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.

Except that the vehicles argued over within this discussion are already fast (the Trukk and Bomber). And thus already have the ability to go flat out.

Oh. Well that changes things!

Yes, they CAN do flat out, but I would say it is not flat out still if the base movement is 12" (which is what is really measured for shooting purposes). They go 12" and then they get an additional 1" at no penalty per RPJ, meaning they can still shoot as if cruising. With RPJ, only if the BASE movement was over 12" would flat out rule apply. It says no penalty, not with additional perks.

So the choice is:

- go 13" (using RPJ for the add. 1") and still shoot
- go 13.1"-19" (using RPJ) and gain flat out perks
- go up to 12" (no RPJ) and shoot
- go 12.1"-18" (no RPJ) and gain flat out perks

I do not think you could get both the flat out save and still shoot.

*edited for spelling error*

tyjet3 wrote: RPJ, only if the BASE movement was over 12" would flat out rule apply. It says no penalty, not with additional perks.

Did you even read the thread?
Cite the rule that says only the base movement is counted to determine Flat Put - you can't, there isn't one.
Cite the rule that denies a fast skimmer moving 13" a cover save - you can't, there isn't one.
Cite the rule denying a bonus due to the extra inch RPJ allows with no penalties - you can't, there isn't one.

So the choice is:

- go 13" (using RPJ for the add. 1") and still shoot
- go 13.1"-19" (using RPJ) and gain flat out perks
- go up to 12" (no RPJ) and shoot
- go 12.1"-18" (no RPJ) and gain flat out perks

Cite the rule allowing a choice. If I move 13" I've moved flat out, yes? Or is 13" somehow less than 12"?

Cite actual rules to back up your position please. You're entitled to your opinion, it's just irrelevant in a rules discussion.

I read through this whole damn thread for one post. I second DevianID and Happyjew's objections to moving without stating intent.

I don't care about the RPJ cover save question, it's going to be addressed and whatever you all decide in this thread will be in limbo non-INAT YMDC land for about two weeks.

But if one of you gomers tries to get away with rolling a "1" in difficult terrain without telling me beforehand if you're planning on moving flat-out or not, I'm takin' your beer away. Seriously, guys, bad form. You have an intent. The rules clearly change behavior (wrecked/immobilized, ability to disembark, etc.) based on intent. There is therefore CLEAR RAW supporting the need to predesignate the intent to move flat out before a terrain roll. Because otherwise it'd be impossible (barring playing some mind-reading psyker) to catch people cheating by changing their intent, which it really sounded here like some of you were proposing as acceptable.

You've stated it's cheating. Can you support that?
I could make the test, pass or, then decide not to move at all. There is no rule requiring me to say what I'm planning on doing.

The disembarking inf you're going to move flat out covers more than intent. If it was only intent you could disembark without the intent of going flat out, then move flat out after realizing it'd be a good idea.

I do appreciate the fact that you accused me of advocating cheating though. Thanks for that.

rigeld2 wrote:You've stated it's cheating. Can you support that?

Of course I can, it's the very first sentence of the BRB - "In a Warhammer 40K battle you often need to roll dice to see how the actions of your models turn out." This means that when you roll a die, you abide by the results indicated. It also means that you indicate what your action is before rolling the die, NOT after! Illustrate using the exact same example Happyjew gave. If you're in difficult terrain and make a die roll without stating intent, you can just say "welp, not actually moving that guy". You're seeing the result of a roll and then deciding whether to take the risk. Is there an explicit "cheater, cheater" rule? Is there a rule somewhere that says "no, you can't see the result of a roll and then change your behavior if it'd be detrimental"? NO, Virginia, I don't believe there is, or at least I don't remember reading it. But if you think that'll keep a TO from DQ'ing you if you tried to do it, you're being silly.

If you're not playing devil's advocate here, we should start another thread.

You're not seriously saying you'd do this, are you?

Edit: hey, don't get serious on me, this isn't worth it. You guys should have addressed this when DevianID and Happyjew brought it up, it's not debatable and it's not central to your RPJ thesis. It's silly.

I did address it. No one chose to continue addressing it until you. :-)

There are rules absolutely allowing you to change behavior based on the outcome of a die roll. For a foot unit, you can make a difficult terrain test and decide not to move.

You say "I'm making a dangerous terrain test for moving my skimmer here. ". Roll. If its a 1, you've moved 0" and are therefore not moving flat out so you're immobilized

For clarity, let's reproduce Happyjew's example:

Happyjew wrote:I think I know where the confusion lies regarding declaring speed.

