Knights assaulting through Tank Traps

[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!
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent[/url]

[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!
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent[/url]

Again, where are your citations of the actual rules?