Artillery Strength Values

[Gentlemanloser]

Artillery usually have a Strength Characteristic of '-'.

 

We know that a Characteristic of '-' is equivalent to '0';

 

 

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 '-')

 

We also know that if Strength is reduced to 0, you remove that model as a casualty.

 

 

If at any point, a model's Strength, Toughness, or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.

 

The question is, do we remove every Artillery unit the moment the game starts, as they have a Strength of zero?

 

This discussion seems to revolve around the 'reduced' clause of the rule.  Can you're Strength be reduced to zero, if it is already zero?

 

Edit;

 

Dictionary.com gives the following as one use of the word 'reduce';

 

 

to be turned into or made to equal something: All our difficulties reduce to financial problems.

 

Made equal to.

 

The rule could then be read as;

 

If at any point, a model's Strength, Toughness, or Wounds are made to equal 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.

 

Which would point to the removal of all Artillery units with a Strength of Zero...

[dswanick]

Dictionary.com gives the following as one use of the word 'reduce';

to be turned into or made to equal something: All our difficulties reduce to financial problems.

Uggh, that is the least legible color combo I've ever encountered.

Here's a link to the definition on Merriam-Webster also :

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reduce

It list the following six relevant definitions-

as a transitive verb

1. b (1) : to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number <reduce taxes> <reduce the likelihood of war>

5. b : to put down in written or printed form <reduce an agreement to writing>

9.a (1) : to change the denominations or form of without changing the value (2) : to construct a geometrical figure similar to but smaller than (a given figure)

b : to transpose from one form into another : convert

c : to change (an expression) to an equivalent but more fundamental expression <reduce a fraction>

as an intransitive verb

2. : to become converted or equated

By RAW, I would agree that Unit Type: Artillery models must be removed at the start of the very first player turn because their S value has been reduced to zero.

By RAI, I would say that GW would never intentionally writethe rule or intend for the rule to be interpreted this way.

By Common Sense, I would agree with my opponent that Unit Type: Artillery should have a waiver on the Zero Characteristic rule - unless my opponent was known to me to bend rules to his advantage. In that case, all bets are off and I would demand a strict RAW interpretation.

[Squirrelloid]

I would say the more obvious RAI interpretation is that no one writing statblocks actually understood '-' to be '0', but rather to be read as 'not applicable'.  The equivalency of '-' with '0' is therefore an error.

 

If we insist on arguing about the definition of reduced, let's go through the list dswanick has provided.

 

1b. is the obvious common sense intention, which would not involve starting with 0 meaning 'being reduced to zero'.  You could only be 'reduced to 0' under 1 if your value actually decreased.

 

5b. is obviously not what is intended, because reduce in that case cannot be used in the sense of 'reduce to zero', it has to be used as 'reduce to (form of writing)', as in to render a verbal exposition or agreement to a written form.  We are given a written form, thus it cannot be reduced from there.  (And zero is not a form of writing, the use of this definition would result in the rules claim about reduction to zero being nonsense).

 

9a1. is obviously not what is intended.  The denomination has not changed.  (It has no units at any point, so no change in units has occurred).

 

9a2. is obviously not what is intended, strength is not a geometric form.  (9a2 is also analogous to 1b if interpreted by analogy).

 

9b is obviously not what is intended, no conversion to another form has occurred.

 

9c is obviously not what is intended, its a specific mathematical meaning that only applies to fractions.  Strength is never a fraction, and 0 is not a fraction.

 

I have no idea what 2 is supposed to be in reference to.  But as the second meaning, it clearly has less priority than 1b.  I don't know anyone who uses 'reduce' to mean 'equated' in any naive sense, and it would be helpful to have an example from a dictionary of this sense being used in a way that means equated to understand what they mean by that.  I'm pretty sure it is *not* the mathematical use of equate, and the definition is probably about poetic use of 'reduce', but I cannot tell from the provided definition.  Sadly, the provided link has no examples for this entry, but it is the absolutely last definition (and therefor least common).

 

Dswanick has excluded the following, which also seem like obvious contenders:

 

3. to bring to a specified state or condition

7b. to lower in condition or status

8b. to diminish in value

 

8b notably seems like the obvious choice for what was intended (and is analogous to 1b, but specific to numerical values).  But none of these definitions being chosen would involve a statistic which started at zero being legitimately said to be 'reduced to zero'.  (Not even 3, which in order to bring it to that condition requires it to start at some other condition from which you brought it).

