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.

Happyjew wrote:So no one has a rebuttal to my statement regarding declaring movement speed? OK.

Please note, I'm not switching sides here, the scenario was brought up but it seemed to be ignored. So I re-worded it for clarification. Of course it still seems to be ignored, but, whatever.

Rules wise there is nothing wrong with the scenario you put forward.
The "is going to" prevents you from disembarking on one objective then zooming over to another one.
There are better ways to say that ("A transport cannot disembark and move flat out in the same turn.") but we only have what GW wrote

So you're saying that you're moving 12" (cruising speed) then adding 1 for paint, to count into the 13" speed band of 4+ cover.

Ok, what happens if you move flat out 24", then add +1 for red paint. You are now moving 25" outside of any speed band.

It looks like some people are claiming the speedband and cover both ways to whatever suits them best.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:So you're saying that you're moving 12" (cruising speed) then adding 1 for paint, to count into the 13" speed band of 4+ cover.

Ok, what happens if you move flat out 24", then add +1 for red paint. You are now moving 25" outside of any speed band.

It looks like some people are claiming the speedband and cover both ways to whatever suits them best.

-Matt

Actually, the ork flyers can go supersonic which is 36 inches - but 37 with RPJ.
And since RPJ ignores penalties, yes you get to claim whatever suits you best. Do you have a rules argument to say otherwise?

No, it just got lost in the wash

You dont have to declare the speed you are travelling at, thus if you start in terrain, roll a 1 you are simply immobilised - you havent actually moved flat out, you jsut "count as" having moved, as the FAQ states.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, so the answer to my last question was "No, I cannot make a rules argument"

ignoring penalties is NOT a tricky rule. At least not if you havea basic understanding of English.

Nos, your right there is no rules argument. When you count as moving one inch less you, well, count as moving one inch less. Therefore you ignore any penalties for moving that extra inch. It's pretty simple.

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, so the answer to my last question was "No, I cannot make a rules argument"

ignoring penalties is NOT a tricky rule. At least not if you havea basic understanding of English.

Nos, your right there is no rules argument. When you count as moving one inch less you, well, count as moving one inch less. Therefore you ignore any penalties for moving that extra inch. It's pretty simple.

So you're also ignoring bonuses for moving that extra inch?
What rule is allowing you to do that?

rigeld2 wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, so the answer to my last question was "No, I cannot make a rules argument"

ignoring penalties is NOT a tricky rule. At least not if you havea basic understanding of English.

Nos, your right there is no rules argument. When you count as moving one inch less you, well, count as moving one inch less. Therefore you ignore any penalties for moving that extra inch. It's pretty simple.

So you're also ignoring bonuses for moving that extra inch?
What rule is allowing you to do that?

it is actually specifically mentioned in the FAQ that you do NOT ignore the bonuses for the extra inch.

Grundz wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, so the answer to my last question was "No, I cannot make a rules argument"

ignoring penalties is NOT a tricky rule. At least not if you havea basic understanding of English.

Nos, your right there is no rules argument. When you count as moving one inch less you, well, count as moving one inch less. Therefore you ignore any penalties for moving that extra inch. It's pretty simple.

So you're also ignoring bonuses for moving that extra inch?
What rule is allowing you to do that?

it is actually specifically mentioned in the FAQ that you do NOT ignore the bonuses for the extra inch.

Which FAQ is this? The current Ork FAQ does not mention RPJ at all. Of course, IMHO, it does not need to as the rule is rather clear. You ignore the 1" for penalties only.

Happyjew wrote:

Which FAQ is this? The current Ork FAQ does not mention RPJ at all. Of course, IMHO, it does not need to as the rule is rather clear. You ignore the 1" for penalties only.

actually you are right, It must have been an earlier one >.<

Anyways: to quote a man smarter than I:

Premise: Any fast vehicle upgraded with RPJ moved 13".

