Knights assaulting through Tank Traps

[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. ([url]http://phys.org/news/2013-12-humans-smarter-animals-experts.html[/url])
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.