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.

Clarification? I see a debate raging with no side giving. What will you say at your gaming table? "Look, this lot can't agree either!"

There is a difference, as one side is quoting rules, and the other isn't.

Jidmah wrote:There is a difference, as one side is quoting rules, and the other isn't.

That never happens in YMDC!

yep one side sites rulaes and says this is why rpj works like it does to shoot and get cover... the other side says that is wrong because i dont' think it is right.... and presenting no valid rules toward that conclution... I say bring INAT faq it'll help you alot in the long run

G00fySmiley wrote: I say bring INAT faq it'll help you alot in the long run

Yah just like when the INAT didn't allow you to deff rolla vehicles. GW proved that wrong which was argued to hell and gone just like red paint has.

These "arguments" are rooted back to INAT's ruling on red paint. Stating that by moving 7" you get hit on a 6+ and can still fire. I completely disagree with this because "COUNTS AS" is just that it counts for you and it counts for your opponent. Just because INAT ruled doesn't make it right.

You know, repeating and already invalidated argument doesn't make it right again. An example describing nothing but an option does not overrule the actual rule.

Besides that GW FAQs do not "prove" anything. They simply make a final call, which may or may not abide to the rules the published first. Just have look at the GK falchions. By raw you get two CCW which add +1 attack as a pair. As you are wielding two CCW, you would also get and additional attack for that, for two attacks total.
The FAQ rules them to be one attack total, because that's what GW wanted them to be, not because that's what the rules say.

Right now, the RPJ rules say that you can get the best of two worlds if moving 6-7" or 12-13" - if a FAQ changes that, I'll happily follow the FAQ. Until then, anyone denying his ork opponent that advantage is cheating him.

Not to mention that, you know, assaulting a vehicle explicitly ignores any distance declared by the owner ("counts as" or not), you just measure how far the vehicle is from its starting position. "counts as" doesn't even come into it. It moved farther than 6", it gets hit on a 6+.

Same way that a fast skinner can go "flat out", move 18" around in a circle, but still be hit in assault on 4+, or hit automatically if it returned to the exact same position.

If you can show me where COUNTS AS moving 6" or 12" only applies to the Ork player and no one else then I might see your point? It doesn't matter that you actually moved 7" or 13" you COUNT AS moving 6" or 12".

General_Chaos wrote:If you can show me where COUNTS AS moving 6" or 12" only applies to the Ork player and no one else then I might see your point? It doesn't matter that you actually moved 7" or 13" you COUNT AS moving 6" or 12".

Not actually correct. The rule says you move an extra inch and ignore all penalties for this extra inch.

The example provided is not how the rule must be used, but an example of how it could be used.

So, Trukk moves 7" - does not suffer the penalty of not shooting and/or disembarking passengers, keeps the bonus of being hit on 6's because it moved more than 6".

Kharrak wrote:So, Trukk moves 7" - does not suffer the penalty of not shooting and/or disembarking passengers, keeps the bonus of being hit on 6's because it moved more than 6".

But you didn't move more the 6" because you COUNT AS moving 6". Getting hit on 4+ during your opponents Assault phase is not a penalty for you it's a penalty for your opponent

And? Where does it say your opponent ignores how far the vehicle actually moved? Read assaulting a vehicle, it only cares about how far the vehicle moved in the movement phase. Did they move the vehicle 6 or 7. Crazy they moved 7, so hitting them on 6 s

General_Chaos wrote:

Kharrak wrote:So, Trukk moves 7" - does not suffer the penalty of not shooting and/or disembarking passengers, keeps the bonus of being hit on 6's because it moved more than 6".

But you didn't move more the 6" because you COUNT AS moving 6". Getting hit on 4+ during your opponents Assault phase is not a penalty for you it's a penalty for your opponent

Correct, you have no permission to count as moving one less inch for a penalty your opponent suffers. So you opponent would have to use the 7", and thus hit on 6+.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:And? Where does it say your opponent ignores how far the vehicle actually moved? Read assaulting a vehicle, it only cares about how far the vehicle moved in the movement phase. Did they move the vehicle 6 or 7. Crazy they moved 7, so hitting them on 6 s

Crazy! you COUNT AS moving 6"

The key here is COUNTS AS. When does Drago stop making Paladins COUNT AS troops? Crazy, Never they always COUNT AS troops.

