Furioso Librarian

[captain maleck]

Sorry mate, but I think your being awkward.

 

WoS, even though it is a psychic power, still counts as a form of it's own motion because it is cast on itself.

 

Similarly, just because WoS allow it to move like jump infantry, doesn't mean it is one. It is still a machine, with hydraulics pipes, etc.

 

Captain Maleck

 

 

 

For the Emperor and Sanguinius!!!!!

[BOBMAKENZIE]

thing is if its immobilised it cant assault anywa so you are possibly just getting closer to melta range so i would letan opponent try it if they really wanted, but id never play it that it can fly when immobilised.

surely noone is contesting that using wings would allow assault as well?

 

 

 

The dread still wouldnt be able to assault but who really cares?

 

 

HOWEVER I think I might be wrong on that. Wings lasts until the end of the Turn which is interesting.

 

 

 

If we would all take a moment to read the rules again (Or I suppose for the first time...) :P .

 

"It allows the librarian to move as if he had a jump pack."

 

"Models with Jump packs are Jump Infantry.."

 

 

So I repeat. If he is Jump infantry for Movement and Jump Infantry cannot be Immobilized, What is stopping him from Moving? His Immobilization is the general trend I see here. But he is no longer a dread for movement so how can it stop his movement?

[Brother Nathan]

damm i shouldnt have said that, lol... ok i really cant see it moving at al.... :P

[Redfinger]

If we would all take a moment to read the rules again (Or I suppose for the first time...) :) .

 

"It allows the librarian to move as if he had a jump pack."

 

"Models with Jump packs are Jump Infantry.."

 

 

So I repeat. If he is Jump infantry for Movement and Jump Infantry cannot be Immobilized, What is stopping him from Moving? His Immobilization is the general trend I see here. But he is no longer a dread for movement so how can it stop his movement?

 

 

Jump infantry arent imobilized there are nuetralized, rendered ineefective and removed from play, not "destroyed, just removed from play, therfore, it can no longer move, a troop does not have "facets" to its opperation status, it is or it is'nt, a vehicle does have these facets to it's operational status, ergo, if the movement facet has been removed....no movement.

[JamesI]

If I recall correctly, the White Dwarf bat rep is no help (not that a bat rep should ever be used in a rules discussion) as the Libby dread did not have Wings as a power.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Oh well so much for that one.

 

G :)

[Decoy]

If we would all take a moment to read the rules again (Or I suppose for the first time...) :jaw: .

 

"It allows the librarian to move as if he had a jump pack."

 

"Models with Jump packs are Jump Infantry.."

 

The Dread may move as if he had a Jump Pack. Dread may move as if he had a Jump Pack: Check

 

Models with Jump Packs are Jump Infantry. Does the Dread have a Jump Pack? No. He may move as if he had a Jump Pack. The very wording of the rule implies that he does not, in any way, shape, or form, HAVE a Jump Pack, meaning he is no longer (nor ever was) Jump Infantry.

 

However, let's humor the skeptics for a bit. Even if the Dread DID have a Jump Pack, the Dread in question is still immobilized. The Dread is a vehicle, and follows the rules for vehicles. The rules for vehicles fairly clearly state that an immobilized vehicle -may not- move. It doesn't say "It may move under special circumstances", "It may move with other rules", hell, it doesn't even say "It may move when shaken in the general direction of the enemy by a violent earthquake." The thing about 40K is that it is a permissive rulesset: If the rules say you can do something, you can. If the rules say you CAN'T do something, you can't. If the rules don't say anything at all... And this is the key for a permissive rules set... You can't do it. The rules tell you what you can do.

 

To bring it back to the point, the rules state that the Dread may move as if it had a Jump Pack.

 

Therefore, it may move -and only move- (Here's that pesky Permissive bit again) as if it had a Jump Pack. It does not spontaneously become Jump Infantry because the rules don't say it does. It does not spontaneously become a non-vehicle, because the rules don't say that it does.

 

So, to summarize: The rules tell you that the Dread can't move, -period-. It does not have a jump pack, it is not jump infantry, and if you try to do that while it's immobilized, your thousand-year-old Librarian of Ubery Goodness will explode on landing because the crippled husks of what once were legs will ram up into the sarcophagus, breach the power core of the machine, and explode it in a blistering hail of molten lead that will only potentially hurt your own men, because your enemy saw the stupid maneuver, had a good laugh, and took cover like sane people would.