Resulting rules:
1) Vehicle may not shoot.*
2) Passengers may not shoot.*
3) Passengers may not disembark.*
4) Vehicle is hit on 6+ in close combat.
5) Vehicle gets a 4+ cover save if it's a skimmer.
6) Vehicle turns immobilized into wrecked if it's a skimmer. *

* are penalties. You can only count as moving 12" instead of 13" for penalties. So if you count as moving 1" less, you get:

1) Vehicle may shoot one weapon and all defensive weapons.
2) Passengers may still not shoot.
3) Passengers may disembark.
4) Vehicle is hit on 6+ in close combat.
5) Vehicle gets a 4+ cover save if it's a skimmer.
6) Vehicle is immobilized as normal.

Same for the other speed threshold:
Premise: Any fast vehicle upgraded with RPJ moved 7".

Resulting rules:
1) Vehicle may only shoot one weapon and all defensive weapons*
2) Passengers may not shoot.*
3) Vehicle is hit on 6+ in close combat.

* are penalties. You can only count as moving 6" instead of 7" for penalties. So if you count as moving 1" less, you get:

1) Vehicle may shoot all weapons.
2) Any number of passengers may use a fire points to shoot.
3) Vehicle is hit on 6+ in close combat.

Ork vehicles treat anything that's not a penalty as if RPJ wouldn't exist. So a red vehicle moving 7" is hit in close combat just like any other vehicle in the game moving 7".

rigeld2 wrote:So you're also ignoring bonuses for moving that extra inch?
What rule is allowing you to do that?

What bonuses? Rule doesn't say anything about bonuses. It just says you ignore any penalties for moving this extra inch and then the example clarifies how. Examples do that, that's why we call them examples. Which happens to be counting as you moved one inch less. You can definitely move 13" but you only count as moving 12"

General_Chaos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So you're also ignoring bonuses for moving that extra inch?
What rule is allowing you to do that?

What bonuses? Rule doesn't say anything about bonuses. It just says you ignore any penalties for moving this extra inch and then the example clarifies how. Examples do that, that's why we call them examples. Which happens to be counting as you moved one inch less. You can definitely move 13" but you only count as moving 12"

So examples change how a rule works? Can you show me where in the RPJ rule it says to ignore everything associated with that extra inch? I'm pretty sure it just says to ignore penalties. Did I miss a sentence?

If my dakkajet got turned into a tank would you allow me to tank shock something 13" away by declaring a 13" move?

HawaiiMatt wrote:So you're saying that you're moving 12" (cruising speed) then adding 1 for paint, to count into the 13" speed band of 4+ cover.

Ok, what happens if you move flat out 24", then add +1 for red paint. You are now moving 25" outside of any speed band.

It looks like some people are claiming the speedband and cover both ways to whatever suits them best.

-Matt

Which, ironically, is exactly what the rule says.

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, so the answer to my last question was "No, I cannot make a rules argument"

ignoring penalties is NOT a tricky rule. At least not if you havea basic understanding of English.

Nos, your right there is no rules argument. When you count as moving one inch less you, well, count as moving one inch less. Therefore you ignore any penalties for moving that extra inch. It's pretty simple.

Can't we just all agree on General Chaos being a troll and let him go?

He has posted the exact same statement 27 times in this thread, without a single rule to back it up, as single reason on why to ignore the rule itself, or a single argument on why one interpretation of an example would override the rule itself, while another interpretation fits perfectly. All arguments of his point have been made by other people jumping to his side. All those arguments have been disproven. There really is no point in arguing with a man claiming the sky to be green.

Yep, by this point GC is definitely trolling.

Happy to ignore him further.

Jidmah wrote:He has posted the exact same statement 27 times in this thread, without a single rule to back it up, as single reason on why to ignore the rule itself, or a single argument on why one interpretation of an example would override the rule itself, while another interpretation fits perfectly. All arguments of his point have been made by other people jumping to his side. All those arguments have been disproven. There really is no point in arguing with a man claiming the sky to be green.

The only way you've "disproven" what am saying is by stating that the example has nothing to do with the rule. It has everything to do with the rule that why it was written. There is no need for me to spout rules quote from the book because of how simply the example is written. Counts as = Counts as.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:So examples change how a rule works? Can you show me where in the RPJ rule it says to ignore everything associated with that extra inch? I'm pretty sure it just says to ignore penalties. Did I miss a sentence?

If my dakkajet got turned into a tank would you allow me to tank shock something 13" away by declaring a 13" move?

