ruin with 1x1" width and 8-10" height?

I rather doubt it. But I'm open for good reasoning/referenced rules.

Btw, is there a rule what place a model occupies? Already heard somewhere of strange exceptions during the assault phase. And interesting interpretations of the "wobbly model" rule...

[Mr Mystery]

No.

Walkers are not infantry.

Tank Traps are impassable to all vehicles without the Skimmer sub type.

Everything else is wishful thinking and bizarre abstract concepts.

The specifics of the wording, as with any sentence is important.

Tank Traps do not state 'Infantry units treat these as open terrain'. Instead, it specifies units that do not. Namely non-skimmer vehicles treat them as impassable, and Bike units treat them as dangerous. All other units treat them as open ground.

As a Walker is it all times unit type 'Vehicle, Walker' they fall foul of the first exception, and treat them as impassable.

[George Labour]

Sadly I'd have to say no walkers can't based on the rules as written.

Remember that tank traps does not just mean big blocks of concrete like we use here in reality. It can in fact be any manner of 'grim dark' technology that'd prove bad for vehicles to traverse. An example would be the 'tellyporta' mines mentioned in the santus reach book which disabled a knight by teleporting its leg ten feet to the left.

[Mr Mystery]

Sadly I'd have to say no walkers can't based on the rules as written.

Remember that tank traps does not just mean big blocks of concrete like we use here in reality. It can in fact be any manner of 'grim dark' technology that'd prove bad for vehicles to traverse. An example would be the 'tellyporta' mines mentioned in the santus reach book which disabled a knight by teleporting its leg ten feet to the left.

I need to get this book!

[Caitsidhe]

So coming off the heated Skyshield thread, which quickly turned into the Tank Trap thread, it ended with Knights, being Walkers, can move through Tank Traps like Infantry vs being blocked because they're vehicles.

Since they move like Infantry, does this mean they can assault through Tank Traps like Infantry as well? Just checking, seems like yes to me.


Sadly the rules leave just enough vagueness to give some people something to cling to. The issue won't get resolved until they Faq it. You will have to ask each individual Event Organizer how they are going to run it each time. However, if you want the rules as written, with no "interpretation" it would work like this:

1. Knights are super heavy walkers and thus move as Walkers. This means instead of moving the various combat, cruising, etc. speeds, they move 6" or roll 2D6 and take the highest when moving through Terrain. Well they would except they also the USR "Move Through Cover" so they are a bit better at it. That is all moving like infantry means.

2. Knights are vehicles and not on the list given an exemption for Tank Traps, so they treat them as impassible terrain.

3. Knights assault like everyone else except for the specified USR.

[Wildcard]

Where are the rules for these tank traps and does "super-heavy vehicle" type give any ruling that would make a difference (super heavies tend to work atleast somewhat differently than their 'normal' counterparts..?

[Mr Mystery]

Rulebook.

Haven't checked for Superheavies.

[Charon]

Stronghold Assault

No, superheavy gives move through cover which also does nothing with impassable terrain.

[marful]

Stronghold Assault

No, superheavy gives move through cover which also does nothing with impassable terrain.

Tank Traps are actually covered (rules wise, not rules for purchasing) in the basic rule book under Battlefield Debris.

[Caitsidhe]

The purchasing of Tank Traps was added to various Fortifications in Stronghold Assault. 15pts each, 6" long with no specifications given on depth, so in theory they can't be more than 6" long in any dimension.

[Tynskel]

Ah, well, since the moderators closed the thread, but allowed this one (which is the same argument from before), I'll take it as a signal that I may contribute to this discussion.

"Counts as", has consistently been applied to the rules for the past 20 years to mean "is".

The Walker is 'counts as' infantry for the purposes of moving. Therefore, in the movement phase, the walker is no longer a vehicle—it is infantry. How is this the case? There is not a single rule that a walker follows that is in the vehicle section during movement. In other words: a walker ceases to be a vehicle, for the movement phase.

Someone brought up that the argument that means you could embark upon a vehicle/building. No. There are other rules beyond the movement phase that apply to embarked units (this is what I mean by 'reading all of the rules'). Vehicles are prohibited by those rules, of which a Walker reverts back to being a vehicle once the movement has been completed—therefore, you cannot embark/disembark, unless there is an explicit exception (Stormravens come to mind).

So back to Tank Traps:

tank traps are impassable for vehicles, and infantry move as normal.
Look up impassable—impassable is only invoked during any type of movement. A walker is infantry, and does not apply.
Infantry move as normal—when you look up rules for moving your infantry, the infantry are still encumbered by terrain, dependent upon it's size, shape, etc.

So, now we look at the shape of the Tank Traps. If they are 100% flat, infantry just move right on through as nothing is there. If Tank Traps are just large objects, infantry move as normal, if they can fit their bases in between the large objects. If the Tank Traps are closely packed, that means the infantry are encumbered. If the Tank Traps are closely packed, and infantry cannot stand on them (i.e., non-wobbly model situation, but an 'impassable' terrain situation), then the terrain becomes impassable to infantry. This is all dictated in the terrain section of the rules.

I have stated before: terrain is subjective. The construction of the piece of terrain actually changes how you would use the terrain. Everyone knows this. If tank traps were set up as a flat wall that was 6" tall, you would use this as an LoS blocker as well as a Tank Trap—only terrain has this level of subjectivity.

Tank Traps, at a minimum, grant the rules that are stated in the profile. That is only a minimum.

[Charon]

Someone brought up that the argument that means you could embark upon a vehicle/building. No. There are other rules beyond the movement phase that apply to embarked units (this is what I mean by 'reading all of the rules'). Vehicles are prohibited by those rules, of which a Walker reverts back to being a vehicle once the movement has been completed

It is no vehicle by your interpretation and so may enter. He would be illegal AFTER movement phase but that isnt covered in the rules.
The next question would be "is he considered no vehicle in the assault phase?" If he is he may not charge through the traps. If he is not, my emp stuff on overwatch would have no effect, as it is no vehicle.

Your interpretation causes a lot more issues than it solves and contradicts itself a lot.

[Anggul]

The Walker is 'counts as' infantry for the purposes of moving. Therefore, in the movement phase, the walker is no longer a vehicle—it is infantry. How is this the case? There is not a single rule that a walker follows that is in the vehicle section during movement. In other words: a walker ceases to be a vehicle, for the movement phase.

Here's where your logic doesn't really make sense. The rules say that it moves like infantry yes, but they don't change it's unit type at all. Even if we said that it gained 'infantry' as a type, it would still also be a walker and a vehicle. It doesn't matter that the walker doesn't follow the rules for movement in the vehicle section, it's still a vehicle. Also of note is that 'moving' covers any movement including running and consolidating, not just in the movement phase. It's unit type never changes.

[Caitsidhe]

"Counts as", has consistently been applied to the rules for the past 20 years to mean "is".

There are several problems with your argument, not the least of which is Walkers don't say "counts as" anywhere. Even if they did, your assertion of how it has worked for the last twenty years is not backed by rules but by your personal interpretation of the last twenty years. This is what the rules actually say:


MOVING WALKERS
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.

As you can see above, it enumerates EXACTLY what using the movement rules for Infantry entails. It specifically addresses dangerous terrain, as well as being immobilized by it when they fail a check since as they remain vehicles. What it doesn't do, however, is change the vehicle type. There is no mention of it getting to ignore impassible terrain created by it being a vehicle. Until a Faq/Errata comes out that alters the rules as written, Walkers do no more and no less than what is listed above.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

Vehicle, Walker comes up against Tank Trap, which is Battlefield Debris.

This is not difficult nor dangerous terrain, but Impassable.

At no point does the Vehicle, Walker become infantry. Therefore, Tank Traps are impassable.

Seriously, has nobody emailed GW on this one? I know it's obvious as the rules are all there, but sheesh....

[This Dave]

Yup.

Vehicle, Walker comes up against Tank Trap, which is Battlefield Debris.

This is not difficult nor dangerous terrain, but Impassable.

