So, I picked up the new WD today to review the new flyers models rules.

One quick question...

Say I have a DakkaJet with Red Paint Job (RPJ)....

Could I move 13", then fire everything AND recieve a 4+ skimmer coversave? Isn't that ?

Unless FAQ'ed, yes you can.

You mean the Flat-out save?
You're still going cruising-speed at 13", so no.
The 4+ save is based on speed group, not actual distance traveled.

grendel083 wrote:You mean the Flat-out save?
You're still going cruising-speed at 13", so no.
The 4+ save is based on speed group, not actual distance traveled.

Thanks... do you know what page in the BRB that the skimmer cover save is based on group speed and not distance? I can't find it...

Page 71
You need to move Flat Out to get it.
Cruising speed +1" RPJ does not make your vehicle count as Flat out, it's still cruising speed. You can't be moving Flat Out and Cruising at the same time.
Actual distance does effect getting hit in combat, but that's a different matter.

Are you forgetting the wording of RPJ Grendel?

RPJ states "Ork vehicles with red paint job add +1 to their move in the Movement phase but do not incur penalties for this extra inch."

Pg 70 of BRB states "A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18"."

Note that RPJ says penalties. In the case of the Bommer, it can move 13" and claim to be going flat out as previously stated as it has moved more than 12", but through RPJ, it can claim to be moving crusing speed, allowing it to use Aerial Assault.

But in order to qualify as moving flat out, it must sacrifice the firing of any weapons. So either move 13" and fire everything, or move 13" and gain cover. Try and remember not every rule is there to be broken, sometimes you have to decide on a course of action...

Yup, there was the mental slip I was expecting while looking at the BRB

The "Penalty" would be going into a higher movement category and not being able to shoot. True there is an advantage, but the save does require flatout, not just 13".

grendel083 wrote:The "Penalty" would be going into a higher movement category and not being able to shoot. True there is an advantage, but the save does require flatout, not just 13".

this does seem to be the case from what i can see?

What would be the point in taking a red paint job then?

Generally, as things stand, very little reason to take RPJ on the planes, with the potential exception of the blitza bomma.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:But in order to qualify as moving flat out, it must sacrifice the firing of any weapons. So either move 13" and fire everything, or move 13" and gain cover. Try and remember not every rule is there to be broken, sometimes you have to decide on a course of action...

Somebody needs to give you a cookie. This was the most well spoken and accurate comment in the entire thread.

Heres a question for you then although it serves little real meaning to the rules in this instance but, can a vehicle with RPJ move 1", count as remaining stationary, and gain the benefit of models needing a 4+ to hit in melee on account of the more specific wording for that rule of:

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

Drunkspleen wrote:Heres a question for you then although it serves little real meaning to the rules in this instance but, can a vehicle with RPJ move 1", count as remaining stationary, and gain the benefit of models needing a 4+ to hit in melee on account of the more specific wording for that rule of:

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

No you can not "move 1", count as remaining stationary" because RPJ says you move an additional inch when moving (Or something close to that).

so if you move 1 Inch you can move an additional inch.

If you do not move you can not move an additional inch.

DeathReaper wrote:No you can not "move 1", count as remaining stationary" because RPJ says you move an additional inch when moving (Or something close to that).

so if you move 1 Inch you can move an additional inch.

If you do not move you can not move an additional inch.

Ah okay, not familiar enough with the exact wording of that rule.

Technically speaking you don't have to move at all and only need to say you moved flat out to receive a cover-save. Unlike turbo-boost which states you need to be 18" away from your starting position to gain a cover save, moving flat out doesn't have the some requirements.

General_Chaos wrote:Technically speaking you don't have to move at all and only need to say you moved flat out to receive a cover-save. Unlike turbo-boost which states you need to be 18" away from your starting position to gain a cover save, moving flat out doesn't have the some requirements.

True. But then you can't shoot, and you'd be auto-hit in combat.

Yep but if you are not worried about being assaulted then it is a non issue.

Personally a few of the guys at my local GW store and I think of it as a house rule. If your opponent says you can, then you can, and vice versa. I would just take RPJ for the fact that you can move 37"!!!

You get the coversave, I believe.

If you move 13", then you get to ignore the penalty for moving Flat Out, meaning you fire as if moving at cruising speed

As you have actually moved flat out, you dont ignore the bonus of doing so - the 4+ cover save - because RPJ does not state you ignore the extra inch for *everytyhing* - just the negatives.

I imagine this is in mind for a change to FO in 6th, especially given the pinning/+1BS rule for stormtalons has no functional negative (Fast skimmer -> skimmer that cannot move) in 5th edition

As you have actually moved flat out, you dont ignore the bonus of doing so - the 4+ cover save - because RPJ does not state you ignore the extra inch for *everytyhing* - just the negatives.

Now you see... this is what I was thinking...

Anyhoo, it's ambiguous enough that I'll clear it with TO/opponent before playing.

To few rules quote here, as usual...

Aerial Assault: If the model moved at cruising speed it can fire all of its weapons. (Dakka Jet data sheet)

Ork Vehicles with red paint jobs add +1 to their move in the Movement phase, but do not incur penalties for the extra inch." (Codex: Orks and White Dwarf - exact same wording)

A vehicle that traves more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed. (BRB pg. 57)

A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18" (BRB pg. 70)

Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons (BRB pg. 70)

A skimmer that is not immobilized and has moved flat out in its last Movement phase counts as obscured. (BRB pg. 71)

That out of the way (and hopefully all those posts spouting nonsense in direct contradiction to those rules), I think nos is right.

A dakka jet (or any other ork plane) moving 13" flat-out is nothing but a vehicle moving flat out. So you get a 4+ cover save and are hit on 6s(irrelevant). RPJ enables the plane to count as moving 12" to ignore penalties. If you count as moving 12", you also count as moving at cruising speed. If you try to ignore something that's not a penalty (like getting a 4+ cover save), you are breaking the rules.

Also note that RPJ is not optional, so you can not move 1" or less, making the whole "I'm stationary!" argument void. Feel free to drive around in circles though.

Hmmm.... I used to do exactly what the OP states but with Buggies.... i.e. moved 13", fired rokkits, claimed cover in my opponents next shooting phase. Made buggies immense but stopped doing it as I mixed up the turbo boost rule with the flat out rule (I thought you had to move 18" to claim the cover).

From the above I gather that this was a legal move.... why don't people do it more often, unless I just havn't seen it, it gives buggies a cover save of 4+ every opponents shooting phase for 5 points (as long as you keep it moving 13").

Cheers,

David.

EDIT: oh, only skimmers get obscured?... knew it was to good to be true

Woah...

Jidmah... you get the interweb cookie!

That's awesome!

I agree with Jidmah, to further support this:

Flat out is not a declared move. It is a distance covered. (BRB. 70)

The only declared action in moving is Tank Shock. (BRB. 68) It gives you a set list of conditions and steps as to what will happen and what needs to be done.

You do not need to declare you are moving flat out, you simply move over 12" and you are going flat out. The rules for Red Paint Job allow this inch to be ignored for negative effects. (sources as above)

Therefore yes, you can move 13" fire all of your guns (Which is a broken rule which is overridden by the Arial Assault special rule) and claim a 4+ obscured / cover save.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:

Therefore yes, you can move 13" fire all of your guns (Which is a broken rule which if overridden by war gear) and claim a 4+ obscured / cover save.

Hahah, the only thing that makes those jets worth the points is *IF* they get to move 13", fire everything and get a 4+ cover save. Orks have been moving 7", shooting and being harder to hit in CC for years.

This actually makes a huge difference for the few of us who want 3 dakkajets and may actually get them on a tabletop before 6th edition hits.

I am with you on this brother.

I got 2 Pre Ordered and the air brush is ready to rock!!

The save is granted by the speed group not by actual distance traveled

Daemonhammer wrote:The save is granted by the speed group not by actual distance traveled

Can you cite any sources? Or where the term speed group comes from?

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:Flat out is not a declared move. It is a distance covered. (BRB. 70)

Yet you are not allowed to disembark if you are going to move flat-out. Which means, if you attempt to move flat-out from difficult terrain, and fail the dangerous terrain test, you still suffer all the effects of having moved flat-out.

Not according to Red Paint Job. You count as moving 12".

"Ork Vehicles with red paint jobs add +1 to the move in the Movement phase but do not incur penalties for this extra inch."

So you go 13", which qualifies you for flat out bonuses, but only count as going 12 for determining penalties to movement. The only penalty to moving combat speed is not being able to shoot your guns, which is overridden by Arial Assault.

This seems pretty clear.

I think it falls into the category where specific over rules general; as RPJ specifically allows you to break movement rules.

I know I keep mentioning Arial Assault, but that specific special rule allows you to break the rule in the BRB, why is it hard to accept that Red Paint Job also lets you break the rules?

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:Not according to Red Paint Job. You count as moving 12".

"Ork Vehicles with red paint jobs add +1 to the move in the Movement phase but do not incur penalties for this extra inch."

So you go 13", which qualifies you for flat out bonuses, but only count as going 12 for determining penalties to movement. The only penalty to moving combat speed is not being able to shoot your guns, which is overridden by Arial Assault.

This seems pretty clear.

I think it falls into the category where specific over rules general; as RPJ specifically allows you to break movement rules.

I know I keep mentioning Arial Assault, but that specific special rule allows you to break the rule in the BRB, why is it hard to accept that Red Paint Job also lets you break the rules?

We dont have a problem understanding it lets us break rules, the problem is we dont know which rules we're alowed to break

What do tournaments usually rule on this? I know they arent official gw, but seeing a trend in the tourneys would help seeing what the majority interprets it as.

The other thing is that some of the things this upgrade supposedly lets you do seem way too powerful for a mere 5pts upgrade.

Then throw in the fact that GW has apparently never bothered to clear it up, and I have a feeling we'll be arguing over this for a while

How much of the jet needs to be painted red to qualify for an RPJ? What is the generally accepted standard? If you can move 13", shoot and claim the cover save the RPJ will be a mandatory upgrade even for us Bad Moons!

krumpinkiwi wrote:How much of the jet needs to be painted red to qualify for an RPJ? What is the generally accepted standard? If you can move 13", shoot and claim the cover save the RPJ will be a mandatory upgrade even for us Bad Moons!

None.

You can have the RPJ represented any way you like.

If your orks are colorblind, and have a Purple Paint Job, because to them it looks like red and makes them faster.

Or if your orks were taught that Blue was Red then they have a Blue Paint job that they believe is red and makes them faster.

Basically you paint your models how you want them to look.

So you say RAW now lets you move 37" and fire everything?!! Are you freaking serious???? I am sure you all are just a joy to play against.... lucky for me you don't live in my neck of the woods.

General_Chaos wrote:So you say RAW now lets you move 37" and fire everything?!! Are you freaking serious???? I am sure you all are just a joy to play against.... lucky for me you don't live in my neck of the woods.

No that's supersonic, it's basically turboboosting on steroids. you wont be able to shoot if you move that far.

We're talkinga bout moving 12-13" and whether you'd still be able to fire all the weapons and still get a +4 save for moving "flat out"

General_Chaos wrote:So you say RAW now lets you move 37" and fire everything?!! Are you freaking serious???? I am sure you all are just a joy to play against.... lucky for me you don't live in my neck of the woods.

It'd be great if you'd read the thread and respond to an actual point, and not make up one to argue against.

No one has said that moving 37" and firing works. Nice try.

Daemonhammer wrote:The save is granted by the speed group not by actual distance traveled

Which is irrelevant, as a fast vehicle moving 13" is always moving flat-out, no matter its color. You just get to ignore penalties for doing so by counting as cruising speed if it was painted red.

MrMoustaffa - it breaks no rules, as you have permission to ignore the penalty for moving flat out, right there in the RPJ rules.

The RPJ rules also say that if you move 13" you count as moving 12".
So if it counts as 12" then it's not Flat Out.
I'm still reading going Flat Out as the penalty that you get to ignore.
Hitting in close combat requires actual distance moved (the whole cruising at 7", hitting on 6's), but the Flat Out save requires the speed group.

You ignore the penalties, not the bonuses. As I pointed out.

A BONUS of moving 13" is you get a cover save

A PENALTY of moving 13" is you dont get to shoot

RPJ ignores the latter, not the former.

juraigamer wrote:Unless FAQ'ed, yes you can.

No you can't red paint job says you move 13 but count as moving 12.

grendel083 wrote:The RPJ rules also say that if you move 13" you count as moving 12".
So if it counts as 12" then it's not Flat Out.
I'm still reading going Flat Out as the penalty that you get to ignore.
Hitting in close combat requires actual distance moved (the whole cruising at 7", hitting on 6's), but the Flat Out save requires the speed group.

Agree with this. "Counts as" needs to apply to all effects. If you move 13 and that counts as 12 for shooting, it also counts as 12 removing you from the flat out benefit.

So the only benefit is 1 extra inch?

Crablezworth wrote:So the only benefit is 1 extra inch?

For 5pts? Sounds about right.

Food for thought........

How relevant is the word "could" in the rules for RPJ?

cgage00 wrote:

juraigamer wrote:Unless FAQ'ed, yes you can.

No you can't red paint job says you move 13 but count as moving 12.

Doesn't that refer to the "penalties" of the extra distance?

The codex specifies, directly before that sentence, that RPJ does not allow you to incur penalties for this inch. If that is true than, if you move 13 You AREN'T allowed to be considered NOT moving flat out but are forced to ignore any "penalties" of moving flat out. No where does it say you can ignore anything except the "penalties".

So according to the BRB, flat out means that the vehicle is treated in all respects exactly the same as a non fast vehicle moving at cruising speeds, but, to my understanding, with the "penalty" of not being able to fire its guns. Also skimmers which move flat out the previous turn count as obscured.

The rules for Aerial Assault allow model moving at cruising speeds to fire all of its weapons.

If you add that all together you get, from the BRB, the model moves more than 12" but is not allowed for fire its weapons, where RPJ in both the ork codex and white dwarf forces you to ignore this "penalty" if you only moved 13", and count in all regards as moving cruising speed, where Aerial Assault allows you to fire all weapons at such speed.

So you can move 13" fire all weapons and receive a 4+ cover save, I think?
It kind of boils down to what are the "penalties" of flat out.
Can anyone else confirm this?

grendel083 wrote:The RPJ rules also say that if you move 13" you count as moving 12".
So if it counts as 12" then it's not Flat Out.
I'm still reading going Flat Out as the penalty that you get to ignore.
Hitting in close combat requires actual distance moved (the whole cruising at 7", hitting on 6's), but the Flat Out save requires the speed group.

cgage00 wrote:

juraigamer wrote:Unless FAQ'ed, yes you can.

No you can't red paint job says you move 13 but count as moving 12.

That's not what the rules say. You can count as 12". You don't have to, neither are you allowed to count as moving 12" for something that's not a penalty. Moving flat out is not a penalty.

cgage00 wrote:

juraigamer wrote:Unless FAQ'ed, yes you can.

Yes you can red paint job says you move 13 but count as moving 12 for the purposes of any penalties.

Fixed that for you.

Please actually read the RPJ rule, or the other argumetns in this thread, before making declarative statements that are wrong. You ONLY ignore the penalties of moving that extra inch, and 4+ cover save is not a penalty.

For the 10th time this thread.

I think it boils down to the last 6 words of the rules for RPJ in the white dwarf, "and still count as moving 12"." For game purposes you count as moving 12 inches, even though you moved 13. Since you counted as moving 12 inches you are moving at cruising speed. You are not counted as moving flat-out.

Hopefully this is the post that will end this whole arguement, but knowing human nature.

The meat of the RPJ rule is this "Ork vehicles with red paint job add +1 to their move in the Movement phase but do not incur penalties for this extra inch. For example, a vehicle could move 13" and count as moving 12".

The people who're saying it doesn't get the save are quoting the "For example" bit. It's meant as an example for the actual rule above which almost nobody can doubt allows the save.
It's just been badly worded, it's not the rule it's an example.

The "but do no yot incur penalties for this extra inch" portion is the part that quite plainly shows that you don't get the bad side effects but get the good ones. Hence the do not...
Now lets look at why they might intend this, imagine a Ork trukker army 6+ trucks. That's 30P on RPJ to gain this 4+ SV, less than the KFF and controls more area. The KFF costs 50P 20P more than the RPJ but the KFF is still useful still because you're not always going to want to move 13" and it protects the boyz from fire, which is what it was used for again in the earlier additions.

