So you are saying that the example is in direct connection to RPJ's other parts? If so please provide rules that allow you to exist in two different catagories of movement speed and how you can claim bonuses when you have no rule allowing you to be considered in both movement speed zones. It is one or the other. You seem to not be able to grasp that concept.

I am not saying it doesn't seem right I am saying you are ignoring core fundemental parts of the 40k rules. Also, you are not understanding how a rule would work. So please cite evidence that you can count as being in two different movment zones. As you are the one insisting that the rule reads this way you have the responsibility to prove that it reads the way you read it, not the other way around.

The rule specifically says that you ignore penalties. Correct?
Then the example says toy could move 13" but count as moving 12". This leaves us with two possibilities:
1. You count as moving 12" for all purposes, or
2. You count as moving 12" for the purposes of penalties.

Which of the two options goes hand in hand with the rules?

Additionally, if you are going to spout tenets, it would probably be a good idea to follow them as well, for example:

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

It has been asked numerous times for an actual RULE, not an example backing up the "you ignore bonuses as well" side, and none have been mentioned. Only "The example says 'count as' so it means 'count as' for all purposes"

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:So please cite evidence that you can count as being in two different movment zones..

We've already seen this elsewhere. Point and case - the monolith counts as stationary when firing its weapons, even if it moved.

Does that mean I get to hit it automatically if I assault it, if it moved?

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:So you are saying that the example is in direct connection to RPJ's other parts?

Connection? That word doesn't make sense in this sentence to me.
I'm saying the example absolutely agrees with the rest of the RPJ rule - as long as you read it with context in mind.

If so please provide rules that allow you to exist in two different catagories of movement speed and how you can claim bonuses when you have no rule allowing you to be considered in both movement speed zones. It is one or the other. You seem to not be able to grasp that concept.

Show me a rule limiting it to one or the other. That's your assumption. I've moved 13". That means I follow the rules for moving 13".
I have a rule saying (essentially) I count as moving 1" less for penalties.
There are no rules restricting speed bands or removing bonuses involved.

I am not saying it doesn't seem right

Really? I could swear...

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:You are the one insisting that you get both. I am merely stating that how you read it does not seem right to me and I have backed it up.

Oh, yeah, I did read that. Okay.

I am saying you are ignoring core fundemental parts of the 40k rules. [

Citation needed. What rule am I ignoring?

Also, you are not understanding how a rule would work. So please cite evidence that you can count as being in two different movment zones. As you are the one insisting that the rule reads this way you have the responsibility to prove that it reads the way you read it, not the other way around.

actually that's not true, but okay.
The Monolith counts as being stationary for the purposes of firing it's ordnance weapon, even if it moved.
Look! Two speed bands!
There is no rule restricting to only one speed band. There is no rule tying flat out to not firing. There is a rule saying moving more than 12" gains you a cover save. There is also a rule saying that some vehicles can ignore 1" of movement for the purposes of penalties. There is also a rule saying some vehicles can fire all weapons when moving 12".

Tie all those rules together, throw them in a blender, and you get dakkajets moving 13" and firing everything while being able to claim a flat out cover save.
That or one heck of a margarita.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:So you are saying that the example is in direct connection to RPJ's other parts? If so please provide rules that allow you to exist in two different catagories of movement speed and how you can claim bonuses when you have no rule allowing you to be considered in both movement speed zones. It is one or the other. You seem to not be able to grasp that concept.

I am not saying it doesn't seem right I am saying you are ignoring core fundemental parts of the 40k rules. Also, you are not understanding how a rule would work. So please cite evidence that you can count as being in two different movment zones. As you are the one insisting that the rule reads this way you have the responsibility to prove that it reads the way you read it, not the other way around.

Sigh....

The RPJ rule answers all your queries, as has been shown if you'd read the whole thread. You're spouting the exact same nonsense argument (the examples context and link to the rules can be ignore) that others have, that has been repeatedly shown to be in error.

The RPJ rule itself says you ignore penalties. RPJ does not allow you to ignore bonuses. Being hit on a 6+ instead of a 4+ (moving 7") is not a penalty to the ORk player, therefore you have no permission to ignore that bonus.

Find a rule saying that you get to ignore bonuses as well as penalties, within the RPJ rule itself, and you would have an argument. Until you comply with this requirement of the forum you dont have an argument we can pursue

First of all, RPJ lets you ignore penalties and not bonuses. I will not argue that. Here's my problem with the arguement though: Aerial Assault says a vehicle with the Aerial Assault rule that moves at CRUSING SPEED may fire all weapons. Now, in order to gain the flat out cover save, you need to be moving FLAT OUT. As far as I can tell, there's no penalty to ignore because there's no penalty associated with the Aerial Assault rule. If you move CRUSING SPEED you may fire all weapons.

With the Dakkajet with RPJ, if you were to move 13 you could say "I'm moving FLAT OUT, but only count as moving 12"." I would say, "Ok, but since you're not moving CRUSING SPEED you can't use the Aerial Assault rule because you specifically have to be moving CRUSING SPEED.

The problem isn't the penalties of moving Flat Out, it's the lack of penalties to ignore in the Aerial Assault rule.

If you ignore the 1" for any penalties, then you are moving Cruising Speed as far as any penalties are concerned. Not being able to fire at all is a penalty, so for the purposes of determining how far you have moved you have moved 12" - which is Cruising Speed.

Aerial Assault then lets you fire all weapons, not just 1 main + all defensive.

RPJ doesn't change the speed you're moving, it just allows you to ignore penalties. If you move 13", and claim the Flat-Out save, you're moving Flat Out and ignoring whatever penalties associated such as firing no weapons(in which case you'd be able to fire 1 main + defensive weapons). The fact of the matter is that if you move Flat Out you can't use a rule that requires you to move Crusing speed specifically.

beigeknight wrote:RPJ doesn't change the speed you're moving, it just allows you to ignore penalties. If you move 13", and claim the Flat-Out save, you're moving Flat Out and ignoring whatever penalties associated such as firing no weapons(in which case you'd be able to fire 1 main + defensive weapons). The fact of the matter is that if you move Flat Out you can't use a rule that requires you to move Crusing speed specifically.

That's not true.
Flat Out is defined as moving more than 12".
Cruising speed is defined as moving 12".
You don't declare speed bands, you don't even declare how far you've moved. So for the purposes of penalties you've moved 12". Is that cruising speed?

beigeknight wrote:RPJ doesn't change the speed you're moving, it just allows you to ignore penalties. If you move 13", and claim the Flat-Out save, you're moving Flat Out and ignoring whatever penalties associated such as firing no weapons(in which case you'd be able to fire 1 main + defensive weapons). The fact of the matter is that if you move Flat Out you can't use a rule that requires you to move Crusing speed specifically.

You dont "claim" anything - you move 13" and so move flat out. For the purposes of any penalties you move 12" and therefore cruising speed

DIstance defines your speed band (note distance, NOT displacement!) not any declaratiion you make. Remember, despite asking this of Devian no such rule exists stating you must declare your speed band

Ok, you don't "claim" speeds or anything, that's not really what I was getting that. You move 13" and you're moving flat out, I totally get that. But if you move 13" you're moving Flat Out, you're not moving at Crusing Speed which is required for the Aerial Assault rule.

beigeknight wrote:Ok, you don't "claim" speeds or anything, that's not really what I was getting that. You move 13" and you're moving flat out, I totally get that. But if you move 13" you're moving Flat Out, you're not moving at Crusing Speed which is required for the Aerial Assault rule.

