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.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:When you DECLARE a ramming attack, you are DECLARING that you are going to move at the vehicle's highest speed possible...

No you're not. You're delcaring that the vehicle is Ramming. You don't declare a speed... the vehicle simply moves as fast as possible.

Moving at Cruising speed requires the vehicle to have physically moved a certain distance. If you did not move that far, you did not move at Cruising speed.

No shooting from passengers.

With the declaration of how many inches you intend to move after pivoting, you are required to lock yourself into at least Cruising Speed.

It should be noted that Tank Shock and Ramming are done instead of moving normally. So each of these sections should be read looking for permission to do things that you can normally do during movement.

In the case of Tank Shock, you are given express permission that if the tank moved slowly enough during the tank shock attack the tank can still fire as normal during the shooting phase. Ramming has no such permission.

The issue of whether or not a vehicle's speed is determined by how far it moves or by some sort of declaration is not a simple answer because the rules are not consistent across the board and that makes this a real grey area.

The biggest bone of contention (as Don Mondo pointed out earlier) is in the rules for fast transports (pg 70), which say (emphasis mine):

"Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that Movement phase."


Now let's take a scenario where a unit embarks onto a fast transport vehicle and that fast transport vehicle then wants to ram an enemy vehicle. Now, after the ram is declared, the distance to the enemy vehicle is found to be 11"...under the rate for moving 'flat-out'...but of course if the ram is successful in exploding the enemy vehicle then the ram continues!

So obviously if vehicle speed is determined solely by how far a vehicle moves (which is only known after the vehicle finishes moving), then how can the rule for fast transports be followed? Clearly the rules in some cases seem to suggest that you *do* have to declare what 'speed' you are going to move your vehicle while at other times they seem to clearly suggest that only the actual movement by the vehicle is what determines its movement 'speed'.


So there is NO clear way to play this IMHO.


With that said, my own opinion is as follows:

Since the majority of the rules seem to suggest that the actual movement of the vehicle is what determines what 'speed' the vehicle moves and therefore that is what is counted in the majority of the situations. For example, after a lot of thought I do think that if a vehicle rams another vehicle but only ends up moving 5", then yes, the models embarked on the ramming vehicle can still shoot as the vehicle only ended up moving combat speed.

However, the flat-out rule means you have to make a special exception in certain situations. If a vehicle is capable of moving flat-out and a unit embarked onto it that turn, you would be unable to ram with that transport, regardless of how close the enemy vehicle is you are ramming because there is a possibility that the enemy vehicle could explode and then the ramming vehicle would end up moving flat-out (which it isn't allowed to do since a unit embarked on it that turn).

Similarly, if a fast transport skimmer was starting its turn in difficult terrain, I would play that the player has to declare whether or not they intend to move flat-out because I believe this is required to follow the restriction against a unit disembarking from a vehicle that 'is going to move' flat-out that turn. So even though the skimmer may end up not moving any actual distance (getting immobilized when starting its movement), it would still 'count' as having moved flat-out in this particular case.

Finally, when it just comes to whether a skimmer moving flat-out is destroyed instead of immobilized, although the rules state that you only count if the vehicle moved flat-out in its 'last turn' I humbly believe that this was clearly written not thinking about the skimmer getting destroyed in its OWN movement phase (since the rule is written in the 'shooting at skimmers' section). Therefore, I don't think it makes any sense if a skimmer moved flat-out in its PREVIOUS turn and then in its CURRENT turn only moves 6" into some terrain that it should suddenly be destroyed instead of immobilized. So I play that when a skimmer has to take a dangerous terrain test in its own movement phase, again you essentially have to declare whether or not you intend to move the skimmer 'flat-out' that phase, and that declaration determines whether or not the vehicle gets immobilized or destroyed if it fails its test.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:@ James Dean: Yes, there are differences. I was only referencing Flat Out for the spirit of the rules, in which your intentions are taken into account.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:move at the highest speed possible ( if I ram something 5" away I'll probably stop) I'm intending on moving at combat speed unless I somehow manage to blow it up

You cannot INTEND on moving at Combat Speed if you make a Ramming attack.