All I'm trying to say is it makes more sense that it's ruled this way. 5P for and extra inch is just a waste, that's a Big shoota. Now suddenly if it's giving a 4+SV it's the must buy.

Now just for fun I will examine the example. "For example, a vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12"
Now this is intresting, in collaboration with the meat of the rules this makes perfect sense that they're talking about the SV.
If this was just the rule then it's obviously the other side.

To summarise the below bit is a example not a rule and I think that you gain the SV.

whembly wrote:So, I picked up the new WD today to review the new flyers models rules.

One quick question...

Say I have a DakkaJet with Red Paint Job (RPJ)....

Could I move 13", then fire everything AND recieve a 4+ skimmer coversave? Isn't that ?

Given some of the utter stupidity that exists in the GK, SW and Necron codexes I see no issue with this...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

krumpinkiwi wrote:How much of the jet needs to be painted red to qualify for an RPJ? What is the generally accepted standard? If you can move 13", shoot and claim the cover save the RPJ will be a mandatory upgrade even for us Bad Moons!

None.

In a game meta in which people regularly paint up marines in various random ways and yet count them as GK or BA or whatever flavor of cheese they want to play that given day Why would this upgrade need to be presented exactly as listed in fluff/description?

The increased speed could just as easily be represented by adding extra "boostas/jets" or "fuel squigs" on the model, modelling a fancy "fighta ace" pilot whose skill allows him to squeeze every last ounce of speed out of his plane, etc., etc. As long as you make it clear to your opponent and allow him to see you have noted and payed for it in your list then actually painting it red is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned...

I Varon - trukks do not get a cover save for moving flat out, as they are not skimmers. Reread the cover save rules for vehicles moving fast.....

I thought they did when they went flat out. Either way the main part of the point is still valid

No, only skimmers. 100% certain on this. It's why the argument about RPJ and speed has not come up before, as orks didnt get fast skimmers until now

Ailideon wrote:I think it boils down to the last 6 words of the rules for RPJ in the white dwarf, "and still count as moving 12"." For game purposes you count as moving 12 inches, even though you moved 13. Since you counted as moving 12 inches you are moving at cruising speed. You are not counted as moving flat-out.

Conveniently quoting less than half the rule, while leaving out "could" and "for example" does not make for a strong argument. Furthermore, if you have to leave out three thirds of a rule to make it fit your argument, you have done nothing but proven yourself wrong.

Jidmah wrote:

Ailideon wrote:I think it boils down to the last 6 words of the rules for RPJ in the white dwarf, "and still count as moving 12"." For game purposes you count as moving 12 inches, even though you moved 13. Since you counted as moving 12 inches you are moving at cruising speed. You are not counted as moving flat-out.

Conveniently quoting less than half the rule, while leaving out "could" and "for example" does not make for a strong argument. Furthermore, if you have to leave out three thirds of a rule to make it fit your argument, you have done nothing but proven yourself wrong.

I would think that we should end it just here.

The verdict being the save is given, but then again it would be intresting to see how TO rule this.

I think it boils down to the perception of how declared speeds affect the movement.

Does the player move the vehicle, then state how far it went, thus allocating a declared speed? "It moved 8", so it went at cruising speed".

Or does the player declare movement speed, and move the vehicle within the limits of the declared speed?

If the former, I would lean towards the vehicle being able to shoot, and still getting the save.

It would mean though that one could move a vehicle 0.1", declare that it moved flat out (in a circle), and it would benefit for being able to fire all it's weapons AND getting a 4+ cover save.

Kharrak wrote:Does the player move the vehicle, then state how far it went, thus allocating a declared speed? "It moved 8", so it went at cruising speed".

This is exactly what the rules say, no further discussion needed. I have quoted them in this very thread.

"Counts as" replaces the natural state of a unit or situation.

Draigo makes paladins "count as" troops meaning it doesn't matter that they appear in the codex as elites. They can now be deployed in DoW, score objectives, and meet the 2 troop minimum in army building.

Tremor staves make a unit "count as" in difficult terrain. Writhing worldscape makes difficult terrain "count as" dangerous. The combination of both makes a unit take dangerous terrain tests even while moving in the open. The game no longer cares that they're in the open because "counts as" effects have replaced the natural state.

If RPJ says you can move 13" and it "counts as" 12", then this is all that matters. You moved 12" in all aspects that the game cares about. You did not move far enough to gain a cover save and can fire all weapons thanks to arial assault.

Just like a unit standing in the open counts as in difficult terrain when hit with a tremor stave, and dangerous terrain when hit with the tremor stave with writhing worldscape in play. The fact that they are standing in the open matters not as "counts as" effects have replaced reality. The fact that you loved 13" matters not because you have replaced that and "count as" moving 12".

That is an example of the rule - you count as moving 12" *as far as the penalties go*, because that is what the ACTUAL rule states.

Stop mixing up a limited example and conflating it out as if it were the whole rule. Fallacious argument is fallacious

What would happen to a jet with RPJ if it is immobilized? Will it count as wrecked?

That would be a negative effect, i'd think..

Personally i play that it just gives you an extra inch of movement, but doesn't change your movement category. It causes less headaches/arguments that way

RAW-wrangling you'd still count as moving 12'', and so wouldn't crash and burn, despite benefitting from the cover save of Flat Out, but it seems a bit beardy to try to argue this, to me

Where did all of these arguments about having to declare your movement come up? You move it a distance and that is its speed you don't have to declare your movement speed. Knowledge of this would pacify half of the stupid comments on this thread thus far.

hyv3mynd wrote:"Counts as" replaces the natural state of a unit or situation.

Draigo makes paladins "count as" troops meaning it doesn't matter that they appear in the codex as elites. They can now be deployed in DoW, score objectives, and meet the 2 troop minimum in army building.

Tremor staves make a unit "count as" in difficult terrain. Writhing worldscape makes difficult terrain "count as" dangerous. The combination of both makes a unit take dangerous terrain tests even while moving in the open. The game no longer cares that they're in the open because "counts as" effects have replaced the natural state.

If RPJ says you can move 13" and it "counts as" 12", then this is all that matters. You moved 12" in all aspects that the game cares about. You did not move far enough to gain a cover save and can fire all weapons thanks to arial assault.

Just like a unit standing in the open counts as in difficult terrain when hit with a tremor stave, and dangerous terrain when hit with the tremor stave with writhing worldscape in play. The fact that they are standing in the open matters not as "counts as" effects have replaced reality. The fact that you loved 13" matters not because you have replaced that and "count as" moving 12".

Irrelevant, as a Red Vehicle merely has the ability to "count as" under certain circumstances (suffering a penalty), rather than permanently counting as moving 1" less.

This is indicated by the word "could", which every single person following that string of argumentation is conveniently ignoring.

Jidmah wrote:
A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18" (BRB pg. 70)

Perhaps I'd agree with the overall premise that RPJ allows you to fire all weapons at 13" and get a cover save if this rule said:

If a vehicle moves 12" and up to 18", it is going flat out.

Alas, it does not. This rule does not use displacement to define flat out, just describes what flat out allows a vehicle to do.

jms40k wrote:

Jidmah wrote:
A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18" (BRB pg. 70)

Perhaps I'd agree with the overall premise that RPJ allows you to fire all weapons at 13" and get a cover save if this rule said:

If a vehicle moves 12" and up to 18", it is going flat out.

Alas, it does not. This rule does not use displacement to define flat out, just describes what flat out allows a vehicle to do.

There is no difference in meaning between your two quotes.

Is a vehicles moving 12"-18"? If yes, it is moving flat out. If no, it is not.
Is 12.5" between 12" and 18"? Yes, so the dakka yet has moved flat out. Counts as having move 11.5"? A vehicle moving flat out can not move 12" or less, so that's not moving flat out. If a vehicle moves 6"-12", it is moving at cruising speed.

It is literally impossible to move flat out while going 12" or less.

Besides:

In his turn, a player may move any of his units [...] up to their maximum movement distance. (BRB pg. 11)

The distance a vehicle moves influences the amount of weapons it may fire and how easy a target the vehicle will be if assaulted, as described later. (BRB pg. 57)

No further rules for vehicle movement exist, so you can never, ever determine a speed before you have finished moving a vehicle.
If you claim that flat out is not determined by displacement, no vehicle can ever move flat out.

You do need to declare your speed before moving. For example, if you are going into dangerous terrain, your speed declared matters if you get immoblized after moving only 2 inches. You dont move 2 inches into terrain, planning on going flat out, get immoblized and then retroactively declare your speed as only 2 inches.

Also, if you measure 24 inches you can not claim you only moved at crusing after 6 inches. Your max movement, as measured, was 24 inches, and you simply did not move your max distance.

You also can't embark on a transport yo are planning to move flat out IIRC. You have declared it's move before moving in that situation.

Well I'll ask my TO about this one tomorrow at our teams tournament, but my thoughts are this about it.

Orks never had to call this into question because everything with RPJ could not gain a cover save. now the RAW for the new codex where flyers are designed may have the rules written to accomidate them better.

I believe the concept was for 5pts you got to move one inch. people think its stupid, but I've fell an inch short of an assult before and it was the difference between wins and losses. RPJ works for me. YMMV.

I've read the entry several times and I see the point folks are trying to make, but I'm sorry it would bog down my tournament play too much and make me look like a giant jerk for even arguing the point. too much having my cake and eating it too.

I think the dakka jet is a bit broken.

take 3

run near battle wagon with KFF

call waaaaaaaaaaag = 16 blasts? maybe more?

thats nuts

Dakkajet doesn't have blasts

It has shorter ranged, stronger Big Shootas.

With 3, on a non- waagh turn, with all upgrades, you'd get 27 twin linked BS 3 shots.

about 21 will hit,approx, and S6, AP 4 isn't too bad.

Double that for a waagh turn to 52 twin-linked BS 3, 42 hits approx (from three units). Trust me, there are units out there that can put out far more hits at bs 3 or better than the Dakkajet

Its about as much as a loota squad rolling a little above average (but at lower S) , not exactly gamebreaking.

Its also on an AV 10 huge, visible airframe. KFF might keep it alive a while, if you can roll 4+ consistently. I usually fail KFF rolls 2 out of 3

Even a shaken result feths up its ability to shoot, and it's not hard to shake an AV 10 vehicle.

DevianID wrote:You do need to declare your speed before moving. For example, if you are going into dangerous terrain, your speed declared matters if you get immoblized after moving only 2 inches. You dont move 2 inches into terrain, planning on going flat out, get immoblized and then retroactively declare your speed as only 2 inches.

Also, if you measure 24 inches you can not claim you only moved at crusing after 6 inches. Your max movement, as measured, was 24 inches, and you simply did not move your max distance.

This is not true at all.

Speed is actual distance moved.

Actually move 6 inches, combat speed.

Actually move 2 inches, combat speed.

Actually move 10 inches, cruising speed.

as for "Also, if you measure 24 inches you can not claim you only moved at crusing after 6 inches.Your max movement, as measured, was 24 inches" Yes you can. the rules specifically allow measuring then moving less or not at all.

Max movement for a fast skimmer is usually 24 inches...

The Waaagh plane rule only works on the planes Assault weapons, also, and missiles and Bombs are Heavy, and One-shot (they wouldn't double).

it says in the rule that you can move 13'' and still count as moving 12'' so you can fire all your weapons but you dont get a cover save
Also you could trubo boost 37'' in one turn

In the leaked edition, RPJ just add +1 to the mouvement base.
If the 6th edition has similar rules to the leaked edition, then no, RPJ won't give benefit of goinf flat-out while moving at cruise speed ;(

DevianID wrote:You do need to declare your speed before moving. For example, if you are going into dangerous terrain, your speed declared matters if you get immoblized after moving only 2 inches. You dont move 2 inches into terrain, planning on going flat out, get immoblized and then retroactively declare your speed as only 2 inches.

Also, if you measure 24 inches you can not claim you only moved at crusing after 6 inches. Your max movement, as measured, was 24 inches, and you simply did not move your max distance.

That is not a rule. Imaginary rules have no bearing on red paint job.

Ascalam wrote:You also can't embark on a transport yo are planning to move flat out IIRC. You have declared it's move before moving in that situation.

You simply lose the ability to go flat out if anything disembarks from the vehicle. The rule simply worded a bit strange. If you took it literal, you would have to declare how fare your transport moves before disembarking, which is nonsense either way.

'Passengers may not embark onto or deisembark from fast a fast vehicle is it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that movement phase'

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. If you are planning on going flat out you may not embark or disembark from the vehicle, decided before you actually move it.

Ascalam wrote:'Passengers may not embark onto or deisembark from fast a fast vehicle is it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that movement phase'

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. If you are planning on going flat out you may not embark or disembark from the vehicle, decided before you actually move it.

Except that you do not have to declare it, you simply make up your mind to not have them embark, then you move flat out.

You do not have to tell your opponent your intention.

Ascalam wrote:'Passengers may not embark onto or deisembark from fast a fast vehicle is it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that movement phase'

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. If you are planning on going flat out you may not embark or disembark from the vehicle, decided before you actually move it.

You can't follow that rule though, because moving doesn't work that way. You can only move the vehicle or the unit inside, not both at once. If you move the unit and disembark, the transport can no longer move flat out. If you move the unit inside and do nothing (barring some psychic powers or special rules which are usable in your movement phase only), you can move flat out. If you move the transport first, move it any distance up to it's maximum movement distance. If that's more than 12", the unit inside can no longer disembark.

As DR explained, you don't have to declare anything to anybody.

Well my local TO agreed by written wording it does get a cover save, however after dealing with some rules arguments over some of the more simple rules of the game even this late in the edition(in today's tournament alone), I wouldn't even attempt to push this one out there.

at the same time my TO was pretty confident that the rule wouldnt be around for very long to matter much. Either the new RPJ rule would fix this, or an FAQ would be in the works soon enough to correct the issue.

TBH its 5pts and you move an inch. thats about correct. trying to gain a 4+ cover that normally costs us MUCH more than that is a rediculous notion.

Considering the vast amount of cover a 50 point upgrade (the KFF) gives to orks, that isn't too ridiculous. Besides, warkoptas could do this for years now.

I'm not buying it.

For all I know, the "penalty" incurred for moving over 12" is being called Moving Flat Out. RPJ is a horribly worded rule, because it doesn't define what a penalty is, and we're expected to fill that in.

In my mind, until GW tells us that we can both move 13" and fire all guns and have a cover save, we cannot. It's poor sportsmanship to seek advantage caused by ambiguous rules, and it's unreasonable to think that you can get a 4+ cover save for a mere 5 points.

How is moving faster than usual a penalty? How is getting a cover save a penalty?

Flat out is not a penalty.

Jidmah wrote:How is moving faster than usual a penalty? How is getting a cover save a penalty?

Flat out is not a penalty.

How do you know? Is this defined anywhere? It's ambiguous what "penalty" refers to. As such, it's poor sportsmanship to interpret an ambiguous rule to your advantage.

The penalty that is ignored by rpj is the inability to shoot, the 13" would give it the flat out save as worded in the brb..."A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18"".

rpj gives you an additional 1" movement, without any negative affects of going faster...seeing as the cover save is a positive effect, it happens, but the shooting...a negative affect...does not.

LazzurusMan wrote:The penalty that is ignored by rpj is the inability to shoot,

Can you prove this? Can you show me text from a GW book that says that the penalty is the inability to shoot, rather than being classified as moving flat out? No, you cannot.

I still say it's ambiguous.

Redbeard wrote:How do you know? Is this defined anywhere? It's ambiguous what "penalty" refers to. As such, it's poor sportsmanship to interpret an ambiguous rule to your advantage.

I'll show you a definition of penalty as soon as you show me a definition of "ork".

Ork is not defined anywhere, as such it's poor sportsmanship to interpret the Waaagh! as affecting any models of your army or giving any boyz models a rokkit launcher or big shoota.

Seriously. A penalty is a sanction, a punishment, a disadvantage and always something negative. Just look at sports, racing, or competitive tabletop games. In no game penalties are ever giving you any advantage. Thus something that consists of both benefits and disadvantages can impossibly be a penalty. The punishment for going too fast is not being able to shoot. You are told that the vehicle doesn't suffer from that punishment. It's only ambiguous if you really want it to be.
It's even less of an issue for me, as both the German Codex and White Dwarf actually say "ignore any disadvantages or limitations for moving that extra inch".

Redbeard wrote:I'm not buying it.