See, there's a penalty associated with moving 13". RPJ allows me to count as moving one inch less for penalties. So when looking at "Can I fire?" I moved 12" which lets me fire everything.

I don't know, I don't see that as a penalty of moving 13". It seems more like a bonus for moving 12". A penalty associated with moving 13"(on a fast vehicle) would be firing no weapons, which would be then allowing you to fire 1 main weapon plus all defensive weapons.

beigeknight wrote:I don't know, I don't see that as a penalty of moving 13". It seems more like a bonus for moving 12". A penalty associated with moving 13"(on a fast vehicle) would be firing no weapons, which would be then allowing you to fire 1 main weapon plus all defensive weapons.

Right, the penalty is not being able to fire. So I count as moving 12".
What speed is 12"?
What does Aeriel Assault do?

Yeah, 12" is Crusing Speed, which would allow you to fire all weapons. But you can't be Flat Out and Crusing, I'm pretty sure there's no rule allowing you to be in 2 moving catagories. I did read the whole thread but I don't recall anyone mentioning that.

A) I'm not in two categories.
B) monoliths would like a word with you.
C) it's been mentioned.
D) I have permission to be flat out (13"). I have permission to count as cruising for penalties (RPJ). the onus is on you to find something that denies permission.

You have permission to count as Crusing for penalties, yes. Aerial Assault isn't a penality and there's not any stated penalties associated with it. Flat Out has a penalty, which says a vehicle that moves Flat Out may not fire. Flat Out denies permission for something. Aerial Assault gives permission to do something. Therefore I can't see how RPJ would apply to Aerial Assault.

There is a penalty associated with moving 13". Therefore with RPJ I count as moving 12" when trying to shoot (since that's where the penalty is).
RPJ doesn't directly apply to Aeriel assault. It makes me count as going cruising speed, which is where AA kicks in.

Areial Assault is not a penalty, nor would it count as a penalty for moving 13" and getting flat-out, it just simply wouldn't apply to the vehicle. You're not ignoring a penalty, you're just not at cruising speed, so you don't get the bonus. Which is a good argument, and the better of the, "Why you shouldn't be able to do it" bits.

It comes off as a penalty because you don't get a bonus, but it's not a penalty, it's just part of a rule that only allows you to do something at a certain speed outside of speed rules, a.k.a. Aerial Assault.

The penalty prevents the vehicle from firing if it moved flat-out, and the penalty is ignored. Gaining bonuses from moving 13" are granted, but are we now not gaining bonuses from moving 12" is the question.

How can this be viewed?? A bonus from moving 12" is being hit on 4's, but at flat-out you're being hit on 6's, now you are using both speed brackets bonuses, but only applying the better of the two, obviously, and so you're saying you can choose between which bonuses you are granted?? No, I think you would be granted the bonuses of moving flat-out and not the penalties, thus having no choice even for the sake of humor, but to choose 6's. The only penalty that gets ignored coming to mind is the inability to fire any weapons, which then means you can fire 'as if moving at cruising speed' for purposes of ignoring penalties this seems the logical assumption, in which case you could use all weapons as per the "Aerial Assault Rule".
Now the Aerial Assault Rule is specific, and states you can fire all weapons if you moved at Cruising speed, which you clearly didn't, but since you are counting 'as if moving at cruising speed' for firing, which is not written anywhere and is only conjecture on us interpreters of the rule, you can still fire all weapons.

The argument that it never states it 'counts as moving cruising speed for the purpose of firing' is also legitimate whether agreed with or not, as it doesn't state it and the Aerial Assault rule is very specific...so...well...you get this thread.

This is probably a topic that could be the cause of a FAQ in the future. I'd gather just make sure each player agrees on how it's used before the game and so on and so on.

rigeld2 wrote:There is a penalty associated with moving 13". Therefore with RPJ I count as moving 12" when trying to shoot (since that's where the penalty is).
RPJ doesn't directly apply to Aeriel assault. It makes me count as going cruising speed, which is where AA kicks in.

Alright I guess I can buy that. I still feel that there's fuzzy areas in this logic. I can also see the applications of this and how quickly it'll be labeled "cheese" at worst and "beardy" at best.

Yes fear av 10 vehicles. please dont shoot them with str 5 stormbolters, please dont shoot them with bolters. since it is sitting on a flyer base, it gets no cover and is made out of paper mache. a 4+ cover save is junk when the volume of fire that can be put out by any list at any point value negates its usefulness. all you need is a glance and its worthless, cant even tank shock troops with it. if the ork player is lucky you will roll a 5 and on the dmg chart and only blow off a weapon. yeah, lucky.

so please tell me more how my Paper plane makes you fear it?

so yes a 5pt cover save while flying around seems fine to me.

A Dakkajet can move 13", gain a 4+ cover save and fire 12 times. That's kind of a big thing, especially since it seems geared to wreck transports. A 4+ cover save is "junk" in a hypothetical world where someone figures you can't roll a handfull of 4's, which isn't that hard.

Sure, I'll get one and enjoy these shenanigans. I think explaining this process will be a tough sell to anyone I play against though.

I would've been more excited to see a new unit that can take out AV 14 without being on top of it, but Dakkajet's alright I guess.

beigeknight wrote:A Dakkajet can move 13", gain a 4+ cover save and fire 12 times. That's kind of a big thing, especially since it seems geared to wreck transports. A 4+ cover save is "junk" in a hypothetical world where someone figures you can't roll a handfull of 4's, which isn't that hard.

Sure, I'll get one and enjoy these shenanigans. I think explaining this process will be a tough sell to anyone I play against though.

I would've been more excited to see a new unit that can take out AV 14 without being on top of it, but Dakkajet's alright I guess.

my way of playing is quite simple. yakface has done a great job with the INAT faq. I when meeting a new opponent make it known that I use the INAT for rules disputes and i've never had somebody disagree, the INAT agrees with rpj working how it is logically translated. movement speed is based on distance traveled, rpj makes you count as moving one less inch for advantages but not disadvantages so my jets will be going 13 shooting and getting a 4 plus cover save. I'm going to make sure this is how nay tournament i participate in rules it before hand and print out any emails bringing them with me. if somebody doesn't accept inat thats fine in a freindly game i'd still play it but in a tourney i wouldn't bother showing up and let the tournament organiser knwo they lost a potential participant who always buys a box or two from a store when at an event

beigeknight wrote:A Dakkajet can move 13", gain a 4+ cover save and fire 12 times.

9 times, friend. 9 times.

That's kind of a big thing, especially since it seems geared to wreck transports.

Str. 6 is not "geared to wreck transports".

A 4+ cover save is "junk" in a hypothetical world where someone figures you can't roll a handfull of 4's, which isn't that hard.

Sure, you do it about half the time. Then again you also fail that save half the time.

beigeknight wrote:A Dakkajet can move 13", gain a 4+ cover save and fire 12 times. That's kind of a big thing, especially since it seems geared to wreck transports. A 4+ cover save is "junk" in a hypothetical world where someone figures you can't roll a handfull of 4's, which isn't that hard.

Sure, I'll get one and enjoy these shenanigans. I think explaining this process will be a tough sell to anyone I play against though.

I would've been more excited to see a new unit that can take out AV 14 without being on top of it, but Dakkajet's alright I guess.

I really never had anyone doubt the rule after I showed it to them, both English and German variant.

Steelmage99 wrote:9 times, friend. 9 times.