The example clarifies the rule. Yes you all missed a sentence the sentence that starts with "For example"

If your dakkajet turned in a TANK, ok for starters keep that kinda talk down because am sure someone will try to rules lawyer the RPJ can do that too, would I allow you tank shock something 13" away? . The answer is yes because the example, which is a clarification of the rule, states you can move 13" but you count as moving 12"

Jidmah wrote:
He has posted the exact same statement 27 times in this thread, without a single rule to back it up, as single reason on why to ignore the rule itself, or a single argument on why one interpretation of an example would override the rule itself, while another interpretation fits perfectly.

To be fair, you've posted your side of this argument more than 27 times now. And the fact that you've had to do so just keeps reinforcing the idea that this rule is not clear, and that we should wait for an official FAQ. If the rule was clear, this thread wouldn't be 10 pages long. How's about we hang it up?

You dont have to declare the speed you are travelling at, thus if you start in terrain, roll a 1 you are simply immobilised - you havent actually moved flat out, you jsut "count as" having moved, as the FAQ states.

Except if you were moving flat out, and are immoblized, you are destroyed even in your own phase, as per the FAQ. According to what you just said, the vehicle counts as moving, but then you say that despite wanting to move flat out it doesnt count as moving flat out? What rule is that? What did it count as moving as Nos, if not your intended flat out? This is where your argument fails. It was not moving at cruising speed when it was immoblized, nor does it not count as moving at all, it was flat out.

General_Chaos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So examples change how a rule works? Can you show me where in the RPJ rule it says to ignore everything associated with that extra inch? I'm pretty sure it just says to ignore penalties. Did I miss a sentence?

If my dakkajet got turned into a tank would you allow me to tank shock something 13" away by declaring a 13" move?

The example clarifies the rule. Yes you all missed a sentence the sentence that starts with "For example"

If your dakkajet turned in a TANK, ok for starters keep that kinda talk down because am sure someone will try to rules lawyer the RPJ can do that too, would I allow you tank shock something 13" away? . The answer is yes because the example, which is a clarification of the rule, states you can move 13" but you count as moving 12"

No, we didn't miss that sentence. You haven't said what part of the rule allows you to ignore a bonus. You've stated you have no rules support.
The example doesn't disagree at all with what I'm saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DevianID wrote:

You dont have to declare the speed you are travelling at, thus if you start in terrain, roll a 1 you are simply immobilised - you havent actually moved flat out, you jsut "count as" having moved, as the FAQ states.

Except if you were moving flat out, and are immoblized, you are destroyed even in your own phase, as per the FAQ. According to what you just said, the vehicle counts as moving, but then you say that despite wanting to move flat out it doesnt count as moving flat out? What rule is that? What did it count as moving as Nos, if not your intended flat out? This is where your argument fails. It was not moving at cruising speed when it was immoblized, nor does it not count as moving at all, it was flat out.

No, it's not flat out until it moves over 12". See the rule defining flat out?
Yes, this means that if you intend to go flat out and roll a DT test before 12" and fail, the vehicle isn't destroyed. Because that's what the actual rules say - the ones that differentiate the movement sped bands with distance not declaration.

Redbeard wrote:

Jidmah wrote:
He has posted the exact same statement 27 times in this thread, without a single rule to back it up, as single reason on why to ignore the rule itself, or a single argument on why one interpretation of an example would override the rule itself, while another interpretation fits perfectly.

To be fair, you've posted your side of this argument more than 27 times now. And the fact that you've had to do so just keeps reinforcing the idea that this rule is not clear, and that we should wait for an official FAQ. If the rule was clear, this thread wouldn't be 10 pages long. How's about we hang it up?

So, if someone keeps yelling "The sky is green!" on a sunny day, it is unclear what color the sky is? The rule is not unclear at all:

1. Red vehicles move an extra inch.
2. Red vehicles do not incur penalties for that extra inch.
3. Red vehicles ignore penalties by counting as moving one less inch for that purpose.

Any other interpretation requires breaking one or more Warhammer40k rules.

There really isn't much more to it, except philosophic attempts at what penalties are.

Besides, he is not posting any side of any argument. He is posting "I AM RIGHT!!!" over and over again, without any argument behind it.