At no point does the Vehicle, Walker become infantry. Therefore, Tank Traps are impassable.

Seriously, has nobody emailed GW on this one? I know it's obvious as the rules are all there, but sheesh....

Has anyone gotten anything other than a form letter as a response to rules questions back from GW lately?

[daboarder]

considering their FAQs currently amount to 1 random question being answered every 2-3 months....probably not

[Mr Mystery]

Certainly not going to get an answer if nobody asks.

Will have a squizz on their website, see if I can find the email address for rules queries on my lunch break.

[Tynskel]

There are several problems with your argument, not the least of which is Walkers don't say "counts as" anywhere. Even if they did, your assertion of how it has worked for the last twenty years is not backed by rules but by your personal interpretation of the last twenty years. This is what the rules actually say:



As you can see above, it enumerates EXACTLY what using the movement rules for Infantry entails. It specifically addresses dangerous terrain, as well as being immobilized by it when they fail a check since as they remain vehicles. What it doesn't do, however, is change the vehicle type. There is no mention of it getting to ignore impassible terrain created by it being a vehicle. Until a Faq/Errata comes out that alters the rules as written, Walkers do no more and no less than what is listed above.

Alright, I am being bombarded by a lot of responses, so I am answering everything here.

1) The rule quotation on Walker movement: That is an example of 'counts as'.
One is replacing one set of rules (Type: Vehicle) with another set (Type: Infantry).

2) Due to replacing the Type: Vehicle movement rules with the Type: Infantry rules, you no longer 'count as' a vehicle. That's why the 'type' is different.

3) Battlefield Debris are additional rules to terrain. I already addressed this issue. The debris is a minimum rules adjustment. Again, refer to the example of LoS. You can make the Tank Trap any way you want, which means all the other rules are interpreted along with your design. Battlefield debris just has a list of minimums that the Tank Trap must do. In fact, I would go back and read my descriptions about the Tank Trap. I was quite thorough.

[40kGamer]

considering their FAQs currently amount to 1 random question being answered every 2-3 months....probably not

Obviously they still think they are a model company that just happens to right rules. :)

[Ang56]

Counts as infantry for movement means it follows the section of rules that covers movement for infantry and those rules alone. It does not count as infantry for rules not covered in the infantry movement rules. If it did its profile would be Type: Infantry, Vehicle, Walker. (I'm not even really arguing against tank traps specifically.)

By your argument any action that involves physically moving the model, all walkers no longer count as vehicles but are infantry so I should be able to embark/disembark it in anything. My independant characters should be able to join them because even though IC's can't join vehicles, walkers replace vehicle with infantry for movement and that's when joining a unit happens so it's cool. My examples may be extreme, but it's what you're doing, ignoring that a walker is a vehicle and counting it as infantry for rules outside the Infantry movement rules just because moving is involved.

If you apply only the rules from the Infantry movement section of the BrB, it makes sense. Blanketing it into counting as infantry for rules outside that section just because it physically changes location or happens in the movement phase means you need to do it in all cases, not pick and choose unless it's house ruled which is fine. I can see the argument for walkers moving through tank traps but that's not how I read the rules. Unless it's specifically covered in the Infantry Movement part of the rules pretty sure it counts as a vehicle likes it's rules say.

[Caitsidhe]

Alright, I am being bombarded by a lot of responses, so I am answering everything here.

1) The rule quotation on Walker movement: That is an example of 'counts as'.
One is replacing one set of rules (Type: Vehicle) with another set (Type: Infantry).

2) Due to replacing the Type: Vehicle movement rules with the Type: Infantry rules, you no longer 'count as' a vehicle. That's why the 'type' is different.

3) Battlefield Debris are additional rules to terrain. I already addressed this issue. The debris is a minimum rules adjustment. Again, refer to the example of LoS. You can make the Tank Trap any way you want, which means all the other rules are interpreted along with your design. Battlefield debris just has a list of minimums that the Tank Trap must do. In fact, I would go back and read my descriptions about the Tank Trap. I was quite thorough.


Again, it never says "counts as" anywhere. Please quit repeating this as if it is true. More to the point, I'm going to stick a pin in the balloon of your argument. You asserted in your previous post that the Walkers "counts as" infantry during the movement phase. I can disprove that. If it were Infantry a failure on a Dangerous Terrain check would not immobilize it. It would have entirely different rules. It does, however, immobilize it (and we are still in the movement phase) because it REMAINS a vehicle. As a vehicle, it only gets to ignore Tank Traps if it is a Skimmer. Look, nobody is disagreeing with the notion that having Super Heavies (or even normal) Walkers stopped by Tank Traps isn't different. This is a new Edition. Lots of things are different. They SPECIFICALLY took away the ability of Super Heavies to ignore all terrain and gave them Move Through Cover. That was a clear choice on their part. They specifically stated which vehicles get to ignore Tank Traps (which are new as of Stronghold Assault). Deal with it.

I am of the opinion, this being Games Workshop we are talking about, that pretty much anything could happen if/when they decide to drop a Faq/Errata. Until that time, you will simply have to accept the rules as written. Would I write them this way? No. I'm not the game designer, however, and thus I simply adjust my perspective. You want to interpret the rules. That is all fine and dandy, but it is not the rules as written.

[marful]

Alright, I am being bombarded by a lot of responses, so I am answering everything here.

1) The rule quotation on Walker movement: That is an example of 'counts as'.
One is replacing one set of rules (Type: Vehicle) with another set (Type: Infantry).

2) Due to replacing the Type: Vehicle movement rules with the Type: Infantry rules, you no longer 'count as' a vehicle. That's why the 'type' is different.
FALSE.

As I have stated many times in numerous threads, Walkers do not "count as" infantry, nor does their unit type change from "Vehicle: Walker" to anything else.

The rules specifically state that you use the rules for infantry movement and then explicitly explain which rules you use by giving examples.

The point is, that "Vehicle: Walker's" do not have combat speed and cruising speeds and cannot "move flat out" like a normal vehicle. Instead they move 6" in the movement phase, can run in the shooting phase and can assault in the assault phase.

Using the rules for infantry movement is not the same as "counts as infantry", nor is it the same as changing the unit type of a model to "infantry".


At no point in the rules does it ever say "counts as" nor does the unit type change.

[Tynskel]

Again, it never says "counts as" anywhere. Please quit repeating this as if it is true. More to the point, I'm going to stick a pin in the balloon of your argument. You asserted in your previous post that the Walkers "counts as" infantry during the movement phase. I can disprove that. If it were Infantry a failure on a Dangerous Terrain check would not immobilize it. It would have entirely different rules. It does, however, immobilize it (and we are still in the movement phase) because it REMAINS a vehicle. As a vehicle, it only gets to ignore Tank Traps if it is a Skimmer. Look, nobody is disagreeing with the notion that having Super Heavies (or even normal) Walkers stopped by Tank Traps isn't different. This is a new Edition. Lots of things are different. They SPECIFICALLY took away the ability of Super Heavies to ignore all terrain and gave them Move Through Cover. That was a clear choice on their part. They specifically stated which vehicles get to ignore Tank Traps (which are new as of Stronghold Assault). Deal with it.

I am of the opinion, this being Games Workshop we are talking about, that pretty much anything could happen if/when they decide to drop a Faq/Errata. Until that time, you will simply have to accept the rules as written. Would I write them this way? No. I'm not the game designer, however, and thus I simply adjust my perspective. You want to interpret the rules. That is all fine and dandy, but it is not the rules as written.

As for the Super Heavy Walker 'move through cover' vs 'ignore terrain'. The Ignore Terrain *never* made sense. You are going to tell me that a building the same size as the Super Heavy Walker *does not impede* the movement of the Super Heavy Walker? No way, and GW realized that it didn't make sense. Move Through Cover is a great compromise, because it means that Super Heavy Walkers still need to 'navigate' the board, but smaller pieces of terrain are still relatively ignored, or are of minor impedance. Larger pieces, the Super Heavy Walker will muscle its way through (hence 'move through cover'). This is all addressed in the Terrain rules.

