New Ork Dakka jets from WD

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.

**General_Chaos**

Let me get this straight

You guys want it to count as 12" for disembarking
You guys want it to count as 12" for shooting

You want it to NOT count as as 6" for your opponents assault phase
You want it to NOT count as 12" for your opponents shooting phase

The first two are definitely penalties
The last two are penalties for your opponent

**rigeld2**

My opponent is not allowed to benefit from my wargear unless otherwise specified.
Also, it's my wargear, so context says only penalties to me are considered - because penaltiies to my opponent are bonuses to me.

**Happyjew**

Just out of curiosity, (for both sides of the argument), If I move 12" and Ram a vehicle, can I claim I "count as" moving only 11" for purposes of the hit dealt to me (thus decreasing the strength of the attack by 1)?

**THE_GODLYNESS**

Well that's debatable. Since ramming you have to move as fast as possible. And if it is exactly I mean exaclty 12 away you which I find highly unlikely. It would be considered a detriment to get a str 9 hit back (going to assume you ramming an armour 14 thing here other wise no point I'm the example. ) then I would say yes. But would play it as I take a str 9 back also due to not many people know the rpj rules as this and the other thread has shown.

**rigeld2**

You have to use the same value for movement in both equations. Since RPJ doesn't allow you to ignore a bonus, you can't decrease the movement value for the damage you do, which means you can't decrease the movement value for the damage you take either.

That's my read on it.

**Jidmah**

General_Chaos wrote:Let me get this straight

You guys want it to count as 12" for disembarking
You guys want it to count as 12" for shooting

You want it to NOT count as as 6" for your opponents assault phase
You want it to NOT count as 12" for your opponents shooting phase

The first two are definitely penalties
The last two are penalties for your opponent

Luckily RPJ limits its effect to penalties incurred by the upgraded vehicle. You are not given permission to ignore penalties anyone else suffers, including your opponent.

Happyjew wrote:Just out of curiosity, (for both sides of the argument), If I move 12" and Ram a vehicle, can I claim I "count as" moving only 11" for purposes of the hit dealt to me (thus decreasing the strength of the attack by 1)?

rigeld2 wrote:You have to use the same value for movement in both equations. Since RPJ doesn't allow you to ignore a bonus, you can't decrease the movement value for the damage you do, which means you can't decrease the movement value for the damage you take either.

That's my read on it.

I agree with rigeld2 on this. You only check the ram distance once, so it's both negative and positive. As explained before, something even partially positive cannot be a penalty.

**Defeatmyarmy**

I have a feeling that this decision will come down to a dice roll off every game as both sides hold a valid arguments and gw as always leaves a loophole. Bein armor 10 I'm curious how many points this vehicle costs. I refuse to buy any more white dwarfs until 6th, so will withdraw from this arguement. I still say you either get one type of movement, as Rpj is a bonus inch to movement that ignores penalties. The type of movement done is not a penalty, iirc there is nothing that says moving flat out is a penalty, just that the vehicle cannot shoot as it is moving at a speed faster than it can shoot. Maybe gw intended it to get both bonuses with Rojas paint job since the fetching thing costs so much cash, not sure the average points cost of the different vehicle types.

**Jidmah**

Ork fliers are 110-195 points, depending on variant and loadout. The rules for the fliers will most likely last into 6th, considering that at least one rule on the space marine flier makes no sense under the current rulesset (Option to count as skimmer instead of fast skimmer when stationary).

**ceorron**

There is one thing I have to bring to this discussion and that is wait for the FAQ or wait for 6th. Probably 6th

**Brian P**

I brought a dakkajet to the AWC tournament last Sunday. I was unaware of this thread so at the time I wasn't even aware that the rule was up for debate.

I played it as move 13" get the cover save and still get to shoot. None of my opponents had a problem with that. Before the tournament I had just checked that the BRB defined flat out as a distance and the Ork 'dex had the line about penalties in the rpj entry.

Of course one of them had a Hydra and gave zero effs about skimmer cover.

**Rashkasha**

This person claims to site relevant rules, but still misses an important part:

*A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18. This represents the fast vehicle moving at top speed, without firing its guns and is treated .......*

To me this makes it a prerequisite to not fire any guns to be considered flat out. So, if you shoot, you will not be flat out, and then no cover save.

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.

