284
Post by: Augustus
How far is the assault move for a bike? Is it 12 or 6 inches?
14
Post by: Ghaz
The rules for bikes are found on page 53 of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook. If there is not a different distance given for their assault move, then they follow the normal rules and only assault 6".
284
Post by: Augustus
That was my initial interpretation as well.
However on inspection of the assault rules moves I found out something else.
The assault move rules do not specify assault moves are 6 inches. What they say is a unit moves as it does in the movement phase. For bikes this is 12 inches. There are explicit exceptions for jump troops but not for bikes.
This fact calls it into question.
Perhaps they move 12?
9010
Post by: Rymafyr
What you're referencing are specifications about how movement can be made in relation and proximity to enemy and friendly units. Under, "Declare Assaults" on page 33 it says, "The maximum distance most units can move during an assault is 6"." So for me, unless a unit is specifically said to assault further, like Beasts and Cavalry, then they only move 6" in the assault phase.
Edited for spelling etc.
8788
Post by: krusty
im gunna hbave to go with ghaz and rymafyr on this one...
if it was something special for bikes, the would have put it in the rulebook under their entry
9226
Post by: burb1996
Ok, heres another question for you..what if they are ork bikes with the "painted red" upgrade? Can they assault 7"?
284
Post by: Augustus
Indeed, that makes sense, and considering the historical precedent, that they use to charge move 6 inches in 4th edition, it would make sense that is still true.
However, the quote from page 33, also implies that some units do move more than 6, only that most do not. The question becomes, which ones move over 6 and why. I am beginning to think bikes are one of those units.
The "Moving assaulting units" rules do not specify move models 6 inches. On Page 34 P2 it says,
"make their assault rules following the same rules as in the movement phase"
The only way to find out what units can move over 6 in the assault phase is to see the special rules in the unit types section. There are really only 3 unit types to be concerned with, jump infantry, limited at assaulting 6, cavalry, specified as assaulting 12, and bikes, which have no stipulation for distance at all.
The only way to determine the distance bikes move is the assault rule which says
"make their assault rules following the same rules as in the movement phase"
For bikes that is 12.
9269
Post by: RabbiTucker
burb1996 wrote:Ok, heres another question for you..what if they are ork bikes with the "painted red" upgrade? Can they assault 7"?
According to page 93 in the Ork Codex, "Ork vehicles with red paint jobs add +1 to their move in the Movement phase but do not incur penalties for this extra inch."
The answer to your question, then, is "no."
284
Post by: Augustus
RabbiTucker wrote:The answer to your question, then, is "no."
Red paint is an Ork vehicle upgrade and Ork bikes do not take it, irrelevant.
284
Post by: Augustus
krusty wrote:im gunna hbave to go with ghaz and rymafyr on this one...
if it was something special for bikes, the would have put it in the rulebook under their entry
They did, it says they move 12.
8489
Post by: padixon
Augustus wrote:Indeed, that makes sense, and considering the historical precedent, that they use to charge move 6 inches in 4th edition, it would make sense that is still true.
However, the quote from page 33, also implies that some units do move more than 6, only that most do not. The question becomes, which ones move over 6 and why. I am beginning to think bikes are one of those units.
The "Moving assaulting units" rules do not specify move models 6 inches. On Page 34 P2 it says,
"make their assault rules following the same rules as in the movement phase"
The only way to find out what units can move over 6 in the assault phase is to see the special rules in the unit types section. There are really only 3 unit types to be concerned with, jump infantry, limited at assaulting 6, cavalry, specified as assaulting 12, and bikes, which have no stipulation for distance at all.
The only way to determine the distance bikes move is the assault rule which says
"make their assault rules following the same rules as in the movement phase"
No, you have it backwards, In fact pg 33 says most units move 6" not "only most do not". Also, the rule for assaults is what you use for *every* unit unless that unit (either in a codex or from the unit description found in the BGB) says otherwise like in the rules for cavalry (which have a 12" assault as described in the BGB).
What you do, is apply the rule (6" as given by pg. 33) and *then* factor in any exceptions (cavalry). The part about following rules for movement is not what you think it is.
The rules for movement are found on pages 11-14. Such rules in include but are not limited to coherency, maintaining distance from enemies, not moving through gaps smaller than your base, etc...
The quote : make their assault rules following the same rules as in the movement phase
only tells you that you must follow the rules given in the movement section of the BGB (i.e. coherency, distance to enemies, moving through difficult/dangerous terrain, etc...). Not a blanket statement that says whatever move distance you make is also your assault distance. This is reading way to much into what the writer is emphasizing.
284
Post by: Augustus
padixon wrote:This is reading way to much into what the writer is emphasizing.
No its a literal interpretation.
How far do bikes move in the assault phase?
Page 33 "Maximum distance most units can move is 6" inconclusive
Page 34 "move following the same rules as the movement phase"
Page 53 "Bikes move 12 inches in the movement phase"
These are direct quotes. Not reading between the lines at all.
EDIT: format edit
2495
Post by: Kroeger
I agree with Augustus, the rules are quite clear on the subject. Bikes move 12" in the movement phase, the assault rules state that assault moves are made as per normal movement for that unit. The normal movement for bikes is 12 inches, thus bikes assault 12 inches.
In the case of Cavalry and Jump infantry they move and assault at different rates, thereby needing the clarifications in the main rulebook. Bikes and normal infantry move and assault at 12" and 6" in both phases respectively, thus no clarification is needed.
Edit:Context clarifications
8489
Post by: padixon
Augustus wrote:padixon wrote:This is reading way to much into what the writer is emphasizing.
No its a literal interpretation.
How far do bikes move in the assault phase?
Page 33 "Maximum distance most units can move is 6" inconclusive
Page 34 "move following the same rules as the movement phase"
Page 53 "Bikes move 12 inches in the movement phase"
These are direct quotes. Not reading between the lines at all.
EDIT: format edit
I see your logic, but this is called 'jumping to conclusions'.
first, page 33 *does* tell you that your assault distance is 6". The writer put the word 'most' in there because he was being honest as Cavalry obviously have a larger assault distance. This is not inconclusive it is conclusive.
First rule in reading rules is 1) Follow the basic rules first: In this case it is a unit moves 6"
Second rule in reading rules is 2) Apply any exceptions as given in a unit entry: There is no exceptions in the bike movement for assaults *except* they ignore difficult terrain tests and make dangerous terrain tests instead.
Again, following movement rules is *not* the same as making the same move in the move as you would in the assault.
Movement rules breakdown
1) Infantry move 6"
2) Models in the way
3) All models move at the same rate
4) Random and compulsory movement
5) Turning and facing
6) moving and Close Combat
7) Unit Coherency
8) Moving through Terrain
These are the movement rules you must follow with *exceptions* given in the rules for assaults. I.E. moving closer than 1" to an enemy.
No where does it say that if you move 12" you can assault 12". In fact the *only* distance listed in the movement phase is 6", and gives no mention to bikes or other units that move faster.
9010
Post by: Rymafyr
Augustus wrote:No its a literal interpretation.
No, not a literal interpretation. For it to be a literal interpretation, it would have to say, "...Bikes assault 12"...".
Padixon has clarified the rest perfectly already.
2495
Post by: Kroeger
padixon wrote:
first, page 33 *does* tell you that your assault distance is 6". The writer put the word 'most' in there because he was being honest as Cavalry obviously have a larger assault distance. This is not inconclusive it is conclusive.
You're wrong.
Pg33 "The maximume distance most units can move during an assault is 6"
This line is NOT definitive, it is a clarifier, it says most units do move 6" except for those that don't. For your case it would have to say units always move 6" except for the declared exceptions.
Pg34 "All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules as in the movement phase, with the exception that they may move within 1" of enemy models"
Bikes move 12" in the movement phase, where in the assault rules does it specifically say that bikes don't get to move normally in the assault phase? It only says that Bikes move per the movement rules when charging, the movement rules say 12 inches.
padixon wrote:
First rule in reading rules is 1) Follow the basic rules first: In this case it is a unit moves 6"
Second rule in reading rules is 2) Apply any exceptions as given in a unit entry: There is no exceptions in the bike movement for assaults *except* they ignore difficult terrain tests and make dangerous terrain tests instead.
Again, following movement rules is *not* the same as making the same move in the move as you would in the assault.
Your saying exactly what i'm saying except you are following a rule that doesn't exist. Bikes are clearly stated to move 12" in the movement phase, and they assault per the movement phase rules, with the exception of ignoring Diff terrain. The line in the assault rules about 6" is for clarification that most units move 6 inches. How is following the rules in the assault phase different from what I am saying? The movement rules say 6" for infantry and 12 for bikes.
padixon wrote:
Movement rules breakdown
1) Infantry move 6"
2) Models in the way
3) All models move at the same rate
4) Random and compulsory movement
5) Turning and facing
6) moving and Close Combat
7) Unit Coherency
8) Moving through Terrain
These are the movement rules you must follow with *exceptions* given in the rules for assaults. I.E. moving closer than 1" to an enemy.
No where does it say that if you move 12" you can assault 12". In fact the *only* distance listed in the movement phase is 6", and gives no mention to bikes or other units that move faster.
Correct, except in the Bike rules where is specifically says bikes move 12 inches. You apply those rules to the assault move, hence the Jump pack models special rules for assaulting, otherwise they would assault 12" since they move 12" in the movement phase, but because they are specifically precluded from assaulting 12" by the jump pack special rules they move 6" like infantry. By your logic there would be no need for that rule, since they already would be limited to 6" by the line at the beginning of making assault moves.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Augustus put down the crack pipe.
G
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
However, one could argue that, as it specifically notes that jump infantry only move 6", unless otherwise stated, a unit moves as far as its move value.
6079
Post by: Vandez
This comes down to yet another RAW vs. RAI argument. I can see the points Augustus is trying to make, and I understand (and sympathise with) the counter-argument.
As far as I can tell, your personal interpretation should depend wholly on how much you enjoy getting kicked in the shins and enduring the nomenclature of 'That F'ing Guy'.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
Interesting question.
Going by the wording and arguments, I would say they charge 12".
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
I hope that Dakka does not endorse this as it obviouly goes against the intent of the rules.
G
8489
Post by: padixon
I tried fellas, sorry.
Dudes, if you bring this up in anything official or heck to anyone, just know I tried to tell you otherwise and protect you from the embarrassment that is soon to follow, when you get the lol face.
7849
Post by: Webbe
Good catch Augustus.
I can't find anything that support that normal bikes should not be able to move 12" in the assault phase as that's what they do in the movement phase.
BTW Green Blow Fly. I don't think it's that obvious that it's against the intent of the rules. Just because it was so in 4ed doesn't mean it's the same way now. They have reworded the section describing how far you can assault.
7926
Post by: youbedead
i agree with agustus they charge 12.
though there's no way I'm going to play that way, i run a wazdakka biker horde and if they could charge 12 then i could be in assault turn 1. there's is just something wrong with that
284
Post by: Augustus
Webbe wrote:Good catch Augustus.
I can't find anything that support that normal bikes should not be able to move 12" in the assault phase as that's what they do in the movement phase.
BTW Green Blow Fly. I don't think it's that obvious that it's against the intent of the rules. Just because it was so in 4ed doesn't mean it's the same way now. They have reworded the section describing how far you can assault.
Thanks for the support guys!
This honestly is one where I don't like being right. I think this rule will ad a lot to some units that don't need it namely the Ork biker army of internet fame/infamy. I think it might ad a little bit to some other units as well that wont hurt to much, like marine bikes and particularly Eldar bikes and the seer council.
I was originally of the opinion that bikes would assault only 6 inches. Having built, played and loved Eldar in the last edition for years, I asumed that this was the case in 5th. Furthermore I am always skeptical when a rules change seems to break a precedent from before. That said, after having thoroughly reviewed, I have come to the conclusion that bikes charge 12, fully recognizing this is a departure from the previous edition of the rules, and most likely a departure from how most folks play.
It's pretty literal in the book. IMHO.
284
Post by: Augustus
youbedead wrote:i agree with agustus they charge 12.
though there's no way I'm going to play that way, i run a wazdakka biker horde and if they could charge 12 then i could be in assault turn 1. there's is just something wrong with that
Maybe, if armies are >24 inches apart at the set up it would still take 2 turns, and essentially be no different than turbo boosting anyway... But yea, look out for Orks.
284
Post by: Augustus
padixon wrote:I see your logic, but this is called 'jumping to conclusions'.
first, page 33 *does* tell you that your assault distance is 6". The writer put the word 'most' in there because he was being honest as Cavalry obviously have a larger assault distance. This is not inconclusive it is conclusive.
...
No where does it say that if you move 12" you can assault 12". In fact the *only* distance listed in the movement phase is 6", and gives no mention to bikes or other units that move faster.
I think it is pretty direct, but how about this angle to try and persuade you:
What if a case revolved around the line in the jump infantry rules. They move 12" but are specified to move 6" in the assault phase. If units were always limited to moving 6" in the assault phase wouldn't this rule be redundant and not exist? There fore since bikes have no written exception to the assault distance, they move at 12". Right?
