PDA

View Full Version : Steam Tank RAW Haw Haw Haw



GodHead
14-03-2008, 18:55
Just saw this gem on Warhammer.org.uk, and had to bring it over here.

By RAW, and according to Alessio's comments regarding the "soon to be released":rolleyes: FAQ, the Steam tank will not give up half points victory points when reduced to half wounds or less, because it is a War Machine.

Part and parcel of the War Machine rules is that an enemy can spike uncrewed War Machines they finish combat with.

As the Steam Tank has no crew ("A war machine comprises the machine plus a crew, which usually consists of two to four crewmen. The crew are based separately, unlike the model of a chariot or a ridden monster..." p.84 rulebook) enemies will be able to spike it left and right.

Let's see Alessio "no changes to rules as written even if we cock it up" Cavatore squirm his way out of this one!

Abhorash
14-03-2008, 19:01
Soo... Only way to get points from steam tanks is annihilate it compleatly?

GodHead
14-03-2008, 19:04
Yes. That's long been established that because the Steam Tank is a War Machine, it does not give up 50% victory points when reduced to half wounds. This has been cited by Alessio as an example of rules that he won't change in the FAQs even though it's stupid and an obvious mistake.

The flip side of this is that the Steam Tank can be immediately spiked and annihilated by any unit that gets into combat with it, because it's a War Machine without crew. It has no crew, because crew are defined on page 84 as being on a separate base. The Stank has none.

So no half points at half wounds, ok sure, but good luck not giving up full points when I spike that bugger.

Lordsaradain
14-03-2008, 19:15
I'm glad I havent bought a Stank for my empire...

GodHead
14-03-2008, 19:23
I just got 2 :(
I think i will shelve that project for a while...

Necronoxz
14-03-2008, 20:28
I dont get the point... :(

when a steam tank comes in to combat you have all the VP for it or something?

SuperBeast
14-03-2008, 20:33
Not exactly; steamtanks can't fight in close combat, essentially, RAW.
They are warmachines (hence the no 50% VP at 1/2 strength), but as they have no separate crew you can 'spike' it (i.e. remove it from the game) just by being in base contact with it...
It's off the board, you get full VP's for it... :)
:evilgrin:

Necronoxz
14-03-2008, 20:37
so if you get in combat with a steam tank it's removed and destroyed becouse it has none crew members?

But in the army book stands it have 1 engineer commander on the tank...

GodHead
14-03-2008, 20:45
But that doesn't count for crew. Note the rule I quoted from page 84 of the rulebook which clearly defines crew as being on separate bases, not part of the same model.

Mercules
14-03-2008, 20:51
so if you get in combat with a steam tank it's removed and destroyed becouse it has none crew members?

But in the army book stands it have 1 engineer commander on the tank...

I see I really need to update my Empire book or swipe a current one from a friendly Empire player for a bit and scan through the Steam Tank rules again.

Does anyone else think this thing should be errated to state it is a monster and not a war machine and follow THOSE rules?

Mercules
14-03-2008, 20:52
But that doesn't count for crew. Note the rule I quoted from page 84 of the rulebook which clearly defines crew as being on separate bases, not part of the same model.

Army books override BRB rules. If the Empire book says he is a crew, then he is a crew.

Necronoxz
14-03-2008, 21:14
`that is the point
the steam tank is equiped with a main cannon and steam guns AND the engineer commander carries a repeated pistol

there is no line that say its crew :S ....

Mercules
14-03-2008, 21:37
`that is the point
the steam tank is equiped with a main cannon and steam guns AND the engineer commander carries a repeated pistol

there is no line that say its crew :S ....

Notice the "if" in my statement. :D

That is why I need to pick up a current Empire book as mine is outdated. I wish GW sold PDF versions of their books like some game companies.

GodHead
14-03-2008, 21:37
Yes, that is the crux of the "problem." Note that I don't see it as a particularly bad problem as all it does is call attention to how stupid Alessio's stance on not correcting design mistakes is. Hopefully this attention can get him to rethink that decision.

Making it a monster would have serious repercussions for the several spells and magic items which effect monsters.

Keep it a War Machine, but "note otherwise" that for VP and "spiking" purposes it counts as a regular unit.

Reinnon
14-03-2008, 22:04
This is an good example of why RaW has to be treated with some common sense.

It strikes me as breaking the golden rule if you exploit this argument, it strikes me as utterly going against the point of the game if the Stank gets detroyed as soon as it is charged/in contact with the enemy.

Its asking for a rulebook in the face, yes we can follow RaW - but we can follow it senisbly.

GodHead
14-03-2008, 22:07
This is an good example of why RaW has to be treated with some common sense.

It strikes me as breaking the golden rule if you exploit this argument, it strikes me as utterly going against the point of the game if the Stank gets detroyed as soon as it is charged/in contact with the enemy.

Its asking for a rulebook in the face, yes we can follow RaW - but we can follow it senisbly.

Are you saying that the Empire player not giving up half points isn't asking for a rulebook in the face and hasn't been asking for a rulebook in the face for months now?

Sorry, but if he's going to argue the benefit from being a war machine then I will argue the detriment. And as the grounds for both is EXACTLY the same line in the rules, too bad so sad for Mr. RAW Empire player.

If the Empire players (AND ALESSIO!!!) had treated this with some common sense from the beginning instead of reacting with such glee at the "We're War Machines! No VP for you!" ruling, then I'm sure everyone else would be very reasonable about overlooking the spiking problem.

Reinnon
14-03-2008, 22:38
when the rules create situation like this i would employ a house rule to actually make a reasonable ruling.

Strikes me as moronic to even consider arguing that a Stank gets destroyed as soon as its charged, but it strikes me as a reasonable argument that you would get half victory points for it.

GodHead
14-03-2008, 22:42
That. Doesn't. Make. Sense. Neither is reasonable, and they're both part and parcel of the exact same rule. You can't cut it both ways like that.

It strikes me that enemies not getting half points for Steam Tanks with 1 wound left is exactly as moronic as destroying them in a single round of combat.

But hey, I guess I'm biased because I'm plotting to use 2 of the things in my army... What's your excuse?

Slacker
14-03-2008, 22:48
...that's the way everyone around here's played it all this time. The no-half-points thing, not the spike rule. Noone's ever complained overmuch about it.

As for spiking it, it has rules for being hit in close combat-autohit, roll to wound, so I'd say those overrule any spiking rules in any event.

GodHead
14-03-2008, 22:50
Spiking occurs at the end of close combat before pursuit/overrun.

winkypinky
14-03-2008, 23:08
No more stanks in tournaments ? :D Elves will finally have a real chance.

devolutionary
14-03-2008, 23:17
*bursts out in to utter laughter* Oh God, such beautiful poetry! Well played sir, well played.

Knighta
14-03-2008, 23:20
But it does have a crew. The engineer can fire his pistol, and hides inside the tank...

devolutionary
14-03-2008, 23:22
Except that doesn't qualify as crew by the rules and there is nothing that says he is crew in the Empire book either. By RAW, he is not crew.

Reinnon
14-03-2008, 23:28
This is why pure RaW is just as silly as pure RaI, why can't we have a middle ground?

Heresy i know.

If i was playing a Stank i would discuss with the guy i was playing with as to how it actually works in regards to pit of shades and this little "argument", as RaW doesn't come up witha fair solution.

GodHead
14-03-2008, 23:32
Of course it does. The Steam Tank counts as a normal unit for VP purposes and can't be spiked.

Ta da! I think that's very reasonable.

NastyNymph
14-03-2008, 23:45
This just shows why I don't play the game, I'd hate to fight someone who enforces such stupidity

Lord of Skulls
15-03-2008, 00:04
GodHead: I fully agree with devolutionary here, an excellent observation. I am most impressed :D

(Please note that I will not use this information except for laughs, and maybe to convince any stubborn Empire players to go for the reasonable solution you put forward:) )

GodHead
15-03-2008, 00:09
I didn't come up with it. I also thought it was amusing as well as incredibly well reasoned.

Credit should go to Razon on the Warhammer Forum for bringing it to my attention.

szlachcic
15-03-2008, 03:26
I would punch my opponent in the face if they told me I had to remove my stank as soon as it was in combat, why even bother writing rules for it in close combat at all then. I believe that the engineer is supposed to be counted as "crew" even though this isn't stated and is just another reason why RAW is so f'ed up.

I do however always give half victory points to my opponent if they reduce it to the correct number of wounds as I believe that in not doing so I would be just as bad as the person who would try to spike my stank in combat.

Doesn't really matter anyways, I really suck at using my stank or am really unlucky.

GodHead
15-03-2008, 03:32
I do however always give half victory points to my opponent if they reduce it to the correct number of wounds as I believe that in not doing so I would be just as bad as the person who would try to spike my stank in combat.

And that's been my point from the beginning. It's just very elegant that both opportunities for either player to be a raging retard stem from different aspects of the same rule. It's almost a perfect solution to itself.

Cragspyder
15-03-2008, 04:19
On a similar note, how about a Hellcannon?

Under the section "Mixed Unit" it says it counts as a War Machine with the exceptions below, but of course it does not mention anything about VPs and such.

Does this mean that you can automatically spike a Hellcannon with no crew that you get into CC?

Also, does this mean that if the Hellcannon eats all the crew (or you kill them all via shooting) you now have full VPs for the whole unit?

Of course, I won't play it as such (however much I would like to instantly kill the bugger) but does this fall under the same 'RAW" interpretation?

najo
15-03-2008, 06:12
I think that Allesio's ruling makes sense and here is why:

1) Army rulebooks do override RAW.
2) The steamtank has rules for fighting it in combat, this means it does not act as a normal war machine. We know this is the intention. We all know it is silly to expect a model to run up to the steam tank and spike it.
3) The number of wounds the steam tank has should not effect whether it gives half or full points. The reason why is that tank is either functioning or it isn't. It doesn't lose members of its unit (which is why regiments give half their points at half strength).

Now, it has been a while since I reviewed the steam tank and we don't have a ton of regular Empire players where I play. Empire is usually wipped out to kick ass (since its easily the strongest army), and its the other more fantasy feeling armies that are popular, even with our beardy players.

My point I am getting to, does the rules allow either the weapons or movement to be taken out independant of each other? I think the steam tank should work like 40k vehicles. If you immobolize it or destroy its weapons, then it gives half of its points. Once you do both, it gives all of its points.

devolutionary
15-03-2008, 06:18
1) Army rulebooks do override RAW.

No, they over-ride the rulebook. RAW is a concept that applies to both rulebook and armybooks.


2) The steamtank has rules for fighting it in combat, this means it does not act as a normal war machine. We know this is the intention. We all know it is silly to expect a model to run up to the steam tank and spike it.

Sorry, no, there is no rule that in any way invalidates the rulebook in the Empire book. None. Not one scrap or iota of rule. There is only assumption, in this case. Based on the fact that we have been told to treat it like a warmachine in all possible sense, then we must treat it like a warmachine. This is the point, this is why the RAW attitude from GW is so dumb.

GodHead
15-03-2008, 07:12
3) The number of wounds the steam tank has should not effect whether it gives half or full points. The reason why is that tank is either functioning or it isn't. It doesn't lose members of its unit (which is why regiments give half their points at half strength).

Also, this is the worst argument I've heard in a long time considering the Steam Tank, which theoretically doesn't give up victory points, actually has its abilities decrease as it is damaged. The more damage it takes, the less steam points it can safely generate, and once it's under 5 wounds, it's practically immobile and inoffensive.

Contrasted with Monsters, characters, anything else at all, which all by the rules do give up half victory points when hurt even though they continue to move and fight at full capability until wound zero.

Urgat
15-03-2008, 09:19
Amusing. Though I wouldn't enforce that (hell ><), I'd point it out to "convince" a potential player to give up half the points. "Heh man, it's either half or all of them :p"

Dtae787
15-03-2008, 09:32
Godhead do you have a beard by any chance?

devolutionary
15-03-2008, 09:48
If that is a reference to "beardy", then;
1) GodHead did not come up with this
2) It's a comment on the stupidity of RAW, not personal opinion

If it isn't, ignore this post ;)

Dtae787
15-03-2008, 09:59
No it is not. Its an inside joke.

But if we want to talk, beard cheese w/e you kids call it. Then enjoy this link.

http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132304

Urgat
15-03-2008, 11:57
No it is not. Its an inside joke.

But if we want to talk, beard cheese w/e you kids call it. Then enjoy this link.

http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132304

Lol, I like that. I'd do the same for kicks, but I have a hard time figuring a cheesy army with O&G >< (well, there's the skarsnik+bazillion fanatics+ 100% spearchukkas as special, but... yeah... no.)

GodHead
15-03-2008, 17:45
Godhead do you have a beard by any chance?

Well I used to rock a full beard, but now it's more like manly stubble.

In regards to my cheese-quest, was that wrong? Should I not have done that? Well, no I don't think it is wrong because the local group of players I game with are such outstanding fellows that they know how to have a great game against anything and take you out for a drink afterwards. Note that I said "anything" and not "anyone" and the attitude that both players bring to the table is always important. As they know me, and I've already started sending threatening messages to the League forum, they know what to expect and I'm sure some of them are more than ready. Some of them are already trash talking me, so they better be ready!:evilgrin:

I would say that that thread, regardless of your opinion of my moral character (though I would say it should be pretty clear if you read it), does nothing but support my arguments in this thread. I mean, I'm the cheesy git planning on using 2 of them in an army, so why the hell am I trying to make them weaker? Because I believe in playing the game reasonably (even when I'm being unreasonable apparently...).

Slacker
16-03-2008, 03:02
Sorry, no, there is no rule that in any way invalidates the rulebook in the Empire book. None. Not one scrap or iota of rule. There is only assumption, in this case. Based on the fact that we have been told to treat it like a warmachine in all possible sense, then we must treat it like a warmachine. This is the point, this is why the RAW attitude from GW is so dumb.

Erm, no...the rules for the Steamtank say 'as a warmachine unless otherwise noted'. There are rules for it in close combat. Ergo, it is not treated as a warmachine for purposes of close combat.

I really don't see the problem here.

devolutionary
16-03-2008, 03:21
Except that there is nothing which states that the warmachine rules are in any way invalidated. RAW does not allow for assumption, and without any outright statement, those combat rules are indeed assumptive in application.

najo
16-03-2008, 07:57
Erm, no...the rules for the Steamtank say 'as a warmachine unless otherwise noted'. There are rules for it in close combat. Ergo, it is not treated as a warmachine for purposes of close combat.

I really don't see the problem here.

This is my basic point too.

juample
16-03-2008, 12:07
Erm, no...the rules for the Steamtank say 'as a warmachine unless otherwise noted'. There are rules for it in close combat. Ergo, it is not treated as a warmachine for purposes of close combat.

I really don't see the problem here.

And they can fight... but if they dont kill all his enemies in the first round of combat they will be piked as normal warmachines.


I really don't see the problem neither...

PS: POW!, right in the kisser! :D HAW HAW HAW!

Slacker
16-03-2008, 15:47
Well, fortunately no one seems to believe this stupid version of the ruling around here, and the Direwolf FAQ says nothing about it, so I don't have to worry about seeing it at a tournament I'm likely to go to either. The concept of the Steam Tank charging into close combat, running over a bunch of people, for some reason said people overcoming the sheer terror at being pounded on, and then going 'Ah-ha!' and taking a hammer to the boiler is just too ridiculous for me to handle.