Oh, I heard 12. I don't have the White Dwarf. I heard it gets 2 supa shootas and can add 2 more and it's Assault 3. I'm misinformed then

Steelmage99 wrote:Str. 6 is not "geared to wreck transports".

Well fine, but it's not bad at wrecking transports.

Steelmage99 wrote:Sure, you do it about half the time. Then again you also fail that save half the time.

Yeah, and? 50% is better than 33% so I wouldn't consider 50% junk. I've bounced a lot of shooting in a round off of a KFF'd Kan Wall, it's quite common unless I'm particularly lucky.

beigeknight wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:9 times, friend. 9 times.

Oh, I heard 12. I don't have the White Dwarf. I heard it gets 2 supa shootas and can add 2 more and it's Assault 3. I'm misinformed then

It has two pairs of twin-linked supa-shootaz and can get another one, for a total of three pairs. So the model actually gains two guns, but they are one weapon system. Assault 3 is correct.

rigeld2 wrote:B) monoliths would like a word with you.

This has nothing to do with this rule because the Monolith rule clearly says it only counts as stationary when it shoots.

So just something I wanted to post about the original post...

The biggest point I would like to bring up in this disagreement is about flat out. In the BRB, it explicitly say "a FAST vehicle can go flat out." Just because you gain 1" of movement does NOT make you "fast". Therefore, you can not do a flat out since this applies to fast vehicles only. There is no rule that says, if you can go further than 12" you become fast.

All that the RPJ does is makes you move 13" and fire as if you are at cruising speed. That's it. No flat out rules can be applied, and you can still fire weapons under the cruising movement rules since you ignore penalties .

If you are wondering what the point is, well, you would probably only really want to do this to vehicles that are transports, flamers, or rammers. That 1" can make a difference between being in range for assault or not after a disembark.

tyjet3 wrote:So just something I wanted to post about the original post...

The biggest point I would like to bring up in this disagreement is about flat out. In the BRB, it explicitly say "a FAST vehicle can go flat out." Just because you gain 1" of movement does NOT make you "fast". Therefore, you can not do a flat out since this applies to fast vehicles only. There is no rule that says, if you can go further than 12" you become fast.

All that the RPJ does is makes you move 13" and fire as if you are at cruising speed. That's it. No flat out rules can be applied, and you can still fire weapons under the cruising movement rules since you ignore penalties .

If you are wondering what the point is, well, you would probably only really want to do this to vehicles that are transports, flamers, or rammers. That 1" can make a difference between being in range for assault or not after a disembark.

Except that the vehicles argued over within this discussion are already fast (the Trukk and Bomber). And thus already have the ability to go flat out.

We're not arguing if it grants the ability to go flat out (since as stated they already can), rather how the line between "cruising" and "flat out" blur as a result of RPJ when crossing that 12" speed barrier.

Except that the vehicles argued over within this discussion are already fast (the Trukk and Bomber). And thus already have the ability to go flat out.

Oh. Well that changes things!

Yes, they CAN do flat out, but I would say it is not flat out still if the base movement is 12" (which is what is really measured for shooting purposes). They go 12" and then they get an additional 1" at no penalty per RPJ, meaning they can still shoot as if cruising. With RPJ, only if the BASE movement was over 12" would flat out rule apply. It says no penalty, not with additional perks.

So the choice is:

- go 13" (using RPJ for the add. 1") and still shoot
- go 13.1"-19" (using RPJ) and gain flat out perks
- go up to 12" (no RPJ) and shoot
- go 12.1"-18" (no RPJ) and gain flat out perks

I do not think you could get both the flat out save and still shoot.

*edited for spelling error*

tyjet3 wrote: RPJ, only if the BASE movement was over 12" would flat out rule apply. It says no penalty, not with additional perks.

Did you even read the thread?
Cite the rule that says only the base movement is counted to determine Flat Put - you can't, there isn't one.
Cite the rule that denies a fast skimmer moving 13" a cover save - you can't, there isn't one.
Cite the rule denying a bonus due to the extra inch RPJ allows with no penalties - you can't, there isn't one.

So the choice is:

- go 13" (using RPJ for the add. 1") and still shoot
- go 13.1"-19" (using RPJ) and gain flat out perks
- go up to 12" (no RPJ) and shoot
- go 12.1"-18" (no RPJ) and gain flat out perks

Cite the rule allowing a choice. If I move 13" I've moved flat out, yes? Or is 13" somehow less than 12"?

Cite actual rules to back up your position please. You're entitled to your opinion, it's just irrelevant in a rules discussion.

I read through this whole damn thread for one post. I second DevianID and Happyjew's objections to moving without stating intent.

I don't care about the RPJ cover save question, it's going to be addressed and whatever you all decide in this thread will be in limbo non-INAT YMDC land for about two weeks.

But if one of you gomers tries to get away with rolling a "1" in difficult terrain without telling me beforehand if you're planning on moving flat-out or not, I'm takin' your beer away. Seriously, guys, bad form. You have an intent. The rules clearly change behavior (wrecked/immobilized, ability to disembark, etc.) based on intent. There is therefore CLEAR RAW supporting the need to predesignate the intent to move flat out before a terrain roll. Because otherwise it'd be impossible (barring playing some mind-reading psyker) to catch people cheating by changing their intent, which it really sounded here like some of you were proposing as acceptable.

You've stated it's cheating. Can you support that?
I could make the test, pass or, then decide not to move at all. There is no rule requiring me to say what I'm planning on doing.

The disembarking inf you're going to move flat out covers more than intent. If it was only intent you could disembark without the intent of going flat out, then move flat out after realizing it'd be a good idea.

I do appreciate the fact that you accused me of advocating cheating though. Thanks for that.

rigeld2 wrote:You've stated it's cheating. Can you support that?

Of course I can, it's the very first sentence of the BRB - "In a Warhammer 40K battle you often need to roll dice to see how the actions of your models turn out." This means that when you roll a die, you abide by the results indicated. It also means that you indicate what your action is before rolling the die, NOT after! Illustrate using the exact same example Happyjew gave. If you're in difficult terrain and make a die roll without stating intent, you can just say "welp, not actually moving that guy". You're seeing the result of a roll and then deciding whether to take the risk. Is there an explicit "cheater, cheater" rule? Is there a rule somewhere that says "no, you can't see the result of a roll and then change your behavior if it'd be detrimental"? NO, Virginia, I don't believe there is, or at least I don't remember reading it. But if you think that'll keep a TO from DQ'ing you if you tried to do it, you're being silly.

If you're not playing devil's advocate here, we should start another thread.

You're not seriously saying you'd do this, are you?

Edit: hey, don't get serious on me, this isn't worth it. You guys should have addressed this when DevianID and Happyjew brought it up, it's not debatable and it's not central to your RPJ thesis. It's silly.

I did address it. No one chose to continue addressing it until you. :-)

There are rules absolutely allowing you to change behavior based on the outcome of a die roll. For a foot unit, you can make a difficult terrain test and decide not to move.

You say "I'm making a dangerous terrain test for moving my skimmer here. ". Roll. If its a 1, you've moved 0" and are therefore not moving flat out so you're immobilized

For clarity, let's reproduce Happyjew's example:

Happyjew wrote:I think I know where the confusion lies regarding declaring speed.

Per Flat Out, models may not (dis)embark if the vehicle has or is going to move flat out. Additionally, a skimmer that is moving flat out gets immobilised (due to dangerous terrain for example) it immediately gets wrecked.
This brings up the following scenario:
Wave Serpent (only because I play Eldar) is in difficult terrain. I decide I'm going to move 24" (flat-out). As I am in difficult terrain, I must take a dangerous terrain test. I roll a 1. Since the vehicle was going to move flat-out, I would be wrecked, and the unit (if any) would not be able to disembark and thus be destroyed. However, instead, I calmly disembark my unit, because my opponent has no idea that I was going to move flat-out.