8489
Post by: padixon
Augustus wrote:padixon wrote:I see your logic, but this is called 'jumping to conclusions'.
first, page 33 *does* tell you that your assault distance is 6". The writer put the word 'most' in there because he was being honest as Cavalry obviously have a larger assault distance. This is not inconclusive it is conclusive.
...
No where does it say that if you move 12" you can assault 12". In fact the *only* distance listed in the movement phase is 6", and gives no mention to bikes or other units that move faster.
I think it is pretty direct, but how about this angle to try and persuade you:
What if a case revolved around the line in the jump infantry rules. They move 12" but are specified to move 6" in the assault phase. If units were always limited to moving 6" in the assault phase wouldn't this rule be redundant and not exist? There fore since bikes have no written exception to the assault distance, they move at 12". Right?
lol, yes, you do have me there a bit. And I don't have an answer to that good counter. However, each entry in the units section breaks down all 3 phases for each unit type. And describes in detail how they function in each phase. And the only one listed for bikes, is they are not slowed down by difficult terrain and treat it as dangerous instead. But going by your logic (that you caught me on), then why would they put this in there since they already are not slowed down by difficult terrain and treat it as dangerous instead as pointed out in their movement rules, kinda redundant by the logic you have presented. IMHO, the only answer I have for this, is the writer (for Jump jets) was implying the 'infantry' part of the rule, to pertain that they don't take dangerous terrain rolls as if they were moving, but difficult terrain tests because they are now on foot. But, to specify 6" as the rule does, I do not have an answer.
But seriously, I have listened to all the pod casts offered on the GW website. They list a ton of new and different things that 5th ed changed or was new. And if this is true, this would be a 'BIG' one indeed, but it was not even close to being brought up. In fact Alesio (sp?) said when he wrote the rulebook, he wrote the whole thing from the POV of infantry, with exceptions made for vehicles and when noted in the unit type sections. I really firmly believe this could have been written better to avoid this obvious confusion, as the number of believers in this interpretation is showing.
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
Augustus wrote:padixon wrote:I see your logic, but this is called 'jumping to conclusions'.
first, page 33 *does* tell you that your assault distance is 6". The writer put the word 'most' in there because he was being honest as Cavalry obviously have a larger assault distance. This is not inconclusive it is conclusive.
...
No where does it say that if you move 12" you can assault 12". In fact the *only* distance listed in the movement phase is 6", and gives no mention to bikes or other units that move faster.
I think it is pretty direct, but how about this angle to try and persuade you:
What if a case revolved around the line in the jump infantry rules. They move 12" but are specified to move 6" in the assault phase. If units were always limited to moving 6" in the assault phase wouldn't this rule be redundant and not exist? There fore since bikes have no written exception to the assault distance, they move at 12". Right?
Nice find. 
 Reason to have the assault distance in every other entry,but not for bikes?
Would it not be easier to add the 6" or 12" as given distance than assume from page 34?
I think someone forgot the mention of the assault distance when writing about terrain. 
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
It will never fly.
G
263
Post by: Centurian99
Although it can be interpreted that the bikes get a 12" assault, I think a valid argument can also be made that the bikes can only assault 6".
The argument that they can assault 12" is dependent on the lines in the basic assault rules, not the bike rules. I'm not sure exactly how to structure this logically, but:
Basic move = 6"
Basic assault = Equal to movement, or 6"
Bike movement = replace 6" with 12"
Bike assault rules = not reduced by difficult terrain.
Does anyone see what I'm getting at?
The problem, of course, is that the rules could be interpreted in a different order. i.e.
Basic move = 6"
Bike movement = replace 6" with 12"
Assault move = modified movement distance
As far as I can tell, there's no textual difference between the two arguments.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
Isn't this the point, as much as I hate to say it, that RAI has to take over. This type of significant rule changed wouldn't have been done via stealth and as it has only cropped up know one would have to argue that precedence would lean towards prior rules.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
I hate how people coME to Dakka to abuse the rules. If bikes could assault 12" the rules would explicitly say so.
9010
Post by: Rymafyr
It doesn't fly GBF as everyone for this argument is taking things way out of context to prove an invalid point. Augustus is missing the context of how the RB is laid out and applying things in his own order to justify his argument.
The RB explicity deals with Infantry type units for all the basic sections, (Moving, Shooting, Assaulting) up until the section where Unit Types are clarified starting on pg 51. The RB even makes mention of this fact at the very start pg 1. Things have to be looked at in sequential order, you can never just pull out a part here or there and come up with an explanation. Ignoring context and order always causes this type of problem.
When the statement from page 34, "...following the same rules as in the Movement phase..." comes along it is referencing only the Movement rules starting on page 11. Page 11 cleary states, "Infantry move up to six inches in the Movement phase".
The rules for 'Bikes' starting on page 53 are an addendum to the stated rules for Infantry from the aforementioned sections. Here, the bikes movement is modified from 6" to 12". You do not re-apply the rule from page 34, as the Assault rules for bikes make no new provision to allow such a change.
Edit: You beat me to the punch C99.
5027
Post by: shirou
nevermind, see my post on pg 7
6769
Post by: Tri
shirou wrote:I agree with Augustus that the rules as written support a 12" assault. I believe that this is an unintended consequence of the poor manner in which the sentence on page 33 about a 6" assault was written, but as it is, the 12" assault stands. That said, I expect that 99% or more of tournament judges will rule that bikes get a 6" assault, so in a practical sense, I don't think there's any change.
QFT ... i expect there to be FAQ about this sooner or later.
Theres only one spot that hints at what bikes should move and thats the tag on, that eldar jetbikes can move 6" in the assault phase even when then they don't assault.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
This proves there is indeed a reason for intent. If we have to flip through several sections of the RB just to verify if a bike can assault 12" that is a travesty. RAW is not the end all be all way to interpret the rules as this thread has proved. I know many many of you are huge advocates of RAW but somewhere we should draw a line. If bikes can assault 12" then the rules should explicitly say so. I love bikes. If the rules supported this I would support it wholeheartedly.
G
14
Post by: Ghaz
I love how people can cherry pick the rules to get what they want. From page 34 of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook:
All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules as in the Movement phase, with the exception that they may be moved within 1" of enemy models. This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.
Sorry, but they tell you exactly what it means to 'follow the same rules as in the Movement phase', and using the same movement rate as they have in the Movement phase is not one of them.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
I cannot believe this fething thread has gone for two pages. There's no way ANYBODY is going to start playing bikes assault 12". Ridiculous!
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Check the turbobooster special rule. While not stated clearly the implied intent is pretty clear.
From what I've read here, there's a place in the bottom of the ocean with 9,900+ others waiting for some of you.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
"Implied intent" is by its very nature NOT clear in any way shape, or form.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
"Controlling their bikes at such speeds takes all their concentration and skill, however, so they canNOT move through difficult terrain, shoot, launch assaults, or execute any other voluntary action in the same turn."
Just by breaking up the movement doesn't mean your not relying on turbo boosters. You move 24" in a turn you've used turbo boosters. It reads as you can move up to 24" and because it's relying on flat out speed you move 24" in a turn you can't take any voluntary action.
There is the implied intent.
There would be no reason for the turbo-Boosters rule if the bikes could 24" combined every turn.
8802
Post by: Bradmammajamma
If im not mistaken under bikes they are listed as infantry and the bike is a peice of wargear they get. For the listing "bike" they get to MOVE 12". Other than that they use infantry profile which would be a 6" assult. You guys should have remembered that guy that wanted to say that you could put bikes in a landraider cuz they were listed as infantry in their description.
131
Post by: malfred
Land raider + ork biker + 12" Charge + Assault Ramp =
wtfpwn
That would just be a sweet image, ork bikers popping out of the front of
a Land Raider.
284
Post by: Augustus
Ghaz wrote:I love how people can cherry pick the rules to get what they want. From page 34 of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook:
All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules as in the Movement phase, with the exception that they may be moved within 1" of enemy models. This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.
Sorry, but they tell you exactly what it means to 'follow the same rules as in the Movement phase', and using the same movement rate as they have in the Movement phase is not one of them.
Ghaz, are you claiming that moving 12 in the movement phase is not a rule for bikes in the movement phase then? Do you realize how ignorant that sounds it's obviously wrong. They have a unique rule for page 53, where it says, "Bikes may move up to 12 inches in the movement phase." Obviously that rule is used in the movement phase, because that's what it literally says. So if you use the same rules you use in the movement phase, the rule from page 53 is also one of them.
Or maybe you could explain to everyone what phase:
"Bikes may move up to 12 inches in the movement phase."
occurs in?
I'm surprised to read you defending something so clearly wrong.
284
Post by: Augustus
focusedfire wrote:...There would be no reason for the turbo-Boosters rule if the bikes could 24" combined every turn.
Really?
How about if they wanted to move move 24 with no charge target in range?
How about if they wanted to turboboost to get invulnerable saves?
What if they wanted to move away from fast assaulter units?
What if they needed to get behind intervening cover that was greater than 12 away but not 24?
What if they needed to reach an objective?
Get to a unit that was routing to be in 6 inches in the enemy turn?
Block a transports exit point...
Think any of these are good reasons?
284
Post by: Augustus
Nurgleboy77 wrote:I cannot believe this fething thread has gone for two pages. There's no way ANYBODY is going to start playing bikes assault 12". Ridiculous!
Really how about the group of people that agreed?
284
Post by: Augustus
Tri wrote:shirou wrote:I agree with Augustus that the rules as written support a 12" assault. I believe that this is an unintended consequence of the poor manner in which the sentence on page 33 about a 6" assault was written, but as it is, the 12" assault stands. That said, I expect that 99% or more of tournament judges will rule that bikes get a 6" assault, so in a practical sense, I don't think there's any change.
QFT ... i expect there to be FAQ about this sooner or later.
Theres only one spot that hints at what bikes should move and thats the tag on, that eldar jetbikes can move 6" in the assault phase even when then they don't assault.
Ahh, yes but that was from the LAST PRINTING in V4, where the assaulot distance rule was different, and it was explicitly specified that assault moves were 6 inches unless specified otherwise, which isn't in the book anymore.
284
Post by: Augustus
Rymafyr wrote:
The rules for 'Bikes' starting on page 53 are an addendum to the stated rules for Infantry from the aforementioned sections. Here, the bikes movement is modified from 6" to 12". You do not re-apply the rule from page 34, as the Assault rules for bikes make no new provision to allow such a change.
Ok, if it is true that all infantry move only 6 unless specified otherwise (which isn't in the rules for the record) then why does it explicitly specify jump infantry assault 6 instead of 12? That's completely redundant and meaningless if you are right. Answer that.
6846
Post by: solkan
If one were to compare the rules for bikes on page 53 of the 5th edition rulebook to the bike rules on page 53 of the 4th edition rulebook, one should notice that there are no material changes.
The only difference is that in 4th edition, in 4th edition on page 36 the rules explicitly states The assault range is 6" unless otherwise specified.
In 5th edition, that statement is missing and in its place is the less helpful The maximum distance most units can move during an assault is 6".
I think that's the primary source of skeptism about any claims about bikes assaulting 12", and I can't imagine either of the two clubs I play at ruling in favor of the change. They're both much more likely to lump as yet another editorial error.
7849
Post by: Webbe
Solkan: Yes I agree it's probably a mistake. I also think the intent is 6" assault.
But do I know the intent is 6" assault?
No! I can't be sure. Why would they change central wording in the assault rules without checking what other rules the change of wording would affect?
The rulebook is written so that people that haven't ever heard about 4ed should be able to play the game.
If I don't know what RAI is I go with RAW!
RAW bikes can assault 12".
5394
Post by: reds8n
Augustus wrote:
Ghaz, are you claiming that moving 12 in the movement phase is not a rule for bikes in the movement phase then? Do you realize how ignorant that sounds it's obviously wrong. They have a unique rule for page 53, where it says, "Bikes may move up to 12 inches in the movement phase." Obviously that rule is used in the movement phase, because that's what it literally says. So if you use the same rules you use in the movement phase, the rule from page 53 is also one of them.
Or maybe you could explain to everyone what phase:
"Bikes may move up to 12 inches in the movement phase."
occurs in?
I'm surprised to read you defending something so clearly wrong.
You're (purposefully ?) misrepresenting him here.
Bikes have 3 special rules with regards to them in the movement phase : they can move up to 12" rather than the standard 6", they ignore the affects of difficult terrain and treat it as dangerous instead, and they can turbo boost. These rules relate to tehir movement phase only.
The only special rule they have with regards to assaults is again to do with difficult terrain ( and obstacles), it makes no reference to them having any ability to move further than the basic 6" which is the default move for all assaulting models.
Beasts/cavalry specify that they can assault more than 12"
That fact that the included a mention of how far Jump Infantry can assault is irrelevant. What matters is they did NOT include a caveat that lets bikes assault moe than 6" like they did with the beasts/cavalry.
