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.

According to 5th ed rules, (Dont have the page number), assault movement "follows the same characteristics as the unit's movement", or something to that affect.

So does that mean biker nobs have a 12 inch assault range? A nob biker at my local game store tried to argue so, and made just good enough of an arguement to leave the door open for interpretation.

(He was a friend so we played it as a 6 inch assault, I would just like clarification)

Most folks agree that it's an oversight on GW's part and that bikes only get a 6" assault move.

There was already a lengthy thread on the topic if you want to see both sides' arguments in excruciating detail: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/226051.page

In the RAW its 12
In the RAI its 6

So you choose.

It should be noted that making the RAW argument for a 12" assault range (especially if the person arguing for it is playing a nob biker army) isn't the best way to make friends.

Looking at page 53 of the BGB there is no phrase like that. It says bikers are not slowed by difficult terrain but must take dangerous terrain tests.

willydstyle wrote:Looking at page 53 of the BGB there is no phrase like that. It says bikers are not slowed by difficult terrain but must take dangerous terrain tests.

And yet it would seem there is a discrepancy.

Thank you for the forum link!

willydstyle wrote:Looking at page 53 of the BGB there is no phrase like that. It says bikers are not slowed by difficult terrain but must take dangerous terrain tests.

The disputed section of the rules is on p. 34.

Moving Assaulting Models wrote:
All of the models in the assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules as in the Movement phase, with the exception that they may be moved within 1" of enemy models.

@DiscipleofCaliban: no problem

Which in turn contradicts the rules at the top of page 33... lame.

I dont see pg. 33 as a contradiction but as a clarification.

I would say a clear rule supersedes a vague description.

Nevermind there is a "most"........

Maximum assault is 6" unless explicitly stated otherwise (i.e. Beasts)

Bikes assault 6". Anyone who says otherwise is a Rules twisting jerk who needs to be shown why the rulebook is hardback.

Since a bikes assault was traditionally 6", its probably a safe assumption to think that if GW meant to change it they would have been clear about it, instead of leaving it up to people to read between the lines.

Gwar! wrote:Anyone who says otherwise is a Rules twisting jerk who needs to be shown why the rulebook is hardback.

Great argument!

Webbe wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Anyone who says otherwise is a Rules twisting jerk who needs to be shown why the rulebook is hardback.

Great argument!

And correct you will find

Gwar! wrote:

Webbe wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Anyone who says otherwise is a Rules twisting jerk who needs to be shown why the rulebook is hardback.

Great argument!

And correct you will find

The arguments for why bikes would be allowed to assault 12" have been stated before and are based in RAW, so no, assaulting people simply because they disagree with the way you happen to read the rules which have a number of interpretations is not a "correct" argument if you can even call it that.

Yes, based in raw.

What Raw is that? I can prove RaW, that Bikes assault 6"

Page 33: The maximum distance most units can move during an assault is 6"

The Passage on page 34 about following rules for movement is referring to things like difficult terrain and such. If it meant "you assault your move distance" or "you may move the same distance as you can in the movement phase" it would say "You may move your movement distance in assault" or "you may move the same distance as you can in the movement phase".

Please provide me a Page number (or passage on Page 53 which deals with bikes) that says they may assault 12" and I'll be happy as Larry. I don't "read" the rules in any way other than in English (Despite my Flag I am actually English, and therefore know how to read the language it was written in, rather than use some obscure American or Australian way of reading).

What next, you gonna Claim Jump Infantry can Assault 12" too (Because even though it says they can only assault 6", these rules say I follow the movement roolz!)?

Jayden63 wrote:In the RAW its 12
In the RAI its 6

So you choose.

Please actually read the RaW bwfore spouting off.

I do not like the idea one bit, but apon reading all the pertaining sections of the movement phase, and then the assualt descriptions of Jump Infantry, Bikes, and Cavalry I find myself supporting bikes assualting 12"

Jump Infantry specifically state that they move 12 inches in the movement phase, but then go on to say that they only assault 6". Bikes specifically state that they move 12" in the movement phase, but their assault description lists no movement restrictions. Cavalry specifically state they move like infantry (6") but in their assault section it's says 12".

So both Jump Infantry and Cavalry both have assaults that differ from their movements, and it's stated, but the bikes have nothing like that. I don't think this was an oversight by GW.

I don't use bikes for either my marnes or eldar, and I certainly don't want to see such overpowered things like Nob Bikers get any stronger, but I just don't see how a 12" assualt for bikers isn't legal.

