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.

Penalties are only ignored for moving that extra inch. Unless it's that extra inch that takes one into terrain, red paint cant cancel out immoblized terrain penalties that rely on movement in relation to terrain (are you starting your move, moving through, or ending your move in terrain?), not movement distance.

How over complicated are people making this? With RPJ, you move 13 inches as if it were only 12 inches. So, you do not get the 4+ cover that you think you would.

martin74 wrote:How over complicated are people making this? With RPJ, you move 13 inches as if it were only 12 inches. So, you do not get the 4+ cover that you think you would.

THANK YOU! I have been reading all this thinking the exact same thing!

You move 13 inches as if it were only 12 inches with regard to penalties.

You have no permission to ignore bonuses.
You do have permission to ignore penalties.

Why do you ignore the 4+ cover?

Anglacon wrote:

martin74 wrote:How over complicated are people making this? With RPJ, you move 13 inches as if it were only 12 inches. So, you do not get the 4+ cover that you think you would.

THANK YOU! I have been reading all this thinking the exact same thing!

What, ignoring part of the rule that says you only ignore the extra inch for penalties?

Gaining a cover save is not a penalty
Being unable to shoot is a penalty

It is that damned simple.

martin74 wrote:How over complicated are people making this? With RPJ, you move 13 inches as if it were only 12 inches. So, you do not get the 4+ cover that you think you would.

I'm sure you have some rules to back this up. If so, please share.

Happyjew wrote:

martin74 wrote:How over complicated are people making this? With RPJ, you move 13 inches as if it were only 12 inches. So, you do not get the 4+ cover that you think you would.

I'm sure you have some rules to back this up. If so, please share.

I wouldnt bother - after this many pages of asking there is not a single piece of rules support on the anti side, just a "this doesnt seem right!!!" "argument"

I agree it doesn't seem right, and I doubt I would ever play it that way (I also doubt my friend who plays Orks would play it like that); however, RAW, since you just ignore penalties for moving the extra inch...

BTW, I never got an answer in the other thread; do we need two threads discussing the same topic, especially on the first page?

Probably not, bit noone seems inclined to lock either

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Robbietobbie wrote:Nope.. RPJ says does not incur penalties for that extra inch etc. and then says: a vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12". end of sentence. It doesn't say it only counts as 12 for shooting.. To get aerial assault the movement needs to be cruising speed and for the cover save it needs to be flat-out.

So when it says "penalties" you choose to ignore that, in favour of removing the context from the example?

KK - i dont see this as the example being wrong, not as wrong as the DT example certainly - they just didnt repeat the "for any penalties" part in the example.

See that is exactly the thing though; "Count as moving 12"" is the same as "It only really moved 12"". the context of the previous sentence is gone and not applied to the example(as examples are, by nature, to be all inclusive; otherwise they are less than helpful in the best case and downright confusing/contradictory in the worse cases. This is one of those worse cases).

The example is a simple Count as; and itself ignores the "penalties" context of the rule.

If in the example it were to say that the 13" moving RPJ vehicle could still embark/disembark passengers, or if the example was for a vehicle moving 7" but still counting as moving 6" for passengers, and weapons fire: then the context of the rule would be included in the example.

But it does not say any of that, the example tells you to count 13" as 12", therefore if we are to go by the example instead of the rule RPJ grants an extra 1" of movement, that counts as moving 1" less for all purposes.

And if we want to ignore the difference in the example and go by the rule, then we must do the same for Vehicle DT tests.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Nothing about RPJ, either the rules nor the example are voluntary. All movement incorporates the +1" at all times; it just does not matter until the vehicle moves between 6"-7", 12"-13", 18"-19" or 36"-37".


You are misapplying a definition of the word could to be permissive(an allowance of possibilities).

Could in this case means "has the capability to" as this interchange:

"For example, a vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12"."

"For example, a vehicle has the capability to move 13" and still count as moving 12"."

You are attempting to apply:

"For example, a vehicle has the allowed possibility to move 13" and still count as moving 12"."

which honestly still does not change the fact that the 13" moving RPJ vehicle counts as moving 12" with no definition of what it counts as moving less for: it simply counts as moving less which would mean in all situations.

Uh, you're missing me here. "Could" does not describe an ability, "can" does. "Could" describes a possibility - but, as all possibilities, it is limited by other game rules, which would be the RPJ rule itself.