Dangerous Terrain check: this goes into the nuances of the rulebook.
The Dangerous Terrain check is a trigger command. You are triggering a different set of rules. What kind of rule does this trigger?
Damage.
Damage rules do not exist in the realm of the movement phase. They are related to entirely different section, of which are no longer apart of movement. This means that the Type: Infantry replacement ceases to exist, and you revert back to the Type: Vehicle.

marful's comment about 'counts as' is a misconception about 'counts as'. Most instances where things 'count as', the phrase 'counts as' is not explicitly used. Instead, what is used are a variety of rules phrases, like 'use' (as in this example of the Walker), or 'instead of' (example Helbrechts Legacy of Dorn, or Crimson Slaugher Possessed), or 'chooses' (example Emperor's Champion Black Sword). I could go on and on. These are all 'counts as'. They all follow the same convention: replace an existing rule, sometimes permanently, sometimes temporarily, with another rule in the game. It is obvious why it is done, because it saves word space, and it is easier.

As for Ang56's argument. I already addressed this: the examples that Ang56 used have their own solutions elsewhere in the book—again, these situations raise different nuances of the rulebook.

[marful]

marful's comment about 'counts as' is a misconception about 'counts as'. Most instances where things 'count as', the phrase 'counts as' is not explicitly used. Instead, what is used are a variety of rules phrases, like 'use' (as in this example of the Walker), or 'instead of' (example Helbrechts Legacy of Dorn, or Crimson Slaugher Possessed), or 'chooses' (example Emperor's Champion Black Sword). I could go on and on. These are all 'counts as'. They all follow the same convention: replace an existing rule, sometimes permanently, sometimes temporarily, with another rule in the game. It is obvious why it is done, because it saves word space, and it is easier.
Again: you're wrong.

Do you even read the rules in question that you discuss? You specifically mention Crimson Slaughter Possessed. I don't know exactly why you mentioned them, but no where in their rules in the Crimson Slaughter Supplement does it ever use an equivocation to "count as" or "use the rules for". So again, you're just "making stuff up" (again).

Here are the ACTUAL rules:


When choosing a Crimson Slaughter detachment, units of Possessed are troops choices instead of elites choices. Furthermore, Possessed units in a Crimson Slaughter detachment do not have the Vessels of Chaos special rule in Codex: Chaos Space marines. Instead, roll a D3 on the table below at the beginning of each controlling player's turn. The mutation affects every Possessed model in the unit and lasts until the start of the controlling player's next turn:

No where does the rules for Possessed use any form of equivocation. It clearly says to ignore one set of rules, and use another.


The issue with why some are confused is one of Scope.

By being of type "Infantry" models gain access to many rules that only models of type "Infantry" gain access to. Some of these are:

1.) The ability to move 6" in the movement phase
2.) The ability to run in the shooting phase
3.) The ability to assault in the assault phase
4.) The ability to move 2D6" when falling back or fleeing
5.) The ability to enter transports
6.) The ability to enter buildings
7.) The ability to make Overwatch Shots in the assault phase
8.) The ability to go-to-ground
9.) The ability to be joined by Independent Characters
10.) Etc.

All of these things are qualities (rules) that Infantry models use. When the walker rules say "Use the rules for" it means just that, any time the Walker would move, instead of using the Vehicle movement rules, you use the Infantry movement rules. I.E. you replace the any movement Rules that a Walker would use, with rules #1, #2, #3 and #4 from above.

It does NOT change it's unit type as the Walker never "counted as", it just used the movement rules for. These are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS.


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.

This is where "scope" comes into play. These Movement Rules are a subset of rules that Infantry Use. It is not these rules that make a model Infantry, it is the designation of Unit Type that defines whether a model is infantry or not. And the rules for walkers states that you only use the movement rules of infantry.




Most instances where things 'count as', the phrase 'counts as' is not explicitly used.
Citation Needed.

Clearly you made up the rules for Crimson Slaughter Possessed as I have shown by quoting their rules. And by quoting the actual rules I have shown you were wrong. You need to actually cite the rules for which you reference if you want to have any standing in your assertion of how the rules are.

[Tynskel]

Again: you're wrong.

Do you even read the rules in question that you discuss? You specifically mention Crimson Slaughter Possessed. I don't know exactly why you mentioned them, but no where in their rules in the Crimson Slaughter Supplement does it ever use an equivocation to "count as" or "use the rules for". So again, you're just "making stuff up" (again).

Here are the ACTUAL rules:



No where does the rules for Possessed use any form of equivocation. It clearly says to ignore one set of rules, and use another.


The issue with why some are confused is one of Scope.

By being of type "Infantry" models gain access to many rules that only models of type "Infantry" gain access to. Some of these are:

1.) The ability to move 6" in the movement phase
2.) The ability to run in the shooting phase
3.) The ability to assault in the assault phase
4.) The ability to move 2D6" when falling back or fleeing
5.) The ability to enter transports
6.) The ability to enter buildings
7.) The ability to make Overwatch Shots in the assault phase
8.) The ability to go-to-ground
9.) The ability to be joined by Independent Characters
10.) Etc.

All of these things are qualities (rules) that Infantry models use. When the walker rules say "Use the rules for" it means just that, any time the Walker would move, instead of using the Vehicle movement rules, you use the Infantry movement rules. I.E. you replace the any movement Rules that a Walker would use, with rules #1, #2, #3 and #4 from above.

It does NOT change it's unit type as the Walker never "counted as", it just used the movement rules for. These are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS.



This is where "scope" comes into play. These Movement Rules are a subset of rules that Infantry Use. It is not these rules that make a model Infantry, it is the designation of Unit Type that defines whether a model is infantry or not. And the rules for walkers states that you only use the movement rules of infantry.




Citation Needed.

Clearly you made up the rules for Crimson Slaughter Possessed as I have shown by quoting their rules. And by quoting the actual rules I have shown you were wrong. You need to actually cite the rules for which you reference if you want to have any standing in your assertion of how the rules are.

???

The Crimson Slaughter—you are replacing Elites with Troops. That's what 'counts as' is. You are taking an entry that says one thing, and adding a different entry. That's how it always has been used. It has been this way for more than 20 years. I am not sure how else to describe it.

Another example: Tyrant guard—'as if'.

The language is different, but the effect is *exactly* the same. You take one set of rules, and replace with another. Again, sometimes it is temporary (or limited), other times it is permanent.

You can see this in previous editions of FAQs. They have always treated 'counts as' = 'replace'. There is *nothing* in the current edition of rules that implies a change to this foundational interpretation of the ruleset.

I never played rogue trader, so I am not sure about that edition, however, I have played 2nd Edition and onward. 'counts as' is a precedent, and requires an explicit fundamental change in the interpretation of the *entire* ruleset!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

[marful]

???

The Crimson Slaughter—you are replacing Elites with Troops. That's what 'counts as' is. You are taking an entry that says one thing, and adding a different entry. That's how it always has been used. It has been this way for more than 20 years. I am not sure how else to describe it.
No, that's not a "counts as". That is a pretty clear statement that they are. It says it right there. "They are troops". Not "counts as troops" they are troops.



Another example: Tyrant guard—'as if'.

The language is different, but the effect is *exactly* the same. You take one set of rules, and replace with another. Again, sometimes it is temporary (or limited), other times it is permanent.

You can see this in previous editions of FAQs. They have always treated 'counts as' = 'replace'. There is *nothing* in the current edition of rules that implies a change to this foundational interpretation of the ruleset.

I never played rogue trader, so I am not sure about that edition, however, I have played 2nd Edition and onward. 'counts as' is a precedent, and requires an explicit fundamental change in the interpretation of the *entire* ruleset!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

Again, where are your citations of the actual rules?

[Charon]

Just ignore him. He never provides actual rules and he will never step down from his (flat out wrong) interpretation... not even sure if an faq would convince him.
Everything he does is making things up...