 

It doesn't work.

 

 

So I repeat. If he is Jump infantry for Movement and Jump Infantry cannot be Immobilized, What is stopping him from Moving? His Immobilization is the general trend I see here. But he is no longer a dread for movement so how can it stop his movement

 

Where, in this permissive set of rules, have you found this miraculous bit about "When Wings of Sang is cast, if it was cast on a Dread, he ceases to be a Dread for purposes of movement and instead moves as if he had a Jump Pack"? I'll spare you the look, just in case you're digging for your codex: It ain't there. Even if he -did- lose the Dread status -FOR MOVEMENT-, the model, the Dreadnaught, would still be a Dreadnaught, which is a Vehicle, which still follows all Vehicle rules. There is literally nothing in the game that removes "Vehicle" status from a model, as you're suggesting. Just because a Dread can move as if it had a Jump Pack does not mean that it is no longer a Dread (for movement or any other purpose.)

 

 

 

Editted to address the second quote.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

Well hes moving as if he had a jump pack. Units with Jump Packs are Jump Infantry. There are no rules for how to move with jump pack short of referencing Jump Infantry.

 

Moves like Jump Pack.

Jump Pack = Jump Infantry.

Therefore moves like Jump Infantry.

Jump Infantry cannot be immobilized there is no such thing. You cant reference the vehicle section for none vehicle movement last I checked.

 

 

Its very similar to PotMS where PotMS permits you to fire some weapons some of the time but not all the time even with things that are worded Identically apparently.

 

 

The long and short of it is, it appears, that we are of a difference of opinion on the interpretation of what exactly "Moves like jump infantry" means. To me that attaches all the little doodads and thing-a-ma-jigs that goes along there with because I think it is the simplest way to do it. WHen he casts wings for the purposes of movement he is Jump Infantry. That includes falling back, etc. You seem to think we just gain the movespeed which I dont personnally think is correct.

[Mezkh]

Well hes moving as if he had a jump pack. Units with Jump Packs are Jump Infantry. There are no rules for how to move with jump pack short of referencing Jump Infantry.

 

Moves like Jump Pack.

Jump Pack = Jump Infantry.

Therefore moves like Jump Infantry.

Jump Infantry cannot be immobilized there is no such thing. You cant reference the vehicle section for none vehicle movement last I checked.

 

 

Its very similar to PotMS where PotMS permits you to fire some weapons some of the time but not all the time even with things that are worded Identically apparently.

 

 

The long and short of it is, it appears, that we are of a difference of opinion on the interpretation of what exactly "Moves like jump infantry" means. To me that attaches all the little doodads and thing-a-ma-jigs that goes along there with because I think it is the simplest way to do it. WHen he casts wings for the purposes of movement he is Jump Infantry. That includes falling back, etc. You seem to think we just gain the movespeed which I dont personnally think is correct.

 

Your 'logic' hurts my brain.

 

Walkers, a vehicle subset, move like infantry. Can infantry get immobilized? Nooooooo. Can Walkers get immobilized? Yessssss.

 

These are the two rule functions at play for the walker, being a subset of the vehicle class.

 

One is how it moves. This could be like infantry, like jump infantry, a bike, a jetbike, a beast, or like John Travolta.

The second rule function is can it move. Is it stunned or immobilized? Then it may not make a move.

 

NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET.

[Decoy]

Well hes moving as if he had a jump pack. Units with Jump Packs are Jump Infantry. There are no rules for how to move with jump pack short of referencing Jump Infantry.

 

Moves like Jump Pack.

Jump Pack = Jump Infantry.

Therefore moves like Jump Infantry.

Jump Infantry cannot be immobilized there is no such thing. You cant reference the vehicle section for none vehicle movement last I checked.

 

 

Its very similar to PotMS where PotMS permits you to fire some weapons some of the time but not all the time even with things that are worded Identically apparently.

 

 

The long and short of it is, it appears, that we are of a difference of opinion on the interpretation of what exactly "Moves like jump infantry" means. To me that attaches all the little doodads and thing-a-ma-jigs that goes along there with because I think it is the simplest way to do it. WHen he casts wings for the purposes of movement he is Jump Infantry. That includes falling back, etc. You seem to think we just gain the movespeed which I dont personnally think is correct.