**Jidmah**

Rashkasha wrote:
This person claims to site relevant rules, but still misses an important part:

*A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18. This represents the fast vehicle moving at top speed, without firing its guns and is treated .......*

To me this makes it a prerequisite to not fire any guns to be considered flat out. So, if you shoot, you will not be flat out, and then no cover save.

Represents is not the same as requires. What a rule represents is completely irrelevant.

**Rashkasha**

I do not agree, it shows how the rule works, you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out.

Jidmah wrote:
Rashkasha wrote:
This person claims to site relevant rules, but still misses an important part:

*A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18. This represents the fast vehicle moving at top speed, without firing its guns and is treated .......*

To me this makes it a prerequisite to not fire any guns to be considered flat out. So, if you shoot, you will not be flat out, and then no cover save.

Represents is not the same as requires. What a rule represents is completely irrelevant.

**nosferatu1001**

Incorrect, y0ou are making the same logical fallacy others have made

Also, Storm Ravens. I see you ignored them. They go flat out and fire all the time.

Your argument is null

**rigeld2**

Rashkasha wrote:I do not agree, it shows how the rule works, you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out.

I'll be sure to tell all the BA and GK players that they've been cheating. Thanks for the heads up.

**grendel083**

Sorry but the StormRaven is a very poor counter argument (in fact I'd say not a counter argument at all).
We're specifically told that PotMS allows a weapon to be fired while Flat Out.
At no point does RPJ specifically say it also allows this. Hints at? Maybe. But specific? No.

Come on chaps, I expected better debate than this!

**nosferatu1001**

Bzzzt, no it had to be FAQ'd, because people didnt believe the rules.

What,. better debate than:

1) The actual rules. The ones where you ignore penalties, but not bonuses?

2) Nothing more is needed, because noone has actually managed to argue against the rules as yet

THere has been "but a penalty to my opponent should be ignored then!" "arguments", but they have been trivially removed from relevance

Nothing is left. No rules based argument has been presented, so its difficult to debate against nonsense.

**rigeld2**

grendel083 wrote:Sorry but the StormRaven is a very poor counter argument (in fact I'd say not a counter argument at all).
We're specifically told that PotMS allows a weapon to be fired while Flat Out.

That's true (sort of - PotMS doesn't mention Flat Out). However the statement

you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out

is demonstrably false.

At no point does RPJ specifically say it also allows this. Hints at? Maybe. But specific? No.

What - the ignoring penalty part doesn't tell you that?
Or is being unable to fire not a penalty?

Come on chaps, I expected better debate than this!

Pot, kettle, etc.

**grendel083**

rigeld2 wrote:
grendel083 wrote:Sorry but the StormRaven is a very poor counter argument (in fact I'd say not a counter argument at all).
We're specifically told that PotMS allows a weapon to be fired while Flat Out.

That's true (sort of - PotMS doesn't mention Flat Out).

The rule didn't (the FAQ did), still that rule is a lot clearer than RPJ.

However the statement
you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out
is demonstrably false.

Exceptions exist, but I wouldn't say it's false. The rule still stands, just because a StormRaven can break the rule doesn't mean everything can.

At no point does RPJ specifically say it also allows this. Hints at? Maybe. But specific? No.

What - the ignoring penalty part doesn't tell you that?
Or is being unable to fire not a penalty?

Specifically? No it doesn't. Otherwise it would say something like "this allows it to shoot while moving flat out". That would be specific allowance. Does it allow it? Maybe, but it doesn't specifically say.

I'll be honest, I'm more on the side of RPJ allowing the save than not. But the StormRaven exception has no bearing. Yes exceptions exist, they exist for almost every rule, but they're not blanket permission to ignore rules.

**rigeld2**

grendel083 wrote:

However the statement
you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out
is demonstrably false.

Exceptions exist, but I wouldn't say it's false. The rule still stands, just because a StormRaven can break the rule doesn't mean everything can.

There is no rule saying that you cannot fire to claim the fat out save.
There is a rule saying that going flat out prevents fire, and that skimmers gain a cover save when going flat out.

At no point does RPJ specifically say it also allows this. Hints at? Maybe. But specific? No.

What - the ignoring penalty part doesn't tell you that?
Or is being unable to fire not a penalty?

Specifically? No it doesn't. Otherwise it would say something like "this allows it shoot while moving flat out". That would be specific allowance. Does it allow it? Maybe, but it doesn't specifically say.