[Houghten]

Has anyone gotten anything other than a form letter as a response to rules questions back from GW lately?

And the form letter says "please send your questions to this other address that wasn't actually listed on our Contact Us page," right?

[Tynskel]

Just ignore him. He never provides actual rules and he will never step down from his (flat out wrong) interpretation... not even sure if an faq would convince him.
Everything he does is making things up...

Please stop with the personal attacks, because they are unfounded, and not true.

Marful:
I *did* cite rules from the book. Stop saying I am not using citable rules.

All of the examples I have given in this thread *are* citable. You can go and directly look at the rule I was referring to. Go look at the 'as if' statement in the Tyranid Codex. Look at 5th Edition Tyranid Codex—the language is same as the 6th Edition Codex, and the 6th Edition FAQ confirmed that the Tyrant *is* an IC for that purpose. Go look up the numerous examples that I have pointed out already.

I'll restate what I have said: 'counts as' is equal to 'replace'. You can look through 6 Editions (2-7) of FAQs where this is confirmed.

Go look up other threads on BoLS Lounge. The concept of 'counts as' is well defined, and accepted convention for interpreting the ruleset.

[marful]

I *did* cite rules from the book. Stop saying I am not using citable rules.
No you didn't. You paraphrased what you thought where the rules, but twice now I have quoted the actual rules to show that your "paraphrase" wasn't actually in the rules you were referencing.

Case in point:

All of the examples I have given in this thread *are* citable. You can go and directly look at the rule I was referring to. Go look at the 'as if' statement in the Tyranid Codex. Look at 5th Edition Tyranid Codex—the language is same as the 6th Edition Codex, and the 6th Edition FAQ confirmed that the Tyrant *is* an IC for that purpose. Go look up the numerous examples that I have pointed out already.
First off, if I have to "go look them up" you didn't actually cite the rules. As citing them would be to retype them in their entirety to make clear any disambiguation.

Regardless, first you mentioned Tyrant Guards. Now you are talking about Tyrants. Then you make reference to the FAQ. Guess what, the words "as if" nor "counts as" do not appear in any of these.

Tyranid FAQ (http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Tyranids_v1.0_May14.pdf)

Obviously I can't link to the Tyranid Codex, but as I have the ebook version, doing a search for "as if" turns up zero results. It's not in there.


I'll restate what I have said: 'counts as' is equal to 'replace'. You can look through 6 Editions (2-7) of FAQs where this is confirmed.

Go look up other threads on BoLS Lounge. The concept of 'counts as' is well defined, and accepted convention for interpreting the ruleset.
The fact that "counts as" is equal to "replace" is not the issue in debate. The part that is, is the fact that NO WHERE IN THE RULES FOR WALKERS DO THE WORDS "COUNT AS" OR "AS IF" OR "REPLACE" EVER APPEAR.


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.
Also, see that? ^^^^^^

THAT is how you do a citation.

[Wolfshade]

Surely, this one is a fairly simple one.

Walkers move using the movement rules for infantry.

Infantry do not move over tank traps but around them. So as long as the gaps between the tank traps are small enough the infantry can move through it.

Otherwise it is a wall and they have to move around it.

So walkers can move through tank traps as long as they are far enough apart to move the base between the individual trap structure.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NdNXVSw82u8/UXYcopGaDLI/AAAAAAAAAvI/TBM--Qjd9WY/s1600/6620.jpg

As above infantry can move through but tanks cannot.

Indeed, this is supported by "all vehices, except skimmers, treat tank traps as impassible ground."

So, Knights can pass through tank traps, if the "dragon's teeth" are far enough apart, but being that far apart I would wager a tank would drive through the gap and they are less tank traps and more individual column of ferrocrete whatever.

[Caitsidhe]

Surely, this one is a fairly simple one.

Walkers move using the movement rules for infantry.

Infantry do not move over tank traps but around them. So as long as the gaps between the tank traps are small enough the infantry can move through it.

Otherwise it is a wall and they have to move around it.

So walkers can move through tank traps as long as they are far enough apart to move the base between the individual trap structure.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NdNXVSw82u8/UXYcopGaDLI/AAAAAAAAAvI/TBM--Qjd9WY/s1600/6620.jpg

As above infantry can move through but tanks cannot.

Indeed, this is supported by "all vehices, except skimmers, treat tank traps as impassible ground."

So, Knights can pass through tank traps, if the "dragon's teeth" are far enough apart, but being that far apart I would wager a tank would drive through the gap and they are less tank traps and more individual column of ferrocrete whatever.


This is all very reasonable and I take no issue with the logic. One would hope those using Tank Traps will simply model them as such which would make many people quite happy. That being said, it has no bearing on the actual rules. Tank Traps, no matter how they are modeled, are purchased upgrades for various Fortifications. They have a game effect that is paid for per the rules and applies no matter what they look like. Even if the person was totally lazy and laid down a 6" long 6" wide square of felt, the effect would be the same. It would be impassible terrain for all vehicles save Skimmers.

Tank Traps are representational terrain in that it doesn't define whether they are dragon's teeth, gravity wells, or big spines. They simply have a game effect and nothing else is listed. For my own part, I fully intend to model them so the bases of Dreads and larger cannot move through them. That will at least make it easier on those whose imaginations are apparently too frail to extend into the age of "grimdark" without a crutch. I suspect some of the issue is that people keep thinking of the Tank Traps as negotiable terrain. They are not, anymore than the Skyshield bought and purchased with points is negotiable. They are a model that you buy that has a game effect. Trying to negotiate what it will and won't affect based on what it looks like is tantamount to saying I get to decide how effective your Baneblade is by how well you put it together and painted it, i.e. that looks like crap. We should apply the ramshackle rule to that one. :D

[Wolfshade]

You are right and the game is all about abstractions. I think the thought must be that infantry can pass by whatever the trap is without setting it of, becoming stranded on it, whereas wider things can't. It would be strange if you then had things like, well my old terminator on a small base can pass through it, but yours on new larger bases can't so you can't assault me :p .

I think I would model the tank traps as "dragons teeth" or something akin to that, so that my infantry could use it as cover.

Either that or we have just learnt that super heavy walkers should be re-named super heavy shufflers as they don't lift their feet off the ground. Unless they are doing a stomp attack obvs ;)

[Tynskel]

No you didn't. You paraphrased what you thought where the rules, but twice now I have quoted the actual rules to show that your "paraphrase" wasn't actually in the rules you were referencing.

Case in point:

First off, if I have to "go look them up" you didn't actually cite the rules. As citing them would be to retype them in their entirety to make clear any disambiguation.

Regardless, first you mentioned Tyrant Guards. Now you are talking about Tyrants. Then you make reference to the FAQ. Guess what, the words "as if" nor "counts as" do not appear in any of these.

Tyranid FAQ (http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Tyranids_v1.0_May14.pdf)

Obviously I can't link to the Tyranid Codex, but as I have the ebook version, doing a search for "as if" turns up zero results. It's not in there.


The fact that "counts as" is equal to "replace" is not the issue in debate. The part that is, is the fact that NO WHERE IN THE RULES FOR WALKERS DO THE WORDS "COUNT AS" OR "AS IF" OR "REPLACE" EVER APPEAR.


Also, see that? ^^^^^^

THAT is how you do a citation.

I see what the problem is. You don't have the rules, and are expecting someone to spend money for you an hopefully not mistype something. Nope, I'm not going to sit here and type out copyrighted material. I gave plenty of examples in codexes that are current and not current. Go and buy the rulebook, or borrow someone else's.

The use of counts as is ubiquitous. Almost every current codex and the current rulebook has examples

I see what the comprehension issue is.
You are looking for something to say 'as if' = 'counts as'.
No. This is all logic.

a = b = c = d. If c = f, then f = a through d.

'as if' from Tyranids, the 'choose' example from Crimson Slaughter, the Black Sword from space marines, all use the same language. Take a rule from somewhere else, and replace it with already established rule.

That is 'counts as'. That is what it always has been. That's what it has been for 6 editions.
The term is ubiquitous. c.f. All Rulebooks. Then we can talk later.


For the umpteenth time. The 'as if' is in the Tyrant Guard rule!

[Caitsidhe]

I see what the problem is. You don't have the rules, and are expecting someone to spend money for you an hopefully not mistype something. Nope, I'm not going to sit here and type out copyrighted material. I gave plenty of examples in codexes that are current and not current. Go and buy the rulebook, or borrow someone else's.

The use of counts as is ubiquitous. Almost every current codex and the current rulebook has examples

I do have the rules. I have cited them. I have largely dropped out of this discussion with you because it is clear that you are simply intent on using blunt force posts rather than actual cites to support you. Examples of how you came to your "interpretation" of the rules have no bearing. We are discussing a rule as written, not how you came to your view which is nothing more than how you perceive the "rules as intended."

There is only things that matter are as follows:

1. The designation of vehicle is not changed in any way.
2. Tank Traps are tied to vehicle designation.
3. The direct rules (which I have cited and you have not) indicate specifically how Walkers move like infantry and your interpretation is not there.

At this point you have merely dug your teeth in with bulldog tenacity intent on having the last word (post) and refusing to admit you are wrong. The psychological need is fascinating but irrelevant here. Until you actually put forth citations which support your point rather than trying to win us over to your interpretation, I consider our discourse done.

[Tynskel]

I do have the rules. I have cited them. I have largely dropped out of this discussion with you because it is clear that you are simply intent on using blunt force posts rather than actual cites to support you. Examples of how you came to you "interpretation" of the rules have no bearing. We are discussing a rule as written, not how you came to your view which is nothing more than how you perceive the "rules as intended."

There is only things that matter are as follows:

1. The designation of vehicle is not changed in any way.
2. Tank Traps are tied to vehicle designation.
3. The direct rules (which I have cited and you have not) indicate specifically how Walkers move like infantry and your interpretation is not there.

At this point you have merely dug your teeth in with bulldog tenacity intent on having the last word (post) and refusing to admit you are wrong. The psychological need is fascinating but irrelevant here. Until you actually put forth citations which support your point rather than trying to win us over to your interpretation, I consider our discourse done.

This is rules as written. The 'counts as' convention is a written rule. The phrasing is slightly different, but it uses, 'as if', 'choose', etc.
They all mean the same thing.

This is also about how rules are accessed. Again, this is rules as written. Everything in 40k is a Trigger Command.

1) Approach Tank Trap
2) look up movement
3) You look up walker. Walker says look up Infantry
4) Then you look up infantry.
No where in the Infantry Entry are 'vehicles'. Infantry ≠ Vehicle.
Walker only has the 'Infantry rules' in regards to movement.

5) Look up terrain rules for size, shape and placement of terrain. Apply further rules to 'battlefield debris'.

This is all Rules As Written.

These are all 'citations'—you need to go to the rulebook and look at the rules for *all* of these sections. You'll see that vehicles don't encompass a good chunk of these rules. Therefore, when applying those other rules, you are not a vehicle.


I'm sorry. But, I have scanned through the Infantry Movement rules in both the Assault Section and the Movement Section. There is *nothing* absolutely *nothing* on how to move a vehicle.

Please, please, please, tell me I'm wrong. I'm begging you! give me a page number!
I am reading the Rules As Written.

[Caitsidhe]

This is rules as written. The 'counts as' convention is a written rule. The phrasing is slightly different, but it uses, 'as if', 'choose', etc.
They all mean the same thing.

Please PROVIDE citations. I have been through the books backwards and forwards. I can find no trace of your imaginary "counts as" rule. It does not exist in the text referring to Walkers, nor have I found any variation of it anywhere else. If you will not give us page numbers, we have no choice but accept that you are fabricating things to try and support your argument.

[Tynskel]

I have given 3 examples.
Crimson Slaughter Possesed.
Tyrant Guard
Black Sword.

The phrasing is different but the effect is *exactly the same*.

They all do: a = b = c. This is simple logic.

take rule A and replace with rule B. That is 'counts as'.

[Caitsidhe]

I have given 3 examples.
Crimson Slaughter Possesed.
Tyrant Guard
Black Sword.

The phrasing is different but the effect is *exactly the same*.

They all do: a = b = c. This is simple logic.

We did not ask you for more examples, or as I prefer to call them, evasions. Tank Traps are tied to unit type, and in this case it is vehicles that are not Skimmers. Until you produce a rule which indicates a change in that designation for Walker, or your "Puff the Magic Dragon" rule which you call "counts as" you are dead in the water. Please provide book and page numbers which detail this "counts as" system or even this "trigger" method which you claim exists. I submit these are all how you choose to interpret the rules, which is fine and dandy. It isn't the rules as written. Rules as written are black and white. Provide page numbers, citations, or quit wasting our time.

[Tynskel]

We did not ask you for more examples, or as I prefer to call them, evasions. Tank Traps are tied to unit type, and in this case it is vehicles that are not Skimmers. Until you produce a rule which indicates a change in that designation for Walker, or your "Puff the Magic Dragon" rule which you call "counts as" you are dead in the water. Please provide book and page numbers which detail this "counts as" system or even this "trigger" method which you claim exists. I submit these are all how you choose to interpret the rules, which is fine and dandy. It isn't the rules as written. Rules as written are black and white. Provide page numbers, citations, or quit wasting our time.

Again, trigger word.

Tank Trap. Impassable for Vehicle.
Look up Impassable. Cannot move onto.
Look up Move
Walker. Walker move as Infantry.
Look up Infantry. Not vehicle.
Attempt to move Walker.
Does object block path? Look up terrain rule regarding size designation. Look up difficult terrain, look up dangerous terrain, etc.


Why is it a trigger word? Because the Rulebook *explicitly* defines impassable.
Why is vehicle a trigger word: because the Rulebook *explicitly* defines vehicle.
Why is Infantry a trigger word: because the Rulebook *explicitly* defines Infantry.

GW has taken the dictionary definition used by the language, and *rewrote* the meaning of those words. They are triggers, you have to look up their means, and piece them together.

[Caitsidhe]

GW has taken the dictionary definition used by the language, and *rewrote* the meaning of those words. They are triggers, you have to look up their means, and piece them together.

Thank you for proving my point. Prove GW has rewritten those words. Did they provide a glossary? No? That means you are inferring it, interpreting it, and deciding this on your own. "Triggers" also does not appear in the rules (nor does "counts as"). They are colloquial terminology. If you have to piece them together it becomes "rules as intended" and highly subjective. "Rules as written" are black and white and require no such soothsaying. Since you have just admitted that you are piecing together your rules while the rest of us are using the black and white rules which are clearly stated, it means you are wrong. Watch this clip, enjoy it, and take it to heart:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwkU8-d1gIk

[Tynskel]

Thank you for proving my point. Prove GW has rewritten those words. Did they provide a glossary? No? That means you are inferring it, interpreting it, and deciding this on your own. "Triggers" also does not appear in the rules (nor does "counts as"). They are colloquial terminology. If you have to piece them together it becomes "rules as intended" and highly subjective. "Rules as written" are black and white and require no such soothsaying. Since you have just admitted that you are piecing together your rules while the rest of us are using the black and white rules which are clearly stated, it means you are wrong. Watch this clip, enjoy it, and take it to heart:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwkU8-d1gIk

What?!?!?
Walker, for example, is *explicitly* defined in the 40k Rulebook!
There's no written rule, in real language, that requires a glossary. Glossaries are to help the reader, but they are not required.

What are you talking about? All I am using are rules that are in the rulebook. I am using the definitions that the Rulebook defined.

You have yet to give me a page number for the Vehicle Rules in the Infantry Section of movement.

[Charon]

So... again you provide no rule citation.
Again you construct your own rules to fit your misinterpretation.

