With the release of the new dakka jet people have been saying by giving it red paint job, it can move 13'' get a 4+ cover save and still fire all its guns. But does that mean that mean that any fast unit with red paint job can do that 13'' inch move, or have they got it wrong?

Any unit with RPJ can do a 13" move, sure.

But only skimmers can claim a cover save from moving Flat Out, and a RPJ Dakkajet moving 13" is still on Cruising speed. No cover save, sorry.

There's already a thread on this subject:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/451843.page

An *extensive* thread on this, as shown above. Bring a raincoat. And gumboots.

Unfortunately, it's not nearly as cut-and-dry as assaulting a vehicle that moved 7".

And that one still gets bloody too

Spetulhu wrote:Any unit with RPJ can do a 13" move, sure.

But only skimmers can claim a cover save from moving Flat Out, and a RPJ Dakkajet moving 13" is still on Cruising speed. No cover save, sorry.

All fast vehicles ever moving 13" are always moving at flat out speed, no exceptions. Red paint does not change anything about that.

You get a 4+ cover save for moving over 12" which is a distance measurement NOT a movement class.

Cruising/Combat speeds are movement classifications, not specific distances.



RPJ also says you don't suffer any penelties for the extra movement. This can also be interperted to say "I get all the benifits but none of the bad stuff", which directly translates to "I get a 4+ cover save for moving over 12" but because of RPJ I also count as moving at Cruising speed and so can shoot"

This looks like it's a contested issue. If anyone uses these models, I'd ask the organizers of any event you are going to just to make sure they are going to rule the way you'd like before you show up.

movement class = actual distance traveled so yes from my understanding you get the cover save and still fire... but yea others have different ideas most seem to agree that this is what it says but that for the cost it cna't possibly be right

Jimsolo wrote:This looks like it's a contested issue. If anyone uses these models, I'd ask the organizers of any event you are going to just to make sure they are going to rule the way you'd like before you show up.

From a rules view it really isn't.

If you check the threads, you basically have the rules saying that it works, and people thinking that it doesn't work because it seems wrong to get the best of two worlds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:You get a 4+ cover save for moving over 12" which is a distance measurement NOT a movement class.

Cruising/Combat speeds are movement classifications, not specific distances.



RPJ also says you don't suffer any penelties for the extra movement. This can also be interperted to say "I get all the benifits but none of the bad stuff", which directly translates to "I get a 4+ cover save for moving over 12" but because of RPJ I also count as moving at Cruising speed and so can shoot"

Skimmer rules say you get a cover save for moving flat out though. Flat out is defined as moving more than 12", and RPJ doesn't change a thing about that. Otherwise you are correct.

It does work but only if you move more than 12" and 13" or less, it gives the vehicle a chance to survive considering otherwise las cannons glance automatically and pen on a 2+ vs the AV 10.

There's no minimum movement to claim Obscured, correct?

...which means you could move the vehicle around in a circle 13", returning it to its original position, fire all your weapons, and claim the obscured save.

"A skimmer that...has moved flat out in its last Movement phase counts as obscured...when fired at." (BGB p71)

"A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12"..." (BGB p70)

The second quote is the clincher for me. A vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" - but this does not necessarily mean that the opposite is true. A vehicle that is moving more than 12" is not necessarily moving flat out. You need to declare a flat-out move in order to claim the Obscured save.

A fruit that is a banana is yellow. This does not mean that all yellow fruit are automatically bananas.

Unless you can quote a single rule that requires you to ever declare any movement speed for a regular move, you don't declare movement speed.

It's that simple. I wish people would stop arguing based on that imaginary requirement every single time RPJ comes up.

If bananas are the only yellow fruit, all yellow fruits are bananas. Fast vehicles can not move more than 12" without moving flat out.

Jidmah wrote:Fast vehicles can not move more than 12" without moving flat out.

Yes they can.
A fast vehicle can move 18" on a road and still count as moving at cruising speed for all purposes.

BRB FAQ P4 wrote:Q: Does a vehicle that has used its extra move for being
on a road to move over 12” count as having moved at
cruising speed for all purposes, for example the
embarking and disembarking of troops? (p57)
A: Yes.

I'm still seeing Flat Out as being the penalty avoided by he RPJ. And for 5pts that seems about right.
My Ork bomber arrived in the post this morning, personally I'd love to get a reliable cover save on it.
If the only requirement for the cover save was going move than 12" I'd be supporting it, but it also requires moving Flat Out, and we're all claiming Cruising Speed here (for the shooting).

Jidmah wrote:Unless you can quote a single rule that requires you to ever declare any movement speed for a regular move, you don't declare movement speed.

It's that simple. I wish people would stop arguing based on that imaginary requirement every single time RPJ comes up.

If bananas are the only yellow fruit, all yellow fruits are bananas. Fast vehicles can not move more than 12" without moving flat out.

True enough, but by the same token, you cannot cite a rule that states that vehicles moving more than 12" are moving flat out.

And, as mentioned, flat out is not the only way you can move more than 12". Roads are another way, as are Star Engines (though they're obviously different). RPJ is just another type of yellow fruit.

Considering that they arn't all that hard to kill even with the 4+ obscurement it seems only fair that they get it.

Especially since they compete with Deffkoptas for slots, remember that point cost isn't every thing. FoC slot is a cost too.

grendel083 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Fast vehicles can not move more than 12" without moving flat out.

Yes they can.
A fast vehicle can move 18" on a road and still count as moving at cruising speed for all purposes.

BRB FAQ P4 wrote:Q: Does a vehicle that has used its extra move for being
on a road to move over 12” count as having moved at
cruising speed for all purposes, for example the
embarking and disembarking of troops? (p57)
A: Yes.

I'm still seeing Flat Out as being the penalty avoided by he RPJ. And for 5pts that seems about right.
My Ork bomber arrived in the post this morning, personally I'd love to get a reliable cover save on it.
If the only requirement for the cover save was going move than 12" I'd be supporting it, but it also requires moving Flat Out, and we're all claiming Cruising Speed here (for the shooting).

Note the distinct lack of "for all purposes" in RPJ and the usage of "could", i.e. the option. Both rules are explicitly different.
In addition, without that exact FAQ moving on a road would make fast vehicle move flat out.

Cheexsta wrote:True enough, but by the same token, you cannot cite a rule that states that vehicles moving more than 12" are moving flat out.

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)

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

So either a vehicle is moving flat out by moving it over 12", or no vehicle may ever move flat out. You are not allowed to determine the speed category of a vehicle before you have moved.

And, as mentioned, flat out is not the only way you can move more than 12". Roads are another way, as are Star Engines (though they're obviously different). RPJ is just another type of yellow fruit.

Star engines are not used during movement, roads have explicit exceptions to the rule. RPJ does not.

Counts as, means counts as, if you moved 13" you count as moving 12" so you didn't really move 13" inches so no cover save.

Kharrak wrote:There's no minimum movement to claim Obscured, correct?

...which means you could move the vehicle around in a circle 13", returning it to its original position, fire all your weapons, and claim the obscured save.

Your movement distance is the distance you end up away from your original starting position at the end of the move. No one cares how many times you pivot or drive in circles.

Nitros14 wrote:

Kharrak wrote:There's no minimum movement to claim Obscured, correct?

...which means you could move the vehicle around in a circle 13", returning it to its original position, fire all your weapons, and claim the obscured save.

Your movement distance is the distance you end up away from your original starting position at the end of the move. No one cares how many times you pivot or drive in circles.

That's only true for assaults. You're absolutely allowed to fly in circles and go flat out.

rigeld2 wrote:That's only true for assaults. You're absolutely allowed to fly in circles and go flat out.

LOL, picture that. Fits orks nicely.

General_Chaos wrote:Counts as, means counts as, if you moved 13" you count as moving 12" so you didn't really move 13" inches so no cover save.

Irrelevant. Red paint job vehicles only have the option to count as moving 12" for one single purpose: ignoring penalties. You do not have permission to count as moving 12" for anything else.

Jidmah wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:Counts as, means counts as, if you moved 13" you count as moving 12" so you didn't really move 13" inches so no cover save.

Irrelevant. Red paint job vehicles only have the option to count as moving 12" for one single purpose: ignoring penalties. You do not have permission to count as moving 12" for anything else.

exactly this.

if specifies ignores penalties not ignores the extra inch completely. without red paint job ork vehicles would b e in trouble it is the reason the upgrade is so chepa it is practically a requirment on out battlewagons and now dakka jets... dakka jets are ok and i have 2 now so i'll be using them btu if it wasn't for red paint job they'd never see the field AV10 means even basic bolters can down them easily. sure the super shooters are good but without a cover save they'd be blown up turn 1 ... they still aren't really that good compared to deff koptas of rokkit buggies I mostly got them hoping flyers will get buffed in 6.0

note even INAT says thi is how it works. and i always go by inat if it isn't in faq. I bring a copy of inat on my phone and will gladly look up things for people and i woukldn't take part in a tourney where inat wasn't used because then there is to much room for rules arguments

So I guess if you get immobilized or wreck during your movement can ignore that too. Hell why not just blanket the whole thing, it doesn't say just movement. I think getting exploded by those long fangs is a penalty, my red paint ignores that.

General_Chaos wrote:So I guess if you get immobilized or wreck during your movement can ignore that too. Hell why not just blanket the whole thing, it doesn't say just movement. I think getting exploded by those long fangs is a penalty, my red paint ignores that.

Yeah, that's a sane way to argue.
"Let's take something that Red Paint Job has absolutely no relation to and say that it ignores it!"

Good plan. I'm sure that'll go far.

I'm pretty sure RPJ makes you immune to all bad things by RAW*.



* Not Rules as Written, but the old Eddie Murphy performance. So if you have a Red Paint Job, Eddie Murphy can't hurt you and it's safe to watch Dave. If you don't have a RPJ, beware of eye bleeds.

General_Chaos wrote:So I guess if you get immobilized or wreck during your movement can ignore that too. Hell why not just blanket the whole thing, it doesn't say just movement. I think getting exploded by those long fangs is a penalty, my red paint ignores that.

It does, in fact, relate to movement.

Red Paint says you ignore penalties in regards to moving that extra inch. Being immobilized / exploded has no relation to this.

General_Chaos wrote:So I guess if you get immobilized or wreck during your movement can ignore that too. Hell why not just blanket the whole thing, it doesn't say just movement. I think getting exploded by those long fangs is a penalty, my red paint ignores that.

Unless you magically explode for moving 13" instead of 12", that's not a penalty incurred by moving an extra inch.

I'm really flattened about how many people have an opinion on RPJ without having read the actual rule. Such nonsense really doesn't belong in YMDC at all.

As a new Ork player I now see the point of a RPJ, thank you all for the clarification and saving this argument form happening at my gaming table.

Clarification? I see a debate raging with no side giving. What will you say at your gaming table? "Look, this lot can't agree either!"

There is a difference, as one side is quoting rules, and the other isn't.

Jidmah wrote:There is a difference, as one side is quoting rules, and the other isn't.

That never happens in YMDC!

yep one side sites rulaes and says this is why rpj works like it does to shoot and get cover... the other side says that is wrong because i dont' think it is right.... and presenting no valid rules toward that conclution... I say bring INAT faq it'll help you alot in the long run

G00fySmiley wrote: I say bring INAT faq it'll help you alot in the long run

Yah just like when the INAT didn't allow you to deff rolla vehicles. GW proved that wrong which was argued to hell and gone just like red paint has.

These "arguments" are rooted back to INAT's ruling on red paint. Stating that by moving 7" you get hit on a 6+ and can still fire. I completely disagree with this because "COUNTS AS" is just that it counts for you and it counts for your opponent. Just because INAT ruled doesn't make it right.

You know, repeating and already invalidated argument doesn't make it right again. An example describing nothing but an option does not overrule the actual rule.

Besides that GW FAQs do not "prove" anything. They simply make a final call, which may or may not abide to the rules the published first. Just have look at the GK falchions. By raw you get two CCW which add +1 attack as a pair. As you are wielding two CCW, you would also get and additional attack for that, for two attacks total.
The FAQ rules them to be one attack total, because that's what GW wanted them to be, not because that's what the rules say.

Right now, the RPJ rules say that you can get the best of two worlds if moving 6-7" or 12-13" - if a FAQ changes that, I'll happily follow the FAQ. Until then, anyone denying his ork opponent that advantage is cheating him.

Not to mention that, you know, assaulting a vehicle explicitly ignores any distance declared by the owner ("counts as" or not), you just measure how far the vehicle is from its starting position. "counts as" doesn't even come into it. It moved farther than 6", it gets hit on a 6+.

Same way that a fast skinner can go "flat out", move 18" around in a circle, but still be hit in assault on 4+, or hit automatically if it returned to the exact same position.

If you can show me where COUNTS AS moving 6" or 12" only applies to the Ork player and no one else then I might see your point? It doesn't matter that you actually moved 7" or 13" you COUNT AS moving 6" or 12".

General_Chaos wrote:If you can show me where COUNTS AS moving 6" or 12" only applies to the Ork player and no one else then I might see your point? It doesn't matter that you actually moved 7" or 13" you COUNT AS moving 6" or 12".

Not actually correct. The rule says you move an extra inch and ignore all penalties for this extra inch.

The example provided is not how the rule must be used, but an example of how it could be used.

So, Trukk moves 7" - does not suffer the penalty of not shooting and/or disembarking passengers, keeps the bonus of being hit on 6's because it moved more than 6".

Kharrak wrote:So, Trukk moves 7" - does not suffer the penalty of not shooting and/or disembarking passengers, keeps the bonus of being hit on 6's because it moved more than 6".

But you didn't move more the 6" because you COUNT AS moving 6". Getting hit on 4+ during your opponents Assault phase is not a penalty for you it's a penalty for your opponent

And? Where does it say your opponent ignores how far the vehicle actually moved? Read assaulting a vehicle, it only cares about how far the vehicle moved in the movement phase. Did they move the vehicle 6 or 7. Crazy they moved 7, so hitting them on 6 s

General_Chaos wrote:

Kharrak wrote:So, Trukk moves 7" - does not suffer the penalty of not shooting and/or disembarking passengers, keeps the bonus of being hit on 6's because it moved more than 6".

But you didn't move more the 6" because you COUNT AS moving 6". Getting hit on 4+ during your opponents Assault phase is not a penalty for you it's a penalty for your opponent

Correct, you have no permission to count as moving one less inch for a penalty your opponent suffers. So you opponent would have to use the 7", and thus hit on 6+.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:And? Where does it say your opponent ignores how far the vehicle actually moved? Read assaulting a vehicle, it only cares about how far the vehicle moved in the movement phase. Did they move the vehicle 6 or 7. Crazy they moved 7, so hitting them on 6 s

Crazy! you COUNT AS moving 6"

The key here is COUNTS AS. When does Drago stop making Paladins COUNT AS troops? Crazy, Never they always COUNT AS troops.

General_Chaos wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:And? Where does it say your opponent ignores how far the vehicle actually moved? Read assaulting a vehicle, it only cares about how far the vehicle moved in the movement phase. Did they move the vehicle 6 or 7. Crazy they moved 7, so hitting them on 6 s

Crazy! you COUNT AS moving 6"

The key here is COUNTS AS. When does Drago stop making Paladins COUNT AS troops? Crazy, Never they always COUNT AS troops.

Are willfully ignorant? Red paint does not make you count as moving one less inch for all purposes. Period.

You are wrong. Stop spouting your wrong nonsense and read the damn rule for once.

Jidmah wrote:

Are willfully ignorant? Red paint does not make you count as moving one less inch for all purposes. Period.

You are wrong. Stop spouting your wrong nonsense and read the damn rule for once.

Quoted right from the rulebook "For example, a vehicle could move 13" but still COUNT AS moving 12" Ignorant? Nice... I must be if I disagree with you

You count as moving 6 for purposes of shooting. Has no effect for assaulting out of due to being open topped. And it gives you an extra inch. How does my rpj be benificial to you? It's not. My rules don't work for you. As per brb faq.

Q:AmIabletogainthebenefitsofanyofmy opponent’swargearorspecialrules,suchasTeleport Homers,ChaosIcons,TyranidSynapse,Necron ResurrectionOrbsetc? A:Inmostoccasionsthisisclear,astherulesusethe words‘friendly’or‘own’toindicateyourunits,and ‘enemy’fortheopponent’s.Ontheotherhand,some rulesclearlyspecifythattheyaffect‘friendandfoe’.A fewrulesare,however,slightlyambiguousasthey don’tclearlyspecifythisdistinction.Asageneral principle,werecommendthatyoucannotuseorgain thebenefitsfromanyofthewargearorspecialrulesof youropponent’sarmy,unlessspecificallystatedinthe ruleitself(‘friendorfoe’)orinanofficialFAQ


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I moved seven. For you 6 for me.

Have you read the RPJ rule? You know, the bit where it talks about *ignoring penalties*?

You count as moving 12" for all the penalties associated with moving 13". Period.

Youre wrong on this. You're quoting an example out of context, stop.

General_Chaos wrote: Yah just like when the INAT didn't allow you to deff rolla vehicles. GW proved that wrong which was argued to hell and gone just like red paint has.

These "arguments" are rooted back to INAT's ruling on red paint. Stating that by moving 7" you get hit on a 6+ and can still fire. I completely disagree with this because "COUNTS AS" is just that it counts for you and it counts for your opponent. Just because INAT ruled doesn't make it right.

You know, we are not supposed to bring up the inat faq here in ymdc, however it is HIGHLY relevant.

Most major tournaments ignore raw and use the inat faq, which is not founded in raw. We can all argue raw and gw faqs to death, but that horrid document called the inat is always there.

It is impossible to prep for a major tournament without using that terrible doc. YMDC only helps you in a local pick up game at your flgs. You might as well just d6 it or figure it out on your own.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Have you read the RPJ rule? You know, the bit where it talks about *ignoring penalties*?

Well you'd have to define "penalties" that your ignoring. Which the rule does not. Choosing when and where your picking to COUNT AS moving 6" or 7" is not defined also. So as I said before COUNTS AS = just that COUNTS AS

General_Chaos wrote:

G00fySmiley wrote: I say bring INAT faq it'll help you alot in the long run

Yah just like when the INAT didn't allow you to deff rolla vehicles. GW proved that wrong which was argued to hell and gone just like red paint has.

These "arguments" are rooted back to INAT's ruling on red paint. Stating that by moving 7" you get hit on a 6+ and can still fire. I completely disagree with this because "COUNTS AS" is just that it counts for you and it counts for your opponent. Just because INAT ruled doesn't make it right.

The funny thing about the def rolla ruling, is originally the inat faq did say it worked in a ram. Then a little birdie told the inat crew that gw was going to faq it to not allow it.

So what happened? INAT was changed to no allow it, then the gw faq allowed it, and then inat changed it back.

INAT exists only as a way for a select group of people to affect how many major tournaments are ran as to their viewpoint on how 40k should be played. All under the guise as 'clarifications' and not 'rules changes'.

To reiterate my rpj does not work for you. For you I moved 7 for me I count as moving 6.

General_Chaos wrote:Quoted right from the rulebook "For example, a vehicle could move 13" but still COUNT AS moving 12" Ignorant? Nice... I must be if I disagree with you

You keep ignoring the most important part. "A vehicle could count as...". The vehicle is in no way obliged to count as moving 1" less inch for anything but penalties it suffers.

Can we stop this now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

imweasel wrote:INAT exists only as a way for a select group of people to affect how many major tournaments are ran as to their viewpoint on how 40k should be played. All under the guise as 'clarifications' and not 'rules changes'.

I think Yakface's rules responses to YMDC queries pretty much represent what INAT is about - getting intuitive rulings which everyone can follow without getting a knot in their head, so you can easily implement the FAQ at tournaments. As this forum, or even this thread, perfectly represents, 40k rules have nothing intuitive about them, so it's only natural that INAT strays from what rules or future FAQs say. Anyone is free to disagree with that intention, and YMDC disagrees with it as per the Tenets of YMDC, so it shouldn't come up at all.

Jidmah wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:Quoted right from the rulebook "For example, a vehicle could move 13" but still COUNT AS moving 12" Ignorant? Nice... I must be if I disagree with you

You keep ignoring the most important part. "A vehicle could count as...". The vehicle is in no way obliged to count as moving 1" less inch for anything but penalties it suffers.

The point you highlighted is saying you could move 13", yes you could move 13" that is not in contention....you are inferring it's says "A vehicle may move 13" but could still COUNT AS moving 12 but only in my movement and shooting phase. But I don't COUNT AS moving 12" during my opponents Assault Phase then I count as moving 13" The rule clearly does not say any of that.

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Have you read the RPJ rule? You know, the bit where it talks about *ignoring penalties*?

Well you'd have to define "penalties" that your ignoring. Which the rule does not. Choosing when and where your picking to COUNT AS moving 6" or 7" is not defined also. So as I said before COUNTS AS = just that COUNTS AS

No i dont, English does that for me.

Moving 13" and not being able to fire is a penalty, so I count as moving 1" less FOR THAT PENALTY only.

Moving 13" and gaining a cover save is not a penalty. So it isnt ignored. So I still gain the cover save

Its that simple. Reread the actual RULE, and NOT the example, and come back

In order for it to be read that way, the sentence would require a comma before "and".

Anyways, that would be in contradiction to the actual rule, in which case the example would be wrong and thus irrelevant.
No matter how you try to misread it, it's just an example, not a rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: Referring to General_Chaos, not to nos...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Its that simple. Reread the actual RULE, and NOT the example, and come back

Oh so if I ignore one of the key parts of the rule the freaking example I'd understand wow...

You're the one ignoring parts of the rule, not us. There is a clear limitation on where "counts as" is applied.

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Its that simple. Reread the actual RULE, and NOT the example, and come back

Oh so if I ignore one of the key parts of the rule the freaking example I'd understand wow...

An EXAMPLE is not the rule. It is not a "key part of the rule", it is an example.

Jidmah wrote:You're the one ignoring parts of the rule, not us. There is a clear limitation on where "counts as" is applied.

Yah it's really clear... you count as only when you want to and don't count as when you don't.

"Do not incur penalties for this extra inch" not being able to shoot is a penalty, not being able to disembark is a penalty, BUT getting hit on 4+ on your opponents turn is not a penalty for the Ork player it's a penalty for the Opponent. The example brings the rule to clarification so it can't just be ignored.

It isnt being ignored, you\re just wilfully ignoring the actual rule

Youre arguing that a bonus to the Ork (cover save) is a penalty that can be ignored? Let me guess, you think banshees strike at I10 when assaulting into cover as the I drop is a "bonus" to the opponent as well?

General_Chaos wrote:

Jidmah wrote:You're the one ignoring parts of the rule, not us. There is a clear limitation on where "counts as" is applied.

Yah it's really clear... you count as only when you want to and don't count as when you don't.

"Do not incur penalties for this extra inch" not being able to shoot is a penalty, not being able to disembark is a penalty, BUT getting hit on 4+ on your opponents turn is not a penalty for the Ork player it's a penalty for the Opponent.

You have the right idea, as stated above, you are just coming to the wrong conclusion.

Premise: Any fast vehicle upgraded with RPJ moved 13".

Resulting rules:
1) Vehicle may not shoot.*
2) Passengers may not shoot.*
3) Passengers may not disembark.*
4) Vehicle is hit on 6+ in close combat.
5) Vehicle gets a 4+ cover save if it's a skimmer.
6) Vehicle turns immobilized into wrecked if it's a skimmer. *

* are penalties. You can only count as moving 12" instead of 13" for penalties. So if you count as moving 1" less, you get:

1) Vehicle may shoot one weapon and all defensive weapons.
2) Passengers may still not shoot.
3) Passengers may disembark.
4) Vehicle is hit on 6+ in close combat.
5) Vehicle gets a 4+ cover save if it's a skimmer.
6) Vehicle is immobilized as normal.

Same for the other speed threshold:
Premise: Any fast vehicle upgraded with RPJ moved 7".

Resulting rules:
1) Vehicle may only shoot one weapon and all defensive weapons*
2) Passengers may not shoot.*
3) Vehicle is hit on 6+ in close combat.

* are penalties. You can only count as moving 6" instead of 7" for penalties. So if you count as moving 1" less, you get:

1) Vehicle may shoot all weapons.
2) Any number of passengers may use a fire points to shoot.
3) Vehicle is hit on 6+ in close combat.

Ork vehicles treat anything that's not a penalty as if RPJ wouldn't exist. So a red vehicle moving 7" is hit in close combat just like any other vehicle in the game moving 7".

The last EXAMPLE spells it all out. Counts as moving 12" = moving 12" you act like that has nothing to do with the rule

It does not alter the text of the rule

Stop pretending it does

An *example* is not the rule, by definition. Stop conflating the two.

You ignore the 1" for any PENALTIES. Stop ignoring this rather key part of the rule, which you have done through every single post here.

A 4+ cover save is not a penalty. You can say it is, but you will just remain wrong

nosferatu1001 wrote:It does not alter the text of the rule

Stop pretending it does

An *example* is not the rule, by definition. Stop conflating the two.

You ignore the 1" for any PENALTIES. Stop ignoring this rather key part of the rule, which you have done through every single post here.

It is an example of the RULE.... getting cover saves and getting hit on 6+ is not a penalty for the Ork player it's a penalty for the Opponent who ever that is. Bottom line is you COUNT AS moving 6" or 12" so 4+ to hit or no cover save which ever. You are writing to much into this rule to make is even better than it is.

Stop being thick, when it refers to penelties it obviously refers to penelties for the Ork player with the RPJ vehicle in question.

There really isn't much left to do here. If someone ignores examples, explanations and even rule quotes flat out contradicting his personal opinion, all that's left to is hope that he doesn't give some poor ork player a hard time at the gaming table.

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:It does not alter the text of the rule

Stop pretending it does

An *example* is not the rule, by definition. Stop conflating the two.

You ignore the 1" for any PENALTIES. Stop ignoring this rather key part of the rule, which you have done through every single post here.

It is an example of the RULE.... getting cover saves and getting hit on 6+ is not a penalty for the Ork player it's a penalty for the Opponent who ever that is. Bottom line is you COUNT AS moving 6" or 12" so 4+ to hit or no cover save which ever. You are writing to much into this rule to make is even better than it is.

Stop, just stop. Context lets you know who the penalty is referring to - the ork player.

You wont listen to rules quotes, explanations and just have your own personal opinion on this that has no backing in the rules. I think we're all done here - we know what the rules are, you can feel free to house rule them if you wish

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:It does not alter the text of the rule

Stop pretending it does

An *example* is not the rule, by definition. Stop conflating the two.

You ignore the 1" for any PENALTIES. Stop ignoring this rather key part of the rule, which you have done through every single post here.

It is an example of the RULE.... getting cover saves and getting hit on 6+ is not a penalty for the Ork player it's a penalty for the Opponent who ever that is. Bottom line is you COUNT AS moving 6" or 12" so 4+ to hit or no cover save which ever. You are writing to much into this rule to make is even better than it is.

Except that the main rules says that (pp 63) when assessing how far a vehicle has moved only take into the account the actual distance covered from it's original position... So if you move 13" or 7" from point A to B you are hit on 6's, it doesn't matter if you counted as 12 or 6. Just like if you moved 12" (cruising speed). This would be the same reason if the vehicle moved 12" to do sweeping attacks (necrons) but only displaced 3" they would be hit on 4's and not 6's. This means that the actual displacement effects the chance to hit, not the speed category (even though they are closely linked). The 4+ cover save from shooting is a whole other argument I'm not getting into. Note the cover save from shooting skimmers does not make this distinction as far as I know. If it did then I would say the rule is pretty clear cut.

This is another case where you are given an example that says something entirely different from the rule:

Rule: Move an extra 1" that does not incur penalties(for the Ork Player).

Example: Move 13" count as 12".

Difference: Ignoring penalties allows vehicles to fire extra weapons, passengers to fire while vehicles move at a higher speed, disembarkation in flat-out(all within that 1", of course); Count as 1" less means that for all intents and purposes the vehicle has moved 1" less than it actually did.

For most of 5th edition we have been applying a mix of both the rule and the example without realizing there could be any occasion were the difference matters(and ignoring the example when ramming).

I will admit I am somewhat lost as to what some people are arguing here, but we need to reach a consensus on which one takes precedence: the meaning of the rule, or the example provided by GW.

There is another case where the rules and the example differ: Vehicle difficult terrain checks/effect. And currently I have been shouted down that the example is the rule that must be gone with: when you first attempt to enter(or move within) rough terrain, take a test, it the test results in immobilization stop, if not ignore all other terrain.

Since the example is the rule in VDT; then it must also be the same in RPJ: count as 1" less for all purposes.

Jidmah wrote: all that's left to is hope that he doesn't give some poor ork player a hard time at the gaming table.

I just love how you people just KNOW their right about this. If GW ever FAQ'd this it wouldn't do all the fantastical things you wish Red paint would do. It's really really clear how Phil Kelly intended it in his example. You count as moving 12" that says it all and you can ignore that all you like.

I am an Ork player and a damn good one and If you can't win with your Orks without rules lawyering something to your advantage then so be it.

General_Chaos wrote:

Jidmah wrote: all that's left to is hope that he doesn't give some poor ork player a hard time at the gaming table.

I just love how you people just KNOW their right about this. If GW ever FAQ'd this it wouldn't do all the fantastical things you wish Red paint would do. It's really really clear how Phil Kelly intended it in his example. You count as moving 12" that says it all and you can ignore that all you like.

I am an Ork player and a damn good one and If you can't win with your Orks without rules lawyering something to your advantage then so be it.

Thank you!

General_Chaos wrote:

Jidmah wrote: all that's left to is hope that he doesn't give some poor ork player a hard time at the gaming table.

I just love how you people just KNOW their right about this. If GW ever FAQ'd this it wouldn't do all the fantastical things you wish Red paint would do. It's really really clear how Phil Kelly intended it in his example. You count as moving 12" that says it all and you can ignore that all you like.

I am an Ork player and a damn good one and If you can't win with your Orks without rules lawyering something to your advantage then so be it.

Way to assume people play Orks. I dont.
Your argument remains, as ever, invalid, as it ignores the actual rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:

Jidmah wrote: all that's left to is hope that he doesn't give some poor ork player a hard time at the gaming table.

I just love how you people just KNOW their right about this. If GW ever FAQ'd this it wouldn't do all the fantastical things you wish Red paint would do. It's really really clear how Phil Kelly intended it in his example. You count as moving 12" that says it all and you can ignore that all you like.

I am an Ork player and a damn good one and If you can't win with your Orks without rules lawyering something to your advantage then so be it.

Way to assume people play Orks. I dont.
Your argument remains, as ever, invalid, as it ignores the actual rules.

So Nos; then you now agree with me that you do not check to see if a vehicle is immobilized from difficult terrain until after it has finished all movement?

Because that is what the actual rules say; but then you and most other posters in those threads claimed that you have to follow the example as the rules.

Kel, the RPJ is not in disagreement with the Rule, as pointed out, multiple times. The example does not say anything about for what purposes you count as moving 12", just that you could count as moving 1" less. Thus, the terrain precedence doesn't hold.

General Chaos: Personal attacks means you are out of any actual arguments. Which is the same as admitting to be wrong.

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


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

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

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

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

You are attempting to apply:

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

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

Excpet, by the rule, it doesnt - only for the penalties does it count as moving 1" less.

Well nos; by the rule you do not test for Difficult terrain on vehicles until after you have finished moving through all areas for that phase.

So if the incongruous examples are worthless, then they must be worthless everywhere.

I utterly fail to see how that has any bearing here.

Rule says X; example says Y.

It is the exact same situation.

Only with the Terrain issue I was told that the Example(which is a direct copy-paste from the 4th edition Rulebook) was the correct "rule".

Now the same people are trying to say that with RPJ, the rule supersedes the example.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Excpet, by the rule, it doesnt - only for the penalties does it count as moving 1" less.

just where does it say that it only counts for penalties?

Robbietobbie wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Excpet, by the rule, it doesnt - only for the penalties does it count as moving 1" less.

just where does it say that it only counts for penalties?

Exactly in the RPJ rule description.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Rule says X; example says Y.

It is the exact same situation.

Only with the Terrain issue I was told that the Example(which is a direct copy-paste from the 4th edition Rulebook) was the correct "rule".

Now the same people are trying to say that with RPJ, the rule supersedes the example.

Apples to oranges I guess.

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

Robbietobbie wrote:Nope.. RPJ says does not incur penalties for that extra inch etc. and then says: a vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12". end of sentence. It doesn't say it only counts as 12 for shooting..

It must count as 13" for movement - as there are no penalties associated with moving 13".
It must count as 12" for shooting as there are penalties associated with moving 12".

To get aerial assault the movement needs to be cruising speed and for the cover save it needs to be flat-out.

Correct.

Grey Templar wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Rule says X; example says Y.

It is the exact same situation.

Only with the Terrain issue I was told that the Example(which is a direct copy-paste from the 4th edition Rulebook) was the correct "rule".

Now the same people are trying to say that with RPJ, the rule supersedes the example.

Apples to oranges I guess.

No quite.

Apples to apples; If the example is to be ignored in one, it must be ignored in the other.

Bottom line is Count as means is.

And without the example calling out the very specific situations that the 13" moving vehicle counts as moving 12" for; then it simply counts as moving 12" for all intents and purposes.

Rigeld2: there is a penalty for moving 13" in the movement phase: no embarking nor disembarking of passengers.

A trukk with RPJ that counts as moving 13" for movement can neither embark nor disembark passengers as it has moved flat out(and yes, the trukk is a fast transport vehicle; so this is exactly relevant to your claim).

Just for Clarification: I could just as easily be arguing for the rule and not the example, I chose to argue in favour of the example in this case because of the terrain debate(where the exact same posters claiming the example should be ignored here claimed that the example is rules there).

rigeld2 wrote:

Robbietobbie wrote:Nope.. RPJ says does not incur penalties for that extra inch etc. and then says: a vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12". end of sentence. It doesn't say it only counts as 12 for shooting..

It must count as 13" for movement - as there are no penalties associated with moving 13".
It must count as 12" for shooting as there are penalties associated with moving 12".

To get aerial assault the movement needs to be cruising speed and for the cover save it needs to be flat-out.

Correct.

It seems really silly to me to count a vehicle as having moved at two different speeds in the same phase..

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

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

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

Robbietobbie wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Robbietobbie wrote:Nope.. RPJ says does not incur penalties for that extra inch etc. and then says: a vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12". end of sentence. It doesn't say it only counts as 12 for shooting..

It must count as 13" for movement - as there are no penalties associated with moving 13".
It must count as 12" for shooting as there are penalties associated with moving 12".

To get aerial assault the movement needs to be cruising speed and for the cover save it needs to be flat-out.

Correct.

It seems really silly to me to count a vehicle as having moved at two different speeds in the same phase..

It's not the same phase. During my shooting phase, it counts as moving 12" - because I need to not incur the penalty of not shooting.
During your shooting phase, it counts as moving 13" - because there's no permission to ignore a bonus.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

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

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

I see that as meaning that if the ork player moves the vehicle 13" but wants to shoot he can instead count is as having moved 12 for all purposes. If the vehicle didn't have any weapons left there would be no penalty and it would just count as moving 13" regardless.

@rigeld 2 it is the same phase, the movement phase. The plane doesn't move in the shooting phase.

Another question then: would you also take the 4+ cover save for going flat out but if the vehicle get's immobilized that turn say "oh but it has RPJ so it now being wrecked is a penalty for me so I'll count it as having moved at cruising speed"?

So you ignore the word PENALTIES and pretend it doesnt exist?

You ignore the 1" for any PENALTIES to the Ork player. Thats it.

Yes, you would - being wrecked when moving 13" is a penalty associated with that extra inch, so you ignore it. Just like you're ignoring the word "penalty" in the rule for RPJ, and pretending it doesnt matter.

you're not listening to me. I'm not ignoring the word penalties. There needs to be a penalty involved to be able to count it as having moved 12 instead of 13. So it gives you the choice of either having moved 13 with the effects of that movement (the cover save and being wrecked when immobilized) or cruising speed (getting aerial assault)

IMO one excludes the other. Counting something as moving at cruising speed first, then flat-out and then cruising speed is ridiculous

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do you ignore the 4+ cover?

Anglacon wrote:

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

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

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

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

It is that damned simple.

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

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

Happyjew wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Probably not, bit noone seems inclined to lock either

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

You are attempting to apply:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jidmah wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just saying.

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

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

The counting as moving 1" less is never voluntary.

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

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

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

The counting as moving 1" less is never voluntary.

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