Morbid Angels:http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?7100-Morbid-angel-WIP
I probably come across as a bit of an ***, don't worry I just cannot abide stupid.
Indeed.
Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks
"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?
Fan of Fuggles | Derailment of the Wolfpack of Horsemen | In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
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.
QUOTE Jwolf: "Besides, Tynskel isn't evil, he's just drawn that way. "
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?
Fan of Fuggles | Derailment of the Wolfpack of Horsemen | In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
"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.
Last edited by Tynskel; 08-01-2014 at 03:54 PM.
QUOTE Jwolf: "Besides, Tynskel isn't evil, he's just drawn that way. "
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.
Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks
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'
Last edited by Tynskel; 08-01-2014 at 04:02 PM.
QUOTE Jwolf: "Besides, Tynskel isn't evil, he's just drawn that way. "
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.
Fan of Fuggles | Derailment of the Wolfpack of Horsemen | In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
Citation? Rulebook. Job jobbed. No mention of 'counts as' at all. You want a quote? I'll grab my book.
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.Originally Posted by Warhammer 40,000; The Rules, Pp 90, paragraph 3, subheading 'Moving Walkers'
So, that bit is job jobbed. Onto the Tank Trap.
.Originally Posted by Warhammer 40,000; The Rules, Pp 109 Battlefield Debris, Tank Traps subheading
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.
Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks