Switch Theme:

Bikes charge 12 or 6?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk




Olympia, Waaaghshinton

Does she also play warhammer? Otherwise it would be pretty weird to bring something like this up to them to win an internet argument.

"Oh, by the way, you know that game I play that involves plastic toy soldiers? Well, I'm arguing with some people on the internet and I need your authority on the English language to prove my point right. Don't worry about reading the rest of the book about this game you don't really care about, just look at these few pages."

Also, if you were trying to interpret the rules like this, wouldn't bikes have an 18" assault since they can potentially move 18" in the movement phase?. Sure they can't assault when they move that fast in the movement phase, but since you're saying the top movement speed is the assault range wouldn't they be able to assault 18"? Sounds silly? It's similar to the argument you're putting out with the 12" assault. Let's give the bikes a potential assault range of 30"!!! that sounds great!



   
Made in au
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






Mekniakal wrote:Also, if you were trying to interpret the rules like this, wouldn't bikes have an 18" assault since they can potentially move 18" in the movement phase?. Sure they can't assault when they move that fast in the movement phase, but since you're saying the top movement speed is the assault range wouldn't they be able to assault 18"? Sounds silly? It's similar to the argument you're putting out with the 12" assault. Let's give the bikes a potential assault range of 30"!!! that sounds great


If you are referring to turbo boosting then that's 24" of movement, not 18", 18" is the bare minimum to claim a cover save from turbo boosting however, and the turbo boosters rule is quite clear that you cannot launch an assault in the same turn as you turbo boost, regardless of what phase the turbo boost occurs in.

So actually, your rules idea is alot more silly than the real one being discussed, Because the rulebook does clearly state that an assault follows all the rules for movement, and bikes are not specified as assaulting any less than 12", however, turbo boosting bikes are clearly specified as being unable to assault.

Interceptor Drones can disembark at any point during the Sun Shark's move (even though models cannot normally disembark from Zooming Flyers).


-Jeremy Vetock, only man at Games Workshop who understands Zooming Flyers 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




Drunkspleen wrote:
Mekniakal wrote:
So actually, your rules idea is alot more silly than the real one being discussed, Because the rulebook does clearly state that an assault follows all the rules for movement, and bikes are not specified as assaulting any less than 12", however, turbo boosting bikes are clearly specified as being unable to assault.


Sarcasm is completely wasted on you, eh?

I know they've been prone to having errors in 'em, but have their been any White Dwarf articles with assaulting bike units in the battle report? Just would be interesting to me to see how they're going about it. RAW may generally rule, but RAI seems to win out on the FAQs.
   
Made in us
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk




Olympia, Waaaghshinton

Drunkspleen wrote:
Mekniakal wrote:Also, if you were trying to interpret the rules like this, wouldn't bikes have an 18" assault since they can potentially move 18" in the movement phase?. Sure they can't assault when they move that fast in the movement phase, but since you're saying the top movement speed is the assault range wouldn't they be able to assault 18"? Sounds silly? It's similar to the argument you're putting out with the 12" assault. Let's give the bikes a potential assault range of 30"!!! that sounds great


If you are referring to turbo boosting then that's 24" of movement, not 18", 18" is the bare minimum to claim a cover save from turbo boosting however, and the turbo boosters rule is quite clear that you cannot launch an assault in the same turn as you turbo boost, regardless of what phase the turbo boost occurs in.

So actually, your rules idea is alot more silly than the real one being discussed, Because the rulebook does clearly state that an assault follows all the rules for movement, and bikes are not specified as assaulting any less than 12", however, turbo boosting bikes are clearly specified as being unable to assault.


Just joking, I'm just pointing out the weird ways one can twist the RAW if they really, really try (and are selective in what they choose to point out). Since the crux of the argument is that you treat the assault phase the exact same as the movement phase, you could interpret bikes as being able to turbo boost in the assault phase. Which would be ludicrous.
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran




I can't believe this is still going on. Has everyone decided to ignore Ghaz's post.

The last sentence form the very paragraph that this infamous line comes from tells us explicitly what it means to 'move following the same rules as in the movement phase.'

here it is : "This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through the gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."