7849
Post by: Webbe
reds8n wrote:That fact that the included a mention of how far Jump Infantry can assault is irrelevant. What matters is they did NOT include a caveat that lets bikes assault moe than 6" like they did with the beasts/cavalry.
RB page 54, BEASTS & CAVALRY section wrote:MOVEMENT
Beasts and cavalry move like infantry.
Ring a bell?
So without their 12" assault rule Beasts/Cavalry would only assault 6" as that's what they move in the movement phase.
Same goes for Jump Infantry. Without their 6" assault rule they would assault 12" as that's what they move in the movement phase.
5394
Post by: reds8n
You're right, and then you're wrong.
You're right that without the special 12" assult rule beasts/cavalry would only assault 6" in the assault phase.
For jump infantry they would move 12 ( as they do) and then assault 6 still as they have no clause that says they operate specially in the assault phase.
See the little box on page 52 " different unit types" : " ..follow the rules for the appropriate unit type, and if these rules don't say anything different, follow the basic rules for infantry".
The bikes have no caveats in the assault phase other than the aforementioned difficult/dangerous terrain one. Therefore they follow the basic rules for infantry which means they assault 6".
8489
Post by: padixon
I hate to point this out, but this is another rules Easter egg hunt gone array.
I have been seeing this for years, with every new edition. I guess I am foolish to think 5th ed would be immune to it, even though this is the least adjusted edition (IMO).
6769
Post by: Tri
No its GW forgetting to rule check ... I don't think they would slip in a change as drastic as this with out at least an example ... RAW they get 12" assault move, I'm sure at some point GW will FAQ it to 6".
that said who knows maybe GW will FAQ in favour of 12" ... "no we didn't make a mistake it how we wanted you to play"
123
Post by: Alpharius
Tri wrote:
that said who knows maybe GW will FAQ in favour of 12" ... "no we didn't make a mistake it how we wanted you to play"
That would require GW to actually write a FAQ AND 'remember' to rule on something that is, quite honestly, NOT that confusing?
In other words, NOT asked frequently?
OK, sure...
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Augustus wrote:Nurgleboy77 wrote:I cannot believe this fething thread has gone for two pages. There's no way ANYBODY is going to start playing bikes assault 12". Ridiculous!
Really how about the group of people that agreed?
I would say that none of the people areeing to the concept would apply it in practice. I'd be willing to bet even you who put this ridiculous thing forward don't play it like that.
I think the last sentence i nthe box on pg. 52 shuts this debate down fairly well. The only thing the 12" assault crowd has to go on is the fact that the 5th rules say "most units assault 6" where the 4th rules said "all units assault 6" unless otherwise specified" . This discrepency is easily chaulked up to different writers and assumtion.
Odd that we haven't seen the Yak in here. Maybe it's too stupid to justify with a ruling?
2325
Post by: MJThurston
Ok after reading the rules I'd have to say that the assault move is 6".
1. No where does it say that during the assault phase that you get to move the distance you moved in the movement phase. You just simply move.
2. Yes they put 6 inches in the Jump Pack section but they didn't put anything in the Bike Section. (This however doesn't mean you get to assault 12 inches.) Just because it doesn't say you can't doesn't mean you can. Furthermore when you go down to the Jetbike entry it says they move like bikes with some exceptions. The Eldar bikes can move in the assault phase even if they do not assault. What is this movement? It's 6 inches. So why would an Eldar bike not move the same distance as other bikes in the game or even other jetbikes? Because the movement for bikes/jetbikes in the assault phase is 6".
This is the type of Rules Lawyering that makes the game suck.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Webbe wrote:Solkan: Yes I agree it's probably a mistake. I also think the intent is 6" assault.
But do I know the intent is 6" assault?
No! I can't be sure. Why would they change central wording in the assault rules without checking what other rules the change of wording would affect?
The rulebook is written so that people that haven't ever heard about 4ed should be able to play the game.
If I don't know what RAI is I go with RAW!
RAW bikes can assault 12".
What a load of crap. [Moderator edited for content.] Please remember Dakka rule no.1.
G
10667
Post by: Fifty
Reasons why bikes assault 6":
Page 52 says that if the rules say nothing different, you assault 6". (A clear RaW argument)
The turbo-boost rule says that when you move 24" you need all of your concentration to stay on the bike and cannot assault. (A clear RaI argument)
In the Jet Bikes section, it says that all Eldar jetbikes are allowed to move 6" in the asault phase even if they don't assault. (A clear argument by extension back to regular bikes that they all move 6", by he statement that "Jetbikes are the same as bikes with the following exceptions:"
You can say "even if" is not the same as "whether or not", but the precedent of moving only 6" in the assault phase is clear. 12" in movement does not automatically lead to 12" in assault.)
You'd have to be a dick to try and claim a 12" bike charge, even though there is an admittedly very strong RaW argument that it is 12"
EDIT: Damnit, thought I was the first to notice the jetbike thing. Natch.
9010
Post by: Rymafyr
Augustus wrote:Rymafyr wrote:
The rules for 'Bikes' starting on page 53 are an addendum to the stated rules for Infantry from the aforementioned sections. Here, the bikes movement is modified from 6" to 12". You do not re-apply the rule from page 34, as the Assault rules for bikes make no new provision to allow such a change.
Ok, if it is true that all infantry move only 6 unless specified otherwise (which isn't in the rules for the record) then why does it explicitly specify jump infantry assault 6 instead of 12? That's completely redundant and meaningless if you are right. Answer that.
Infantry moving up to 6" is in the rules (for the record), unless specified otherwise with their own special rule or unit rule, just as your Jump Pack example shows. Looking at the case for Jump Infantry assaulting, the whole paragraph is redundant as nothing is changed in their assault phase from a normal infantry unit assaulting. How this example changes the fact that the rules for 'bikes assaulting' still makes no allowance for a 12" assault is beyond me. This in no way cites some hidden precedence or intent.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Augustus wrote:focusedfire wrote:...There would be no reason for the turbo-Boosters rule if the bikes could 24" combined every turn.
Really? How about if they wanted to move move 24 with no charge target in range? How about if they wanted to turboboost to get invulnerable saves? What if they wanted to move away from fast assaulter units? What if they needed to get behind intervening cover that was greater than 12 away but not 24? What if they needed to reach an objective? Get to a unit that was routing to be in 6 inches in the enemy turn? Block a transports exit point... Think any of these are good reasons?
OK, I concede that there would be a few usful things for turbo in this instance. But the rule would have been written very differently. When dealing with a lawyer how you win is by precedent. Precedent says 6" What if they want to turbo-boost and shoot. Move over 18" in a single turn your turbo-boosting and at that speed you can't assault. Turbo rule is fairly clear on the intent that you move 24" in a turn you sacrifice something in return. This is an attempt to insert a rule without it being written. For every excuse that it MAY exist there is an equal counter. Not trying to be offensive but, your coming across as the guy thats the reason we have to have a diclaimer on everything. If I leave the door to my house open, with money on the counter, do you need a sign that says if you come in uninvited and take that money without permission its stealing? Using this thought process seems to violate the first rule. It'd be different if you were asking for a faq. But thats not what your doing. Your trying to insert a new rule in place of an old one without having it clearly in writing, which is your argument. There no rule saying such so 6" doesn't exist but, theres no rule saying such so 12" does exist. Your own logic kills your argument. edited for clarity
123
Post by: Alpharius
Nurgleboy77 wrote:
Odd that we haven't seen the Yak in here. Maybe it's too stupid to justify with a ruling?
While that probably is the case, Yak hasn't been spotted for a while, has he? Probably still on Holiday for the Holidays...
It would be nice to see his take though.
7010
Post by: enmitee
this is what give dakkites a bad name, looking for every loophole to abuse in their favor. grats again. my opinion on generally most dakkites has been solidified to pure sh*t. but whatever really.:] i've never had any gaming experience with a bike assaulting 12". and can someone here tell me if they ever had an opponent assault 12" with bikes? yeah, no one you abusive dakkites.
an opponent that isnt a fellow abuser that is. 
14
Post by: Ghaz
Augustus wrote:Ghaz, are you claiming that moving 12 in the movement phase is not a rule for bikes in the movement phase then?
And yet again, they clearly tell you what 'follow the same rules as in the Movement phase' means. You're flat out ignoring the defintion that they give you. Once again, this is exactly what 'follow the same rules as in the Movement phase' means per the rules:
This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.
That is what it means, nothing more. Stop trying to add your own qualifications to a term that they've already clearly defined.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
I agree Ghaz 1000%!!!
G
8489
Post by: padixon
Ghaz wrote:Augustus wrote:Ghaz, are you claiming that moving 12 in the movement phase is not a rule for bikes in the movement phase then?
And yet again, they clearly tell you what 'follow the same rules as in the Movement phase' means. You're flat out ignoring the defintion that they give you. Once again, this is exactly what 'follow the same rules as in the Movement phase' means per the rules:
This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.
That is what it means, nothing more. Stop trying to add your own qualifications to a term that they've already clearly defined.
QFT
thank you Ghaz, This is not even a RAW vs. RAI discussion. This is pure RAW. Every other interpretation I have seen is reading between the lines and jumping to conclusions.
305
Post by: Moz
In agreement that the maximum distance of 6" for assault on pg. 33 is something that must be explicitly overwritten, which it is not in the case of bikes (but is for cavalry).
models move 6" in the assault phase
assault moves follow the rules of the movement phase
This gives us two rules for how we handle assault movement: it will be 6" unless specified otherwise, and it will follow the rules of the movement phase.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
I am happy to see Dakka coming to it's senses.
G
9736
Post by: Sha1emade
So far the RAW seems to favor the 12" assault. Until a good reason has come up for it not to. I run the ravenwing and in a million years I would NEVER even attempt this one. I would kick my own butt for thinking about it. I think it is against the spirit of the game and would make bikes STUPID powerful. It just feels super wrong as I am sure it was an over site or we just haven't found the rule stating it is just plain wrong.
Nice catch however.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Why not say 18" charge and ask the audience to read 30+ pages of rules to totally smoke them? Obviously cheating wins games. Who cares if you get called later?
G
14
Post by: Ghaz
Sha1emade wrote:So far the RAW seems to favor the 12" assault.
No, the RAW does not favor a 12" charge due to the passage I've quoted above.
6769
Post by: Tri
OK Nice Big reread of BGB ... from the start
Movement Phase
>Infantry move up to 6" in movement phase (pg11) [Movement Distance]
>Except for the rules detailed in this section for each unit type these units follow the same rules as infantry (pg51)
>Bikes move up to 12" (pg53) [Bikes-Movement]
Assault Phase
>All models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules as in the moment phase (pg34)
>Infantry move up to 6" in movement phase (pg11) [Movement Distance]
>Except for the rules detailed in this section for each unit type these units follow the same rules as infantry (pg51)
>Bike ignore difficult terrain (pg53) [Bikes-Assault]
which is how it works ... haven't reread the BGB in a while ... you just get in to a habit of doing a then b then c and then wonder if you're doing it right when some one questions it ... GW could have just add 6" but didn't ... any way my other post still stand it would be nice to FAQ this as it has come up before.
9736
Post by: Sha1emade
I was posting as you were posting so I missed it. I knew it was wrong but didn't dive headlong into the rule book to prove it for myself. Calm down there big guy no need to be rude.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Uh, I posted that yesterday, not 'while you were posting'.
2325
Post by: MJThurston
No it doesn't need to be faq'd. It clearly says that Eldar jetbikes can move 6 inches if they assault or not. Clearly this states that bikes assault 6 inches.
You have to be really hard headed to believe RAW tells you they can assault 12 inches.
By your RAW arguement bikes can assault 24 inches. It doesn't say you can't turbo boost in the assault phase. Just that you can't assault after turbo boosting in the movement phase. See I can say dumb things.
7849
Post by: Webbe
MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:No it doesn't need to be faq'd. It clearly says that Eldar jetbikes can move 6 inches if they assault or not. Clearly this states that bikes assault 6 inches.
Sorry but you are wrong. The eldar jetbike rules says that they can still move 6" in the assault phase even if they don't assault (normally you can't move in the assault phase if you don't make an assault move). It doesn't say anything about how far an eldar jetbike can move if assaulting.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
@ webb, The key word here is "still"
7849
Post by: Webbe
Ghaz wrote:Augustus wrote:Ghaz, are you claiming that moving 12 in the movement phase is not a rule for bikes in the movement phase then?
And yet again, they clearly tell you what 'follow the same rules as in the Movement phase' means. You're flat out ignoring the defintion that they give you. Once again, this is exactly what 'follow the same rules as in the Movement phase' means per the rules:
This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.
That is what it means, nothing more. Stop trying to add your own qualifications to a term that they've already clearly defined.
Do you really mean this?
How long can then normal infantry move?
I can't find anywhere where the rules tells you how far infantry can assault if they don't move as far as they do in the movement phase.
It also would mean you can't pivot models while assaulting, that the whole unit is no longer forced to move at the speed of the slowest model and other ridiculous stuff.