It specifically says to ignore penalties associated with that extra inch.
Bring unable to fire is a specific penalty associated with going over 12" (flat out).
How much more specific do you need?

Yes exceptions exist, they exist for almost every rule, but they're not blanket permission to ignore rules.

There is no rule saying that you must not fire to claim Flat Out cover saves. Trying to create one will not win a debate.

**grendel083**

I agree with those points (most of them anyway - its totally not specific). My point was people stating that "you can't shoot while moving Flat Out" is a false statement. It isn't false, there are exceptions (and I believe RPJ to be one) but the rule still stands.
I can't drive through a red light, an ambulance can, but that doesn't make the law false. If you're going to disprove an arguement do it properly! The StormRaven exception is irrelevant.

**nosferatu1001**

"you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out"

Is a logical fallacy, based on A -> B meaning that B -> A. THats the point. It has no basis in rules whatsoever

**rigeld2**

grendel083 wrote:I agree with those points (most of them anyway - its totally not specific). My point was people stating that "you can't shoot while moving Flat Out" is a false statement. It isn't false, there are exceptions (and I believe RPJ to be one) but the rule still stands.

That's not what was said.

you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out

Is what was said. And that's demonstrably false. Yes, a Storm Raven can fire while flat out. According to some, it wouldn't gain the cover save. All the FAQ says is:

BA FAQ wrote:Q: Can a Stormraven Gunship that has moved flat out
still use its Power of the Machine Spirit to fire one gun?
(p38)
A: Yes.

(GK FAQ exactly matches, just a different page number)
So the exact same argument applies.

Except there is literally nothing in the rules tying the cover save to being able to fire. They are not linked in any way. Therefore you can ignore one and still benefit from the other.

**grendel083**

nosferatu1001 wrote:"you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out"

Is a logical fallacy, based on A -> B meaning that B -> A. THats the point. It has no basis in rules whatsoever

That's fair enough. But a StormRaven's exception has nothing to do with it. We should be looking at the rules, as you've shown.

**BlueDagger**

Sadly until 6th makes changes, they can move flat out and fire all weapons.

RPJ states it ignores any penalties, therefor it will come down to if the judge considers not being able to fire when moving full out as a "penalty"...

**nosferatu1001**

The TO, if they have a smattering of understanding of English, should answer "Yes, that is a penalty"

to do otherwise requires there to be a definition of Penalty used exclusively in 40k, and even Lone Dragoon has given up on that tack

**Drunkspleen**

nosferatu1001 wrote:"you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out"

Is a logical fallacy, based on A -> B meaning that B -> A. THats the point. It has no basis in rules whatsoever

coincidentally the same sort of logical fallacy is what the entire "flat out and shooting" argument is based upon.

Flat out vehicles move over 12 inches so any vehicle moving over 12 inches is flat out.

**rigeld2**

Drunkspleen wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:"you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out"

Is a logical fallacy, based on A -> B meaning that B -> A. THats the point. It has no basis in rules whatsoever

coincidentally the same sort of logical fallacy is what the entire "flat out and shooting" argument is based upon.

Flat out vehicles move over 12 inches so any vehicle moving over 12 inches is flat out.

Um.
That's not a logical fallacy. All fast vehicles moving over 12 are by definition going flat out (excepting roads). BRB page 70.
"you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out" is a logical fallacy.

**Drunkspleen**

rigeld2 wrote:
Drunkspleen wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:"you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out"

Is a logical fallacy, based on A -> B meaning that B -> A. THats the point. It has no basis in rules whatsoever

coincidentally the same sort of logical fallacy is what the entire "flat out and shooting" argument is based upon.

Flat out vehicles move over 12 inches so any vehicle moving over 12 inches is flat out.

Um.
That's not a logical fallacy. All fast vehicles moving over 12 are by definition going flat out (excepting roads). BRB page 70.
"you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out" is a logical fallacy.

And here you are proving my point, you claim "All fast vehicles moving over 12 are by definition going flat out" when what the Rulebook ACTUALLY says on the matter is "A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12 [inches] and up to 18 [inches]"

That's EXACTLY the same as claiming "you can not fire any guns if you want to claim flat out" based on the rulebook saying "Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons."

**Happyjew**

So a Fast vehicle moving 24" is not moving flat out?