Per Flat Out, models may not (dis)embark if the vehicle has or is going to move flat out. Additionally, a skimmer that is moving flat out gets immobilised (due to dangerous terrain for example) it immediately gets wrecked.
This brings up the following scenario:
Wave Serpent (only because I play Eldar) is in difficult terrain. I decide I'm going to move 24" (flat-out). As I am in difficult terrain, I must take a dangerous terrain test. I roll a 1. Since the vehicle was going to move flat-out, I would be wrecked, and the unit (if any) would not be able to disembark and thus be destroyed. However, instead, I calmly disembark my unit, because my opponent has no idea that I was going to move flat-out.

So you're maintaining this is a legal sequence, ie, rolling a then deciding not to move flat out, right?

Rigeld2, I think you painted yourself into a corner on this one by deciding that the act of stating intent here somehow means the RPJ doesn't get its bonuses. Again for clarity, I've already gone on record that I do believe the RPJ gives you the ability to get the bonuses and avoid the penalties, and will play it that way until told otherwise (which is likely, but for our purposes irrelevant). You see that the Ork player can just say, "moving 13, ie, getting cover save while still able to shoot/disembark" before he moves? In other words, he can still have his cake and eat it too, he just can't back out of a situation on the basis of a bad die roll any more than any other faction can after rolling for it.

The crux of the matter is this: when you roll the die, you're doing so to "see how the actions of your models turn out", ie, same quote on pp. 2 - and in order to do so, you must specify what your action is, either implicitly or explicitly. The action of a loaded skimmer moving at a slower speed in difficult terrain is NOT the same as the action of moving flat-out in difficult terrain, and you can't implicitly divine intent from context, so you therefore must be explicit about what action you're taking. Because you have to know what you're rolling for before you make the roll.

It's not that you're deciding not to move flat out - you don't actually make a decision to do so. You simply move. If you move more than 12" you're going flat out.

The "going to" move flat out means that you can't disembark and then move flat out - meaning you can't more more than 12".

You don't make a flat out dangerous terrain test, you make a dangerous terrain test. If you went flat out in the last movement phase (what the rule actually says) you're wrecked on an immobilize. If you've moved 0" you have not moved flat out (by definition) so whatever your plans the model is immobilized, not wrecked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There's no corner here - you're making the extraordinary claim that you must announce intent. You have no rules basis for that claim.

rigeld2 wrote:There's no corner here - you're making the extraordinary claim that you must announce intent. You have no rules basis for that claim.

I kinda do, and I already posted it. Let's throw it on another thread, I want to see what the rest of the forum thinks. Give me a sec and I'll post it up.

General_Chaos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:B) monoliths would like a word with you.

This has nothing to do with this rule because the Monolith rule clearly says it only counts as stationary when it shoots.

So the Monolith counts as Stationary when it shoots.
A vehicle with RPJ counts as moving 1" less for the purposes of penalties.

You're right, they have no similarities whatsoever, except they count as being in two different speed bands.

Happyjew wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:B) monoliths would like a word with you.

This has nothing to do with this rule because the Monolith rule clearly says it only counts as stationary when it shoots.

So the Monolith counts as Stationary when it shoots.
A vehicle with RPJ counts as moving 1" less for the purposes of penalties.

You're right, they have no similarities whatsoever, except they count as being in two different speed bands.

Yep, no similarities whatsoever there Happyjew

Funny that this has gone on and on and on and on as long as it has when there are new rules headed this way right now...

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Funny that this has gone on and on and on and on as long as it has when there are new rules headed this way right now...

Tournaments for the next month or three *at least* will still be using 5th edition. As such, arguments such as these are still valid.

The new rules may change, or they may not.

As far as I understand, though - the most prevalent disagreement is this:

Side A: The vehicle counts as moving 12"/18" specifically only for penalties ignored.
Side B: If the vehicle uses RPJ, it counts as moving 12"/18" full stop.

I'm personally in the "Side A" field. Past the arguments made in this thread for it, had the intention been to be side B, the rule could easily have just said "the vehicle may move +1", but otherwise never counts as having moved that extra inch".
The inclusion of "but do not incur penalties for this extra inch" clearly expresses (for me, at least) the intent to move the extra inch, to count as having moved that extra inch, but all penalties the vehicle could suffer are instead treated as if you did not move that extra inch.

