Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Can speeders or bikes with scout get cover saves by moving 24 inches in the scout move?

1) Speeders cannot, as skimmers moving fast requires you have moved Flat Out in your *previous mvoement phase* - Scout is NOT a movement phase

2) Turboboosting bikes CAN get a cover save from scout moves, as they gain a cover save for turboboositng in the opponents next shooting phase. SO even if you are going first they still get a cover save on the opponents first turn....

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) Speeders cannot, as skimmers moving fast requires you have moved Flat Out in your *previous mvoement phase* - Scout is NOT a movement phase

2) Turboboosting bikes CAN get a cover save from scout moves, as they gain a cover save for turboboositng in the opponents next shooting phase. SO even if you are going first they still get a cover save on the opponents first turn....

100% Correct. In fact, if the player with the Scouting Bikes is going first, the Bikes can even Turbo Boost in the Scout move, then move, shoot and assault as normal in their 1st turn and still keep the cover save.

The above answers are correct by RaW and just illustrate how dumb RaW can be at times. I'd talk to your opponent about it before the game if you are planing on using either or both or check with TO if you're going to a Tournament.

Personally I usually play both get the cover save if your opponent goes first and neither gets it if you go first unless you then move them over 12" in your movement phase. I can see reasons to denying both the save but for me the RaW simply doesn't make any sense certainly doesn't seem to be in line with what the rules are.

FlingitNow wrote:The above answers are correct by RaW and just illustrate how dumb RaW can be at times.

And there you have it, just claim something is "dumb" and you can get away with anything.

Did you know it's also dumb that Flamers ignore Cover saves? Or that it's Dumb that Lascannons are Strength 9? Should I need to check with my opponent that it's ok to count my Krak missile as AP3?

Did you know it's also dumb that Flamers ignore Cover saves? Or that it's Dumb that Lascannons are Strength 9? Should I need to check with my opponent that it's ok to count my Krak missile as AP3?

Why are those dumb? The cover save is from the speed of movement it makes no sense for the scout move to give cover saves to bikes and not speeders.

I agreed on the RaW and in this case it is one of those incidences where most people will look at the RaW and decide it doesn't make sense so agree to play it slightly differently. Like Bjorn's save, The Doom's save, Monolith weapon destroyed results. Ork ramshackle vehicles, Yriel's spear etc etc etc.

You may disagree and want to play by the RaW that's fine but don't expect TO always to rule that way or for your oppoennt to always agree.

FlingitNow wrote:I agreed on the RaW and in this case it is one of those incidences where most people will look at the RaW and decide it doesn't make sense so agree to play it slightly differently

Do you have a citation for this claim of "most people"?

Do you have a citation for this claim of "most people"?

No and I don't need one. But thanks for asking.

WEll if you assert something you should be able to back up that assertion, otherwise it is (at best) meaningless and at worst just plain wrong.

In this case "RAI" is not at all obvious, as the game abstraction of turns really messes around with time.

I'd agree RaI is not at all obvious hence why I advised the person to agree with his opponent first or check with a TO. What is clear is that the RaI =/= RaW in this case, whether both get the cover save or neither is unclear. I certainly would have no problem in saying 100% that the RaI was not that scout bikers would receive their cover save from a scout move if they go first and then stand still shoot or don't move enough to gain the cover save as it still carries over from the scout move.

The assertation is one that is obvious to most people I don't need to back it up as the truth of the assertation is so obviously true. Just like most people will accept that Bjorn's invulnerable save works and that The Doom is supposed to get a 3++ save. Just like most people except that Yriel's spear isn't entirely useless. I don't need something to back that up beyond what is obviously the case.

FlingitNow wrote:What is clear is that the RaI =/= RaW in this case.

Did you write the rulebook? No? Then you have no idea what the RaI is.

FlingitNow wrote:I don't need something to back that up beyond what is obviously the case.

Yes, you do, because it isn't "obvious" to anyone except you.

Did you write the rulebook? No? Then you have no idea what the RaI is.

Why do I need to have written the book to know the intention?

Yes, you do, because it isn't obvious to anyone except you.

Then maybe I'm crediting people with too much intelligence, but I'm fairly sure everyone else reading this post will see what is obvious and what isn't, even if you can't. Certainly everyone I know in the real world has the intelect required to work out that in this case RaI =/= RaW, even if when on an internet forum they feel the need to play devil's advocate and argue RaW is some sort of god they worship...

FlingitNow wrote:Why do I need to have written the book to know the intention?

Because only the author knows the Intention?

Then maybe I'm crediting people with too much intelligence, but I'm fairly sure everyone else reading this post will see what is obvious and what isn't, even if you can't. Certainly everyone I know in the real world has the intelect required to work out that in this case RaI =/= RaW, even if when on an internet forum they feel the need to play devil's advocate and argue RaW is some sort of god they worship...

So you are saying that following the rules makes you unintelligent? That could be construed as a Personal Attack...

Because only the author knows the Intention?