I think it's only meant as a clarification that you still may not do those things.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Yes, I really mean this. Show us where 'pivoting' is a separate part of the assault phase. You pivot them as you move them their 6". It's not a 'clarification', it's telling you exactly what they mean. If they wanted it to be a 'clarification', then they would have used the word 'clarification', wouldn't they?
7849
Post by: Webbe
focusedfire wrote:@ webb, The key word here is "still"
I didn't quote.
The quote is:
RB page 53, Eldar Jetbikes section in the box wrote:All Eldar jetbikes (including Dark Eldar ones) are
allowed to move 6" in the Assault phase, even if
they don’t assault.
It only tells us that instead of the normal assault move they can move 6" without assaulting.
Let me exchange a few words and maybe you get me:
All Eldar infantry are allowed to move 3" in the Assault phase, even if they don’t assault.
7849
Post by: Webbe
Ghaz wrote:Yes, I really mean this. Show us where 'pivoting' is a separate part of the assault phase. You pivot them as you move them their 6". It's not a 'clarification', it's telling you exactly what they mean. If they wanted it to be a 'clarification', then they would have used the word 'clarification', wouldn't they?
My car is blue. This means it's not red.
So by saying that I'm just saying that my car is not red? The car could in fact be green?
14
Post by: Ghaz
So? You're still trying to read something into a phrase that they clearly tell you what it means. So you want us to believe that when they mean one thing, that they really mean something else? I think that's stretching it a might bit.
2325
Post by: MJThurston
I don't think Enlish is the first language of some of these people. The statement means bikes can only assault 6 inches. Eldar bikes can move 6 inches even if they don't assault.
7849
Post by: Webbe
RB, page 34 wrote:MOVING ASSAULTING MODELS
All of the models in an assaulting unit make their
assault move following the same rules as in the
Movement phase, with the exception that they may be
moved within 1" of enemy models.
This is super clear to me. Follow the same rules as in the movement phase. The rest is clarification, just as I just told you my car is not red.
And I ask again. Where does the rulebook tells us how far normal infantry can assault by your ruling?
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
We shouldn't even be discussing this. I would love to rapid fire bolters 24". We all know that inherently you just cannot do it.
G
14
Post by: Ghaz
And again, if it was a 'clarification' then it would say that. It's what they mean. Just because you keep saying it's a 'clarification' does not make it so. When they say that it's what they mean, then it's what they mean. You're so called 'example' does not change that.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Webbe wrote:focusedfire wrote:@ webb, The key word here is "still"
I didn't quote. The quote is: RB page 53, Eldar Jetbikes section in the box wrote:All Eldar jetbikes (including Dark Eldar ones) are
allowed to move 6" in the Assault phase, even if
they don’t assault.
It only tells us that instead of the normal assault move they can move 6" without assaulting. Let me exchange a few words and maybe you get me: All Eldar infantry are allowed to move 3" in the Assault phase, even if they don’t assault.
Webb, that bit of condenscention is gonna cost ya. You "must" be the kid that has to be told not to dive head first into the empty swimming pool. You get condescending when you CHOSE to use poor wording then actually think the actual quote supports your position. Using basic english skills to examine the sentence structure. It "only tells us" that the eldar jetbikes assault 6" in the assault phase. Then *comma* even if they don't assault. Operative word here is now "even". Eldar jetbikes assault 6". There is no other way to read this sentence. edited for spelling and politeness
9454
Post by: Mattlov
I just read through the rules and here is what I see:
Infantry moves and assaults 6" because as stated: "Assaults movement follows all the same movement as standard, except they are allowed to move within 1" of an enemy."
Bikes are NOT infantry. They have their own rules.
They may move up to 12" in the movement phase.
Very simple. No argument.
Assault Movement follows all the same rules except the move within 1" rule.
With the way that it is written, bikes should assault 12". Using the argument the infantry only assaults 6" supports the bike argument because everyone is following their own rules. Since bikes are bikes, and not infantry, they should have the ability to assault 12".
Cheesy yes, but the way it is written says they should assault 12".
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Most units move 6". Taken, at face value and by itself, with nothing from another page or heading would have to be taken as an "unless other wise noted" clause. This is procedurally, the correct method of establishing meaning in a sentence.
The most units wording uses a fixed quantifiable distance measurement that is by sentence structure to state the norm of movement. If then it is the norm you must show an equally quantitive rule as the exception.
Your pulling from 3-4 different pages to come up with the illusion of a rule. This is an incorrect method of determining sentence meaning.
Bikers charge 6"
edited for spelling & clarification(better?)
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Gaz
This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.
That is what it means, nothing more. Stop trying to add your own qualifications to a term that they've already clearly defined.
If that is what it means (and nothing more) then the assaulters are not affected by difficult terrain, coherency rules, "Move at the speeed of the slowest" and other important rules, are they?
2649
Post by: AtraAngelis
I think the simple answer is this...
If you try to pull this load of crap 12" assault rule out of your Arse!...Expect to smacked by a whippy stick!
Stupid argument and topic... GBF had it right.. why is this even being discussed....
7010
Post by: enmitee
because people looking for a loophole want to insist on this to cheat their way out of local games and (i highly doubt) tournaments.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
I think a few people need to read up on the rules of this forum.
We are not discussing wether this is a good idea, wether we would use this in an actual game or wether it is fluffy or not.
We are discussing what the rules actually say.
A lot of what goes on in the YMDC, is purely intellectual exercises. We all know this. It has been so for ages.
So all poster commenting about "this is stupid", "this is cheating", "this would never fly against a real-world opponent" and "I'd kick your ass if you tried this", please realize where you are and refrain from posting.
Posting such comments on their own could easily be seen as trolling and flame-baiting, and should be avoided.
7010
Post by: enmitee
its a forum get over it. if you dont want people trolling, there's something called a PM system, but that's no fun and thats not what dakka is about.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
After having read the rules closely following the rules of sentence definition, I withdraw my earlier statement that this is a RAW vs RAI case.
Raw=bikers move 6". As per my last post; where there is a quantified norm for assault, there is no quatified exception to the norm for bikers.
I will Admit GW could have writen it better. But 10 people wrote this so a little slack is allowed.
Odds are that the various areas that are being quoted weren't even written by the same person or even at the same time. Which further supports that these passages weren't supposed to have some deeper 12" meaning.
This seems to me like someone trying to play Magik the Gathering with the rule book. Trying to fabricate power up combo-rules isn't 40k because GW doesn't put them in the BRB. They break their system with overpowered codices.
When interpretting rules be an engineer and use the first rule of engineering KISS.
284
Post by: Augustus
MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:No it doesn't need to be faq'd. It clearly says that Eldar jetbikes can move 6 inches if they assault or not. Clearly this states that bikes assault 6 inches.
Well that's from an outdated codex that was written in 4th edition, so that actually makes sense because the rules were different then.
MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:You have to be really hard headed to believe RAW tells you they can assault 12 inches.
So hard headed is a direct interpretation of the rules then? I think you have to be hard headed not to at least consider it as different now.
MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:By your RAW arguement bikes can assault 24 inches. It doesn't say you can't turbo boost in the assault phase. Just that you can't assault after turbo boosting in the movement phase. See I can say dumb things.
No, turbo boosting forbids assaulting completely, an it says as much, so you couldnt make a double 24 inch move at all.
...and I agree you can say dumb things.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
enmitee wrote:its a forum get over it. if you dont want people trolling, there's something called a PM system, but that's no fun and thats not what dakka is about.
I am sorry, could you please clarify what you mean by that?
284
Post by: Augustus
enmitee wrote:...no one you abusive dakkites...
Maybe the rules discussion forum is not a place for you?
284
Post by: Augustus
AtraAngelis wrote:why is this even being discussed....
Because it is what the rules say.
?
7010
Post by: enmitee
Augustus wrote:enmitee wrote:...no one you abusive dakkites...
Maybe the rules discussion forum is not a place for you?
@steelmage to: its a forum, its for everyone. because if it wasnt why am i able to post here :S (???)
284
Post by: Augustus
Steelmage99 wrote:Gaz
This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.
That is what it means, nothing more. Stop trying to add your own qualifications to a term that they've already clearly defined.
If that is what it means (and nothing more) then the assaulters are not affected by difficult terrain, coherency rules, "Move at the speeed of the slowest" and other important rules, are they?
Well spoken.
Also, there is no area in the rules that says "all units assault six unless specified otherwise" what it says on page 33 is:
"The maximum most units can move during assault is 6."
It doesn't even refer to infantry, it says units, which units? It doesn't say, "unless specified otherwise", it just says most, that is not an explicit qualifier.
The next page 34 has a more specific rule, which defines the general rule given previously:
"All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules as in the movement phase,"
So how far do bikes move in the movement phase, from page 53, bikes move 12:
"Bikes can move 12 inches in the movement phase."
Having reviewed it over and over I am now certain bikes assault 12. Using intent as an argument doesn't apply because the rules have changed. Essentially these arguments boil down to, "well it use to work like this, so it has to be the same!" Clearly, it isn't the same, the evidence is in black and white, from direct quotes. By that RAI logic a player could claim area terrain still blocks LOS by the magic cylinder, because the area terrain rules are still on page 13 (even though that isn't the same anymore).
Lots of things have changed in 5th, this is another one of them.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Augustus wrote:AtraAngelis wrote:why is this even being discussed....
Because it is what the rules say.
?
No, Its not. If you keep insisting such I'm going to have to suggest that you go and take a reading comprehension course.
284
Post by: Augustus
focusedfire wrote:Most units move 6". Taken, at face value and by itself, with nothing from another page or heading would have to be taken as an "unless other wise noted" clause. This is procedurally, the correct method of establishing meaning in a sentence.
Wow you have to be kidding? No, it would have to be taken as undefined, because most calls into question every unit. How about a simple example:
Officer
"Most people are guilty."
Driver
"But I am not!"
Officer,
"I'm giving you a ticket anyway, ods are you are in there with 'most people'."
For the record, bikes are otherwise noted, on page 53, where it says they move 12 inches.
284
Post by: Augustus
focusedfire wrote:Augustus wrote:AtraAngelis wrote:why is this even being discussed....
Because it is what the rules say.
?
No, Its not. If you keep insisting such I'm going to have to suggest that you go and take a reading comprehension course.
Really, reading comprehension course? How about this:
focusedfire wrote:edited for spelling&clarification
Perhaps we could take it together!
10201
Post by: SeattleDV8
BRB pg. 52 "if the Codex doesn't say any different, follow the rules for the appropriate unit type, and if those rules don't say anything different, follow the basic rules for infantry."
They don't say you get a 12" charge for your bikes.
so you get the infantry 6" charge.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
It doesn't define the charge as 12" the only definition for charge is over in the assault rule and says "Most units charge 6" " which is a common usage qualifier. In english when such qualifiers are used the exceptions are then expected to be clearly stated.
If bikes are not a "most" unit then there would be a quantifiable statement of a 12" charge. You Have no Quatifiable statement of a charge exceeding 6". Therefore it doesn't exist.
Pls read my posts up-page for clarification
@Augustus At least I catch my mistakes and attempt to correct such. Ability to type and literacy are 2 different things.
Edited for spelling and to reinsert deleted sentence
284
Post by: Augustus
SeattleDV8 wrote:BRB pg. 52 "if the Codex doesn't say any different, follow the rules for the appropriate unit type, and if those rules don't say anything different, follow the basic rules for infantry."
They don't say you get a 12" charge for your bikes.
so you get the infantry 6" charge.
I think you are right! We should follow the basic rules for infantry, how far do infantry move in the assault phase?
It says infantry move 6 in the assault phase, doesn't it? Actually it doesn't, the Assault phase rules don't even refer to infantry at all! It only talks about units. Check it! It says units move at the same speed as in the movement phase...
The reason infantry assault 6 inches is because they also move 6 in the movement phase. The assault rules do not define an infantry assault distance, they never refer to infantry specifically, just to units.
Bikes assault 12 because they move 12 in the movement phase for the same reason.
284
Post by: Augustus
focusedfire wrote:It doesn't define the charge as 12" the only definition for charge is over in the assault rule and says "Most units charge 6" " which is a common usage qualifier. In english when such qualifiers are used the exceptions are then expected to be clearly stated.
Charge is not referred to. The book says assault, here's the exact quote:
"The maximum distance most units can move during an assault is 6."
Your English structure argument has now moved into the realm of amusement.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
You are attempting to stretch a rule into an area already covered. Most units charge 6". There is no statement saying the bikes are an exception. Movement range and rules for movement were handled in different paragraphs under different title headings.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Charge and assault are used interchangably in the region I'm from. We're arguing rules not dialects.
What's funny is how you dance around the issue of a quantifiable distance being stated. Show me in the book where it says bike "assault"(better?)12 inches". Until then this is just another Arihman thread and I want my pie.
Edited for clarity
5394
Post by: reds8n
Augustus wrote:
I think you are right! We should follow the basic rules for infantry, how far do infantry move in the assault phase?
It says infantry move 6 in the assault phase, doesn't it? Actually it doesn't, the Assault phase rules don't even refer to infantry at all! It only talks about units. Check it! It says units move at the same speed as in the movement phase...