Pg 68, col 1, par 6, line 1, TANKS: Tank Shock!: "To make this kind of attack, first turn the vehicle on the spot in the direction you intend to move it and declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move."
Pg 69, col 2, par 1, line 1, TANKS: Ramming: "Ramming is a special kind of Tank Shock move and must be executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of."

When you DECLARE a ramming attack, you are DECLARING that you are going to move at the vehicle's highest speed possible, whether you move less distance than that speed allows or not. Therefore the unit inside should be treated as having moved the max speed of the vehicle.[color=darkred]this is where you're Wrong, Declaring isn't moving and there's nothing anywhere to stop me from shooting as the vehicle did not move at Cruising speed. Argue that if you like, but you're only tootin a broken horn cuz noone's listening.
[/color] Basically, the driver guns it and then comes to a krumping stop when he hits something that doesn't give. He doesn't crawl carefully to the other vehicle and tap it with his bumper. The effect of this recklessness and acceleration on the unit embarked is taken into account when saying that the vehicle is treated as having moved the highest speed possible no matter what distance it traveled. Are you saying that this is not an effect, intention, and spirit of the Ramming rule?

Spirit of a rule has no place in a RAW arguement. As it stands if it moves 6" or less I can shoot out of my Vehicle even if I rammed. Why? Simply because the rules tell me I can

I am going to expound on my second point a bit more;

Normal Movement: Permission to fire at combat, not fire at cruising unless permission given for faster speeds.

Tank Shock: Permission to fire if tank shock attack was done at combat speed unless permission given for faster speeds.

Ramming: No permission give at all for firing.

Each is their own separate rule that give their own each permissions within the rules. Tank Shock is not normal movement, but permission is given to reference the rules for shooting if you move slow enough. Ramming is not normal movement, and you are not given ANY permission to reference the rules for shooting if you go slow enough.

So it doesn't matter if you want to reference the rules for moving at combat speed for a Ram that on moved the tank 5", you are not given permission to reference said rules in the Ramming rules in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Ghenghis Jon wrote:@ James Dean: Yes, there are differences. I was only referencing Flat Out for the spirit of the rules, in which your intentions are taken into account.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:move at the highest speed possible ( if I ram something 5" away I'll probably stop) I'm intending on moving at combat speed unless I somehow manage to blow it up

You cannot INTEND on moving at Combat Speed if you make a Ramming attack.

Pg 68, col 1, par 6, line 1, TANKS: Tank Shock!: "To make this kind of attack, first turn the vehicle on the spot in the direction you intend to move it and declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move."
Pg 69, col 2, par 1, line 1, TANKS: Ramming: "Ramming is a special kind of Tank Shock move and must be executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of."

When you DECLARE a ramming attack, you are DECLARING that you are going to move at the vehicle's highest speed possible, whether you move less distance than that speed allows or not. Therefore the unit inside should be treated as having moved the max speed of the vehicle.[color=darkred]this is where you're Wrong, Declaring isn't moving and there's nothing anywhere to stop me from shooting as the vehicle did not move at Cruising speed. Argue that if you like, but you're only tootin a broken horn cuz noone's listening.
[/color] Basically, the driver guns it and then comes to a krumping stop when he hits something that doesn't give. He doesn't crawl carefully to the other vehicle and tap it with his bumper. The effect of this recklessness and acceleration on the unit embarked is taken into account when saying that the vehicle is treated as having moved the highest speed possible no matter what distance it traveled. Are you saying that this is not an effect, intention, and spirit of the Ramming rule?

Spirit of a rule has no place in a RAW arguement. As it stands if it moves 6" or less I can shoot out of my Vehicle even if I rammed. Why? Simply because the rules tell me I can

Please show me under the Ramming rules where you are given permission to fire.

Gladly, look under movement, than cross reference fire points.

If the Vehicle moves 6" or less you may fire. If in so ramming I only move 3" I may fire because ... the rules explicitly allow me to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
mind you my Example vehicle is a standard SM Rhino nothing fancy

That is fine forare normal movement rules for vehicles.

Tank Shock and Ramming are done specifically instead of moving normally. So show me in either of those rules where you are given permission to fire, and in this case specifically, under the rules for Ramming.