Why? Why can't someone else know the intention? If you are claiming that you can't be 100% sure then even the author can't 100% sure as his memory of his intention could be incorrect. We can't even know the RaW if you want to argue down that route as we could be hallucinating as to what the texts says. Heck we could actually be agreeing with each other all thread but hallucinating that the other persons response is something totally different. Heck I could be hallucinating and have not even typed any of this.

However you can throw out ludicrous chance otherwise the term to know something is entirely meaningless. So yes I know for a fact that the author of Codex Tyranids intended for The Doom of Malan'tai to get a 3++ save. Likewise I know that the author of the BrB did not intend for scout bikers to claim a cover save from a scout move if they've had another movement phase after since the scout move.

FlingitNow wrote:However you can throw out ludicrous chance otherwise the term to know something is entirely meaningless. So yes I know for a fact that the author of Codex Tyranids intended for The Doom of Malan'tai to get a 3++ save. Likewise I know that the author of the BrB did not intend for scout bikers to claim a cover save from a scout move if they've had another movement phase after since the scout move.

And you know this how exactly? How can you claim what the Author "intended"? If He had not intended for it to work the way the rules say, he would have written the rules a different way. It's that simple. RaW = "RaI".

And you know this how exactly? How can you claim what the Author "intended"? If He had not intended for it to work the way the rules say, he would have written the rules a different way. It's that simple. RaW = "RaI".

Rules were written with the intention of being used with common sense and are not very well written or defined particularly when under close scrutiny.

To claim RaW = RaI is beyond ludicrous as the two are so obviously different. Heck loads of the FAQs habve what you call changes listed as clarifications. This is because the RaW is the changed but the rules have not they have remain the same but have been clarified because the RaW was incorrect or missleading.

Heck even your own FAQs rule against RaW frequently. Why would you ever rule against RaW if RaW is all that matters to you?

FlingitNow wrote:

And you know this how exactly? How can you claim what the Author "intended"? If He had not intended for it to work the way the rules say, he would have written the rules a different way. It's that simple. RaW = "RaI".

Rules were written with the intention of being used with common sense and are not very well written or defined particularly when under close scrutiny.

To claim RaW = RaI is beyond ludicrous as the two are so obviously different. Heck loads of the FAQs habve what you call changes listed as clarifications. This is because the RaW is the changed but the rules have not they have remain the same but have been clarified because the RaW was incorrect or missleading.

Heck even your own FAQs rule against RaW frequently. Why would you ever rule against RaW if RaW is all that matters to you?

Bodyblow. Bodyblow. Uppercut!

Flingitnow - you have committed a grave falalcy.

You stated that "RAI" is not clear and therefore not nkowable, yet then went on to categroically state that RAW /= RAI in this case.

AS RAI is not ficxed, that statement is in error.

You then committed another - circular reasoning. You claim you dont need to substantiate your assertion as it is "obvious" that your assertion is true. And we know this because you say it is obvious and doesnt need to be substantiated. In the same way the bible is infallible because the bible says it is.

In this case RAW IS CLEAR and RAI isnt - so in doubt go with RAW.

You stated that "RAI" is not clear and therefore not nkowable, yet then went on to categroically state that RAW /= RAI in this case.

AS RAI is not ficxed, that statement is in error.

I disagree yes RaI is not clear but it is also clearly not what the RaW is for instance a Yellow car in the distance might not be clear what model or make it is but it clearly isn't a Red Mondeo (it may well be a Mondeo). Like wise you could have what could be a Tangerine or Orange in your hand, but you know it isn't an apple. Whilst we don't know what the RaI is in this case it is pretty clear that it is not what the RaW states. What is obvious is that cover saves for moving with scout moves should be applied one way RaW states that bikers save is so different.

The point is that it is entirely possible to not know what something is but still be sure that it isn't something. Like they don't know where Bin Laden is but they do know he isn't living at 10 downing street...

In this case RAW IS CLEAR and RAI isnt - so in doubt go with RAW.

Fair enough I agree with that but not the conclusion if I was playing against you we'd argue it out thank that you don't have Scout bikers, get an independant adjudicator or roll off (do use use scout bikers but I wouldn't claim the 3+ save for them if I went first and turbo boosted).

Would you really expect a TO to rule that you can get that cover save for turbo boosting in your scout move when you go first?

In egneral though if RaI isn't clear go with RaW even if it is also not clear (just get as near to RaW as possible if RaI is totally unclear). But if RaI is unclear but RaW just doesn't make sense and is totally outlandish that is when I'd always go house rule.

FlingitNow wrote:Would you really expect a TO to rule that you can get that cover save for turbo boosting in your scout move when you go first?

Yes, because that is what the rules say.

Does this mean that Vendettas that move 24" flat out in the scout move aren't getting a cover save on turn1?

Dashofpepper wrote:Does this mean that Vendettas that move 24" flat out in the scout move aren't getting a cover save on turn1?

Correct, because the wording on the Skimmers moving Fast rule is different.

