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.

I play using option D, because it makes sense. The Bike/Speeder is moving really fast, regardless of whether it does this move in the movement phase or just before it.

A very well worded poll, good work.

Just out of curiosity. What units can scout and turbo-boost, the only thing I can think of are scout bikes.

Volkov wrote:Just out of curiosity. What units can scout and turbo-boost, the only thing I can think of are scout bikes.

Deffkoptas

fullybakedbear wrote:
2.to go or come after; move behind in the same direction: Drive ahead, and I'll follow you.

If I'm following you, but there is a car between us, am I still following you?

If your next shooting phase happens 6 phases after my scout move, is it still following my scout move?

Drunkspleen:

Bjorn's save says you take it against glancing and penetrating hits it does not tell what effect passing said save has on those hits.

Monolith's reduce their shots by -1, which is the same as adding 1.

Yriel's spear is not a singing spear if follows the singing spear rules on page 18 of the Eldar codex of which there are none. So it does nothing but ignore armour svaes (though has no effect that would cause someone to take an armour save).

Yeah Doom is another example, Swarmlord thing may be debatable.

Look up the words roll and dice in the dictionary. I have satisfied those definuitions.

Fullybakedbrear dictionary.com is not a reliable Oxford Dictionary translation and therefore really not relevant to this debate. However Your argument against them receiving a cover save seem based on following meaning directly following which it doesn't and you definition of sequence meaning player turns when the rule only mentions phases. I'd put forward that the sequence must therefore be phases (but could be player turn but if you gop by player turns you'll never get to your enemies shooting phase as the next sequence after your movement phase in this sequence would be his movment phase then yours again...) and it does not directly require you to be the next phase. Only the next time the sequence reaches your opponents shooting phase.

This is simply how the RaW works.

FlingitNow wrote:This is simply how the RaW works.

And your point is,,,

RaW is RaW, you don't have to like it, it is what it is.

And your point is,,,

RaW is RaW, you don't have to like it, it is what it is.

Some one was claiming this was not how the RaW works, so my point is that this is how the rukes work if you use RaW to interpret them.

I don't have to like it and I don't have to use it either. Youu areightit is was it is (a method for interpreting the rules from the written text).

FlingitNow, your argument is based on two logical fallacies, strawman and reductio ad absurdum.

You start with the strawman reasoning. You claim RaW advocates think the written rules are some infallible text that must always be obeyed to the letter, and go on to attack their position based on this interpretation. This interpretation is incorrect. RaW advocates are capable of applying common sense to derive meaning in the case of typos or where precedence has previously been defined. The biker scout movement is clearly written and has no precedence.

Your attack on the incorrect RaW interpretation is then based on reductio ad absurdum (it's possibly also 'slippery slope' reasoning). "You want play by RaW? Well here's a collection of typos and inconsistencies through version changes, you also have to play by them if you use RaW". You might as well use "the rulebook says nowhere that it's supposed to be read in English" as an argument. Well, it's what you are doing - debating the definition of rolling a dice is about as absurd!

The wording is very clear in the case of scout movement and turboboosters. Most importantly, there is no precedence here to derive a correct answer from in the case of abiguity. Your 'absurd' examples all have precendence. Invulnerable saves always do the same thing. We know that a weapon destroyed result removes a weapon. The weapon named 'Singing Spears' are given rules elsewhere in the codex*. Etc.

*this is wrong anyway, the codex says that 'It is a singing spear that ignores armor saves (see page 27)', and the rules for Singing Spears are on page 27.

Rube you've misunderstood all my arguments.

I have no problen or argument with peopl following the RaW in this case or others. What I was arguing against was people claiming they always follow RaW and that is their reason for following it in this case. Hence the reductio ad absurdum argument.

You reason for folowing the RaW in this case (which is the same as nosferatu's) is perfectly acceptable however it is still not the only way to play.

I'm not arguing against following the RaW as default if there is no reason to not follow it. I disagree that when the RaW is obviously not RaI that to me means you should look to find the RaI even if that is not clear and the RaW is. If you can't agree then default to the RaW, roll off etc etc.

