Knights assaulting through Tank Traps

[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:

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

[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:

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

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.