Yes, because that is what the rules say.

TO always go with RaW do they?

Look Gwar why do you rule against RaW so frequently in your FAQs yet claim anyone that things ruling against RaW is "cheating" or "breaking the rules". The two positions seem untennable to me.

Does this mean that Vendettas that move 24" flat out in the scout move aren't getting a cover save on turn1?

By RaW yes.

FlingitNow wrote:Look Gwar why do you rule against RaW so frequently in your FAQs yet claim anyone that things ruling against RaW is "cheating" or "breaking the rules". The two positions seem untennable to me.

It's Gwar's worthless gimmick.

Flingitnow - please also go back to your assertion and the circular reasoning. YOu only addressed one point.


You do not *know* (and we have been over this before, and will restte with more precision - "know" as in "95% confidence") that RAW/=RAI, as I have said the abstraction of the game into Turns makes rationalising movement rules much, much trickier.

So you still cannot state RAW/=RAI in this case, as the RAI is *so* unclear it could actually be the RAW. Your assertion, entirely unfounded and without merit, otherwise is irrelevant.

FlingitNow wrote:

Yes, because that is what the rules say.

TO always go with RaW do they?

Look Gwar why do you rule against RaW so frequently in your FAQs yet claim anyone that things ruling against RaW is "cheating" or "breaking the rules". The two positions seem untennable to me.

Strawman Arguments are frowned upon. What my FAQ's say and what the RaW say have no bearing on each other.

You do not *know* (and we have been over this before, and will restte with more precision - "know" as in "95% confidence") that RAW/=RAI, as I have said the abstraction of the game into Turns makes rationalising movement rules much, much trickier.

So you still cannot state RAW/=RAI in this case, as the RAI is *so* unclear it could actually be the RAW. Your assertion, entirely unfounded and without merit, otherwise is irrelevant.

Because to me it is obvious that a vehicle/bike gains a cover save for moving a certain distance but the trade off is you can't shoot or assault that turn. Having the rule work as it is written means that scout bikers do not get this trade off; they gain a benefit not related to their previous movement phase but related to a movement prior to that allowing them to gain the other benefits from a standard movement along with the cover save benefit gained from the scout move. If you don't see an issue with that then fair enough.

I'm pretty certain very few players would play that way. I could be wrong.

Shall I do a poll. How about this for wording:

How do you play scout move biker cover saves?

Option A: The rules clearly state I get a cover save in my opponent's next shooting phase. Therefore if I turboboost as my scout move in my opponents next shooting phase I can claim the cover. I can do this even if I go first and do not turboboost in my movment phase as I still have the cover save gained from the scout move. The rules are very clear and therefore I do not see a reason to create a house rule.

Option B: Whilst the rules say you gain a cover save in your opponents next shooting phase I beleive the intention is for this to only last 1 player turn so if I can go first I do not gain the cover save in my opponents shooting phase unless I again turboboost in my movement phase. Whilst the rules as written are clear I beleive the intention for the opposite to be true is clear enough to play it that way. However I can claim the save in the first turn if my opponhent goes first but I beleive fast Skimmers cannot as their cover save relies on the previous movement phase and the scout move does not happen during a movement phase.

Option C: Whilst the rules say you gain a cover save in your opponents next shooting phase I beleive the intention is for this is only to apply during the movement phase. Therefore like Scout fast skimmers, bikers should not gain a cover save at all for scout turboboosting.

Option D: As option B but I beleive for consistency that scouting fast skimmers should also gain the cover save in your opponents turn if they go first and neither gains it if you go first (unless they again move in the movement phase in a manner that grants them the save).

It is Bias because one option implies you are unsportsmanlike for playing by the rules.

Why not a simple:
I play by the Rules.
I don't play by the Rules.

Gwar! wrote:It is Bias because one option implies you are unsportsmanlike for playing by the rules.

Why not a simple:
I play by the Rules.
I don't play by the Rules.

No, one option implies a given understanding that GW rulebooks are often not flawless documents and that reasoned discussion with your opponent is the preferred method of gaming, even as cited by The Most Important Rule.

How's about a more accurate:
I play to the absolute of written text, whether or not that seems reasonable to myself, my opponents or the community at large.
I play to the rules for the considerable majority of the gaming I do, other than when the wording seems to contradict it's self and the concensus is that altering or ammending in lieu of an FAQ/Errata makes sense to balance and good gaming.

Gwar! wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:I agreed on the RaW and in this case it is one of those incidences where most people will look at the RaW and decide it doesn't make sense so agree to play it slightly differently

Do you have a citation for this claim of "most people"?

He have one from me :-)

Some things just seem to be pure common sense, and of course you can choose to follow the rules word by word. But the example of the deff rolla ruling have proven that this way of interpreting the rule might not be the most correct way :-). Before the FAQ, many claim that the DR shd not work on vehicles, and tried to back their arguments using literal interpretation of the words from the rulebook. My guess is these people have mostly shut up by now, since the release of the new FAQ.