EvC
16-03-2008, 16:22
You're missing the point though: it's ridiculous that Steam Tank users get to avoid the model giving up any points if it's reduced to half-strength, using RAW. But if RAW is applied evenly, then you could argue that this "spiking" could be a valid interpretation of the rule. Or, both players could just play fair and say it can't be spiked, and gives up half points if half-damaged. Compromise is a wonderful thing, non?

Slacker
16-03-2008, 16:33
It's not terribly hard to kill a steam-tank, either, you know. I thought it was a bit odd that I didn't give up points for it either-I was doing so until someone I played pointed it out to me. *shrugs*

EvC
16-03-2008, 16:46
It may not be that hard to kill it (Very easy for an Empire player to so say as well!), but it's not particularly easy to kill a T6 10W 1+ armour save abomination either ;)

devolutionary
16-03-2008, 17:53
Look folks, you all seem to be thinking that we believe this to be a good ruling. It's not. We think this is, however, and evenly applied ruling based on GWs attitude and previous comments. Y'all take things a little too personally, both against yourselves and towards us nasty little argumentative types ;)

Gromdal
16-03-2008, 17:57
Erm, no...the rules for the Steamtank say 'as a warmachine unless otherwise noted'. There are rules for it in close combat. Ergo, it is not treated as a warmachine for purposes of close combat.

I really don't see the problem here.

this is true, ur wishful thinking about RAW isnt.

devolutionary
16-03-2008, 19:12
*sighs* How many times do I have to say it? There is no note, not one, which says that you do not treat it like a warmachine in combat. Yes there are combat rules, no they do not refute it being treated like a warmachine.

Again, I will cite where this has already been said;


Except that there is nothing which states that the warmachine rules are in any way invalidated. RAW does not allow for assumption, and without any outright statement, those combat rules are indeed assumptive in application.


And they can fight... but if they dont kill all his enemies in the first round of combat they will be [s]piked as normal warmachines.

You can not safely assume, since that is against the RAW attitude taken by GW.

Grimgormx
16-03-2008, 20:03
Steam tanks arent destroyed in that way, it has crew that doesnt has to fight outside the tank, it is treated like a special charriot, it is hit automatically but you have to wound it.

Use more common sense, and I Agree with you, it should give half VP if its wound are less than 5

Made a logic house rule or roll a dice.

Mireadur
16-03-2008, 20:30
i have a little more spice to add into this guys :p

The ruling about VPs for war machines state that they will only give VPs if the warmech is destroyed OR if the crew is unable to make work the machine anymore. What does this mean? that if crew has been totally destroyed/fled from battlefield the machine would give VPs. But applied to the case of STank it would mean that the crew couldnt use the machine anymore when the tank goes down to 1 Wound.

Basically when the tank reaches 1 wound remaining you cant use steam points anymore because it would result wrecked so following the rule it would already give VP since crew couldnt use the tank anymore :p

juample
16-03-2008, 20:31
Steam tanks arent destroyed in that way, it has crew that doesnt has to fight outside the tank, it is treated like a special charriot, it is hit automatically but you have to wound it.

Use more common sense, and I Agree with you, it should give half VP if its wound are less than 5

Made a logic house rule or roll a dice.

No rules suppourtyour posture.
No chariot-like-rule is mentioned in Stank rules.
It has no crew as long as crew has his owns bases.

Ok i will use my comon sense No Problem but i want everybody uses too, to give his opponent 150 VP when they make 9 wounds to one tank.

The Phat Dorf
16-03-2008, 21:17
a bit of topic, but why do dwarfs not have a STank, when they actually invented the thing? atleast it says in the 6'th eddition in the page from the book of grudges that some klan lendt another clan theyre steamwagons. why do they use a flying steamengine, but not a driving, it makes no logical sense, but i guess dwarfs having something fast appart from the gyro would be too scary?

Kaihlik
16-03-2008, 21:54
Steam wagons and steamtanks are totally different things. Dwarfs probably wouldnt use one on a battlefield because they would think it is too unreliable or that it does not fit their fighting style.

Drogmir
16-03-2008, 22:04
a bit of topic, but why do dwarfs not have a STank, when they actually invented the thing? atleast it says in the 6'th eddition in the page from the book of grudges that some klan lendt another clan theyre steamwagons. why do they use a flying steamengine, but not a driving, it makes no logical sense, but i guess dwarfs having something fast appart from the gyro would be too scary?

Well they didn't invent the Steam Tank. That's why.

Micheal Leonardo of Tilia (Italy) when on a mad spree and invented 12 I believe.

They all got donated to the Empire and only 8 exist now with the others destroyed.

Think of him as the human equivalent to Alric the Mad.

Mireadur
16-03-2008, 22:50
Yep, i guess with 7th edition they finally found out how to reproduce Miragliano's schemes since tanks became more common than halberdiers all of the sudden.

Rufas the Eccentric
17-03-2008, 20:01
GodHead. The Steam Tank operates under it own special rules listed in the army book. While it belongs to the general category of War-machines the special rules trumps the general rules. It Engineer Commander is a crew member who can not be killed short of killing the entire Stank, thus no spiking. The lack of a separate base is irrelevant. Get over it.

The half point thing is a reasonable interpretation. If you can drive the tank off the field at the end of the battle then the engineers are happy. If they get a team of 40 draft horses to drag it out the repair work will be much harder. Of course it would be nice if GW got their act together and released the FAQ.

A word of advice. Don't brag until you get through all three years and pass the Bar. Even then, it's not necessarily something to brag about.

Rufas, George Washington University School of Law, Class of 1995.

GodHead
17-03-2008, 20:17
Actually the crew part is incredibly important. It has no special rules which describe the engineer as a crew member, and the rules in the War Machines part of the rulebook explicitly describe crew members as having separate bases, and explicitly deny that they form part of the unit on the same base as the War Machine like a chariot. Those two explicit denials would need an exclusion at least as explicit in the Steam Tank rules, which is simply not present.

To those who say the Close Combat rules of the Steam Tank override those in the rulebook, the rules for the Steam Tank only cover how it inflicts damage, how enemies inflict damage against it, and that the Steam Tank may not pursue or overrun. No mention is made about modifying what happens after the resolution of combat, which is when spiking occurs.

And my sig is not so much bragging as a tongue in cheek statement on those who decry rules lawyers. While others may despise rules lawyers, I think they have a very useful place before or after a game is played. If GW would only employ a decent balls to the wall rules lawyer with a significant background in logic, whose only job was to break everything down, I don't think their rules would be in such a state.

I know it's a stupid argument, but I think it's sound, and should be used as a counterweight against dead-headed Empire players abusing the damn things (coincidentally like I plan to when the rest of my Empire army arrives from TheWarStore).

Tarliyn
17-03-2008, 21:17
the BRB also says the characters join the crew of a war machine if they are within 1" of it (pg. 84). And it says they have to be on separate bases so they can flee which doesn't apply to the stank because the engineer can not flee. I personally would argue that since the engineer is within 1" of the steam tank he is part of the crew.

juample
17-03-2008, 21:22
This "engineer" is not a character...

Tarliyn
17-03-2008, 21:29
the point is he is within one inch of the war machine and therefor should count as crew...

I just think this whole thread dumb, sorry

for the record I am not trying to make my steam tank more powerful than it is/should be rules lawyering that goes against clear intentions of the book just annoy me

Wyzer1
17-03-2008, 22:18
Bah, you dragged me all the way from Averland to defend the Steam Tank?

First off, in the Empire rulebook it states, "Except where noted otherwise, a Steam Tank counts as a war machine in all respects"

So basically, unless there is a rule contradicting how the War Machine operates in Close Combat (the crew lines up to protect the Machine, the machine cannot fight in combat, 'Spiking' etc.... their are serperate models for both crew and machine etc...) it would fight and operate by those rules

Thankfully, there is a section on how the Steam Tank operates in close combat. It is under the section, "Close Combat Phase" and describes exactely what occurs during the close combat phase of the game (Impact hits, grinding, auto-hitting) This overrides the rules for normal War Machines completely, as the Steam Tank does not fight even close to how standard War Machines fight in Close Combat

And spiking is not included in those rules (for obvious reasons)

So, spiking is not allowed (duh) and since there is also a section for every other phase of the game (including magic and movement) the steam tank operates out of the Empire Rulebook following those rules

And (just to rub it in) there is no section indicating how the Steam Tank operates when it comes to victory points, so the default War Machine rules apply, which say that the Steam Tank only gives away victory points if completely destroyed

GodHead
17-03-2008, 22:33
That replaces some of the rules for close combat, but not all. It does not note that the Steam Tank can be spiked. The rules under "Close Combat" phase deal with how it can damage the enemy, how the enemy can damage it, and that it can not pursue or overrun. No exception, clarification or highlight is given for what happens after the fight, when the spiking would occur.

Archon.42
17-03-2008, 22:35
very well said Wyzer1
its quite simple tbh
and this spiking business is justcome around because certain people cant think of a way to defeat the tank without running to the rulebook, pulling it apart and defeating the point of the game....FUN!!!
if so called "dead-headed" players want to use 2 tanks let them
and come up away to beat it like it should be, with big pointy sticks and fire =)
.42

Rufas the Eccentric
17-03-2008, 22:44
Actually the crew part is incredibly important. It has no special rules which describe the engineer as a crew member, and the rules in the War Machines part of the rulebook explicitly describe crew members as having separate bases, and explicitly deny that they form part of the unit on the same base as the War Machine like a chariot. Those two explicit denials would need an exclusion at least as explicit in the Steam Tank rules, which is simply not present.

However, the rules for the Stank do not say the Stank is explicitly destroyed if the crew is lost. By definition the crew is enclosed in the Stank and can not be killed without destroying the Stank. The lack of the base for the tank commander, and any figures at all for the crew, is consistent with the the unique nature of the Stank.

To those who say the Close Combat rules of the Steam Tank override those in the rulebook, the rules for the Steam Tank only cover how it inflicts damage, how enemies inflict damage against it, and that the Steam Tank may not pursue or overrun. No mention is made about modifying what happens after the resolution of combat, which is when spiking occurs.

Yes, but a war machine is destroyed when the crew is killed and the lack of a base does not make the Stank commander any less of a crew member. (The guys who do the real work must be Halflings).

And my sig is not so much bragging as a tongue in cheek statement on those who decry rules lawyers. While others may despise rules lawyers, I think they have a very useful place before or after a game is played. If GW would only employ a decent balls to the wall rules lawyer with a significant background in logic, whose only job was to break everything down, I don't think their rules would be in such a state.

Fair enough. The legal profession can be honorable if you are careful not to loose your soul. Stay away from representing tobacco companies. Reading the "Rules" with an understanding and appreciation of simple grammar is helpful. However, "Rules as Written" must be performed with a certain amount of common sense. The lack of a base for the Stank crew is abandoning common sense for a crew enclosed in the war machine. We both share a wish that GW would pay more attention to quality control with respect to their rules. Their focus seems to be strictly on figures, and they fail to realize people only buy their figures based upon the quality of their rules.

I know it's a stupid argument, but I think it's sound, and should be used as a counterweight against dead-headed Empire players abusing the damn things (coincidentally like I plan to when the rest of my Empire army arrives from TheWarStore).

Once you have your Army, hop on over to Warhammer-Empire.com You will love the philosophical and political questions that we hack to death on the Count's Tavern. :)

.................................................. ......

GodHead
17-03-2008, 22:52
However, the rules for the Stank do not say the Stank is explicitly destroyed if the crew is lost. By definition the crew is enclosed in the Stank and can not be killed without destroying the Stank. The lack of the base for the tank commander, and any figures at all for the crew, is consistent with the the unique nature of the Stank.

But none of that is represented anywhere in the rules for the Steam Tank. In the meantime, the War Machine rules, which the Steam Tank follows, are incredibly explicit (especially for GW rules). If the Steam Tank had, in its rules, anything like what you've posted, there would be no issue. It doesn't, so there is a problem.

This is the army I came up with:
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133243

based loosely on feedback from this thread:
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132304

Wyzer1
17-03-2008, 22:52
That replaces some of the rules for close combat, but not all. It does not note that the Steam Tank can be spiked. The rules under "Close Combat" phase deal with how it can damage the enemy, how the enemy can damage it, and that it can not pursue or overrun. No exception, clarification or highlight is given for what happens after the fight, when the spiking would occur.

That is where you seem to be in some sort of misconception

It does replace all of the rules, and there is no implication that it only replaces some of them. The BRB states that the rules govern 'most' War Machines and that some special War Machines follow their own rules

On page 51 of the Empire book, it has a nice, large bold fonted section for all rules governing how the Steam Tank operates in close combat, both during the enemies turn and your turn

In your turn, you can expend steam points to grind the opponent, inflict impact hits, but you cannot overrun or pursue.

That is the entire Close Combat phase, with really no room for debate. The last part is partically important because it describes how the end of the close combat phase operates... which is the part you keep coming back to.

Further more, in a 'hypothetical sense', if spiking were allowed, it would directly contradict both the intention of the Steam Tank and many of its own special rules. So both from a Rules standpoint, a logical standpoint and a RAW standpoint, there isn't really any ground to stand upon

Nice try, and I appreciate your argument for the sake of arguing.... but really at this point you are just making yourself look like an ass (no offense meant, honestly)

FigureFour
17-03-2008, 23:24
and this spiking business is justcome around because certain people cant think of a way to defeat the tank without running to the rulebook, pulling it apart and defeating the point of the game....FUN!!!

No. This spiking business "is justcome around" because certain people like clear, concise and well written rules and try to apply logical principals to the way the rules are written.

We are aware that it is probably not what the designers intended, but it IS what they wrote.

I think what GodHead is trying to do by pointing these out these absurdities is just to draw attention to how the rules are written and the importance of understanding and using clear and precise grammar.

It obviously ISN'T because he's trying to find a cheep way to destroy a steam tank because he plays with the damn things. Shouting the fatal weakness to your army to the world isn't the behavior of a cheating power gamer.


That is where you seem to be in some sort of misconception

He's not.


It does replace all of the rules, and there is no implication that it only replaces some of them.

"EXCEPT WHERE NOTED OTHERWISE, a Steam Tank counts as a war machine IN ALL RESPECTS."

War machines can be spiked, can you cite where it is noted otherwise?

Wyzer1
17-03-2008, 23:48
No. This spiking business "is justcome around"
"EXCEPT WHERE NOTED OTHERWISE, a Steam Tank counts as a war machine IN ALL RESPECTS."

War machines can be spiked, can you cite where it is noted otherwise?
Normal War Machines follow a certain set of rules regarding the Close Combat Phase

Steam Tanks follow the rules for normal War Machines except where otherwise noted.

The 'otherwise noted' section is the bold section that has "Close Combat Phase" written on it

The Close Combat section in the BRB describes a very different kind of War Machine than the Steam Tank

It says the Machine has a crew, the crew defends the Machine, the machine cannot move without a crew, when the Machine is without its crew it is removed when in combat with the enemy, amongs other things

It also says that some War Machines operate differently than the ones described there, and the Steam Tank falls into that category

The Steam Tank, being a Close Combat oriented War Machine, was given an entirely different and rather comprehensive set of rules in the Army Book

These override the entire section in the BRB, because it is not describing the same kind of War Machine

Further-more...

