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.

Can you provide an example, beyond JTWW. Which as it affects 'infantry' would not effect something that is 'infantry and jum infantry'?

ChrisCP wrote:Can you provide an example, beyond JTWW. Which as it affects 'infantry' would not effect something that is 'infantry and jum infantry'?

It's more example like something which is both would have to Move Though Cover when moving, as Infantry have to do that and then take Dangerous Terrain Tests as Jump Infantry have to do that.

They end up with 2 movement rates, 6" and 12" as Infantry can only move 6", but Jump Infantry can move 12" but if you retain both unit types how far can you move?

Same if you're on a Bike if You're Bike, Infantry and you go to Assault someone Bikes are not slowed by Difficult Terrain they just take a Dangerous Terrain Test, Infantry are slowed by difficult terrain so you end up making a Move though Cover and Dangerous Terrain test.

ChrisCP wrote:Can you provide an example, beyond JTWW. Which as it affects 'infantry' would not effect something that is 'infantry and jum infantry'?

The rules for transports give permission for infantry units to embark. They say "only infantry models", but they do not specifically prohibit non-infantry models. (BGB p66)

A Space Marine Chapter Master can take a Jump Pack. The Jump Pack rules state the models "are jump infantry" (C:SM p100)

If that means that the Chapter Master is both Infantry and Jump Infantry, he's free to ride in a rhino.

Aramoro wrote:
It's more example like something which is both would have to Move Though Cover when moving, as Infantry have to do that and then take Dangerous Terrain Tests as Jump Infantry have to do that.

They end up with 2 movement rates, 6" and 12" as Infantry can only move 6", but Jump Infantry can move 12" but if you retain both unit types how far can you move?

Same if you're on a Bike if You're Bike, Infantry and you go to Assault someone Bikes are not slowed by Difficult Terrain they just take a Dangerous Terrain Test, Infantry are slowed by difficult terrain so you end up making a Move though Cover and Dangerous Terrain test.

First bit, what? Where does it say something that's only infantry has to take a DT for landing in diffcult, or that infantry have MTC?

Second, 12" as one has been given permission to do so.

Third, they are Bike/infantry so they benifit from not being slowed by difficult terrain.

I'm not seeing the problem here?

pg 52 actually

Different Unit Types

"You will find that codexes often add even more changes and exceptions for specific models. In any given situation during a battle, if the codex doesn't say any different follow the rules for the appropriate unit type, and if those rules don't say anything different follow the basic rules for infantry."

ChrisCP wrote:
Third, they are Bike/infantry so they benifit from not being slowed by difficult terrain.

I'm not seeing the problem here?

So a Captain on a bike can embark on a rhino because he's still infantry and a rhino can transport infantry? Sweet! Oh wait...

@mpang "Bikes can move up to 12" in the Movement phase.
Bikes are not slowed down by difficult terrain."
Pg 53
One example of the rules saying something different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your quote is from page 51 btw.

@kmdl: Where is your permission to embark something that is unit type 'bike'?

ChrisCP wrote:"Bikes can move up to 12" in the Movement phase.
Bikes are not slowed down by difficult terrain."
Pg 53
One example of the rules saying something different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your quote is from page 51 btw.

Bikes aren't slowed, But infantry are. You're not truly a bike you're a bike and you're infantry so you get slowed by Difficult terrain for being infantry and you take a dangerous terrain test for being a bike.

@Aramoro: By virtue of being 'bike' one is not slowed by difficult terrain as I have shown above.

ChrisCP wrote:@Aramoro: By virtue of being 'bike' one is not slowed by difficult terrain as I have shown above.

But Infantry are slowed, you're saying being a Bike doesn't stop you being Infantry so you follow both restrictions. Only bikers are not slowed as they have 1 unit type 'Bike'. Your Infantry/Bike hybrids have 2 units types so have the rules of both, so they must make a difficult terrain test.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can't wait to put that command squad on bikes then mount them in a Land Raider, sounds good to me.

ChrisCP wrote:@kmdl: Where is your permission to embark something that is unit type 'bike'?

You don't have permission to embark something that is unit type "bike". But, you do have permission to embark something that is unit type "infantry".

If a model is both "bike" AND "infantry", then he'd have permission to embark.

If someone seriously is gonna say in a game that my pt dreadknights are JI and lose MC I'm sticking three in a stormraven, now I only need one scout move.

