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.

sbeasley wrote:

BGB Page 53 wrote:All Eldar jetbikes (including Dark Eldar ones) are allowed to move 6" in the Assault phase, even if they don’t assault.

BGB Page 75 wrote:Units with this ability that are locked in combat may choose to leave close combat at the end of the Assault phase.

Right there. This is why it has an issue with H&R USR, because it says the same thing, and yet people say you can disengage in your opponents Assault phase. By the same logic, you should be able to move Eldar Jetbikes 6" in the Assault phase.

Moving in the assault phase is something you only do in your turn. Close combat is something you do for all units in both players turns.
The fact that two rules have the same phrase does not imply that they work exactly the same.

Gwar! wrote:

sbeasley wrote:Yes it does. Look at the end of the H&R USR. If both sides have the USR they roll off, thus it doesn't matter who has it if the opponent wants to leave in your turn they are allowed too.

So you agree then that you cannot do anything in an Opponents turn unless explicitly permitted too, such as Fighting an Assault, Mystics or H&R?

That rule gives IMPLICIT permission not EXPLICIT permission. It doesn't "explicitly" state that you can H&R if only 1 person has it during their opponents assault phase, its "implied"

ajfirecracker wrote:Moving in the assault phase is something you only do in your turn. Close combat is something you do for all units in both players turns.
The fact that two rules have the same phrase does not imply that they work exactly the same.

Yes but that is RAI not RAW. That's the entire problem.

rogueeyes wrote:
Yes but that is RAI not RAW. That's the entire problem.

No, it's RaW that you move in your assault phase (and not your opponents). It's RaW that you engage in CC on both turns. Neither of those is RaI.

rogueeyes wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:Moving in the assault phase is something you only do in your turn. Close combat is something you do for all units in both players turns.
The fact that two rules have the same phrase does not imply that they work exactly the same.

Yes but that is RAI not RAW. That's the entire problem.

Actually I think the section on the assault phase states this clearly.

sbeasley wrote:Who decides who goes first. Oh I see I'm in assault range now I move. Eldar Jetbikes make no distinction on when they move like H&R USR does.

Yes, which is why they only work in that players turn. If it does not mention "The opponents turn" or some such, you cannot do it on the opponents turn.

rogueeyes wrote:Clearly if you tried to move in your opponents assault turn by using your assault move you would certainly be TFG. Unless of course it was to break away form combat with the Hit n Run rule after combat took place.

Please refrain from accusing people of being TFG or attaching value judgments to particular interpretations of rules. These ad hominem attacks do not advance anyone's understanding of the issues.

If it is RaW then where is the reference that states it?

I am agreeing that you cannot move in your opponents assault phase. If you use only the rule book you can try to take advantage of this wording in the rule book which is the OP point I believe. If anyone actually would take that stance and try to play that way they would lose opponents very very quickly since the game should be fun.

Gwar! wrote:

sbeasley wrote:Who decides who goes first. Oh I see I'm in assault range now I move. Eldar Jetbikes make no distinction on when they move like H&R USR does.

Yes, which is why they only work in that players turn. If it does not mention "The opponents turn" or some such, you cannot do it on the opponents turn.

Discussing what happens when 2 people have an ability does NOT give explicit permission as to being allowed to do it when only 1 person has H&R. Its a logical assumption but it is NOT explicit permission

rogueeyes wrote:If it is RaW then where is the reference that states it?

It does not need to be stated, because it is the WHOLE POINT OF THE GAME.

Of course, if you want a rules quote:

Page 9:
So, one player will move and fight with his forces first, then his opponent will move and fight. Then the process repeats with the first player moving and fighting again, and so on until the end of the game.

"Implicit" is not the right word to use here. The rule that allows you to H&R in your opponent's assault phase is explicit.

The argument that Gwar and ajfirecracker are making is a sound logical inference--the rules tell you how to do it, so you can backtrack logically to an explicit statement that it's allowed.

There is no such exception, implicit or explicit for jetbike assault moves. It is not either or both, that's a false analogy.

Flavius Infernus wrote:"Implicit" is not the right word to use here. The rule that allows you to H&R in your opponent's assault phase is explicit.

The argument that Gwar and ajfirecracker are making is a sound logical inference--the rules tell you how to do it, so you can backtrack logically to an explicit statement that it's allowed.