[Gentlemanloser]

Uggh, that is the least legible color combo I've ever encountered.

I didn't choose it, promise! It's exactly how it C&P'd for some reason. I decided to leave it becuase it unintentionally highlighted the part I wanted it too, and I'm lazy and wanted to go home from work.

If we insist on arguing about the definition of reduced, let's go through the list dswanick has provided.

Why?

They're all equally valid meanings of the word. And one of them fits our scenario.

It's that we should be focussing on.

You can't disprove an arguement that 'right' means the direction opposite to left, becuase 'right' also means correct.

[dswanick]

I would say the more obvious RAI interpretation is that no one writing statblocks actually understood '-' to be '0', but rather to be read as 'not applicable'.  The equivalency of '-' with '0' is therefore an error.

The problem being that you have no proof that the person writing all of the Characteristic blocks in question wasn't the same person who wrote the Zero-level Characteristic rules. That's an assumption on your part.

I agree that a Common Sense interpretation is that the writers didn't intend for Artillery to be removed from the game on startup. But I also think that the writers intend for a model with a S/T/W of zero be removed from the game, regardless of starting value. Therefore I think that the writers should have (and probably intended to) differentiated between '0' and '-', but they didn't. I stand by my RAW, RAI, and Common Sense above.

[Squirrelloid]

I would say the more obvious RAI interpretation is that no one writing statblocks actually understood '-' to be '0', but rather to be read as 'not applicable'. The equivalency of '-' with '0' is therefore an error.

The problem being that you have no proof that the person writing all of the Characteristic blocks in question wasn't the same person who wrote the Zero-level Characteristic rules. That's an assumption on your part.

I agree that a Common Sense interpretation is that the writers didn't intend for Artillery to be removed from the game on startup. But I also think that the writers intend for a model with a S/T/W of zero be removed from the game, regardless of starting value. Therefore I think that the writers should have (and probably intended to) differentiated between '0' and '-', but they didn't. I stand by my RAW, RAI, and Common Sense above.

Well, i disputed your RAW interpretation based on teh definitions of 'reduce', as laid out in detail above.

I agree with your RAI.

My common sense interpretation is what I presented as RAI, because '-' does carry a normal meaning when given in tables that was probably intended. I would note that the rule about '-' being the same as '0' is also in the 5th edition rulebook, verbatim, and was thus simply copy/pasted into 6th. It may be older than 5th, but I do not know where my 4th rulebook is to check. I would also note that artillery models were vehicles in 5th edition, and therefore didn't have this problem, so it is very clear the writers of the artillery rules are not the same writers as the -/0 equivalency rule (or if by some miracle the same individual wrote both, arguably did not recall having written the older rule).

If we insist on arguing about the definition of reduced, let's go through the list dswanick has provided.

Why?

They're all equally valid meanings of the word. And one of them fits our scenario.

It's that we should be focussing on.

You can't disprove an arguement that 'right' means the direction opposite to left, becuase 'right' also means correct.

If you actually read the rest of my post, you'll note I'm attempting to determine which definition of 'reduce' we should be looking at, and do reach a definite conclusion. (1b is acceptable, and also several others I listed which dswanick did not list, all of which are equivalent in sense for this use. Other definitions are clearly not what was intended).

[Gentlemanloser]

Quite clearly in your opinion.

When all meanings of the word are equally valid.

You cannot dismiss the 'make equal to' meaning of reduce just becuase it doesn't fit you arguement.

(Edit: In any game I played I would not force my opponent to remove his Thunderfire at the start of turn one becuase it has a zero Strength. That's just plain silly. And outright doushey. But it *is* the RAW.)

[dswanick]

@ Squirrelloid - I have a hypothetical question for you.

Suppose that in Codex: Next Great Thing (we'll throw them a bone and say Black Templars ) there is a Monstrous Creature (kinda like a Dreadknight, but way cooler). Let's suppose that this model has a Wounds Characteristic equal to the number of enemy Vehicles in your opponent's army. Now suppose that your opponent fields no Vehicles, does this MC immediately get removed from play because it's Wounds = 0 or can it never be removed from play because it's Wounds can never be reduced (0 -1 = 0 according to the Characteristic rules on pgs.2-3)?