That's hilarious beings Ram is a Special kind of tank shock, and tank shock is a special kind of move. Which allows the exception to the rule that enemy models cannot be moved through.

They all follow the same rules for movement... with a couple exceptions ...

Yea, I just checked Ramming on page 69, a rule that you do INSTEAD of moving normally and there is no permission to fire from a vehicle given there at all.

That's funny as a shocking tank may fire normally as well as all his cargoe assuming it hasn't moved too far.

The shooting rules are located under movement and firing points.


Its a special type of *movement* so look back to movement for more clarity

"Please show me under the Ramming rules where you are given permission to fire."
-Brother Ramses

I agree that tank shocks and rams are not normal moves. However, the permission to fire from inside a transport actually comes from the Fire Points rule, not the movement rules. See BGB p. 66. And I note that the Fire Points rule does not limit its use to vehicles which have executed a normal move, nor does it exclude vehicles which have tank shocked or rammed. The only limitations are:
1. One model per fire point
2. Firers count as moving if the vehicle moved at all
3. Passengers can't fire if the vehicle moved at cruising speed.

There's also a complete lack of any language about "declared move" or "intended move" in the fire points rule. All the fire points rule asks is: did the vehicle move at cruising speed. If the vehicle didn't move 6" or more, it didn't move at cruising speed, regardless of what it planned to do, wanted to do, etc. It seems simple to me. In the absence of "intends to move" language like the fast transports disembarkation rule, a vehicle's "intent" is completely irrelevant. So if a vehicle "intended" to move 12", but only moved 5", it moved at combat speed, not cruising speed, and its passengers can still fire.

There's also this language from the Vehicles and Assaults section to consider:

"Note: when assessing how far a vehicle has moved, only take into account the actual distance covered from its original position. Moving backwards or forwards or driving around in circles does not help!" BGB p. 63

While there's certainly an argument that this rule is strictly limited to assaulting vehicles 'cause that's where it appears, it also appears to be strong evidence of GW's intent to determine a vehicle's movement for purposes of later phases by how far it actually moved in the movement phase, not how far it intended to move.

Brother Ramses wrote:Yea, I just checked Ramming on page 69, a rule that you do INSTEAD of moving normally and there is no permission to fire from a vehicle given there at all.

Yes, it is a special type of movement, but it would still follow the normal rules for moving (dangerous terrain tests for moving through terrain, not moving over friendly models, etc) except where specified otherwise (such as not being able to turn freely and being able to move within 1" of enemy models).


So yes, the normal rules allowing embarked models to fire would apply here to. The only question is whether or not a vehicle's movement speed can somehow be declared ahead of time, which as I've pointed out the rules seem to sometimes suggest is the case but most times do not.


THERE IS NO CLEAR ANSWER HERE.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:That's funny as a shocking tank may fire normally as well as all his cargoe assuming it hasn't moved too far.

The shooting rules are located under movement and firing points.


Its a special type of *movement* so look back to movement for more clarity

Tank Shock is given EXPLICIT permission to do that if it moved slow enough. Without that being included in the Tank Shock rules, you would not be able to because both Tank Shock and Ramming are done instead of moving normally.

Here is what kills your arguement;

Both Tank Shock and Ramming are not movement. They are special attacks that take place during the Movement Phase. They are both done instead of moving normally. Ergo you are only specificcally allowed to do what they give you express permission to do.

However Firing points explicitly allows me to as long as I have moved slow enough...

I found a rule that says I can so I will; permissive ruleset ftw

yakface wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Yea, I just checked Ramming on page 69, a rule that you do INSTEAD of moving normally and there is no permission to fire from a vehicle given there at all.

Yes, it is a special type of movement, but it would still follow the normal rules for moving (dangerous terrain tests for moving through terrain, not moving over friendly models, etc) except where specified otherwise (such as not being able to turn freely and being able to move within 1" of enemy models).


So yes, the normal rules allowing embarked models to fire would apply here to. The only question is whether or not a vehicle's movement speed can somehow be declared ahead of time, which as I've pointed out the rules seem to sometimes suggest is the case but most times do not.


THERE IS NO CLEAR ANSWER HERE.

