Aegis Defense Line Emplacements-Deny the Witch?

[dswanick]

You know dswanick, you could at least admit the argument that because it has S- it is automatically removed is flawed, because otherwise it also applies to artillery.  That was my only point, which you keep dodging.

No, whether S- means that artillery would also be removed is a separate argument for the viability of artillery, which would deserve its own thread, but is irrelevant to this discussion. That there are multiple valid reasons why a Gun Emplacement can not be treated as a "Model", a "Unit", or as "Unit Type: Artillery", including that it would immediately be removed from play due to its Strength being reduced to zero, that it would also be removed from play due to being an Artillery unit with no crewmen, and that it would game several game abilities which no one argues they should have, is the point.

[Raeven]

 

You know dswanick, you could at least admit the argument that because it has S- it is automatically removed is flawed, because otherwise it also applies to artillery.  That was my only point, which you keep dodging.

No, whether S- means that artillery would also be removed is a separate argument for the viability of artillery, which would deserve its own thread, but is irrelevant to this discussion. That there are multiple valid reasons why a Gun Emplacement can not be treated as a "Model", a "Unit", or as "Unit Type: Artillery", including that it would immediately be removed from play due to its Strength being reduced to zero, that it would also be removed from play due to being an Artillery unit with no crewmen, and that it would game several game abilities which no one argues they should have, is the point.

 

 

Are vehicles models?

[dswanick]

 

 

 

 

You know dswanick, you could at least admit the argument that because it has S- it is automatically removed is flawed, because otherwise it also applies to artillery.  That was my only point, which you keep dodging.

No, whether S- means that artillery would also be removed is a separate argument for the viability of artillery, which would deserve its own thread, but is irrelevant to this discussion. That there are multiple valid reasons why a Gun Emplacement can not be treated as a "Model", a "Unit", or as "Unit Type: Artillery", including that it would immediately be removed from play due to its Strength being reduced to zero, that it would also be removed from play due to being an Artillery unit with no crewmen, and that it would game several game abilities which no one argues they should have, is the point.

 

 

 

 

Are vehicles models?

 

 

Vehicle models have their own rules regarding Characteristics(found on pg.70), seperate from the rules on pgs.2-3. Nowhere in those rules is a directive to remove the model from play if one of its Characteristics is reduced to zero. And the Vehicle Characteristics do not include Strength, Toughnes, or Wounds.

[Squirrelloid]

 

 

You know dswanick, you could at least admit the argument that because it has S- it is automatically removed is flawed, because otherwise it also applies to artillery. That was my only point, which you keep dodging.

No, whether S- means that artillery would also be removed is a separate argument for the viability of artillery, which would deserve its own thread, but is irrelevant to this discussion. That there are multiple valid reasons why a Gun Emplacement can not be treated as a "Model", a "Unit", or as "Unit Type: Artillery", including that it would immediately be removed from play due to its Strength being reduced to zero, that it would also be removed from play due to being an Artillery unit with no crewmen, and that it would game several game abilities which no one argues they should have, is the point.

It's irrelevant to this discussion that artillery are obviously models and obviously intended to not die as soon as they are placed on the table?

 

If S- should truly be treated as 'it dies immediately', then we have to apply that to all possible cases and see if that makes sense as a rule. If it doesn't, something in that rules interpretation is obviously flawed.

 

Edit: Or GW sucks at writing rules and should probably agree some RAI is needed.

[Gentlemanloser]

GW suck at writing rules.

 

I'll go make the Arty thread now.

[dswanick]

It's irrelevant to this discussion that artillery are obviously models and obviously intended to not die as soon as they are placed on the table?

Yes. The rules for Unit Type: Artillery are irrelevant, because a Gun Emplacement is not Unit Type: Artillery. And Terrain is not "obviously" models as defined by Pgs.2-3. The thing that is clear is that GW should have used some other term than "model" for the rules on those pages or referred to the piece of terrain some other way on pgs.105, 116, & 117 unless they wanted those "models" to have all the rules associated with models except those specifically exempted.

If S- should truly be treated as 'it dies immediately', then we have to apply that to all possible cases and see if that makes sense as a rule. If it doesn't, something in that rules interpretation is obviously flawed.

By RAW, I would agree that Unit Type: Artillery should be removed from the table at the start of the first game turn.

By RAI, I would agree that this can not possibly be the intent of the rules writers. I would also agree that it needs to be handled with Common Sense.

 

However, I would also argue by RAI and Common Sense that a Gun Emplacement does not get to make a Deny the Witch roll (because other pieces of Terrain don't get to), and that if you're going to allow C:GK's Warp Rift power to remove Terrain then C:SW's Jaws of the World Wolf should affect pieces of Terrain as well as Unit Type: Artillery.

After all, Unit Type: Artillery is usually comprised of about half models that would otherwise be classed as Unit Type: Infantry (affected by Jaws) and the other half are clearly ground-bound models with no reflexes nor the ability to save itself from a great chasm opening up under it. And having a Chasm undermine the foundation of a Building should at least count as a Glancing Hit, if not a full-on Penetrating Hit.

 

But, what you don't get to do when arguing RAI and Common Sense is cherry-pick the rules and affects you want to have benefit you and ignore the drawbacks you find inconvenient.

[Squirrelloid]

dswanick: never was trying to argue for it to get a DtW roll or otherwise.  I just wanted to weed out the obviously bad arguments.  We shouldn't reach a conclusion, even a legitimate one, because of a bad argument.  Ie, the 'it has S=0, so if its a model it automatically dies' is a flawed argument (because of how that also affects artillery, which are obviously models) and should be discarded.

 

(More directly on topic: I see nothing wrong with allowing JotW to remove, without DtW roll, a gun emplacement, as a reasonable common sense determination.  I have tried to avoid weighing in specifically on what the RAW says about that question because I do not own C:SW and cannot read JotW).

[dswanick]

dswanick: never was trying to argue for it to get a DtW roll or otherwise. I just wanted to weed out the obviously bad arguments. We shouldn't reach a conclusion, even a legitimate one, because of a bad argument. Ie, the 'it has S=0, so if its a model it automatically dies' is a flawed argument (because of how that also affects artillery, which are obviously models) and should be discarded.

It's only a "bad argument" if I were to then go on to argue that it shouldn't be consistently applied across all relevant instances.

If I were to say "Gun Emplacemets dies because their S = 0, but Artillery don't" then my argument would be invalid as I am supplying a case where the rule S = 0 = die does not hold.

So long as I'm saying "Gun Emplacements, Artillery, and any other model on the board with a S = 0 die because their S = 0", then my argument is consistent and valid unless and until someone can find a case where such does not hold.

But I'm heartened to know that in a real-world game, you and I could come to a reasonable interpretation of the situation.

[infornography]

One thing I am wondering, since I haven't had a chance to really dig into my rulebook to find it, what is the basis for the idea that S- is the same thing as S0?  Is there something in the rulebook that spells this out clearly?  I had always just assumed that S- just meant the same thing as N/A, not applicable. 

[Gentlemanloser]

From the BRB;

 

 

Some creatures have been given a 0 for certain characteristics, which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that field (the same is also occasionally represented by a
'-').

[infornography]

I do not think that means what you think it means, and I have rebutted it in the thread dedicated to this topic.  I will try to keep my actual responses there.  Thank you though.