I'll understand if you choose to decline to play the "hypothetical" game, as it has no bearing on the actual debate at hand. I'm just curious how you'd reason this one out.

[Gentlemanloser]

ZOMG! DS has leaks! ;)

 

Is it by chance going to be called the 'BlackKnight'?

 

(Yes totally off topic, sorry. ;) )

[Eddie Orlock]

... or can it never be removed from play because it's Wounds can never be reduced ...

I'll take a preliminary crack at this, I'd have to review it in detail, but I reckon that in the passages that talk about models taking wounds there's text that mentions specifically that if after an attack a model has no wounds remaining it's removed, and knowing gee-dubs inconsistency it may be worded differently. Zero Wounds at the outset may be functionally the same as one wound, but this would require a very technical analysis of that text.

 

Further, in the interests of pedantery, it may be removable with certain space wolf runic powers regardless of wound totals which may falsify the claim that it may never be removed from play.

 

Maybe I've tried to dodge the question?

[Raeven]

 

I would say the more obvious RAI interpretation is that no one writing statblocks actually understood '-' to be '0', but rather to be read as 'not applicable'.  The equivalency of '-' with '0' is therefore an error.

The problem being that you have no proof that the person writing all of the Characteristic blocks in question wasn't the same person who wrote the Zero-level Characteristic rules. That's an assumption on your part.

I agree that a Common Sense interpretation is that the writers didn't intend for Artillery to be removed from the game on startup. But I also think that the writers intend for a model with a S/T/W of zero be removed from the game, regardless of starting value. Therefore I think that the writers should have (and probably intended to) differentiated between '0' and '-', but they didn't. I stand by my RAW, RAI, and Common Sense above.

 

 

The problem with this argument is you are starting from an unsupportable position, that all possible definitions of a word are equally applicable in rules.  Squirrel showed very well that some definitions of the same word have absolutely no bearing on its intended use.   Because I do agree with you that words can have equally important meanings.  What I do not agree with is that all meanings are equal all the time.  When such questions arise, all we can do is look to other examples in the rules to support our position for the definition of a particular work within a particular rule. 

 

 There is no supporting evidence to suggest that a Str - means it has been "Made equal to".  There is plenty of evidence to support the definition, when Str is reduces to 0 means, lowered from a higher value.

 

Evidence piece 1.  Artillery.  The gun has no Str value.  It is obviously not meant to be removed from the board until it's supporting models are removed as well.  The rules state as much.

Evidence piece 2.  Vehicles.  No vehicle has a Str stat.  All vehicles are both models and units.  There is no rule that states a vehicle gets removed from the board from a reduces Str/T/W.

 

The argument that made equal to is the only possible definition for reduced has no support within the rules.  It still has the sticky widget of requiring the stat to have been something else.  You cannot make some number equal zero if it is already zero.  You lack the action necessary to make that a true sentence.

[Gentlemanloser]

Next, allocate an unsaved !(ound to the enemy model closest to

the firing unit. Reduce that model's Wounds by l. If the model is

reduced to 0 W'ounds, remove it as a casualry

Can't be reduced to zero, if it's already zero.

Evidence piece 2. Vehicles. No vehicle has a Str stat. All vehicles

are both models and units. There is no rule that states a vehicle gets

removed from the board from a reduces Str/T/W.

Already answered tha ton one of the threads. Vehicles have a diferent set of characterists to other 'units'. We're told what they have.

In addition, Walkers are specifically mentioned to have thier own set of stats, different to both units and other vehicles.

Walkers do have S.

Walkers are vehicles.

You cannot make some number equal zero if it is already zero.

How else *can* you? ;)

1 doesn't equal zero. The only number that equals zero is zero. To make another value equal zero, it either has to be zero already, or changed to, well, equal zero.

[Dam13n]

In an attempt to support RAI (as I'm don't really want to touch the multi-thread destroying RAW of this - it has been amusing to read though )

Reduce
1. To bring down, as in extent, amount, or degree; diminish.

BRB page 3
"If at any point a model's strength, toughness or wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty"

So it shouldn't be able to be removed from play that way, as it's strength cannot be reduced to 0.