Well considering it is stated to be 6" unless otherwise stated (like beasts/cav who specifically are mentioned to move 12") I still dont see how you can think Bikes Assault 12".

Then again, Games Workshop were under the impression they were writing rules for Young Adults/Adults to play the game so perhaps they (quite wrongly) assumed we knew how to read English and didn't all have degrees from Internet Law School. -Shrug-

I only assault my bikes 6 inches max. If you need to cheat to play a game then you've got more issues than another 6 inches assault move can sort out!

Gwar! wrote:Well considering it is stated to be 6" unless otherwise stated (like beasts/cav who specifically are mentioned to move 12") I still dont see how you can think Bikes Assault 12".

Then again, Games Workshop were under the impression they were writing rules for Young Adults/Adults to play the game so perhaps they (quite wrongly) assumed we knew how to read English and didn't all have degrees from Internet Law School. -Shrug-

Ignoring your childish insults...

It is not 6" unless otherwise stated. MOST UNITS is a generalization. Most by definition does not mean all. It just means a majority. Like infantry, monstrous creatures, and jump infantry.

The rules specifically state under "Moving Assaulting Models" and I qoute "All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following THE SAME RULES AS IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE..." (capitalization emphasis mine).

The Unit Types section clearly states when a unit's assault range differs from it's movement range, as it does with Jump Infantry and Cavalry. It lists no differance for Bikes.

And please, just try to use your hard bound book on this with anyone one day. I'd love to hear about the results.

s.j.mccartney wrote:I only assault my bikes 6 inches max. If you need to cheat to play a game then you've got more issues than another 6 inches assault move can sort out!

Well said. All this Talk about wanting an extra 6" so they can charge the rear armour to penetrate it with their Swords and fists.... makes me nervous.

*Disclaimer: YES I KNOW NO-ONES ACTUALLY SAID IT GROW A SENSE OF HUMOUR!

djones520 wrote:Ignoring your childish insults...

Insults? Merely observations. If you are not adult enough to provide a counter-claim, that's not my fault

djones520 wrote:It is not 6" unless otherwise stated. MOST UNITS is a generalization. Most by definition does not mean all. It just means a majority. Like infantry, monstrous creatures, and jump infantry.

Actually, the Rules are written that everything follows the same rules for infantry unless otherwise stated. (not in those exact words but thats the gist of it)

djones520 wrote:The rules specifically state under "Moving Assaulting Models" and I qoute "All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following THE SAME RULES AS IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE..." (capitalization emphasis mine).

It's spelt Quote. Does it say "the same distance"? No, it says the same rules. Rules meaning Difficult Terrain Checks etc. Distance moved isn't part of the Movement Rules at all, its in the Unit Type rules. "Make their assault move following the same rules as in the movement phase" (No childish Capitalisation mine) therefore doesn't cover distance moved.

djones520 wrote:The Unit Types section clearly states when a unit's assault range differs from it's movement range, as it does with Jump Infantry and Cavalry. It lists no differance for Bikes.

Jump Infantry is mentioned because they have to take difficult terrain tests rather than dangerous terrain tests. Cavalry is listed as an exception because thats part of the rules for being Calvary.

djones520 wrote:And please, just try to use your hard bound book on this with anyone one day. I'd love to hear about the results.

I did. Guy broke his nose, and the CCTV Footage of the incident was mysteriously absent. My word (and those of the room) against his.

Gwar! wrote:Maximum assault is 6" unless explicitly stated otherwise (i.e. Beasts)

I dont mean to sound like a jerk but you just pulled that out of your behind.

Quote a page where it says that please.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not addressing this at anyone in particular who is posting in this thread, rather this is just an observation about this particular type of rules debate.

Ugh....Much like the deffrolla ramming thing this is one of those rules arguments that always boils down to the two sides quoting the same two rules passages at one another and due to the way the rules are written can never really be resolved unless GW were to address it in a FAQ (Guess what: they won't).

When that doesn't work the first few hundred times they will start YELLING THOSE RELEVANT RULES PASSAGES AT ONE ANOTHER.

And eventually it will degrade into personal insults and the like. (See the thread I linked to at the beginning of this thread, which was closed for flaming, for examples if you like)

Now there is RAW support for bikes getting a 12" assault moves, however I think it is pretty obvious that RAI bikes get a 6" assault move.

So - discuss it with your opponent beforehand if it's an issue for you, as the OP and his nob biker buddy did.

Also: If you're already playing a nob biker list, yes this rules oversight could give you a substantial advantage in games....but it won't help if no one will play you.
Could also put a (bigger) dent in your sportsman scores at tourneys.

