PDA

View Full Version : Sure foot to stand up ?



Swashbuckler
01-07-2015, 10:54 PM
There was a group argument today over the interaction of "cannot be knocked down" rules (ex: Sure Foot, Solid Ground, Lash) and already knocked down models.

Rules Priority (Prime p.29) clearly states that "cannot trumps can/must" in all cases of "actions or circumstances".
Knockdown (Prime p.63-64) implicitly states that "knocked down" (in bold in the rules) is a circumstance.

My partners will not listen to reason, since they keep arguing that a model still needs to stand up or benefit from explicit rules that state that it can stand up to stop being knocked down, citing the second to last sentence of the rule, "some special rules allow a model to stand up", and failing to see that Rules Priority is a rule...

In short, they will stubbornly only believe somebody in authority to correct them, hence this post.

HellecticMojo
01-07-2015, 11:26 PM
Cannot does not negate the effect already placed. The timing to negate the "circumstance" of a knockdown has already passed.
Surefoot is not a free standup. It prevents stuff from being knocked down in the first place

sterling319
01-07-2015, 11:41 PM
Was there a question in there, or...?

Falkman
01-08-2015, 12:13 AM
It is in fact your friends who are right and you who are wrong Swashbuckler. Stopping a model from becoming knocked down will do nothing to a model that is already knocked down.

Swashbuckler
01-08-2015, 03:38 AM
I find this extremely surprising. The language used in the first two lines of the rules does not tend to make you think it works like that, and the use of the clause "cannot be knocked down" takes a specific meaning that can be reasonably discussed.

"Some attacks and special rules cause a model to be knocked down. While knocked down..." (in bold in the rules)

Considering the English used, logically, the attacks and special rules are "knockdowns" (the section's name, thus a game term), since they are the cause of the effect "to be knocked down" (in bold, thus a game term). Thereforth, "knockdowns" are known to be the active part (literally, the cause) of the rule and the rest is passively a consequence of it (literally, the effect), called or described as "knocked down". This effect is a persistent state and not an action, since "while" is being used to condition its character, which will stay until the model stands up. Up to now, you could agree that "knocked down" isn't the act of falling down, but an effect, the state of the model. Also, note that the first use of the clause is in bold, and not the second, telling us that they are one and the same. Furthermore, all references to that clause across the book use that form, the passive one, and point us to this game term "as is".

In English, I agree that the clause "cannot be knocked down" can refer to an action or state. But considering what I've written before, which is what is written in the rules, if you wanted to refer specifically to the real or imaginary action of being knocked down, the game term would be "knockdown" since it would signify the active part of the rule. "Knocked down" as in "falling down" isn't an operative word in the rule's description, but "knocked down" as in "on the ground" is one.

Considering everything, if you wanted a model to not fall down, it should be written "cannot become knocked down" or "immune to knockdown", thus making the state of actually "being knocked down" possible, but preventing you from being it again. In all the latest releases, "cannot be knocked down" is used. Hence, since the state "knocked down" is a definite game term in the rules as written, rules priority should apply and return knocked down models to their normal state.

We're playing a game where chain sucker'ing/sacrificial pawn'ing a combined ranged attack over a foot is totally possible, while still totally unrealistic, just to take this example among so many. Be it from magic or a natural quality, like lash, nothing seems totally counter-intuitive, especially when considering rules priority, that you could just stand up using a special rule or a spell that mentions the phrase being discussed.

I know there are "rules as intended" and "rules as written". Often times, infernals have ruled in favor of rules as written even if it didn't make much sense when the intention was very clearly otherwise (like Durgen's Blast Armor that got an official errata because of that). In the end, if it's a balance consideration, I'd rather have a clear entry in the errata of the basic rules for this, even a short simple sentence would do, than some interpretation going against almost everything that can be found in the rule book when resolving this. If this is an interpretation of the rules, it should be seriously revisited. Also, I had to try a lot of different keywords to actually find infernal rulings in a second series of searching attempts after getting these answers. All in all, this is done in good spirit.

musquashi
01-08-2015, 04:24 AM
The surefoot rule does not say anything about knocked down models standing up so it does not give them an automatic stand up. It only prevents affected models from being knocked down after it is cast. It is not a case of "rules as intended", as you say, that is a GW thing not PP. It is always rules as written and arguing the semantics of "knocked down" doesn't change that.

Falkman
01-08-2015, 04:36 AM
Abilities that cause models to stand up very clearly say so. See for example:
Jump start
"Models in this model's battlegroup that are currently in its control area stand up and are no longer stationary."
Reveille
"Knocked down friendly Faction models in this model's command range immediately stand up."

If Sure foot was supposed to make knocked down models stand up it would contain similar wording. But it doesn't.

DarkLegacy
01-08-2015, 06:41 AM
Falkman and mojo are correct. Additionally, proof from years ago: https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?106307-Sure-Foot-Gudrun-tried-search&p=1421217