So you're maintaining this is a legal sequence, ie, rolling a then deciding not to move flat out, right?

Rigeld2, I think you painted yourself into a corner on this one by deciding that the act of stating intent here somehow means the RPJ doesn't get its bonuses. Again for clarity, I've already gone on record that I do believe the RPJ gives you the ability to get the bonuses and avoid the penalties, and will play it that way until told otherwise (which is likely, but for our purposes irrelevant). You see that the Ork player can just say, "moving 13, ie, getting cover save while still able to shoot/disembark" before he moves? In other words, he can still have his cake and eat it too, he just can't back out of a situation on the basis of a bad die roll any more than any other faction can after rolling for it.

The crux of the matter is this: when you roll the die, you're doing so to "see how the actions of your models turn out", ie, same quote on pp. 2 - and in order to do so, you must specify what your action is, either implicitly or explicitly. The action of a loaded skimmer moving at a slower speed in difficult terrain is NOT the same as the action of moving flat-out in difficult terrain, and you can't implicitly divine intent from context, so you therefore must be explicit about what action you're taking. Because you have to know what you're rolling for before you make the roll.

It's not that you're deciding not to move flat out - you don't actually make a decision to do so. You simply move. If you move more than 12" you're going flat out.

The "going to" move flat out means that you can't disembark and then move flat out - meaning you can't more more than 12".

You don't make a flat out dangerous terrain test, you make a dangerous terrain test. If you went flat out in the last movement phase (what the rule actually says) you're wrecked on an immobilize. If you've moved 0" you have not moved flat out (by definition) so whatever your plans the model is immobilized, not wrecked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There's no corner here - you're making the extraordinary claim that you must announce intent. You have no rules basis for that claim.

rigeld2 wrote:There's no corner here - you're making the extraordinary claim that you must announce intent. You have no rules basis for that claim.

I kinda do, and I already posted it. Let's throw it on another thread, I want to see what the rest of the forum thinks. Give me a sec and I'll post it up.

General_Chaos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:B) monoliths would like a word with you.

This has nothing to do with this rule because the Monolith rule clearly says it only counts as stationary when it shoots.

So the Monolith counts as Stationary when it shoots.
A vehicle with RPJ counts as moving 1" less for the purposes of penalties.

You're right, they have no similarities whatsoever, except they count as being in two different speed bands.

Happyjew wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:B) monoliths would like a word with you.

This has nothing to do with this rule because the Monolith rule clearly says it only counts as stationary when it shoots.

So the Monolith counts as Stationary when it shoots.
A vehicle with RPJ counts as moving 1" less for the purposes of penalties.

You're right, they have no similarities whatsoever, except they count as being in two different speed bands.

Yep, no similarities whatsoever there Happyjew

Funny that this has gone on and on and on and on as long as it has when there are new rules headed this way right now...

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Funny that this has gone on and on and on and on as long as it has when there are new rules headed this way right now...

Tournaments for the next month or three *at least* will still be using 5th edition. As such, arguments such as these are still valid.

The new rules may change, or they may not.

As far as I understand, though - the most prevalent disagreement is this:

Side A: The vehicle counts as moving 12"/18" specifically only for penalties ignored.
Side B: If the vehicle uses RPJ, it counts as moving 12"/18" full stop.

I'm personally in the "Side A" field. Past the arguments made in this thread for it, had the intention been to be side B, the rule could easily have just said "the vehicle may move +1", but otherwise never counts as having moved that extra inch".
The inclusion of "but do not incur penalties for this extra inch" clearly expresses (for me, at least) the intent to move the extra inch, to count as having moved that extra inch, but all penalties the vehicle could suffer are instead treated as if you did not move that extra inch.

6th may add nerf, simply make it better, add fuel to the fire, or give everyone pancakes whenever they open their codices. We have no idea. Old codices (of which Orks will now be two editions old) tend to either suffer notably, or gain unique bonuses with newer editions.

Mainly because the same people keep posting the same rule-less posts, then the occasional new person posts the exact same rule-less argument, and so on....

Hate to get back into this, but here's a sort of off-topic question that I need cleared up. If a fast vehicle moves Crusing speed on a road(being able to move an extra 6"), is it moving Flat Out since it's moving over 12"?

The 6" road bonus does not count towards the speed band. Of course, Skimmers (and Walkers) cannot claim the road bonus, so for them the point is moot. Also important to note, the entire movement must be on the road.

Why wouldn't it? Book says any vehicle moving over 12" is moving Flat Out. The roads rule doesn't mention inclusion or exclusion of any speed band. If a Fast Vehicle is moving Crusing Speed on a road and moves 12" plus an additional 1" to 6" for the Road bonus, it's moving over 12".

"that move at cruising speed" - if they move flat out theyre not moving cruising speed, unless they have a rule that allows it.

I would agree for vehicles that are not Fast, because they cannot move Flat Out. But the rules clearly state that a Fast vehicle that moves over 12" is moving Flat Out. The Roads rule doesn't have an exception that says "still counts as moving Crusing speed".

edit: Under Moving Fast Vehicles(p.70) it says that a Fast vehicle moving Flat Out on a road may move up to 24". I'm not sure if that matters in this example.

I step away and my post blew up... THAT. IS. AWESOME!

Where's my internet cookiez?

Update: I haven't purchased the new planes... I wanna see what 6th edition entails before spending any toof...

This is definately me clearing with the TO and opponent, ala Hexrifle, FnP, etc... debates.

Carry on!

At first I was kind of meh on the idea of getting some Dakka Jets but I finally looks at the rules and the Blitza-bommer looks hilarious. So I'll get one and maybe make something to proxy as a second and try some games with them.

Happyjew wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:B) monoliths would like a word with you.

This has nothing to do with this rule because the Monolith rule clearly says it only counts as stationary when it shoots.

So the Monolith counts as Stationary when it shoots.
A vehicle with RPJ counts as moving 1" less for the purposes of penalties.

You're right, they have no similarities whatsoever, except they count as being in two different speed bands.

Actually, the only thing in common is they both say they count as, which tells you that it specifically has a purpose. The monolith rule states it counts as stationary for shooting purposes. There is no such verbage in RPJ to support your claim that you can be in two different speed zones. It specifically tells you if you use rpj to go that extra inch you count as only moving 12". Furthermore, you need to still prove that the not being able to shoot is a penalty. In the brb when you decide to move how ever far you move you exchange movement for shooting ability. So in this instance, with the structure of both rules they really do not mean the same thing or have anything incommon.

The rules you are saying has a penalty reads like this, page 57 and then page 70,

"A vehicle that travels more then 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed. This represents the vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible without firing its guns."

"Fast vehicles are capable of a third level of speed, called 'flat out'. A fast vehicle going going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18". This represents the fast vehicle moving at top speed, without firing its guns and is treated in all respects exactly the same as moving at cruising speed for a vehicle that is not fast (exepct where noted otherwise). For example, a fast vehicle moving flat out on a road may move up to 24"

With both these rules clearly stating when moving you the player are choosing to give up something in order to gain something else, in this case shooting for speed. There is no verbage to equate these rules saying not being able to shoot is a penalty. No doubt this will fall on deaf ears and some flaming shall commence, but none the less you still need to provide a rule that specically allows a vehicle to be in two different speed zones without it specifcally saying so. In other words RPJ doesn't say it counts as moving cruising speed for shooting purposes or anything else. It says you count as moving 12". Thus limiting your ability to claim any such advantages for moving over.