 

 

That's just the thing, BOB. There is literally no wiggle-room for what "Moves like Jump Infantry" can mean. It means -exactly- what it says: It moves like Jump Infantry. It does NOTHING else. It allows the model in question to move as if it were Jump Infantry, while still following all other rules that apply to the model. I concede that because of the wording of the power, his movement is affected in regards to falling back, but that's covered under "Moves like Jump Infantry." There is no conflict there. Your statement in regards to "I think it is the simplest way to do it", however, holds no bearing on a rules discussion: The rules say what we can do. We cannot change it as we see fit just because it "Makes sense" or (especially) because it's "Simple". I mean no snark there: The rules say what we can do, and what we cannot do. If the rules don't say we -can- do it, then we -can't-. That's the problem.

 

 

Okay. As a mental exercise, I'm going to ask you to do something for me.

 

Where, ANYWHERE, in the rules, does it state that the Dreadnaught -HAS- a Jump Pack? Note my emphasis: The rule must state that the Dread actually HAS a Jump Pack, because if it doesn't HAVE a jump pack for all intents and purposes (not just movement), it is not Jump Infantry.

 

If the Dread doesn't have a Jump Pack, then it is not Jump Infantry. If you can find a rule where it states that the Dread acquires an actual Jump Pack, I'll concede the point. However, if you can't find that rule, everything you're saying goes out the window in a permissive rules-set.

 

(I'd give a better response but I have a few papers to write... though that one should keep you busy for a while.)

[BOBMAKENZIE]

Im sorry I rather poorly worded my last post.

 

"It allows the librarian to move as if he had a jump pack."

&

"Models with Jump packs are Jump Infantry.."

 

 

Can be rewritten as

 

"it allows the librarian to move as if he were Jump Infantry."

 

If he is moving as if he were Jump Infantry he should be following the movement rules for Jump Infantry. Should he not? As I understand it, Immobilized is a movement rule relating to vehicles. If he is moving as Jump Infantry unit though I think thats a fair bit different. I don't have my rulebooks on me but I would posit that the Immobilized rules are something like... 'A vehicle that is immobilized may not move.' Or perhaps 'An immobilized vehicle may not move.' correct (I certainly hope so)? Now when Mr. Furioso casts Wings he now moves as if he were a jump infantry. And being immobilized is not a part of being Jump Infantry.

 

The fact that we are relating back to a rule that is Vehicle Centric is my issue. In much the same way that they had to FAQ a Tyrant Joining a unit of Tyrant guard as an IC, it produced unwanted side effects. Or for example the Land Raider PotMSing through smoke launchers. Add to this the fact that there is a perfectly good reason fluffwise why it should work (and you people that argue that the dread should blow up upon landing, thats BS its psychic wings, last time I checked birds were pretty nimble little things and a Dread doesent just blow up at the drop of a hat. In the end I dont really agree with it but I can accept that if it was an unintentional consequence it might need to be changed/FAQed. But as for the moment if you cant show me anything beyond a bunch of rules that argue for vehicle rules being applied to my Jump Infantry movement I will stick to my stubborn guns thank you.

 

(The only thing so far that makes me remotely skeptical of my thinking is that models with Wings can still board transports but I believe they are worded somewhat differently.)

[DerekLee688]

If it can't move then it can't move as jump infantry. The power doen't even turn the dread into jump infantry, it just gives an alternative to walking.

[Decoy]

Im sorry I rather poorly worded my last post.

 

"It allows the librarian to move as if he had a jump pack."

&

"Models with Jump packs are Jump Infantry.."

 

 

Can be rewritten as

 

"it allows the librarian to move as if he were Jump Infantry."

 

No. It can't. The rule specifically states that the Librarian can move as if he had a Jump Pack. There are rules for how you move as if you had a Jump Pack, and there are rules for when you actually HAVE a Jump Pack. They are two completely different rules sets. Jump Packs have their own rules, Jump Infantry has their own rules. The two are NOT interchangeable or rewritable.

 

If he is moving as if he were Jump Infantry he should be following the movement rules for Jump Infantry. Should he not?