General_Chaos wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:And? Where does it say your opponent ignores how far the vehicle actually moved? Read assaulting a vehicle, it only cares about how far the vehicle moved in the movement phase. Did they move the vehicle 6 or 7. Crazy they moved 7, so hitting them on 6 s

Crazy! you COUNT AS moving 6"

The key here is COUNTS AS. When does Drago stop making Paladins COUNT AS troops? Crazy, Never they always COUNT AS troops.

Are willfully ignorant? Red paint does not make you count as moving one less inch for all purposes. Period.

You are wrong. Stop spouting your wrong nonsense and read the damn rule for once.

Jidmah wrote:

Are willfully ignorant? Red paint does not make you count as moving one less inch for all purposes. Period.

You are wrong. Stop spouting your wrong nonsense and read the damn rule for once.

Quoted right from the rulebook "For example, a vehicle could move 13" but still COUNT AS moving 12" Ignorant? Nice... I must be if I disagree with you

You count as moving 6 for purposes of shooting. Has no effect for assaulting out of due to being open topped. And it gives you an extra inch. How does my rpj be benificial to you? It's not. My rules don't work for you. As per brb faq.

Q:AmIabletogainthebenefitsofanyofmy opponent’swargearorspecialrules,suchasTeleport Homers,ChaosIcons,TyranidSynapse,Necron ResurrectionOrbsetc? A:Inmostoccasionsthisisclear,astherulesusethe words‘friendly’or‘own’toindicateyourunits,and ‘enemy’fortheopponent’s.Ontheotherhand,some rulesclearlyspecifythattheyaffect‘friendandfoe’.A fewrulesare,however,slightlyambiguousasthey don’tclearlyspecifythisdistinction.Asageneral principle,werecommendthatyoucannotuseorgain thebenefitsfromanyofthewargearorspecialrulesof youropponent’sarmy,unlessspecificallystatedinthe ruleitself(‘friendorfoe’)orinanofficialFAQ


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I moved seven. For you 6 for me.

Have you read the RPJ rule? You know, the bit where it talks about *ignoring penalties*?

You count as moving 12" for all the penalties associated with moving 13". Period.

Youre wrong on this. You're quoting an example out of context, stop.

General_Chaos wrote: Yah just like when the INAT didn't allow you to deff rolla vehicles. GW proved that wrong which was argued to hell and gone just like red paint has.

These "arguments" are rooted back to INAT's ruling on red paint. Stating that by moving 7" you get hit on a 6+ and can still fire. I completely disagree with this because "COUNTS AS" is just that it counts for you and it counts for your opponent. Just because INAT ruled doesn't make it right.

You know, we are not supposed to bring up the inat faq here in ymdc, however it is HIGHLY relevant.

Most major tournaments ignore raw and use the inat faq, which is not founded in raw. We can all argue raw and gw faqs to death, but that horrid document called the inat is always there.

It is impossible to prep for a major tournament without using that terrible doc. YMDC only helps you in a local pick up game at your flgs. You might as well just d6 it or figure it out on your own.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Have you read the RPJ rule? You know, the bit where it talks about *ignoring penalties*?

Well you'd have to define "penalties" that your ignoring. Which the rule does not. Choosing when and where your picking to COUNT AS moving 6" or 7" is not defined also. So as I said before COUNTS AS = just that COUNTS AS

General_Chaos wrote:

G00fySmiley wrote: I say bring INAT faq it'll help you alot in the long run

Yah just like when the INAT didn't allow you to deff rolla vehicles. GW proved that wrong which was argued to hell and gone just like red paint has.

These "arguments" are rooted back to INAT's ruling on red paint. Stating that by moving 7" you get hit on a 6+ and can still fire. I completely disagree with this because "COUNTS AS" is just that it counts for you and it counts for your opponent. Just because INAT ruled doesn't make it right.

The funny thing about the def rolla ruling, is originally the inat faq did say it worked in a ram. Then a little birdie told the inat crew that gw was going to faq it to not allow it.