You'll find posts disproving all your arguments in the pages before. Short run-over without rule quotes or complete arguments (see my previous posts for those):

- There is no 40k definition of penalty. There is also no definition of ork. If not being able to shoot is not a penalty, then every rule referencing to "orks" would also not work.

- "You may not shoot because you were too fast" fits every definition of the British word "penalty".

- The rule does not tell you to count as moving one less inch for all purposes.

- There is no norm on how penalties are worded.

- What a rule represents is irrelevant to game play.

- WH40k is not well-defined. When two rules are worded the same you can assume they work the same, but you can not assume that two rules work differently because they are worded differently. Thus, a rule doesn't have to be declared as a penatly to be one.

As above. KP you are making up requirements (being allowed to be in 2 different speed bands) that do not exist in the rules, and are satisfied by RPJ in any case.

You have no actual rules based argument. Being not allowed to do something because of how fast youre moving (shooting) is a penalty. You cannot honestly claim it isnt a penalty.

Jidmah wrote:You'll find posts disproving all your arguments in the pages before. Short run-over without rule quotes or complete arguments (see my previous posts for those):

- There is no 40k definition of penalty. There is also no definition of ork. If not being able to shoot is not a penalty, then every rule referencing to "orks" would also not work.

- "You may not shoot because you were too fast" fits every definition of the British word "penalty".

- The rule does not tell you to count as moving one less inch for all purposes.

- There is no norm on how penalties are worded.

- What a rule represents is irrelevant to game play.

- WH40k is not well-defined. When two rules are worded the same you can assume they work the same, but you can not assume that two rules work differently because they are worded differently. Thus, a rule doesn't have to be declared as a penatly to be one.

If you have paid attention to others post as well you would know that you "no defintion" arguement is scrap. To be honest that arguement is saying there is no defenition for anything......and really just stop.

Anyways back to the actual problem with the way you read the rules, and my post. You the owner of said models that are moving are trading shooting for speed, as the rules which I posted here clearly state. They do not state penalty, which if I am correct actually is used in multiple sections of the BRB as posted by another person earlier in this thread. Which I might add was throughly ignored and brow beaten by quoting of the tenets of YMDC, while those very same people were ignoring them, as you are right now.....

No nos actually, if you read the rules when you end your movement (or declare I really don't care either way) you fit into one of 3 brackets. For the purpose of RPJ you get an extra 1" of movement and count for moving 1" less. So if you read it, it says if you move 7" rpj allows you to count in the combat speed section which is up to 6". If you move 13" you count as moving 12" which is cruising speed. If you move 14-25 or in case of the jet 37" you count as moving 1"less. Unlike the monoliths special rule where it spells out specifically that it counts as stationary for shooting purposes only, rpj does not specify that you can count as being in a different movement bracket. Period, you cannot argue that it does because there is no verbage to back it up.

If the rules tell you what you can and cannot do, then please provide a rule in any book that allows you to be in 2 different speed brackets. The monolith as is agreed upon a special case that is completely spelled out. Unlike RPJ where people are infering what the rule means. Otherwise, we need to stick to what the rule book say, if you moved 1-6 combat speed, 6.1-12 cruising speed, 12.1-18 or in the case of skimmers 24 flat out. There is no double dipping. There are clear and obvious deliniations between each level. While the is no permission to be otherwise in multiple speed zones.

So RPJ allows you to ignore bonuses?
Please cite a rule saying so.

If we're going to rules lawyer to the extreme, I'd say a Dakkajet can turboboost 36", still get to shoot AND claim the cover save.

BRB page 70 wrote:Fast vehicles are capable of a third speed, called 'flat out'. A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18". This represents the fast vehicle moving at top speed, without firing its guns and is treated in all respects exactly the same as moving at cruising speed for a vehicle that is not fast (except when noted otherwise). [...]

Emphasis mine.

From this, we learn that moving flat out is, for all intents and purpouses, the same as moving at cruising speed if you're not a fast vehicle.

Aerial Assault wrote:A vehicle with the Aerial Assault rule that moves at cruising speed may fire all of its weapons.

Here we learn that Dakkajets may fire all their weapons even if they move at Cruising speed. As flat out is explicitly treated as moving at cruising speed, the Dakkajet gets to move 36" and shoot. Furthermore, the part about not firing any guns is part of a description, not of the hard rules, and as such does not apply.

Would I play it this way? No. Would I let someone play it this way? Dreadsock.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:If we're going to rules lawyer to the extreme, I'd say a Dakkajet can turboboost 36", still get to shoot AND claim the cover save.

BRB 70 wrote:Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons.

Is more specific than the Aerial Assault rule.

rigeld2 wrote:So RPJ allows you to ignore bonuses?
Please cite a rule saying so.

This.

kp is ignoring the written rule in favour of a house rule

rigeld2 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:If we're going to rules lawyer to the extreme, I'd say a Dakkajet can turboboost 36", still get to shoot AND claim the cover save.

BRB 70 wrote:Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons.

Is more specific than the Aerial Assault rule.

Or, if you turn it around, no vehicle moving flat out may fire weapons, except those with Aerial Assault. Read that way, Aerial Assault is more specific.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:If we're going to rules lawyer to the extreme, I'd say a Dakkajet can turboboost 36", still get to shoot AND claim the cover save.

BRB 70 wrote:Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons.

Is more specific than the Aerial Assault rule.

Or, if you turn it around, no vehicle moving flat out may fire weapons, except those with Aerial Assault. Read that way, Aerial Assault is more specific.

Except you can't turn it around.
Aerial Assault applies to Cruising Speed.
Moving Flat Out is just like Cruising Speed. (you can fire all weapons)
Moving Flat Out prevents you from firing. (you can fire no weapons)

How about:

Moving flat out prevents you from firing (you can fire no weapons).
Moving Flat Out is just like Cruising Speed. (you still cannot fire weapons)
Aerial Assault allows you to fire weapons after moving at cruising speed. (You can fire all weapons)

It applies at cruising speed.
Then you go beyond cruising speed, adding additional rules. One of those additional rules overrides AA.

Plus, Flat Outs restriction is still more specific. It applies to flat out only. AA applies to Cruising Speed and by extension flat out.

All vehicles moving flat out count as moving cruising plus some stuff. Not all vehicles moving cruising are moving flat out.

rigeld2 wrote:It applies at cruising speed.
Then you go beyond cruising speed, adding additional rules. One of those additional rules overrides AA.

Plus, Flat Outs restriction is still more specific. It applies to flat out only. AA applies to Cruising Speed and by extension flat out.

All vehicles moving flat out count as moving cruising plus some stuff. Not all vehicles moving cruising are moving flat out.

Plus what stuff, exactly? Because IIRC it doesn't actually add anything that Cruising Speed (for a regular vehicle) didn't already say. (i.e. can't fire weapons).

Fast vehicles at cruising speed can fire a weapon. Fast vehicles moving flat out can fire no weapons, and gain a 4+ cover save.
BRB page 70.

rigeld2 wrote:Fast vehicles at cruising speed can fire a weapon. Fast vehicles moving flat out can fire no weapons, and gain a 4+ cover save.
BRB page 70.

The latter is new.

The former is literally stated to be "just like cruising speed for non-fast vehicles" which is the phrase he was citing.