NOTE: There is **no** mention of the models movement speed whatsoever.

This is so unbelievable that someone will go through great lengths to prove RAW from only **1** line in an *entire* paragraph and an *entire* page dedicated to moving assaulting models.

Assaulting 12" with bikes is **not** RAW folks. Sorry. Not even close. What this is, is wishful thinking and using one line to try to find an Easter Egg that doesn't exist.

RAW is bikes move 6" in the Assault Phase.

Lets drop this and move on, this is embarrassing to Dakka and any real rules questions.

EDIT: A word to the wise for those who bought into this Hogwash. Read the rules yourself, and form your own opinion before you just believe whatever a guy says without doing any bit of research yourself. Especially if that Hogwash is so extraordinary and against the norm, and defiantly if that Hogwash is found on the internet.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/01/05 10:09:00


DA 3rd Co. w/duelwing 6000+ pts
Mostly tanks 2000+ pts
Ultras 3rd Co and 1st Co. 7000+ pts
Harald Deathwolf's Co. 7000+ pts
4000+ pts (Daemonhunters)
Kabal of the Hydra 5000+ pts
Skullrippa'z Freebootaz 6000+ pts
Plague Marine Force 2000+ pts
and not finished until I own some of every army
 
   
Made in dk
Stormin' Stompa





padixon wrote:I can't believe this is still going on. Has everyone decided to ignore Ghaz's post.

The last sentence form the very paragraph that this infamous line comes from tells us explicitly what it means to 'move following the same rules as in the movement phase.'

here it is : "This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through the gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."



Sure we did. And I asked the following question;

Gaz

Gaz wrote:
This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.


That is what it means, nothing more. Stop trying to add your own qualifications to a term that they've already clearly defined.


If that is what it means (and nothing more) then the assaulters are not affected by difficult terrain, coherency rules, "Move at the speeed of the slowest" and other important rules, are they?


....he chose not to answer.

-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."

18.000 3.500 8.200 3.300 2.400 3.100 5.500 2.500 3.200 3.000


 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran




Steelmage99 wrote:
padixon wrote:I can't believe this is still going on. Has everyone decided to ignore Ghaz's post.

The last sentence form the very paragraph that this infamous line comes from tells us explicitly what it means to 'move following the same rules as in the movement phase.'

here it is : "This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through the gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."



Sure we did. And I asked the following question;

Gaz

Gaz wrote:
This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.


That is what it means, nothing more. Stop trying to add your own qualifications to a term that they've already clearly defined.


If that is what it means (and nothing more) then the assaulters are not affected by difficult terrain, coherency rules, "Move at the speeed of the slowest" and other important rules, are they?


....he chose not to answer.


Your kidding right?

This is what I mean when I say that you (proverbial you) try to prove RAW from only 1 line. I am not going to answer this and let you do this yourself. But I will give you a hint.

Important: **Read the rest of Moving Assaulting Models** This will answer all your queries on those important rules you feel need to be said in the first paragraph, because they are covered quite nicely in the following paragraphs.

And the only one not covered is moving at the slowest speed of a model in the squad because you *do*. Assault rules clearly show you move your unit on a model to model basis. In extremely rare cases you may have a cavalry model in a unit of non-cavalry (If Cavalry ICs sitll exist?) In which case *that* model may in fact assault his full 12". BUT, he must also maintain coherency too. Which in 99% of the case, he will probably only go about 6", and maybe if he is in the back of the formation, he can go a little further. Models with Slow and purposeful pass it off their speed to the squad they are with as per their own rule. But this discussion topic must be saved for a different forum as it has in many cases been argued back and forth (not the part about SaP, but about models in a squad that can assault 12" [DE combat drugs] and in a squad that can not)

Note: No where in any paragraph where it goes into explicit details on moving models into combat does it state anywhere you assault the same pace you move. No where. In fact it *does* say you assault 6". And 40k rules are written with a basic rule outline and then you apply restrictions/exceptions given for each unit type. And the only one given for bikes is that they ignore difficult terrain and take dangerous terrain tests instead.

This could not be any simpler.

The point is read the subject matter in its entirety. There is such a thing as 'context'. And any one line from any document can/and will always be taken out of 'context'.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/01/05 12:17:51


DA 3rd Co. w/duelwing 6000+ pts
Mostly tanks 2000+ pts
Ultras 3rd Co and 1st Co. 7000+ pts
Harald Deathwolf's Co. 7000+ pts
4000+ pts (Daemonhunters)
Kabal of the Hydra 5000+ pts
Skullrippa'z Freebootaz 6000+ pts
Plague Marine Force 2000+ pts
and not finished until I own some of every army
 
   
Made in us
Widowmaker






Syracuse, NY

whitedragon wrote:
Moz, there are certain rules in 40k that have no easy answer because of the inconsistencies in language/verbage/style that GW uses to write their rules. The reason we come here is not to be able to settle a dispute for every rule out there that may pop up, but rather to increase awareness of some of the really big rule humdingers that can derail a game very quickly. With increased awareness, we can discuss with our opponents and avoid arguments and at least have an understanding of where the rules breakdown. There are many instances like this in the rules, and unfortunately there are no real good answers.

Recent examples would be, Eldrad's Staff, single or double handed, and the whole FNP transferring to the unit with a joined IC nonsense. Don't forget Deff Rollaz.

Reaching into the way-back machine, this was true in 3rd/4th edition as well, with Siren and Grey Knights.

Saying that you're embarrassed by threads like these is not the fault of the players, but rather the fault of GW's poor rules writing.


I'm embarrassed more by the quality of the arguments I suppose. It's been a long time since I've seen a decently constructed premise to logical conclusion out of this forum, and my feel for YMDC nowadays is that most of the time it's more like effective trolling techniques win out over actual inspection. Take the way that Augustus starts the thread: 'Do bikes go 6" or 12", discuss'. Basically baiting people into stating their expectations from the past editions of the game before bringing his contentious argument in which I think is largely based not on the merit of the argument but on the bolding and highlighting used. Proponents for both sides usually rattle on ignoring one another completely and the argument is declared 'won' by whomever posts last before the lock.

I think the intended purpose of YMDC is fine. I also agree that the rules are written in a manner that is not consistent with how seriously we treat them. I however believe that we could get more use out of this forum if we would actually discuss the rules, drop the ad hominem, and not post if you don't have something to say.

So in order to not fall prey to my own complaint, would someone like to work on this one:
P1: The Movement phase and Assault phase are distinct, separate phases
P2: During the Assault phase, a unit moves using the rules of the Movement phase
C1: A unit will move in the assault phase following all rules for movement except those that are specific to 'during the Movement phase'
P3: All units move as infantry except when specifically stated otherwise in the unit types section
P4: Bikes may move up to 12" during the Movement phase (capital M, game term: Movement phase)
C2: Bikes will move at the speed of infantry during the Assault phase (6")

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2009/01/05 14:15:45


   
Made in sg
Slippery Scout Biker




Austin, TX

6 inches.

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el




All over the U.S.

Thanks Moz, for your input and sage advice. You pretty much summed it up and I'm going t o follow your advice. 6" all to be said, So I'm outta here.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/01/05 16:35:33


Officially elevated by St. God of Yams to the rank of Scholar of the Church of the Children of the Eternal Turtle Pie at 11:42:36 PM 05/01/09

If they are too stupid to live, why make them?

In the immortal words of Socrates, I drank what??!

Tau-*****points(You really don't want to know)  
   
Made in us
Banelord Titan Princeps of Khorne






Moz wrote:
I'm embarrassed more by the quality of the arguments I suppose. It's been a long time since I've seen a decently constructed premise to logical conclusion out of this forum, and my feel for YMDC nowadays is that most of the time it's more like effective trolling techniques win out over actual inspection. Take the way that Augustus starts the thread: 'Do bikes go 6" or 12", discuss'. Basically baiting people into stating their expectations from the past editions of the game before bringing his contentious argument in which I think is largely based not on the merit of the argument but on the bolding and highlighting used. Proponents for both sides usually rattle on ignoring one another completely and the argument is declared 'won' by whomever posts last before the lock.

I think the intended purpose of YMDC is fine. I also agree that the rules are written in a manner that is not consistent with how seriously we treat them. I however believe that we could get more use out of this forum if we would actually discuss the rules, drop the ad hominem, and not post if you don't have something to say.

So in order to not fall prey to my own complaint, would someone like to work on this one:
P1: The Movement phase and Assault phase are distinct, separate phases
P2: During the Assault phase, a unit moves using the rules of the Movement phase
C1: A unit will move in the assault phase following all rules for movement except those that are specific to 'during the Movement phase'
P3: All units move as infantry except when specifically stated otherwise in the unit types section
P4: Bikes may move up to 12" during the Movement phase (capital M, game term: Movement phase)
C2: Bikes will move at the speed of infantry during the Assault phase (6")


I can't disagree with you at all, and actually I think we've all gotten a little lazy here with the "Premise/Conclusion" thing. It does spell the argument out alot better. Maybe we need to be a bit more vigiliant in how we display our arguments, but you can't get rid of all the excess noise completely.

Veriamp wrote:I have emerged from my lurking to say one thing. When Mat taught the Necrons to feel, he taught me to love.

Whitedragon Paints! http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/613745.page 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






San Jose, CA

Augustus wrote:
MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:No it doesn't need to be faq'd. It clearly says that Eldar jetbikes can move 6 inches if they assault or not. Clearly this states that bikes assault 6 inches.


Well that's from an outdated codex that was written in 4th edition, so that actually makes sense because the rules were different then.


You've made this mistake twice. The rules for Eldar Jetbikes are in the main rulebook (p. 53, with the rest of the bikes).

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Temple Guard






Janthkin wrote:
Augustus wrote:
MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:No it doesn't need to be faq'd. It clearly says that Eldar jetbikes can move 6 inches if they assault or not. Clearly this states that bikes assault 6 inches.


Well that's from an outdated codex that was written in 4th edition, so that actually makes sense because the rules were different then.


You've made this mistake twice. The rules for Eldar Jetbikes are in the main rulebook (p. 53, with the rest of the bikes).


That also doesn't mean they only assault 6". It means they can move 6" if they assault or not. If they move 12", they can also move 6". It is horridly circuitous logic, but it can hold weight in a debate.

27th Member of D.O.O.M.F.A.R.T.
Resident Battletech Guru. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






San Jose, CA

Mattlov wrote:
Janthkin wrote:
Augustus wrote:
MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:No it doesn't need to be faq'd. It clearly says that Eldar jetbikes can move 6 inches if they assault or not. Clearly this states that bikes assault 6 inches.


Well that's from an outdated codex that was written in 4th edition, so that actually makes sense because the rules were different then.


You've made this mistake twice. The rules for Eldar Jetbikes are in the main rulebook (p. 53, with the rest of the bikes).


That also doesn't mean they only assault 6". It means they can move 6" if they assault or not. If they move 12", they can also move 6". It is horridly circuitous logic, but it can hold weight in a debate.


I wasn't commenting on the utility of the argument one way or the other, just noting a flaw in how Augustus has been addressing it. You can't wave this one off as being outdated codex material.

But anything that requires "horridly circuitous logic" should trigger a warning flag.


Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






on board Terminus Est

"But anything that requires "horridly circuitous logic" should trigger a warning flag."

SO TRUE!!!

G

ALL HAIL SANGUINIUS! No one can beat my Wu Tang style!

http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com <- My 40k Blog! BA Tactics & Strategies!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Moz wrote:
P3: All units move as infantry except when specifically stated otherwise in the unit types section


P3 is the flaw.

There is no rule in the book that says all units assault move as infantry unless stated otherwise (that's the 4th edition paradigm). What the rule says is units use the same rules they do in the movement phase as I have been saying all along.

Infantry move 6 in the assault phase because they are a unit, and units assault move with the same rules as the movement phase. Strait out of the book.

The exceptions to this are cavalry and jump infantry which have explicit specifications because they move 6 and assault 12, and move 12 and assault 6 respectively, they had to have these rules because they break the paradigm laid out in the assault rules earlier where all units assault with the same rules as the movement phase.
   
Made in us
Boosting Ultramarine Biker





Denton, TX

After drudging through all the pages in this thread, this is what I am able to conclude.

The argument is based on three things:

-"The maximum distance most units can move during an assault is 6 inches."
Ok, most units assault 6 inches, but it doesn't say ALL units, or doesn't specify "unless otherwise noted". This is basically an obscure sentence as it doesn't give specifics as to what or what does not assault 6.

-Rules for bikes do not give assault range.
Nope, they sure don't. Just more obscurity.

-"All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules as in their movement phase."
Alright, so from taking two obscurities you basically cannot draw any conclusion as to how far they assault. In addition, there is nothing in the rules for the movement phase stating that all units are limited to 6" movement unless otherwise noted (except for the bit on infantry).

So you only have ONE semi-solid piece of ruling to base their assault range on, and that is the bit about them following the rules for their movement phase. Which does allude to the fact that if they can move 12 inches in the movement phase, then they can also move 12 during the assault phase.

If you ask me though. I would say this argument is based on obscure, non-descriptive rules that don't officially rule one way or the other. I can see the argument and how it could be 12 inches, but I highly doubt that is the case. I would avoid trying to assault 12 inches in even a friendly game as it would just lead to you probably being yelled at by all the 40k nerds within earshot of your game.

5500
3500
2000  
   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin






6 pages...really. wow.
bikes move 12 assault 6.
if they assaulted 12 then it would say so like it does for cavalry.
   
Made in us
Phanobi





Paso Robles, CA, USA

Wow, this is amazing. I'm so going to use this in my next game. Thanks Augustus!!!!!!!111

....

Seriously, there aren't Easter Eggs in the rules.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings.
Look on My works, Ye Mighty, and despair.

Chris Gohlinghorst wrote:Holy Space Marine on a Stick.

This conversation has even begun to boggle my internet-hardened mind.

A More Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Kommando






this is quite funny how long can you people argue a rule that everyone and their grandmother knows? Its easy, do you have a special rule that says you can move more than 6" for assaults? if not then you move 6" for assaults. Really Im glad we never run into people like this at our stores, noobs is one thing but come on read the rule book once in a while.

"For the emperor!" "E' aint listenin!" *squish* (my fav blood and thunder quote)

BUT NOBS are NO GOOD at CC "ork town grot"
-perhaps the single dumbest comment I have ever heard-

Boss Zagstruck and Her-ORKick intervention, anything you can do we can do better  
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego





Canterbury

Augustus wrote:There is no rule in the book that says all units assault move as infantry unless stated otherwise (that's the 4th edition paradigm). What the rule says is units use the same rules they do in the movement phase as I have been saying all along.


Except there is such a rule, as we keep telling you.

Different Unit Types
So far the rules have just dealt with troops that
move around on foot – infantry. This section
covers different unit types, and these not only
add new tactical elements to your games, but
also more complexity to the rules. These unit
types have different rules for the way they move,
how terrain affects them, how far they can
assault, and so on.
You will find that Codexes
often add even more changes and exceptions for
specific models. In any given situation during a
battle, if the Codex doesn’t say any different,
follow the rules for the appropriate unit type, and
if those rules don’t say anything different, follow
the basic rules for infantry.
If you’re just starting out, you may find it easier
to use just infantry units in your first game or
two, while you get used to the basic rules. On
the other hand, if you do want to jump straight
in, we suggest that you just read those unit type
rules that apply to models in your collection.


Jeez, there's stubborn and then there's just blind stupidity.

The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Kommando






in laymans terms if your unit has a rule that says your assault move is different then you use that rule, if not you move 6".

"For the emperor!" "E' aint listenin!" *squish* (my fav blood and thunder quote)

BUT NOBS are NO GOOD at CC "ork town grot"
-perhaps the single dumbest comment I have ever heard-

Boss Zagstruck and Her-ORKick intervention, anything you can do we can do better  
   
Made in us
Implacable Skitarii





Boulder

da gob smaka wrote:this is quite funny how long can you people argue a rule that everyone and their grandmother knows? Its easy, do you have a special rule that says you can move more than 6" for assaults? if not then you move 6" for assaults. Really Im glad we never run into people like this at our stores, noobs is one thing but come on read the rule book once in a while.


Had you actually read the rule book you would have realized that a case can be made for either interpretation. The real question comes down to whether or not the special movement distance for the bikes carries into the assault phase or not. If it does, then bikes assault 12 inches. If it doesn't they assault 6 inches. 4th edition was very clear on this, however 5th edition is more ambiguously worded.



Railguns wrote:He does have a reputation as a team-killing f$&^-tard.
Railguns, about Kharn the Betrayer.


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Ozymandias wrote:Wow, this is amazing. I'm so going to use this in my next game. Thanks Augustus!!!!!!!111

....

Seriously, there aren't Easter Eggs in the rules.

Ozymandias, King of Kings


Ozymandias, not you too. I really enjoy your posts, I'm surprised you would throw the synicism in there.

Honestly I enjoy the majority of the thread. It is difficult however to have a running discussion with the vested posters in a thread when others interject with hostile posts with no content.

"You will be laughed out..."
"Try this in my store and..."
"reading comprehension"

But then, it is the internet. Even though they disagreed with me I really like the postings of Ghaz, Moz and Reds8n. I think many miss the point of the YMDC, I dont expect to "win" anything, but I'd like to raise awareness and talk about finer points, little interpretations and inconsistencies so people can make their own decisions. Posts "of course it is 6" don't ad much, although I suppose that is how some will "make the call", very well.

I am a bit surprised, I thought dakka was a temple of RAW, and this issue seems failry straitforward, but the established posters [DCMs] didn't seem to think so. Has it become bad form to make a RAW argument on dakka? Perhaps so.

Isn't this somewhat ironic given this line from the INAT FAQ:

"The answers in this FAQ are based on the rules as written (RAW) when possible (in fact, much more so than
last year’s FAQ*)."


Which I absolutely love and think is well done by the way!

If you want to defend the precedent because it "feels" right for you, that's great! Just be honest and say that instead, as some have.

At least read the quoted passages, understand the arguments, and decide for yourself!
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





reds8n wrote:Jeez, there's stubborn and then there's just blind stupidity.


Ah red, just because we disagree, I don't think less of you.
   
Made in us
Sneaky Kommando






well you go ahead and "interpret" however you want I garuntee that if you tried to argue that bikes assault more than 6" in any GT/RTT youd get a funny look by the judge, hed tell you 6" and walk away. but hey go ahead and assault more than 6 where you play its just a game but in tournaments they assault 6". And I have read the rules all of them as a matter of fact from rouge trader to 5th edition. read reds8n post before mine theres your rule, theres no ambiguity about it. Bikes (unlike cavalry and swarms) do not have a special rule saying they move further than 6" in the assault phase, so they move 6". You cant use the lack of wording to justify making up your own rules, when in doubt you fall back on the core rules. Everything assaults 6" (gargantuan creatures/titans/jump infantry/bikes/little fuzzy bunnies) unless the unit has a special rule that states other wise, go look up ripperswarms and tell me how far they assault.

"For the emperor!" "E' aint listenin!" *squish* (my fav blood and thunder quote)

BUT NOBS are NO GOOD at CC "ork town grot"
-perhaps the single dumbest comment I have ever heard-

Boss Zagstruck and Her-ORKick intervention, anything you can do we can do better  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





da gob smaka wrote:...do not have a special rule saying they move further than 6" in the assault phase, so they move 6".


Yes they do, they move 12 in the movement phase, you move the same in the assault pahse as the movement phase, the special rule is in the bike section.

da gob smaka wrote:You cant use the lack of wording to justify making up your own rules, when in doubt you fall back on the core rules. Everything assaults 6"


"Everything assaults 6" isn't a rule anymore. Do you have a page reference for that?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





reds8n wrote:
Augustus wrote:There is no rule in the book that says all units assault move as infantry unless stated otherwise (that's the 4th edition paradigm). What the rule says is units use the same rules they do in the movement phase as I have been saying all along.


Except there is such a rule, as we keep telling you.

Different Unit Types
So far the rules have just dealt with troops that
move around on foot – infantry. This section
covers different unit types, and these not only
add new tactical elements to your games, but
also more complexity to the rules. These unit
types have different rules for the way they move,
how terrain affects them, how far they can
assault, and so on.
You will find that Codexes
often add even more changes and exceptions for
specific models. In any given situation during a
battle, if the Codex doesn’t say any different,
follow the rules for the appropriate unit type, and
if those rules don’t say anything different, follow
the basic rules for infantry.
If you’re just starting out....


...


Bold emphasis mine. Notice how in your first italic emphasis it always refers to 'unit'? Disregarding the part about codex exceptions disqualifying the entire second quote of yours (we are after all just talking about the core rules here) the unit type is bikes reds8n, they do have a special rule for movement, they move 12. That is the rule to follow, the next sentence following the comma doesn't apply, because the unit type is bikes. The rules for the unit type do say something, they say they move 12.

Good quote.
   
Made in au
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






usernamesareannoying wrote:6 pages...really. wow.
bikes move 12 assault 6.
if they assaulted 12 then it would say so like it does for cavalry.
if they assaulted 6 then it would say so like it does for jump infantry.

Interceptor Drones can disembark at any point during the Sun Shark's move (even though models cannot normally disembark from Zooming Flyers).


-Jeremy Vetock, only man at Games Workshop who understands Zooming Flyers 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran




Augustus wrote:
da gob smaka wrote:...do not have a special rule saying they move further than 6" in the assault phase, so they move 6".


Yes they do, they move 12 in the movement phase, you move the same in the assault pahse as the movement phase, the special rule is in the bike section.


Where in the bike section? You mean page 53. Nope no where in there. It just says they move 12" in the movement phase. period.

If you are talking about that **1** line you are trying to base RAW around that is found all the way back on pg. 34.

da gob smaka wrote:You cant use the lack of wording to justify making up your own rules, when in doubt you fall back on the core rules. Everything assaults 6"


"Everything assaults 6" isn't a rule anymore. Do you have a page reference for that?


Yep, found on page 33. You are right it doesn't say 'everything'. But going by your logic it doesn't say Bikes assault 12" either.

You are reading this **1** line out of context with the rest of the entire section. If you read further down, it goes on to explain what it means. And no where in there does it say anything about assaulting the same speed you move. No where.

Look I can do what you do. Let me see If I can make up some cool new rules by reading into only **1** line and not reading the rest.

1) Oh look we been playing Vehicles all wrong see on pg. 58. "Vehicles that remained stationary may fire *all* (emphasis mine) of their weapons."
Wow would you look at that I guess we can fire ordinance and all other weapons, wow I guess we been playing this wrong all along.

2) Wow you would not believe this on page. 29. "Any models fully or partially under the template are hit."
Wow another little Easter Egg. I guess this means only models under the template can be removed as casualties.

Dude, I can do this all day. These are just 2 at random, you can nearly find on almost every page a sentence you can take out of context.

My point STOP with just trying to prove RAW with only 1 line. It doesn't work. RAW *IS* reading the rest of the section of the line you are trying to prove. What you are doing is taking **1** line and trying to base a discussion about it, and it is getting absurd. Read the rest of the rules for "Moving Assaulting Models" it will go in detail what a model can and can not do.

Everyone. Stop posting and read the *entire* rules for "Moving Assaulting Models". It goes in explicit details of what it means to "following the same rules as in the Movement phase." And you will find that no where does it say anything about assaulting the same distance you can move.

Everyone here has posted different rules from several different pages that are against the idea you are purposing. And Augustus, you are still trying to cling onto your **1** line that you **have** to read into and between the lines to come to the conclusion that you have.

This is discussion is RAW. Not RAI. And you Augustus are wrong per RAW.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/01/06 00:22:59


DA 3rd Co. w/duelwing 6000+ pts
Mostly tanks 2000+ pts
Ultras 3rd Co and 1st Co. 7000+ pts
Harald Deathwolf's Co. 7000+ pts
4000+ pts (Daemonhunters)
Kabal of the Hydra 5000+ pts
Skullrippa'z Freebootaz 6000+ pts
Plague Marine Force 2000+ pts
and not finished until I own some of every army
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: