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.

Since a search for the obvious terms like 'jetbike jotww' and 'jetbike bike', even though I could have sworn it had gotten asked months ago, but it came up again in the destroyer body versus JotWW thread and I thought that Eldar and Dark Eldar players might not be interested in rules questions involving Necrons.

As far as I can remember, this is the argument against JotWW affecting jetbikes from several months ago.:

Ambiguities of formatting aside, there are three places in the rulebook where the unit types are enumerated.

On pages four and five, the categories are: infantry; beasts and cavalry; monstrous creatures; jump infantry; bikes and jetbikes; vehicles and artillery.

On page fifty one, the list is "monstrous creatures, jump infantry, bikes & jetbikes, beasts and calvary and artillery'.

One page 301 of the hard cover rulebook, bikes and jetbikes are listed separately.

So, 'bike' and 'jetbike' refer to separate unit types.

Am I missing the thread in which this got settled, or did it just get swept into Gwar!'s unofficial FAQ and everyone moved on?

ok, again I apologize for making an argument out of this, but from my interpretation of the mini-book contained in AoBR, page 53, ''Jetbikes are the same as bikes, with the following exceptions:''
Two exceptions are listed [under Assault, the jetbike is ...treated as a normal bike] which both reference the Controlling Player's Turn, ie, during Movement & during a fall back move. From my perspective [as wrong as it may be] there is nothing in the rules which implies that Jetbikes are treated any differently than a ''normal'' bike during the opposing [ie, the player opposed to the Jetbike-controlling player] player's turn. A good ''fluff'' interpretation to me would surmise that, while they may be ''hovering'' after movement, they are still close enough to the ground to be affected by things like difficult/dangerous terrain, which as per their rules they obviously are when not moving [or to be more specific when they begin their movement, end their movement OR are not moving]...

Since this is in specific reference to the Jaws of the World Wolf ability in Codex:Space Wolves, and also since I do not own this particular Codex but have it on [mildly] good authority that said ability specifically rules out Jump Infantry in its use, I would argue that if Jetbikes were treated differently by the opposing player that Jetbikes would have been mentioned alongside Jump Infantry in this entry?
compare this to ''Skimmers'' which are distinct from normal vehicles with regard to the opposing player's turn where they can dodge a Ram attempt. There's never anything that implies that Jetbikes should be treated differently during an opponents turn & it would be stupid & redundant for GW to have to list both ''Bikes'' & ''Jetbikes'' when making a generic rule affecting all models that are treated as Bikes, unless the circumstances warrented it [which in this case they don't]

That's not to be taken as any kind of interpretation except what you feel supports your own personal cause. I am an Eldar player & would love to screw Space Wolves by denying JotWW against my Jetbikes, but I do not feel that is in line with the intention of the way Jetbikes are portrayed in the AoBR rule book...

radical bob wrote:Since this is in specific reference to the Jaws of the World Wolf ability in Codex:Space Wolves, and also since I do not own this particular Codex but have it on [mildly] good authority that said ability specifically rules out Jump Infantry in its use

Nope.

um, ''nope'' what?

In case you missed it, I already admitted that I was incorrect in my interpretation of this rule, but at least the blokes in the other thread actually posited their case!

granted, I have not given up after admitting defeat, so I can see why there was confusion, but still...I don't know what it is about ''nope'' that is the de facto end of this discussion?
and yes, I am merely attempting to make a joke at your expense, BUT NOT IN SPITE OF YOU! please, understand the difference in my crap humour...

I think what that 'nope' was intended to convey was that JotWW doesn't rule out units. It instead lists the unit types that are affected by it.

insaniak wrote:I think what that 'nope' was intended to convey was that JotWW doesn't rule out units. It instead lists the unit types that are affected by it.

Yup.

radical bob what are you on about? if you want to be pedantic all models in 40k follow the rules for infantry ... so why bother to list types that are effect by Jaws? And the reason is simple the rule only cares about what type the model is and will only effect "Monstrous Creatures, beasts, cavalry, Bikes and infantry models". Note that beasts and cavalry share a page and yet are both specifically mentioned because they are a specific types of model. Jetbike are not mention so are not effected by Jaws.

well, for what it's worth, I was more or less trying to make a joke...an obvious fail. Besides, I know that I was wrong but I'm just not really that good about letting it go. this is an apparent character flaw, which regardless of whether or not you believe me, I am working on & maybe some day I will be as amicable as you all would like. I hope so!

I mean, there's room for interpretation or else there wouldn't even need to be a discussion...if everybody thought it was ''obvious'' then why would we even bother? was it wrong of me to try and see another side to this argument? sweet jeebus, it's not like a GW employee has come in with the Official Rule Hammer and declared Exterminatus on my viewpoint, it's just a bunch of ''players'' who are ''interpreting'' the rules from the comfort of their own gaming circles. what's even better is this whole magical ''fluff = rules'' concerning the filler text of the ability...

bear in mind, if you have ever played Warmachine you would know just how ''pedantic'' an argument over the semantics of a rule can get. check the rules forum on PP's official site & see the kind of ridiculous jive people create from poor punctuation, etc.

at least I had the balls to admit that my interpretation was not necessarily the correct interpretation, but was mine nonetheless. look, there's plenty of ways I could argue this, but as far as I am concerned, I WAS WRONG and I said as much, feel good knowing you will never have to deal with my pedantic shenanigans in a real game...

the crutch that I will always fall back on, is the theory at the heart of the "Most Important Rule." if I were playing a SW player & he would have more fun calling my jetbikes ''bikes'' that would be quite alright with me & I would not feel cheated out of a victory in any way...and I couldn't give a squig's turd if that's the ''right'' or ''wrong'' way...I actually do think that either interpretation has merit.

sorry, but I don't think the personal attacks were warranted. now, I know I set myself up for it with the poor attempt at humour in the fourth post here, but I was honestly only trying to lighten the situation in regards to the fact that I could understand why I was misguided in my interpretation...

just chill & realise that you were correct all along...you don't need to berate me, an obvious ''noob'' to feel good about yourself right?

Jetbikes are not bikes, they are related and share some rules, but are not the same unit type.

kirsanth wrote:Jetbikes are not bikes, they are related and share some rules, but are not the same unit type.

Quite so. Also, the exclusion of jetbikes, jump infantry and vehicles fits the description of the power (a crack opening in the ground then closing again.

radical bob wrote:well, for what it's worth, I was more or less trying to make a joke...an obvious fail. Besides, I know that I was wrong but I'm just not really that good about letting it go. this is an apparent character flaw, which regardless of whether or not you believe me, I am working on & maybe some day I will be as amicable as you all would like. I hope so!

Joke? theres not really any place for that when answering a question. Also you should really have the rule books to hand if you wish to answer questions.

I mean, there's room for interpretation or else there wouldn't even need to be a discussion...if everybody thought it was ''obvious'' then why would we even bother? was it wrong of me to try and see another side to this argument? sweet jeebus, it's not like a GW employee has come in with the Official Rule Hammer and declared Exterminatus on my viewpoint, it's just a bunch of ''players'' who are ''interpreting'' the rules from the comfort of their own gaming circles. what's even better is this whole magical ''fluff = rules'' concerning the filler text of the ability...

? do you mean the first paragraph of JotWW? All of the second paragraph is rules on how to use the power, none of which can be ignored. (oh wait you don't have the rule book you can't actually read it)

bear in mind, if you have ever played Warmachine you would know just how ''pedantic'' an argument over the semantics of a rule can get. check the rules forum on PP's official site & see the kind of ridiculous jive people create from poor punctuation, etc.

I have done all of the above ... and in 40k game i've seen some of the worst abuses . However most of the time there is at least some reason for misunderstanding. In this case there isn't

at least I had the balls to admit that my interpretation was not necessarily the correct interpretation, but was mine nonetheless. look, there's plenty of ways I could argue this, but as far as I am concerned, I WAS WRONG and I said as much, feel good knowing you will never have to deal with my pedantic shenanigans in a real game...
my crutch, which I will still fall back on, is the theory at the heart of the "Most Important Rule." if I were playing a SW player & he would have more fun calling my jetbikes ''bikes'' that would be quite alright with me & I would not feel cheated out of a victory in any way...

that's very good of you, he did cheat (unintentionally or otherwise) ... the most important rule is to enjoy the game but in any game you have to follow the rules ... or your just not playing the game.

sorry, but I don't think the personal attacks were warranted. now, I know I set myself up for it with the poor attempt at humour in the fourth post here, but I was honestly only trying to lighten the situation in regards to the fact that I could understand why I was misguided in my interpretation...

You got the rules wrong and i corrected them. (just wait till Gwar! gets back from his 'holiday' then you'll have some real fun)

just chill & realise that you were correct all along...you don't need to berate me, an obvious ''noob'' to feel good about yourself right?

So i should not correct a some one that has misunderstood the rules? (or worse let another new player read it and make the same mistake?)

...it would seem my question was shelved and a new one put into place. I'll ask again since I'm not sure if it was clarified: In the codex entry for destroyers and H. destroyers, you see under their special rules: Jetbikes, which further goes into 'counts as jetbikes for movement purposes, yadda yadda' NOW, since it is an old codex, would that label them as the Unit type jetbike OR is that just some special rule mumbo jumbo that came out before unit types were actually written in codexes. I was well aware that jetbikes are a seperate entry, they aren't affected by jaws due to not being listed in the 'affects this crap here' so thus it raised my query.

Destroyers
"Jetbikes: Destroyers count as jetbikes for movement purposes. They may also move and fire their Gauss Cannons."

Scarabs and Wraiths have a different wording - "move in the same way as jetbikes". The FAQ has clarified that both still count as infantry. This implies that Destroyers therefore are classified as jetbikes.

The question therefore becomes, are jetbikes affected by JotWW?
Having read the suitable parts of the BRB again, in particular p53, I'm inclined to say that Jetbikes are a sub-type of bikes.
Jet-packs are included in the rules in the exact same way as jetbikes (sub entry on the page, is the same as except...) Is anyone going to argue that jet-pack troops are not jump infantry?

Scott-S6 wrote:Is anyone going to argue that jet-pack troops are not jump infantry?

No, because it states that they are -- "some jump infantry are equiped with a special type of jump pack, referred to as a jet pack".

kirsanth wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Is anyone going to argue that jet-pack troops are not jump infantry?

No, because it states that they are -- "some jump infantry are equiped with a special type of jump pack, referred to as a jet pack".

It doesn't matter what they share the same rules, it only matter what the model is. The JotWW refers only to model type. Bike is not the same type as jetbike though the two share rules. So unless a model has the type infantry, bike, cavalry, beast or monstrous creature the rule cannot effect them. Show me a single jetbike refered to as being a bike and i will agree that JotWW works on it.

It may be telling that the listing contains both beasts and calvary, but only bikes without listing jetbikes.

I think I'm convinced by the different category argument. I had misremembered that jetbikes were a subclass of bike... not actually the case in the current rules.

So whilst I think it's still somewhat grey due to the rules saying that jetbikes are the same as bikes (allowing the argument that if Jaws affects bikes, it will affect anything that is the same as a bike) I think it's safe to say that RAW is leaning further towards jetbikes not being affected since their unit type is not specifically mentioned by the rule.

That also fits with the description of the power. It makes no sense for a power that rips a crevase in the ground to not affect jump infantry but affect jetbikes...


As for the original question, my answer there remains the same: Destroyers are only jetbikes for the purposes of movement. Without having a stated category of any other kind, they would be considered infantry for anything else... and so JotWW would affect them as such.

Insaniak - I thought the Necron FAQ specifically states they are Infantry? I know it does for Wraiths

AS they are unit type:Infantry they would be affected - they "move as" Jet Bikes but, like DP with wings that also "move as" Jump Infantry they are still treated as their oriignal unit type.

For clarification of this the CSM FAQ states that a Wings-equipped Lord / Sorc can still embark ina transport vehicle, therefore cannot be considered as Jump Infantry.

Hold on...the hydra targeting system only lists bikes and skimmers for negating cover saves, from a fluff standpoint it doesn't make sense to leave out jetbikes and only affect bikes.

long story short....Necrons need an update to include all the unit types and etc huh

Volkov wrote:from a fluff standpoint it doesn't make sense

This is the root of a lot of confusion, imo. Fluff ≠ rules.

Volkov wrote:Hold on...the hydra targeting system only lists bikes and skimmers for negating cover saves, from a fluff standpoint it doesn't make sense to leave out jetbikes and only affect bikes.

Fluff? hate to say this but the fluff rarely stands up to the rules from a fluff stand point why do the eldar send out wave after wave of guardians?

Fluffwise jetbikes can avoid the hydras guns better becasue they are more nimble then a skimmer or a bike.

My problem is the background of it is so geared towards being able to negate jetbikes. Its like having a hero and having his fluff describe how he has spent his life fighting necrons and knows how to kill them, and having a special rule 'Necron Killer: This unit may re-roll failed wounds when fighting orks'

From a game standpoint the only unit that is a jetbike but does not have 3+ armour (and so not ignored by the AP 4 autocannons) is the dark eldar jetbike, which is mediocre at best. Scout bikes are the real target that will be useful to ignore the turbo boosting save