I think the burna bommer is stupid, it is ridiculously expensive, and is not even that good!

Greenskinchris wrote:I think the burna bommer is stupid, it is ridiculously expensive, and is not even that good!

Welcome to Dakka.

We are happy that you have joined.


A bit of constructive critism; It is generally considered good form to actually read a thread to its end before posting.

A thread can go through a transformation as it unfolds.
This means that the subject being discussed in the beginning of the thread might not be the same as in the end.
It is somewhat frowned upon to bring up "past" subjects in a given thread.

If you don't feel like reading a lot of posts in a thread then at least read the last page or two to see where the thread "is at", so to speak.

That way you avoid looking stupid by bringing up issues that has already be discussed to death, or commenting on issues that is completely unrelated to the nature of the thread, like you happened to do in this case.

Just a piece of friendly advice coupled with a wish for you to enjoy your time here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So RPJ allows you to ignore bonuses?
Please cite a rule saying so.

This.

kp is ignoring the written rule in favour of a house rule

Really? I have stated in my last post that you cannot claim any advantages because you fit into 1 of 3 brackets. Again, for the use of RPJ you gain an extra inch of movement, but count as moving 1" less. How is this confusing to you....... Addtionally, would either of you like to actually respond to my request of providing said rule that allows you to be in two different speed zones? Or are you gonna spout the same question over and over when I actually have anwsered your question at the end of my last post? Seriously, this is not a thread to improve your post count.

If you cannot provide the rule, how can you argue that you can be in two different speed zones? How can you justify your stance. Since you cannot provide a rule that allows such, I will say it plainly, You cannot gain anything for moving flat out if you count as moving cruising, moving 13" if you count as moving 12". You have either moved 13" and count as moving 13" or you count as moving 12". PERIOD! There is no in between, there is no toe on the line, there is no I am partly on the table and count as on the table.....


Would either of you like to tackle the actual rules I posted stating you are trading shooting for movement, which means it is not specified as a penalty?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:Fast vehicles at cruising speed can fire a weapon. Fast vehicles moving flat out can fire no weapons, and gain a 4+ cover save.
BRB page 70.

Also, this is page 71 and only skimmers get the 4+save......I posted the actual rules for mocing flat out and cruising speed already, yet they are still ignored.....

rigeld2 wrote:

All vehicles moving flat out count as moving cruising plus some stuff.

I'm afraid I have to ask for the rule stating this. The book clearly defines speed bands as distinct as far as I can tell, not cumulative.

beigeknight wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

All vehicles moving flat out count as moving cruising plus some stuff.

I'm afraid I have to ask for the rule stating this. The book clearly defines speed bands as distinct as far as I can tell, not cumulative.

Page 70 "Moving Fast Vehicles"
Flat out is indeed counted as moving cruising with a few extra notes (increased speed, can't shoot... etc)
There are things in the rules like pasengers can't shoot out of a transport that moves at Cruising speed. Doesn't mention Flat Out, but as Flat Out is a type of Cruising the restriction applies.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Again, for the use of RPJ you gain an extra inch of movement, but count as moving 1" less. How is this confusing to you..

You forgot an important part of the RPJ rule. You ignore that inch for penalties.

Addtionally, would either of you like to actually respond to my request of providing said rule that allows you to be in two different speed zones? Or are you gonna spout the same question over and over when I actually have anwsered your question at the end of my last post? Seriously, this is not a thread to improve your post count.

RPJ allows it. It does so by allowing me to ignore 1" of movement when it comes to penalties.

If you cannot provide the rule, how can you argue that you can be in two different speed zones? How can you justify your stance. Since you cannot provide a rule that allows such, I will say it plainly, You cannot gain anything for moving flat out if you count as moving cruising, moving 13" if you count as moving 12". You have either moved 13" and count as moving 13" or you count as moving 12". PERIOD! There is no in between, there is no toe on the line, there is no I am partly on the table and count as on the table.....

What rules support do you have stating that you can't be both? Any?

RPJ allows me to count as moving 1" less for penalties. There is no permission to ignore that inch for bonuses.

Would either of you like to tackle the actual rules I posted stating you are trading shooting for movement, which means it is not specified as a penalty?

The word trade doesn't appear on the page. Are you going to assert that RPJ does nothing because the word penalty is not defined? Do you really want to go down that road?

rigeld2 wrote:Fast vehicles at cruising speed can fire a weapon. Fast vehicles moving flat out can fire no weapons, and gain a 4+ cover save.
BRB page 70.

Also, this is page 71 and only skimmers get the 4+save......I posted the actual rules for mocing flat out and cruising speed already, yet they are still ignored.....

Actually it's page 70. And yes, it's only skimmers - my bad.

grendel083 wrote:

beigeknight wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

All vehicles moving flat out count as moving cruising plus some stuff.

I'm afraid I have to ask for the rule stating this. The book clearly defines speed bands as distinct as far as I can tell, not cumulative.

Page 70 "Moving Fast Vehicles"
Flat out is indeed counted as moving cruising with a few extra notes (increased speed, can't shoot... etc)
There are things in the rules like pasengers can't shoot out of a transport that moves at Cruising speed. Doesn't mention Flat Out, but as Flat Out is a type of Cruising the restriction applies.

Fair enough.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So RPJ allows you to ignore bonuses?
Please cite a rule saying so.

This.

kp is ignoring the written rule in favour of a house rule

Really? I have stated in my last post that you cannot claim any advantages because you fit into 1 of 3 brackets.

Yes, you have stated it. Of course, you havent actually, in any thread, provided any relevant rules that actually STATE this, you have just asserted it without any written rules.

Breaking the tenets of the forum. Again.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: Again, for the use of RPJ you gain an extra inch of movement, but count as moving 1" less.

...for the purposes of penalties. How is it so difficult for you to read, and use, the rule correctly? Its not difficult. Its not a very long rule, its written in very simple, very plain English. Stop ignoring parts of the rule because you either find it inconvenient (as it destroys the entire basis for your "argument" - in quotes as you havent actually provided any rules, just an assertion, which isnt an argument in and of itself) or you just keep missing its' presence.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: How is this confusing to you.......

It isnt. You're just not actually following the rule, which is presumably why you appear confused, and cannot provide any rules - youre not actually reading the RPJ rule in its entirety.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Addtionally, would either of you like to actually respond to my request of providing said rule that allows you to be in two different speed zones? Or are you gonna spout the same question over and over when I actually have anwsered your question at the end of my last post? Seriously, this is not a thread to improve your post count.

THe RPJ rule lets you count as moving 1" less, changing the speed classification if necessary, for the purposes of penalties for that 1". There's your rule.

Please provide a rule, for the 90th time of asking, that allows you to ignore BONUSES from that 1". Note: You will need to actually use the RPJ rule for this, and you may struggle as it doesnt mention bonuses, but give it a go

Page and paragraph where you can ignore the BONUSES of the 1", or concede as you have failed to back up your argument as required, yet again, in the tenets of this forum.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:If you cannot provide the rule, how can you argue that you can be in two different speed zones? How can you justify your stance.

We've provided the rule. RPJ. Now actually provide a rule requiring you to only ever occupy a single speed zone, specifically stating such. NOTHING you have quoted so far actually says anything like this, you've just made a bunch of baseless, ruleless assertions over and over and over and over and over.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Since you cannot provide a rule that allows such,

Ah, so you're now speaking for me? Thanks for that!