Games Workshop is not perfect in their rules writing (surprise! lol). Some things are a little vague, and its up to the players common sense to fill in some gaps. They have been known to say this on occasion.... (maybe Queek or someone can cite the actualy quotes, I do not know them off memory)

This is not a do or die situation, it is a 'game' (although I am starting to wonder if you understand that concept)

And this situation isn't even vague.... Its rather obvious that spiking was not ever the intention, and trying to do so is rules bending at its worst

FigureFour
18-03-2008, 00:16
The 'otherwise noted' section is the bold section that has "Close Combat Phase" written on it

If this is true, what war machine rules DOES the steam tank use?


The Close Combat section in the BRB describes a very different kind of War Machine than the Steam Tank

Yes, and the steam tank rules are supposed to note ALL the differences between them and normal war machines. They don't.


It also says that some War Machines operate differently than the ones described there, and the Steam Tank falls into that category

Yes, it operates differently in all the ways described in the army book. Note that spiking is never mentioned.


The Steam Tank, being a Close Combat oriented War Machine, was given an entirely different and rather comprehensive set of rules in the Army Book

It gets about three sentences, and if they were comprehensive we wouldn't be having this conversation.


These override the entire section in the BRB, because it is not describing the same kind of War Machine

I disagree. All the war machine rules not explicitly mentioned should apply. For example, a steam tank should be allowed a pivot when it shoots just like a normal war machine since it never says it CAN'T under the shooting rules.


Games Workshop is not perfect in their rules writing (surprise! lol). Some things are a little vague, and its up to the players common sense to fill in some gaps. They have been known to say this on occasion.... (maybe Queek or someone can cite the actualy quotes, I do not know them off memory)

Sure, and to interpret their intent we have to use the rules they wrote. When the rules don't match the intent, there is a problem. This is the problem GodHead was trying to address here.

If GW was to hire someone who understands proper use of language then their rules would be much clearer.

Clearer rules are what we are after, not abusing the rules to kill steam tanks and spite the spirit of the game.


This is not a do or die situation, it is a 'game' (although I am starting to wonder if you understand that concept)

A simple definition of a 'game' is "a contest with a set of rule to determine a winner." As you can see, the rules and how they are applied are integral to a game.


And this situation isn't even vague.... Its rather obvious that spiking was not ever the intention, and trying to do so is rules bending at its worst

It IS rather obvious that it isn't what they intended. The problem is that GW doesn't write the game they intend to write and then doesn't like to correct the mistakes it made.

Furthermore, NOBODY here has tried to do ANYTHING resembling rules bending. GodHead is interpreting the rules literally with no bending at all.

What YOU (and everyone else, myself and probably GodHead included) are doing is rules bending to make the rules match up with your interpretation of the "spirit of the game." Unfortunately not everyone agrees on what the "spirit of the game" is. When this is the case we need to fall back on the rules as they are written to clarify.


Yes, that is the crux of the "problem." Note that I don't see it as a particularly bad problem as all it does is call attention to how stupid Alessio's stance on not correcting design mistakes is. Hopefully this attention can get him to rethink that decision.

Keep in mind that THIS is why GodHead said he brought this up,


Keep it a War Machine, but "note otherwise" that for VP and "spiking" purposes it counts as a regular unit.

And THIS is his proposed solution.

So please stop trying to turn this into a crusade against power gaming rules lawyers. That's not what this is about.

theunwantedbeing
18-03-2008, 00:24
The crew is part of the stank model, and their profile is integrated with the machine.
Therefore it is always crewed so doesnt get destroyed in combat.

Like a chariot.
Yes I know chariots arent destroyed at the end of a combat......the crew being aprt of the model bit is what its like as a chariot, and no it doesnt explode when wounded by an unsaved st7+ hit.

Wyzer1
18-03-2008, 00:32
If this is true, what war machine rules DOES the steam tank use?

Very few actually...

Deployment (with all other War Machiens), VP... thats about it... might be more I am missing

If this is just trying to prove GW is bad at writing clear rules....

No #$%@ !! ;)

I will agree holeheartely with you on that one and take my leave

But really is this neccessary? I mean they screw up so much else that this is really rather trivial in comparison

Keeping on the same page, how would this same logic apply to the Ogre Kingdoms Gnoblar Scrap Launcher?

GodHead
18-03-2008, 00:45
VP...
That's the one I'm trying to fight against. The argument given in this thread is just ammunition to get the Empire players, and perhaps more importantly Alessio, to rethink their blatantly stupid RAW position regarding Steam Tanks and Victory Points. Steam Tanks with one wound left being worth 0 points to the opponent that inflicted 9 wounds on a 300 point T6 1+ save devastation engine is hardly trivial.



Keeping on the same page, how would this same logic apply to the Ogre Kingdoms Gnoblar Scrap Launcher?

Not at all:
"The Scraplauncher is a Chariot (albeit a highly unusual one) and uses the rules for chariots given in the Warhammer rulebook."

Wyzer1
18-03-2008, 01:18
Ok, so the point of this is to try and get Empire players to give up half victory points for the Steam Tank?

Fine by me....

And the more i read it, your argument does make sense, although it is obviously very shady

burad
18-03-2008, 02:30
The whole point of the 'spiking' rule is supposedly the notion that since the human Engineer Commander is not specifically called 'crew', that therefore the tank is destroyed out at the end of close combat because it has no 'crew' left to defend it.
Please note that the Engineer Commander in a not-destroyed tank at the end of close combat has NOT (1) fled from the charge, (2) broken from combat, or (3) been wiped out, which are the 3 specific circumstances cited as meeting the 'having no crew left to defend it". None of those three things have occured, therefore it does not meet the standard of having no crew left.
Also, on another facet of the argument, according to the BRB "Normally a war machine requires a full crew to work it properly" and "Obviously the machine requires at least one crewman to work". Therefore, either the tank has a crew in the Engineer Commander, since it obviously works, according to the Army Book; or, if the Engineer Commander is not crew, it does not work at all, which is of course, contrary to the Army Book. Since the Army Book overrides the BRB, and since the tank does obviously work, it therefore must have crew.

Shank
18-03-2008, 02:39
The Steam Tank has "Close Combat" rules associated to it. It is very clear and simple. It says opponents automaticly hit the Steam Tank and roll to wound as normal. The Steam Tank does not overrun or pursue. This simple section fits the description of "The steam Tank is a war machine unless otherwise noted". So the Close Combat section of the rulebook is replaced by the Close Combat section of the Empire Book.

But lets just pretend, these simple and easy to read rules do not exist. That the only rules for warmachines are the Close Combat rules in the main book. And lets use this very annoying term RAW. It does not say if there are no crew left you automaticly destroy a warmachine. It says this:
If the machine has no crew left to defend it at the end of a combat because:
1- the crew fled from a charge (tank crew can't flee, and if your argument is that the tank has no crew, then crew that aren't there can't flee)
2- the crew have broken from combat (again, tank crew can't be broken, and you can't break crew that aren't there)
3- the crew are wiped out (again for the last time, can't wipe out tank crew, and if they aren't there...guess what)

This is a clear case of people bending or manipulating rules to fit how they "think" something should work. Please people, get a grip. Read the rulebook for yourself and it is all quite clear.

Shank
18-03-2008, 02:41
Thank you Burad! But Damn! You beat me to it. At last, someone else with the voice of reason! (PS Wyzer1, you are in the voice of reason club too)

GodHead
18-03-2008, 02:47
If the machine has no crew left to defend it at the end of a combat (because the crew fled from the charge, have broken from combat or are wiped out), the enemy automatically destroys the machine, and is immediately free to pursue the broken crew or overrun as normal Emphasis mine.

The terms given in parenthesis are only presented as examples, potential ways that the machine had no crew. If, for example, an enemy charged a war machine with no crew because the crew had left to operate another machine, or had previously pursued after a fleeing enemy then the chargers would be eligible to spike it. The examples are in no way meant to be exhaustive, as there are many other ways War Machines could become uncrewed, and thus be eligible for spiking.

The Steam Tank comes uncrewed, and you're just reading into the flavour text of the Steam Tank, not the rules, to try and establish that it does have crew. It doesn't according to the rules which state (for the third time):

The crew are based separately, unlike the model of a chariot or a ridden monster, where the crew of riders are likely to be physically glued to the chariot or mount.

Nothing in the Steam Tank rules (note the word rules - not description or background!) establishes anything to the contrary of this statement.

I plan on using two, and I plan on not having them spiked because I will agree with my opponents beforehand that they give up half points. Fair trade.

EDIT:
Yes, it does have combat rules. These combat rules in no way preclude spiking it at the end of a combat. They say absolutely nothing about the subject of spiking. As it is a war machine unless noted, saying nothing at all about one of the rules that govern war machines simply can not count as noting otherwise.

Shank
18-03-2008, 03:36
Emphasis mine.

The terms given in parenthesis are only presented as examples, potential ways that the machine had no crew. If, for example, an enemy charged a war machine with no crew because the crew had left to operate another machine, or had previously pursued after a fleeing enemy then the chargers would be eligible to spike it. The examples are in no way meant to be exhaustive, as there are many other ways War Machines could become uncrewed, and thus be eligible for spiking.

The Steam Tank comes uncrewed, and you're just reading into the flavour text of the Steam Tank, not the rules, to try and establish that it does have crew. It doesn't according to the rules which state (for the third time):


Nothing in the Steam Tank rules (note the word rules - not description or background!) establishes anything to the contrary of this statement.

I plan on using two, and I plan on not having them spiked because I will agree with my opponents beforehand that they give up half points. Fair trade.

EDIT:
Yes, it does have combat rules. These combat rules in no way preclude spiking it at the end of a combat. They say absolutely nothing about the subject of spiking. As it is a war machine unless noted, saying nothing at all about one of the rules that govern war machines simply can not count as noting otherwise.

The only place it says you can "spike" a warmachine, is in the warmachine close combat section of the main rulebook. However, since the Steam Tank has its own close combat section in the Empire Book, and these rules say nothing about "spiking", your argument falls aqart. You can't take some rules from one place and move them to another.

And going back to the first point. There are only 3 ways listed to automaticly destroy a warmachine in the main rule book. Crew flees, Crew Broken, Crew wiped out. We are talking RAW. You can't start making up your own examples. I saw no "etc" in those parenthesis.

GodHead
18-03-2008, 03:40
Just because the categories the rules are in are titled similarly (note that they do have indeed have different titles) doesn't mean that all of the rules from one category overwrite every single rule found in the other category.

All of the rules from the rulebook apply, all of the rules in the rulebook about War Machines apply, all of the rules in the rulebook about War Machines under the category "Close Combat" apply - EXCEPT where noted in the Steam Tank rules. And the Steam Tank rules, even those rules found under the category "Close Combat phase," do not otherwise note that spiking does not apply to Steam Tanks.

As an example, the Steam Tank has rules titled "Shooting phase" These rules don't include provisions for being shot in the enemy shooting phase. Does that mean that the enemy can't shoot it? Because that's what you're suggesting - just because of the title, it should replace all similarly titled rules from the rulebook. Note that the "Shooting Phase" rules don't even replace the "Shooting" rules under for War Machines. So when shooting against the Steam Tank you would still randomize amongst the crew and the machine, but because there are no crew further hits do not need to be randomised but will "strike against the machine or a crewman, as appropriate."

Titles aren't rules. Rules are the words found under the titles. Totally ignoring isn't noting otherwise. "Except where noted otherwise" and "all respects" are, together, very strong language. It would take an explicit distinction to establish where a War Machine rule doesn't apply.

Wyzer1
18-03-2008, 05:17
And going back to the first point. There are only 3 ways listed to automaticly destroy a warmachine in the main rule book. Crew flees, Crew Broken, Crew wiped out. We are talking RAW. You can't start making up your own examples. I saw no "etc" in those parenthesis.
lol, Actually if someone were to try and pull the spiking argument against me, I would resort to using this as an argument

Alrighty, Ill continue.... I enjoy meaningless debate ;)

Given War Machine Close Combat Rule:
"If the machine has no crew left to defend it at the end of a combat (because the crew fled from the charge, have broken from combat or are wiped out), the enemy automatically destroys the machine, and is immediately free to pursue the broken crew or overrun as normal"

By implying that a War Machine has no crew 'left', it insists that there had to have been crew to begin with

The examples may not be exaustive, but they all do imply that there was a crew there to begin with, and suddenly there is no crew.

Therefore (by using the examples given and the wording of the first part) the rules for spiking indicate that as long as there originally was a crew and the crew is now gone (due to some means), the War Machine is subject to 'spiking'

And the Steam Tank, not following the normal rules for having a crew and fighting in close combat, does not become subject to being auto-destroyed

The reason for not auto-destroying War Machines that do not have a crew, is because the War Machines that require a seperate crew are dependant on the crew for survival where the War Machines that do not have a crew (or whos crew are internal) are self-sufficient and can fight on their own

Spoonie
18-03-2008, 05:31
A steam tank giving half VPs is debatable, and while some people may not like it, GW has actually (for once) given an answer to a legitimate rules question. Being able to spike a steam tank isn't in this "realm of possibility" where most rules questions reside. Sure it's funny to bring up on a message board that "technically" that's the way it works, but if you actually had the stones to try and tell an empire player that during a game, I got news for you - Nobody likes playing games with you. Nobody.

GodHead
18-03-2008, 05:34
I'd tell them before the game to clear up the VP issue. And I am the Empire player. With 2 Stanks.


By implying that a War Machine has no crew 'left', it insists that there had to have been crew to begin with.
That's an unnecessary implication. You can correctly say you have nothing left when you had nothing to begin with.

theunwantedbeing
18-03-2008, 05:39
The stank doesnt give half VP by virtue of being a war machine.
It cant get spiked by virtue of it having its crew as part of it.
It can get killing blowed by virtue of Heroism.

Wyzer1
18-03-2008, 05:46
I'd tell them before the game to clear up the VP issue. And I am the Empire player. With 2 Stanks.

I dont even care on this one... (as an Empire player too)

I say half VP is fine and probably the intention, who knows

RAW = probably not

Now lets get back to the original thing



That's an unnecessary implication. You can correctly say you have nothing left when you had nothing to begin with.
I disagree

I have nothing and I have nothing left are two completely different things

The first one can be inclusive of the second, but not visa versa

There is no situation that you can say, "I have nothing left" without having something in mind already, but by saying "I have nothing" this does not imply you had something to begin with

If you can provide a situation where you can say, "I have nothing left" accurately and it can be inclusive that you did not have something to begin with, I will understand this

In every example provided, and in the first part of the sentence, GW implies that there was something to begin with, therefore the second part of the sentence cannot be applied unless the first part of the sentences criteria are met

And again, since the Steam Tank does not have a crew to begin with, it is not subject to being Auto-Destroyed when overrun in combat

...

Can we just agree I am right and give you your lousy 150 VP's? lol

(P.S. We are just doing this for the sake of debate right?)

Caboose123
18-03-2008, 07:37
Heh, cute.

You guys both deserve rules lawyering degrees...

Honestly, as a fellow empire player, i agree with godhead. But only because of GW policy of playing RAW, and i think GodHead has pointed out the RAW sufficiently.

Once an argument devolves into english class i leave, but, i ask, GodHead, what if someone played it this way against you? :P

Festus
18-03-2008, 09:33
Hi

I am firmly with Shank here:

The paragraphs on p.86 of the BRB concerning *close combat* for WarMachines are overridden by the paragraph on p.51 of the Empire AB titled *close combat* in the Stank's rules.

Both treat combat very differently and have their own set of rules.