Rube wrote: You claim RaW advocates think the written rules are some infallible text that must always be obeyed to the letter, and go on to attack their position based on this interpretation. This interpretation is incorrect. RaW advocates are capable of applying common sense to derive meaning in the case of typos or where precedence has previously been defined.

i don't think he is saying that they are incapable of applying common sense, just that they choose not to. i'm sure certain RAW adherents are solomon-esque in the level of common sense and wisdom they apply in real daily life, veritable min-maxed wisdom 22 clerics. the RAI is to give you a benefit (cover save) in the shooting that occurs after you move more than 18" (turboboosting and moving flat out with a skimmer). the wording on the vehicle scout move disallows the benefit if the enemy goes first and the wording on the turboboosting gives you the same benefit even if you stand completely still if you go first. both the RAI and RAW are clear; unfortunately, they don't agree.

Clearly D.

Not to poke at the users ( and abusers ) of RAW, but applying simple logic in situations like this is how FAQs are compiled. If I'm playing against someone with Scout moves, I get them to clarify exactly how long and during what span of game time they would get their relevant cover save.

In this case, the most logical way to go would be to 'clear' all moves at the beginning of your own movement phase, before rolling for reserves. The INATFAQ does cover both Skimmers and Bikes/Jetbikes in conjunction with the Scout USR, and although it is not used everywhere, I use it. I don't find many illogical resolutions to complex situations without definite rules there, and it makes game play a lot easier and enjoyable.

FlingitNow wrote:Drunkspleen:
Fullybakedbrear dictionary.com is not a reliable Oxford Dictionary translation and therefore really not relevant to this debate. However Your argument against them receiving a cover save seem based on following meaning directly following which it doesn't and you definition of sequence meaning player turns when the rule only mentions phases.

I checked two others last night but we should all be cognizant of the difference between American English and real English. I happen to have grown up with an English grandmother so I'm fluent in both styles. You might call me clever.

That doesn't discount the fact that the language is loose and open to intrepretation. Perhaps what we have in a situation where the Kopta moves in scout and even stands still on their 1st term is RAW providing cover save and RAI providing cover save because as far as the shooters are concerned, the unit has moved enough to disrupt their tracking and although it has slowed down, it is still to quickly for adjustment.

The game is an abstraction. In real life, a unit could be moving slowly and accelerate out of targetting or vice versa. In both situations, it can be continuous speed OR change in velocity that causes the effect.

Option D because it offends common sense and logic the least.

Something is moving fast in it's last movement before the shooting... it's a fast moving target and is harder to hit. This fits best with what I understand to be the idea behind the rule.

The Green Git wrote:Option D because it offends common sense and logic the least.

Something is moving fast in it's last movement before the shooting... it's a fast moving target and is harder to hit. This fits best with what I understand to be the idea behind the rule.

OK. This common sense argument is really starting to vex me.

If you are arguing that it makes common sense from a "fluff" perspective, that has no bearing on the rules. Common sense would say that both armies can move at the same time, and common sense would say that there isn't an abyss outside of 6x4 that can't be moved into. So real world "fluffy" common sense should not be applied to the rule set.

If you are arguing that within the ruleset it is common sense to say they wouldn't get the save, I wouldn't think this has anything to do with common sense. Someone already posted (on this thread or the other dealing with the same issue) about how there is no precedence for this or similar circumstances with which to compare it. The only remotely similar one is the Flat Out movement of vehicles. Since vehicles are unique in so many rules, a direct comparison can't be thought of as common sense. Vehicles are very different than non-vehicles in this game.

And as for the logic argument, logic is best understood of a way of drawing conclusions from premises. If the premise is that a bike which turboboosts gets a 3+ cover save in the opponents following shooting phase (the rules from the book), then the conclusion that on your opponent's following shooting phase they'd get the save is actually deductive reasoning. It's a valid argument. It's valid and sound, no less.

I wonder if the people who think that scouting skimmers cannot get a Flat Out cover save also think that they are not destroyed on an immobilized, and if destroyed, their contents can disembark*. Because both of those rules also refer only to situations where the transport moved in a Movement Phase. Which would still not make them right but would at least make them consistent.

*Which is another rules debate itself but that's for another thread

I really do have to go with Option A, it seems appopriate that you would be able to turboboost in your scout move and because you turbo boosted you get a 3+ cover in the following (ie: next) enemy shooting phase.
I don't see why everyone is arguing that "following" is the immediate next shooting phase, but i do see why people think this is wrong, but w/e it RAW and you have to accept it until they FAQ it.
Just out of curiosity what have other FAQ's said about this (i'm looking at you Gwar!)

