Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am normally not one to whine, but at ard boyz I faced a player who would say his Stormravens flew in a circle 24 inches and landed back down. I looked through all the books and faqs and there was nothing preventing vehicles going flat out from getting a cover save even thoug they did not move 18 inches from current position. There are restrictions on turbo-boosting but not flat out. With these being able to get PoTMS and shrouding I would say that this is broken.

pg 63 in the Rule book

Note: when assessing how far a vehicle has moved,
only take into account the actual distance covered from
its original position. Moving backwards and forwards or
driving around in circles does not help!

Hope that answers your question, otherwise i misunderstood and sorry!

Stooge is correct here.

Sounds like you fought "that guy."

As others have said though, the rule book says how to measure distance of movement. It is under close combat I believe, but it should carry over to everything.

Sorry to hear about your bad experience. Hope you did well aside from this.

grrrrrrrrrrrr

That note on page 63 is clearly in reference to rolling to hit vehicles in close combat only. There is no evidence that this same principle is applied in all other cases involving vehicle movement.

In general, it is fine to allow a vehicle to move in circles to gain 'flat-out' because there are several built in penalties with moving flat-out (reduced firing capabilities, unable to disembark units inside, etc).

If you tried to apply that principle in all cases, then you would have to allow a vehicle that moved flat-out around a big piece of impassible terrain (for example) to not count as having moved flat-out if its end position wasn't actually more than 12" away from its starting position, which is obviously ludicrous.

The rule about a vehicle counting as having moved as far as it actually moved ONLY applies to determining what is needed to hit the vehicle in CC.

So it's entirely possible to have a vehicle that is considered both stationary (for close combat) and having moved flat out (for shooting) in the same turn? That seems to contradict itself.

Melchiour wrote:So it's entirely possible to have a vehicle that is considered both stationary (for close combat) and having moved flat out (for shooting) in the same turn? That seems to contradict itself.

Its a sacrifice that has to be made to make the game playable.

Just imagine that an impassable wall is like 8" long. A fast non-skimmer vehicle moves all the way down one side of the wall 8", turns around the wall and then drives back the same direction (but now on the opposite side of the wall) 8". The vehicle has clearly moved 'flat-out' and therefore gets all the benefits and negatives derived from this: it cannot fire any weapons, disembark models, etc, but also counts as having moved flat-out (and if it were a skimmer would get the 4+ cover save).

The ONLY thing in the rules which specifies that you count how far the model physically moved is in the rules for determining how the vehicle is hit in CC, so this is the only situation that the vehicle would not benefit from having moved flat-out (well technically it still counts as having moved flat-out, its just that the CC rules require that the vehicle also needs to have physically displaced enough inches to qualify as well).


There is literally no other way to interpret this unless you want to allow vehicles to never count their actual movement path as distance moved and instead only count how far they actually displaced (which is a total change from how the rules are explained for vehicle movement).

I see what your saying, it just hurts my brain logically. Also I suppose using that strategy you leave yourself vulnerable to assault so its a double edged sword somewhat.

Stooge wrote:pg 63 in the Rule book

Note: when assessing how far a vehicle has moved,
only take into account the actual distance covered from
its original position. Moving backwards and forwards or
driving around in circles does not help!

Hope that answers your question, otherwise i misunderstood and sorry!

That is ONLY for working out what value to hit the vehicle on while in assault.

It has NO effect on the ability for a skimmer to get a cover save, which from context (PotMS and shrouding) is what the OP was asking about

yakface wrote:If you tried to apply that principle in all cases, then you would have to allow a vehicle that moved flat-out around a big piece of impassible terrain (for example) to not count as having moved flat-out if its end position wasn't actually more than 12" away from its starting position, which is obviously ludicrous.

It works the same for close combat, moving a trukk 19" around a long wall will still result it in being hit on a 4+ if it's within 6" of it's starting position. Also keep in mind only skimmers gain any benefit from moving flat-out, so the don't ever need to go around that big piece of terrain. If a skimmer ever makes a move other than going straight towards the destination point, the player did so on purpose to exploit flat-out cover, exactly what is happening here.

That's not just exactly the spirit of the rule, but also RAW. Rules can be found in the wrong places all over the BRB. Just try finding the rule not allowing to fire templates into close combat. It's not even near weapon types.

