Artillery Strength Values

[dswanick]

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.

 

 

An interesting spin on the notion. But what about this:

0 = no ability

- = no ability

therefore

0 = no ability = -

therefore

- = 0

[infornography]

There is no model with W- so that is silly supposition, but assuming there were I would say it is some piece of terrain that makes use of some other part of the statline but is unkillable by means of wound removal. 

 

W- would indicate that wounds are not an applicable stat and if that is the case it means they cannot be killed by removing wounds.  I guess vehicles and buildings effectively have W- but it isn't necessary because that is not a standard part of their statline.

 

a stat of - just means it has no ability in that field.  it cannot roll a roll that demands a test of that stat, it cannot be hurt through means that affect that stat.  It is irrelevant to it's existence.  Artillery is a prime example.  Artillery pieces do not have strength.  They do not punch things, struggle out of binds, lift things, or move autonomously.  Strength is of no importance to how they function.  Thus S-.  The rules could stand to be a little clearer, but I never got the interpretation of that rule that so many of you seem to have gotten.

[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.

 

An interesting spin on the notion. But what about this:

0 = no ability

- = no ability

therefore

0 = no ability = -

therefore

- = 0

The problem with this is that

0 = no ability

is false logic

 

0 follows the rules of no ability as well as the rules regarding a numerical stat.

 

If artillery had strength 0 I would agree that they should be removed at the start of the game.  They do not.  They have S-.  Stats of - only follow the no ability rule.  Not the numerical stat rule.

 

does that make sense?

[dswanick]

does that make sense?

That makes sense. I don't agree with it, but I understand where you're coming from.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

 stat of - just means it has no ability in that field.  it cannot roll a roll that demands a test of that stat, it cannot be hurt through means that affect that stat.  It is irrelevant to it's existence.

 

 

Stats of - only follow the no ability rule.

 

What no ability rule?  Where is this mentioned, and what does it involve?

[infornography]

This is the no ability rule we are referring to.
 

 

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 '-')

[Gentlemanloser]

But what does that sentence mean? How does it interact with the rules of the game?  It's not referenced anywhere else, and we're rather left to our own devices to interpret and implement it.

 

If it even is a rule.

 

Later on in that section, we're given the game effects of what you can't do with zero level stats.  BS0 can never shoot, ever.

 

But what about BS-?  If it doesn't equal BS0, that what effect does it have?

[dswanick]

This is the no ability rule we are referring to.

 

 

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 '-')

See, the problem with your statement is that you're not referring to a "no ability" rule. You're quoting the first line of the "Zero-level Characteristic rule", which then goes on to tell you what game effects a Zero-level Characteristic has. Including a Zero-level in Strength, Toughness, and Wounds.

[infornography]

Yes, I just got back from work and am looking this over in more detail in the book.  I guess I gave GW too much benefit of the doubt, that is straight up pants on head stupid.  The amount of cases that these rules do not cover is astounding.

 

For instance unless I am missing something it completely fails to say at all what happens when something with a zero level characteristic is called upon to test on that characteristic aside from a specific mention of armor. 

 

Though, I do think this is easily resolved by simply treating - as distinct from 0.  You just have to make a few uncomfortable assumptions, such that only 0's matter for the bottom portion of it and - get the rest of it.  Doesn't resolve all of their ... ommisions but it covers enough that the game can be played with few show stoppers.

[Teetengee]

 

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.

 

An interesting spin on the notion. But what about this:

0 = no ability

- = no ability

therefore

0 = no ability = -

therefore

- = 0

There is a flaw in this argument. The "is a subset of" operator is not the same as the equal sign, it does not follow the transitive property. Models with the - and the 0 in their statlines are both subsets of the set of models that have no ability whatsoever in a category, this does not mean that they are subsets of each other (and therefore equal).

[dswanick]

There is a flaw in this argument. The "is a subset of" operator is not the same as the equal sign, it does not follow the transitive property. Models with the - and the 0 in their statlines are both subsets of the set of models that have no ability whatsoever in a category, this does not mean that they are subsets of each other (and therefore equal).

True enough, however there is no basis in the rules to differentiate the subset of 0 from the subset of -. - and 0 are defined (and equated) by the Zero-level Characteristic rules on pg.3. (see inforn's post above yours).

[Spinsanity]

Pfft, figures... I was sure I had flagged the whole board as read earlier today and then saw a new post in here and decided to chime in before the thread derailed once again, only to realize afterwards I had replied to an old post... Disregard my previous post please!

[DarkGuard]

The board lost a lot of stuff in a server crash, which is why the most recent replies on this thread are gone, and why you would have been replying to an older post.

[Spinsanity]

I know, I was sure I had reset my 'new post' flags after the crash and thought the conversation had begun anew here...

 

Since the conversation seems to have died down prior to and since the crash, I'll let it sit unless/until someone else decides to revive it.