Edit: Oops, Thanks Fling. Too early in the morning ^_^

ChrisCP they are refering to the 4+ copver save for moving flatout.

Perhaps what we have in a situation where the Kopta moves in scout and even stands still on their 1st term is RAW providing cover save and RAI providing cover save because as far as the shooters are concerned, the unit has moved enough to disrupt their tracking and although it has slowed down, it is still to quickly for adjustment.

Same Kopta moves flatout turn 1 and is then motionless turn 2 does not get a cover save. A landspeeder does the same thing in the scout phase and doesn't get a cover save at all.

The mechanic is if you move in the next player turn you get a cover save. That is how both eth rules work in a normal game. Yet when you put in scout moves because of different wording people want to throw that process out of the window to mean that one can claim a cover save in not just the next player turn but potentially the one after that as well whilst the other group can not even claim a cover save in the next player turn. That does not seem odd to you? Or even inconsistent?

FlingitNow wrote:That does not seem odd to you?

No, not at all. The rules are incredibly clear (and that's a rarity I'll give you that).

FlingitNow wrote:
The mechanic is if you move in the next player turn you get a cover save. That is how both eth rules work in a normal game. Yet when you put in scout moves because of different wording people want to throw that process out of the window to mean that one can claim a cover save in not just the next player turn but potentially the one after that as well whilst the other group can not even claim a cover save in the next player turn. That does not seem odd to you? Or even inconsistent?

It seems odd that you want to call following the rules 'throwing process out the window', at least.

The rules are worded completely differently, apply to very different types of units, are granted by different actions and distances, give different bonuses and have different requirements for those bonuses... to say that you think they're similar so one should gain a benefit the other has implicitly or one should lose a benefit because the other doesn't have it seems much more like not following a process and just winging it, to me.

"Well one gets a certain benefit for moving fast, so the other should have that benefit for moving fast" is similar reasoning to "Well space marines wear armor and get 3+ saves, my orks wear some armor so they should get 3+ saves too"... it's just as ridiculous a claim, with no basis other than an opinion.

I've always played it as the scout move was not a normal "move" and happens before the game begins. I also play Guard and use a Vendetta. So I've never taken a cover save from going 24" in a scout move.

Skawt wrote:I've always played it as the scout move was not a normal "move" and happens before the game begins. I also play Guard and use a Vendetta. So I've never taken a cover save from going 24" in a scout move.

LIES! How DARE you follow the rules! I am shocked and appalled and have sent Jervis over with a Multilazor as he backflips off a Land Razor to give you a jolly good British Thrashing!

arent we a little tired of this topic, and had enough polls on it? There are tons of threads on this topic to discuss it to death.

I've always played it as the scout move was not a normal "move" and happens before the game begins. I also play Guard and use a Vendetta. So I've never taken a cover save from going 24" in a scout move.

Fair enough would you allow my scout bikers to turboboost and gain their 3+ cover save? How about I go first and don't move my bikes in my movement phase are you still happy for my bikes to get that 3+ save.

For me options C (which is what I assume you play) and OPtion D make the most sense. Obviously if you choose option D then if someone immobilises your skimmer it has to be wrecked or Option C counts the scout move as something that has happened long before the game started or simply represents how much further forward than the main army the scouts owuld be and hence you do not gain a cover save either way and obviously if you are immobilised you are immobilised (not wrecked).

As I said they both make perfect sense to me and I'm more than happy to play either way. But I don't see the RaW as making sense in this instance.

And as has been ponited out: the entire CONCEPT of IGO UGO makes determining "what makes sense" in real life completely asinine and futile when you try to relate movement and the _abstracted_ movement rules.

The game is _an abstraction_ therefore applying "real life" to this abstraction is inconsistent by nature. I assume you play that tanks can fire at different targets? After all "in real life" the machine gun wouldnt be shooting at the same target as the main gun, now, would it? ANd that you can assault anyone in range, not just who you shot at? After all "in real life" if you completely wipe someone out you dont stnd around waiting to be shot at?

See how *inconsistent* you are, far more so than you claim others are being? If you want to apply "real world" to this game, at least do it consistently, and not just where you dont like the rules!