Jidmah - no, it isnt RAW, see the point about page 63 only talking about close combat results, not anything else

seems odd that a vehicle is easier to hit going really fast with 0 displacement than a vehicle going slow with a little displacement...

just saying

This thread needs an exploding head ork emoticon. I understand why things work this way, it just hurts lol.

The only requirement for minimum movement exists in the turbo boosters rule.

Turboboosters - A unit using turbo-boosters must end its move at least 18" away from its starting point to claim this cover save, as it relies on flat-out speed.

Now for my own opinion,

Could we not apply the logic that a similar type of movement (moving faster than normally allowed) with similar effects (receiving a cover save) should have similar stipulations? And to preempt getting RAW'd on I understand that turbo-boosting is different than a flat-out save, i get that turbo-boosters are a special rule and flat-out is a type of standard movement and that RAW this isn't valid. However, it isn't that large a logical leap to understand that moving requires movement. Every other case in which movement is taken into account there is a stipulation that actual movement must have occurred or else it doesn't count as having moved.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Jidmah - no, it isnt RAW, see the point about page 63 only talking about close combat results, not anything else

So I can flame units locked in close combat, because I'm shooting my template in the shooting phase and the only rule explicitly forbidding it is found in the assault phase section? Unless the rule is explicitly limited to a certain situation, it is a global rule.

All instances of movement prevent moving in circles to offer any benefit. No exceptions for skimmers.

!

My head HURTS!

I am filing this one in the beardy drawer. It was ard boyz, so perfect time to be introduced to this one. No sportsmanship dings for my opponent doing it or the scowl it left on my face afterwards. Just need spirit stones to let me fire one weapon under same condition and we can call it even. I can see a falcon with guide,stones,fortune, and holofields being flat out the entire game.

Jidmah wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Jidmah - no, it isnt RAW, see the point about page 63 only talking about close combat results, not anything else

So I can flame units locked in close combat, because I'm shooting my template in the shooting phase and the only rule explicitly forbidding it is found in the assault phase section? Unless the rule is explicitly limited to a certain situation, it is a global rule.

All instances of movement prevent moving in circles to offer any benefit. No exceptions for skimmers.

Can you please reread the actual rule, and note the context it applies to? The context is that, JUST for working out what value you need to hit a vehicle, you use the actual displacement.

If you disagree, show hwo the context is not that. Until then you are also advocating that any unit that shot a vehcile is now allowed to assault the contents, not just the unit that destroyed it.

Note: when assessing how far a vehicle has moved,
only take into account the actual distance covered from
its original position. Moving backwards and forwards or
driving around in circles does not help!

When assessing how far a vehicle has moved. No limitations given.

How far did the stormraven move when turbo-boosting a perfect circle with periphery of 24"? Combat speed.

Otherwise please quote another rule how you assess how far a vehicle has moved. If you can't and you neglect this rule, skimmers may never claim 4+ cover.

Until then you are also advocating that any unit that shot a vehcile is now allowed to assault the contents, not just the unit that destroyed it.

How does this have anything to do with my argument? On top of that, it's even wrong. There is no rule stating that you may assault a different unit than you have shot, with that single exception, neither in assault rules, nor elsewhere. If you want to avoid the template example, at least put forth a real counter-example.

It was an example of context requiring "the unit" to meant just that.

This Note: is directly underneath the table on close combat. Context tells you what it refers to, which is why it is a NOTE and not a distinct rule

This seems strange to me. Suppose there is a 12 inch long 8 inch high impassible wall next to my rhino, and I go 6 inches down it, 2 inches around it, and 4 inches back (total movement 12 inches and end up 4 inches from my starting point. By reading the rule quoted, I moved 6 inches or less and may fire all passengers and one main weapon, as moving less than 6 inches is combat speed.
------>Y
| ============
------------ X

nosferatu1001 wrote:It was an example of context requiring "the unit" to meant just that.

This Note: is directly underneath the table on close combat. Context tells you what it refers to, which is why it is a NOTE and not a distinct rule

Page 61 might want to have a word with you. And it's just the first page I randomly opened. "Note:" are rules just like any other non-itallic regular text from page 1 to 95.

Page 57 disagrees with the assault rules.

This means that a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move.

Displacement is only used in determing the to hit # in assault and Turbo-boosting.

There has to have been some Tournament rulings on this?

SeattleDV8 wrote:Page 57 disagrees with the assault rules.

This means that a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move.

Displacement is only used in determing the to hit # in assault and Turbo-boosting.

Turbo-boosting explicitly says it does so because it relies on flat-out speed. This makes it impossible to deny that the flat-out cover save is also based on displacement.