 

Yes, he should. Unfortunately, he's not Jump Infantry: He's moving as if he had a Jump Pack. He is still not Jump Infantry, since no ability makes him Jump Infantry.

 

 

As I understand it, Immobilized is a movement rule relating to vehicles. If he is moving as Jump Infantry unit though I think thats a fair bit different. I don't have my rulebooks on me but I would posit that the Immobilized rules are something like... 'A vehicle that is immobilized may not move.' Or perhaps 'An immobilized vehicle may not move.' correct (I certainly hope so)? Now when Mr. Furioso casts Wings he now moves as if he were a jump infantry. And being immobilized is not a part of being Jump Infantry.

 

You're right. Being Immobilized is not a part of being Jump Infantry. However, as shown above, the Dread is still not Jump Infantry. Moreover, even if he moved as Jump Infantry (as you apparently believe), he is still a vehicle. Is he a vehicle? Yes. Is he immobilized? Yes. Is he Jump Infantry? According to you, yes. HE IS STILL A VEHICLE. He can still not move. Period.

 

 

The fact that we are relating back to a rule that is Vehicle Centric is my issue. In much the same way that they had to FAQ a Tyrant Joining a unit of Tyrant guard as an IC, it produced unwanted side effects. Or for example the Land Raider PotMSing through smoke launchers. Add to this the fact that there is a perfectly good reason fluffwise why it should work (and you people that argue that the dread should blow up upon landing, thats BS its psychic wings, last time I checked birds were pretty nimble little things and a Dread doesent just blow up at the drop of a hat. In the end I dont really agree with it but I can accept that if it was an unintentional consequence it might need to be changed/FAQed.

 

FAQs are not rule changes, they are rule interpretations. They are not binding. ERRATA are binding, FAQS are just rules interpretations and only vaguely assist in rule disputes in tournaments. Moreover, it has very little bearing here; FAQs from one army do not carry to another. The FAQs that you reference are legitimate, as there was at least some mild confusion among a significant number of players.

 

Fluff holds no bearing on rules. If a player has to resort to "But the fluff should allow it", then they have no basis in the rules and there's a good chance they're wrong.

 

There is no need for an FAQ about this particular bit. Any player with even a basic grasp of elementary linguistics can understand the rudimentary logical hop needed here. If something can't move, it can't move, no matter what it is. If red is red, "the sky is blue" means "the sky is blue", then "It can't move" means "It can't move." There is no middle ground to be had here, and anything less is grasping at straws or trying to play for advantage.

 

 

But as for the moment if you cant show me anything beyond a bunch of rules that argue for vehicle rules being applied to my Jump Infantry movement I will stick to my stubborn guns thank you.

 

That's great. You can stick by your stubborn guns, and your stubborn guns will still be entirely wrong. I guess if you can live with that, more power to you. Good luck finding a game against anything less than a self-respecting, half-intelligent opponent.

 

 

(The only thing so far that makes me remotely skeptical of my thinking is that models with Wings can still board transports but I believe they are worded somewhat differently.)

 

That's because THEY AREN'T JUMP INFANTRY. They don't have Jump Packs. They may move, following Movement rules, as if they did have a Jump Pack, with none of the other restrictions. WoS models do not spontaneously generate magical Jump Packs stopping them from boarding vehicles, nor do they follow Jump Infantry rules of not boarding a vehicle. Nine Hells man, if nothing else will convince you, maybe that would.

 

Ignoring the rules because you want it to be different doesn't make the game better, it just makes you an ass and a cheater that people will refuse to play. That's kind of counter intuitive to the whole "playing the game" thing, don't you think?

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

This debate can't really be resolved logically, as you could find ways to make either scenario work within the given framework and then even in regards to 'Intended' rules there is no clear answer. You guys can keep fighting forever (as I'm sure you will, this being the internet where folks really dig in).

 

In all cases like this, me personally, I lean to the side that will least benefit me whenever something is questionable. If I'm playing against one of my close friends I'll try it the other way, or even roll-off if he doesn't particularly sound convinced... and vice versa... especially if it sounds thematic and/or cinematic, or just crazy and fun, in my group we let that stuff go.

[Emperors Immortals]

I play as if i am immobilised, by the rules.