Nos what I'm saying is that the mechanic is IGO UGO and in that mechanic the cover saves for both bikers and skimmers work exactly the same (for turboboost or flatout). However as the scout move is a move done out of this sequence (although it does state exactly as if in a movement phase so you could try to lawyer that into granting the skimmer a save, though not saying this is correct) and due to what otherwise would be inconsequential difference in wording you get wildly diffferent and counter intuitive results.

I'm not trying to apply real world dynamics to it I'm trying to apply the normal game mechanics to it. A bit like the Warding vs Shadow debate where I'd play roll 4d6, this is applying the raw mechanics of each rule in a consistent way giving a balanced result. Though obviously this approach goes against RaW. Likewise above I'm try to apply the process of the rules as they normally occur to eth scout phase to get a consistent and balanced result rather than dogmatically applying the literal translation.

But at this point I think we are goiing in circles with regards to oppinions. We agree on how the RaW works we both agree in certain circumstances you should ignore the RaW (i.e. Yriel's Spear, Doom's invulnerable save, Bjorn's invulnerable save). But we disagree that this rule is nonsencial enough to be so ignored. I respect your oppinion and lets just agree to disagree. I'm obviously never going to convince you that this is a bizarre ruling and you're never going to convince me that it makes sense and on everything else I think we agree.

Personally I have always played D myself. Explain to each player before the game.

FlingitNow wrote:Nos what I'm saying is that the mechanic is IGO UGO and in that mechanic the cover saves for both bikers and skimmers work exactly the same (for turboboost or flatout).

Not to beat it into the ground, but they do not work exactly the same. They get a different numbered save, effect different types of models, warrant their own section in the rulebook (unlike beasts/cavalry), and, interesting, apply the cover save for movement differently, as evidenced by this thread. I understand that you agree with this point from a RaW standpoint, but claiming that they work exactly the same when they clearly don't is not a reasonable argument for why you play it the way you do.

FlingitNow wrote:But at this point I think we are goiing in circles with regards to oppinions. We agree on how the RaW works we both agree in certain circumstances you should ignore the RaW (i.e. Yriel's Spear, Doom's invulnerable save, Bjorn's invulnerable save). But we disagree that this rule is nonsencial enough to be so ignored.

I don't think anyone is saying to ignore the RaW. There are some cases that a special rule clearly doesn't work (Doom's invuln). In those cases, people look for why they might not be working in the absence of an FAQ. RaW are not ignored, there is an attempt to use what's on the page to figure out the intent of something that doesn't work. In this case, both of the rules work perfectly fine. There is no need to ignore them because they lack ambiguity and they are not useless, which even you agree with. The issue is that it doesn't make sense to you. I think a very strong argument could be made that something laid out clearly in the rules and functions just fine (even if it doesn't make sense and/or you don't like it) is very different from something that is laid out in the rules but doesn't actually function.

FlingitNow wrote:I respect your oppinion and lets just agree to disagree. I'm obviously never going to convince you that this is a bizarre ruling and you're never going to convince me that it makes sense and on everything else I think we agree.

As I do yours (even though that wasn't directed at me in particular). The fact that you've stuck with the argument without becoming hostile earns you quite a bit of respect in my book. I recognize that you aren't going to be convinced of how to play this, and you are also already convinced of what the RaW state. My guess is that if we played a game, we would play it the exact same way. At this point, the argument is more about how we interpret the rules and less about this specific ruling (so hey, maybe it should be locked like the other thread). That being the case, I think this is a clear cut rule where some of the others that you've used may not be.

In any case, this has actually been a good discussion in my book. I like the arguments on here -- helps me when I'm discussing with my pals.

While I would LOVE to play it with B, and assume the intention of the rule is to be the same as others. GW took the time to write the rule... so I play it A.

I do have space marines, I do not have bikes...

This whole difference of ideas of if the bike/valk or whatever gains a save from a scout move depends on how you see the scouts in relation to the first moment in time.

I see the scouts as moving forward from the rest of the army. When player one has his/her first turn that is the first moment of time in the game. The Valk is stationary to his/her perspective. Much the same as any other scout unit or infiltration unit.

Others here have a perception that the game begins the moment the two army's have finished deploying all normal (non-scout/Inf.) units. His or her scout move is in fact the first moment of time during the game.

It isn't about who's being a RAW whore, or who's being logical about a fast moving bike/jet. Its about how you see the scouts deployed in the army.