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: I will say it plainly, You cannot gain anything for moving flat out if you count as moving cruising, moving 13" if you count as moving 12". You have either moved 13" and count as moving 13" or you count as moving 12". PERIOD! There is no in between, there is no toe on the line, there is no I am partly on the table and count as on the table.....

RPJ. RPJ. You see that rule that says you count as 1" less for the purposes of penalties? You may have missed it, it wasnt quoted that often in this thread. That says FOR THE PURPOSES OF PENALTIES you count as moving 1" less - so FOR THE PURPOSES OF PENALTIES you have moved 12", and can shoot. Now, as you ONLY have permission to count 1" less FOR THE PURPOSES OF PENALTIES and not bonuses when it comes to working out if you get a cover save, whcih is a bonus, you get a cover save

So, your "PERIOD" ignores the rules. Again. As you have consistently done all through this thread.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Would either of you like to tackle the actual rules I posted stating you are trading shooting for movement, which means it is not specified as a penalty?

What, the rule that doesnt actually say that. You know, the logical fallacy that was dealtw itht the first time it was posted, a number of pages ago? You are claiming that because a -> b then b->a, which fails very basic logic. Stunned vehicles cannot shoot, so must be going flat out! Wrong.

You also have fallen into the same poor arguiment which is that "penalty" is a defined term within 40k. It isnt. As you would have seen, when challenged to provide a 40k specific definition for "Penalty", none could be found. Every. Single. Time. they use the term "penalty" it is *exactly* how you would use it within standard, basic British English.

So, given you cannot provide a definition, in 40k terms, (an example, if you are unclear, would be "Tank Shock", wjhcih is a 40k defined term, fully defined within the rules. "The" is NOT a 40k defined term, so any time you see it used you are required to use standard British English to parse the meaning. You can disagree with this, if you like, but you are then so far off the deep end that there can be no possible meeting of minds and no point engaging further) of the word "Penalty", you are required to fall back on standard British English meanings of the word. Somethign doesnt therefore have to be 40k-defined as a penalty for ti to be a penalty.

Not being able to shoot is, in standard British English parsing, a penalty.

Disagree with this if you like, but you are then required to find a 40k definition for "the", "and', and "a". If you do not you are conceding the point.

Please note the specific points above. If you fail to provide rules quotes for the specific assertions you are claiming, you will have conceded.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So RPJ allows you to ignore bonuses?
Please cite a rule saying so.

This.

kp is ignoring the written rule in favour of a house rule

Really? I have stated in my last post that you cannot claim any advantages because you fit into 1 of 3 brackets.

Yes, you have stated it. Of course, you havent actually, in any thread, provided any relevant rules that actually STATE this, you have just asserted it without any written rules.

Breaking the tenets of the forum. Again.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: Again, for the use of RPJ you gain an extra inch of movement, but count as moving 1" less.

...for the purposes of penalties. How is it so difficult for you to read, and use, the rule correctly? Its not difficult. Its not a very long rule, its written in very simple, very plain English. Stop ignoring parts of the rule because you either find it inconvenient (as it destroys the entire basis for your "argument" - in quotes as you havent actually provided any rules, just an assertion, which isnt an argument in and of itself) or you just keep missing its' presence.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: How is this confusing to you.......

It isnt. You're just not actually following the rule, which is presumably why you appear confused, and cannot provide any rules - youre not actually reading the RPJ rule in its entirety.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Addtionally, would either of you like to actually respond to my request of providing said rule that allows you to be in two different speed zones? Or are you gonna spout the same question over and over when I actually have anwsered your question at the end of my last post? Seriously, this is not a thread to improve your post count.

THe RPJ rule lets you count as moving 1" less, changing the speed classification if necessary, for the purposes of penalties for that 1". There's your rule.

Please provide a rule, for the 90th time of asking, that allows you to ignore BONUSES from that 1". Note: You will need to actually use the RPJ rule for this, and you may struggle as it doesnt mention bonuses, but give it a go

Page and paragraph where you can ignore the BONUSES of the 1", or concede as you have failed to back up your argument as required, yet again, in the tenets of this forum.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:If you cannot provide the rule, how can you argue that you can be in two different speed zones? How can you justify your stance.

We've provided the rule. RPJ. Now actually provide a rule requiring you to only ever occupy a single speed zone, specifically stating such. NOTHING you have quoted so far actually says anything like this, you've just made a bunch of baseless, ruleless assertions over and over and over and over and over.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Since you cannot provide a rule that allows such,

Ah, so you're now speaking for me? Thanks for that!

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: I will say it plainly, You cannot gain anything for moving flat out if you count as moving cruising, moving 13" if you count as moving 12". You have either moved 13" and count as moving 13" or you count as moving 12". PERIOD! There is no in between, there is no toe on the line, there is no I am partly on the table and count as on the table.....

RPJ. RPJ. You see that rule that says you count as 1" less for the purposes of penalties? You may have missed it, it wasnt quoted that often in this thread. That says FOR THE PURPOSES OF PENALTIES you count as moving 1" less - so FOR THE PURPOSES OF PENALTIES you have moved 12", and can shoot. Now, as you ONLY have permission to count 1" less FOR THE PURPOSES OF PENALTIES and not bonuses when it comes to working out if you get a cover save, whcih is a bonus, you get a cover save

So, your "PERIOD" ignores the rules. Again. As you have consistently done all through this thread.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Would either of you like to tackle the actual rules I posted stating you are trading shooting for movement, which means it is not specified as a penalty?

What, the rule that doesnt actually say that. You know, the logical fallacy that was dealtw itht the first time it was posted, a number of pages ago? You are claiming that because a -> b then b->a, which fails very basic logic. Stunned vehicles cannot shoot, so must be going flat out! Wrong.

You also have fallen into the same poor arguiment which is that "penalty" is a defined term within 40k. It isnt. As you would have seen, when challenged to provide a 40k specific definition for "Penalty", none could be found. Every. Single. Time. they use the term "penalty" it is *exactly* how you would use it within standard, basic British English.

So, given you cannot provide a definition, in 40k terms, (an example, if you are unclear, would be "Tank Shock", wjhcih is a 40k defined term, fully defined within the rules. "The" is NOT a 40k defined term, so any time you see it used you are required to use standard British English to parse the meaning. You can disagree with this, if you like, but you are then so far off the deep end that there can be no possible meeting of minds and no point engaging further) of the word "Penalty", you are required to fall back on standard British English meanings of the word. Somethign doesnt therefore have to be 40k-defined as a penalty for ti to be a penalty.

Not being able to shoot is, in standard British English parsing, a penalty.

Disagree with this if you like, but you are then required to find a 40k definition for "the", "and', and "a". If you do not you are conceding the point.

Please note the specific points above. If you fail to provide rules quotes for the specific assertions you are claiming, you will have conceded.

Oh nos how nice of you to show your true face, and show everyone why you have had to sign up to this forum multiple times. You get angry ard start spouting things that just make other people laugh at you. Seriously, calm down..........Anyways. If you actually read the rules I post, and will post again so there is no question as to what they say (and really you should read them)!

Page 57. Vehicles and movement third bullet point, "A vehicle that travels more then 6" and up to 12"is moving at cruising speed. This represents the vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible without firing its guns."

Page 70, moving fast vehicles Fast vehicles are capable of a third level of speed, called 'flat out' A fast vehiclegoing flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18".This represents the fast vehicle moving at top speed, without firing its guns and is treated in all respects exactly the same as moving at crusing speedfor a vehicle that is not fast (execpt where noted). For example, a fast vehicle moving flat out on a road may move up to 24"

See what I did there? Yea thats the rules backing up what I am saying. Rules quoted, unlike your last couple of posts, oh yea a YMDC tenet you just broke........ hm how interesting. This can go back and forth all day, but I would rather stick to posting rules and discussing them.