For all I know, the "penalty" incurred for moving over 12" is being called Moving Flat Out. RPJ is a horribly worded rule, because it doesn't define what a penalty is, and we're expected to fill that in.

In my mind, until GW tells us that we can both move 13" and fire all guns and have a cover save, we cannot. It's poor sportsmanship to seek advantage caused by ambiguous rules, and it's unreasonable to think that you can get a 4+ cover save for a mere 5 points.

This x10

While the definition of penalty is obvious, in this specific context it's ambiguous. What constitutes as a penalty? Sure, it has a negative connotation (not being able to fire any weapons) but it can also mean moving flat out. Sure, it's generally not considered a penalty, but it can be seen as such.

Aerial Assault: If the model moved at cruising speed it can fire all of its weapons.

A skimmer that is not immobilized and has moved flat out in its last Movement phase counts as obscured.

The conflict seems to be here: can a vehicle be moving both flat out and at cruising speed in the same turn? Or are they mutually exclusive categories?

If the answer is "yes, RPJ lets you" then you get a 4+ and can fire everything. If the answer is "no, you are in either one class or the other," then you have to choose.

IMO, RPJ doesn't give you the ability to be moving two different speeds, you choose whichever speed you want. But I can see arguments both ways.

Biccat sort of has it, its a black hole of logic.

here's my take:
RPJ:
if you move 13 inches, you ignore the penalties for moving that extra inch (but says nothing about bonuses)
so figure this. you are going flat out (which gives you the cover save) since you moved 13 inches
but you are moving flat out, so this bypasses the supersonic rule
BUT! you can fire a single weapon (like you were a normal vehicle flying cruising) because you are ignoring the penalty for flat out.

so in total:
-if you get the cover save, you are flat out
-flat out means no supersonic rule
-but you can shoot one gun because normal fast vehicles going 12 can shoot one gun

Does this make sense? I think this is the best happy medium until next edition.

biccat wrote: Or are they mutually exclusive categories?

I think this would probably give the best answer to our question.

For my money, I'd say yes they are. But I don't have my book with me.

biccat wrote:

Aerial Assault: If the model moved at cruising speed it can fire all of its weapons.

A skimmer that is not immobilized and has moved flat out in its last Movement phase counts as obscured.

The conflict seems to be here: can a vehicle be moving both flat out and at cruising speed in the same turn? Or are they mutually exclusive categories?

If the answer is "yes, RPJ lets you" then you get a 4+ and can fire everything. If the answer is "no, you are in either one class or the other," then you have to choose.

IMO, RPJ doesn't give you the ability to be moving two different speeds, you choose whichever speed you want. But I can see arguments both ways.

Uh, there is nothing preventing your from counting as moving 12" (= cruising speed) just for the purpose of shooting and disembarking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cryonicleech wrote:

biccat wrote: Or are they mutually exclusive categories?

I think this would probably give the best answer to our question.

For my money, I'd say yes they are. But I don't have my book with me.

They are only mutually exclusive if applied at the same time. You can apply flat out to movement distance and skimmer rules, while applying cruising speed to shooting and disembarking, There is no conflict.

Jidmah wrote:Uh, there is nothing preventing your from counting as moving 12" (= cruising speed) just for the purpose of shooting and disembarking.

If the terms are mutually exclusive (you can't cruise and go flat out), then I don't see how you get cruising for your turn and flat out for the opponent's turn. Certainly a model cannot have different movement speeds simply by virtue of whose turn it is...can you?

But if you're arguing that an Ork jet can travel both cruising speed and flat out at the same time (ignoring the penalties from both), then there's nothing wrong with your position.

If you shoot as if you are traveling at cruising speed, you might still move flat out.

You know, just like fast vehicles shoot as if they were moving at a slower speed/stationary.

Besides that, no rule says that flat out and cruising speed are mutually exclusive. They simply don't happen at the same time by coincidence.

You are looking for a contradiction where there is none.

The fact that we're still discussing this is ample evidence that it is not clear. I'm not sure you're wrong. But I'm also not sure you're right, so until I get official clarification, I don't see how it's fair to claim the advantage.

until an FAQ you could use "the most important rule!" in the first few pages of the rule book. they put it in incase stuff like this hapened just roll off to see for that game. 1 2 3 it does give cover and shoot all stuff. 4 5 6 you have to pick between them

The one tenet I actually do adhere to:

7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

Jidmah wrote:Besides that, no rule says that flat out and cruising speed are mutually exclusive. They simply don't happen at the same time by coincidence.

A vehicle that traves more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed. (BRB pg. 57)

A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18" (BRB pg. 70)

That suggests that cruising and moving flat out are mutually exclusive. But there's no explanation for how this works. Are you moving "up to 12 inches" (and therefore at cruising speed), or are you moving "more than 12 inches" and therefore going flat out? Or, do you count as going 12" for some purposes and 13" for others?

Jidmah wrote:If you shoot as if you are traveling at cruising speed, you might still move flat out.

You know, just like fast vehicles shoot as if they were moving at a slower speed/stationary.

Besides that, no rule says that flat out and cruising speed are mutually exclusive.

Fast vehicles don't shoot as if they were moving slower. They have an exception to a rule that vehicles which aren't classed as fast do not.

Additionally, there isn't any evidence to suggest that the two terms are not mutually exclusive. Most evidence points to them being so.

biccat wrote:Or, do you count as going 12" for some purposes and 13" for others?

This is exactly what RPJ does. Between 12" and 13" you are moving flat out, but you could also count as moving cruising speed. RPJ clearly tells you when you are allowed to use cruising speed(when suffering penalties).

If you move 13" and use flat out to determine the number of weapons you can shoot, the vehicle is suffering a penalty and thus you are violating the rules.
If you move 13" and use cruising speed to determine whether you get a cover save, you try to count as moving one less inch for something that's not a penalty, and thus are violating the rules.

Cryonicleech wrote:Fast vehicles don't shoot as if they were moving slower. They have an exception to a rule that vehicles which aren't classed as fast do not.

Red ork vehicles have an exception to the rule which other vehicles do not. Your point is?

Additionally, there isn't any evidence to suggest that the two terms are not mutually exclusive.

There is also no rule that say that furious charge and move through cover are not mutually exclusive. So by your logic kommandoz may not move through cover.

Most evidence points to them being so.

Evidence not quoted is not evidence. Your argument is nothing but huge amounts of hot air. Unless you can provide a single rule preventing a vehicle from counting as cruising speed for just the purpose of disembarking and shooting, RPJ works exactly as written - you get to ignore all negative effects for moving one more inch.

Can't believe no one has posted this yet, from INAT:

◊ORK.93F.01 – Q: In what exact situations is the
bonus movement provided by Red Paint Job ignored?
A: The extra inch is only ignored when it would penalize the
Ork player. So for example, models onboard a Trukk with
Red Paint Job that moved 7” could still fire as if the vehicle
moved 6”, but if the Trukk was then assaulted by the enemy,
they would need ‘6’s to hit it as the Trukk counts as having
moved more than 6” to them [clarification].

Obviously their ruling isn't about the obscured cover save, but about rolls needed to hit. Their ruling follows the same train of thought that would allow you to move 13", count as moving 12" so you can shoot everything, but would still get the 4+ cover save. With a RPJ (according to them) you get all the advantages of moving 12" AND the advantages of moving 13" (4+ cover save and 6 to hit in melee).
INAT still isn't an official FAQ of course, but this might give an indication of how TO will rule about this question.

Requiem wrote:Can't believe no one has posted this yet, from INAT

Maybe because of the Tenets of You Make Da Call...

Tenets of You Make Da Call found here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. (INAT is not valid in YMDC)

Etc.

As you can see in my post I have nowhere stated that this is what the rule must be because INAT states so. It was only an indication of what a TO might rule about the matter on the short term as I've seen at least one person who said he'd ask a TO...

Okay to back it up for you, I think the INAT ruling follows the RPJ rule because the RPJ rule "Ork Vehicles with red paint jobs add +1 to their move in the Movement phase, but do not incur penalties for the extra inch." can (and imho should) be interpreted as the INAT does. You may move one extra inch, so your cruising speed would give you 13" while counting as having moved 12" for all purposes of shooting (as shooting less can be considered a penalty for having moved an additional inch), though you count as having moved 13" for anything that is not a penalty to the Ork player, e.g. 4+ cover save and a 6 to hit in melee.

I dont quite get the discussion and now that I think about it I'd say the INAT ruling is off. According to the RPJ rule a vehicle that has moved 13 inches counts as having moved 12 instead. It does not say that it only counts as having moved 12 inches for the sake of shooting. Not getting a 4+ cover save because it didn't move flat out is not a penalty, it just won't get it because it didn't move fast enough. You can't say it moved at cruising speed for shooting sake and flat-out for the sake of getting the cover save.

On the other hand one could say that moving flat-out 13" would make you loose the ability to shoot all of your weapons which you could see as a penalty I think.

I think we're going to have to wait for an official ruling on this one

Did anyone else notice that in the example for red paint job it specifically says they only count as moving 12, nothing about cruising speed or anything like that. It says they only count as moving 12. Would that not remove the issue all together?

Leth wrote:Did anyone else notice that in the example for red paint job it specifically says they only count as moving 12, nothing about cruising speed or anything like that. It says they only count as moving 12. Would that not remove the issue all together?

well that is my reasoning yes ^^

Jidmah wrote:If you move 13" and use flat out to determine the number of weapons you can shoot, the vehicle is suffering a penalty and thus you are violating the rules.
If you move 13" and use cruising speed to determine whether you get a cover save, you try to count as moving one less inch for something that's not a penalty, and thus are violating the rules.

Except that's not what RPJ says:
Ork Vehicles with red paint jobs add +1 to their move in the Movement phase, but do not incur penalties for the extra inch

You get +1" movement, but do not get penalties for the extra inch. It doesn't say anything about whether you get the benefits for the extra inch, or whether you get the benefits for the slower speed.

If RPJ said "add +1 to their move, but use the original movement for the purposes of determining penalties" (or something similar), then I'd agree. The rule just says you get to move faster without penalties. Not being able to fire all of your weapons isn't a "penalty," it's a symptom of not moving at cruising speed. If the Aerial Assault rule said "may fire all of its weapons unless it moves flat out" rather than if it moved "cruising speed," then I'd also agree that the rule is unambiguous.

But Aerial Assault is a benefit for moving at cruising speed, losing it is not a penalty for moving flat out.

This particular discussion seems "much ado about nothing".

As has been indicated by Leth, Robbietobbie, Red Beard earlier (and maybe some others, sorry if I missed you), the very last sentence in the text (at least in this month's WD article about the Ork Jets) regarding RPJ states...

move 13", count as moving 12".

From this is should be extrapolated...

move between 13.1" and 25", count as moving 24"

... and further...

move between 25.1" and 37", count as moving 36"

I don't understand why this is so difficult for some of you to understand. I await the inevitable slagging from anyone who cares to disagree with great indifference.

Carry on....

MOVING FAST VEHICLES
“Fast vehicles are capable of a third level of 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
where noted otherwise). For example, a fast vehicle
moving flat out on a road may move up to 24". Pg. 70 BRB

“Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons.” Pg.70 BRB

“Skimmers moving at high speed are very difficult to hit.
A skimmer that is not immobilised and has moved flat
out in its last Movement phase counts as obscured
(cover save of 4+) when fired at.” Pg.71 BRB

A vehicle moving more than 12” and up to 18 is moving flat out.

A vehicle moving flat out can fire no weapons. Pretty cut and dry. If a skimmer moves flat out, it gets a 4+ cover save, once again cut and dry.

Red Paint Job
“Orks believe that a vehicle that has been painted red can outstrip a similar vehicle that isn’t. As odd as it may seem, they are quite right. Ork vehicles with red paint jobs add +1 to their move in the Movement phase but do not incure penalties for this extra inch. For example, a vehicle could move 13” and still count as moving 12” “ Pg. 93 Ork Codex

It says they do not incure penalties, but it does not say they gain the benefits from that extra inch either. In the given example it says a vehicle could move 13” and still count as moving as 12”. To me this reads it can move 13” and then decide if it wants to count as 13” ( flat out) or 12” cruising speed.
The big one is if a vehicle moves flat out, it maynot fire that turn. This does not say that it’s a penalty, if you claim you are going flat out for the cover save, then you are going flat out, ie cant shoot. Unless the BRB says it’s a penalty, its not.

If a dakkajet can move 13” claim flat out and fire all its weapons does that mean:
A battle wagon with RPJ can:
1)Move 7” (6”) and fire one weapon Pg.58 BRB
2 )Move 7”(6)’ have its 20 ork boyz fire out that back

“Models firing from a vehicle count as moving if the
vehicle moves, and may not fire at all if the vehicle
moved at Cruising speed that turn.”Pg.66 BRB

3) Only be hit on 6’s since it moved more than 6. Pg 63 brb

Did the above battle wagon move at combat or cruising speed if it moved 7” ?

Robbietobbie wrote:I dont quite get the discussion and now that I think about it I'd say the INAT ruling is off. According to the RPJ rule a vehicle that has moved 13 inches counts as having moved 12 instead.

The example says that the vehicle can count as moving 12", not that it counts as moving 12" for all purposes. Which is the wording in many, many other rules using counts-as.

Leth wrote:Did anyone else notice that in the example for red paint job it specifically says they only count as moving 12, nothing about cruising speed or anything like that. It says they only count as moving 12. Would that not remove the issue all together?

Vehicle speed is solely decided by how far you moved. Moving 6-12" and moving at cruising speed is exactly the same. Thus, a vehicle counting as having moved 12" or less would count as moving cruising speed at the same time.

biccat wrote:

Jidmah wrote:If you move 13" and use flat out to determine the number of weapons you can shoot, the vehicle is suffering a penalty and thus you are violating the rules.
If you move 13" and use cruising speed to determine whether you get a cover save, you try to count as moving one less inch for something that's not a penalty, and thus are violating the rules.

Except that's not what RPJ says:
Ork Vehicles with red paint jobs add +1 to their move in the Movement phase, but do not incur penalties for the extra inch

You get +1" movement, but do not get penalties for the extra inch. It doesn't say anything about whether you get the benefits for the extra inch, or whether you get the benefits for the slower speed.

A fast vehicle moving more than 12" for any reason is not moving cruising speed but flat out, unless the rule explicitly says otherwise. Thus, you get all positive rules attached to moving flat out - red paint does not change anything about this.
It is impossible to move flat out while moving 12" or less. Thus, a vehicle counting as moving 12" or less can not be moving flat out and thus can never be subject to rules attached to moving flat out.

If a red vehicle need special permission to gain benefits from moving flat out, all vehicles do. By your argumentation no skimmer may ever claim a cover save for moving flat-out.
If a vehicle counting as moving cruising speed needs special permission to gain benefits from moving cruising speed, all vehicles do. By your argumentation no vehicle may ever shoot a weapon when moving cruising speed - or combat speed, for that matter.

If RPJ said "add +1 to their move, but use the original movement for the purposes of determining penalties" (or something similar), then I'd agree. The rule just says you get to move faster without penalties. Not being able to fire all of your weapons isn't a "penalty," it's a symptom of not moving at cruising speed.

So, an ice hockey player getting kicked of the field for some minutes is not suffering a penalty, but a symptom of hitting someone in the face with a hockey stick?

So, if "You may not shoot" is not a penalty, what is a penalty in 40k? If your answer is "nothing", you are obviously wrong.

If the Aerial Assault rule said "may fire all of its weapons unless it moves flat out" rather than if it moved "cruising speed," then I'd also agree that the rule is unambiguous.

But Aerial Assault is a benefit for moving at cruising speed, losing it is not a penalty for moving flat out.

Uh, what? Fast vehicles are allowed to shot one weapon+defensive even without moving aerial assault. Trukks and buggies have been moving 13" and shooting their big shootas/rokkits or disembarking boyz the entire 5th edition. Otherwise red paint wouldn't make much sense, would it?

So again, its a matter of choice. Do you want to move 13" at cruising speed and fire everything, or do you want to move 13" and claim a cover save?

Sorry, Charlie, time for the big boy pants. Can't have everything, its called life...

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So again, its a matter of choice. Do you want to move 13" at cruising speed and fire everything, or do you want to move 13" and claim a cover save?

Sorry, Charlie, time for the big boy pants. Can't have everything, its called life...

Maybe you enhance your insults with any rules at all?

Unless you quote single rule preventing a red vehicle from counting as moving 1" less just for the purpose of not suffering penalties, "Charlie" going to get both.

Nobody being able to add anything but "it feels wrong", "because I say so" or misquoting rules, since page one is a clear indication that there is no support for your opinion.

The problem with the RPJ argument is hinging on, is the movement is enough to be counted as flat out?

Page 70 BRB wrote:Fast vehicles are capable of a third level of 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 where noted otherwise). For example, a fast vehicle moving flat out on a road may move up to 24".

This tells us that if you are going 13" you are flat out, but that's not quite true. There is a second part that people don't seem to be noticing (Or are intentionally ignoring) that if you move flat out, you cannot shoot. Now we move on to the second quote I'll toss up.

Page 71 BRB wrote:Skimmers moving at high speed are very difficult to hit. A skimmer that is not immobilised and has moved flat out in its last Movement phase counts as obscured (cover save of 4+) when fired at.

So if we move flat out in the last movement phase the vehicle gets obscured. Wait a minute, the ork bomma may have moved 13", but it still shot. As you have not met the prerequisite of not shooting, you have not met the requirements for having moved flat out (Which specifically states no firing to gain flat out) which in the end means that the RPJ bomma has not gained obscured. If you shot, you did not "move at top speed, without firing its guns" which means you do not count as having moved flat out, and you cannot claim the cover save


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A few more blurbs to toss up as food for thought.

BRB page 70 wrote:Fast vehicles that move at cruising speed may fire a single weapon (plus all defensive weapons, just like other types of vehicle moving at combat speed).

Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons.

If the fast vehicle wants to move flat out it may fire no weapons. Did the RPJ equipped plane fire? Yes, then you didn't follow the rules and did not attain the flat out.

Jidmah wrote:

Robbietobbie wrote:I dont quite get the discussion and now that I think about it I'd say the INAT ruling is off. According to the RPJ rule a vehicle that has moved 13 inches counts as having moved 12 instead.

The example says that the vehicle can count as moving 12", not that it counts as moving 12" for all purposes. Which is the wording in many, many other rules using counts-as.

It CAN count as having moved 12" when it has moved 13". It's one or the other. Either you stick to the 13" and the bonus of getting a cover save (but not being allowed to fire any weapons) or you count it as having moved 12" which allows you to shoot but denies the cover save because you no longer count as having moved more than 12". Nowhere does it say that the RPJ only affects the distance the model is considered to have moved for the shooting phase only.

Jidmah wrote:

Robbietobbie wrote:It CAN count as having moved 12" when it has moved 13". It's one or the other. Either you stick to the 13" and the bonus of getting a cover save (but not being allowed to fire any weapons) or you count it as having moved 12" which allows you to shoot but denies the cover save because you no longer count as having moved more than 12". Nowhere does it say that the RPJ only affects the distance the model is considered to have moved for the shooting phase only.

Do you have any rules to back up your claim?

RPJ does not give permission to count as moving 12" for anything but penalties. Not being able to shoot is a penalty, thus you can count as moving 12" for the purpose of ignoring that penalty. Getting a cover save is not a penalty. If you try to count as moving 12" for not getting a cover save, your breaking the rules. You do not have permission to count as moving 12" for a benefit.

If you pick either cruising speed or flat-out for all purposes you are violating the rules. You are not allowed to do so.

You never shoot and take saves at the same time, so you would never count as going flat out an cruising speed at the same time anyways.

Not being able to shoot might be a penalty but not getting a cover save because you moved flat out isn't. It's simply not getting a bonus because you did not fulfill the requirements to get it..
shooting: you CAN shoot UNLESS you move too fast
moving: you DON'T get a cover save UNLESS you move fast enough...
See the difference? It's the way the mechanic works

and you would count as going flat out and cruising speed at the same time since your movement affects last a game turn, not a player turn

How is this still going on. Four pages debating whether a rule is ambiguous or not kind of screams that it is. There wouldn't be four pages of contention if it was clear.

It's only because some people don't understand that a example isn't a rule.

Or because some people don't understand that not getting a bonus isn't a penalty. But this probably isn't going anywhere so I give up

Jidmah wrote:
RPJ does not give permission to count as moving 12" for anything but penalties. Not being able to shoot is a penalty, thus you can count as moving 12" for the purpose of ignoring that penalty. Getting a cover save is not a penalty. If you try to count as moving 12" for not getting a cover save, your breaking the rules. You do not have permission to count as moving 12" for a benefit.

If you pick either cruising speed or flat-out for all purposes you are violating the rules. You are not allowed to do so.

You never shoot and take saves at the same time, so you would never count as going flat out an cruising speed at the same time anyways.

@Lone Dragon
RPJ explicitly ignores the limitations for moving that extra inch. If that extra inch makes you reach flat-out speed you ignore any penalties that come with it. "may fire no weapons" is a penalty.

In addition, flat-out doesn't require you to fire no weapons, it represents that. You aren't required to move at top speed (i.e. you full maximum movement distance) either.

Please site on what page in the rule book that not being able to shoot is defined as a penalty. Until a "penalty" is defined in the rule book, we cant just ignore rules cause we feel they are penalties.

If I go 13" and hit difficult terrain with that last inch, does that mean I don’t need to roll a difficult terrain check since I ignore penalties ?

BRB says if you move flat out you may not shoot. Pretty clear rule.

Jidmah wrote:@Lone Dragon
RPJ explicitly ignores the limitations for moving that extra inch. If that extra inch makes you reach flat-out speed you ignore any penalties that come with it. "may fire no weapons" is a penalty.

In addition, flat-out doesn't require you to fire no weapons, it represents that. You aren't required to move at top speed (i.e. you full maximum movement distance) either.

And here's the other point of contention. Show me a scrap of proof that not firing the weapons is a "penalty." The problem with that argument is that the RPJ is trying to take an overly broad veiw of what is and isn't a penalty. Nothing requires you to move the top speed, but the rule I posted (Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons. if you missed it) prevents a vehicle that fired from claiming a flat out cover save. Firing weapons doesn't seem like a penalty of moving flat out, it seems like a prerequisite to it. Did you move over 12" inches? In the case of the planes, yes. Did you fire? Here's the kicker, if you answer yes, you prevent yourself from gaining the flat out obscured bonus because moving flat out prevents you from firing.

The other thing your side of the argument is missing is, you trying to say the vehicle can be in two movement speeds at once. The other part is this, take a look at the aerial assault rule- If this model moved at cruising speed, it can fire all its weapons. The book itself tells us that flat out is a third level of speed, which is defined by moving over the distance of cruising speed and that it is a separate level of speed. What that means is that you have to be moving flat out to get the cover save (Skimmer rules say you have to move flat out, which flat out says no shooting), because if you moved flat out (Just by moving 13" you claim flat out is you're argument), you broke the rules. Which rule? Aerial assault, since (if you try to claim the obscured save, which you only get with flat out movement) you did not move cruising speed aerial assault itself does not kick in. It's a choice, you can move 13" and count as moving 12 then shoot without a cover save, or you can move 13" and chose the flat out set.

A penalty is a consequence or disadvantage attached to any action, condition, etc.
Can you really type that because it's not in the BRB as something that the english definition is wrong?

By that reasoning I think that the "emperor" means pie because it's not stated otherwise in the BRB.
Use your common sense, they meant it by the definition in the english dictonary.

KrimsunBaron wrote:A penalty is a consequence or disadvantage attached to any action, condition, etc.
Can you really type that because it's not in the BRB as something that the english definition is wrong?

By that reasoning I think that the "emperor" means pie because it's not stated otherwise in the BRB.
Use your common sense, they meant it by the definition in the english dictonary.

Actually penalty is quite well defined in several portions of the BRB, to list a few; page 36 under assault grenades, and the last paragraph of assaulting through cover, page 39 under check morale, page 42 under Two different special weapons (there are more, this is just to get the point across). Notice they specifically come out and say penalty? That means you can see it is quite well defined what is a penalty and what is not. The not firing when moving flat out is not defined as a penalty in the terms of the rules, because it does not tell us it's a penalty.

By you saying to use the English definition there are a whole slew of problems that will arise. To give an example, Is a chainsword a power weapon? By the rules no, by English dictionary definition yes. The way you come to this conclusion is by first deriving that chainsword is a portmanteau of chainsaw and sword. A chain saw is a self powered item, which means a chainsword is a self powered sword, so if I have a powered sword I must have a power sword. If we look at the rules a chainsword is just a normal close combat weapon, not a power weapon as by the book power weapons have a "disruptive energy field" which the chainsword does not have. You can see we can't use the "English definition" of words in the game, as it can lead to so many mistakes.

Lone Dragoon wrote:
Actually penalty is quite well defined in several portions of the BRB, to list a few; page 36 under assault grenades, and the last paragraph of assaulting through cover, page 39 under check morale, page 42 under Two different special weapons (there are more, this is just to get the point across). Notice they specifically come out and say penalty? That means you can see it is quite well defined what is a penalty and what is not. The not firing when moving flat out is not defined as a penalty in the terms of the rules, because it does not tell us it's a penalty.

By you saying to use the English definition there are a whole slew of problems that will arise. To give an example, Is a chainsword a power weapon? By the rules no, by English dictionary definition yes. The way you come to this conclusion is by first deriving that chainsword is a portmanteau of chainsaw and sword. A chain saw is a self powered item, which means a chainsword is a self powered sword, so if I have a powered sword I must have a power sword. If we look at the rules a chainsword is just a normal close combat weapon, not a power weapon as by the book power weapons have a "disruptive energy field" which the chainsword does not have. You can see we can't use the "English definition" of words in the game, as it can lead to so many mistakes.

Thank you,
I am at work so I dont have my rulebook handy to qoute the pages as you did.

Just out of curiosity, If I move my jet (whichever one we are arguing about) with RPJ, 13" and end the move in difficult terrain, and fail the test, what happens?

So, essentially what you're arguing LD, is that RPJ does nothing? None of the word "penalty" I could find we're associated with vehicles.
Since RPJ is only an option for vehicles, you're saying it does nothing. If there's two ways of looking at a rule, and one way makes the rule do nothing, that way of interpretation is inherently flawed and should not be considered.

rigeld2 wrote:So, essentially what you're arguing LD, is that RPJ does nothing? None of the word "penalty" I could find we're associated with vehicles.
Since RPJ is only an option for vehicles, you're saying it does nothing. If there's two ways of looking at a rule, and one way makes the rule do nothing, that way of interpretation is inherently flawed and should not be considered.

No, I believe you have your choice. Move 13" and shoot, but you don't get the obscured save as you didn't move flat out. Or move 13" and claim the cover save since you didn't shoot and are eligible for flat out. On a vehicle such as a Trukk, you can move 13" and disembark as if you were moving cruising speed. It has NEVER been played that trukks moving 13" count as moving flat out unless the person makes that announcement, as the flat out prevents disembarking. I don't see how the sudden addition of a new vehicle would change that.

As for the penalty, that was to show that they do clearly spell out if something is considered a penalty or if it is not. The word penalty does not appear at all on pages 70 or 71 when they are referencing flat out movement.

Happyjew wrote:Just out of curiosity, If I move my jet (whichever one we are arguing about) with RPJ, 13" and end the move in difficult terrain, and fail the test, what happens?

That depends on if you were making the choice to move flat out or at combat speed to allow you to shoot. If you were going flat out, it's immobilized and destroyed. If you chose cruising speed it is simply immobilized at the end of its movement.

Lone Dragoon wrote:It has NEVER been played that trukks moving 13" count as moving flat out unless the person makes that announcement, as the flat out prevents disembarking. I don't see how the sudden addition of a new vehicle would change that.

Because trucks don't gain anything by going flat out, so it was an irrelevant argument.

And where's your support for a choice? There's no penalty involved with going flat out, so what does RPJ actually allow you to ignore?

As for the penalty, that was to show that they do clearly spell out if something is considered a penalty or if it is not. The word penalty does not appear at all on pages 70 or 71 when they are referencing flat out movement.

That's pretty much exactly my point, yes. Thanks for confirming I didn't miss anything.

Happyjew wrote:Just out of curiosity, If I move my jet (whichever one we are arguing about) with RPJ, 13" and end the move in difficult terrain, and fail the test, what happens?

That depends on if you were making the choice to move flat out or at combat speed to allow you to shoot. If you were going flat out, it's immobilized and destroyed. If you chose cruising speed it is simply immobilized at the end of its movement.

What rules support do you have for making the choice? When is it made? Where's your support for Flat Out having to be stated during movement?

You're making far more assumptions than your opponents IMO.

rigeld2 wrote:

Lone Dragoon wrote:It has NEVER been played that trukks moving 13" count as moving flat out unless the person makes that announcement, as the flat out prevents disembarking. I don't see how the sudden addition of a new vehicle would change that.

Because trucks don't gain anything by going flat out, so it was an irrelevant argument.

And where's your support for a choice? There's no penalty involved with going flat out, so what does RPJ actually allow you to ignore?

No, trukks do not gain anything for having moved flat out, however the ork players never looked a gift horse in the mouth. For all those years that someone moved 13" with a trukk, and disembarked we had no problem believing it was cruising speed. Now however you want to claim you can be both cruising speed and flat out? Show some proof that you can be flat out (Which is a very specific definition, as if you move flat out you may not shoot) and cruising speed at the same time.

rigeld2 wrote:That's pretty much exactly my point, yes. Thanks for confirming I didn't miss anything.

You didn't miss anything, but the fact that there is no penalty mentioned on pages 70 and 71 hurts your argument for RPJ. Why? RPJ allows you to ignore a penalty, but as there is no specific mention that being unable to shoot is a penalty, you are not able to ignore that clause of flat out. I've pointed out that they specifically tell you if something is a penalty, and if you move flat out you may not shoot is not a penalty since they don't tell us it is.

rigeld2 wrote:What rules support do you have for making the choice? When is it made? Where's your support for Flat Out having to be stated during movement?

What rule allows you to claim flat out while shooting? RPJ doesn't, it allows you to ignore penalties associated with moving that distance. Is being unable to shoot a penalty? I've showed it's not a penalty, so that it cannot be ignored. As for answering your questions I'll answer with a situation and with another question. You plan on moving a fast skimmer 24" out of a piece of terrain, the vehicle has not yet moved, but the immobilized result of a dangerous terrain test causes the vehicle to be wrecked and the passengers to be unable to disembark. Why does this happen? The vehicle has not moved, but intends to move flat out and is forced to take the dangerous test, and all passengers are killed because you planned to move flat out. In reality you moved 0" but because you announced or intended to move flat out, you had to suffer the consequences. This is the same situation, if you announce that you are moving flat out you suffer the consequences, being unable to shoot.

So RPJ does nothing? Since here are no penalties associated with movement...
There's no choice - if you move 13" you're moving flat out. RPJ doesn't give you that choice
The only thing RPJ would do, ever, is add 1 to your max move.
Using your interpretation that is.

As far as the immobilized/wreck - is that in an FAQ? I can check later but I'm not 100% sure that's right. I could be wrong though.

Happyjew wrote:Just out of curiosity, If I move my jet (whichever one we are arguing about) with RPJ, 13" and end the move in difficult terrain, and fail the test, what happens?

With any flyer (or skimmer) you can choose to hover over the terrain. Doing so means you can never claim a cover save from the cover. So if I was a flyer I would never enter land in terrain.

Skimmers that start or end their move in difficult terrain count it as dangerous terrain.

rigeld2 wrote:So RPJ does nothing? Since here are no penalties associated with movement...
There's no choice - if you move 13" you're moving flat out. RPJ doesn't give you that choice
The only thing RPJ would do, ever, is add 1 to your max move.
Using your interpretation that is.

As far as the immobilized/wreck - is that in an FAQ? I can check later but I'm not 100% sure that's right. I could be wrong though.

Red paint job allows you to move 7" and treat it as combat speed, 13" and count it as cruising speed, but if you choose to fire at that cruising speed you do not gain the cover save since you did not follow the rules to gain flat out. As far as the immobilized/wreck part here's the relevant FAQ.

Q: If a skimmer is immobilised in its own Movement phase whilst moving flat out is it still destroyed? (p71)
A: Yes

Since it says while moving flat out, which starting in terrain triggers it, that leans heavily (though not entirely conclusively) towards announcing movement speed. Otherwise if a player had intended to move flat out, measured to move flat out, then rolled the dangerous terrain test, they could argue since they hadn't moved that the flat out hadn't happened. However it is destroyed in the process of moving flat out, and still counts as destroyed. Like I said, it's not by any means conclusive, but to me it does indicate the player says something about their movement speed since a skimmer ignores difficult terrain it doesn't begin or end in, how else could it be immobilized "whilst moving flat out?"

Happyjew wrote:Skimmers that start or end their move in difficult terrain count it as dangerous terrain.

Oddly enough I can't find where they can hover any more. I might be thinking of 4th. You are correct.

I know some flyers can hover, but that is Apocalypse.

Iguess the statement on page 70 of the BRB is too vague. The one that says a fast vehicle moving flat out may not fire any weapons?

Remember, if it seems like cheese, it probably is. Choose offense or defense.

So, that would be the penalty that RPJ ignores then.

Oddly enough thats the point f the rule. Lets them move 7" and still shoot out, but are hit on 6s. Why this is a revelation to some after 4 years of 5th ed is a bit of a shock...

But red paint job wouldn't have any effect on moving flat out, as the penalty is part of the movement type, not as a result of the extra inch. The main misinterpretation is that a dakkajet, etc. can be cruising at flat out speed. It may not. It has to be one or the other.

No, that is your misconception not based in the rules

It ignores the extra inch *for any penalties* associated with the extra inch

Not being able to fire - is a penalty
Getting a 4+ cover save - is not a penalty

Nos, you missed the point again...

RPJ states that the extra inch of movement does not incur a penalty, therefore extending the cruising speed limit by one inch. So you can cruise and fire up to 13". The penalty for moving flat out is not triggered by the RPJ, therefore preventing any weapons fire. There is no grey zone of a flat out cruising speed at ~13", it is one or the other.

Again, its alk about which choice you choose to make. Nothing can claim a flat out cover save and fire its weapons. Be a big boy and choose a role.

No, you keep missing the point. Entirely

You HAVE moved 13", and have therefore moved flat out. Straight from basic rules there

Then RPJ kicks in and says you ignore any PENALTIES from moving this extra inch - so as far as PENALTIES go you have moved 12", meaning you can fire

As far as "nothign" I guess you havent met SR then? Oh, and "be a big boy" and reread the rules, and note where you keep on going wrong. You have this misconception about how RPJ works, and keep repeating it as if it were real.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, you keep missing the point. Entirely

You HAVE moved 13", and have therefore moved flat out. Straight from basic rules there

Then RPJ kicks in and says you ignore any PENALTIES from moving this extra inch - so as far as PENALTIES go you have moved 12", meaning you can fire

As far as "nothign" I guess you havent met SR then? Oh, and "be a big boy" and reread the rules, and note where you keep on going wrong. You have this misconception about how RPJ works, and keep repeating it as if it were real.

Point out where in the book that it considers the, "may not fire weapons" clause is a penalty and you might have a point. I pointed out numerous places in the book that specifically says something is a penalty, and I can go on to list several others. If you can prove that the may not fire is a penalty, people on this side of the argument would concede the point. The problem is the book is specific about what is and is not a penalty, and there is nothing to indicate the may not fire clause is a penalty.

The way I still see it is you can only move flat out if you didn't fire any guns. Might be a moot point though soon with 6th so let's hope we'll get our answer soon

Lone Dragoon wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, you keep missing the point. Entirely

You HAVE moved 13", and have therefore moved flat out. Straight from basic rules there

Then RPJ kicks in and says you ignore any PENALTIES from moving this extra inch - so as far as PENALTIES go you have moved 12", meaning you can fire

As far as "nothign" I guess you havent met SR then? Oh, and "be a big boy" and reread the rules, and note where you keep on going wrong. You have this misconception about how RPJ works, and keep repeating it as if it were real.

Point out where in the book that it considers the, "may not fire weapons" clause is a penalty and you might have a point. I pointed out numerous places in the book that specifically says something is a penalty, and I can go on to list several others. If you can prove that the may not fire is a penalty, people on this side of the argument would concede the point. The problem is the book is specific about what is and is not a penalty, and there is nothing to indicate the may not fire clause is a penalty.

Again, English. Not difficult.

Is something of detriment to you? Then it is a penalty. Difficult terrain tests causing your I to drop to 1 in asault is a penalty. Not being able to fire is a penalty

If you disagree, find me a definition in the rulebook for "the". If you cannot do so, your argument is moot

Lone Dragoon wrote:Point out where in the book that it considers the, "may not fire weapons" clause is a penalty and you might have a point. I pointed out numerous places in the book that specifically says something is a penalty, and I can go on to list several others. If you can prove that the may not fire is a penalty, people on this side of the argument would concede the point. The problem is the book is specific about what is and is not a penalty, and there is nothing to indicate the may not fire clause is a penalty.

So, to answer your question with a question:

Point out where in the book the term "ork" is defined. You won't find it, thus all the rules referring to "orks" must be broken, right?

WH40k is not a well-defined rules set(as per the definition of well-defined), so the stating that a list of anything labeled a penalty is a complete list of penalties is wrong. Just like you still know what an ork or a tyranid is without it being defined for every single unit.

A penalty is a negative effect that one suffers resulting out of it's own actions. Pick any random dictionary and find penalty. Not being able to shoot for moving too fast will fit all those definitions.
If you disagree, please tell us what "Not being able to shoot because of moving too fast" is, if not a penalty. Something, that's not a washed-down definition for penalties.

This is exactly the same argument as people claiming that "injuries" aren't wounds, thus breaking the FNP rule. WH40k requires you to take the common meaning of non-defined words to work at all. And defined means an explanation of what the word means, not some random appearances in differing contexts. Because not one of the rules you referred to actual tell you what a penalty is.

His point is that penalty is used often in the rules, and is therefore defined in the rules - using the english definition for a 40k defined word is a nono.

Even if it's a penalty the rulebook says a vehicle moving flat-out may not fire any weapons. So be definition if you fire a weapon you can't be moving flat-out

Robbietobbie wrote:Even if it's a penalty the rulebook says a vehicle moving flat-out may not fire any weapons. So be definition if you fire a weapon you can't be moving flat-out

Not true.

A vehicle moving Cruising Speed cannot fire any weapons. By your assertion, any vehicle firing a weapon cannot be moving Cruising Speed.
So a Land Raider that uses Power of the Machine Spirit to fire a weapon isn't moving Cruising Speed when it moves 12"?

Robbietobbie wrote:Even if it's a penalty the rulebook says a vehicle moving flat-out may not fire any weapons. So be definition if you fire a weapon you can't be moving flat-out

Specific > General, also you just because A -> B doesnt mean B -> A, thats another logical fallacy you're spouting there

Rigeld - again, PENALTY is *not* a defined term. It is *used* in a number of sections, that does not mean it is a *defined* term. You are claiming it is exclusively defined, when it is not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rigeld - again, PENALTY is *not* a defined term. It is *used* in a number of sections, that does not mean it is a *defined* term. You are claiming it is exclusively defined, when it is not.

Actually, I'm not. I'm explaining what he's claiming.

My point is that if you move 13" the 'penalty' would be moving flat out and therefor being unable to shoot. RPJ kicks in and suddenly you lose that penalty as you're not considered to go flat-out anymore. That means no cover save though..

and POTMS specifically says you may, not ambiguous at all. RPJ is in the case of these flyers.

Do you really think it was intended to work this way?

How is "flat out" a penalty?

It isnt - "flat out" is a state which is neutral

Being unable to shoot - that is the penalty. Gaining a 4+ cover save is a bonus. Either way you are still moving flat out, as you have moved over 12"

As for do I think it was intended to work this way? Yes. Otherwise RPJ is fairly pointless on them. Not that that actually matters one. single. jot. in this forum

Quick question, do we really need two threads discussing the same topic, especially on the first page?

Robbietobbie wrote:My point is that if you move 13" the 'penalty' would be moving flat out and therefor being unable to shoot. RPJ kicks in and suddenly you lose that penalty as you're not considered to go flat-out anymore. That means no cover save though..

No, there's nothing saying you're not considered to be going flat out anymore. You're just not considered to be moving 13" when it comes to penalties. Moving Flat Out is not a penalty - there's no specific downside that is "moving flat out". Not shooting is a penalty.

and POTMS specifically says you may, not ambiguous at all. RPJ is in the case of these flyers.

RPL isn't ambiguous either - and it does the same thing. It allows a gun to fire when moving cruising or flat out.
Do Stormravens lose the cover save when they fire after going flat out?

Do you really think it was intended to work this way?

Intent is irrelevant, but yes I do.

last sentence of RPJ: 'for example, a vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12".. So if the ork player would get a penalty from moving that one inch extra, it is considered not to have moved that extra inch. So it no longer fulfills the requirements for getting a cover save since it does not say that it counts as moving 12" for shooting only. It counts as having moved 12" in general.

Seems clear enough to me but everyone is entitled tot their own opinions so this will be my last post in this topic.

Well, here's my view on things

RPJ Entry: For example, a vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12"

A vehicle counting as moving 12" = at Crusing Speed, which means no Cover Save.

That's my take.

Edit: Well, seems like the person above me has said the same thing, that's what you get for Quick Posting on Page 1 I suppose. Still, good to know I'm not the only one

Robbietobbie wrote:last sentence of RPJ: 'for example, a vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12".. So if the ork player would get a penalty from moving that one inch extra, it is considered not to have moved that extra inch. So it no longer fulfills the requirements for getting a cover save since it does not say that it counts as moving 12" for shooting only. It counts as having moved 12" in general.

Seems clear enough to me but everyone is entitled tot their own opinions so this will be my last post in this topic.

So, in other words the same debunked argument, for the 20th time?

the rule is explicit on what you do: ignore penalties. Not bonuses, not everything. Penalties. Thats it. Find an actual argument against the RULE for a change please

So it's debunked because you see it otherwise? Being able to ignore a penalty doesn't mean you can't lose a bonus you would otherwise get


dang, I said i wouldn't post anymore

Robbietobbie wrote:So it's debunked because you see it otherwise? Being able to ignore a penalty doesn't mean you can't lose a bonus you would otherwise get

Actually, it does. You're given permission/instruction to ignore the penalty, not to ignore the bonus.

Robbietobbie wrote:So it's debunked because you see it otherwise?

It's debunked because, unlike yourself, we've shown how the rule works and not ignored it in favour of the example

Robbietobbie wrote:Being able to ignore a penalty doesn't mean you can't lose a bonus you would otherwise get

It does when the rule tells you to ignore the penalties, and doesnt also say you ignore the bonuses. You are told to ignore the penalties. Please find a part where it tells you to ignore the bonuses. If you can, please post it here - because its not in the actual written rule

Neither is the 'fact' that it counts as moving 12 inches for shooting purposes only

Actually, the point I'm trying to make is this. Not everything detrimental in the game is a penalty. The word penalty is only used in very specific places, it's not given out willy-nilly for every little detrimental effect. The point I'm trying to make can be explained through this example, Every vehicle in the game may tank shock. Which is not true, because even though the dictionary definition of a tank can be taken to (an armored, self-propelled combat vehicle, typically armed with cannon) include every vehicle in the game, it only applies to a specific subset of vehicles, tanks. The same is true for penalties, you're all saying, this is a detrimental effect to me, so it must be a penalty. Not true, what is a penalty is spelled out in the book, they tell us whether it is a penalty. If it is not classified as a penalty, you cannot use something that says it ignores penalties to bypass it. You guys on that side of the argument are assuming every effect that has a negative impact on you is a penalty, when the word penalty in the rule book is only used to define certain situations.

Again - apples and oranges. Tank is a defined type. Penalty is NOT a defined type. It is not used for uniquely defined items - if you disagree, prove it. "Penalty" is not a defined term, it is simply used loosely throughout the rulebook. Again, find a definition for "ork" and you may start to have an argument - until you do, you dont have anything.

Robbie - so, found anything about penalties and bonuses yet? Waiting here.

At that I will seriously stop participating in this discussion. Your arguments are one way of reading the RPJ rule and mine another. Since you seem to be quite full of yourself it's no point arguing over it and I'll just walk away from this one. Don't want to get involved in an internet flame war which seems to be where you're taking this. I'll deal with it whenever the situation comes up.

No, your way of reading the rule ignores the word "penalties" entirely.

When youre ignoring a word in a rule that is a big indication youre unlikely to be on safe ground

nosferatu1001 wrote:Again - apples and oranges. Tank is a defined type. Penalty is NOT a defined type. It is not used for uniquely defined items - if you disagree, prove it. "Penalty" is not a defined term, it is simply used loosely throughout the rulebook. Again, find a definition for "ork" and you may start to have an argument - until you do, you dont have anything.

You say penalty is not a defined term, but you are forcing a definition on it that the rules don't agree with. You are saying that if it's a negative, it's a penalty. The book itself tells us what is considered a penalty and what is not. I'm not forcing a definition on to penalty, I'm simply saying the book does not consider it a penalty because it does not expressly call it a penalty, which it does do for other situations so there is precedent of what is a penalty and what is not, without needing to enforce a definition. The part that I actually find kind of funny is that you tell me to find a definition for ork, after I have given an example where definitions in this game don't matter. Definitions don't matter, it is what the book calls something that matters. There are clearly places where the term penalty is used in the book, and I consider that word a very specific set of circumstances.

I'll show you what I mean, take page 36 the last paragraph of assaulting through cover, If all of the enemy units assaulted were already locked in combat from a previous turn or had gone to ground, this penalty does not apply as the enemy warriors are not set to receive the charge, and the unit assaulting though cover fights at its normal Initiative. Notice how it specifically spells out that initiative being lowered to one is a penalty? Now I'll go to page 42 for an example under power weapons, Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armour saves. Do you notice the difference between the two? Not allowing an armor save is not considered a penalty, even though it is a negative effect. The reduction of the initiative value of a model for assaulting through cover is a penalty, because the book specifically tells us it is a penalty. That's the point I'm trying to make, that side of the argument is trying to take such a broad stance on what is and isn't a penalty. Something is only a penalty, if the book says it is a penalty.

Am just curious to why you all stopped at moving 13" and firing everything because CLEARLY you should be able to move 37" and still fire everything because not being able to fire is considered a PENALTY and the Magic Red paint removes all penalties?

General_Chaos wrote:Am just curious to why you all stopped at moving 13" and firing everything because CLEARLY you should be able to move 37" and still fire everything because not being able to fire is considered a PENALTY and the Magic Red paint removes all penalties?

No. Please don't exaggerate the argument into absurdity.

RPJ only absolves you of penalties on one inch. We really can read.

rigeld2 wrote: Please don't exaggerate the argument into absurdity.

I believe the absurdity started on page one, counts as = counts as, no cover save cause you count as moving 12"

General_Chaos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: Please don't exaggerate the argument into absurdity.

I believe the absurdity started on page one, counts as = counts as, no cover save cause you count as moving 12"

So a vehicle that moves 7" is hit on a 4-6 or a 6?

rigeld2 wrote:So a vehicle that moves 7" is hit on a 4-6 or a 6?

This has be argued to death and getting out of this topic do to the lunacy. But, My Red paint lets me move one extra inch and but I count as moving one less for myself and for everyone at the table.

Lone Dragoon - so your contention is that Penalty is a defined, specific term then? Prove it

So far you have simply proven that GW have NOT made it a defined term, and in fact have used it colloquially in perfect keeping with English usage

You dont get to pretend an exclusive definition exists, while proving the exact opposite.

General_Chaos - still no rules argument? Just logical fallacies, like strawman arguments? RPJ only negates 1" of penalty, so moving 37" still means you cant fire. We can read the rule, apparently you're struggling with the concept of removing penalties only.
You can houserule this whatever way you like, just realise you are doing so.

I thought that If you move the 13" with RPJ you are not going flat out anyway, you only moved 12, cruising speed, and an extra one. so you can fire all weapons but as you are not going flat out, you dont get a cover save, thats how I read it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Lone Dragoon - so your contention is that Penalty is a defined, specific term then? Prove it

So far you have simply proven that GW have NOT made it a defined term, and in fact have used it colloquially in perfect keeping with English usage

You dont get to pretend an exclusive definition exists, while proving the exact opposite.

In the game as I said, there is no true definition of penalty. However there is a set of circumstances that are called penalties in the game, and the book tells us if something is a penalty or not. We have a turn, which we are told to take as player turn. Now that turn is further broken down into 3 phases; movement, shooting, and assault. What I'm saying is that we have negative effects from rules that are further broken down into subgroups like penalties, modifiers, etc. I realize this is not actually in the book, but the rules saying whether or not something is a penalty or a modifier backs up this statement. I'm saying that the book is very specific in what it calls a penalty, and not everything negative is a penalty. If you can prove that everything negative is a penalty your side would hold water, but because they have numerous names for different negative effects, and there is no name associated with the negative effect of moving flat out hence we cannot simply slap the word penalty on there. Suddenly we're just changing the rules at that point to suit our current wants/needs, not playing how the rule is supposed to be played. We play by the rules, not suddenly slap new terms or definitions in there to suit us as we need it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:General_Chaos - still no rules argument?

Read the example Nos it reads "A vehicle can move 13" but it still counts as moving 12"" That says everything and you just want to ignore that so you can sit here and run you mouth till the cows come in cause for some reason you believe that if you repeat yourself over and over and get the last word in the ENTIRE internet will listen to you. Your wrong plain and simple.

OK, so you have shown what an example says. Would you care to quote a rule?

Happyjew wrote:OK, so you have shown what an example says. Would you care to quote a rule?

Why is this so hard maybe you don't understand what example means here

ex·am·ple
Noun: A thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.
Verb: Be illustrated or exemplified.
Synonyms:
instance - sample - model - exemplar - pattern - paradigm

I believe illustrating a general rule is the definition you are looking for

I read it and (have) see(n) it played as grendel083 stated.

It's either speed, not the best of both.

I understand the other's point, but 13=12 is less confusing and allows the example to be a(n), you know, example.

Maybe you missed this?

Lorek wrote:
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

I would also like to point out, when the example was written, the Ork's had no fast skimmers (let,alone skimmers, period). At the time, 13" did equal 12" for all respects, seeing as the only difference was whether or not models could embark/disembark.

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:General_Chaos - still no rules argument?

Read the example Nos it reads "A vehicle can move 13" but it still counts as moving 12"" That says everything and you just want to ignore that so you can sit here and run you mouth till the cows come in cause for some reason you believe that if you repeat yourself over and over and get the last word in the ENTIRE internet will listen to you. Your wrong plain and simple.

So, you still cannot formulate a real rules argument, jsut the same disproven example based argument?

Fine, just accept that, and move on. Your argument has been proven incorrect a number of times, because you continue to avoid the actual rule which talks about penalties and penalties only. Stop applying this rule on penalties to bonuses

Lone Dragoon - nope, the rulebook very clearly defines what is a modifier, there is even a section in the rules on it. They do NOT define what a "penalty" is, they simply use it, in EVERY circumstance, exactly how you would use Penalty in an English sentence. There is no, none, nada, zip, zilch, internal definition for Penalty which you can point to.

In cases like this, where you are making the *extraordinary* claim that Penalty has a fixed 40k-definintion, YOU must provide the ACTUAL rules that back this up. Page and paragraph showing where "Penalty" is defined as a class. If you fail to do so, again, you have conceded the argument because you are unable to prove your hypothesis H1, meaning H0 holds.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Lone Dragoon - nope, the rulebook very clearly defines what is a modifier, there is even a section in the rules on it. They do NOT define what a "penalty" is, they simply use it, in EVERY circumstance, exactly how you would use Penalty in an English sentence. There is no, none, nada, zip, zilch, internal definition for Penalty which you can point to.

In cases like this, where you are making the *extraordinary* claim that Penalty has a fixed 40k-definintion, YOU must provide the ACTUAL rules that back this up. Page and paragraph showing where "Penalty" is defined as a class. If you fail to do so, again, you have conceded the argument because you are unable to prove your hypothesis H1, meaning H0 holds.

I have shown that there are very specific times that the word penalty is used, and you've actually chosen to ignore that by holding to your argument that I'm not proving what penalty means. I don't need to. The fact that the book explicitly tells us if something is a penalty is an argument you have yet to disprove. If we use you're argument that penalty is the same as it is out of game, as an opponent of an ork player I'm going to call the obscured save a penalty. It penalizes my shooting at the vehicle. Nothing says it must only be a penalty to the ork player, hence it must be a penalty and ignored. That argument is a bunch of garbage as we both know, but by your view we open that door to this problem by throwing out the word penalty for everything.

Another example would be, I move the dakkajet 13 inches, and that one inch extra causes me to be in dangerous terrain. Am I allowed to ignore that dangerous terrain as it is a penalty incurred by the extra inch of movement? Keep in mind, if I am not allowed to ignore that terrain, you are not allowed to ignore the no shooting clause. I'm merely following your definition of a penalty, and something like this occurs.

No, you do not get to ignore the dangerous terrain, however, if failed, you would not be immediately wrecked.

The other question is this, if a vehicle moves 13" is it flat out or cruising speed? If you say flat out, you did not move at cruising speed, and the Aerial assault rule prevents you from shooting weapons as you did not move at cruising speed. The argument is that the vehicle is moving at both cruising speed and flat out, and as they are separate levels of movement you cannot be flat out and cruising. Either way the entire argument is a cyclical one. Both sides are going to hold to their interpretation of the rules until GW releases an FAQ giving us the definitive answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:No, you do not get to ignore the dangerous terrain, however, if failed, you would not be immediately wrecked.

However, by the book's definition I moved at flat out speed, so the rule for immobilized at flat out speed kicks in. I moved 13", and flat out so it has to be immobilized, as that is not a penalty incurred by the extra inch of movement, it is a penalty incurred by the moving flat out rule.

Ah, but you never specified that you were moving Flat Out; only that you were moving 13". Even then, being wrecked from getting immobilised, IS a penalty (which you would ignore for that 1" per the RULES of red paint job).

Happyjew wrote:Ah, but you never specified that you were moving Flat Out; only that you were moving 13". Even then, being wrecked from getting immobilised, IS a penalty (which you would ignore for that 1" per the RULES of red paint job).

That's one of the points I've been trying to make. The RPJ equipped dakkajet moved 13", but you said I never specified I was moving flat out, I didn't have to if 13" is flat out range. While in the broad sense one could argue that it was because of the extra inch that I moved the RPJ would kick in to take away the wrecked from immobilized, I look at the more specific sense. It is a penalty that is incurred by moving flat out, not a penalty for moving that one extra inch. RPJ allows me to ignore penalties for the extra inch of movement, but it is not allowing me to ignore penalties brought on by the class of speed I moved at. It is because I moved flat out that I become wrecked, not because of the extra inch. Yes, it's splitting hairs, but I feel it's a valid argument. Am I negating the extra inch moved or the entire flat out immobilized rule? The extra inch does not protect me from it, because I still moved flat out with the dakkajet regardless of if it was an inch over or 2 inches over.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, you still cannot formulate a real rules argument, jsut the same disproven example based argument?

You've dis-proven, the actually Ork Codex written by an actual GW employee, example of the red paint rule. That clearly states you count as moving 12". How exactly do you dis-approve part of the rule? Because you don't like it? Did you sign a petition somewhere?

Can you please not repost the exact same sentence for the 20th time?

All your arguments have refuted, disproven and rendered void. Unless you can disprove nos and my counter-arguments, repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it any more right.

Lone Dragoon wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Ah, but you never specified that you were moving Flat Out; only that you were moving 13". Even then, being wrecked from getting immobilised, IS a penalty (which you would ignore for that 1" per the RULES of red paint job).

That's one of the points I've been trying to make. The RPJ equipped dakkajet moved 13", but you said I never specified I was moving flat out, I didn't have to if 13" is flat out range. While in the broad sense one could argue that it was because of the extra inch that I moved the RPJ would kick in to take away the wrecked from immobilized, I look at the more specific sense. It is a penalty that is incurred by moving flat out, not a penalty for moving that one extra inch. RPJ allows me to ignore penalties for the extra inch of movement, but it is not allowing me to ignore penalties brought on by the class of speed I moved at. It is because I moved flat out that I become wrecked, not because of the extra inch. Yes, it's splitting hairs, but I feel it's a valid argument. Am I negating the extra inch moved or the entire flat out immobilized rule? The extra inch does not protect me from it, because I still moved flat out with the dakkajet regardless of if it was an inch over or 2 inches over.

If wouldn't have moved one extra inch, you wouldn't count as moving flat out, and thus wouldn't have been wrecked.

It is impossible for a vehicle to move 12" and be moving flat-out. So you if choose to count as 12" in order to ignore a penalty, any penalties resulting from flat-out would disapear, simply because of the game rules. On the other hand, even if you chose to count as moving 12", you would still have entered terrain, and thus would be required to take a test.

Lone Dragoon wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Lone Dragoon - nope, the rulebook very clearly defines what is a modifier, there is even a section in the rules on it. They do NOT define what a "penalty" is, they simply use it, in EVERY circumstance, exactly how you would use Penalty in an English sentence. There is no, none, nada, zip, zilch, internal definition for Penalty which you can point to.

I have shown that there are very specific times that the word penalty is used, and you've actually chosen to ignore that by holding to your argument that I'm not proving what penalty means. I don't need to.

Wrong. I've rebolded the section you dont seem to understand.

GW use the word "Penalty" *exactly* as you would in English. Absolutely exactly right at every single instance. This proves that there is no specific, 40k-centric term of "penalty" - just the usual English one.

As there is only the usual English usage then you can, indeed, use Penalty as you would normally in English

Your argument has, again, been debunked. In order for your argument to hold you must complete the below, whcih I have requoted for your benefit:

me, again wrote:
In cases like this, where you are making the *extraordinary* claim that Penalty has a fixed 40k-definintion, YOU must provide the ACTUAL rules that back this up. Page and paragraph showing where "Penalty" is defined as a class. If you fail to do so, again, you have conceded the argument because you are unable to prove your hypothesis H1, meaning H0 holds.

Lone Dragoon wrote:The fact that the book explicitly tells us if something is a penalty is an argument you have yet to disprove. If we use you're argument that penalty is the same as it is out of game, as an opponent of an ork player I'm going to call the obscured save a penalty. It penalizes my shooting at the vehicle. Nothing says it must only be a penalty to the ork player, hence it must be a penalty and ignored. That argument is a bunch of garbage as we both know, but by your view we open that door to this problem by throwing out the word penalty for everything.

Wrong. Context. Youre ignoring the context of the rule, which is in reference to the Ork players vehicle. Thus Penalty only applies to the Ork player. Try harder with your strawman arguments.

lone dragoon wrote:Another example would be, I move the dakkajet 13 inches, and that one inch extra causes me to be in dangerous terrain. Am I allowed to ignore that dangerous terrain as it is a penalty incurred by the extra inch of movement? Keep in mind, if I am not allowed to ignore that terrain, you are not allowed to ignore the no shooting clause. I'm merely following your definition of a penalty, and something like this occurs.

No, the penalty is not caused by moving the extra inch, but by your position. However if you immobilised you would not count the penalty for moving flat out of immediately crashing and being destroyed (wrecked), you would be immobilised instead

Notice the consistency all the way through here?


General_Chaos - given you seem utterly incapable of debating the actual rule, repeat yourself over and over with no sign of actual analysis of the opposing argument, and have resulted to personal insults, until you can come up with an actual argument based on the actual rules that you ignore at every turn you will be ignored.

Lol this is hilarious. When you move something flat out it must be declared, you can't move something shoot a target and then declare you moved flat out in your opponents phase. Also, if moving flat out is declared and then you crash you can't take back your call and say you were just moving like regular as that is ILLEGAL. Just like all other flyer/skimmers a flat out wreck is still a wreck if your dice fail you.

Defeatmyarmy wrote: When you move something flat out it must be declared,

Now why would you go and say something like that?

Defeatmyarmy wrote:Lol this is hilarious. When you move something flat out it must be declared, you can't move something shoot a target and then declare you moved flat out in your opponents phase. Also, if moving flat out is declared and then you crash you can't take back your call and say you were just moving like regular as that is ILLEGAL. Just like all other flyer/skimmers a flat out wreck is still a wreck if your dice fail you.

You appear to not understand the thread in hand, nor the rules. Please go back and reread.

Jidmah wrote:To few rules quote here, as usual...

Aerial Assault: If the model moved at cruising speed it can fire all of its weapons. (Dakka Jet data sheet)

Ork Vehicles with red paint jobs add +1 to their move in the Movement phase, but do not incur penalties for the extra inch." (Codex: Orks and White Dwarf - exact same wording)

A vehicle that traves more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed. (BRB pg. 57)

A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18" (BRB pg. 70)

Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons (BRB pg. 70)

A skimmer that is not immobilized and has moved flat out in its last Movement phase counts as obscured. (BRB pg. 71)

That out of the way (and hopefully all those posts spouting nonsense in direct contradiction to those rules), I think nos is right.

A dakka jet (or any other ork plane) moving 13" flat-out is nothing but a vehicle moving flat out. So you get a 4+ cover save and are hit on 6s(irrelevant). RPJ enables the plane to count as moving 12" to ignore penalties. If you count as moving 12", you also count as moving at cruising speed. If you try to ignore something that's not a penalty (like getting a 4+ cover save), you are breaking the rules.

Also note that RPJ is not optional, so you can not move 1" or less, making the whole "I'm stationary!" argument void. Feel free to drive around in circles though.

I think Jidmah has a VERY valid arguement. Also, I guess dont understand the rules, but every person I play always declares they move flat out before measuring distances and taking terrain checks.

They are free to do that, you aren't required to do so though. Movement rules never force you to declare anything but moving through difficult terrain.
Under normal circumstances, a vehicle is moving flat-out as soon as you end it's mover after moving more than 12".

Well, reviewed the BRB, and man cant believe Ive been playing it wrong. You can measure movement distance up to their max distance, and also decide if you want to move at all...I cant believe none of my opponents this entire edition did this to me as all I play are assault style armies.

Sorry about going off topic OP,this might be one of those topics that will never be faqed. If they gain 1" movement with no penalty, wouldnt that handicap them to go a minimum of 14" for going flat out as 13" would be considered their regular movement?

Defeatmyarmy wrote:Well, reviewed the BRB, and man cant believe Ive been playing it wrong. You can measure movement distance up to their max distance, and also decide if you want to move at all...I cant believe none of my opponents this entire edition did this to me as all I play are assault style armies.

Sorry about going off topic OP,this might be one of those topics that will never be faqed. If they gain 1" movement with no penalty, wouldnt that handicap them to go a minimum of 14" for going flat out as 13" would be considered their regular movement?

No.
That would be ignoring a bonus of moving 13" - and you have no permission to do this.

As above.

The RPJ rule is very, very clear that you ignore the penalties of moving that 1", nothing else.

This is the part that the "no" side keep conveniently ignoring or forgetting.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The RPJ rule is very, very clear that you ignore the penalties of moving that 1", nothing else.

This is the part that the "no" side keep conveniently ignoring or forgetting.

I agree, you ignore penalties! But the part YOU keep conveniently ignoring is the example which is part of the rule.

It's clear that you ignore penalties, but how exactly does that work??? The example clarifies this by stating "moving 13 you count as moving 12"

You right you don't have to declare moving flat out. But if you move 13" you count as moving 12" so you don't get a cover save.

So the cover save is a penalty to the controlling player? I guess I should stop moving my wave serpents flat out, if I want to avoid that penalty.

I think what he's trying to say, if you count as moving 12 you moved 12. There would be no penalty associated with moving 12, as at 12 inches are still at cruising speed and have not gone into the flat out speed.

Lone Dragoon wrote:I think what he's trying to say, if you count as moving 12 you moved 12. There would be no penalty associated with moving 12, as at 12 inches are still at cruising speed and have not gone into the flat out speed.

I've moved 13".
I do not incur penalties for that extra inch.

By moving 13" I've moved flat out.

What allowance do you have to remove the fact that I've gone flat out?

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The RPJ rule is very, very clear that you ignore the penalties of moving that 1", nothing else.

This is the part that the "no" side keep conveniently ignoring or forgetting.

I agree, you ignore penalties! But the part YOU keep conveniently ignoring is the example which is part of the rule.

It's clear that you ignore penalties, but how exactly does that work??? The example clarifies this by stating "moving 13 you count as moving 12"

You right you don't have to declare moving flat out. But if you move 13" you count as moving 12" so you don't get a cover save.

Lone Dragoon wrote:I think what he's trying to say, if you count as moving 12 you moved 12. There would be no penalty associated with moving 12, as at 12 inches are still at cruising speed and have not gone into the flat out speed.

RPJ Works for me. It Benifits me. not you. i count as moving 12", you count me as moving 13" as per the brb Faq. helps me hinders you, this is where you smile nod and move on

rigeld2 wrote:

Lone Dragoon wrote:I think what he's trying to say, if you count as moving 12 you moved 12. There would be no penalty associated with moving 12, as at 12 inches are still at cruising speed and have not gone into the flat out speed.

I've moved 13".
I do not incur penalties for that extra inch.

By moving 13" I've moved flat out.

What allowance do you have to remove the fact that I've gone flat out?

General_Chaos is trying to say that in the example they specifically say: A vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12". He's trying to say that when something counts as, that's what it is. So if you move 13" and count as moving 12", you only moved 12" for all intents and purposes. I'm not him, so I can only guess what he's thinking, you move 13" in actuality, but for game terms you only moved 12", and 12" is still cruising speed. What he's wondering (Again by reading his posts, and making educated guesses) what happens to that counts as only moving 12"? In other words how do you get around the counts as portion, because we've all be trained that if you do one thing that counts as another, we are doing what we count as doing. Example, Vulkan Hestan's gauntlet counts as firing a heavy flamer, are we really firing a heavy flamer?

Lone Dragoon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Lone Dragoon wrote:I think what he's trying to say, if you count as moving 12 you moved 12. There would be no penalty associated with moving 12, as at 12 inches are still at cruising speed and have not gone into the flat out speed.

I've moved 13".
I do not incur penalties for that extra inch.

By moving 13" I've moved flat out.

What allowance do you have to remove the fact that I've gone flat out?

General_Chaos is trying to say that in the example they specifically say: A vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12". He's trying to say that when something counts as, that's what it is. So if you move 13" and count as moving 12", you only moved 12" for all intents and purposes. I'm not him, so I can only guess what he's thinking, you move 13" in actuality, but for game terms you only moved 12", and 12" is still cruising speed. What he's wondering (Again by reading his posts, and making educated guesses) what happens to that counts as only moving 12"? In other words how do you get around the counts as portion, because we've all be trained that if you do one thing that counts as another, we are doing what we count as doing. Example, Vulkan Hestan's gauntlet counts as firing a heavy flamer, are we really firing a heavy flamer?

There is nothing in that rule, however, that is taking away the fact that you've moved 13".
For it to truly "count as" 12", we'd have to only move 12" - as there's a physical issue as well as a rules issue.

If you were more than 12" away, I couldn't ram you (for example) because I must count as 12".

The only way to read it without involving the physical element is that you only "count as" for penalties. It's implied (pretty heavily) but not stated - but it's the only way to have RPJ work.

Otherwise you'd literally have to pull the model back - because "counts as" is the same as "is" for all things, and you can't be counting as moving 12" while actually moving 13".

The first thing with count as however, is that you are allowed to do one thing, and count as doing another. The next thing with count as, it does not force you to do what you count as doing.

To use your example, I ram a vehicle that is 13" away. I moved 13" to do so, but only count as moving 12 for purposes of damage results, and shooting purposes. To go back to my example though, I fire the Gauntlet of the Forge from Vulkan, which tells me to fire as if it were a heavy flamer. I did not fire a heavy flamer, but I still get to claim the bonus from chapter tactics, since I count as shooting a heavy flamer.

The problem with this interpretation however is that in order to claim the flat out, you would have to actually move more than 13", if the count as portion is what has to be followed. Either way I don't agree with this line of argument against the RPJ effect, since it's only an example not the way the rule is written.

Lone Dragoon wrote:I moved 13" to do so, but only count as moving 12 for purposes of damage results, and shooting purposes.

And there is the problem with that line of thinking (which I understand you're not defending).

People are reading the example as "Cannot be any other way." If that was the case, it would have to be count as for all purposes. Which includes physical representation, the ram itself, etc.
Since that's silly it cannot be true.

Therefore, within the context of the RPJ rule, you only "count as" for penalties.

Which is also, handily, *exactly* what the rule says.

Right - I'm saying that the example agrees with the rest of the rules. Trying to take it as an absolute is impossible.

Let me get this straight

You guys want it to count as 12" for disembarking
You guys want it to count as 12" for shooting

You want it to NOT count as as 6" for your opponents assault phase
You want it to NOT count as 12" for your opponents shooting phase

The first two are definitely penalties
The last two are penalties for your opponent

My opponent is not allowed to benefit from my wargear unless otherwise specified.
Also, it's my wargear, so context says only penalties to me are considered - because penaltiies to my opponent are bonuses to me.

Just out of curiosity, (for both sides of the argument), If I move 12" and Ram a vehicle, can I claim I "count as" moving only 11" for purposes of the hit dealt to me (thus decreasing the strength of the attack by 1)?

Well that's debatable. Since ramming you have to move as fast as possible. And if it is exactly I mean exaclty 12 away you which I find highly unlikely. It would be considered a detriment to get a str 9 hit back (going to assume you ramming an armour 14 thing here other wise no point I'm the example. ) then I would say yes. But would play it as I take a str 9 back also due to not many people know the rpj rules as this and the other thread has shown.

You have to use the same value for movement in both equations. Since RPJ doesn't allow you to ignore a bonus, you can't decrease the movement value for the damage you do, which means you can't decrease the movement value for the damage you take either.

That's my read on it.

General_Chaos wrote:Let me get this straight

You guys want it to count as 12" for disembarking
You guys want it to count as 12" for shooting

You want it to NOT count as as 6" for your opponents assault phase
You want it to NOT count as 12" for your opponents shooting phase

The first two are definitely penalties
The last two are penalties for your opponent

Luckily RPJ limits its effect to penalties incurred by the upgraded vehicle. You are not given permission to ignore penalties anyone else suffers, including your opponent.

Happyjew wrote:Just out of curiosity, (for both sides of the argument), If I move 12" and Ram a vehicle, can I claim I "count as" moving only 11" for purposes of the hit dealt to me (thus decreasing the strength of the attack by 1)?

rigeld2 wrote:You have to use the same value for movement in both equations. Since RPJ doesn't allow you to ignore a bonus, you can't decrease the movement value for the damage you do, which means you can't decrease the movement value for the damage you take either.

That's my read on it.

I agree with rigeld2 on this. You only check the ram distance once, so it's both negative and positive. As explained before, something even partially positive cannot be a penalty.

I have a feeling that this decision will come down to a dice roll off every game as both sides hold a valid arguments and gw as always leaves a loophole. Bein armor 10 I'm curious how many points this vehicle costs. I refuse to buy any more white dwarfs until 6th, so will withdraw from this arguement. I still say you either get one type of movement, as Rpj is a bonus inch to movement that ignores penalties. The type of movement done is not a penalty, iirc there is nothing that says moving flat out is a penalty, just that the vehicle cannot shoot as it is moving at a speed faster than it can shoot. Maybe gw intended it to get both bonuses with Rojas paint job since the fetching thing costs so much cash, not sure the average points cost of the different vehicle types.

Ork fliers are 110-195 points, depending on variant and loadout. The rules for the fliers will most likely last into 6th, considering that at least one rule on the space marine flier makes no sense under the current rulesset (Option to count as skimmer instead of fast skimmer when stationary).

There is one thing I have to bring to this discussion and that is wait for the FAQ or wait for 6th. Probably 6th

I brought a dakkajet to the AWC tournament last Sunday. I was unaware of this thread so at the time I wasn't even aware that the rule was up for debate.

I played it as move 13" get the cover save and still get to shoot. None of my opponents had a problem with that. Before the tournament I had just checked that the BRB defined flat out as a distance and the Ork 'dex had the line about penalties in the rpj entry.

Of course one of them had a Hydra and gave zero effs about skimmer cover.

This person claims to site relevant rules, but still misses an important part:

*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 .......*

To me this makes it a prerequisite to not fire any guns to be considered flat out. So, if you shoot, you will not be flat out, and then no cover save.

Jidmah wrote:To few rules quote here, as usual...

Aerial Assault: If the model moved at cruising speed it can fire all of its weapons. (Dakka Jet data sheet)

Ork Vehicles with red paint jobs add +1 to their move in the Movement phase, but do not incur penalties for the extra inch." (Codex: Orks and White Dwarf - exact same wording)

A vehicle that traves more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed. (BRB pg. 57)

A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18" (BRB pg. 70)

Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons (BRB pg. 70)

A skimmer that is not immobilized and has moved flat out in its last Movement phase counts as obscured. (BRB pg. 71)

That out of the way (and hopefully all those posts spouting nonsense in direct contradiction to those rules), I think nos is right.

A dakka jet (or any other ork plane) moving 13" flat-out is nothing but a vehicle moving flat out. So you get a 4+ cover save and are hit on 6s(irrelevant). RPJ enables the plane to count as moving 12" to ignore penalties. If you count as moving 12", you also count as moving at cruising speed. If you try to ignore something that's not a penalty (like getting a 4+ cover save), you are breaking the rules.

Also note that RPJ is not optional, so you can not move 1" or less, making the whole "I'm stationary!" argument void. Feel free to drive around in circles though.

Rashkasha wrote:
This person claims to site relevant rules, but still misses an important part:

*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 .......*

To me this makes it a prerequisite to not fire any guns to be considered flat out. So, if you shoot, you will not be flat out, and then no cover save.

Represents is not the same as requires. What a rule represents is completely irrelevant.

I do not agree, it shows how the rule works, you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out.

Jidmah wrote:

Rashkasha wrote:
This person claims to site relevant rules, but still misses an important part:

*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 .......*

To me this makes it a prerequisite to not fire any guns to be considered flat out. So, if you shoot, you will not be flat out, and then no cover save.

Represents is not the same as requires. What a rule represents is completely irrelevant.

Incorrect, y0ou are making the same logical fallacy others have made

Also, Storm Ravens. I see you ignored them. They go flat out and fire all the time.

Your argument is null

Rashkasha wrote:I do not agree, it shows how the rule works, you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out.

I'll be sure to tell all the BA and GK players that they've been cheating. Thanks for the heads up.

Sorry but the StormRaven is a very poor counter argument (in fact I'd say not a counter argument at all).
We're specifically told that PotMS allows a weapon to be fired while Flat Out.
At no point does RPJ specifically say it also allows this. Hints at? Maybe. But specific? No.

Come on chaps, I expected better debate than this!

Bzzzt, no it had to be FAQ'd, because people didnt believe the rules.

What,. better debate than:

1) The actual rules. The ones where you ignore penalties, but not bonuses?

2) Nothing more is needed, because noone has actually managed to argue against the rules as yet

THere has been "but a penalty to my opponent should be ignored then!" "arguments", but they have been trivially removed from relevance

Nothing is left. No rules based argument has been presented, so its difficult to debate against nonsense.

grendel083 wrote:Sorry but the StormRaven is a very poor counter argument (in fact I'd say not a counter argument at all).
We're specifically told that PotMS allows a weapon to be fired while Flat Out.

That's true (sort of - PotMS doesn't mention Flat Out). However the statement

you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out

is demonstrably false.

At no point does RPJ specifically say it also allows this. Hints at? Maybe. But specific? No.

What - the ignoring penalty part doesn't tell you that?
Or is being unable to fire not a penalty?

Come on chaps, I expected better debate than this!

Pot, kettle, etc.

rigeld2 wrote:

grendel083 wrote:Sorry but the StormRaven is a very poor counter argument (in fact I'd say not a counter argument at all).
We're specifically told that PotMS allows a weapon to be fired while Flat Out.

That's true (sort of - PotMS doesn't mention Flat Out).

The rule didn't (the FAQ did), still that rule is a lot clearer than RPJ.

However the statement

you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out

is demonstrably false.

Exceptions exist, but I wouldn't say it's false. The rule still stands, just because a StormRaven can break the rule doesn't mean everything can.

At no point does RPJ specifically say it also allows this. Hints at? Maybe. But specific? No.

What - the ignoring penalty part doesn't tell you that?
Or is being unable to fire not a penalty?

Specifically? No it doesn't. Otherwise it would say something like "this allows it to shoot while moving flat out". That would be specific allowance. Does it allow it? Maybe, but it doesn't specifically say.

I'll be honest, I'm more on the side of RPJ allowing the save than not. But the StormRaven exception has no bearing. Yes exceptions exist, they exist for almost every rule, but they're not blanket permission to ignore rules.

grendel083 wrote:

However the statement

you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out

is demonstrably false.

Exceptions exist, but I wouldn't say it's false. The rule still stands, just because a StormRaven can break the rule doesn't mean everything can.

There is no rule saying that you cannot fire to claim the fat out save.
There is a rule saying that going flat out prevents fire, and that skimmers gain a cover save when going flat out.

At no point does RPJ specifically say it also allows this. Hints at? Maybe. But specific? No.

What - the ignoring penalty part doesn't tell you that?
Or is being unable to fire not a penalty?

Specifically? No it doesn't. Otherwise it would say something like "this allows it shoot while moving flat out". That would be specific allowance. Does it allow it? Maybe, but it doesn't specifically say.

It specifically says to ignore penalties associated with that extra inch.
Bring unable to fire is a specific penalty associated with going over 12" (flat out).
How much more specific do you need?

Yes exceptions exist, they exist for almost every rule, but they're not blanket permission to ignore rules.

There is no rule saying that you must not fire to claim Flat Out cover saves. Trying to create one will not win a debate.

I agree with those points (most of them anyway - its totally not specific). My point was people stating that "you can't shoot while moving Flat Out" is a false statement. It isn't false, there are exceptions (and I believe RPJ to be one) but the rule still stands.
I can't drive through a red light, an ambulance can, but that doesn't make the law false. If you're going to disprove an arguement do it properly! The StormRaven exception is irrelevant.

"you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out"

Is a logical fallacy, based on A -> B meaning that B -> A. THats the point. It has no basis in rules whatsoever

grendel083 wrote:I agree with those points (most of them anyway - its totally not specific). My point was people stating that "you can't shoot while moving Flat Out" is a false statement. It isn't false, there are exceptions (and I believe RPJ to be one) but the rule still stands.

That's not what was said.

you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out

Is what was said. And that's demonstrably false. Yes, a Storm Raven can fire while flat out. According to some, it wouldn't gain the cover save. All the FAQ says is:

BA FAQ wrote:Q: Can a Stormraven Gunship that has moved flat out
still use its Power of the Machine Spirit to fire one gun?
(p38)
A: Yes.

(GK FAQ exactly matches, just a different page number)
So the exact same argument applies.

Except there is literally nothing in the rules tying the cover save to being able to fire. They are not linked in any way. Therefore you can ignore one and still benefit from the other.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out"

Is a logical fallacy, based on A -> B meaning that B -> A. THats the point. It has no basis in rules whatsoever

That's fair enough. But a StormRaven's exception has nothing to do with it. We should be looking at the rules, as you've shown.

Sadly until 6th makes changes, they can move flat out and fire all weapons.

RPJ states it ignores any penalties, therefor it will come down to if the judge considers not being able to fire when moving full out as a "penalty"...

The TO, if they have a smattering of understanding of English, should answer "Yes, that is a penalty"

to do otherwise requires there to be a definition of Penalty used exclusively in 40k, and even Lone Dragoon has given up on that tack

nosferatu1001 wrote:"you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out"

Is a logical fallacy, based on A -> B meaning that B -> A. THats the point. It has no basis in rules whatsoever

coincidentally the same sort of logical fallacy is what the entire "flat out and shooting" argument is based upon.

Flat out vehicles move over 12 inches so any vehicle moving over 12 inches is flat out.

Drunkspleen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:"you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out"

Is a logical fallacy, based on A -> B meaning that B -> A. THats the point. It has no basis in rules whatsoever

coincidentally the same sort of logical fallacy is what the entire "flat out and shooting" argument is based upon.

Flat out vehicles move over 12 inches so any vehicle moving over 12 inches is flat out.

Um.
That's not a logical fallacy. All fast vehicles moving over 12 are by definition going flat out (excepting roads). BRB page 70.
"you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out" is a logical fallacy.

rigeld2 wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:"you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out"

Is a logical fallacy, based on A -> B meaning that B -> A. THats the point. It has no basis in rules whatsoever

coincidentally the same sort of logical fallacy is what the entire "flat out and shooting" argument is based upon.

Flat out vehicles move over 12 inches so any vehicle moving over 12 inches is flat out.

Um.
That's not a logical fallacy. All fast vehicles moving over 12 are by definition going flat out (excepting roads). BRB page 70.
"you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out" is a logical fallacy.

And here you are proving my point, you claim "All fast vehicles moving over 12 are by definition going flat out" when what the Rulebook ACTUALLY says on the matter is "A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12 [inches] and up to 18 [inches]"

That's EXACTLY the same as claiming "you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out" based on the rulebook saying "Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons."

So a Fast vehicle moving 24" is not moving flat out?

Happyjew wrote:So a Fast vehicle moving 24" is not moving flat out?

yes it is because it is going over 12 inches as the BRB says you do to go flat out (excluding roads).

doesnt this all boil down to 1 simple thing. what qualifies as a penatly and what isnt? i think everyone agrees not being able to do something is a penalty.

if i were to move 13 inches in the movement thats me gone flat out. next in the shooting phase is when that inch is subracted for the purpose of doing things, so i now count as moving 12 so can shoot. start of oppenent turn RPJ is no longer in effect since it affects my penalties so it counts as going 13 thus flat out again

now i wait to be attacked by a swarm of arguments

Don worry - there arent any argumnts to be attacked with, apart from those who favour ignoring the word "penalties" entirely, pretending it doesnt matter, or those who claim that "penalties" is strictly defined - when it isnt - and so doesnt apply to anything that RPJ could possibly effect, ever.

There havent been any actually rules based arguments in this entire thread, just a lot of people who dont think it should work.

Drunkspleen wrote:And here you are proving my point, you claim "All fast vehicles moving over 12 are by definition going flat out" when what the Rulebook ACTUALLY says on the matter is "A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12 [inches] and up to 18 [inches]"

That's EXACTLY the same as claiming "you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out" based on the rulebook saying "Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons."

No, it's not. What is flat out? Moving over 12".
It is not not firing. It is not gaining a cover save. Those are both effects of flat out.
A vehicle with a cover save is not always going flat out.
A vehicle that is forbidden to fire is not always going flat out.
A vehicle that moved over 12" - is it going flat out? The answer is always yes.

See how one is a definition and the others are only effects?

rigeld2 wrote:No, it's not. What is flat out? Moving over 12".
It is not not firing. It is not gaining a cover save. Those are both effects of flat out.
A vehicle with a cover save is not always going flat out.
A vehicle that is forbidden to fire is not always going flat out.
A vehicle that moved over 12" - is it going flat out? The answer is always yes.

See how one is a definition and the others are only effects?

They are all effects, none of them are definitions, this is made clear in the rulebook as it is written, moving 12 to 18 inches (or 24 in the case of skimmers) is a result of the vehicle moving flat out.

No. For that to be true you'd have to declare your speed before moving.

I don't declare anything. I move 15". Which speed category have I moved? According to you it wasn't flat out - to have an effect it has to happen before I move.

Drunkspleen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:No, it's not. What is flat out? Moving over 12".
It is not not firing. It is not gaining a cover save. Those are both effects of flat out.
A vehicle with a cover save is not always going flat out.
A vehicle that is forbidden to fire is not always going flat out.
A vehicle that moved over 12" - is it going flat out? The answer is always yes.

See how one is a definition and the others are only effects?

They are all effects, none of them are definitions, this is made clear in the rulebook as it is written, moving 12 to 18 inches (or 24 in the case of skimmers) is a result of the vehicle moving flat out.

Incorrect, again. You dont declare speed categories. If I dont displace at all from my initial position I can still move flat out....

I dont understand where the idea that you dont declare speed catagories comes from.

A vehicle that moves flat out moves 12-18 inches. First you use flat out movement, then you move 12 to 18. After all, if you plan on moving flat out, you can not embark or disembark BEFORE the vehicle moves, and you also are destroyed by dangerous terrain on inches 0-12, despite not yet reaching the distance to be 'flat out.'

You dont start moving, including taking dangerous terrain, and declare your not moving flat out AFTER failing a terrain check at inch 11 of planned 18. You must declare BEFORE your terrain check, BEFORE you have moved over 12 inches, what your speed category will be.

This is also like measuring your movement BEFORE declaring your movement mode (or if you will move at all, in the case of infantry). If you put a tape measure 36 inches down and start premeasuring, you cant then say your dakka jet is only cruising 12. Cruising vehicles do not have a 36 inch move. You measured a 36 inch move, that is your movement mode. Like if you measure 6 inches with infantry to move, see your distance, and declare they are not moving... you measured a movement distance, a distance only gained by using that movement type. What you do with the 6 inches you declared you had by measuring, including not moving, does not change the fact that the unit had a 6 inch move this turn.

DevianID wrote:I dont understand where the idea that you dont declare speed catagories comes from.

Quite simply because the rules doesn't state that you do.

DevianID wrote:I dont understand where the idea that you dont declare speed catagories comes from

Because the rules dont say you do. Please find a rules quote to back up your argument.

How about the terrain rules that I already mentioned!

What, where you get them totally wrong you mean?

For a start the rules *specifically state* you can premeasure your move and then choose to move in another direction, or to not move at all. P11

Then there is nothing stating you *declare* how far you are moving, and certainly not before you actually move.

So Nos, i point to my Dakkajet in terrain. I say nothing to my opponent. In my mind, I want to move 36, but I say nothing. I roll a d6, its a 1. I then tell my opponent that I was just rolling for fun, and the Dakkajet is simply pivoting this turn.

Did I follow the rules? Or was my intent supposed to be communicated (Declared?) to my opponent before rolling that d6 roll, so my opponent knew what it was that was being rolled, and why?

Also Nos, note that I said in my above post that the unit does not have to move the unit after measuring the move, BUT they still used a movement type.

No, you said they used a movement mode, and thus made up rules that dont exist.

If I measure 36" in one direction, and then choose to move 6", I have MOVED 6" and thus have not moved flat out. Despite your assertions to the contrary, no such rule as you posted (or alluded to) actually exists, or else you may have posted a page ref - as asked. Do you have a page ref at all?

You declare what you are rolling for. If you dont want to declare that, go ahead, have fun not getting games. Note that this is not the same as not declaring your intent to move, despite your attempted strawman. Please stop with the logical fallacies.

Q: Does a vehicle that starts it move in difficult terrain
count as having moved that turn if it fails the
Dangerous Terrain test? (p57)
A: Yes.

If you rolled a '1' then you are moving.
If pretend it was a roll for fun then you're cheating.

Nos, you said "You declare what you are rolling for"

What was I rolling for, before my vehicle has moved? Was I rolling for flat out movement, declared before I moved the vehicle, while my tape measure was out to 36 inches? Or can I then move 6 inches over after rolling my dice and say that, despite the 36 inch tape measure earlier AND the terrain roll, I was only going 6?

So, you dont have any page references for your made up rules?

If you can admit that, retract your made up rules and restate your argument, it would be a bit quicker than you pretending you didnt jsut make up some rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Bzzzt, no it had to be FAQ'd, because people didnt believe the rules.

What,. better debate than:

1) The actual rules. The ones where you ignore penalties, but not bonuses?

2) Nothing more is needed, because noone has actually managed to argue against the rules as yet

THere has been "but a penalty to my opponent should be ignored then!" "arguments", but they have been trivially removed from relevance

Nothing is left. No rules based argument has been presented, so its difficult to debate against nonsense.

How about the "it counts as moving 12" rule

Or, you could, I dont know, answer the question.

We have already seen the rules in this topic already saying that a vehicle that moves flat out moves 12-18 inches, more with other rules like supersonic.

We have also seen the rules in this thread saying that a vehicle that moves flat out is destroyed in its own movement phase if it fails a difficult terrain test.

If you measure a supersonic move, which is only gained by vehicles moving flat out, and THEN claim your vehicle is NOT moving flat out and instead moving 6 inches using a different movement classification, why did you measure 36 inches? For fun? For the same reason you rolled a dangerous terrain check and then said it was also for fun?

No, you count as moving your movement type from the before the very first inch you move, thus if your vehicle is in terrain and you roll a 1, you are destroyed even though the vehicle did not move a single inch, IF you were GOING to flat out. This is because your movement mode is decided before you move the model. It is not retroactive; dangerous terrain is also not retroactive.

General - what, the example that doesnt contradict the rule, despite your contention? You do understand the difference between a rule and an example, yes?

Devian - ah, so you DONT have a rules citation? Good to know.

You are allowed to measure 36" in any direction, and then only move 6". Page 11 says this is allowed.

Please find a rules quote for your contention, or concede again.

DevianID wrote:I dont understand where the idea that you dont declare speed catagories comes from.

Because there's no requirement to.

This is also like measuring your movement BEFORE declaring your movement mode (or if you will move at all, in the case of infantry). If you put a tape measure 36 inches down and start premeasuring, you cant then say your dakka jet is only cruising 12. Cruising vehicles do not have a 36 inch move. You measured a 36 inch move, that is your movement mode. Like if you measure 6 inches with infantry to move, see your distance, and declare they are not moving... you measured a movement distance, a distance only gained by using that movement type. What you do with the 6 inches you declared you had by measuring, including not moving, does not change the fact that the unit had a 6 inch move this turn.

Explicitly contradicted by the actual movement rules. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with them before attempting to contribute to a rules discussion about movement.

So you both ignored what I said. What is the movement of a base flat out vehicle? 12+ to 18. You must be clear what movement mode you are using. If you tell your opponent your vehicle is moving flat out, because your movement mode determines not only how far you go but also what kind of terrain does what, then you are committed to that mode.

You can not declare a movement mode, see results of that movement, and change your mind about what movement mode is used. Sure, you can change your physical position, if you are still alive, but you can't change determined results.

Remember infantry moving into cover? They roll for terrain before entering it, and are bound by what they rolled EVEN IF they don't go into terrain.

DevianID wrote:So you both ignored what I said.

No, what you said was just wrong.

What is the movement of a base flat out vehicle? 12+ to 18. You must be clear what movement mode you are using. If you tell your opponent your vehicle is moving flat out, because your movement mode determines not only how far you go but also what kind of terrain does what, then you are committed to that mode.

Rules citation required.

You can not declare a movement mode, see results of that movement, and change your mind about what movement mode is used. Sure, you can change your physical position, if you are still alive, but you can't change determined results.

Rules citation required. Page 11 tells me I can always opt to not move at all.
Yes, if I've rolled for a difficult/dangerous terrain test I will suffer the results - because I've rolled a test.

Remember infantry moving into cover? They roll for terrain before entering it, and are bound by what they rolled EVEN IF they don't go into terrain.

which the Difficult Terrain rules tell us.
What rules do you have supporting your assertion that Flat Out must be declared? Are you ever going to post any?

DevianID wrote:So you both ignored what I said.

Yes, because it is flat out wrong, and have given you (3 times now?) the rules reference that shows you that you are wrong

We then asked for you to support your statements with rules references, which you have singularly failed to do.

DevianID wrote:What is the movement of a base flat out vehicle? 12+ to 18. You must be clear what movement mode you are using.

Citation needed

DevianID wrote:If you tell your opponent your vehicle is moving flat out, because your movement mode determines not only how far you go but also what kind of terrain does what, then you are committed to that mode.

Citation needed. You do not declare what movement "mode" you are *going* to use, only how far you *have* moved. As we've told you Repeatedly. With rules references to prove it. Which you have ignored. Repeatedly. With not a single rules reference to back you up.

DevianID wrote:You can not declare a movement mode, see results of that movement, and change your mind about what movement mode is used. Sure, you can change your physical position, if you are still alive, but you can't change determined results.

You dont declare movement modes for a start, as you have been repeatedly told and required to show otherwise.

DevianID wrote:Remember infantry moving into cover? They roll for terrain before entering it, and are bound by what they rolled EVEN IF they don't go into terrain.

Because the rules for DT tell you this. On the other hand the rules on page 11 state you can choose not to move, or move in a different direction, after measuring your move. Please for the 4th time find a RULE that supports your position, or once again concede.

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.

Rebuttals?

nosferatu1001 wrote:General - what, the example that doesnt contradict the rule, despite your contention? You do understand the difference between a rule and an example, yes?

Yup! I sure do the example is a clarification of the rule

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:General - what, the example that doesnt contradict the rule, despite your contention? You do understand the difference between a rule and an example, yes?

Yup! I sure do the example is a clarification of the rule

And, as it does not contradict the rule the rule still stands

Or are you saying the rule *does not* tell you to ignore the penalties only? Can you make a real rules argument?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Or are you saying the rule *does not* tell you to ignore the penalties only? Can you make a real rules argument?

The rule is obviously hard to follow, which happens sometimes when The Kelly, 6's be upon him, speaks and is the reason this is a 8+ page discussion and has been a topic since the Ork Codex came out. But luckily, since the rule is worded in a confusing manner, The Kelly, 6's be upon him, has given us an example to be our guiding light. He stated that, pretty clearly I might add, "A vehicle could move 13" but it still COUNT AS moving 12". So yes you could move 13" and yes you do not suffer any penalties. But how oh Great Kelly does that work? Well it's simple, you COUNT AS moving 12" and since you count as moving 12" you don't get a cover save. The Kelly is wise and good and does not write codexes for the power-gamers and rules lawyers.

So what is allowing you to ignore the bonuses associated with that extra inch? Because applying it across the board, as you're attempting to do, ignores bonuses and penalties. And, arguably, would make you move the model 12" instead of 13". But I'll leave that last one alone this time.

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Or are you saying the rule *does not* tell you to ignore the penalties only? Can you make a real rules argument?

The rule is obviously hard to follow, which happens sometimes when The Kelly, 6's be upon him, speaks and is the reason this is a 8+ page discussion and has been a topic since the Ork Codex came out. But luckily, since the rule is worded in a confusing manner, The Kelly, 6's be upon him, has given us an example to be our guiding light. He stated that, pretty clearly I might add, "A vehicle could move 13" but it still COUNT AS moving 12". So yes you could move 13" and yes you do not suffer any penalties. But how oh Great Kelly does that work? Well it's simple, you COUNT AS moving 12" and since you count as moving 12" you don't get a cover save. The Kelly is wise and good and does not write codexes for the power-gamers and rules lawyers.

Ah, so the answer to my last question was "No, I cannot make a rules argument"

ignoring penalties is NOT a tricky rule. At least not if you havea basic understanding of English.

So no one has a rebuttal to my statement regarding declaring movement speed? OK.

Please note, I'm not switching sides here, the scenario was brought up but it seemed to be ignored. So I re-worded it for clarification. Of course it still seems to be ignored, but, whatever.

Happyjew wrote:So no one has a rebuttal to my statement regarding declaring movement speed? OK.

Please note, I'm not switching sides here, the scenario was brought up but it seemed to be ignored. So I re-worded it for clarification. Of course it still seems to be ignored, but, whatever.

Rules wise there is nothing wrong with the scenario you put forward.
The "is going to" prevents you from disembarking on one objective then zooming over to another one.
There are better ways to say that ("A transport cannot disembark and move flat out in the same turn.") but we only have what GW wrote

So you're saying that you're moving 12" (cruising speed) then adding 1 for paint, to count into the 13" speed band of 4+ cover.

Ok, what happens if you move flat out 24", then add +1 for red paint. You are now moving 25" outside of any speed band.

It looks like some people are claiming the speedband and cover both ways to whatever suits them best.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:So you're saying that you're moving 12" (cruising speed) then adding 1 for paint, to count into the 13" speed band of 4+ cover.

Ok, what happens if you move flat out 24", then add +1 for red paint. You are now moving 25" outside of any speed band.

It looks like some people are claiming the speedband and cover both ways to whatever suits them best.

-Matt

Actually, the ork flyers can go supersonic which is 36 inches - but 37 with RPJ.
And since RPJ ignores penalties, yes you get to claim whatever suits you best. Do you have a rules argument to say otherwise?

No, it just got lost in the wash

You dont have to declare the speed you are travelling at, thus if you start in terrain, roll a 1 you are simply immobilised - you havent actually moved flat out, you jsut "count as" having moved, as the FAQ states.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, so the answer to my last question was "No, I cannot make a rules argument"

ignoring penalties is NOT a tricky rule. At least not if you havea basic understanding of English.

Nos, your right there is no rules argument. When you count as moving one inch less you, well, count as moving one inch less. Therefore you ignore any penalties for moving that extra inch. It's pretty simple.

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, so the answer to my last question was "No, I cannot make a rules argument"

ignoring penalties is NOT a tricky rule. At least not if you havea basic understanding of English.

Nos, your right there is no rules argument. When you count as moving one inch less you, well, count as moving one inch less. Therefore you ignore any penalties for moving that extra inch. It's pretty simple.

So you're also ignoring bonuses for moving that extra inch?
What rule is allowing you to do that?