Heck, they even both tell you about how to hit the WarMachine/Stank in combat seperately (and in both cases it is automatically). If what you say is true, GodHead, this is redundant information ;)

Festus

blurred
18-03-2008, 12:14
This is in the same category with the "Invocation can not be cast into combat" debate. The stank does not state that it is immune to spiking, but it has clear rules on how it acts in close combat; the invocation does not state that it can be cast into combat, but it has a line which tells us how the resurrected models act in close combat.

Clearly these rules would be redundant if the stank could be spiked and the invocation could not be cast into combat. Hence, the stank can not be spiked and the invocation can be cast into close combat.

EDIT: Yes, it is stupid that stank does not give points when half of its wounds are gone.

Commodus Leitdorf
18-03-2008, 12:28
.....and people wonder why I dont use a Steam Tank :angel:

As humerous as I find this discussion (its a laugh riot I can tell you)...I think this boils down to one thing. Does the Close Combat section of the Steam Tank rules COMPLETELY overide the rules for close combat with warmachines in the BRB, or just the rules that it mentions?

Frankly at this point I dont even know! If the machine technically doesn't even have crew to begin with I dont even think you can charge it...I've just plunked down a terrain feature that shoots a cannon!

juample
18-03-2008, 13:45
This is in the same category with the "Invocation can not be cast into combat" debate. The stank does not state that it is immune to spiking, but it has clear rules on how it acts in close combat; the invocation does not state that it can be cast into combat, but it has a line which tells us how the resurrected models act in close combat.

Clearly these rules would be redundant if the stank could be spiked and the invocation could not be cast into combat. Hence, the stank can not be spiked and the invocation can be cast into close combat.

EDIT: Yes, it is stupid that stank does not give points when half of its wounds are gone.


The steam tank can combat as described in his rulebook, but despite of spiking at the end of the combat. This is no a valid argument.

ZeroTwentythree
18-03-2008, 15:17
Does the Close Combat section of the Steam Tank rules COMPLETELY overide the rules for close combat with warmachines in the BRB, or just the rules that it mentions?




And if it does completely over-ride the close combat rules (as some of the anti-spiking faction are saying), what other complications will arise from having to throw away the other close combat rules?

Komnenos
18-03-2008, 17:20
If this ever happens to me when I use my empire, I will just take the engineer, glue a 20x20 mm base on him and then put him back in the tank. I might have to rebuild the tank after throwing it at the opponent though.

Forbiddenknowledge
18-03-2008, 17:34
Theres a lot of arguements here, I don't think anyone was actually advocating playing it like this. It seems to be pointing out yet again the sillyness of RAW, and as a counter point to what appears to be idiotic decision of the century, and not making the tank give up victory points.

Thats all - no one seems to want to play one like this.

Porksta
18-03-2008, 18:40
Theres a lot of arguements here, I don't think anyone was actually advocating playing it like this. It seems to be pointing out yet again the sillyness of RAW, and as a counter point to what appears to be idiotic decision of the century, and not making the tank give up victory points.

Thats all - no one seems to want to play one like this.

I want to play like this. If it's in the rules, I am going to play following the rules.

Caboose123
18-03-2008, 18:58
Oh dear, Porksta....

I would only ever play this if they insisted that i get no points for the 9 wounds i caused to their tank :|


Does the Close Combat section of the Steam Tank rules COMPLETELY overide the rules for close combat with warmachines in the BRB, or just the rules that it mentions?

This hits the nail on the head really.
The "unless otherwise noted", to me, means that it doesnt completely overide the combat (and movement,shooting and magic) rules...

Wyzer1
18-03-2008, 18:59
Heh, cute.

You guys both deserve rules lawyering degrees...

Honestly, as a fellow empire player, i agree with godhead. But only because of GW policy of playing RAW, and i think GodHead has pointed out the RAW sufficiently.

Once an argument devolves into english class i leave, but, i ask, GodHead, what if someone played it this way against you? :P

Indeed, thats what this is to me at this point :D I know noone would ever try and play it this way, and honestly I would give someone half VP's for the steam tank, but debates like this are too good to pass up....

He must not have logged in yet, I am awaiting a response to my "Lets tear apart the English Laungage Semantics" post

:p

Wordman
18-03-2008, 20:10
Dont' have time to read through all the posts right now, so someone probably covered this.

If people want to get all rules lawyerly you can still go by RAW and the Steam Tank won't auto die in combat and here's why:

If people argue that the Engineer Commander isn't crew then fine. If you go by the letter of the rule book it says:

"If the machine has no crew left to defend itself (because the crew fled from the charge, have broken from combat, or are wiped out), the enemy automatically destroys the machine..."

Well, none of these conditions were met:

1. The crew did not flee
2. They did not break from combat
3. They weren't wiped out

Those are the only 3 conditions that the rules permit for "spiking" a machine when it has no crew left to defend it. Since, by some people's reasoning, the Steam Tank doesn't have a crew to start with, none of these conditions can be met, therefore it can't be destroyed in this manner. That's just going by the letter of the rule book -- you can't get around it.

GodHead
18-03-2008, 20:33
Like I said, those conditions are not exhaustive. If the crew had fled, or had left to operate another machine, an enemy would be justified in spiking the abandoned machine.

It is quite rude to not "have time to read through all the posts right now" and then just post something up. You were quite right when you said it had been already covered, because it had.

If someone can't be bothered to read the thread, they shouldn't bother posting.

Please note that this is in the Warseer FAQ: Moderation Policy, Posting Guidelines and Forum Rules:
18) When replying to a thread please take a look at the date of the last post of said thread first (especially if you are using the 'new posts' feature). Only add a post to a thread if you have something useful to add and if the point you are going to make has not already been posted. If a thread has not had any posts added for a few weeks, its better to leave it alone and not post on it.

http://warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_new_posting_guidelines

Deathwatch
18-03-2008, 21:15
Possibly a little unkind Godhead, but hey...

I am wiht Godhead in this one. The rules for the Steam tank state it is hit automatically and you need to roll to wound, and the rules for hitting a war machine state it is treated as having WS0 and can therefore be auto hit. There fore dont the combat rules for the Stank being hit/attacked back up the fact that the STank is treated like a warmachine as they are the same? (The only difference in the combat rules govern how the Stank can attack which I will agree differs from other warmachines, but a unit behaving slightly different for part of a phase does not mean they act differently for the whole of that phase)
As for the question of fleeing crew and they must have fled during combat before the attacking unit can spike the war machine. What about loss of crew during a shooting phase? I have killed war machine crew in the shooting phase, and then legitimately (i hope!) charged the warmachine to destroy it in the subsequent turns to destroy it and prevent it from being re-crewed. If we take the stance that a war machine cannot be spiked unless the crew have fled/been destroyed/wiped out in combat then surely I would not be able to do this.
As a slight aside all other Warmachine entries in the army list section of the rule book state the number of crew in their entries and the STank does not! (It also does not state crew 0 so maybe I counter my own argument!)

GodHead
18-03-2008, 21:17
It's not unkind, it's just common sense and it's what the forum guidelines say. There is no malice in my post, it was intended only to inform.

Malorian
18-03-2008, 21:31
From the quote posted it seems a crew being killed off by shooting is just what 'whiped out' would be referring to. And since it didn't end with an 'etc' there is no reason to think this isn't an exhaustive list.

I think Wordman's comments are right on.

GodHead
18-03-2008, 21:36
So you think a war machine that was abandoned because its crew left to operate another machine or because the crew pursued after a defeated enemy would be un-spikable?

Really? I thought my position was supposed to be the unreasonable one that leads to idiotic conclusions?

Wordman
18-03-2008, 21:37
Seems pretty exhaustive to me -- there are 3 options. And Malorian is correct--the crew being killed by shooting would be wiped out (it doesn't say wiped out in combat).

Well, sorry I got your panties in a bunch, GodHead, that wasn't my intent.

GodHead
18-03-2008, 21:39
What about the 2 examples I posted that aren't "shot at"?

Are you honestly saying you would not allow spiking in the two circumstances I have posted?

Because if you are, you have abandoned all sense of "reason" high-ground, which is IMHO, the only thing the other side of this argument had from the beginning.

Just so we're clear:
I think that not giving up half victory points is stupid.
I found a rule, that if applied, is even more stupid to try and counter the first stupid rule. I did so to draw attention to the first stupid rule and Alessio's stupid idea of not fixing obvious mistakes with FAQs and erratas.
What you're arguing now, to not allow spiking except in the 3 distinct circumstances, is a third stupid rule, potentially more stupid than the previous two.

If you're ok with that, then go ahead and follow that line of reasoning, and we'll wallow in the mud together. It was my hope that rather than a race to the bottom, this entire argument would lead people to say "That's totally unreasonable! Of course we won't play like that!" Although a few have recognized this whole deal for what it is, apparently I was an optimist regarding the majority.

Malorian
18-03-2008, 21:54
So you think a war machine that was abandoned because its crew left to operate another machine or because the crew pursued after a defeated enemy would be un-spikable?

Really? I thought my position was supposed to be the unreasonable one that leads to idiotic conclusions?

Do you mean to say that you think a loophole in the rules that allows abandoned warmachines to be 'unspikable' is more unreasonable, than a loophole that would allow a monster of steel and weapons to be autokilled by a charging group of fast cav?

Tarian
18-03-2008, 22:07
@Manlorian: I believe that's GodHead's intent is that such a thing *would* be unreasonable, just as he believes that a STank giving no VPs unless completely destroyed is also unreasonable.

For the record, I think the STank *should* give half points, and they should *not* be spikable. (This is my opinion, and in no way backed up by RAW, FAQs, the Easter Bunny or anything else.)

Malorian
18-03-2008, 22:18
I get what GodHead is trying to do, but he isn't doing it very well.

He says he is trying to draw attention to one stupid rule by bringing another stupid rule into light, but instead of just using it to draw people in and then quickly showing he just didn't it as a comparision, he puts all his effort into defending the raw of 'spiking' (which I don't agree with) while insulting those that are actually drawn into the threat (saying they have "idiotic conclusions")

This doesn't bring light to one thing by drawing you in with another, it just losses you respect on the forum.

Edit: Compare if you will to this http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132685 where I brought up a valid stupid rule backed up by raw to compare it to the silly raw rule that you can't cast IoN into combat.

One is done with a smile and the other is done with stubborn aggression.

GodHead
18-03-2008, 22:31
No aggression, but definitely stubbornness against the Empire players who want their 0 point half damaged non-spiked Steam Tanks.

The comparison you made to your thread isn't quite perfect, because in this case, the two "conflicting idiots" stem from the exact same rule - the Steam Tanks are War Machines disclaimer. Alessio has come out publicly and said that the no VP under half thing is a mistake. A mistake he is unwilling to fix. These are public statements by the games designer. It's broken, but they won't fix it. I'm trying to apply pressure to fix it as that attitude is, to me, totally unacceptable.

The example you give in regards to the other thread is one of two totally unrelated RAW instances (of which, either might actually be the true intent!). And honestly, either interpretation for both rules you mention are playable. The list is so damn good that not being able to cast IoN into combat would hardly hurt them, so that could go either way. The list has so many other outrageous things, 1 point for a unit of great weapons doesn't even seem that out of place... (This is a stern indictment of the quality of that book btw), so that would be just as "playable" as some of the other little gems that are in the book and obviously intentional...

Also, I think the intention of this thread has been clear since the first post, where I opened with:

Let's see Alessio "no changes to rules as written even if we cock it up" Cavatore squirm his way out of this one!

A lot of people have done a lot of squirming on his behalf since then. I've just been responding to it.

Huw_Dawson
18-03-2008, 22:32
This is a redundant topic.

Godhead, I think your trying to argue a similar point to one that "The Rulebook doesn't specify how you place your models on the table, therefore you can't place them on the table."

- Huw

GodHead
18-03-2008, 22:34
But the rulebook does specify that War Machines can be spiked, and the Steam Tank rules don't specify it can't.

I don't follow.

Caboose123
19-03-2008, 00:11
Godhead, you "missed" Wyzers post on the English language...

And again i ask, what if someone tried to use this against you?

Shank
19-03-2008, 00:14
But the rulebook does specify that War Machines can be spiked, and the Steam Tank rules don't specify it can't.

I don't follow.

You simply do not want to accept that the close combat section of the Empire book concerning the Steam Tank overrides the the close combat section of the main book. I really don't understand you (well, yes I do). One minute you are all about exactly what is written, the next you are taking your favorite parts from whatever section that proves your point. For example, the book clearly states warmachines are destroyed only when crew flees, broken or wiped out. Then you say "well, thats not exaustive" and you start adding your own examples and what if's. Just doesn't make sense. You cant be letter of the law on some things and not on others.

And one quick thing and I am done. The steam tank does come with a crew, the Engineer Commander. Just because it doesn't say word for word he is a crew member, means nothing. By that logic, Halbediers, Spearman, Swordsman do not have unit champions. They have Sergeants and Duellists. Because they are not listed as unit champions do they not get "look out sir"? Can they accept challenges? Engineer Commander is the same thing, just a different name for a crewman.

But if you still don't agree, then you have to agree the Engineer Commander is an engineer. "An engineer can also replace one crew member of a warmachine he joins". Pg 46 Empire rule book. (yes, I can grab my favorite rules too)

There is no need for a errata. The Steam Tank works fine. Sorry, no half vp's, but then again, do 2 or 3 wounds to it and you have a very slow and unreliable Steam Tank.

In Conclusion:
-The Steam Tank cannot be spiked (by the way, the word "spiked" is no where in the warmachine section of the rule book)
-The Steam Tank does not give half victory points.

If you don't like it, sorry, thems the rules.....dont let anyone tell you different.

Komnenos
19-03-2008, 00:15
But the rulebook does specify that War Machines can be spiked, and the Steam Tank rules don't specify it can't.

I don't follow.

They don't specify that it cannot fly either, so can it?

CaptScott
19-03-2008, 00:27
The steam tank does come with a crew, the Engineer Commander. Just because it doesn't say word for word he is a crew member, means nothing.

The problem GodHead has with this interpretation is that in the BRB is states that the crew must be on seperate bases, and the engineer commander obviously isn't.

Now as to the half vp's thing, many Empire generals know many of the wounds suffered by a stank are self-inflicted, in which case perhaps the enemy shouldn't get the vp's.

But of course from the other side of the fence, when a stank is reduced to half wounds it is virtually useless and thus it should at least award half vp's.

Wordman
19-03-2008, 01:22
But the rulebook does specify that War Machines can be spiked, and the Steam Tank rules don't specify it can't.

I don't follow.

War machines can be destroyed when their crew is broken in close combat, flees, or is wiped out--it says it in black and white. It is impossible to drive off or destroy a Steam Tanks crew because:

a) it hasn't got one

or

b) the crew is integrated with the War Machine (Engineer Commander being another name for a crewman).

Regarding a): If it doesn't have a crew, it is impossible to make them flee, break from close combat, or wipe them out and therefore this 'spiking' rule-- going by the letter of the BRB--would not apply. (The whole notion of a war machine being abandoned on purpose and thus not being destroyable because the crew wasn't broken, fled, or wiped out, is a whole separate rules fight and should not have any bearing on this argument)

Regarding b): If the Steam Tank does have a crew, (the Engineer Commander) then he hides inside it during combat as per the Empire Army book--he is treated as part of the Steam Tank which is unbreakable.