Something else to boggle your minds Page 58 Vehicle shooting, moving and shooting vehicle weaponry. Again, third bullet point, "Vehicles that moved at cruising speed may not fire."
With all this put together you can very plainly see that if you move at crusing speed for nonfast vehicles, or flat out speed for fast, you have given up the ability to shoot for movement. As has been spelled out for you a couple of times now. This structure clearly is a trade off. You get this for giving up this......

Also for you to understand what the speed zones mean I guess I will lay them out for you. Stationary, not moved or counts as not having moved(ala pivoting). .01-6"combat speed 6.01-12 cruising speed Fast vehicles 12.01 - 18" Flat Out Skimmers 12.01 - 24 Flat out. In case of the dakka jet 12.01-36" with out RPJ Flat out So there you have classifications and there you can see that if you go over the threshold for one and get into the other you no longer are in the former zone.

Since you are now speaking for me and my conceding of points................ no not really! Please give me the definitions to the following words in the 40k rulebook, just, as, it, and just for fun manner! If you cannot you must conced your point and give up. See what I did there?

All joking and flaming aside at the end of the day I have quoted rules. You have quoted a rule that in the very essence of it is vague. Thus this 13 probably soon to be more pages of discussion.

Also, I would like to point out that your bringing in the "British English meanings" last time we had a discussion that you brought that out you were actually proven wrong. If you don't remember please reference vehicles on/off the table discussion. We had so much fun back then...... Pictures, and 'IS THIS ON THE TABLE" oh makes me laugh so very much!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Stunned vehicles cannot shoot, so must be going flat out! Wrong.

Wow, I have never ever made that leap in thinking you going there shows us how far you will go to bring someone else's arguement down.... for shame! The rules say vehicles that move flat out cannot shoot because they moved flat out. You linking it to stunned vehicles is laughable....

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Oh nos how nice of you to show your true face, and show everyone why you have had to sign up to this forum multiple times. You get angry ard start spouting things that just make other people laugh at you. Seriously, calm down..........Anyways. If you actually read the rules I post, and will post again so there is no question as to what they say (and really you should read them)!

Unlike you, nos is not throwing personal attacks at people in a perfectly rational discussion.

Page 57. Vehicles and movement third bullet point, "A vehicle that travels more then 6" and up to 12"is moving at cruising speed. This represents the vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible without firing its guns."

As stated numerous times in this thread, the underlined part is not a rule, but fluff. What a rule represents has no bearing on gameplay at all.

Page 70, moving fast vehicles Fast vehicles are capable of a third level of speed, called 'flat out' A fast vehiclegoing flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18".This represents the fast vehicle moving at top speed, without firing its guns and is treated in all respects exactly the same as moving at crusing speedfor a vehicle that is not fast (execpt where noted). For example, a fast vehicle moving flat out on a road may move up to 24"

See above. "Represents" is not the same as "requires".

See what I did there? Yea thats the rules backing up what I am saying. Rules quoted, unlike your last couple of posts, oh yea a YMDC tenet you just broke........ hm how interesting. This can go back and forth all day, but I would rather stick to posting rules and discussing them.

I see what you did there. You are quoting irrelevant parts of WH40k IP and claim that they are hard rules.

Something else to boggle your minds Page 58 Vehicle shooting, moving and shooting vehicle weaponry. Again, third bullet point, "Vehicles that moved at cruising speed may not fire."
With all this put together you can very plainly see that if you move at crusing speed for nonfast vehicles, or flat out speed for fast, you have given up the ability to shoot for movement. As has been spelled out for you a couple of times now. This structure clearly is a trade off. You get this for giving up this......

You are using different words to describe what a penalty is. Those do not change that fact that you are being penalized during your shooting phase for moving to fast during your movement phase. It's a limitation resulting from an action - you are not actively replacing your ability to shoot, like you are when you declare your unit to be running.

Also for you to understand what the speed zones mean I guess I will lay them out for you. Stationary, not moved or counts as not having moved(ala pivoting). .01-6"combat speed 6.01-12 cruising speed Fast vehicles 12.01 - 18" Flat Out Skimmers 12.01 - 24 Flat out. In case of the dakka jet 12.01-36" with out RPJ Flat out So there you have classifications and there you can see that if you go over the threshold for one and get into the other you no longer are in the former zone.

Correct. A dakka jet moving 13" is moving flat out. When a dakka jet tries to shoot, he would incur a penalty for having moved 13" instead of moving 12". So, for this purpose only, you are told to count as moving 12". Which is cruising speed.
Thus, for shooting only, you are counting as moving at cruising speed, resulting into being able to shoot all weapons.

Since you are now speaking for me and my conceding of points................ no not really! Please give me the definitions to the following words in the 40k rulebook, just, as, it, and just for fun manner! If you cannot you must conced your point and give up. See what I did there?

All joking and flaming aside at the end of the day I have quoted rules. You have quoted a rule that in the very essence of it is vague. Thus this 13 probably soon to be more pages of discussion.

You are not quoting rules, you are quoting fluff. You two "This represents..." quotes are as much rules as a quote from the ork codex stating that orks can never lose.

Also, I would like to point out that your bringing in the "British English meanings" last time we had a discussion that you brought that out you were actually proven wrong. If you don't remember please reference vehicles on/off the table discussion. We had so much fun back then...... Pictures, and 'IS THIS ON THE TABLE" oh makes me laugh so very much!

Your grand history of YMDC victories has no bearing on anything here. If you want to gloat, keep score of times you were right in your signature.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Stunned vehicles cannot shoot, so must be going flat out! Wrong.

Wow, I have never ever made that leap in thinking you going there shows us how far you will go to bring someone else's arguement down.... for shame! The rules say vehicles that move flat out cannot shoot because they moved flat out. You linking it to stunned vehicles is laughable....

You are aware of the principle of disproval by counter-example? In case you aren't, it says that if there is even a single example for which a statement is false, the entire statement is false.
You said if a vehicle shoots, it can not be moving flat out. This is arbitrary, because only says that you can not shoot if you move flat out.

The rule says A => B.
You are claiming that A <=> B, without proving B => A.

What nos did was take rule that says B => C. Without proving it he turned it into B <=> C (the same you did), and the inserted it in your wrong statement, resulting in A <=> C.
A <=> C is clearly wrong, so nos provided a counter-example here, disproving your argument.

If that's to abstract for you, replace A with "Moving flat out", B with "can not shoot" and C with "stunned".

edit - whups, forgot this was in Make Da Call. Neeeeever mind!

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Oh nos how nice of you to show your true face, and show everyone why you have had to sign up to this forum multiple times. You get angry ard start spouting things that just make other people laugh at you. Seriously, calm down

That is a lie.

A strict lie

Reported.

You're now on Ignore, for lying, yet more personal attacks, and for being unable to provide a single rules quote to back up your position. Jidmah pointed out the errors as well as I can, no need to repeat them.

Jidmah - cheers for dissecting all of KPs mistakes

Indeed.

For the record Mr. Nosferatur1001 basks securely in his singular account.

I think 13 pages is generally indicative of a stalemate, and this is is somewhat irrelevant given the forthcoming new edition.

Fret not though, I'm sure we can all argue and yell at each other over the new poorly worded rules any day soon !