Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Hey all. As some of you may know, I'm only a friendly player. I don't enter tournaments, I haven't even brought my army to a game store and played with people I don't know.
I was however at my local gaming store and there were several games going on, and I decided to watch in on a few, essentially to learn more, and to see armies that my buddies and I don't have in action. These were all non-tournament games, just friendly practice games or whatever. Nothing at stake. A few rules discussions started, and as a good bystander, I stood by, precisely keeping my mouth shut.
I believe after studying this game for over a year now and being pretty active here, that I've learned a great deal about the game and its basics and the general flow of the game. Well the great Gate of Infinity rule debate began. You all know the one. GoI to move out of combat.
There seemed to be two factions. It came down to 1) The rules don't say X can be done. 2) The rules don't say I can't do X.
Now regardless of the actual rule in question here, fundamentally #2 is what I'd like to touch on. I've actually seen it used here, on both sides(right and wrong) of the same rule.
Rules are defined as a set of principles or regulations governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.: the rules of Warhammer 40k. Another clarifying definition is: A generalized statement that describes what is true in most or all cases.
Rules can and should only spell out what can be done. When an exception is present a rule will then state what cannot be done. But it is an impossibility to list out everything that cannot be done in every given circumstances.
The debate was getting way out of control, and the younger member had the stronger argument rules-wise. Then the older participant used the phrase, "The rules don't say, I can't do ....", which made my right eye twitch. As I was thinking about it, I kinda just blurted out, "The rules don't say I can't slap you." Now I don't really condone physical altercations, but I was just being funny. And the older participant was getting a little confrontational. Everyone laughed, and it lightened the mood. Now engaged, I explained what I meant by that, and finally they just decided to roll off for it.
Didn't mean to ramble on, but for debating rules, I thought the situation might shed some light on some of the sensitive subjects.
i have a friend who does that constantly. he is always trying to take advantage of the system to in turn take advantage of the battle. drives me nuts and we have to stop the game many times so i can pull out the rules and prove him wrong. im very OCD about rules and ive read the book a bazillion times and i always ask online for questions i dont know the answer for.
my rule of thumb is this: if the book doesnt say you CAN do it, you cant do it.
ahh the old "it doesn't say I can't so I can" BS, one of the most widely used excuses to cheat, used mostly by veterans who "Claim" to have never lossed a game I've found
On the other hand, once something has permission it keeps that permission (within the limits specified) unless specifically excluded. The gate of infinity, for instance, may not have permission to pull units out of CC, but it doesn't necessarily need it. After all, it also doesn't have permission to pull units off the table if they're touching yellow terrain or if someone is looking at them. I'm not trying to reopen that debate of course!
EDIT: @Stella Cadente - That show rocks!
Put the box on the table by the window in the kitchen.
It all depends on the situation. Generally, I agree that if the rule doesn't say that you can do it, then you can't. However, there are some instances where the other way around makes sense also:
1) One time my opponent had 2 rhinos side-by-side with both fronts even. I then proceeded to ram both with my Land Raider. He argued that I couldn't do it, that the rules didn't say I could ram more than 1 vehicle. I said that it didn't say I couldn't either. My reasoning was if 1 unit can assault 2 or units, my tank should be able to ram more than 1 vehicle as well as long as they all touch the tank on impact.
2) Claiming objectives. From my own thread http://www.librarium-online.com/foru...bjectives.html (Unit cohesion & objectives) Can a unit claim more than 1 objective? If an objective is 12.01" away from another objective, I can stretch out my unit to be within 3" of each. While doing so what if I take casualties from shooting and remove the middle models, therefore breaking coherency. Now, it's "can a non-coherent unit claim more than 1 objective?" The book doesn't say a squad cannot claim more than 1 objectives. It also doesn't say a non-coherent unit is not able to claim objectives. My claim is that, though non-coherent, the unit is still a valid troop choice, and being within 3" of the objectives, it satisfies the basic requirements to claim an objective. And the book doesn't say that I can't do it.
You just have to take it on a case-by-case basis.
Actually you are right. Not just from interpretation either. The rules do state on page 69 at the very end of the last paragraph. "The rammer continues its move until it reaches its maximum move distance or another enemy (which it will tank shock or ram again!)"I then proceeded to ram both with my Land Raider. He argued that I couldn't do it, that the rules didn't say I could ram more than 1 vehicle. I said that it didn't say I couldn't either.
Originally Posted by pg 69, BRB Ramming:
This could only occur on the rare event that this happened on the last turn of the game mind you, as you are forced to move within coherency.
Notice the phrase is a double negative, therefore, creating a positive equivalent. Taking and actual rule and turning it into a double negative is still valid, however the rule was printed in the first place. Its the double negative rules, that people are implying as to create a rule that is not there that causes the issue.
Last edited by Xpyre35; April 15th, 2009 at 18:02.
Even that quote is not definitive. You can say that you're moving towards one vehicle but when you collide, you actually hit 2 vehicles since my Landraider has a bigger hull than the rhino and since both rhinos are side by side and both evenly lined up in the front. Like if you fire a plasma cannon at one unit, it hits directly, but because another unit is nearby, that unit also get affected. In my case, both rhinos made contact with me upon impact.Sorry but,
Originally Posted by pg 69, BRB Ramming:
"...moving top speed towards one enemy vehicle."Notice in the quote above it mentions vehicles. In my case, my tank came into contact with 2 vehicles. As per above, each vehicle suffers the consequences.Originally Posted by pg 69, BRB Ramming:
"Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal. However, if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows.
Each vehicle immediately suffers a hit against..."
Ref that thingy about one unit claiming two objectives: that's now covered by the updated FAQ for the rulebook. The unit can indeed do this, but the FAQ also suggests that it would be extremely difficult to pull this one off. I think one of the reasons why it would be difficult is being discussed here now: the problem of coherency being broken.
"Tau Commandment #226: Participants who use Velocity Trackers in the Tau Clay Pigeon Tournament will be disqualified"
The following paragraphs also state after a first ram is resolved and the vehicle explodes, you can then continue and hit remaining vehicles.
In any case, unless you've got a gridded play surface, where all the measurements are visible, the likelihood of exactly lining up a land raider to come across straight at two rhino's and precisely contact both of them simultaneously is very improbable. There are way too many factors to consider, the movement angle measured for each set of movement, the modelling of the LR itself ( are the tracks exactly parallel. ) Yes on paper your question, and subsequent rules discussion is very valid, however the practicality of the 0.0000001% this will ever happen is probably too small to waste time on it.
Still my point being, there is not really a valid way to interpret, "well there's not a rule that says I can't do X, so therefore I can?. The rules are still there. If you can't find a rule that say you CAN do something, then you can't.
Last edited by Xpyre35; April 15th, 2009 at 20:30.