 

I CANNOT accept it from a fluff basis however, as psychic powers should be more then enough to get that brick flying.

 

As an aside, are there flying sarcophagie all around the fortress?

[Brother Nathan]

if thats the case then why build them with legs? answer to be perminately connected to the warp increases the risk to the libarian, if he becomes possesed... bad things happen...very bad things...shudder. although imagine the irony if you try to cast wings and roll two 1's and immobilise yourself when it glances you... what happens then?

[JamesI]

From a fluff perspective, I agree with Bob. Fluffwise, it makes perfect sense for the dread to move despite a leg blown off due to the wings.

 

Rules I disagree.

 

And this thread is getting pretty circular. Lets see if we can get some new information rather than rehash the same things over and over or this thread (like previous Wings/Dread threads) will go away.

[Brother Weasel]

That's just the thing, BOB. There is literally no wiggle-room

 

 

that alone should tell you your answer.. if you need Wiggle room, it's probably not the correct interpitation. Most people who make rules don't put in rules wit "Wiggle Room"

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

As I understand it, Immobilized is a movement rule relating to vehicles.

 

That was the basis of your point. And I will tell you: Immobilized is not a movement rule relating to vehicles.

It is a damage result relating to vehicles that specifically prohibits any movement by the vehicle.

 

And that's why I believe it supercedes the ability to move as if it had a jump pack. Because the damage result simply says it cannot.

 

Example:

Dreadnoughts in assault act like they are infantry, not vehicles. They have a number of attacks and can roll them in assault. Yet, if both the Blood Fists on a Furioso are Weapon Destroyed the Dreadnought can no longer attack in Assault because it lost its weapons. The ability to assault was removed together with the Damage Result.

Same logic goes to Movement (in any form) and the Immobilized damage result.

 

And yes, I am in the camp that you cannot drag an immobilized tank towards a Dreadnought with a Magna Grapple. No matter how illogical that is fluff wise, the current rules of the weapon do not allow it. (Please Errata it though GW!)

[BOBMAKENZIE]

Example:

Dreadnoughts in assault act like they are infantry, not vehicles. They have a number of attacks and can roll them in assault. Yet, if both the Blood Fists on a Furioso are Weapon Destroyed the Dreadnought can no longer attack in Assault because it lost its weapons. The ability to assault was removed together with the Damage Result.

 

Thats...not how that works AFAIK...

[Leonaides]

but a dread that's lost both arms can still assault... A better point might be that an immob dread can still charge since immob only counts for movement phase and charging is obviously not movement, ref heroic intervention and deep strike rules, or deep strike preventing further movement but you could still run. All obviously foolish ideas to try and cheese you way into an advantage.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

or deep strike preventing further movement but you could still run. All obviously foolish ideas to try and cheese you way into an advantage.

 

You can run...and if you have a not assaulting assault move (Jetpacks and Warpspiders basically) you can also use that after Deep Striking.

[WarpWalker]

Brother-Captain Devlonir-

And yes, I am in the camp that you cannot drag an immobilized tank towards a Dreadnought with a Magna Grapple.

No matter how illogical that is fluff wise, the current rules of the weapon do not allow it. (Please Errata it though GW!)

 

What, did the rhino put it's emergency brake on? :fakenopic:

 

I still can't see how mechanically/game-wise this wouldn't work? Could I just drag myself to the rhino then? Seeing how I may still be mobile. Just playing devil's advocate. :D

 

Also in days of old...my gaming group would still allow an armless dread to fight in CC. It could still kick, if it wasn't immobile. The downside is it wouldn't have

all it's attacks, just 1.

[Brother Theophantus]

Example:

Dreadnoughts in assault act like they are infantry, not vehicles. They have a number of attacks and can roll them in assault. Yet, if both the Blood Fists on a Furioso are Weapon Destroyed the Dreadnought can no longer attack in Assault because it lost its weapons. The ability to assault was removed together with the Damage Result.

 

Thats...not how that works AFAIK...

 

This.

 

A dread that has lost one ccw still strikes at str 10 with the other arm without the bonus attack granted by the additional ccw. If it loses both arms it strikes at str 6 because it no longer has a dread ccw to boost it to str 10. It still gets to attack.

[WarpWalker]

Brother Theo is right. It's base str. is 6 and would use it's base attack in CC.