A vehicle is a vehicle that does not change. There is no rules which allowes you to get rid of the vehicle trait. And even IF you would gain the Infantry trait adiddionally for some non-existant reason, the rulebook state quite clearly that if you have multiple traits you have to follow them all. Not just the one just just happen to like more.


Type

The different types of vehicle are: Chariot, Fast, Flyer, Heavy, Hover, Open-topped, Skimmer, Tank, Transport, Walker, Super-heavy vehicle, Super-heavy Walker and Super-heavy Flyer. These types can be combined to define, for example, a Fast Skimmer or an Open-topped Walker, in which case, the vehicle has all of the rules for all of its types.

[AirHorse]

For what it's worth(and maybe it's not worth that much by this point...) having read through the discussion I don't think either side has been proven wrong, so personally don't really think mudsling and accusations that the others aren't willing to admit it are justified!

There are two interpretations of the rules, and two sets of opinions. Both sides have made their stance clear, so it should be agreed to disagree! That is a pretty acceptable outcome of a discussion of a rules set that is often left open to interpretation!

My personal point of view is a bit grey still, I find both interpretations compelling if I'm honest! I as I see it both views seem legitimate, and it leaves only one place for an answer to come from as far as im concerned.

Given we aren't likely to see an FAQ that quick, I would be happy to play either way!

And as wolfshade mentioned, super heavy shufflers does spoil the escapism a tad XD

[Tynskel]

For what it's worth(and maybe it's not worth that much by this point...) having read through the discussion I don't think either side has been proven wrong, so personally don't really think mudsling and accusations that the others aren't willing to admit it are justified!

There are two interpretations of the rules, and two sets of opinions. Both sides have made their stance clear, so it should be agreed to disagree! That is a pretty acceptable outcome of a discussion of a rules set that is often left open to interpretation!

My personal point of view is a bit grey still, I find both interpretations compelling if I'm honest! I as I see it both views seem legitimate, and it leaves only one place for an answer to come from as far as im concerned.

Given we aren't likely to see an FAQ that quick, I would be happy to play either way!

And as wolfshade mentioned, super heavy shufflers does spoil the escapism a tad XD

Not a bad idea.

- - - Updated - - -


So... again you provide no rule citation.
Again you construct your own rules to fit your misinterpretation.

A vehicle is a vehicle that does not change. There is no rules which allowes you to get rid of the vehicle trait. And even IF you would gain the Infantry trait adiddionally for some non-existant reason, the rulebook state quite clearly that if you have multiple traits you have to follow them all. Not just the one just just happen to like more.

You bring up a good point.
You can combine types, and there are many instances of combining types. However, that works until you combine with something that conflicts.

Hence, the language of 'counts as'.
Walker Type entry does not say: Walker: Infantry, Vehicle.

It says 'counts as' the Walker as Infantry in regarding to movement. i.e. That is Replace 'Vehicle' with 'Infantry'.

You state that GW writes rules poorly—but this a fine example at what lengths GW goes to make their rules clear: The Walker is *not* a vehicle during Movement, hence *replace* these rules with something else.

[Charon]

It says 'counts as' the Walker as Infantry in regarding to movement. i.e. That is Replace 'Vehicle' with 'Infantry'.

No it is not. There is no "counts as" and there is no replacement.
Read the rules and cite the "count as" part.

[Fibonacci]

I just want to drop this I here.

A walker is a vehicle.
A walker moves like infantry.
Therefore a walker is a vehicle that moves like infantry.

This is not an A implies B and B implies C set of statements. It is A implies B and A implies C. So A does not = C. A = B + C

Carry on.

[Tynskel]

I just want to drop this I here.

A walker is a vehicle.
A walker moves like infantry.
Therefore a walker is a vehicle that moves like infantry.

This is not an A implies B and B implies C set of statements. It is A implies B and A implies C. So A does not = C. A = B + C

Carry on.

That would work, if there was a section in the Infantry rules that stated so. That's not the case, so that's not Rules As Written. Additionally, I've already stated this: GW has done this with their rules for 20 years. 'counts as' is the subject matter. Rules replace when in conflict.

- - - Updated - - -


No it is not. There is no "counts as" and there is no replacement.
Read the rules and cite the "count as" part.

We have already gone over this: You replace the Vehicle Movement Rules with Infantry Movement Rules. Says so in the entry. I've written on what 'counts as' is, just a couple posts ago, and the Walker movement entry is 'counts as', via logic. Please read that post.


"I'm sorry. But, I have scanned through the Infantry Movement rules in both the Assault Section and the Movement Section. There is *nothing* absolutely *nothing* on how to move a vehicle.

Please, please, please, tell me I'm wrong. I'm begging you! give me a page number!"

And please give me the page number where a walker moves like a vehicle.

[Charon]

You move like Infantry for a pretty narrow and detailed list. Not more and not less. There has to be no "Vehicle movement" in the infantry section because the vehicle section covers exactly in which cases the walker movement behaves like infantry movement. This does not cover impassable terrain and neither does the walker become drop the "vehicle" trait at any point.

Or in short so you might finally get it:

It does not matter if your dog can walk like a human. If the shop says "no animals", your dog has to wait outside.

[Tynskel]

You move like Infantry for a pretty narrow and detailed list. Not more and not less. There has to be no "Vehicle movement" in the infantry section because the vehicle section covers exactly in which cases the walker movement behaves like infantry movement. This does not cover impassable terrain and neither does the walker become drop the "vehicle" trait at any point.

Or in short so you might finally get it:

It does not matter if your dog can walk like a human. If the shop says "no animals", your dog has to wait outside.

I am glad you are coming over to my side, because you are saying that the walker 'counts as' infantry! Of which, at *any* other instance in the game—seriously, look up FAQs and other rules, like the Tyrant Guard—replaces the rules.
Thank you.

Oooh! you bring up a good point, now that I see that you are coming to my viewpoint of the argument. The Dog's movement is as a human. However, once it has 'embarked' into the shop, the Dog ceases in being a human for the 'shop related activities'—just like the Walker ceases to be Infantry once the Walker is no longer moving!


And, finally...
your logic is flawed, and I am going to have fun with it.
Humans *are* Animals. The sign saying 'no animals' is not a comment on how the dog walks, but a comment that is making an exception for Humans.
What are those exceptions? That's hard to define, considering there is scientific debate on what actually separates humans and animals. (http://phys.org/news/2013-12-humans-smarter-animals-experts.html)
I would recommend some citations for your side—perhaps a court case?
Well, we'll a different example: Guide Dogs. Ah! So Guide Dogs have more attributes closer to a human—they provide sight, sound, communication, etc. They *are* whatever the definition is when it comes to 'shop related activities'. They are not just some 'animal' anymore. In fact, I guarantee that if you tried to tell a Guide Dog owner that they had some 'animal', they would tell you that you are wrong, for the *same* reasons I am stating now.

[Charon]

Ah I see.. trolling intensifies again.
Play whatever you like... and welcome to my ignore list. Im losing brain cells if I have to read anymore of this pipe dreams of yours.

[The Tisroc]

I can't see how Tynskel laying out how he sees the rules working is trolling. I agree with his interpretation. Reasonable people can disagree.

[Charon]

If he had any hard evidence or quotation of actual rules I would agree.
But in fact he makes up the wording himself (none of the rules ever says "moving walkers counts as moving infantry") to fit his "arguments" (again backed up by no written rule).

[The Tisroc]

This thread is pretty circular. I've already stated where I fall on this one. Walkers move like infantry. That's the rule. If we were playing a game and arguing about it I'd agree to roll off for it. I think that when they faq this I'll be proven right. I suspect you think the same thing (that you'll be proven right). All good... life goes on...

[Charon]

Walkers move like infantry. That's the rule.

The issue is, this is NOT the rule. Walkers move like infantry in SPECIFIC cases mentioned in the rule text. There is nothing mentioning "losing vehicle trait", gaining "immunities" or stops effects that target vehicles from affecting the vehicle, walker.

[The Tisroc]

We must agree to disagree. The way I see it, that is clearly the rule. Again: I'm willing to roll for it if you and I ever play. Cheers.