RPJ does not say A vehicle moving 13" counts as 12 inch but rather that it could move 13" and count as 12". There is no hard requirement for the vehicle to count as moving 1" at all times. Since there isn't there is no contradicition between rule and example, your terrain precedence is irrelevant.

If you use the example in a vacuum (which most people arguing against moving flat-out and shooting are), then you actually get the permission to freely count as whatever you want. However, if you apply the whole rule, you are forced to ignore penalties, and have no permission to ignore anything that's not a penalty. The example merely states how to ignore the penalty - by counting as moving one less inch for that purpose only.

First off; a vehicle is not required to move at 13" no matter what.

So yes the possibility of moving 13" exists; in such a case you count as moving 12".

The count as in the example, and the moving +1" in the rule is never more optional than any other movement.

SO again a vehicle could move 6" and it counts as 5"(or 7" as 6", but the 6 as 5 has less meaning).

If the whole rule is the rule and the example; then the rule portion prior to the example becomes meaningless(since count-as = is).

If you are going to ignore the example in favor of the rule, then kindly do so for Vehicle DT tests.

If you are going to ignore the rule in favor of the example then also at least understand what it says. Claiming that the "could" makes the "count-as" optional is a straw-man at best or deliberate twisting of the sentence to fulfill your desires at worst.

Kommissar Kel wrote:First off; a vehicle is not required to move at 13" no matter what.

It is, if it declares a ram
Just nitpicking though.

So yes the possibility of moving 13" exists; in such a case you count as moving 12".

That's not what the example says, it's missing a comma for that.
It says that if you move 13", you have the possibility of counting as moving 12".

Which is perfectly in line with the rule itself. Even if you argue based on GW awesome grammar skills, you have one interpretation fitting the rule and one not fitting it. The one not fitting is obviously out, and can under no circumstances be the base of an argument to invalidate the rule itself.

I've only just started playing Orks and nobody in my group of friends has ever played as Orks before either. We've never come across this problem before and to be honest, as the only person who would use this rule, it never occured to me that I could use it to gain a cover save. I'll have to go back and carefully read everything in my books again.

But I will say this - if I tried to claim the cover save then it would probably cause quite a big arguement!

kaiserjez wrote:I've only just started playing Orks and nobody in my group of friends has ever played as Orks before either. We've never come across this problem before and to be honest, as the only person who would use this rule, it never occured to me that I could use it to gain a cover save. I'll have to go back and carefully read everything in my books again.

But I will say this - if I tried to claim the cover save then it would probably cause quite a big arguement!

The cover save argument is for the fliers only - but it's such an impressive bonus that the idea upsets many, many people, thus the massive spree of debates. It's also a tough debate to debate.

Getting hit on 6's is much more accepted, but (as we've seen here) still a recipe for argumentation.

Jidmah wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:First off; a vehicle is not required to move at 13" no matter what.

It is, if it declares a ram
Just nitpicking though.

So yes the possibility of moving 13" exists; in such a case you count as moving 12".

That's not what the example says, it's missing a comma for that.
It says that if you move 13", you have the possibility of counting as moving 12".

Which is perfectly in line with the rule itself. Even if you argue based on GW awesome grammar skills, you have one interpretation fitting the rule and one not fitting it. The one not fitting is obviously out, and can under no circumstances be the base of an argument to invalidate the rule itself.

A trukk with RPJ and a reinforced ram, ramming, is required to move 19".

Just saying.

As to the assertion that a comma is required for what the sentence actually says; that is wholly incorrect. A comma and a change of syntax is required for your claim.

The comma-freee posibility is for the vehicle to both move 13 and count it as 12 at the same time.

The counting as moving 1" less is never voluntary.

A BW with RPJ is required, like all vehicles, to move as fast as possible. If there is impassable terrain 7" away, they only move 7" as that is as fast as possible. Just saying

Kommissar Kel wrote:A trukk with RPJ and a reinforced ram, ramming, is required to move 19".

Battlewagons and looted wagons (as well as a hole mountain of FW models) can get RPJ and are not fast vehicles.

The counting as moving 1" less is never voluntary.

I never said anything else. You do not have permission to count as moving 1" less for anything but ignoring penalties though.