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.

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

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

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

Maybe you missed this?

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

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

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:General_Chaos - still no rules argument?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lone Dragoon wrote:

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

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

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

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

Lone Dragoon wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice the consistency all the way through here?


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

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

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

Now why would you go and say something like that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By moving 13" I've moved flat out.

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

General_Chaos wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

By moving 13" I've moved flat out.

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

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

Lone Dragoon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

By moving 13" I've moved flat out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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