- - - - -

Now as DSW is playing devils advocate, yes one could argue that a model with 0 wounds can never die. However, the chance of GW intentionally producing such a unit is also 0.

In order to take that further (for lols):

Dam13n the Invincible:
WS BS S T I A W Ld Sv
10 10 10 10 10 10 -1 10 2+/2++

Unit Type - "Made Chuck Norris Cry Like a Girl" (Character)

Unit Size - 1 (Unique)

Independent Character, Eternal Warrior, Feel no Pain (2+), Blessed by Fate, Pariah

Blessed by Fate - may re-roll all to-hit, to-wound, to-save and feel no pain rolls of 1. Also may never be affected by items of wargear that would require me to "be removed from play with no saves of any kind allowed".

Pariah - may never be affected by psychic powers, this extends to any squad I join.

Every time you actually manage wound me I just get more difficult to kill. Plus 2 fingers to Jaws and Warp Rift

"I am Invincible"

[Raeven]

@ Squirrelloid - I have a hypothetical question for you.

Suppose that in Codex: Next Great Thing (we'll throw them a bone and say Black Templars ) there is a Monstrous Creature (kinda like a Dreadknight, but way cooler). Let's suppose that this model has a Wounds Characteristic equal to the number of enemy Vehicles in your opponent's army. Now suppose that your opponent fields no Vehicles, does this MC immediately get removed from play because it's Wounds = 0 or can it never be removed from play because it's Wounds can never be reduced (0 -1 = 0 according to the Characteristic rules on pgs.2-3)?

I'll understand if you choose to decline to play the "hypothetical" game, as it has no bearing on the actual debate at hand. I'm just curious how you'd reason this one out.

As a Black Templar, I would have to say that it can never be put into play in situations that the enemy has no Vehicles, without a special exception rule to allow it.

This particular MC has a Wound characteristic of 1(n). If n is zero, then the model cannot be put into play without special rules because the lack of enemy vehicles acts as the vehicle to reduce the models wound count to 0.

Now, if the model had a Wound characteristic of 1(n+1), then it will always have a starting Wound value of 1 and this whole discussion is moot.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

If n is zero, then the model cannot be put into play without special
rules because the lack of enemy vehicles acts as the vehicle to reduce
the models wound count to 0.

 

Bingo. ;)

 

And this doesn't apply to Artillery Strength, why?

[Raeven]

You cannot make some number equal zero if it is already zero.

How else *can* you?

1 doesn't equal zero. The only number that equals zero is zero. To make another value equal zero, it either has to be zero already, or changed to, well, equal zero.

You can not MAKE something become something it already is. Make is a verb that requires an action to happen ...to MAKE the word's use proper in a sentence.

[Raeven]

If n is zero, then the model cannot be put into play without special

rules because the lack of enemy vehicles acts as the vehicle to reduce

the models wound count to 0.

Bingo.

And this doesn't apply to Artillery Strength, why?

Because the Artiller Str starts as Str -. If the stat is always -, then it cannot therefore be REDUCED TO -.

In the case of this mythological MC, it doesn't have a Wound value of W -. It has a Wound value of 1(n). Therefore it can be REDUCED TO 0, by there being a lack of vehicles in your opponents list.

[Gentlemanloser]

Dictionary.com. number 20;

 

 

to amount to; bring up the total to: Two plus two makes four. That makes an even dozen.

 

Zero plus Zero makes Zero.

 

Before play, the Gun's Strenght is made equal to zero.  How, or by who, is irrellevant.

 

When play starts, the Guns Strength has been made to equal Zero.  Therefore it is removed from play.

 

 

In the case of this mythological MC, it doesn't have a Wound value of
W -.  It has a Wound value of 1(n).  Therefore it can be REDUCED TO 0,
by there being a lack of vehicles in your opponents list.

 

So what was it reduced from?

[Raeven]

Dictionary.com. number 20;

 

 

to amount to; bring up the total to: Two plus two makes four. That makes an even dozen.

 

Zero plus Zero makes Zero.

 

Before play, the Gun's Strenght is made equal to zero.  How, or by who, is irrellevant.

 

When play starts, the Guns Strength has been made to equal Zero.  Therefore it is removed from play.

Negative ghost rider.  The guns Str is - which is 0.  It does not start out as a different state.  It starts as 0.  So your statement that it has been "made equal to" is false.

[Gentlemanloser]

OK, then the GW dev made the Gun Artillery Strength equal to zero, when they printed it's stats in the BRB.

 

What it was before, is again irrellevant.

 

The clause to remove as a casualty doesn't have a timeframe.  It doesn't have to happen in game.

 

 

If at any point

[Squirrelloid]

Ug, this is deteriorating rapidly.

 

(1) I am doubting the legitimacy of the definition of reduce being 'make equal to'. I can think of absolutely no sense in which the word is so used that makes sense for the p2/3 passage, and as the online dictionary gives no example, I have no idea what they are thinking of. I can certainly think of ways in which they could mean that which, while 'making equal to', do have the effect of diminishing the number. ('Reduce your carry-on weight to 10lbs' would be making it equal to 10lbs, but it is decreasing the actual quantity. This is why an example or better explanation would help, and the definition as it stands is pretty much useless).

 

I will also note that that definition is forced *intransitive*, whereas the use in the rulebook is transitive (taking the characteristics as objects), and thus for reasons of grammar that definition *cannot* apply.

 

(2) dswanick's hypothetical

As long as we're arguing hypothetically, the actual wounds characteristic is a variable, n. So the model has W n, where n = number of vehicles in opponents army.

 

Should I bring an army with no vehicles against it, I will have certainly resolved its wounds to zero. Is this a reduction? Well, the potential state of my army encompassed configurations wherein it would be more than zero, and by excluding such configurations from the actual I have reduced it to zero in some sense.

 

To make it "clearer", (by which I mean not, except for in terms of its strict logic), since we're dealing with counterfactuals, I invoke the copenhagen interpretation of quantum, and thus find the quantum superposition of my army has more than 0 vehicles (effectively an average across all the many worlds where I bring different army lists), and by resolving to a world where I bring a list with 0 vehicles I have reduced that value from the superposition to the actual by the act of making/fielding a specific army list. xP Effectively, the observation that I have 0 vehicles is a reduction from the expectation of how many vehicles I would bring.

 

The rules would certainly be clearer if they said 'a model with 0 wounds remaining is removed as a casualty', but the rules seem to assume that all models have at least one wound.

 

If I wanted to be *really* pedantic, I would note the wounds text actually uses 'reduce' intransitively ('reduced to zero wounds' rather than 'reduced wounds to zero', the latter of which, if it occurred, would precisely mirror the p2/3 text on attributes), and thus the 'made equal to' definition is grammatically available to use, and thus would apply in this situation but not the S - situation.

 

I might also note definition 9b seems to apply here (reduce as in transpose to another form). It has been transposed from a variable to a fixed number (0), and thus has been reduced to zero. This definition did not apply to the S- form as noted above (nothing changes form with S-).

 

Edit: If it had W-, then I would agree it was unkillable, but i think - = 0 is nonsense, since it contravenes both common sense in every situation it occurs, and it defies longstanding conventional use of '-' when the conventional use seems to obviously be what was intended.

[Gentlemanloser]

Sorry, might have been my bad C&P, but the example they gave was;

 

"All our difficulties reduce to financial problems"

[Squirrelloid]

It shouldn't need to be pointed out, but we can't assume that all definition of reduce hold at the same time either. Just like when I use the word 'right', then I either mean 'correct' or 'the opposite of left' (or some other available meaning), but not all of them at the same time. So we really do have to choose one definition.

 

1b, 7b, or 8b all seem like obvious candidates for the best choice. (Edit: And all carry identical sense in the relevant passages).

[infornography]

Quote

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 '-')

 

I think the problem here is a misreading of this rule.  This isn't saying that - is the same as 0.  It is saying that both can be used to indicate that "they have no ability whatsoever in that field".  0 has meanings beyond that.  - does not.  This rule does not make them equal, just says that each nomenclature can be used to indicate the same thing in this case.

 

By simply reading this rule correctly, the entire issue vanishes.

[Gentlemanloser]

If all a - equates to is  "they have no ability whatsoever in that field", what does that mean in game terms?

 

Where else is "they have no ability whatsoever in that field" referenced or use din the rules?  What happens if you have a model with W-?