Actually Yak it is not a special type of movement at all. The fourth paragraph is very clear that instead of moving normally, the vehicle is making a tank shock attack.

Neither Tank Shock or Ramming are movement, they are both special attacks that can be made by vehicles in the Movement Phase that entail physically moving the models to resolve the attack, but they are not movement.

"declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move" bgb 68 under shock


Automatically Appended Next Post:
it also states it must move at least combat speed

"The only question is whether or not a vehicle's movement speed can somehow be declared ahead of time, which as I've pointed out the rules seem to sometimes suggest is the case but most times do not. THERE IS NO CLEAR ANSWER HERE."
-Yakface

I respectfully disagree. The answer seems clear to me. When a vehicle's "intended" or "declared" movement is relevant, the rule says so, as in the fast transport disembarkation rule. When it's not relevant, the rule doesn't mention it, as in the fire points rule. Accordingly, we have no reason whatsoever to believe the vehicle's "intended" movement has any bearing on whether models can fire from fire points. And if the "intended" movement is irrelevant, all we have left to determine is how far the vehicle actually moved. 5" = combat speed. The models can fire.

-GK

I just want to be sure of you stance,

A Chaos Rhino with a pintle-mounted combi-melta declares he is going to Ram a Ultramarines Rhino by moving 11" but gets stopped at 5".

The pintle-mounted combi-melta can now fire on the Ultras Rhino because you failed your ram and only went 5"?

yakface wrote:So obviously if vehicle speed is determined solely by how far a vehicle moves (which is only known after the vehicle finishes moving), then how can the rule for fast transports be followed? Clearly the rules in some cases seem to suggest that you *do* have to declare what 'speed' you are going to move your vehicle while at other times they seem to clearly suggest that only the actual movement by the vehicle is what determines its movement 'speed'.

There's no need to declare to make the Fast Vehicle rule work. It's simply there to cover disembarking the unit before the transport moves. So it's solely down to what the player intends to do, rather than any need to declare to your opponent. It's just their way of not having to include a separate statement to say 'You can't disembark a unit and then move Flat Out'... If you disembark the unit, you're not obligated to move the vehicle at a certain speed. You just can't move Flat Out.

Does that mean I can move my fast skimmers 24" in a circle and claim a 4+ cover save?

WHy would it mean that?

Happyjew wrote:Does that mean I can move my fast skimmers 24" in a circle and claim a 4+ cover save?

"Note: when assessing how far a vehicle has moved, only take into account the actual distance covered from its original position. Moving backwards or forwards or driving around in circles does not help!" BGB p. 63

No, you may not.

Something tells me that there was some sarcasm lost in text here, but we have already covered it.

Nm. However as tank shock specifically gives you permission to shoot (based on how far you moved), ramming does not give this permission.

A Chaos Rhino with a pintle-mounted combi-melta declares he is going to Ram a Ultramarines Rhino by moving 11" but gets stopped at 5". The pintle-mounted combi-melta can now fire on the Ultras Rhino because you failed your ram and only went 5"?
-Brother Ramses

First of all, wouldn't the chaos rhino have to declare a 12" move to ram since that's its max move?

That aside, what you've proposed is a different subject entirely. Now you're talking about the vehicle firing its own weapons rather than passengers firing from fire points. So we've left the fire points rule and we're on to the moving and shooting vehicle weaponry rule.

Let's look at that rule if that's what you want to talk about:

"The number of weapons a vehicle can fire in the Shooting phase depends on how fast it has moved in that turn's Movement phase, as detailed below. ... Vehicles that moved at combat speed may fire a single weapon (and its defensive weapons, as explained below)." BGB p. 58

Note the language "depends on how fast it has moved in that turn's movement phase" (emphasis added) does not make any mention of "declared" moves or "intended" moves. All we care about for purposes of this rule is how far the vehicle has moved. In your example, how far the vehicle moved in the movement phase is 5". 5" = combat speed. Combat speed = 1 normal weapon + defensive weapons. Combi-meltas are "optional weapons" so at S8 it would be fired as a normal weapon. So the Chaos Rhino could ordinarily fire the combi-melta.

However, the ramming rule specifically prohibits vehicles which have declared a ram from firing in their shooting phase:

"This means that it may not shoot in that turn's Shooting phase," BGB p. 69

So in your example, no, the Chaos Rhino could not fire anything that turn because it declared a ram in the movement phase.

Hope this helps!
-GK

actually according to the ramming rules, a vehicle may not fire when it rams. so no C-melta action for the chaos Rhino

That said though, if there was a squad of 5 Plagues insided with 2 Meltas, they may still fire as you only moved 5"

After reading the posts here, and re-reading tank shocking/ramming, I've changed my mind. The unit inside would still be able to shoot.

I have always read as Bother Ramses posits.

Still do, really.
But I think I get what yakface is saying.

The point I was making was that if you then take that stance then you are deliberately following some rules while not following others.

The last point on Fire Points that you keep bringing up states that passengers count as moving if the vehicle moves.

You then state that the combi on the Rhino would not be able to fire because the vehicle moved as fast as capable and thus could not fire. But then you excuse the fast as capable to allow the passengers to fire.

So which set of rules do you want to follow? The ones most advantageous?

If the Ramming vehicle cannot fire because it is moving as fast as possible, how can the passengers fire if they count as moving when the vehicle moves and how fast the vehicle moved?

This is all conjecture though because you are still defedning the false premise that both Tank Shock and Ramming are movement when the rule specifically tells you that they are done instead of moving. Practically identical to the Scout Shunting debate in which it was shown that Shunting was not moving because it was done instead of moving.

Ponder this question,

If Tank Shock is movement, then why do the rules for Tank Shock have to give you the explicit permission to fire if the vehicle did the tank shock slow enough?

The answer is that Tank Shock is not movement and you need permission to fire if the tank shock attack was completed slow enough to fire.

Here is the main problem,

You folks are defining Movement as the real world definition not as to what the World of Warhammer 40k defines it. What some of you have done is combine the definitions of cruising and combat speed with real world defintions of movement to support your argument. That is not how this game works as proven with countless other arguments.

Tank Shock must move at cruising speed does not define Tank Shock as movement, but dictates what Tank Shock Attack consists of using a GW definition.

Ramming is done at the fastest speed the vehicle can go. That would be GW defined as cruising speed however that does not define movement, but dictates that Ramming consists of using a GW defintion.

As I said before, each rule give you permission as to what you are allowed or not allowed to do. Ramming tells you that you cannot fire, so therefore you cannot fire. If you want to drag firing points in then follow all the rule, not just what is convenient and apply the last bullet point as to what the vehicle is doing when it is moving as fast as capable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yak,

I reread your post again and I see a flaw in your reasoning.

If you cannot embark or disembark into a vehicle that has or plans to move Flat Out then you are faced with the decision of embarking/disembarking and not Ramming or Ramming and not embarking/disembarking.

The reason behind this is that the rules entry for Ramming tells you flatly that you will be moving at the fastest speed capable. That would mean there is no reasonable expection that you should not be moving Flat Out if you are Ramming and therefore you cannot embark/disembark from a vehicle that plans on Ramming. In addition if you do embark/disembark from a vehicle and then decide to Ram, you cannot because the rules tell you that you will be moving as fast as possible. The reasonable expectation is that you indeed will be moving Flat Out.

xlEternitylx wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Does that mean I can move my fast skimmers 24" in a circle and claim a 4+ cover save?

"Note: when assessing how far a vehicle has moved, only take into account the actual distance covered from its original position. Moving backwards or forwards or driving around in circles does not help!" BGB p. 63

No, you may not.

Something tells me that there was some sarcasm lost in text here, but we have already covered it.

Why do you think its a no?

RaW you do get the 4+ cover save from moving in a circle. The P.63 note is about melee attacks, not flat out.

Discussed here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/398346.page

Brother Ramses:

Just look at the tank shock section and see how many times it calls tank shocking 'movement' or a 'move'. You are completely off-base here.

Tank shocking is of course movement and follows all the normal rules for movement except where specified otherwise.

Any other interpretation would mean you could tank shock through impassable terrain(?), ignore taking dangerous terrain tests(?) and apparently if the opponent assaulted your vehicle in the following turn they would hit automatically as your tank would not count as having moved(?).