I do agree with GodHead that GW's rules have always been lacking in clarity; they are not play tested extensively enough outside of the studio environment--but this particular argument is finding a loop hole where I just don't see one existing (imo). It would be easy for GW to solve these issues by using a 'rules lawyer' (or a couple of them!) to go over the rule set and to use an editor who uses precise language. I hate how GW weaves the rules through loads of fluff. The fluff too often muddies the water.

What really chaps my hide, is when they know there is a rule conflict or something is really broken and it takes them a year and a day (if ever!) to clarify it or fix it.

GodHead
19-03-2008, 01:39
The things in parentheses are not exhaustive. The sentence makes perfect sense without paying any heed to those terms contained within it.


Parentheses (singular parenthesis)—sometimes called round brackets, curved brackets, oval brackets, or just brackets; or, colloquially, parens, or fingernails— contain material that could be omitted without destroying or altering the meaning of a sentence.

So if you omit it, then it just reads:
If the machine has no crew left to defend it at the end of a combat, the enemy automatically destroys the machine, and is immediately free to pursue the broken crew or overrun as normal.

That applies perfectly to the Steam Tank and doesn't lead to crazy ideas where abandoned machines can't be destroyed because their crew went somewhere else for any of the other potential reasons a crew could leave a machine.

Even if you were going to argue that, you would be claiming a stupid rule in order to fight against a stupid rule that is being argued to fight against a stupid rule.

The no half points rule (that I am arguing against) is stupid.

The spiking rule (that I'm arguing for, but only to argue against the half points rule) is stupid.

The exhaustive list idea (that I'm arguing against) is stupid (and wrong).

So if you guys had your way, it would be 2 stupids to one stupid. Are Empire players really that stupid in general?

I had hoped not.

Note that my commentary on these ideas in no way reflects the posters who are arguing for them. I'm arguing for one of the stupid ideas myself after all!

Wordman
19-03-2008, 02:51
Yes, parentheses add supplemental info and examples.

pa·ren·the·sis

1 a: an amplifying or explanatory word, phrase, or sentence inserted in a passage from which it is usually set off by punctuation

I definitely think it's clarifying the rule in this case. Whether it's exhaustive or not, we could debate that all day (and GW would never rule on it) but then we get into gray areas of "well, it doesn't say it in the book." I mean, it comes down to do you go by the black and white and use common sense to muddle through the gray areas? If you don't, well Fantasy Battle becomes really unplayable.

Plus, I think we're making huge assumptions about the depth of their writers and editors' grammar and punctuation skills. :D

Hey, I understand where you're coming from about stupid rules--several times I've given up playing Warhammer for extended periods--just quit in absolute disgust and frustration; but all my friends play and I like painting the models so I eventually slink back. Once i was tempted to just melt a whole army together and send it to the corporate office just to let them know how utterly frustrated I was with their wretched rule writing.

It would be nice to be able to get through one game with a total stranger and not have to debate rules interpretations as if we were playing two different games written in two different languages.

Oh, by the way, I've always given up half points when running a Steam Tank and my deliberately abandoned war machines are fair game for destruction in CC.

Anyway, I'm done with this topic. GW, while they've made some strides over the years, still suck at rules writing.

Wyzer1
19-03-2008, 04:13
Godhead, you "missed" Wyzers post on the English language...

And again i ask, what if someone tried to use this against you?

Yes, indeed

Come on now, I was thoroughly enjoying the meaningless debate

Mid-page-5, you still haven't responded to me English symantics post yet

The truly dumb thing is we are arguing for the same thing.... (both want no spiking half VP's) ;)

Anyways

GodHead
19-03-2008, 07:38
The "left" argument?

It's getting so hard playing devil's advocate like this...

Draconian77
19-03-2008, 09:34
This is truly entertaining.

Its been so long since I laughed at a debate(apart from maybe the fluff based argument about whether the Horus Heresay was justified)

Point to note. Im almost positive Godheads RAW interprtation is flawless.

Point to note. He has no intention of playing this way or making others play this way.

Point to note He is pointing out that GW stance on RAW is ridiculous considering both the quantity of rules in existence and the complexity inherent to the way such rules interact with one another.

Point to note: Stanks should never have been classified as Warmachines and by the looks of it many Empire players are happy to give out the 150 Vp's.

Point to note. Im bored, anyone got anything I can set on fire?

Wyzer1
19-03-2008, 16:55
Everything is reposted down the page

Mike KK
19-03-2008, 18:08
No more stanks in tournaments ? :D Elves will finally have a real chance.

W00t elves answer to steam tank is Teclis...irresist-a-lol pit of shades and if you argue that that doesn't work on steam tank then ill throw 'the spirit of the forge' on your ass followed by 'rule of burning iron' ......good game well played :P

Grimgormx
19-03-2008, 21:59
Well I think that the sTank has crew because:

The enginer has its own statistics like any crew, y just got a diferent name

The Stank is unbreakable (a psicology rule that can only be used in living things)

The enginer can react to a charge firing pistol, then he hides.

As he is inside the Stank, he cant be killed, until it is destroyed.

The only problem is that the enginer doesnt has the word crew in its description, but we all know what he does

But anyway .....

sometimes I use my empire Army and the Stank, and I give Half VP to my enemy if he gets to cause 5 wounds to it.

so whenever you want to play against an empiream player, agree beforehand, if he doesnt wants to give you VP, then use all the arguments from this debate

redrum
19-03-2008, 22:12
The Stank is unbreakable (a psicology rule that can only be used in living things)

Except that undead aren't living things and they're all unbreakable. Sorry but this is the only contribution to this discussion I can make :P

Ninsaneja
19-03-2008, 22:49
READ THE RULES!
What a concept!?!?!
pg 50 of the new empire hand book states that "Except where noted otherwise, a steam tank counts as a war machine is all respects. " The army book then clearly goes on pg 51 to describe close combat with a steam tank.(hence noting otherwise)Sorry to burst your bubble, but you clearly need to do you homework school boy. With half cracked interpretations like that, no wonder people hate lawyers.

This has already been posted and proven wrong.

The close combat section of the steam tank does not give it any immunity to spiking unlike the similar section of the hellcannon...

Because the close combat section fails to mention or deny the spiking rule, it is still used, seeing as the steam tank is treated as a war machine unless otherwise *noted*.

Wyzer1
19-03-2008, 22:59
My faith in you guys is starting to slip...

Did anyone bother to even try to comprehend my last post?

Steam Tanks cant be spiked, end of story

the12thronin
19-03-2008, 23:03
Except that undead aren't living things and they're all unbreakable. Sorry but this is the only contribution to this discussion I can make :P

No they aren't. They have special rules that concern how they break.

Wordman
19-03-2008, 23:10
This has already been posted and proven wrong.

The close combat section of the steam tank does not give it any immunity to spiking unlike the similar section of the hellcannon...

Because the close combat section fails to mention or deny the spiking rule, it is still used, seeing as the steam tank is treated as a war machine unless otherwise *noted*.

Read Wyzer1's post. In further rounds of combat, the Steam Tank can Grind it's opponents--if it's auto-destroyed after the first round then it would be impossible for it to Grind in further rounds, therefore the notion that it can be automatically 'spiked' in the first round is a fallacy.

redrum
19-03-2008, 23:17
No they aren't. They have special rules that concern how they break.

They don't break. They have special rules handling what happens to them when they are beaten in CC.

Ninsaneja
20-03-2008, 02:53
Read Wyzer1's post. In further rounds of combat, the Steam Tank can Grind it's opponents--if it's auto-destroyed after the first round then it would be impossible for it to Grind in further rounds, therefore the notion that it can be automatically 'spiked' in the first round is a fallacy.

It COULD grind... if it were still around. I don't see how extra rules the only apply if that rule is not applied can possibly be said to counter that rule.

Here we have.

1. Your opponent may choose to destroy the steam tank.
2. If your steam tank is alive in further rounds of combat, it may make attacks as per grinding.

Can you spike a war machine in a multiple combat?

Wyzer1
20-03-2008, 03:41
It COULD grind... if it were still around. I don't see how extra rules the only apply if that rule is not applied can possibly be said to counter that rule.

Here we have.

1. Your opponent may choose to destroy the steam tank.
2. If your steam tank is alive in further rounds of combat, it may make attacks as per grinding.

Can you spike a war machine in a multiple combat?

Any particular reason you are not reading/responding to my actual arguments and only the single one in the middle that you have some argument against?

Dont understand it?

Dont want to acknowledge it because its damaging to your argument?

Seriously.... thats pretty pathetic if so. The argument you singled out was mainly a way to show some of the GW intention... (which it did its job) The other two have much more in them and describe in greater detail why spiking cannot be used against the Steam Tank

EDIT: Here, Ill even make it easy on you by reposting it (and re-wording a few things so its a little easier to read)


Reason #1: Applying Rules

Earlier we were talking about how the Steam Tank has rules for how close combat, and whether or not they override the rules for War Machines in the BRB

This is actually true. The "Except where other-wise noted" section means that unless noted in the following pages, the Steam Tank follows the special rules for War Machines in the Rulebook. Pretty obvious, no problems here.

Every unit follows the core rules in the book, they do not need recapped, just the sections listed override how the Steam Tank uses the War Machine rules

The Shooting section specifies exactely how the Steam Tank operates during the Shooting phase, in contrast to how normal War Machines operate. For example, it no longer randomizes between the machine and the crew (as the crew cannot be hit/wounded)

The movement section specifies how it moves in contrast to normal War Machines. It no longer moves as a small skirmishing unit, and it follows the rules detailed there

The same applies to the magic phase, it goes on to discuss how the Steam Tank operates in the magic phase (not that the War Machine section had anything, so nothing to override here)

Then, since the Steam Tank also does not function the same as normal War Machines in the big rulebook in close combat, it explains how the Steam Tank fights in close combat. It doesn't need to say it cant be spiked, and it doesn't need to say that the crew doesn't line up with it, because the Steam Tank doesn't follow those rules because it is given its own set of rules in contrast to the standard War Machines rules for fighting in Close Combat

It is in fact kind of stupid they included that line at all (about it functioning like a War Machine). The only real rules (I can think of) it uses is deployment, and victory points (if you apply it to the letter. Again I think it is stupid and would give up half VP for it)

It would have been sooooo much better if they had written, "Deploys with other War Machines"

This reason isn't really needed because of the first one, but here it is just for completeness:

Reason #2: Wording of 'left'

Given War Machine Close Combat Rule:
"If the machine has no crew left to defend it at the end of a combat (because the crew fled from the charge, have broken from combat or are wiped out), the enemy automatically destroys the machine, and is immediately free to pursue the broken crew or overrun as normal"

By implying that a War Machine has no crew 'left', it insists that there had to have been crew to begin with

As support to this, the three examples provided may not be exaustive, but they all do imply that there was a crew there to begin with, and now the Machine has been abandoned (in one way or another) by its crew

I have nothing and I have nothing left are two completely different things

The first one can be inclusive of the second, but not visa versa

There is no situation that you can say, "I have nothing left" without having something in mind already, but by saying "I have nothing" this does not imply you had something to begin with

If you can provide a situation where you can say, "I have nothing left" accurately and it can be inclusive that you did not have something to begin with, I will understand this

In every example provided, and in the first part of the sentence, GW implies that there was something to begin with (the crew), therefore the second part of the sentence (regarding spiking when the crew is no longer crewing the war machine) cannot be applied

And the Steam Tank, not following the normal rules for having a crew and fighting in close combat, does not become subject to being auto-destroyed.



Ill say it again....

The Steam Tank cannot be spiked....

Now stop ignoring this post until it is hidden half-way up the page and then just saying it can be spiked...

If you want to actually give invalidations thats fine by me

Dracosavarian
20-03-2008, 04:06
Whole bunch o' Text


It sounds to me like you have some personal stake in this. Which is ironic considering that the origin of the OP's comments was in the spirit of giving GW's Inane "Rules" A playful jab to the ribs. Consider the fact that the OP plays and uses Steam Tanks....

When people argue rules as RAW....as GW is want to do...logic almost never plays into the argument. hence the "Barding is not an ITEM" BS. Which when looking up the literal definition of "Item" is something that is defined as Tangible and malleable to the hands or placeable upon something.

yet clearly....its not an "item"

Seriously....

Take a deep breath and relax. I don't care if the Tank can be Spiked or not. The damn things overpowered anyways and if a player wants to cheese out with one with GW's ruling, I'll be more then happy to waltz a unit up to it and inform my opponent that his tank has been "Spiked" and is now useless...


Spirit of the game is spirit of the game. This entire debacle was meant as a joke. Some people are just taking it way too seriously instead of going "ha ha...oh wow...silly GW"

Which was the INTENT of the Original post.

Wyzer1
20-03-2008, 04:51
It sounds to me like you have some personal stake in this.

:angel:

Thou shalt never take thine stank!

Actually I just sometimes get obsessed with arguments like this.... and the fact that I made a lot of points that were completely ignored kind of got to me...

And the sad thing is in my nearly 10000 points of Empire I only have a single Steam Tank and have only fielded the crappy thing once....



Take a deep breath and relax. I don't care if the Tank can be Spiked or not. The damn things overpowered anyways and if a player wants to cheese out with one with GW's ruling, I'll be more then happy to waltz a unit up to it and inform my opponent that his tank has been "Spiked" and is now useless...

Over-powered? Hardly...

2x of them combined with 4x cannons? Sure, but just the 300 point (sink) Steam Tank alone is hardly anything to write home about

The fact it is auto-hit and only attacks during your turn, combined with the fact once it takes 3-4 wounds it is nearly unusable...



Spirit of the game is spirit of the game. This entire debacle was meant as a joke. Some people are just taking it way too seriously instead of going "ha ha...oh wow...silly GW"

Which was the INTENT of the Original post.

True, but when some people started posting serious things such as "Well, if its in the rules..." I looked at it differently

Anyways, just doing the argument thing for entertainment purposes anyways.... The complete over-looking of my post just got to me and thats why the last entry sounded a little hostile

Alrighty, thats probably about all for now....

Back to the Empire forums :p

*hmm... where is the beer drinking smiley???*

Unclejo
20-03-2008, 10:36
True, but when some people started posting serious things such as "Well, if its in the rules..." I looked at it differently

You CANT look at it differently, its either in the rules, or it isn't. Thats the point of RAW, and its also why RAW has to be pretty damn near watertight or its a colossall screwup.

Like in this instance.

ZeroTwentythree
20-03-2008, 14:19
Reason #1: Applying Rules

Earlier we were talking about how the Steam Tank has rules for how close combat, and whether or not they override the rules for War Machines in the BRB

This is actually true. The "Except where other-wise noted" section means that unless noted in the following pages, the Steam Tank follows the special rules for War Machines in the Rulebook. Pretty obvious, no problems here.



The only reason I have trouble going along with this one is that it relies upon the army book "Close Combat" section replacing the entirety of the BRB "Close Combat" section, including the parts not specifically addressed in the army book.

So I'd say fine, no other "Close Combat" rules apply to the STank or any other models who have "replacement" rules in their army book entry. But then this opens a whole new can of worms. So I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's hazardous if that's correct. :angel:




Reason #2: Wording of 'left'

Given War Machine Close Combat Rule:
"If the machine has no crew left to defend it at the end of a combat (because the crew fled from the charge, have broken from combat or are wiped out), the enemy automatically destroys the machine, and is immediately free to pursue the broken crew or overrun as normal"


Just want to point out that this one depends upon your Reason #1 being false, as it's part of the BRB rules. Both of your reasons can not be true, but that's OK as long as one of them is.