[Wolfshade]

Ok, so relevant rules: (sorry I don't have the page numbers I am currently having to use my digital edition


Moving Walkers

Walkers use the movement rules for infantry.


Tank Traps

Tank traps are impassable terrain to non-Skimmer vehicles, dangerous terrain to bikes, and open ground for other units.


Walkers

Walkers are an unusal type of vehicle


Unit Types

So far, we've discussed the rules as they pertain to infantry

Ok lots of rules, how do they interact.

First up, lets take the rules for Tank Traps

So, they are treated as impassible terrain to all non-skimmer vehicles. A walker is a "Vehicle, Walker", and therefore is a vehicle so must treat the tank trap as impassible terrain.

Ah ha! But, they move as infantry, note that they move as infantry does. Not that they "count-as" infantry, so we look at the rules for infantry movement and they are the basic rules. There is nothing in the basic rules or the infantry rules that enable infantry to move through impassable terrain. It talks how they are affected by dangerous terrain and that they may not pass through impassible terrain.


This enables to take into account the rules for infantry movement and the rules for the tank traps without causing conflict. The walker moves as infantry but is still prevented from moving places by impassible terrain.

Note: when in 40k the term "count-as" is used frequently and this means that that unit or model takes on all the characteristic of another entirely. So, if you take a space marine captain on bike, then you can count bikes as troops, rather than being fast. But this is not what we have here, we have the phrase "walkers use the movement rules for infantry", but it does not count-as infantry. There are several instances in the rule book where it uses "using the rules" these are all telling the player how to do things and rather than re-iterate the rules it just tells you that it does it following the given rules.

[Mr Mystery]

Which is precisely what I've been saying. Using the Infantry rules for movement does not Infantry make. Not even 'counts as'.

If a rule wants something to 'count as', then it will say just that.

[Tynskel]

The issue is, this is NOT the rule. Walkers move like infantry in SPECIFIC cases mentioned in the rule text. There is nothing mentioning "losing vehicle trait", gaining "immunities" or stops effects that target vehicles from affecting the vehicle, walker.

I have cited multiple examples of 'counts as'. You replace the rule. Tank Trap Impassible for vehicles. Impassable is for movement. So Vehicle Movement is stopped. Walkers are not vehicles when it comes to movement, they are Infantry. 'counts as'.

I have yet to see you cite where in the rulebook that Vehicle rules are for Infantry. Or how Infantry move as vehicles.
Neither case exists, because you replace the rules.

- - - Updated - - -


Which is precisely what I've been saying. Using the Infantry rules for movement does not Infantry make. Not even 'counts as'.

If a rule wants something to 'count as', then it will say just that.

but it did. It says "use Infantry".

- - - Updated - - -


Ok, so relevant rules: (sorry I don't have the page numbers I am currently having to use my digital edition



t





Ok lots of rules, how do they interact.

First up, lets take the rules for Tank Traps

So, they are treated as impassible terrain to all non-skimmer vehicles. A walker is a "Vehicle, Walker", and therefore is a vehicle so must treat the tank trap as impassible terrain.

Ah ha! But, they move as infantry, note that they move as infantry does. Not that they "count-as" infantry, so we look at the rules for infantry movement and they are the basic rules. There is nothing in the basic rules or the infantry rules that enable infantry to move through impassable terrain. It talks how they are affected by dangerous terrain and that they may not pass through impassible terrain.


This enables to take into account the rules for infantry movement and the rules for the tank traps without causing conflict. The walker moves as infantry but is still prevented from moving places by impassible terrain.

The Walker replaces its rules. When is Vehicle called inconjunction with Impassable? Movement. Walkers are not Vehicles when Moving. Hence 'counts as'.

Seriously. Somebody cite me a rule that shows that vehicles movement is in the Infantry section!

[daboarder]

wolf just lock the damned thread, he's going to hold his line regardless of what anyone shows him

[Wolfshade]

But it is not count-as, if they wanted it to be count-as, they would have said "count-as".

They say using the rules, because they move in the same style, and even if they do, there is nothing in infantry movement that allows it ignore impassable terrain.

[The Tisroc]

wolf just lock the damned thread, he's going to hold his line regardless of what anyone shows him So... someone disagrees with you so the thread needs to be locked?!

[Mr Mystery]

Final example, for the hard of understanding. Ready?

Flying Monstrous Creature, Gliding.

When gliding, they use the rules for......Jump Infantry. So option of 6" move, 3D6 and Hammer of Wrath on the charge, or 12" move and regular charge.

Which would also mean once Gliding, because according to your logic, they 'count as' Jump Infantry, they cannot switch back to Swooping. Ever. Because the 'count as' Jump Infantry.

[Tynskel]

But it is not count-as, if they wanted it to be count-as, they would have said "count-as".

They say using the rules, because they move in the same style, and even if they do, there is nothing in infantry movement that allows it ignore impassable terrain.

Ugh. look at the Tyranid Tyrant Guard entry, as it uses 'as if'—'counts as' is a catch all term—and the FAQ rules in favor of 'counts as'. In every instance this has occured the FAQs have ruled that the model 'uses the rules for X'—which is they *exact* language of the Walker Entry. I've already been through this, wolfshade. I showed multiple examples where the phrasing is different, but the meaning is exactly the same.

- - - Updated - - -


Final example, for the hard of understanding. Ready?

Flying Monstrous Creature, Gliding.

When gliding, they use the rules for......Jump Infantry. So option of 6" move, 3D6 and Hammer of Wrath on the charge, or 12" move and regular charge.

Which would also mean once Gliding, because according to your logic, they 'count as' Jump Infantry, they cannot switch back to Swooping. Ever. Because the 'count as' Jump Infantry.

That's a flawed logic. Why? Because you are ignoring the rest of the rules. Read the entry for FMC—it explicitly states that you can switch, at the beginning of the Movement Phase.

Just as how, the movement phases ends, and the Walker is back to Vehicle rules.

[Wolfshade]

But we are not talking about "as-if" it says "use the rules". Again, if they had meant "as-if" they would have used "as-if", the tell you where to look to save them re-defining the same rule twice.

Like when placing objectives you "use the rules" for objective placing this just prevents us from having to re-writting out the rules.

[Tynskel]

But we are not talking about "as-if" it says "use the rules". Again, if they had meant "as-if" they would have used "as-if", the tell you where to look to save them re-defining the same rule twice.

Like when placing objectives you "use the rules" for objective placing this just prevents us from having to re-writting out the rules.

no, look at the Tyrant Guard Entry— as if it were an IC. That means go to the IC section and apply the IC rules—for this action. You replace the rules. (check out the FAQ for 5th Edition)

And that is my point: GW is saying—it is *that thing*. Not *anything* else.

[daboarder]

So... someone disagrees with you so the thread needs to be locked?!

No tisroc, I suggest the thread get locked because they are all just posting the same thing back and forth repeatedly (for 7 pages now) . NO ONE is changing their minds here.

So go pick a fight somewhere else

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed.

[Wolfshade]

no, look at the Tyrant Guard Entry— as if it were an IC. That means go to the IC section and apply the IC rules—for this action. You replace the rules.

And that is my point: GW is saying—it is *that thing*. Not *anything* else.

"as if it were an IC", this is not relevant it is different language. I agree that if it were to use "as if it were" or "count-as" then yes, fine. But that is not the case.

What rules are being replaced? None. Walkers use the same basic rules as infantry movement, but it does not change it's unit type because it is not replacing anything. Nor do infantry movement rules affect the unit type in any way.

Where does it say that infantry can ignore impassible terrain?

[Tynskel]

"as if it were an IC", this is not relevant it is different language. I agree that if it were to use "as if it were" or "count-as" then yes, fine. But that is not the case.

What rules are being replaced? None. Walkers use the same basic rules as infantry movement, but it does not change it's unit type because it is not replacing anything. Nor do infantry movement rules affect the unit type in any way.

Where does it say that infantry can ignore impassible terrain?

You are not getting my point!
GW uses different language every single time.
That's why I said:

look at the Black Sword Entry for Space Marines
Look at the Tyrant Guard Entry for Tyranids
Look at the Crimson Slaughter Entry for Possessed.

Every single time, the phrasing is different, but the meaning is exactly the same: replace the rules. That is what 'counts as' means. That is the convention that has gone on for 20 years that I have been playing 40k. Look at all the 'mature' FAQs from 6th, 5th, 4th editions! Every single time, the rule is taken to be 'replace'.

Also. There is no mention of Vehicle in the Infantry rules. Since you replace the rules, you are *not* a vehicle. Because that would be a 'rules conflict'. GW avoids rules conflicts by cutting pasting rules in place where there *is* a conflict.

[Wolfshade]

Ok, let us try again.

What rules are being replaced?

And, Where does infantry movement rules allow infantry to pass impassable terrain?

As-if, counts-as, etc are not the same as using the rules as stated elsewhere.

Fortifications are set up using the same rules as the rest of the army, does that mean it becomes infantry during deployment so you can't deploy any unit on it as that would be violating the 1" rule?

[Tynskel]

Ok, let us try again.

What rules are being replaced?

And, Where does infantry movement rules allow infantry to pass impassable terrain?

As-if, counts-as, etc are not the same as using the rules as stated elsewhere.

Fortifications are set up using the same rules as the rest of the army, does that mean it becomes infantry during deployment so you can't deploy any unit on it as that would be violating the 1" rule?



"As-if, counts-as, etc are not the same as using the rules as stated elsewhere."
Incorrect. As I said. Look at the FAQs for 6th, 5th, and 4th. Every single time this has come up, GW has ruled to 'use the rules stated elsewhere'.

"Fortifications are set up using the same rules as the rest of the army, does that mean it becomes infantry during deployment so you can't deploy any unit on it as that would be violating the 1" rule?"
I see what you are trying to do. How robust is this thought process?
Well initially, your question is completely bogus. What rules are you replacing? Any? None. There are no other rules to be replaced. There is only the setup rules.

Walker Movement rules are being replaced.

Tank Trap—Vehicles are Impassable. Impassable is a movement restriction. So, you look at the Vehicle Movement rules. There are no Vehicle Movement Rules for Walkers.

Walkers Movement rules are in Infantry. You have replaced the entry. You cannot find in the Infantry section anywhere that says vehicles. It is simply not there.

The walker then can move as normal.

[Mr Mystery]

Please can we just job this thread now?

It's getting tedious.

RAW - Walkers remain vehicles at all times, but move in the same way as Infantry. Tank Traps are impassable, as all non-skimmer vehicles treat them as such. Walkers are Vehicles. Ipso facto, impassable.

Please it/us out of our misery.

[Tynskel]

Please can we just job this thread now?

It's getting tedious.

RAW - Walkers remain vehicles at all times, but move in the same way as Infantry. Tank Traps are impassable, as all non-skimmer vehicles treat them as such. Walkers are Vehicles. Ipso facto, impassable.

Please it/us out of our misery.

You need a citation for that, because I have one that says you have replaced the movement rules with Infantry rules, and the Impassable refers to vehicle movement.


This is why I have always laughed when someone says 'raw' raw what? All the rules work together. The Tank Trap calls: Battlefield debris, terrain, movement that's 3 sets of rules! And we haven't even gotten to the specific cases yet!

So someone saws raw, they gotta list all the rules, and how they interact. That's RAW. That's using the 'rules as written' not 'rule as written'

[Wolfshade]

Sorry, that was a typo, yes as I have said a number of times counts-as, as-if etc words which are replacing things they assume the properties, that is a none issue.

What are the Walker Movement rules? The ones that are being replaced? The ones you go on to say don't exist? How can you replace something that doesn't exist? So, surely it is just simply, they move in the same way as the basic rules, rather than re-iterate it.

Vehicles are a unit type, not Impassable.

You do not replace the entry, it doesn't tell you to do that. It just tells you that walkers can move up to 6", ignore difficult terrain, but still takes tests for dangerous terrains.

Using a rule or rules does not replace a unit type.

[Mr Mystery]

Citation? Rulebook. Job jobbed. No mention of 'counts as' at all. You want a quote? I'll grab my book.


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 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

You with us so far? No mention of 'counts as'. Wording is 'using the movement rules for infantry'. Not 'as if they were infantry' either. This takes out your main point by cunning and underhanded application of what is actually in the rulebook, not what you would like to be in the rulebook.

So, that bit is job jobbed. Onto the Tank Trap.


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 as a 4+ cover save.

So. Specifically mentions how it interacts with the various units. At all time, a Walker has the unit designation 'Vehicle, Walker'. Check the exceptions for Tank Traps - And it's impassable terrain. That's it.

No 'count as'. No 'as if'. Nothing that you are bringing up is mentioned, and therefore, not relevant to the discussion.

[The Tisroc]

No tisroc, I suggest the thread get locked because they are all just posting the same thing back and forth repeatedly (for 7 pages now) . NO ONE is changing their minds here. Daboarder, I actually agree with you about the circular nature of this thread. Note: I'm not picking a fight with anyone. I agree with Tynskal's interpretation of the rules and disagree with Mystery's. That's not picking a fight.

Eventually (hopefully), a FAQ will come out about this and vindicate my side. All good... game on...

[Tynskel]

Sorry, that was a typo, yes as I have said a number of times counts-as, as-if etc words which are replacing things they assume the properties, that is a none issue.

What are the Walker Movement rules? The ones that are being replaced? The ones you go on to say don't exist? How can you replace something that doesn't exist? So, surely it is just simply, they move in the same way as the basic rules, rather than re-iterate it.

Vehicles are a unit type, not Impassable.

You do not replace the entry, it doesn't tell you to do that. It just tells you that walkers can move up to 6", ignore difficult terrain, but still takes tests for dangerous terrains.

Using a rule or rules does not replace a unit type.

"Sorry, that was a typo, yes as I have said a number of times counts-as, as-if etc words which are replacing things they assume the properties, that is a none issue."

That's Done.


I am repeating what I am saying again, in a different order.


Now we go to tank traps.
Impassable. What does impassable mean? Impassable does not mean type. models cannot enter—that's a movement related rule. Tank Traps also says vehicle. so vehicles cannot move into (and out of) impassable terrain. How do vehicles move? Look at the vehicle movement section... various things about how vehicles ignore difficult terrain, pivoting, yadda yadda yadda. They move *entirely* different from Infantry. There is not a lick about it that it is similar to Infantry.

Tank Traps say infantry move essentially as 'normal'.

Now we go to walkers: Do no ignore part of the walker entry. It says 'Walkers move using Infantry...'. That means you have replaced the rules. We are on the same page as that, because you just said you were. In fact, in case some rules person was trying to fanangle the rules, they are explicit in stating that all of the Vehicles rules are gone! None, nadda zilch.

Now we go back to the tank trap.
Impassable to Vehicles.
There are no vehicle movement rules for the Walker. The Walker is "infantry", because of the rules replacement. Walkers walk right over tank traps, subject to *other* terrain rules.

[Mr Mystery]

http://www.genealogyintime.com/GenealogyResources/Wallpaper/Brick-Wall-Images/images/02%20-%201740%20Swedish%20brick%20wall.jpg

At no point does a Vehicle, Walker become Infantry. No point at all. My quotes prove that, as they're what the rule book says.

[The Tisroc]

Perfectly said, Tynskel. It couldn't be clearer.

[The Girl]

Same result as the last time this came up: 7 day ban for derailment and belligerent/trolling posts for Tynksel.
This thread closed peacefully, and you decided to revive it 8 days later just to argue - and in the exact manner that got you banned in the first place. Next time I see this kind of behavior from this account it'll start at 2 weeks, and will escalate from there. Argue with me on this and it'll be a month. Is that clear? This sort of behavior is not acceptable on this forum.

Edit: thread closed, move on.