ChrisCP wrote:@mpang "Bikes can move up to 12" in the Movement phase.
Bikes are not slowed down by difficult terrain."
Pg 53
One example of the rules saying something different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your quote is from page 51 btw.

@kmdl: Where is your permission to embark something that is unit type 'bike'?

My apologies Chris, I was not dissagreeing wiht you, my post was about one earlier about the replacing or adding of types. I should of quoted the one I was commenting on.

ps. I know all about some bikes, look at my sig

Although the specific wording may be fun to muse over, with the implications of gigantic towering beasts suddenly becoming able to roll up a landing ramp because they have a piece of equipment, I doubt if the arguement will pan out that way.

Although it makes no less sense than a pair of two-wound models surviving a hail of fire and instead of one of them dying because they both had Storm shields, neither one dies because one had a grenade instead. Maybe the RAW police will get their way again and push through a new standard in exploitable rules loopholes as a standard army build practice, but I doubt it.

A simple rewording, maybe a change from "is jump infantry" to "moves like jump infantry" could solve this.

I heard suggested that the good player will concede the less advantageous interpretation, but there are two players, and in a case like this, I think the 'good' player would be the one who says "don't be such a jackass, your Dreadknight is already awesome as it is so shut the %$#! up." and the 'bad' player is the one who would even try to take advantage of such silliness. There's being polite and gentelmanly about an arguement, and then there's conceding to stupidity in the face of an donkey-cave.

General comment:

Saying that "by RAW the MC is somehow transformed into jump infantry by strapping on a personal teleporter and stop being MC" introduces one piece of idiocy.

Saying that "by RAW when a piece of wargear gives a model a new unit type it retains its original unit type, thus having two unit types simultaneously" introduces many pieces of idiocy.

But Infantry are slowed, you're saying being a Bike doesn't stop you being Infantry so you follow both restrictions. Only bikers are not slowed as they have 1 unit type 'Bike'. Your Infantry/Bike hybrids have 2 units types so have the rules of both, so they must make a difficult terrain test.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can't wait to put that command squad on bikes then mount them in a Land Raider, sounds good to me.

You know that a command squad on Bikes and Captain on a bike are unit type bike don't you? They are still unit type infantry and that is still their only unit type. So yes they can get in Land raiders all they want (or any other transport), they just also follow the rules for bikes.

Unlike the jump pack which makes them Jump infantry and thus prevents them from getting in transports.

There is still no way to reslve there rules if you allow a unit to have multiple unit types. How does a MC+JI Model shoot it has specific permission to shoot 2 guns but is also is specifically prohibited from shooting 2 guns. What if the Changleling makes it shoot its own men how to you resolve the number of shoots as it must both shoot 2 guns and can only shoot 1 (regardless of firing heavy weapon restrictions further causing issues).

Unless you have something that says you can have 2 or more unit types you can only have 1!

FlingitNow wrote:
You know that a command squad on Bikes and Captain on a bike are unit type bike don't you? They are still unit type infantry and that is still their only unit type. So yes they can get in Land raiders all they want (or any other transport), they just also follow the rules for bikes.!

Yeah and that is a fun loophole but most people would assume that buying a bike changes your unit type to Bike, which is doesn't. So yes you can get into Land Raiders with your Bike Mounted command squads with the rules as they stand.

So yes you can get into Land Raiders with your Bike Mounted command squads with the rules as they stand.

Not with the rules as they stand but with the rules as they are written. As they stand you are a bike and can't get in this is how the rules work but just not how the RaW works...

Llets not lose sight of the fact that RaW is simply a method for interpretring the rules. It is not the rules and nor is it even a method that the rules were designed to be interpreted by.

Well no by definition RAW IS that actual rules of the game. It's just they don't work in any meaningful way. But they only way to determine what kind of RAI you want is to know the RAW as they stand.

Well no by definition RAW IS that actual rules of the game.

? Sorry what?

No by definition RaI IS the rules of the game. The game is designed by GW therefore what they design (i.e. RaI) is the rules. The rulebook is their tool for communicating those rules to us, RaW is a method for interpreting those rules. You seem to lack a basic grasp of the function of language and hows rules work (i.e. by spirit and intention rather than letter).

FlingitNow wrote:

Well no by definition RAW IS that actual rules of the game.

? Sorry what?