The reason infantry assault 6 inches is because they also move 6 in the movement phase. The assault rules do not define an infantry assault distance, they never refer to infantry specifically, just to units.
Bikes assault 12 because they move 12 in the movement phase for the same reason.
No it doesn't say that at all, you're selectively mis quoting. Again.
It talks about following THE rules for movement, not THEIR ( as in the unit in questions) rules for the movement phase. Becuase this isn't the movement phase, it is in fact the assault phase so the only rules that modify the behaviour of involved units are said units Assualt phase rules. See how the unit types have the turn structure broken up into different section ? See hoe eachs ection has rules that work differently in each phase. See how the bikes do NOT have a rule that lets them move further than 6", unlike cavalry that do or artillery that have their own special rules.
Point of order : Again I'll refer you to the box on page 52 " different unit types". Reading this-- as suggested before-- reveals that the rules so far have in fact only ben dealing with infantry, so when page 33 talks about "units" it defaultly mean infantry units.
I find it astonishing the number of people who claim this is a RAW "loophole" but yet seem incapable of actually following the principles of RAW.
7531
Post by: groz
This isn't the typical knuckle-headed argument of "I'm fielding 38 Bloodletters in my Tau! Why? BECAUSE YOU SUCK!" Whichever side of the argument you're on, I appeal for one thing: Buy me bikes before they sell out.
This 6"/12" question is a legitimate rules discrepancy, and, importantly, the intent of the rules is not clear.
It's no secret that many players try to advantageously interpret vaguely worded rules against the spirit of the game, but this is different. The rules strongly imply a 12" bike assault, and since the unit is fast attack, it seems reasonable on the surface.
For experienced veterans of 40k, it may seem obvious that a 6" bike assault is the intent. For a relative newcomer like myself, I squint at the 33 point Chaos Marine Bikes and wonder why I would ever take them. Is a 12" assault the answer to that question?
From a game mechanics point of view, there are a lot of complex possibilities from a 12" bike assault. It allows first turn charges if enemy units are deployed right up to the line, and that's just the start. We could bash away with the theory-hammer for hours.
What point am I trying to make?
1. Good find, Augustus
2. Tournaments should use a house rule to cover this discrepancy
3. We will all complain when the next two GW FAQ's neglect to clarify this rule.
2325
Post by: MJThurston
You have got to be kidding me. Are you still argueing over what is intent or in the rules. Please try this at my store. I'd love to see you laughed out of the store.
Only a slow would let you do this. RAW doesn't support you. You are reading into something that isn't there.
Yes the statement about Eldar moving 6 inches in the assault phase means that the charge distance is 6 inches.
The rule book doesn't say I always win so I can claim victory during every game. This is your logic on this.
(Why would GW intend bikes to assault 12 inches when they never have? Why would they have eldar bikes go 6 inches in the assualt phase even if not assaulting. We all know the rule to this so stop looking for a loophole that isn't there. I for one have closed that hole and have had support filling it in with dirt. Stop trying to shovel your gak.)
10279
Post by: focusedfire
1) No find Augustus
2)I want my turtle pie
3) Any one who supports the bikes get 12" movement needs a reading class.
4) For the relative newcomer, watch out for the people who try to lure you into 40k the gathering.
5) No wonder we are over run with idiotic lawsuits in this country.
edited for spelling and order
9454
Post by: Mattlov
The people who are arguing the jet bike point are just trying to throw this off topic. It has nothing to do with the argument. That is a special jet bike rule and completely unrelated.
The problem lies in the wording of Assault Moves. It says "MOST units may move a maximum of 6". Later, it says it follows all standard movement rules.
The rules assume most units are infantry. Bikes are not infantry.
The rule COULD go either way due to mildly interpretive wording.
I've never seen anyone try to assault 12" with bikes, but I've never seen anyone USE them either. But I could see where they could make the argument.
305
Post by: Moz
Whilst the discussion is in the spirit of the YMDC 'we discuss the RAW'. It degrades the usefulness of YMDC overall. There was a time where I could be in a rules discussion at my FLGS and could cite a topic on dakka as a relevant argument for why it should be played that way. Nowadays I would just be ashamed to admit that I read most of this.
Onward with the RAW discussion. Another element against your interpretation Augustus is that movement distances are explicitly stated as 'may move X " in the movement phase'. Now we are using the rules for the movement phase, but we are not in the movement phase . In order to move any distance at all in the assault phase, it must be specified how far you are allowed to move. Most units move 6", jetbikes and cavalry have special exceptions.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
No, IS related as Jetbikes and eldar are supposed to be the fastest in the game.
No problem with wording. Basic English, you cannot pull from another paragraph to modify the meaning of a sentence.
The rule says "MOST UNITS", no mention of infantry.
Edited due to that I was being assinine and respect for Moz
10667
Post by: Fifty
Augustus wrote:MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:No it doesn't need to be faq'd. It clearly says that Eldar jetbikes can move 6 inches if they assault or not. Clearly this states that bikes assault 6 inches.
Well that's from an outdated codex that was written in 4th edition, so that actually makes sense because the rules were different then.
No, it is from the main rulebook, on the same page as the main rules for bikes.
Anyway, as a wise man above has just said, this conversation has moved wel beyond being worthwhile. The RaW is a little unclear, but falls on the side of 6" rather than 12". (I'd say 60/40). RaI is probably more like 90/10. Those of you who are arguing from a semantics point of view because you enjoy the debate, fair enough.
Those of you who would try to use this loophole in a game, I'd pack up halfway through and concede the game to you. It is not even worth rolling a dice to decide which interpretation to use.
I'm not reading any more though!!
284
Post by: Augustus
reds8n wrote:Augustus wrote:
I think you are right! We should follow the basic rules for infantry, how far do infantry move in the assault phase?
It says infantry move 6 in the assault phase, doesn't it? Actually it doesn't, the Assault phase rules don't even refer to infantry at all! It only talks about units. Check it! It says units move at the same speed as in the movement phase...
The reason infantry assault 6 inches is because they also move 6 in the movement phase. The assault rules do not define an infantry assault distance, they never refer to infantry specifically, just to units.
Bikes assault 12 because they move 12 in the movement phase for the same reason.
...when page 33 talks about "units" it defaultly mean infantry units.
I find it astonishing the number of people who claim this is a RAW "loophole" but yet seem incapable of actually following the principles of RAW.
But it doesn't say infantry their red, it says units, infantry are a subset of units certainly. Don't you think if it was meant to say infantry, it would say infantry. The multiple 'unit' meaning is literal, not misquoting, you and others are reading meaning into a sentence to defend the precedent where there is no additional specification. Essentially by reading page 33:
"The Maximum most units can move during an assault is 6"."
instead as:
"The default infantry can move during an assault is 6"."
or
"An assault move is 6" unless specified otherwise."
Which is not what it literally says. Furthermore, it is not a loophole, it is the literal reading of the rules.
What surprises me reds8n is the number of people who blindly defend the 6 inch move with no case other than, that's how it worked in 4th edition.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Augustus, where's my pie?
284
Post by: Augustus
Moz wrote:Whilst the discussion is in the spirit of the YMDC 'we discuss the RAW'. It degrades the usefulness of YMDC overall. There was a time where I could be in a rules discussion at my FLGS and could cite a topic on dakka as a relevant argument for why it should be played that way. Nowadays I would just be ashamed to admit that I read most of this.
Oh come now? That's to bad to hear. Because playing by 4th edition precedents instead of reading the rulebook is the right way to do things? I suggest that's a bit academically flaccid. I suppose there are a lot of entries in this thread that come down to:
Try this at my store and you will be [hurt, beaten up, laughed at, my mom will stop you] etc. and they don't ad content but the structured arguments have good content in them, with well written details page quotes and logic!
Look at threads like this as an opportunity to use the ignore feature, it works well.
Moz wrote:Onward with the RAW discussion. Another element against your interpretation Augustus is that movement distances are explicitly stated as 'may move X " in the movement phase'. Now we are using the rules for the movement phase, but we are not in the movement phase . In order to move any distance at all in the assault phase, it must be specified how far you are allowed to move. Most units move 6", jetbikes and cavalry have special exceptions.
It says infantry move 6 in the assault phase, doesn't it? Actually it doesn't, the Assault phase rules don't even refer to infantry at all! It only talks about units. Check it! It says 'units' move at the same speed as in the movement phase...
The reason infantry (a kind of unit) assault 6 inches is because they also move 6 in the movement phase. The assault rules do not define an infantry assault distance, they never refer to infantry (a kind of unit) specifically, just to units generally, where it say 'units' move in assault with the same rules as the movement phase.
Bikes (another kind of unit) assault 12 because they move 12 in the movement phase for the same reason infantry assault 6.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Augustus, You're still ducking my point. Answer or stop this ridiculous argument and give me my pie.
305
Post by: Moz
Augustus it does tell us how far infantry units move: most move 6" in the assault phase, as a part of the 'most' category (that is, units without special rules dictating otherwise) infantry move 6" in the assault phase. Rules that are specific to the movement phase will have no bearing on this, despite the fact that the rules for the movement phase are used for assault movements. I'm thinking that it's actually sort of clever that it is written this way, since the movement rules only ever reference the movement phase when discussing distances moved.
The assault phase is not another movement phase.
You would say: My bikes move 12" in the movement phase, so they assault 12".
I would say: This is not the movement phase, as such your bikes behave like any other unit and assault 6".
6769
Post by: Tri
As much as i like Mr T's turtle pie, bring them up as part of the debate only weakens your argument
on page 51 we are asked to follow all the same rules as infantry ... when assaulting we follow the same rules as in the movement phase ...and this is where the rule brake and you can go ether way
A)Bikes can move 12" in the movement phase so they can also move 12" in the assault phase
or
B)Bikes can move 12" in the movement phase that only mean they can move 12" in the "movement phase" ... in the assault phase they fall back on the infantry rules and move 6" but are not slowed by difficult terrain
nether rule is 100% i fall on the B) side since that's how it was played in 4th ... Now could GW have made a massive change and not told any one?(writing it in the BGB doesn't count) yep bikes now get cover saves when turbo-boosting, they get Relentless, scouts can turbo-boosting in their scout move (thanks FAQ)
GW could have solved all this with moves 6", or moves 12"
5394
Post by: reds8n
Tri wrote:As much as i like Mr T's turtle pie, bring them up as part of the debate only weakens your argument
on page 51 we are asked to follow all the same rules as infantry ... when assaulting we follow the same rules as in the movement phase ...and this is where the rule brake and you can go ether way
A)Bikes can move 12" in the movement phase so they can also move 12" in the assault phase
or
B)Bikes can move 12" in the movement phase that only mean they can move 12" in the "movement phase" ... in the assault phase they fall back on the infantry rules and move 6" but are not slowed by difficult terrain
Almost. We're told to follow the same rules for movement, NOT the specific ( ie bikes in this case) UNITS rules for movement. The exception being--as it states-- that you can now go within 1" of an enemy model. The only other changes we have to follow are any listed under the Assault rules caveats of the bike rules. The only rule here is they ignore difficult terrain and treat this as dangerous terrain instead. Therefore bikes still follow the rest of the normal assault rules and only assault 6".
The only way you could choose to follow your point A) is by misreading what is written. Which cannot be defined as RAW then by any stretch of the imagination.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Oh
But it doesn't say infantry their red, it says units, infantry are a subset of units certainly. Don't you think if it was meant to say infantry, it would say infantry. The multiple 'unit' meaning is literal, not misquoting, you and others are reading meaning into a sentence to defend the precedent where there is no additional specification.
No, it does refer to infantry. AGAIN, I'll refer you to the little box on page 52 "Different unit types", which explains that ALL the rules so far have refered to infantry. IT's the default terminology, much as we use the male pro noun generally.
You're the one misreading stuff.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Only brought up pie when he started ducking my point. The point of proper use of reading comprehension for determining sentence meaning.
In the assault portion of the rule it says Most units move 6". The use of the Qualifier here acknowledges that there will be some units that do not. With the use of A hard number, 6", the sentence becomes an unless otherwise stated clause with 6" as the default.
Cavalry acceeds to this convention with the statement that they charge 12". There is no such statement for bikers. Nowhere in the BRB does it say or even clearly imply that there is a 12" assault for the bikers
411
Post by: whitedragon
Steelmage99 wrote:I think a few people need to read up on the rules of this forum.
We are not discussing wether this is a good idea, wether we would use this in an actual game or wether it is fluffy or not.
We are discussing what the rules actually say.
A lot of what goes on in the YMDC, is purely intellectual exercises. We all know this. It has been so for ages.
Moz wrote:Whilst the discussion is in the spirit of the YMDC 'we discuss the RAW'. It degrades the usefulness of YMDC overall. There was a time where I could be in a rules discussion at my FLGS and could cite a topic on dakka as a relevant argument for why it should be played that way. Nowadays I would just be ashamed to admit that I read most of this.
Moz, there are certain rules in 40k that have no easy answer because of the inconsistencies in language/verbage/style that GW uses to write their rules. The reason we come here is not to be able to settle a dispute for every rule out there that may pop up, but rather to increase awareness of some of the really big rule humdingers that can derail a game very quickly. With increased awareness, we can discuss with our opponents and avoid arguments and at least have an understanding of where the rules breakdown. There are many instances like this in the rules, and unfortunately there are no real good answers.
Recent examples would be, Eldrad's Staff, single or double handed, and the whole FNP transferring to the unit with a joined IC nonsense. Don't forget Deff Rollaz.
Reaching into the way-back machine, this was true in 3rd/4th edition as well, with Siren and Grey Knights.
Saying that you're embarrassed by threads like these is not the fault of the players, but rather the fault of GW's poor rules writing.
My own personal opinion is that the assault rules mention 6" as the normal assault move that most units can make, but the intent was that a specific unit would add a clarifier if it could move farther in the assault phase. Examples here would be Warp Spiders and Stormboyz led by Zagstruk. However, the rules are not ironclad here and I could see how it's possible to think that bikes may be allowed a 12" assault. I think that position is inherently weaker than the other side, but it's hard to say for certain which is more correct beyond a shadow of a doubt.
9180
Post by: Zip Napalm
Amen, Whitedragon!
123
Post by: Alpharius
Help us, Obi-Wan Yakface; you're our only hope.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
I agree, whitedragon. Well said.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Agreed. Once you know what the rules actually say and the problems that causes, then you can move on and make any adjustments or house rules you deem necessary before a problem arises.
102
Post by: Jayden63
I'm going to have to agree with the 12" assault for the reason stated before. However, I'll never play it that way. It is IMO a poor worded situation. Bikes have been a 6" assault for 10+ years, I see no reason why its 12" now.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
Jayden63 wrote:I'm going to have to agree with the 12" assault for the reason stated before. However, I'll never play it that way. It is IMO a poor worded situation. Bikes have been a 6" assault for 10+ years, I see no reason why its 12" now.
So Tyranids can be screwed in a different way.
Every other new rule tends to bend us over pretty hard, why not this one since Tyranids don't have bikes?
411
Post by: whitedragon
Mattlov wrote:Jayden63 wrote:I'm going to have to agree with the 12" assault for the reason stated before. However, I'll never play it that way. It is IMO a poor worded situation. Bikes have been a 6" assault for 10+ years, I see no reason why its 12" now.
So Tyranids can be screwed in a different way.
Every other new rule tends to bend us over pretty hard, why not this one since Tyranids don't have bikes?
Please....Tyranids hardly suffer that badly in 5th. Now if you replace "Tyranids" with "Necrons", then I can agree with you.
1986
Post by: thehod
whitedragon wrote:Mattlov wrote:Jayden63 wrote:I'm going to have to agree with the 12" assault for the reason stated before. However, I'll never play it that way. It is IMO a poor worded situation. Bikes have been a 6" assault for 10+ years, I see no reason why its 12" now.
So Tyranids can be screwed in a different way.
Every other new rule tends to bend us over pretty hard, why not this one since Tyranids don't have bikes?
Please....Tyranids hardly suffer that badly in 5th. Now if you replace "Tyranids" with "Necrons", then I can agree with you.
Also include: Tau, Guard, DH
8506
Post by: Shrike78
Oh.. and space marines!! We got screwed....
Anyways, I will be a mouth breather here and agree with the OP, from my re-reading of the codex (however insubstantial that was) there is nothing that restricts the movement of bikers to 6"s.
However, I will hide this loophole from my friends for as long as possible in the hopes that the white scars don't start whooping up on me like they used to :*(
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Welcome to 40K the gathering.
Your taking parts from 4 pages to create the illusion of a rule.
Following basic english rules of reading the most units assault 6" sets up the only distance during assault stated except for the "Noted" exception of the beasts/cavalry.
Sentences from one paragraph are not used to modify the meaning of sentences from another. If they do there is to be a reference to the aforementioned sentence.
There has been no other modifier to the rule stated in the BRB.
Please go back to playing yu-gi-oh and leave the game I enjoy to those of us that are not that ****ing Guy
8802
Post by: Bradmammajamma
Wow i finally got done reading all 5 pages!!! With that all i have to say is Focusedfire here's your pie! 
958
Post by: mikhaila
Have fun finding an opponent Augustus. Or maybe that's why you have so much time to argue nonsense. Your arguement's going to get either blank stares or outright laughter at any tournament.
1985
Post by: Darkness
Augustus is one of the most well respected and feared tourney players in Colorado. He will have no trouble finding opponents. And I doubt he will play this rule the way he reads it until clarified.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
What part of Colorado? Is he playing at Gamers Haven?
@Bradmammajamma- mmmmm Pie, thank you. Sweet tooth satified, savage beast soothed, me shut up now.
edited for humor
1985
Post by: Darkness
Augustus is from Denver, he will sometimes make the trip to the Haven anual or the Air Force Academy tourney.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
AAAHHH, there is a lot of military in the area. Some decent games for a state so isolated.
1985
Post by: Darkness
To throw some fuel on the fire, I presented the argument to a friend of mine who is a retired college professor of litterature with a masters in language.
to quote "It does not matter that they say for most this will be 6. What matters is that move and assault are the same no matter what. The rest is poor writing."
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Did you present the argument or give him the book to actually flip through? If its the second, by which college is he employed?
1985
Post by: Darkness
She is retired from the University of Miami, and I presented the argument and the book.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Glad I never wasted money at U of Miami.
10128
Post by: Mekniakal
Does she also play warhammer? Otherwise it would be pretty weird to bring something like this up to them to win an internet argument.
"Oh, by the way, you know that game I play that involves plastic toy soldiers? Well, I'm arguing with some people on the internet and I need your authority on the English language to prove my point right. Don't worry about reading the rest of the book about this game you don't really care about, just look at these few pages."
Also, if you were trying to interpret the rules like this, wouldn't bikes have an 18" assault since they can potentially move 18" in the movement phase?. Sure they can't assault when they move that fast in the movement phase, but since you're saying the top movement speed is the assault range wouldn't they be able to assault 18"? Sounds silly? It's similar to the argument you're putting out with the 12" assault. Let's give the bikes a potential assault range of 30"!!! that sounds great!
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
Mekniakal wrote:Also, if you were trying to interpret the rules like this, wouldn't bikes have an 18" assault since they can potentially move 18" in the movement phase?. Sure they can't assault when they move that fast in the movement phase, but since you're saying the top movement speed is the assault range wouldn't they be able to assault 18"? Sounds silly? It's similar to the argument you're putting out with the 12" assault. Let's give the bikes a potential assault range of 30"!!! that sounds great
If you are referring to turbo boosting then that's 24" of movement, not 18", 18" is the bare minimum to claim a cover save from turbo boosting however, and the turbo boosters rule is quite clear that you cannot launch an assault in the same turn as you turbo boost, regardless of what phase the turbo boost occurs in.
So actually, your rules idea is alot more silly than the real one being discussed, Because the rulebook does clearly state that an assault follows all the rules for movement, and bikes are not specified as assaulting any less than 12", however, turbo boosting bikes are clearly specified as being unable to assault.
6314
Post by: cervidal
Drunkspleen wrote:Mekniakal wrote:
So actually, your rules idea is alot more silly than the real one being discussed, Because the rulebook does clearly state that an assault follows all the rules for movement, and bikes are not specified as assaulting any less than 12", however, turbo boosting bikes are clearly specified as being unable to assault.
Sarcasm is completely wasted on you, eh?
I know they've been prone to having errors in 'em, but have their been any White Dwarf articles with assaulting bike units in the battle report? Just would be interesting to me to see how they're going about it. RAW may generally rule, but RAI seems to win out on the FAQs.
10128
Post by: Mekniakal
Drunkspleen wrote:Mekniakal wrote:Also, if you were trying to interpret the rules like this, wouldn't bikes have an 18" assault since they can potentially move 18" in the movement phase?. Sure they can't assault when they move that fast in the movement phase, but since you're saying the top movement speed is the assault range wouldn't they be able to assault 18"? Sounds silly? It's similar to the argument you're putting out with the 12" assault. Let's give the bikes a potential assault range of 30"!!! that sounds great
If you are referring to turbo boosting then that's 24" of movement, not 18", 18" is the bare minimum to claim a cover save from turbo boosting however, and the turbo boosters rule is quite clear that you cannot launch an assault in the same turn as you turbo boost, regardless of what phase the turbo boost occurs in.
So actually, your rules idea is alot more silly than the real one being discussed, Because the rulebook does clearly state that an assault follows all the rules for movement, and bikes are not specified as assaulting any less than 12", however, turbo boosting bikes are clearly specified as being unable to assault.
Just joking, I'm just pointing out the weird ways one can twist the RAW if they really, really try (and are selective in what they choose to point out). Since the crux of the argument is that you treat the assault phase the exact same as the movement phase, you could interpret bikes as being able to turbo boost in the assault phase. Which would be ludicrous.
8489
Post by: padixon
I can't believe this is still going on. Has everyone decided to ignore Ghaz's post.
The last sentence form the very paragraph that this infamous line comes from tells us explicitly what it means to 'move following the same rules as in the movement phase.'
here it is : "This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through the gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."
NOTE: There is **no** mention of the models movement speed whatsoever.
This is so unbelievable that someone will go through great lengths to prove RAW from only **1** line in an *entire* paragraph and an *entire* page dedicated to moving assaulting models.
Assaulting 12" with bikes is **not** RAW folks. Sorry. Not even close. What this is, is wishful thinking and using one line to try to find an Easter Egg that doesn't exist.
RAW is bikes move 6" in the Assault Phase.
Lets drop this and move on, this is embarrassing to Dakka and any real rules questions.
EDIT: A word to the wise for those who bought into this Hogwash. Read the rules yourself, and form your own opinion before you just believe whatever a guy says without doing any bit of research yourself. Especially if that Hogwash is so extraordinary and against the norm, and defiantly if that Hogwash is found on the internet.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
padixon wrote:I can't believe this is still going on. Has everyone decided to ignore Ghaz's post.
The last sentence form the very paragraph that this infamous line comes from tells us explicitly what it means to 'move following the same rules as in the movement phase.'
here it is : "This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through the gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."
Sure we did. And I asked the following question;
Gaz
Gaz wrote:This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.
That is what it means, nothing more. Stop trying to add your own qualifications to a term that they've already clearly defined.
If that is what it means (and nothing more) then the assaulters are not affected by difficult terrain, coherency rules, "Move at the speeed of the slowest" and other important rules, are they?
....he chose not to answer.
8489
Post by: padixon
Steelmage99 wrote:padixon wrote:I can't believe this is still going on. Has everyone decided to ignore Ghaz's post.
The last sentence form the very paragraph that this infamous line comes from tells us explicitly what it means to 'move following the same rules as in the movement phase.'
here it is : "This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through the gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."
Sure we did. And I asked the following question;
Gaz
Gaz wrote:This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.
That is what it means, nothing more. Stop trying to add your own qualifications to a term that they've already clearly defined.
If that is what it means (and nothing more) then the assaulters are not affected by difficult terrain, coherency rules, "Move at the speeed of the slowest" and other important rules, are they?
....he chose not to answer.
Your kidding right?
This is what I mean when I say that you (proverbial you) try to prove RAW from only 1 line. I am not going to answer this and let you do this yourself. But I will give you a hint.
Important: **Read the rest of Moving Assaulting Models** This will answer all your queries on those important rules you feel need to be said in the first paragraph, because they are covered quite nicely in the following paragraphs.
And the only one not covered is moving at the slowest speed of a model in the squad because you *do*. Assault rules clearly show you move your unit on a model to model basis. In extremely rare cases you may have a cavalry model in a unit of non-cavalry (If Cavalry ICs sitll exist?) In which case *that* model may in fact assault his full 12". BUT, he must also maintain coherency too. Which in 99% of the case, he will probably only go about 6", and maybe if he is in the back of the formation, he can go a little further. Models with Slow and purposeful pass it off their speed to the squad they are with as per their own rule. But this discussion topic must be saved for a different forum as it has in many cases been argued back and forth (not the part about SaP, but about models in a squad that can assault 12" [ DE combat drugs] and in a squad that can not)
Note: No where in any paragraph where it goes into explicit details on moving models into combat does it state anywhere you assault the same pace you move. No where. In fact it *does* say you assault 6". And 40k rules are written with a basic rule outline and then you apply restrictions/exceptions given for each unit type. And the only one given for bikes is that they ignore difficult terrain and take dangerous terrain tests instead.
This could not be any simpler.
The point is read the subject matter in its entirety. There is such a thing as 'context'. And any one line from any document can/and will always be taken out of 'context'.
305
Post by: Moz
whitedragon wrote:
Moz, there are certain rules in 40k that have no easy answer because of the inconsistencies in language/verbage/style that GW uses to write their rules. The reason we come here is not to be able to settle a dispute for every rule out there that may pop up, but rather to increase awareness of some of the really big rule humdingers that can derail a game very quickly. With increased awareness, we can discuss with our opponents and avoid arguments and at least have an understanding of where the rules breakdown. There are many instances like this in the rules, and unfortunately there are no real good answers.
Recent examples would be, Eldrad's Staff, single or double handed, and the whole FNP transferring to the unit with a joined IC nonsense. Don't forget Deff Rollaz.
Reaching into the way-back machine, this was true in 3rd/4th edition as well, with Siren and Grey Knights.
Saying that you're embarrassed by threads like these is not the fault of the players, but rather the fault of GW's poor rules writing.
I'm embarrassed more by the quality of the arguments I suppose. It's been a long time since I've seen a decently constructed premise to logical conclusion out of this forum, and my feel for YMDC nowadays is that most of the time it's more like effective trolling techniques win out over actual inspection. Take the way that Augustus starts the thread: 'Do bikes go 6" or 12", discuss'. Basically baiting people into stating their expectations from the past editions of the game before bringing his contentious argument in which I think is largely based not on the merit of the argument but on the bolding and highlighting used. Proponents for both sides usually rattle on ignoring one another completely and the argument is declared 'won' by whomever posts last before the lock.
I think the intended purpose of YMDC is fine. I also agree that the rules are written in a manner that is not consistent with how seriously we treat them. I however believe that we could get more use out of this forum if we would actually discuss the rules, drop the ad hominem, and not post if you don't have something to say.
So in order to not fall prey to my own complaint, would someone like to work on this one:
P1: The Movement phase and Assault phase are distinct, separate phases
P2: During the Assault phase, a unit moves using the rules of the Movement phase
C1: A unit will move in the assault phase following all rules for movement except those that are specific to 'during the Movement phase'
P3: All units move as infantry except when specifically stated otherwise in the unit types section
P4: Bikes may move up to 12" during the Movement phase (capital M, game term: Movement phase)
C2: Bikes will move at the speed of infantry during the Assault phase (6")
10111
Post by: Marcus Iago Geruasius
6 inches.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Thanks Moz, for your input and sage advice. You pretty much summed it up and I'm going t o follow your advice. 6" all to be said, So I'm outta here.
411
Post by: whitedragon
Moz wrote:
I'm embarrassed more by the quality of the arguments I suppose. It's been a long time since I've seen a decently constructed premise to logical conclusion out of this forum, and my feel for YMDC nowadays is that most of the time it's more like effective trolling techniques win out over actual inspection. Take the way that Augustus starts the thread: 'Do bikes go 6" or 12", discuss'. Basically baiting people into stating their expectations from the past editions of the game before bringing his contentious argument in which I think is largely based not on the merit of the argument but on the bolding and highlighting used. Proponents for both sides usually rattle on ignoring one another completely and the argument is declared 'won' by whomever posts last before the lock.
I think the intended purpose of YMDC is fine. I also agree that the rules are written in a manner that is not consistent with how seriously we treat them. I however believe that we could get more use out of this forum if we would actually discuss the rules, drop the ad hominem, and not post if you don't have something to say.
So in order to not fall prey to my own complaint, would someone like to work on this one:
P1: The Movement phase and Assault phase are distinct, separate phases
P2: During the Assault phase, a unit moves using the rules of the Movement phase
C1: A unit will move in the assault phase following all rules for movement except those that are specific to 'during the Movement phase'
P3: All units move as infantry except when specifically stated otherwise in the unit types section
P4: Bikes may move up to 12" during the Movement phase (capital M, game term: Movement phase)
C2: Bikes will move at the speed of infantry during the Assault phase (6")
I can't disagree with you at all, and actually I think we've all gotten a little lazy here with the "Premise/Conclusion" thing. It does spell the argument out alot better. Maybe we need to be a bit more vigiliant in how we display our arguments, but you can't get rid of all the excess noise completely.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Augustus wrote:MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:No it doesn't need to be faq'd. It clearly says that Eldar jetbikes can move 6 inches if they assault or not. Clearly this states that bikes assault 6 inches.
Well that's from an outdated codex that was written in 4th edition, so that actually makes sense because the rules were different then.
You've made this mistake twice. The rules for Eldar Jetbikes are in the main rulebook (p. 53, with the rest of the bikes).
9454
Post by: Mattlov
Janthkin wrote:Augustus wrote:MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:No it doesn't need to be faq'd. It clearly says that Eldar jetbikes can move 6 inches if they assault or not. Clearly this states that bikes assault 6 inches.
Well that's from an outdated codex that was written in 4th edition, so that actually makes sense because the rules were different then.
You've made this mistake twice. The rules for Eldar Jetbikes are in the main rulebook (p. 53, with the rest of the bikes).
That also doesn't mean they only assault 6". It means they can move 6" if they assault or not. If they move 12", they can also move 6". It is horridly circuitous logic, but it can hold weight in a debate.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Mattlov wrote:Janthkin wrote:Augustus wrote:MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:No it doesn't need to be faq'd. It clearly says that Eldar jetbikes can move 6 inches if they assault or not. Clearly this states that bikes assault 6 inches.
Well that's from an outdated codex that was written in 4th edition, so that actually makes sense because the rules were different then.
You've made this mistake twice. The rules for Eldar Jetbikes are in the main rulebook (p. 53, with the rest of the bikes).
That also doesn't mean they only assault 6". It means they can move 6" if they assault or not. If they move 12", they can also move 6". It is horridly circuitous logic, but it can hold weight in a debate.
I wasn't commenting on the utility of the argument one way or the other, just noting a flaw in how Augustus has been addressing it. You can't wave this one off as being outdated codex material.
But anything that requires "horridly circuitous logic" should trigger a warning flag.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
"But anything that requires "horridly circuitous logic" should trigger a warning flag."
SO TRUE!!!
G
284
Post by: Augustus
Moz wrote:
P3: All units move as infantry except when specifically stated otherwise in the unit types section
P3 is the flaw.
There is no rule in the book that says all units assault move as infantry unless stated otherwise (that's the 4th edition paradigm). What the rule says is units use the same rules they do in the movement phase as I have been saying all along.
Infantry move 6 in the assault phase because they are a unit, and units assault move with the same rules as the movement phase. Strait out of the book.
The exceptions to this are cavalry and jump infantry which have explicit specifications because they move 6 and assault 12, and move 12 and assault 6 respectively, they had to have these rules because they break the paradigm laid out in the assault rules earlier where all units assault with the same rules as the movement phase.
9142
Post by: Axyl
After drudging through all the pages in this thread, this is what I am able to conclude.
The argument is based on three things:
-"The maximum distance most units can move during an assault is 6 inches."
Ok, most units assault 6 inches, but it doesn't say ALL units, or doesn't specify "unless otherwise noted". This is basically an obscure sentence as it doesn't give specifics as to what or what does not assault 6.
-Rules for bikes do not give assault range.
Nope, they sure don't. Just more obscurity.
-"All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules as in their movement phase."
Alright, so from taking two obscurities you basically cannot draw any conclusion as to how far they assault. In addition, there is nothing in the rules for the movement phase stating that all units are limited to 6" movement unless otherwise noted (except for the bit on infantry).
So you only have ONE semi-solid piece of ruling to base their assault range on, and that is the bit about them following the rules for their movement phase. Which does allude to the fact that if they can move 12 inches in the movement phase, then they can also move 12 during the assault phase.
If you ask me though. I would say this argument is based on obscure, non-descriptive rules that don't officially rule one way or the other. I can see the argument and how it could be 12 inches, but I highly doubt that is the case. I would avoid trying to assault 12 inches in even a friendly game as it would just lead to you probably being yelled at by all the 40k nerds within earshot of your game.
3567
Post by: usernamesareannoying
6 pages...really. wow.
bikes move 12 assault 6.
if they assaulted 12 then it would say so like it does for cavalry.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Wow, this is amazing. I'm so going to use this in my next game. Thanks Augustus!!!!!!!111
....
Seriously, there aren't Easter Eggs in the rules.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
7750
Post by: da gob smaka
this is quite funny how long can you people argue a rule that everyone and their grandmother knows? Its easy, do you have a special rule that says you can move more than 6" for assaults? if not then you move 6" for assaults. Really Im glad we never run into people like this at our stores, noobs is one thing but come on read the rule book once in a while.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Augustus wrote:There is no rule in the book that says all units assault move as infantry unless stated otherwise (that's the 4th edition paradigm). What the rule says is units use the same rules they do in the movement phase as I have been saying all along.
Except there is such a rule, as we keep telling you.
Different Unit Types
So far the rules have just dealt with troops that
move around on foot – infantry. This section
covers different unit types, and these not only
add new tactical elements to your games, but
also more complexity to the rules. These unit
types have different rules for the way they move,
how terrain affects them, how far they can
assault, and so on. You will find that Codexes
often add even more changes and exceptions for
specific models. In any given situation during a
battle, if the Codex doesn’t say any different,
follow the rules for the appropriate unit type, and
if those rules don’t say anything different, follow
the basic rules for infantry.If you’re just starting out, you may find it easier
to use just infantry units in your first game or
two, while you get used to the basic rules. On
the other hand, if you do want to jump straight
in, we suggest that you just read those unit type
rules that apply to models in your collection.
Jeez, there's stubborn and then there's just blind stupidity.
7750
Post by: da gob smaka
in laymans terms if your unit has a rule that says your assault move is different then you use that rule, if not you move 6".
2495
Post by: Kroeger
da gob smaka wrote:this is quite funny how long can you people argue a rule that everyone and their grandmother knows? Its easy, do you have a special rule that says you can move more than 6" for assaults? if not then you move 6" for assaults. Really Im glad we never run into people like this at our stores, noobs is one thing but come on read the rule book once in a while.
Had you actually read the rule book you would have realized that a case can be made for either interpretation. The real question comes down to whether or not the special movement distance for the bikes carries into the assault phase or not. If it does, then bikes assault 12 inches. If it doesn't they assault 6 inches. 4th edition was very clear on this, however 5th edition is more ambiguously worded.
284
Post by: Augustus
Ozymandias wrote:Wow, this is amazing. I'm so going to use this in my next game. Thanks Augustus!!!!!!!111
....
Seriously, there aren't Easter Eggs in the rules.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
Ozymandias, not you too. I really enjoy your posts, I'm surprised you would throw the synicism in there.
Honestly I enjoy the majority of the thread. It is difficult however to have a running discussion with the vested posters in a thread when others interject with hostile posts with no content.
"You will be laughed out..."
"Try this in my store and..."
"reading comprehension"
But then, it is the internet. Even though they disagreed with me I really like the postings of Ghaz, Moz and Reds8n. I think many miss the point of the YMDC, I dont expect to "win" anything, but I'd like to raise awareness and talk about finer points, little interpretations and inconsistencies so people can make their own decisions. Posts "of course it is 6" don't ad much, although I suppose that is how some will "make the call", very well.
I am a bit surprised, I thought dakka was a temple of RAW, and this issue seems failry straitforward, but the established posters [ DCMs] didn't seem to think so. Has it become bad form to make a RAW argument on dakka? Perhaps so.
Isn't this somewhat ironic given this line from the INAT FAQ:
"The answers in this FAQ are based on the rules as written (RAW) when possible (in fact, much more so than
last year’s FAQ*)."
Which I absolutely love and think is well done by the way!
If you want to defend the precedent because it "feels" right for you, that's great! Just be honest and say that instead, as some have.
At least read the quoted passages, understand the arguments, and decide for yourself!
284
Post by: Augustus
reds8n wrote:Jeez, there's stubborn and then there's just blind stupidity.
Ah red, just because we disagree, I don't think less of you.
7750
Post by: da gob smaka
well you go ahead and "interpret" however you want I garuntee that if you tried to argue that bikes assault more than 6" in any GT/RTT youd get a funny look by the judge, hed tell you 6" and walk away. but hey go ahead and assault more than 6 where you play its just a game but in tournaments they assault 6". And I have read the rules all of them as a matter of fact from rouge trader to 5th edition. read reds8n post before mine theres your rule, theres no ambiguity about it. Bikes (unlike cavalry and swarms) do not have a special rule saying they move further than 6" in the assault phase, so they move 6". You cant use the lack of wording to justify making up your own rules, when in doubt you fall back on the core rules. Everything assaults 6" (gargantuan creatures/titans/jump infantry/bikes/little fuzzy bunnies) unless the unit has a special rule that states other wise, go look up ripperswarms and tell me how far they assault.
284
Post by: Augustus
da gob smaka wrote:...do not have a special rule saying they move further than 6" in the assault phase, so they move 6".
Yes they do, they move 12 in the movement phase, you move the same in the assault pahse as the movement phase, the special rule is in the bike section.
da gob smaka wrote:You cant use the lack of wording to justify making up your own rules, when in doubt you fall back on the core rules. Everything assaults 6"
"Everything assaults 6" isn't a rule anymore. Do you have a page reference for that?
284
Post by: Augustus
reds8n wrote:Augustus wrote:There is no rule in the book that says all units assault move as infantry unless stated otherwise (that's the 4th edition paradigm). What the rule says is units use the same rules they do in the movement phase as I have been saying all along.