If you can provide a situation where you can say, "I have nothing left" accurately and it can be inclusive that you did not have something to begin with, I will understand this



OK, how about, "We had a barrel of arrows for our bowmen, but since they needed them for the siege, we've got nothing left for this battle."

No arrows left to take part in this barrel.

Maybe the "crew" is back at camp, as he's not fond of battles and has a strong sense of self-preservation. (He makes his intern drive.)




Disclaimer: I'm not trying to argue for playing spike-able STanks, I'm just following along with the OP and pointing out that the rules aren't phrased in an air-tight manner. Not that I expect them to be, I'm a believer in common sense... which, as the OP also mentions, also dictates that the STank should give up half points if taken down to half wounds. More honestly I'd argue for common sense in both cases.

JonnyTHM
20-03-2008, 15:24
Wyzer1's logic is actually pretty much flawless here...

He's set up a 2 part argument that has a handy dandy nature of being in the form of:
1) Case A, proves his point
2) If Case A is false, Case B immediately comes into play, and must immediately be true, and likewise proves his point.

He has just swallowed up the entire 'phase space' of the rules and made them prove his point.

You cannot argue "but rules as written say..." without taking into account that he has cited EXACTLY how the rules are written, and shown that by the language they're written in they preclude spiking.

As for Godhead... I'm rather disappointed that someone who is a future lawyer wouldn't understand that in a situation where an example is given, if that example is precluded by the general rules for war machines, and it says "except as noted" that it notes an exception. If a part of the rules given under a big heading of exceptions would not be possible by the normal rules... it's an exception to those rules.

ZeroTwentythree
20-03-2008, 15:40
Wyzer1's logic is actually pretty much flawless here...

He's set up a 2 part argument that has a handy dandy nature of being in the form of:
1) Case A, proves his point
2) If Case A is false, Case B immediately comes into play, and must immediately be true, and likewise proves his point.



Care to explain how Case A being false makes Case B true?

If Case A is true, then Case B must be false.

If Case A is false, then go to Case B and see if it is true or false.

You still have to agree to his "left" argument for Case B to be true. But Case A being false does not automatically make this so. (And I'm not saying it is or isn't true, though I did try to give an example showing away around the argument, as requested.)

Wyzer1
20-03-2008, 15:48
The only reason I have trouble going along with this one is that it relies upon the army book "Close Combat" section replacing the entirety of the BRB "Close Combat" section, including the parts not specifically addressed in the army book.

So I'd say fine, no other "Close Combat" rules apply to the STank or any other models who have "replacement" rules in their army book entry. But then this opens a whole new can of worms. So I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's hazardous if that's correct. :angel:

Ah, thats not it

The Army Books's Steam Tank section replaces the entirety of the War Machines Close Combat Section

The Steam Tanks very first little rule specifies that unless specified otherwise (meaning, everything else) it follows the rules for War Machines outlined in the BRB. Thats crucial to this

War Machines have a whole seperates set of movement, close combat and shooting that specifies how they function differently than you're normal units

The sections specified override those, you cannot actually interpret them as overriding the BRB's main close combat section (because of the wording in the first part)

So when it provides the 'shooting', 'close combat', 'magic' etc... sections, those are replacing how the Steam Tank is different than standard War Machines, not trying to sum up the entire Close Combat phase

And thank you a ton for actually trying to prove me wrong

It makes me re-think the wording, and trying to continue the argument, and promotes intelligent conversation (well.... I mean we are arguing on the internet about steam tanks.... but you get the point ;) )

The 'left' one was more of a 'if they find a loophole in the first one, it could technically be applied' . But its not really important



Hey, on the bright side here

Since these sections do override the War Machine sections (Should be conclusive at this point), that would meen no free wheeling? Right? (meaning you would dont get the free wheel that standard War Machines get.. Theres been arguments in the past on this)

ZeroTwentythree
20-03-2008, 15:59
Hey, on the bright side here

Since these sections do override the War Machine sections (Should be conclusive at this point), that would meen no free wheeling? Right? (meaning you would dont get the free wheel that standard War Machines get.. Theres been arguments in the past on this)



Like I said, a whole new can of worms... :D

FigureFour
20-03-2008, 18:20
Just so we're clear:
I think that not giving up half victory points is stupid.
I found a rule, that if applied, is even more stupid to try and counter the first stupid rule. I did so to draw attention to the first stupid rule and Alessio's stupid idea of not fixing obvious mistakes with FAQs and erratas.
What you're arguing now, to not allow spiking except in the 3 distinct circumstances, is a third stupid rule, potentially more stupid than the previous two.

Unfortunately the general consensus seems to be that you have successfully raised your point and lots of people hate you for having done so.


Point to note. Im almost positive Godheads RAW interprtation is flawless.

That's going a little far. It's certainly valid, but it could only be flawless if the rules it was predicated on were. And they obviously aren't.


Read Wyzer1's post. In further rounds of combat, the Steam Tank can Grind it's opponents--if it's auto-destroyed after the first round then it would be impossible for it to Grind in further rounds, therefore the notion that it can be automatically 'spiked' in the first round is a fallacy.

This makes the INTENT of the rule clear. But intent counts for squat in this kind of debate.

No one is arguing that you SHOULD be able to spike a steam tank, the argument if weather or not the rules allow it.

And we could HAPPILY go with the intent behind the rules if the game designers were willing to discuss their mistakes and clarify their intent. Something that they are apparently unwilling to do.


Wyzer1's logic is actually pretty much flawless here...

He's set up a 2 part argument that has a handy dandy nature of being in the form of:
1) Case A, proves his point
2) If Case A is false, Case B immediately comes into play, and must immediately be true, and likewise proves his point.

He has just swallowed up the entire 'phase space' of the rules and made them prove his point.

You don't know much about logic do you? Because that's not a proper logical structure for an argument.

Not that Wyzer's argument is particularly BAD, but it's certainly not flawless logic.


As for Godhead... I'm rather disappointed that someone who is a future lawyer wouldn't understand that in a situation where an example is given, if that example is precluded by the general rules for war machines, and it says "except as noted" that it notes an exception. If a part of the rules given under a big heading of exceptions would not be possible by the normal rules... it's an exception to those rules.

GodHead's interpretation is good legalese. It does note some exceptions to the close combat rules, but at no point is there any suggestion that they should replace the existing rules, or in what extent they should replace those rules.

The "Right Thing" in this situation is to assume that the new rules supersede ONLY the rules they directly interact with. Any individual rule not mentioned is not effected.

The important thing to remember is "close combat" is a collection of rules not a single rule. Each rule that is excepted should be noted explicitly, OR they shouldn't tell us to use the war machine rules in ALL SITUATIONS that aren't explicitly noted.


The Army Books's Steam Tank section replaces the entirety of the War Machines Close Combat Section

Why?


Since these sections do override the War Machine sections (Should be conclusive at this point), that would meen no free wheeling? Right? (meaning you would dont get the free wheel that standard War Machines get.. Theres been arguments in the past on this)

Why do you keep saying this? What makes it conclusive that these rules sections should be overridden en masse? It seems totally illogical, especially considering it would mean that ALL war machine rules are overridden with the exception of the VP rules (which GW says it WASN'T supposed to use). If they DID intend those sections to completely replace all those war machine rules why doesn't it say "A steam tank behaves exactly as presented here, except for being treated as a war machine for the purposes of victory points"?

I have yet to see ANY reason at all why replacing rules in blocks is what GW intended or what should be done.

Really the only differences between the two methods is that replacing only rules where an exception is EXPLICITLY noted makes the rules clearer and replacing all rules covered under a header makes spiking impossible.

If the support for your argument is that it (circularly) supports the conclusion you want, you have a horribly weak argument. Even if the conclusion you want is probably the way the game should be played.

TheAmazingAntman
20-03-2008, 19:38
The Steam Tank is a war machine.

The precedent set up in every single army book for outlining the stats of a war machine is:
______________________________
War machine: Stats (M,WS, BS, etc.)
Crew: Stats

and suprise, suprise this is the way the Steam Tank is set up as well.

Thus, the Engineer Commander is the crew of the war machine. Since this crewmember cannot be singled out and killed the war machine is always has a live crewmember and cannot be spiked.

Now I understand we're all having a lot of fun with this, but honestly this is all just silly and pointless...everybody go home, nothing to see here.

~Anthony

Lastie
20-03-2008, 20:38
Another interesting catch by Godhead here. Kudos mate! This should provide me food for thought until such time as my Skaven hordes meet a poor unfortunate Empire player (although there's a good chance said Steam Tank will suffer the bad end of a Warp-Lightning Cannon before anyone gets into combat with it).

ZeroTwentythree
20-03-2008, 20:50
Thus, the Engineer Commander is the crew of the war machine. Since this crewmember cannot be singled out and killed the war machine is always has a live crewmember and cannot be spiked.

Now I understand we're all having a lot of fun with this, but honestly this is all just silly and pointless...everybody go home, nothing to see here.



Of course it's silly, and the original poster has pointed out that this is part of the statement he was trying to make.

But while what you said makes sense and seems reasonable it is based on an assumption that is not spelled out in the rules.

And if that's the case, there are a few more "common sense" assumptions that I'd like to make about my army as well. Whichever one I'm playing at the time. I'm sure there are other people who have plenty of "common sense" assumptions they'd like to use.

The common sense and/or assumptions are called house rules. The rules in the book are what everyone is calling rules as written (RAW.)

TheAmazingAntman
20-03-2008, 21:07
If you want to play the assumption game, no where in the Empire rulebook does it state that the "crewmen" for the helblaster volley gun's profile are the weapons "crew".

So technically you could with the RAAAAAAAAW(r) rules the helblaster should be spiked immediatly as well.

Ridiculous? Of course, but so is Godheads argument. One shouldn’t be forced to contrive house rules just because of a demagogue’s dubious logic.

…and I'll suplex anyone who says otherwise.

(winkey face)

~Anthony

GodHead
20-03-2008, 21:13
If that's true, then what you've posted is an argument in favor of spiking Helblasters, not an argument against spiking Steam Tanks.

Do you see what you've done? You've posted an irrational rules interpretation in an attempt to get people to disagree with a similarly founded rules interpretation that is, itself, irrational!

I mean, bringing up Helblasters potential vulnerability to being spiked as an argument against Steam Tanks getting spiked is tantamount to bringing up Steam Tanks potential vulnerability to being spiked as an argument against no half victory points for half damaged steam tanks.

*GASP!* What kind of intellectually dishonest monster would do such a thing!? ;)

By the way, I'd like to thank the last few pages of posters (for the most part) for their maturity and willingness to engage in discussion. It's rare when a contentious (and clearly asinine) issue can mature over time rather than devolve into personal attacks. It's quite heartening to see.

TheAmazingAntman
20-03-2008, 21:18
*GASP* Oh no...what have I done!

*Runs away in shame*

~Anthoy

p.s. Interesting note, as an Empire player I've never had a desire to field a Steam Tank until just this second...Welp, off to the local gaming store then.

ZeroTwentythree
20-03-2008, 21:20
If you want to play the assumption game, no where in the Empire rulebook does it state that the "crewmen" for the helblaster volley gun's profile are the weapons "crew".


If I'm keeping track of this insane thread correctly :rolleyes: , it doesn't need to. The crew are defined by being on separate bases by the warmachine rules.

The same rules are supposed to apply to the STank... which has no separately based engineer, thus requiring some sort of "exception" to the rules stating that the engineer is a "crew"... which is -- IIRC -- how GodHead started this.



(continuous disclaimer: still not saying I would play games using the spike-the-STank rule...)

GodHead
20-03-2008, 21:21
TheAmazingAntman, in case you missed it, what you did is exactly what I've been doing from the beginning. Rather than weaken my argument, or even tacitly confirm my methods, you've adopted them as your own.

You argued:
"If spiking Steam Tanks happens, then spiking Helblasters happens, which is clearly unacceptable."

I argued from the beginning:
"If no half points for Steam Tanks happens, then spiking Steam Tanks happens, which is clearly unacceptable."

They're the same argument ("If X happens, then Y happens, which is clearly unacceptable." You've just substituted out X and Y, and criticized my method. I'm no more or less a demagogue than you my friend.

Also note that crew are defined in the rulebook, and the crew for the helblaster does meet the test from my point of view.

And to ZeroTwentythree, I'm not even close to saying that I would play with the rule I'm arguing for (spiking Stanks).

I also don't want to play with the no half points rule, so I'm using this as a rhetoric device. Note that this entire discussion is happening outside of an actual game of Warhammer being played, which is where I believe all such "conversations" like this belong. If a disagreement like this came up in a game, I'd roll off for it and be done with it (until the game was finished). The place and time for this kind of discussion is clearly for the pub after games or the forums during boring constitutional classes.

TheAmazingAntman
20-03-2008, 21:23
In case you missed it, I'ma go get a Steam Tank now.

...pfffft, ya'll are no fun to play with.

~Anthony

TheAmazingAntman
20-03-2008, 21:35
So if X = Godhead provocates witty Empire player

Then clearly X has happened. Thus would Y would logically also have to happen.

Y without question = Empire buying Steam Tank out of spite.

The whole equation thus yeilding another snotty Empire player with a Steam Tank for players to cry cheese over.

Clearly Unacceptable.

~Anthony

Mercules
20-03-2008, 21:45
So if X = Godhead provocates witty Empire player

Then clearly X has happened. Thus would Y would logically also have to happen.

Y without question = Empire buying Steam Tank out of spite.

The whole equation thus yeilding another snotty Empire player with a Steam Tank for players to cry cheese over.

Clearly Unacceptable.

~Anthony

Godhead is a witty Empire player, with two Steamtanks. How does that affect your logic statement? Is he provoking himself? :)

TheAmazingAntman
20-03-2008, 21:47
Logic would say that he would get a third Steam Tank?

Or possibly just a wheel of provolone...I'm not sure.

~Anthony

AzureDruchii
20-03-2008, 21:49
Go buy your steamtank. When it gets deployed I will simply state that if you want to deny my half VP for bringing it down to half strength, I'll fly my harpies into it first turn. ^^

-Rex

GodHead
20-03-2008, 21:52
I'm not even sure that's what TheAmazingAntman is arguing for anymore. He seems to have gone... someplace else with his rhetoric. Kind of like the Chewbacca defence.

Mercules
20-03-2008, 21:52
Logic would say that he would get a third Steam Tank?

~Anthony

Logic would say that your logic statement lacked parts and was not valid, but since we are joking we will ignore it. :) Nothing showing that X and Y have a connection.

Godhead is provoking Empire players about a particular unit.

Empire players are given to buy and play a unit that they are provoked over.

Therefore Godhead is causing more Steam Tank models to be purchased and played.

Valid, but unlikely true. :)

ZeroTwentythree
20-03-2008, 21:56
And to ZeroTwentythree, I'm not even close to saying that I would play with the rule I'm arguing for (spiking Stanks).



I realize that. But I've also noticed that too many people are taking your position way too seriously, so I keep adding a disclaimer. :D

TheAmazingAntman
20-03-2008, 22:00
In many ways a Steam Tank, is like a Wookie...soft and fuzzy on the outside, but fierce like a well ummm a Wookie...on the inside.

But anyways, since we will never likely get an official ruling on this one and since (despite my threats) I'll never field a steam tank. I'm going to have to drop out on this one...have fun with your bickering boys, I've got some inner circle knights to paint.

~Anthony

P.S. on second thought, a steam tank isn't at all like a wookie...more like an ewok...have fun with that image.