DevianID wrote:

You dont have to declare the speed you are travelling at, thus if you start in terrain, roll a 1 you are simply immobilised - you havent actually moved flat out, you jsut "count as" having moved, as the FAQ states.

Except if you were moving flat out, and are immoblized, you are destroyed even in your own phase, as per the FAQ. According to what you just said, the vehicle counts as moving, but then you say that despite wanting to move flat out it doesnt count as moving flat out? What rule is that? What did it count as moving as Nos, if not your intended flat out? This is where your argument fails. It was not moving at cruising speed when it was immoblized, nor does it not count as moving at all, it was flat out.

Still struggling with those page references for any rules backing your position, yes?

I assume you've read the tenets - it's just youre not exactly following them right now.
Find a rule, page and paragraph please, stating you have to declare your speed band, or that measuring a flat out distance requires you to actually move flat out, or anything you have claimed in your last posts, and your posts may become relevant.

rigeld2 wrote:No, we didn't miss that sentence. You haven't said what part of the rule allows you to ignore a bonus. You've stated you have no rules support.
The example doesn't disagree at all with what I'm saying.

This is why I have to repeat myself over and over again because you want page numbers which are not necessary because all the rules are tied up in a nice looking package in the Ork Codex.

OK The rule states you can ignore penalties we all agree about that. Where you guys are trying to rules lawyer this is because it doesn't exactly say which penalties in that sentence. So, because you will not finish reading the rest of the rule, you are putting anything you feel like in that category. But all of that is not necessary because the example clarifies what Phil Kelly is trying to say. An example is, by definition, a form of clarifying. And that is if you move 13" you count as moving 12" so you do not suffer any penalties for moving that extra inch because you technically never did move that far.

"Counts As' is a well established definition in Warhammer 40k. It means that one type of thing counts as another type of thing. Space Wolves example Logan Grimnar makes Wolf Guard count as troops.

General_Chaos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:No, we didn't miss that sentence. You haven't said what part of the rule allows you to ignore a bonus. You've stated you have no rules support.
The example doesn't disagree at all with what I'm saying.

This is why I have to repeat myself over and over again because you want page numbers which are not necessary because all the rules are tied up in a nice looking package in the Ork Codex.

No, you're having to repeat yourself because you won't accept that there's no support for your viewpoint. Repetition isn't support.

OK The rule states you can ignore penalties we all agree about that. Where you guys are trying to rules lawyer this is because it doesn't exactly say which penalties in that sentence. So, because you will not finish reading the rest of the rule, you are putting anything you feel like in that category. But all of that is not necessary because the example clarifies what Phil Kelly is trying to say. An example is, by definition, a form of clarifying. And that is if you move 13" you count as moving 12" so you do not suffer any penalties for moving that extra inch because you technically never did move that far.

So the rule is actually saying to ignore bonuses too?
The extra inch of physical movement - is that ignored? Moving into contesting range of an objective would be a bonus, so I guess that'd be ignored.
Since the RPJ rule specifies penalties, the example -in context - must be referring to count as with regard to penalties.
You have no foot to stand on trying to argue that a rule that specifies penalties actually means everything.

"Counts As' is a well established definition in Warhammer 40k. It means that one type of thing counts as another type of thing. Space Wolves example Logan Grimnar makes Wolf Guard count as troops.

Thanks for the education. No, really - my life was incomplete before you treated me like a simpleton.

General_Chaos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:No, we didn't miss that sentence. You haven't said what part of the rule allows you to ignore a bonus. You've stated you have no rules support.
The example doesn't disagree at all with what I'm saying.

This is why I have to repeat myself over and over again because you want page numbers which are not necessary because all the rules are tied up in a nice looking package in the Ork Codex.

Yes, the part you keep ignoring - the part about penalties being ignored.

general_chaos wrote:OK The rule states you can ignore penalties we all agree about that. Where you guys are trying to rules lawyer this is because it doesn't exactly say which penalties in that sentence.

It doesnt need to, as "Penalty" has a very simple and easy to understand meaning in English.

general_chaos wrote: So, because you will not finish reading the rest of the rule, you are putting anything you feel like in that category.