6th may add nerf, simply make it better, add fuel to the fire, or give everyone pancakes whenever they open their codices. We have no idea. Old codices (of which Orks will now be two editions old) tend to either suffer notably, or gain unique bonuses with newer editions.

Mainly because the same people keep posting the same rule-less posts, then the occasional new person posts the exact same rule-less argument, and so on....

Hate to get back into this, but here's a sort of off-topic question that I need cleared up. If a fast vehicle moves Crusing speed on a road(being able to move an extra 6"), is it moving Flat Out since it's moving over 12"?

The 6" road bonus does not count towards the speed band. Of course, Skimmers (and Walkers) cannot claim the road bonus, so for them the point is moot. Also important to note, the entire movement must be on the road.

Why wouldn't it? Book says any vehicle moving over 12" is moving Flat Out. The roads rule doesn't mention inclusion or exclusion of any speed band. If a Fast Vehicle is moving Crusing Speed on a road and moves 12" plus an additional 1" to 6" for the Road bonus, it's moving over 12".

"that move at cruising speed" - if they move flat out theyre not moving cruising speed, unless they have a rule that allows it.

I would agree for vehicles that are not Fast, because they cannot move Flat Out. But the rules clearly state that a Fast vehicle that moves over 12" is moving Flat Out. The Roads rule doesn't have an exception that says "still counts as moving Crusing speed".

edit: Under Moving Fast Vehicles(p.70) it says that a Fast vehicle moving Flat Out on a road may move up to 24". I'm not sure if that matters in this example.

I step away and my post blew up... THAT. IS. AWESOME!

Where's my internet cookiez?

Update: I haven't purchased the new planes... I wanna see what 6th edition entails before spending any toof...

This is definately me clearing with the TO and opponent, ala Hexrifle, FnP, etc... debates.

Carry on!

At first I was kind of meh on the idea of getting some Dakka Jets but I finally looks at the rules and the Blitza-bommer looks hilarious. So I'll get one and maybe make something to proxy as a second and try some games with them.

Happyjew wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:B) monoliths would like a word with you.

This has nothing to do with this rule because the Monolith rule clearly says it only counts as stationary when it shoots.

So the Monolith counts as Stationary when it shoots.
A vehicle with RPJ counts as moving 1" less for the purposes of penalties.

You're right, they have no similarities whatsoever, except they count as being in two different speed bands.

Actually, the only thing in common is they both say they count as, which tells you that it specifically has a purpose. The monolith rule states it counts as stationary for shooting purposes. There is no such verbage in RPJ to support your claim that you can be in two different speed zones. It specifically tells you if you use rpj to go that extra inch you count as only moving 12". Furthermore, you need to still prove that the not being able to shoot is a penalty. In the brb when you decide to move how ever far you move you exchange movement for shooting ability. So in this instance, with the structure of both rules they really do not mean the same thing or have anything incommon.

The rules you are saying has a penalty reads like this, page 57 and then page 70,

"A vehicle that travels more then 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed. This represents the vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible without firing its guns."

"Fast vehicles are capable of a third level of speed, called 'flat out'. A fast vehicle going going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18". This represents the fast vehicle moving at top speed, without firing its guns and is treated in all respects exactly the same as moving at cruising speed for a vehicle that is not fast (exepct where noted otherwise). For example, a fast vehicle moving flat out on a road may move up to 24"

With both these rules clearly stating when moving you the player are choosing to give up something in order to gain something else, in this case shooting for speed. There is no verbage to equate these rules saying not being able to shoot is a penalty. No doubt this will fall on deaf ears and some flaming shall commence, but none the less you still need to provide a rule that specically allows a vehicle to be in two different speed zones without it specifcally saying so. In other words RPJ doesn't say it counts as moving cruising speed for shooting purposes or anything else. It says you count as moving 12". Thus limiting your ability to claim any such advantages for moving over.

You'll find posts disproving all your arguments in the pages before. Short run-over without rule quotes or complete arguments (see my previous posts for those):

- There is no 40k definition of penalty. There is also no definition of ork. If not being able to shoot is not a penalty, then every rule referencing to "orks" would also not work.

- "You may not shoot because you were too fast" fits every definition of the British word "penalty".

- The rule does not tell you to count as moving one less inch for all purposes.

- There is no norm on how penalties are worded.

- What a rule represents is irrelevant to game play.

- WH40k is not well-defined. When two rules are worded the same you can assume they work the same, but you can not assume that two rules work differently because they are worded differently. Thus, a rule doesn't have to be declared as a penatly to be one.