Jidmah wrote:
Turbo-boosting explicitly says it does so because it relies on flat-out speed. This makes it impossible to deny that the flat-out cover save is also based on displacement.

There is no logical basis to assume that because the rules for Turbo-boosting use the general term flat-out that this somehow means the actual rules for moving flat-out with a vehicle have anything at all to do with the Turbo-Boosters rule. If you were to try to construct a logical argument out of this, it would be impossible.

You seem to be continually ignoring the elephant in the room regarding this topic. I'll steal Creon's post because he made a nice little text diagram:

Creon wrote:This seems strange to me. Suppose there is a 12 inch long 8 inch high impassible wall next to my rhino, and I go 6 inches down it, 2 inches around it, and 4 inches back (total movement 12 inches and end up 4 inches from my starting point. By reading the rule quoted, I moved 6 inches or less and may fire all passengers and one main weapon, as moving less than 6 inches is combat speed.
------>Y
| ============
------------ X

You have continued to argue that the 'note' regarding attacking a vehicle in close combat be erroneously applied in all situations, so what is your answer to the above situation?

Does a vehicle that technically moves 18" but only has a final displacement count as moving flat-out or not? Are you really trying to claim that a vehicle can move 18" around a big wall and still disembark passengers, shoot weapons, etc?

And if you *don't* think this to be the case, then by what metric are you drawing the line at the cover save for moving flat-out (and not applying the same logic to other situations)?


The truth is, that context has meaning in written words. You cannot pull a sentence out of a paragraph without changing meaning, just like you can't pull a few words out of a sentence without changing meaning.

The 'note' you've been referring to is a 'note' specifically for the rules regarding what it takes to hit a vehicle in close combat and therefore given context it only applies to that situation.

You are absolutely correct that rules written in one section of the rulebook often apply to other situations, but only in the case where those rules specifically say that they apply in general situations (like the rule in the assault section telling players they can't fire into close combats), or in the case where the rules force you to refer back to another section to find an answer (such as the casualty removal rules in the shooting section being the rules you use most anytime a unit suffers wounds in the movement phase).

With that said, you cannot ignore context. For (just a random) example, if the author is describing the assault rules, he doesn't need to specify in every single sentence that a 'hit' means a 'hit caused in close combat', because within the context of the 'assault rules' it is taken that when 'hits' are being discussed, these are close combat hits and not all hits that could possibly occur in the game.


The rules for movement throughout the game are pretty darn clear: your models make an actual path of movement and therefore movement distance is determined by that path the model takes as opposed to the ending physical displacement of the model vs. its starting point. Its for this reason that models moving around impassable obstacles are slowed down by them, as they actually have to move AROUND them and taking this longer path eats up more of their movement. If physical displacement was all that mattered, then models could effectively ignore impassable obstacles as all that would matter is how far they were from their starting point, regardless of whether the actual path took way more distance then they should normally be able to move.

So yes, the rules in the game are written with a path of movement in mind (as opposed to physical displacement) and therefore the only times this isn't the case is where the rules specifically say otherwise, of which determining what is needed 'to hit' a vehicle and turbo-boosting bikes are two such examples. Skimmers moving flat-out to gain a save is NOT one of these listed exceptions and therefore falls under the normal rules and therefore a skimmer is allowed to 'fly in circles' to gain the flat-out cover save.

So a nob with a kombi-rokkit would have troubles to hit the skimmer with his gun because it's so fast, but would auto-hit in close combat because it didn't go anywhere?

Jidmah wrote:So a nob with a kombi-rokkit would have troubles to hit the skimmer with his gun because it's so fast, but would auto-hit in close combat because it didn't go anywhere?

Absolutely correct (although the skimmer player would be stupid not to physically displace the vehicle even a fraction of an inch). Makes no sense logically, but in game terms that's how it has to work.

And is that really any more confusing than a model not having any penalty to shoot at a non-skimmer that moved flat-out but requiring '6's to hit it in close combat? There are a whole lot of abstractions in the game that make no logical sense but are simply there because that's what the rules say.

Jidmah wrote:So a nob with a kombi-rokkit would have troubles to hit the skimmer with his gun because it's so fast, but would auto-hit in close combat because it didn't go anywhere?

Yet a non-skimmer moving flat out isnt any more difficult to shoot than any other vehicle, regardless of how fast its going, and you would still need 6s to hit it