Nope, we're just putting penalties into the penalties category. Not difficult really...

general_chaos wrote:But all of that is not necessary because the example clarifies what Phil Kelly is trying to say. An example is, by definition, a form of clarifying. And that is if you move 13" you count as moving 12" so you do not suffer any penalties for moving that extra inch because you technically never did move that far.

And, in context, it means you count as moving 12" for any penalties. BEcause, as you say, an example expounds on the rules - it cannot contradict them - meaning in context, something you heartily choose to ignore on a regular basis, this means penalties only. Because it you actually moved 12" you would be ignoring bonuses as well - like when moving 7" if you counted as 6" for all reasons you would be hit on a 4+, which is *definitely* not a penalty to the Ork player.

general_chaos wrote:"Counts As' is a well established definition in Warhammer 40k. It means that one type of thing counts as another type of thing. Space Wolves example Logan Grimnar makes Wolf Guard count as troops.

Thanks for treating us as simpletons.
Can you actually argue the rule now> You know, the one that says "penalties" are ignored, and how you are allowed to ignored bonuses as well using that rule? We'd all be interested in hearing how you think you are allowed to ignore bonuses as well


If you choose not to address this MAJOR flaw in your "argument" you will be gnored as irrelevant - you've ignored it so far

Hey since there seems to bew quite a lot of angry text flying back and forth with the occasional quote from the YMDC tenets from certain people I would like to throw this out there.



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.


So, at this point please stop saying that it is easy to understand by using the english dictionary use of the word and stick to the format that YMDC states.


In my opinion, I think that while you do actually get the extra inch for movement from RPJ, the rule also clearly says that you count as moving 12". So in this case you have a clear wording as part of the rule. Now for you who are going to rail against this, what are FAQ's? They are questions and examples of how GW thinks the rules play so if you want to argue that they are not then please show us where you can find this information and disceminate it to the world and not keep it as privelaged discourse. Seeings how the rule also has includes an example when and where do you decide that the rule ends and fluff begins? Is the example in the same paragraph that describes RPJ? If so then, in my opinion it is not fluff or extra verbage added for no reason. Thats my two cents, hope this makes things more understandable.....

So K-Pig, where is the permission to ignore a bonus?

There is a difference here that you need to acknowledge. I have very clearly stated that with the text the way it is, and how GW also uses examples, and FAQ's to address situations like this, you have to address where you get to claim that you can shoot, and get the cover save because you count as moving 12".

Also, where is the permission to gain bonuses?

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:There is a difference here that you need to acknowledge. I have very clearly stated that with the text the way it is, and how GW also uses examples, and FAQ's to address situations like this, you have to address where you get to claim that you can shoot, and get the cover save because you count as moving 12".

Also, where is the permission to gain bonuses?

I gain the bonus by moving 13". RPJ ignores the penalties for the last inch. Hence, it ignores the restriction against firing.

You also count as moving 12" . Therefor, you cannot claim you moved 13" because you count as moving 12". It is as simple as that. There is no two ways about it either you count as moving 13" and there is no firing and get a cover save, or you count as moving 12" and get to fire and no cover save. Which happens you chose..... end of line!

So RPJ ignores bonuses as well?
And where's the allowance to choose?

You are the one insisting that you get both. I am merely stating that how you read it does not seem right to me and I have backed it up. You keep insisting you get both and have not explained how you could fundamentally do both when you clearly as I have stated before count as moving a certain speed. I am not saying that RPJ ignores bonuses, I am saying that RPJ says you either moved 13" and count as moving 13", or you moved 13" and count as moving 12".

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:You are the one insisting that you get both. I am merely stating that how you read it does not seem right to me and I have backed it up. You keep insisting you get both and have not explained how you could fundamentally do both when you clearly as I have stated before count as moving a certain speed. I am not saying that RPJ ignores bonuses, I am saying that RPJ says you either moved 13" and count as moving 13", or you moved 13" and count as moving 12".

The context of the example shows that you only count as moving 12" for penalties. Trying to apply the count as across the board has you also ignoring bonuses which you have no allowance to do.
"It doesn't seem right" isn't a valid argument. You haven't backed it up - you've repeated essentially exactly what others have - and failed to understand context just like others have.

You're reading the example as a complete, stand alone sentence. You can't do that.