No by definition RaI IS the rules of the game. The game is designed by GW therefore what they design (i.e. RaI) is the rules. The rulebook is their tool for communicating those rules to us, RaW is a method for interpreting those rules. You seem to lack a basic grasp of the function of language and hows rules work (i.e. by spirit and intention rather than letter).

The issue is that RAW is what has been presented to us. RAI is what GW meant to write, but they didn't for whatever reason (oversight, lack of editing, assuming players would figure it out, etc).

We can take the RAW and try to determine GW's intent, but that always leads to disputes and arguments as we aren't mind readers. You're free to determine with your opponent what some of these ambiguities actually mean. But, without an official judicial body, there's never going to be a larger consensus among 40k players what the intention of a rule is.

That being said, I strongly support the position that the DK with a teleporter should be a MC that moves like jump infantry. But, without more evidence (a FAQ), maybe that isn't what GW meant. It seems plausable that they intended for the teleporter to give the DK some drawbacks to make up for the movement and shunt ability.

FlingitNow wrote:

Well no by definition RAW IS that actual rules of the game.

? Sorry what?

No by definition RaI IS the rules of the game. The game is designed by GW therefore what they design (i.e. RaI) is the rules. The rulebook is their tool for communicating those rules to us, RaW is a method for interpreting those rules. You seem to lack a basic grasp of the function of language and hows rules work (i.e. by spirit and intention rather than letter).

Fling - you've been told to stop spreading this "RaI is the rules" nonsense before now. Repeatedly in fact. PLease dont drag this thread down....

Well technically RAW stance, You can put IC's on bike in transports. All the space marine bike rule says that it follows the rule for bikes in the rulebook. At no point does anything say that a captain or what have you loses the infantry rule. And as of yet I have not found anything to state that a vehicle prohibits a infantry model that uses the bikes rules from getting into it. It says only infantry, and having a space marine bike, doesn't change you from being a infantry.

There is a part in the unit types that mentions a infantry model on foot, but not as a specific rules question more as a side notereferring to the previous rules talkinga bout the type of models they were referring to.

Bikers can't because their unit type is Bike, meaning they are not infantry.

So can you, I supppose so, will I or should you, I wont, you shouldn't,but meh. to each their own.

The issue is that RAW is what has been presented to us. RAI is what GW meant to write, but they didn't for whatever reason (oversight, lack of editing, assuming players would figure it out, etc).

We can take the RAW and try to determine GW's intent, but that always leads to disputes and arguments as we aren't mind readers. You're free to determine with your opponent what some of these ambiguities actually mean. But, without an official judicial body, there's never going to be a larger consensus among 40k players what the intention of a rule is.

I fully accept that and RaW is the most consistent way to determine how a rule works from the rulebook. But it is not what the rules are and people often lose sight of that.

This has become less and less productive and a bit odd.
I believe that the common ground here is FAQ.

I agree that it more than likely means to read: moves like JI ... (like a Demon with wings)

? But I can see why people would be nuts over this .... I mean 3 MC in your face turn 1 ouch !
go GK's we need it!

And if it for some reason it means to read: that they actually do magically turn into JI. than as it has been said just throw em in a ship and go flat out, and on the way disembark your non scattering Dk's

so I guess what I'm saying is lets chill a bit

You can only embark 1 DK, if they are JI, as only one unit is allowed to be JI in a stormraven.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You can only embark 1 DK, if they are JI, as only one unit is allowed to be JI in a stormraven.

Well, you can attach an IC to it, right? How silly. I highly doubt people will be actually playing the rule this way anyhow!

How are you attaching an IC to a unit that always composes one model? Oh, thats right, you cant

Ah yea, that is right. I play Guard, so forgive me for not remembering IC rules.

If I was Grey Knight player I wouldn't be happy to give up the ability to shoot my heavy weapons while moving, stomp through terrain without a danger test, smash through armor, behave like a monstrous creature in every way, give all that up for what? So I can gain the ability to defy the laws of physics and scrunch a giant hulking robot into a small infantry sized cargo space and irritate my opponent and all others present with my smug picky wording loophole I want to exploit. Weigh the pros and cons.

A small squad of command bikes roaring out of the back of a Land Raider does seem like a cool image though. Knight Rider deployed out of the back of a moving truck after all, so did the car in Spy Hunter, and I think James Bond and various other action heros haves been seen to do it on a motorcycle now and then. I haven't played enough games or ever used a bike command so I don't know if it would be effective or not, but it would look pretty cool in my mind.