As above. KP you are making up requirements (being allowed to be in 2 different speed bands) that do not exist in the rules, and are satisfied by RPJ in any case.

You have no actual rules based argument. Being not allowed to do something because of how fast youre moving (shooting) is a penalty. You cannot honestly claim it isnt a penalty.

Jidmah wrote:You'll find posts disproving all your arguments in the pages before. Short run-over without rule quotes or complete arguments (see my previous posts for those):

- There is no 40k definition of penalty. There is also no definition of ork. If not being able to shoot is not a penalty, then every rule referencing to "orks" would also not work.

- "You may not shoot because you were too fast" fits every definition of the British word "penalty".

- The rule does not tell you to count as moving one less inch for all purposes.

- There is no norm on how penalties are worded.

- What a rule represents is irrelevant to game play.

- WH40k is not well-defined. When two rules are worded the same you can assume they work the same, but you can not assume that two rules work differently because they are worded differently. Thus, a rule doesn't have to be declared as a penatly to be one.

If you have paid attention to others post as well you would know that you "no defintion" arguement is scrap. To be honest that arguement is saying there is no defenition for anything......and really just stop.

Anyways back to the actual problem with the way you read the rules, and my post. You the owner of said models that are moving are trading shooting for speed, as the rules which I posted here clearly state. They do not state penalty, which if I am correct actually is used in multiple sections of the BRB as posted by another person earlier in this thread. Which I might add was throughly ignored and brow beaten by quoting of the tenets of YMDC, while those very same people were ignoring them, as you are right now.....

No nos actually, if you read the rules when you end your movement (or declare I really don't care either way) you fit into one of 3 brackets. For the purpose of RPJ you get an extra 1" of movement and count for moving 1" less. So if you read it, it says if you move 7" rpj allows you to count in the combat speed section which is up to 6". If you move 13" you count as moving 12" which is cruising speed. If you move 14-25 or in case of the jet 37" you count as moving 1"less. Unlike the monoliths special rule where it spells out specifically that it counts as stationary for shooting purposes only, rpj does not specify that you can count as being in a different movement bracket. Period, you cannot argue that it does because there is no verbage to back it up.

If the rules tell you what you can and cannot do, then please provide a rule in any book that allows you to be in 2 different speed brackets. The monolith as is agreed upon a special case that is completely spelled out. Unlike RPJ where people are infering what the rule means. Otherwise, we need to stick to what the rule book say, if you moved 1-6 combat speed, 6.1-12 cruising speed, 12.1-18 or in the case of skimmers 24 flat out. There is no double dipping. There are clear and obvious deliniations between each level. While the is no permission to be otherwise in multiple speed zones.

So RPJ allows you to ignore bonuses?
Please cite a rule saying so.

If we're going to rules lawyer to the extreme, I'd say a Dakkajet can turboboost 36", still get to shoot AND claim the cover save.

BRB page 70 wrote:Fast vehicles are capable of a third speed, called 'flat out'. A fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18". This represents the fast vehicle moving at top speed, without firing its guns and is treated in all respects exactly the same as moving at cruising speed for a vehicle that is not fast (except when noted otherwise). [...]

Emphasis mine.

From this, we learn that moving flat out is, for all intents and purpouses, the same as moving at cruising speed if you're not a fast vehicle.

Aerial Assault wrote:A vehicle with the Aerial Assault rule that moves at cruising speed may fire all of its weapons.

Here we learn that Dakkajets may fire all their weapons even if they move at Cruising speed. As flat out is explicitly treated as moving at cruising speed, the Dakkajet gets to move 36" and shoot. Furthermore, the part about not firing any guns is part of a description, not of the hard rules, and as such does not apply.

Would I play it this way? No. Would I let someone play it this way? Dreadsock.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:If we're going to rules lawyer to the extreme, I'd say a Dakkajet can turboboost 36", still get to shoot AND claim the cover save.

BRB 70 wrote:Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons.

Is more specific than the Aerial Assault rule.

rigeld2 wrote:So RPJ allows you to ignore bonuses?
Please cite a rule saying so.

This.

kp is ignoring the written rule in favour of a house rule

rigeld2 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:If we're going to rules lawyer to the extreme, I'd say a Dakkajet can turboboost 36", still get to shoot AND claim the cover save.

BRB 70 wrote:Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons.

Is more specific than the Aerial Assault rule.

Or, if you turn it around, no vehicle moving flat out may fire weapons, except those with Aerial Assault. Read that way, Aerial Assault is more specific.