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.

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

Not true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is "flat out" a penalty?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intent is irrelevant, but yes I do.

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

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

Well, here's my view on things

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

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

That's my take.

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

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

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

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

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

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


dang, I said i wouldn't post anymore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General_Chaos wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:General_Chaos - still no rules argument?

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

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

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

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

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

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