Knights assaulting through Tank Traps

[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.

[URL="http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Tyranids_v1.0_May14.pdf"]Tyranid FAQ[/URL]

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.



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.



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.

[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 .

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.

[URL="http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Tyranids_v1.0_May14.pdf"]Tyranid FAQ[/URL]

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.