Except there is such a rule, as we keep telling you.
Different Unit Types
So far the rules have just dealt with troops that
move around on foot – infantry. This section
covers different unit types, and these not only
add new tactical elements to your games, but
also more complexity to the rules. These unit
types have different rules for the way they move,
how terrain affects them, how far they can
assault, and so on. You will find that Codexes
often add even more changes and exceptions for
specific models. In any given situation during a
battle, if the Codex doesn’t say any different,
follow the rules for the appropriate unit type, and
if those rules don’t say anything different, follow
the basic rules for infantry.If you’re just starting out....
...
Bold emphasis mine. Notice how in your first italic emphasis it always refers to 'unit'? Disregarding the part about codex exceptions disqualifying the entire second quote of yours (we are after all just talking about the core rules here) the unit type is bikes reds8n, they do have a special rule for movement, they move 12. That is the rule to follow, the next sentence following the comma doesn't apply, because the unit type is bikes. The rules for the unit type do say something, they say they move 12.
Good quote.
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
usernamesareannoying wrote:6 pages...really. wow.
bikes move 12 assault 6.
if they assaulted 12 then it would say so like it does for cavalry.
if they assaulted 6 then it would say so like it does for jump infantry.
8489
Post by: padixon
Augustus wrote:da gob smaka wrote:...do not have a special rule saying they move further than 6" in the assault phase, so they move 6".
Yes they do, they move 12 in the movement phase, you move the same in the assault pahse as the movement phase, the special rule is in the bike section.
Where in the bike section? You mean page 53. Nope no where in there. It just says they move 12" in the movement phase. period.
If you are talking about that **1** line you are trying to base RAW around that is found all the way back on pg. 34.
da gob smaka wrote:You cant use the lack of wording to justify making up your own rules, when in doubt you fall back on the core rules. Everything assaults 6"
"Everything assaults 6" isn't a rule anymore. Do you have a page reference for that?
Yep, found on page 33. You are right it doesn't say 'everything'. But going by your logic it doesn't say Bikes assault 12" either.
You are reading this **1** line out of context with the rest of the entire section. If you read further down, it goes on to explain what it means. And no where in there does it say anything about assaulting the same speed you move. No where.
Look I can do what you do. Let me see If I can make up some cool new rules by reading into only **1** line and not reading the rest.
1) Oh look we been playing Vehicles all wrong see on pg. 58. "Vehicles that remained stationary may fire *all* (emphasis mine) of their weapons."
Wow would you look at that I guess we can fire ordinance and all other weapons, wow I guess we been playing this wrong all along.
2) Wow you would not believe this on page. 29. "Any models fully or partially under the template are hit."
Wow another little Easter Egg. I guess this means only models under the template can be removed as casualties.
Dude, I can do this all day. These are just 2 at random, you can nearly find on almost every page a sentence you can take out of context.
My point STOP with just trying to prove RAW with only 1 line. It doesn't work. RAW *IS* reading the rest of the section of the line you are trying to prove. What you are doing is taking **1** line and trying to base a discussion about it, and it is getting absurd. Read the rest of the rules for "Moving Assaulting Models" it will go in detail what a model can and can not do.
Everyone. Stop posting and read the *entire* rules for "Moving Assaulting Models". It goes in explicit details of what it means to "following the same rules as in the Movement phase." And you will find that no where does it say anything about assaulting the same distance you can move.
Everyone here has posted different rules from several different pages that are against the idea you are purposing. And Augustus, you are still trying to cling onto your **1** line that you **have** to read into and between the lines to come to the conclusion that you have.
This is discussion is RAW. Not RAI. And you Augustus are wrong per RAW.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Was going to post this in an edit but felt it should be out front.
Moz your words and some privately from teirlib, have made me realize that after receiving a condescending tone from a couple of posters that I was Dumb enough to allow myself to become somewhat rude and insulting. To all posters that may have been offended or irritated, My apologies.
Teirlib, feel free to call me on such behavior in public. But when you do so. Do it clearly, easy on the sarcasm because it almost went the other way befroe moz's words sank in.
To the OP, to me some of how this was approached came across as trollish and I responded in kind. I apologize for my statements. I still disagree but I do apologize.
If anyone feels the need to berate me please feel free to msg for the next day or two.
8489
Post by: padixon
Sorry to Double Post
But I am going to show a logical reading/progression that must be made if we follow that 1 fateful line.
1) "....following the same rules as in the movement phase." found on page 34 for moving assaulting models
2) we move to the Movement phase to find out what the "rules" are. Starting on page 11 - 14.
****Everyone**** Stop and read the "Movement Phase" in your BGB.
3) As you have read, these are rules for infantry. You will also note that there were no rules for any other unit type in that entire section besides infantry. Everything from how far you can move (6") to coherency (2") to treating difficult and dangerous terrain only talks from an infantry point of view and none other. However there is a pretty picture of a Rhino on page 12.
4) Move to page 51 where you will find a caveat to the different unit types. I am not going to type it out. So read the first paragraph on page 51. You will find it basically says to follow all the rules for infantry unless specified in the unit rules differently.
5) move to page 53 (bikes) Here it tells us how bikes differ from infantry as noted on step (4). You will note that you can move 12" in the movement phase (not infantry) and you may ignore difficult terrain and treat it as dangerous terrain instead (not infantry) and it goes into detail about additional protection and special shooting rules that make it different to infantry. No where in there does it say 'move in assault the same pace as you move in the movement phase'
6) as per page 51 step (4) and page 34 step (2 and 3) that movement rules are infantry rules. I.E. move as infantry or 6".
So there you have it.
This *is* RAW folks
Live it
Love it
Learn it
Edited for clarity
And
The OP will have you believe that "following the same rules as in the Movement phase" is saying if you move at 'x' you can assault as 'x'. But no where in the rules for the movement phase (pages 11 - 14) as you have read does it say anything about moving at any speed other than 6". The only thing keeping bikes from moving 6" in the movement phase as well is the caveat provided on page 51, and then explained on pg 53 (bikes). The OP would also have you believe that the rules for bikes tells us that you move 12" in the assault phase. As you have read. It doesn't.
Can a Mod please close this now, pull an Inquisition, and mind scrub us all.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Steelmage99 wrote:Sure we did. And I asked the following question;
Gaz
Gaz wrote:This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.
That is what it means, nothing more. Stop trying to add your own qualifications to a term that they've already clearly defined.
If that is what it means (and nothing more) then the assaulters are not affected by difficult terrain, coherency rules, "Move at the speeed of the slowest" and other important rules, are they?
....he chose not to answer.
And what was there to answer? Of course you follow the rules for the Assault phase, which is what those are. Try finding a rule that only applies to the Movement phase and not both phases or just the Assault phase. You're trying to take a Movement phase-only rule and apply it to the Assault phase. For example, the Assault rules clearly address coherency right there on the bottom of page 34.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
NEWS FLASH!!!
The dark eldar FAQ explicitly states their jetbikes can only assault 6", even if they roll for the combat drug affect that allows you to assault 12".
G
9454
Post by: Mattlov
Green Blow Fly wrote:NEWS FLASH!!!
The dark eldar FAQ explicitly states their jetbikes can only assault 6", even if they roll for the combat drug affect that allows you to assault 12".
G
Well that makes sense, drugs don't make vehicles go faster... 
The rider might THINK he's going faster though... 
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
I think it is obvious the 6" restriction applies to all units mounted on bikes.
G
1986
Post by: thehod
Mattlov wrote:Green Blow Fly wrote:NEWS FLASH!!!
The dark eldar FAQ explicitly states their jetbikes can only assault 6", even if they roll for the combat drug affect that allows you to assault 12".
G
Well that makes sense, drugs don't make vehicles go faster...
The rider might THINK he's going faster though...
unless that drug is Speed. (sorry I had to chime in)
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
thehod wrote:Mattlov wrote:Well that makes sense, drugs don't make vehicles go faster...
The rider might THINK he's going faster though...
unless that drug is Speed. (sorry I had to chime in)
5394
Post by: reds8n
Augustus wrote:reds8n wrote:Augustus wrote:There is no rule in the book that says all units assault move as infantry unless stated otherwise (that's the 4th edition paradigm). What the rule says is units use the same rules they do in the movement phase as I have been saying all along.
Except there is such a rule, as we keep telling you.
Different Unit Types
So far the rules have just dealt with troops that
move around on foot – infantry. This section
covers different unit types, and these not only
add new tactical elements to your games, but
also more complexity to the rules. These unit
types have different rules for the way they move,
how terrain affects them, how far they can
assault, and so on. You will find that Codexes
often add even more changes and exceptions for
specific models. In any given situation during a
battle, if the Codex doesn’t say any different,
follow the rules for the appropriate unit type, and
if those rules don’t say anything different, follow
the basic rules for infantry.If you’re just starting out....
...
Bold emphasis mine. Notice how in your first italic emphasis it always refers to 'unit'? Disregarding the part about codex exceptions disqualifying the entire second quote of yours (we are after all just talking about the core rules here) the unit type is bikes reds8n, they do have a special rule for movement, they move 12. That is the rule to follow, the next sentence following the comma doesn't apply, because the unit type is bikes. The rules for the unit type do say something, they say they move 12.
Good quote.
The codex exception in no way disqualifies the rest of the statement whatsoever, it merely clarifies the situation with regards to priority, otherwise, for example, WAzzdakka and similar couldn't have their special rules as they would be overruled by the rulebook.
And yes, as I said, they have a special rule for movement IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE, as they do not have a special rule for assaults-- other than treating diff. terrain as dangerous-- then they are treated as infantry. You quoting the very rule that means they don't have a 12" move.
AS it says, it varies from situation to situation in the game. In the shooting phase you apply their shooting rules-- you check to see if the unit has any special rules ( which in this case they do) and if they don't then treat them as infantry.
QED.
Incidentally, yeah, sorry about the blind stupidity crack, t'was late and I was cranky. 
10201
Post by: SeattleDV8
Spot on Red. In order to over-rule a general BRB rule , you need a specific rule.
The bikes movement in an assault has no specific over-rule (unlike Beasts and Cavalry which does)
Therefore we must treat them as any other infantry unit.
Just a normal 6" charge.
305
Post by: Moz
P1: The Movement phase and Assault phase are distinct, separate phases
P2: During the Assault phase, a unit moves using the rules of the Movement phase
C1: A unit will move in the assault phase following all rules for movement except those that are specific to 'during the Movement phase'
P3: All units move as infantry except when specifically stated otherwise in the unit types section
follow the rules for the appropriate unit type, and if those rules don’t say anything different, follow the basic rules for infantry.
P4: Bikes may move up to 12" during the Movement phase (capital M, game term: Movement phase)
C2: Bikes will move at the speed of infantry during the Assault phase (6")
Updated P3 with relevant justification from rules.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
The DE FAQ is the answer.
G
5027
Post by: shirou
Let me attempt a summary.
A. "All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules of the Movement phase, with the exception that they may be moved within 1" of enemy models." (pg 34)
There is a qualifying statement following A that lists some rules of the Movement phase. If we assume that this list is not exhaustive (and it is an assumption), we can conclude
B. Models move the same distance in the assault phase as in the movement phase.
We also have
C. "Infantry can move up to six inches in the Movement phase." (pg 11)
From B and C we can conclude
D. Infantry move six inches in the Assault phase.
Additionally we have
E. Bikes (and other non-infantry units) "follow the rules for the appropriate unit tpe, and if those rules don't say anything different, follow the rules for basic infantry." (pg 52)
F. "Bikes can move up to 12" in the Movement phase." (pg 53)
G. No explicit statement about a bike's assault distance is made.
Argument 1. E, F and G tell us that we must use the rule for infantry to determine the assault distance for bikes. A, and hence, B, but not D, is the rule for infantry. From B, E, F and G we conclude that bikes assault 12 inches.
Argument 2. E, F and G tell us that we must use the rule for infantry to determine the assault distance for bikes. D, not A (or B) is the rule for infantry. From D, E, F and G we conclude that bikes assault 6 inches.
You can put forth various reasons why A(B) or D should be considered the "rule for infantry," but there is no clear answer presented in the rules. Personally, I think that the "most units" comment on page 33, the movement phase qualifier on page 53 (point F), the Eldar jetbike entry on 53, the DE FAQ (as pointed out by GBF), and the sheer unlikelihood of bikes being given a 12 inch assault in such a roundabout and ambiguous manner all suggest strongly that Argument 2 is the correct interpretation. It's not a deductive proof, but it certainly is a reasonable inductive conclusion.
4921
Post by: Kallbrand
By Raw it definently seems bikes would move the same distance they do in the movement phase. Follow the rules for the movement phase would be following the rules for how far things move in the movementh phase too. The fact that jumppacks have a diffrence in movement stated to them only seem to enfore this, why would they print it out othervise?
Think its silly RAW but still..
221
Post by: Frazzled
Modquisition:
This thread has had multiple reports due to flaming, trolling, and inappropriate use of an innocent piece of pie. . Upon reviewing, it really can't be edited out.
Closing.
|
|