There is no such exception, implicit or explicit for jetbike assault moves. It is not either or both, that's a false analogy.

Thats not true.

If there are units with this rule on both sides, roll-off to determine who goes first and then alternate disengaging them. If the last of these ends up no longer in combat, it consolidates instead.

It can be argued that this rule is ONLY invoked when BOTH players have the H&R USR? You can break off in assault when BOTH players have H&R USR in your opponents assault phase...otherwise your stuck till it's your turn.

I should learn to read better ... I skip over the part about the turns. My bad. Even with RAW you can't do that.

Here's the logic spelled out:

"If there are units with this rule [hit & run] on both sides, roll off to determine who goes first and then alternate disengaging them."

Sometimes a unit will be one of the two "on both sides" and will be required by the rule stated above to roll off to find out whether it uses H&R first or second *in the opponent's assault phase.*

So units must be able to use hit & run in the opponent's assault phase, or else you break the rule quoted above.

Because it comes from a sound inference, it's effectively explicit. No assumption about an "implicit" conclusion is required.

No such argument can be constructed for jetbikes moving in the opponent's turn. So you can't do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattnaik wrote:

It can be argued that this rule is ONLY invoked when BOTH players have the H&R USR? You can break off in assault when BOTH players have H&R USR in your opponents assault phase...otherwise your stuck till it's your turn.

I don't believe that argument can be made. If I'm wrong please correct me by showing the argument.

"If there are units with this rule [hit & run] on both sides, roll off to determine who goes first and then alternate disengaging them."

Note that this is a rule for determining which one can go *first.* It wouldn't even be necessary to state this rule to begin with if it weren't allowed to use H&R in the opponent's assault phase.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Here's the logic spelled out:

"If there are units with this rule [hit & run] on both sides, roll off to determine who goes first and then alternate disengaging them."

Sometimes a unit will be one of the two "on both sides" and will be required by the rule stated above to roll off to find out whether it uses H&R first or second *in the opponent's assault phase.*

So units must be able to use hit & run in the opponent's assault phase, or else you break the rule quoted above.

Because it comes from a sound inference, it's effectively explicit. No assumption about an "implicit" conclusion is required.

No such argument can be constructed for jetbikes moving in the opponent's turn. So you can't do it.

All that explicitly states is when BOTH players have the ability what is done. You are assuming what happens in situation when only 1 player has the ability.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flavius Infernus wrote: It wouldn't even be necessary to state this rule to begin with if it weren't allowed to use H&R in the opponent's assault phase.

Sure it would, a player would have a distinct advantage acting first in a hit and run situation.

@Flavius Infernus

You can't infer anything in RAW. There are all kinds of stupid situations that allow to you do simply moronic things that defy all common sense.

Look at the deploy supposedly allowing leaping over impassable terrain from wrecked vehicles.

Look at a unit that shot a vehicle but didn't blow it up, but later a different unit blows it up, but only the unit that destroyed gets to assault.

This is just another example of how a unit gets to do something in a special situation that it normally cannot do it. If you give permission to H&R units to use H&R at the end of assault during any assault phase, you must use the same logic to dictate that Jet Packs and Eldar Jetbikes follow the same logic. You can't have it one way in one situation and another if Rules as Written are the same.

mattnaik, I think we're operating on different definitions of the meanings of the words "inference" and "explicit."

An "inference" is an logical conclusion that must be true based on the premises. The conclusion of a sound inference can be said to be "explicit."

You can confirm that for yourself by checking out some good logic/rhetoric texts, or just take my word for it, or just feel free to disagree. Either way I think I've said all that I can productively said on this topic, so I'm going to leave this discussion here and go paint minis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sbeasley wrote:@Flavius Infernus

You can't infer anything in RAW.

sbeasly, I think you're also using a different definition of the word "infer." I'm using it in the strict logical sense in which it means coming to a conclusion that must be true.

Not only can you infer in RAW, you must infer in order to use the rules at all. For example:

1. a rule says that infantry models move 6"
2. a space marine model is an infantry model

So how do you know that a space marine moves 6"? The rules don't explicitly state "all space marines move 6""

You must infer from rule 1 and rule 2 that space marines move 6" That's what the RAW says, and if both rules are true, your inference *must* be true. It's just as RAW as if it were stated explicitly that "all space marines move 6""

If you couldn't infer things, then every rule for every model, how it shoots, how many dice to roll, what each die roll means for each weapon and on and on....all that stuff would have to be explicitly enumerated. Inference is how rules work.

ignore.