So what happened? INAT was changed to no allow it, then the gw faq allowed it, and then inat changed it back.

INAT exists only as a way for a select group of people to affect how many major tournaments are ran as to their viewpoint on how 40k should be played. All under the guise as 'clarifications' and not 'rules changes'.

To reiterate my rpj does not work for you. For you I moved 7 for me I count as moving 6.

General_Chaos wrote:Quoted right from the rulebook "For example, a vehicle could move 13" but still COUNT AS moving 12" Ignorant? Nice... I must be if I disagree with you

You keep ignoring the most important part. "A vehicle could count as...". The vehicle is in no way obliged to count as moving 1" less inch for anything but penalties it suffers.

Can we stop this now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

imweasel wrote:INAT exists only as a way for a select group of people to affect how many major tournaments are ran as to their viewpoint on how 40k should be played. All under the guise as 'clarifications' and not 'rules changes'.

I think Yakface's rules responses to YMDC queries pretty much represent what INAT is about - getting intuitive rulings which everyone can follow without getting a knot in their head, so you can easily implement the FAQ at tournaments. As this forum, or even this thread, perfectly represents, 40k rules have nothing intuitive about them, so it's only natural that INAT strays from what rules or future FAQs say. Anyone is free to disagree with that intention, and YMDC disagrees with it as per the Tenets of YMDC, so it shouldn't come up at all.

Jidmah wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:Quoted right from the rulebook "For example, a vehicle could move 13" but still COUNT AS moving 12" Ignorant? Nice... I must be if I disagree with you

You keep ignoring the most important part. "A vehicle could count as...". The vehicle is in no way obliged to count as moving 1" less inch for anything but penalties it suffers.

The point you highlighted is saying you could move 13", yes you could move 13" that is not in contention....you are inferring it's says "A vehicle may move 13" but could still COUNT AS moving 12 but only in my movement and shooting phase. But I don't COUNT AS moving 12" during my opponents Assault Phase then I count as moving 13" The rule clearly does not say any of that.

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Have you read the RPJ rule? You know, the bit where it talks about *ignoring penalties*?

Well you'd have to define "penalties" that your ignoring. Which the rule does not. Choosing when and where your picking to COUNT AS moving 6" or 7" is not defined also. So as I said before COUNTS AS = just that COUNTS AS

No i dont, English does that for me.

Moving 13" and not being able to fire is a penalty, so I count as moving 1" less FOR THAT PENALTY only.

Moving 13" and gaining a cover save is not a penalty. So it isnt ignored. So I still gain the cover save

Its that simple. Reread the actual RULE, and NOT the example, and come back

In order for it to be read that way, the sentence would require a comma before "and".

Anyways, that would be in contradiction to the actual rule, in which case the example would be wrong and thus irrelevant.
No matter how you try to misread it, it's just an example, not a rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: Referring to General_Chaos, not to nos...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Its that simple. Reread the actual RULE, and NOT the example, and come back

Oh so if I ignore one of the key parts of the rule the freaking example I'd understand wow...

You're the one ignoring parts of the rule, not us. There is a clear limitation on where "counts as" is applied.

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Its that simple. Reread the actual RULE, and NOT the example, and come back

Oh so if I ignore one of the key parts of the rule the freaking example I'd understand wow...

An EXAMPLE is not the rule. It is not a "key part of the rule", it is an example.

Jidmah wrote:You're the one ignoring parts of the rule, not us. There is a clear limitation on where "counts as" is applied.

Yah it's really clear... you count as only when you want to and don't count as when you don't.

"Do not incur penalties for this extra inch" not being able to shoot is a penalty, not being able to disembark is a penalty, BUT getting hit on 4+ on your opponents turn is not a penalty for the Ork player it's a penalty for the Opponent. The example brings the rule to clarification so it can't just be ignored.

It isnt being ignored, you\re just wilfully ignoring the actual rule

Youre arguing that a bonus to the Ork (cover save) is a penalty that can be ignored? Let me guess, you think banshees strike at I10 when assaulting into cover as the I drop is a "bonus" to the opponent as well?