Wyzer1
20-03-2008, 22:13
Why do you keep saying this? What makes it conclusive that these rules sections should be overridden en masse? It seems totally illogical, especially considering it would mean that ALL war machine rules are overridden with the exception of the VP rules (which GW says it WASN'T supposed to use).

Before I try and reply to the rest of that paragraph, quick question just in general

Not going by RAW, just the 'most likely intended rules'

What Rules does the Steam Tank actually use?

It obviously doesn't fight/move/shoot or operate in any way like a War Machine.... The VP thing is still a little iffy, GW could be dumb and not award VP's or they could be generous about it and give VP's

The only thing I can think of is deployment

So honest question, what War Machine rules outside of deployment (and possible VP's (this will likely be in the upcoming FAQ)) does the Steam Tank actually use?

Mercules
20-03-2008, 22:15
Go buy your steamtank. When it gets deployed I will simply state that if you want to deny my half VP for bringing it down to half strength, I'll fly my harpies into it first turn. ^^

-Rex

Bah! Just go for total annoyance and announce it can't fire or move without a crew and you don't see any models around it. Since we are going to be silly, we might as well go full out. :)

Wyzer1
20-03-2008, 22:20
Bah! Just go for total annoyance and announce it can't fire or move without a crew and you don't see any models around it. Since we are going to be silly, we might as well go full out. :)

I couldn't help but think that too...

Also (my BRB is currently not with me) doesn't a War Machine just give up all its Victory Points if there is no crew with it?

Just saying... that might be a more valid argument than trying to argue spiking.... (and less likely to recieve a kick to the groin)

Mercules
20-03-2008, 22:29
I couldn't help but think that too...

Also (my BRB is currently not with me) doesn't a War Machine just give up all its Victory Points if there is no crew with it?

Just saying... that might be a more valid argument than trying to argue spiking.... (and less likely to recieve a kick to the groin)

Yes, if it has been destroyed or the crew is not in a position to man it at the end of the game.

GodHead
20-03-2008, 22:35
That's a good tack to take too. See what thinking outside the box can do?

I think it should quite clear by now that Alessio's position on not clarifying and fixing the rules is pretty indefensible. Sometimes the rules are wrong and lead to the wrong outcome. They should be changed if that is the case.

thatdave
20-03-2008, 23:24
Granted I didn't read the first 7 pages of this, but when I went and read the initial post a single word popped out to me and I apologize if it was discussed at all. Based on the agruements presented later it didn't seem to be. The OPs quote from the BRB was this:


As the Steam Tank has no crew ("A war machine comprises the machine plus a crew, which usually consists of two to four crewmen. The crew are based separately, unlike the model of a chariot or a ridden monster..." p.84 rulebook) enemies will be able to spike it left and right.

Does anyone else see the key word in this? Let me point it out:


A war machine comprises the machine plus a crew, which usually consists of two to four crewmen. The crew are based separately, unlike the model of a chariot or a ridden monster...

This in and of itself (assuming the quote is correct from the book) says to me that a separately based crew is not required, only that it is most often the case that the crew would be based separately from a warmachine. The lack of crew being the main point cited for "spiking".

There is no requirement per RAW for the crew to be based separately.

GodHead
20-03-2008, 23:35
No, that "usually" only refers to the number being between two and four.
The statement that a war machine is comprised of the machine plus the crew is not qualified at all. The two concepts are separated by the comma after the word "crew."

Nice try though.

thatdave
21-03-2008, 14:48
Yeah. Zero crew was where I was going, but I got ahead of myself.

My new/further arguement was to be in regards to the Engineer replacing the crew. This is backed by a few points.

1) All the other Warmachine entrys have a line for the weapon (with it's stats) and another line for the crew (with a BS and LD value). The Stank has the same, only the crew line is called "Engineer". Obviously the Engineer has replaced the crew.

2) Point one is backed by the Engineer entry wherein it says that an Engineer can replace a crew member of a Warmachine. The Engineer can make a Stand and Shoot charge reaction. This is part of the normal "Characters joining WM crew" rules. The Engineer rules go further than the normal Character rules and he becomes part of the actual crew - he can be killed if the machine goes awry, unlike other characters. This applies to the Stank too - if the Stank is destroyed so is the Engineer.

I think the Engineer is the crewman. The only one. There is no other mention of anyone else being in there. A bit silly I know, but it doesn't. He would obviously be busy, but one crewman can operate a Warmachine.

Mercules
21-03-2008, 15:31
I think the Engineer is the crewman. The only one. There is no other mention of anyone else being in there. A bit silly I know, but it doesn't. He would obviously be busy, but one crewman can operate a Warmachine.

And most of us would agree if the point of the whole post is that RaW is sometimes silly. If you use RaW you don't make the assumption that the Engineer is the crew as you don't assume with RaW you just read it. It doesn't say crew, ergo he is not crew. ;)

thatdave
21-03-2008, 15:40
And most of us would agree if the point of the whole post is that RaW is sometimes silly. If you use RaW you don't make the assumption that the Engineer is the crew as you don't assume with RaW you just read it. It doesn't say crew, ergo he is not crew. ;)


The thing is none of the other warmachine entries in the Emprie book have a "Crew" keyword in them. The only crew listed is on the stat line. For the Stank this line is occupied by the Engineer. An Engineer can replace a crewman. Is this connection really that hard to see?

I realize this is a "rhetorical" arguement - no one really thinks the Stank is crewless (it's not, else how could it do anything but sit in the place it is deployed for the entire game). I do realize this is a weedy point as a retaliation of sorts against a developer's ruling on the VP issue. And as to my stance on this I have always given/taken half VPs for half wounds. But if someone wanted to pull the "Allessio said" card on me then I would have to just go with it as this was the ruling.

Thanatos_elNyx
21-03-2008, 17:31
So honest question, what War Machine rules outside of deployment (and possible VP's (this will likely be in the upcoming FAQ)) does the Steam Tank actually use?

After reading the Rules, I would fall into the camp where the War Machine Movement, Shooting and Close Combat rules are entirely replaced by those entries from the STank rules. All other War Machine Rules apply (such as characters joining, etc), but the only relevant ones are the deployment rules.

The VP ones are in a different section of the book than War Machines, but they aren't the only rules that reference War Machines. Others I have spotted after a brief search include Poisoned Attacks and that Healing Spell from the Lore of Life.

EvC
21-03-2008, 18:02
And the Banshee's Ghostly Howl, which will not affect it :o

thatdave
22-03-2008, 04:05
So I finally found the major flaw in the "Stank has no crew" argument, which is the basis for the other thread's author for auto-destroying the Stank.

In what is to me typical rules lawyering fashion, the argument is based on an incomplete BRB quote. The thread cited the "Models" part of the "Warmachines" section (page 84). And if we take the part he quoted then it appears pretty solid. This section starts with:


"A WM comprises the machine + crew, which usually consists of 2-4 crewmen. The crew are based separately"

This is the basis of his argument: since there are no separately based crew then there must not be any crew and thus the Stank is left undefended and auto destroyed per the abandoned war machine rules. What was "conveniently" omitted was the following parts:


"The crew are based separately, unlike the model of a chariot or ridden monster, where the crew or riders are likely to be physically glued to the char. or mount. This is necessary because a WM's crew can be forced to flee from their machine. These models must be kept within 1" of their machine to count as crewing it." Bold is my emphasis.

So not only were we not presented with all the evidence, but what was presented to us as a rule (or more accurately a definition) is just a modeling matter, to facilitate charge reactions. And the icing on that cake is that the Stank cannot make any charge reaction other than the Engineer's Stand and Shoot reaction - so there is no reason for the Stank to have a separately modeled crew anyway.

That pretty much settles it in my book.

GodHead
22-03-2008, 04:44
That's indicative of intent, but certainly not conclusive.

Certainly not a major flaw. There's an awful lot of stuff that's indicative of intent. It doesn't make a speck of difference from a rules standpoint though. The reason given for why crew are on bases has no impact on how crew are defined or that the Steam Tank has none.

I don't think we need two threads for this though.

Commodus Leitdorf
22-03-2008, 05:53
Okay, this has been fun...but its time to end this little discussion.

The only reason crew, by the rules, must be on a seperate base is because they can be forced to flee their machine. Thats the only reason they are not glued to the machine like other things in the game (chariots andmounts)

Exact quote ----> "The crew are based seperately, unlike the model of a chariot or a ridden monster, where the crew or riders are likely to be physically glued to the chariot or mount. This is nescessary because a warmachine crew can be forced to flee from their machine"

Thats the only reason crew are based seperately, because of charge reactions, thats it. The only charge reaction a Steam tank can make is stand and shoot, as per its own rules. The person making the stand and shoot is the Engineer who resides inside the machine. He may not have his own base, but that isn't nescessary since he cannot abandon his own machine as the only charge reaction he can make is stand and shoot, again, as per the rules defined in the Empire rule book.

Therefore, the Engineer commander is crew who doesn't have a base, which isn't nescessary because bases are only required if you can flee your machine, which the engineer cannot do.

Now back to the heart of this discussion. I also agree GW's stance on RAW is..well..problamatic. The Steam Tank is by FAR the best example of this as the number of discussion that have popped up with regards to it are far beyond any other unit/rules interpretation in the game.

Should the Stank give half VP's for taking it to 5 wounds? quite possibly yes. However, seeing is how the Stank at 5 wounds becomes a 300pt terrain feature most Empire players are reluctant to conceed the point...I mean atleast Wood Elves get THEIR terrain for free :rolleyes:. I think most empire players would prefer a Stank with 5 wounds that worked normally, then this 300pt paperweight...but this is a discussion about rules, not botched Empire units.

Thank you Godhead for bringing up a discussion about GW's RAW policy...hopefully the rumors I heard at the last big GW tournament here in Montreal are true, and a more consistant FAQ system is being worked on as we speak. In the mean time, have fun putting together your Stanks :D

burad
22-03-2008, 06:20
Guess I need to say this again...
The whole point of the 'spiking' rule is supposedly the notion that since the human Engineer Commander is not specifically called 'crew', that therefore the tank is destroyed out at the end of close combat because it has no 'crew' left to defend it.
Please note that the Engineer Commander in a not-destroyed tank at the end of close combat has NOT (1) fled from the charge, (2) broken from combat, or (3) been wiped out, which are the 3 specific circumstances cited as meeting the 'having no crew left to defend it". None of those three things have occured, therefore it does not meet the standard of having no crew left.
Also, on another facet of the argument, according to the BRB "Normally a war machine requires a full crew to work it properly" and "Obviously the machine requires at least one crewman to work". Therefore, either the tank has a crew in the Engineer Commander, since it obviously works, according to the Army Book; or, if the Engineer Commander is not crew, it does not work at all, which is of course, contrary to the Army Book. Since the Army Book overrides the BRB, and since the tank does obviously work, it therefore must have crew.

GodHead
22-03-2008, 07:09
Again, as I mentioned in that other thread that popped up, that indicates GW's behind giving War Machines crew in the first place, but it does not qualify how crew are defined in the preceding sentence.

Like you said, it gives a reason for, it, but it's the previous sentence that clearly defines what counts as crew.

The spiking argument isn't even worthwhile anymore since previous posters have mentioned the Victory Points table itself.

No crew, full points.

So now Empire Players and Alessio have a choice:
1.) Treat them as War Machines for VP purposes and give up 300 as soon as it's put on the table
or
2.) Treat them like a normal unit and they give up: 0 points at full health to 50%; 150 points at 50% to 1 wound; 300 points when killed.

Commodus Leitdorf
22-03-2008, 13:41
Unfortunately no, the entire arguement is based around the fact that the definition of crew is models on seperate bases. Seperate bases are actually not required for crew, therefore spiking cannot happen.

Draconian77
22-03-2008, 15:07
Just because people disagree with it doesn't make it perposterous.

"steam tank being removed as soon as CC is initiated. So yeah, this is preposterous."

Im pretty sure spiking happens at the end of combat so this sentence is inaccurate.

thatdave
22-03-2008, 15:33
No crew, no points.

So now Empire Players and Alessio have a choice:
1.) Treat them as War Machines for VP purposes and give up 300 as soon as it's put on the table
or
2.) Treat them like a normal unit and they give up: 0 points at full health to 50%; 150 points at 50% to 1 wound; 300 points when killed.


Engineer=crew, no points. For you.


3) Kindly shake my opponent's hand, thank them, and pack my minis with the hope that my next opponent isn't going to try to desparately pull some nonsense out of their ****.

FigureFour
22-03-2008, 15:47
What Rules does the Steam Tank actually use?

Every rule that isn't specifically contradicted in the Steam Tank rules. It's not many sure, but if we allow those rules headings in the Empire book to completely over ride sections in the BRB, then it doesn't use ANY war machine rules.

Why would they say it behaves like a war machine if it doesn't?


Unfortunately no, the entire arguement is based around the fact that the definition of crew is models on seperate bases. Seperate bases are actually not required for crew, therefore spiking cannot happen.

I'm going to keep reading this thread just for the hilarious people who don't understand logic and/or English who show up and say "This discussion is over now! I have solved the problem!"

I don't want to be mean here, but unless you've been practicing logical interpretation of language for years, GodHead is probably better then you.

thatdave
22-03-2008, 15:54
I am interested to see what nonsense comes out of the GW ruling that a Stank is not auto-destroyed. I am pretty sure we all know that will be the ruling, if there is a ruling from GW. What will the next "issue" be?

In my experience GW tends to not rule on these outragously silly rules issues that are obviously a tenuous stretch at best.

Caboose123
22-03-2008, 19:54
Okay, some points:

The rule for spiking still applies because it says in the Steam Tank rules "unless otherwise noted" and nowhere does it say that spiking doesnt happen. Your assuming that the rules for combat overule ALL combat rules, RAW doesnt allow for assumptions.

I still think GodHeads interpretation for crew is correct. Crew need to have bases. The other rules (which have been quoted many times) could imply that a war machine doesnt need to have a crew based seperatly, but RAW doesnt allow for assumptions...


To be fair GW haven't written this rule badly (unless otherwise noted could be a bit more specific), Its very possible people are twisting the words, which is still valid.

He is not suggesting he would use these rules, but showing that GW standpoint on RAW is just plain dumb, and showing how far determined players could stretch this. Again, GodHead, what if people used any of these on you?

sulla
22-03-2008, 20:00
Figurefour, there are at least two places where the war machine rules are not overridden in the steam tank entry, points award, and deployment.

So seriously... despite the steam tank's own rules pretty clearly explaining what happens to it in combat when it is hit, do you really believe it can be spiked by the rules as written? I find it hard to believe you're not just trolling here.

Thanatos_elNyx
22-03-2008, 21:18
The rule for spiking still applies because it says in the Steam Tank rules "unless otherwise noted" and nowhere does it say that spiking doesnt happen. Your assuming that the rules for combat overule ALL combat rules, RAW doesnt allow for assumptions.

The problem here isn't about 'assuming', its our different definitions of "unless otherwise noted".

When it says that the Stank operates as a War Machine unless otherwise noted; I read that as the Stank has its own rules for Moving, Shooting and Close Combat, so I'm going to use these noted rules instead of the regular War Machine rules. Since the Stank doesn't have rules listed for deployment, etc then I will refer to the War Machine rules.

Since the Stank has its own Close Combat rules noted, I won't be using any of the regular War Machine Close Combat rules, which includes 'Spiking'.

W0lf
23-03-2008, 01:08
PURE RAW this is unbeatable and the stank dies.

Raw is so very silly and pointless.

You sir are a genius, i love you and GW just got a little sweaty under the collar :P

Caboose123
23-03-2008, 01:52
The problem here isn't about 'assuming', its our different definitions of "unless otherwise noted".

When it says that the Stank operates as a War Machine unless otherwise noted; I read that as the Stank has its own rules for Moving, Shooting and Close Combat, so I'm going to use these noted rules instead of the regular War Machine rules. Since the Stank doesn't have rules listed for deployment, etc then I will refer to the War Machine rules.


Same thing really, here you assume the rules in the combat section of the STank replace all the combat rules, but they dont say they replace all the rules, again, thats just your opinion/definition/assumption.

Thanatos_elNyx
23-03-2008, 14:45
Same thing really, here you assume the rules in the combat section of the STank replace all the combat rules, but they dont say they replace all the rules, again, thats just your opinion/definition/assumption.

The rules clearly state that the STank is treated like a War Machine except where noted. It then goes and notes different Close Combat rules to use, instead of the ones in the BRB.

You are making the assumption that you have to use both the BRB Close Combat rules and the STank close combat rules, when no where does it say you have to use both; none of BRB War Machine Close Combat even make sense for the STank.

Commodus Leitdorf
23-03-2008, 16:48
The engineer is crew, he is unbreakable and cannot be singled out in combat as he is hiding in the tank as per the Steam Tank rules which override the normal Warmachine rules. A machine with crew cannot be spiked.



I'm going to keep reading this thread just for the hilarious people who don't understand logic and/or English who show up and say "This discussion is over now! I have solved the problem!"

The "problem" hasn't been solved, but the "problem" isn't the spiking issue its RAW and GW's stance on it. RAW is used because GW doesn't update FAQS regularly (which should change soon if the information I have already shared comes true) These rules discussions wouldn't come up as if GW just took feedback and updated rules anomalies regularly.

And once again, back to the part of the discussion that matters. Should the Steam Tank give up half VP's? Probably. But the official ruling is that it doesn't, and I dont see a reason why any Empire player should have to. Atleast when you take a dragon to half wounds, it can still fly around do its job. Stank just sits there...blocking LoS. The Stank in its current 7th edition incarnation is significantly less broken then its 6th edition counterpart, its still causing all this ruckus. If they had just made the darn thing work like a chariot, or even a mount for an Engineer we wouldn't have to go through all these RAW debates with regards to it.

Caboose123
23-03-2008, 19:07
Thanatos, we are going in circles, again you assume it only uses the close combat rules from the empire book. and nowhere does it say this...

Commodus, i think its just your opinion that the engineer is crew, i think GodHeads original argument still stands. And personally i think the STank is worthless, even firing its cannon can cause it to lose a couple of wounds, and after it loses a few its near-worthless, but thats not the point. RAW says that you have to do all the wounds for VPs...

Anyway i agree that GW stance on RAW is absurd...

Neknoh
23-03-2008, 23:41
¤dresses up in suit¤ ¤attatches fake ID card saying "Devil's advocate" to suit¤ ¤picks up wrench¤ ¤throws it into the steamdriven coggs of the nay-sayers... hopefully¤

I'm with Godhead on thisone due to several things:

1. Nowhere is there a note that the Steamtank is a unit consisting of the warmachine AND IT'S CREW, as such, it does NOT have a crew

2. The rules for Close Combat, by RAW are NOT completely replaced, it lists a set of rules that fall into the category of "OTHERWISE NOTED", HOWEVER, it is NOT the category that replaces the entirety of the old category, by RAW, it merely replaces a FEW of the instances of the former category. If it does not work in this way, then units fighting the STank would NOT be under the effects of Combat Resolution or any similar effects on the combat.


Now, just playing the devils advocate here, a question to those arguing FOR the Crew (again, RAW says not, and I am of the same view as Godhead, RAW sucks. And I would not use this unless someone said "It's a warmachine, you get no points"), IF there is indeed a crew, would that not mean that an Empire Engineer (aka. the Hero choice) could replace a member of this crew? What would happen then?

I think this is furthermore a proof that the STank does NOT have crew since there is no explanation of what would happen should an Empire Engineer replace one of the crewmen of a steamtank. As such, there are no crewmembers.


And I must say, I aplaud you all for this thread, it has been a truly great read.

Commodus Leitdorf
24-03-2008, 14:16
I think this is furthermore a proof that the STank does NOT have crew since there is no explanation of what would happen should an Empire Engineer replace one of the crewmen of a steamtank. As such, there are no crewmembers.


And Empire engineer cannot join the crew of a Steam Tank, a Steam Tank is unbreakable. Only Unbreakable characters can join Unbreakable units. Regardless, the Empire Enigineer rules clearly state what units he can join anyway (Cannons, Mortars, Helstorms, Helblasters) so it doesn't really matter what the normal Engineer can or cannot do in this instance.

But anyway, this is a pointless discussion, and the fact I participated is even dumber since I dont use the 70$ paperweight that is the Steam Tank. If you wanna give Half VP's for the thing, feel free. Playing Empire is about points denial to your enemy anyway, 150 isn't all that much to begin with. And while their wasting artillery shots on bringing the thing down, you can deal with the rest of his force un-molested.

-Commodus

HellRaid
25-03-2008, 00:31
Only Unbreakable characters can join Unbreakable units.

You're not quite right here, I'm afraid. I'm fairly certain there's a section detailing that breakable characters can join unbreakable units, and become unbreakable for the duration of their stay within the unit - though I don't have a rulebook to hand, so can't quote pages.

I consider myself lucky that my common Empire foe has no idea that the "no half victory points" ruling exists, though I might tell him about it since this counter-arguement is too funny not to use :)

As I say, we currently play by the 'hybrid warmachine' rules that you're probably meant to assume anyway - but I agree that the spiking arguement is flawless. Not that I'd use it in game - rather as a deterrent ;)

EvC
25-03-2008, 00:44
He is absolutely correct. Please don't bother trying to correct people without first having a good look through your rulebook to be sure.

HellRaid
25-03-2008, 01:01
Doh. Must've gotten confused with Fearless in 40k. My mistake.

Does that mean that an empire character won't be able to join a unit of state troops that was previously made Unbreakable by a casting of Unbending Righteousness then?
(Assuming of course that the empire player doesn't want to cancel and recast the prayer again.)

Deadhorse
25-03-2008, 01:16
Is the gobbo sitting on the doom diver crew? ;)

To me the whole point of this thread, and similar threads about Invocation of Nehek not allowed to be cast into combat, or the master rune of wrath and ruin not slowing down units is:

RAW is silly. It is especially silly when people go out of their way to abuse it and find horrid loopholes. It saddens me whenever GW says "Rules should be interpreted as written" or "designer's mistakes stand" because this reinforces people's opinions that they can abuse the game and get away with it.

In short - please do not apply RAW to other's armies unless you want the same treatment of your army when GW releases it - the quality has been steadily decreasing, with more and more holes as big as a house getting printed. At some point you'll find that the same guy whose steam tank you attempted to spike will grin broadly and point out that your regiment of horrors cannot cast spells after all, because the designers missed a key line. Or somesuch.

Caboose123
25-03-2008, 02:53
Well said.

RAW (and GW) is absurd.

Akuma
25-03-2008, 03:31
RAW is silly. It is especially silly when people go out of their way to abuse it and find horrid loopholes. It saddens me whenever GW says "Rules should be interpreted as written" or "designer's mistakes stand" because this reinforces people's opinions that they can abuse the game and get away with it.

RAW is just a sad kid's way of dealing with lack of tactics - the bottom line is - the rules should always reflact that wfb is a game of skill , wits , and by far the most important thing - good fun - It will never , ever be balanced to the point where you can say - I play better then you because i win - no , there will always be someone in advantage and disadvantage simply because army he has choosen ...

It helps to remember thet the object of the game is to win - but the ultimate goal is to have fun - I lost few games but have so much fun over them - that in the end i would rather loose them agin rather then live throught some victorys fought over a long and pointless arguments ...

yabbadabba
25-03-2008, 11:51
Well said.

RAW (and GW) is absurd.

I think this thread is absurd.

FigureFour
25-03-2008, 14:16
The "problem" hasn't been solved, but the "problem" isn't the spiking issue its RAW and GW's stance on it. RAW is used because GW doesn't update FAQS regularly (which should change soon if the information I have already shared comes true) These rules discussions wouldn't come up as if GW just took feedback and updated rules anomalies regularly.

I know. That doesn't stop people from thinking they've "solved the steam tank problem" with their faulty logic and poor grasp of English.



Note: not EVERYONE who has argued against spiking a steam tank has exhibited faulty logic and poor grasp of English.

Thanatos_elNyx
25-03-2008, 17:24
Thanatos, we are going in circles, again you assume it only uses the close combat rules from the empire book. and nowhere does it say this...

I disagree, it does say it only uses the rules in the Empire book but you have rejected this and not given a credible reason.

Gabacho Mk.II
25-03-2008, 19:46
Oh my, oh my...

/Give the ********ng thing stats similar to a chariot and be done with this foolishness./


Why on earth did GW give Steampunk equipment to a fantasy army is truely beyond me.:rolleyes:



[note: I still refuse to play anyone who fields a ST... In our campaign gaming group last summer, a single Empire player fielded one against my Lizards, and I promptly shook his hand and told him that he 'won', and started to pack my miniatures. After that battle, he never fielded the ST against anyone else if I recall correctly.... Bad example, but I think you get the message.]

505
26-03-2008, 03:28
my issue with a few of the anti-spiking posts. particularly the argument that the entry in the empire book overides everything in the respective section in the BRB. If that was the case how do you resolve CC since the to-hit and to-wound charts are not in the Empire book...neither is the order of the CC phase.

the follow all rules except...means that the rules in the empire book are the only exceptions to said phase. I deal with this in 40K some using bike-infantry (theres a RAW I use once in a while with them and a landraider when I want to make my opponent laugh)

Atrahasis
26-03-2008, 03:42
[note: I still refuse to play anyone who fields a ST... In our campaign gaming group last summer, a single Empire player fielded one against my Lizards, and I promptly shook his hand and told him that he 'won', and started to pack my miniatures. After that battle, he never fielded the ST against anyone else if I recall correctly.... Bad example, but I think you get the message.]

A bad sportsman and proud of it!:rolleyes:

@505: I think the anti-spiking posts you refer to contend that the section on Close Combat in the WAR MACHINES rules is superseded by the rule in the Empire book, not that the Empire book overrides all references to close combat anywhere.

Gabacho Mk.II
28-03-2008, 19:14
A bad sportsman and proud of it!:rolleyes:



You believe that I am a "bad sportsman," and that is fine with me.

I game WFB for the enjoyment of being around and spending time with buddies. I am not gaming for the sheer 'let me see how many broken units I can field in my army so that I can slaughter my opponent and then jump up and down on his carcass!'

When my opponent who fields Empire eventually [after my little exhibition and after countless others in our gaming group who cried foul at the Stank] came to realize how broken those pieces of s*** are, especially against low Strength armies [VC, Elves, etc], then he gladly didnt field the Stank... and you know what, his game got better and better.

So in the end, you can label anyone what you choose to, but it all comes down to the environment you wish to play in. [if you are super aggressive, and choose to game with the Winning At All Costs mentality, so be it; good for you]

GodHead
28-03-2008, 19:20
You still think they're broken? Really?

I find that Steam Tanks have great difficulty making a 300 point impact in any game.

I also disagree that there are any "low strength armies", since all it takes is a single Bolt hit, or Warp Lightning cast or Vampire with GW or, or, or, or... to smash a Steam Tank into a state of non-functioning.

yabbadabba
28-03-2008, 20:21
I game WFB for the enjoyment of being around and spending time with buddies. I am not gaming for the sheer 'let me see how many broken units I can field in my army so that I can slaughter my opponent and then jump up and down on his carcass!'


Steam Tanks aren't all that. I desroyed one in combat with a empire general and a unit of halberdiers. Took a few rounds but the rest of my army had his tied up quite nicely.

The only thing "broken" about the ST is what's in this thread, as it proves the rules aren't as clear as they should be. I would have thought that any decent gaming group would have discussed this before hand and set the parameters of the use of any "dodgy" units.

So yes it is quite poor behaviour because for many Empire players the Steam Tank is one of their few truly effective units. As godhead also says it rarely makes a 300 point impact in a standard game tho. Sorry mate if you refused to play me because of the Steam Tank, I'd refuse to play you because of your poor attitude to playing the game. Because that's all it is, a game.

Remember, a general and a unit of halberdiers (and no mace of helsturm either).

Greyfire
28-03-2008, 21:24
I also disagree that there are any "low strength armies", since all it takes is a single Bolt hit, or Warp Lightning cast or Vampire with GW or, or, or, or... to smash a Steam Tank into a state of non-functioning.
My personal favorite example of how *broken* the Steam Tank is was from a game where an undead ethereal host unit charged it. Yeah, my poor tank just sat there for most of the game getting hit and not doing *anything* back. Eventually ones were rolled for my saves. And, as always, I'd already wounded myself a couple of times trying to do something (anything) before being stuck and afterwards.

Yeah, that 300 pts were definitely well spent in that *1000* point game. :rolleyes: The rest of the undead army rolled my remaining 700 points off the table. And I think I still ended up losing the tank before game end.

I applauded my opponents use of tactics to get rid of the dang little thing. I don't field it much - but that's because it's not worth 300 points IMHO - and not because it's broken. My opponents are sporting enough fellows that they'll try anything for fun and they've faced down two of the beasts and still beaten me. I don't think anyone will ever win simply due to the tank.

Now, Invocation of Nehek? That one spell is a game winner... and broken. I mean it has to be broken since it got rid of all the damage I had dealt to my opponents units so I scored 0 pts at the end of the game, right? ;)

-=- Steve

skank
29-03-2008, 01:13
At the UKGT last year their was a whole bunch of double steamtank armies (generally with karl on dragon and shooters/cannons) doing rather well.
600pts is no biggy in 2000pt armies.

I don't mind facing steamtanks but they are not easy to deal with when backed up with support. They're T6, 10 wounds, 1+armour, unbreakable, imune to magic for chris sake! You have to kill them to get any points...

You can keep your halberdier tactic, you lucked out.

Caboose123
29-03-2008, 14:23
OT: In a tournament if they insist that I must kill them for any VPs, then i would spike them :D

Knighta
30-03-2008, 22:02
How is taking a steam tank down any differnt from taking a dragon down? They both have pretty similar stats, right?

TheDarkDaff
31-03-2008, 06:00
How is taking a steam tank down any differnt from taking a dragon down? They both have pretty similar stats, right?

They work very differently though. If you do a few wounds to the STank it becomes useless as you can't generate Steam Points to make it work while you have to completely kill a fast moving Dragon and his ward save riding it to properly deal with a Dragon (for Elves the rider really is just a 6+ ward save for the monster sometimes).

That said 2 Bolt Throwers (more for Gobbo's) should be able to deal with a STank over about 2-3 rounds of shooting.

Thanatos_elNyx
31-03-2008, 16:53
OT: In a tournament if they insist that I must kill them for any VPs, then i would spike them :D

And when the Judges b!tch slap you?

Caboose123
31-03-2008, 16:58
I point them to this forum, then we all b!tch slap Alessio Cavatore (who i think began the always play RAW stance)