Flavius Infernus wrote:mattnaik, I think we're operating on different definitions of the meanings of the words "inference" and "explicit."

An "inference" is an logical conclusion that must be true based on the premises. The conclusion of a sound inference can be said to be "explicit."

You can confirm that for yourself by checking out some good logic/rhetoric texts, or just take my word for it, or just feel free to disagree. Either way I think I've said all that I can productively said on this topic, so I'm going to leave this discussion here and go paint minis.

Enjoy!

Just another situation where if you play strictly RAW it doesn't make any sense. Add this to the many and you get a broken game.

In my opinion the rules are pretty obvious. I will play it as H&R allowed in any assault phase, and Eldar bikes only in their own assault phase. If someone tried to do this, I would consider them to be TFG.

Note I am not disagreeing with those that are arguing that the above is an assumption.

Night Lords wrote:If someone tried to do this, I would consider them to be TFG.

Please refrain from attaching value judgments to rules interpretations. The acronym "TFG" has no place in a rules discussion.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Night Lords wrote:If someone tried to do this, I would consider them to be TFG.

Please refrain from attaching value judgments to rules interpretations. The acronym "TFG" has no place in a rules discussion.

This board is called You make da call. People should be aware that certain calls will get them looked down upon when played in a social environment. If you are unhappy with opinions being discussed, maybe you should send a mod a pm to change the rules of the board.

Thanks.

Night Lords wrote:This board is called You make da call. People should be aware that certain calls will get them looked down upon when played in a social environment. If you are unhappy with opinions being discussed, maybe you should send a mod a pm to change the rules of the board.

Thanks.

Huh? What's that you say? Change the rules?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page
Rule #5 Plz

I have alerted your previous post as a breach of Rule #5 of YMTC.

EDITED BY THE MODQUISITION. See the tenets we're trying to look at-lets ixnay on the TFGey and cheaterey...eh?

Frazzled wrote:EDITED BY THE MODQUISITION. See the tenets we're trying to look at-lets ixnay on the TFGey and cheaterey...eh?

Thank you for your swift reply Good Moderator sir. I ask that you do hastily enquire as to the remainder of the recent alerts myself and undoubtedly others have made.

And on that note:
Back to the Rules Discussion

Wrong. I did not call anyone in here TFG. The rule is towards the "poster". Hence why I stated it as "If someone did this, I would consider them". My statement was 100% towards the rules and my opinion of it.

Don't forget ulesra awyerla

Night Lords wrote:Wrong. I did not call anyone in here TFG. The rule is towards the "poster". Hence why I stated it as "If someone did this, I would consider them". My statement was 100% towards the rules and my opinion of it.

If I may ask why you feel your opinion on whether or not a person is TFG or not is in any way relevant to a rules discussion?

Lets drop the TFG discussion.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

We're trying to discuss the rules and how they work...no?

Unless we're discussing upfront "how they are played" lets focus on the rule itself.

Gwar! wrote:

Night Lords wrote:Wrong. I did not call anyone in here TFG. The rule is towards the "poster". Hence why I stated it as "If someone did this, I would consider them". My statement was 100% towards the rules and my opinion of it.

Can I ask why you feel your opinion on whether or not a person is TFG or not is in any way relevant to a rules discussion?

It is 100% relevant because some people play in tournaments with sportsman scores. Others want to play a clean game where their victories are genuine and not considered dirty wins due to shady ruling. I happen to fall into both categories. The very fact that certain rulings will get me poor sportsman scores has persuaded me to change some of my own interpretations of the rules, most recently the disembarking of transports on opposite sides of an enemy unit.

No matter what anyone wants to claim on here, Warhammer 40k is a game between people in a social environment. The interaction and perception between people can affect the enjoyment of the game, and can affect your overall tournament scores.

If "TFG" and everything related were to be censored, then just change this board to "RAW", rendering this board useless. The fact is, people are going to use these rules in a real world environment, and while some people may act tough and right on here, it doesn't mean squat on the tabletop. Some of the rulings on here can be misleading, and I truly believe that if a ruling is dirty, people should have the right to know before they think of trying to implement it into their game strategies.