Maybe save the argument for tourneys where cheesy lists and being TFG are not only allowed but encouraged such as 'Ard Boyz.

EDITS: Typos - the horror....the HORROR.

Yes, lets all have this discussion again.

And why am I not surpriced to see Gwar! being the main antagonist. Sigh. Now there is a guy that just can't leave it.

DebonaireToast wrote:
When that doesn't work the first few hundred times they will start YELLING THOSE RELEVANT RULES PASSAGES AT ONE ANOTHER.

And eventually it will degrade into personal insults and the like. (See the thread I linked to at the beginning of this thread, which was closed for flaming, for examples if you like)

LOL that's already happening up there with them...

But seriously, DON'T EVEN argue this (djones, Gwar), (both of) you are WAY too locked into your close-minded viewpoints to actually take anything the other side has to say seriously, and will keep CAPITALIZING rule sections or insulting people, there's just no point.

Sheesh...not this assinine argument again....LOCK PLZ!

Thing is.. Gwar! is right.

The top of p34 talks about 'the Movement phase'

There isnt anything in 'the Movement phase' p11-13 which discusses movement of bikes. All it is discussing is the general rules to do with moving models in a game of 40k, as it goes of to explain in that very paragraph.

The unit-types section has information on a specific type of units over the various phases of the game. You can look to these sections to find any additional information regarding a special unit-type in any given phase.

Your a biker & you come to an assault.

-Follow the rules in the assault section p33-42

(check your special unit type assault section for additional info, follow that p51-55)

-During the assault move, follow the rules in the movement section p11-13

(except that you can infact come within 1").

Now.. this is where you -dont- check your special unit-types section regarding the movement phase. You are not in the movement phase. You are in the assault phase. Any relevent information to assaulting is contained within the 'assault' section of the unit type description. < This is what every pro-12" assault argument is based around & I dont get how they can argue it? Edit: The above being a walkthrough of RAW and finding no support for bikes assaulting 12"

There is a reason why there is a main section on movement rules & an additional bolt-on section with rules to do with these phases with various unit types. Followed properly, it avoids confusion.

1. I think RAW is heavily in favor of bikes assaulting 12, you cant really argue that.

2. What can be argued is that it is ott and not intended.

Nothing wrong with believing in #2. I do. But dont try and argue that #1 is wrong because of that.

PanamaG wrote:1. I think RAW is heavily in favor of bikes assaulting 12, you cant really argue that.

I can argue that, and I will. At length if need be...

A lot of people seem to think that typing the letters R, A and W into their post magically makes their opinon into a fact. This isn't the case, what is a fact is that the claims in favour of a 12" assault are based on searching for loopholes and weaseling around basic english in preference of strange and illogical nurglich style of 'so called' logical deduction (the sort of pointless thinking that claims that 2 plus 2 can equal 5 if you decide to use values of 2 and 5 that aren't 2 and 5).

Personally I believe that since the rules for bikes state they can move 12" in the movement phase means that they can move 12" in the movement phase because they have a special rule overruling the normal rules. While models make assault moves using the same rules as in the movement phase, the movement phase which you will find on page 13 of the rulebook, not the special rule that modifies it.

Secondly since GW isn't actually trying to hide key rules away like easter eggs only to be found by the eagle eyed, it means going against the clear lack of any suggestion in the 'bikes assaulting' rules that you do anything out of the orinanary other than whats mentioned is ridiclous in the extreme.

The rule allows them to move 12 in the movement phase.

The assault rules state" all of the models in the assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules as in the movement phase."

Page 33 adds " The maximum distance MOST units can move during an assault is 6." Adds nothing but subtracts nothing.

So there you go. Going by what the book says right there, bikes assault 12". Anything else is reaching. Trust me, I agreed with you until I saw this thread. There is nothing easter egg about it, its right there in those three quotes. (actually just the first two)

Also as an aside a lot of people think they can rattle off rules in their own words (which twists the rule) and expect it to become fact. Such as Gwars gem:
Maximum assault is 6" unless explicitly stated otherwise (i.e. Beasts)

Totally reaching and no where in the rules.

PanamaG.. when it tells you to follow the rules in the the movement phase, its talking about pages 11-13.

Its very clear & obvious by what is written in that paragraph.

You are using rules from p53. You are looking at rules for the movement phase when there are clear rules for the assault phase which you are (seemingly) choosing not to read. Why you would read rules for movement (in regards to bikes) when looking to that unit-type section for rules on assaults, when there are specific rules for assaults in that same section.. I dont know? Could you tell me why you are ignoring that section?