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.

Ran into an issue today, looking for dakka to either back me up or condemn me.
Guy at the flgs attempted to fire assault weapons from a trukk that moved 12".
Here's where things devolved:
I kindly informed him that passengers may not fire from a vehicle that moved cruising speed.
He argued that, because the vehicle was fast, 12" was it's combat speed.
So I attempt to show him proof in the pudding, pull out my(some random guy next to me's)rule book, and cite the following in order, showing him as I read.
First we establish that 40k has a permissive rule set. (I.e I can only do what the rules say, i.e I can't shove all his models off the board, and claim he has no more models) He agrees.
Secondly I pull up the page on vehicle movement, where it details what constitutes "stationary", "combat speed", and "cruising speed". I ask if we have established how speed is defined. He agrees.
Thirdly I bring up the transport page, showing the passage (roughly) that states a unit carried in a transport count as moving if the vehicle moves, and if it moves cruising speed, they cannot fire at all. He acknowledges this is true for normal vehicles.
Lastly I show the fast vehicle section where it identifies the difference as "a fast vehicle moving at combat speed may fire all weapons (like a standard vehicle stationary)" and I ask him if this passage redefines cruising speed. He answers to the negative.
So I ask if we are at an understanding, and he says "We just have to agree to disagree." pointing out that he has read forums going both ways on the issue. So can someone prove a precedent of why this would work, or submit a more direct cause and effect of why this is hogwash?

Now I know what some of you are thinking, why would I waste 25 minutes of platy time trying to prove a point? 1: Because it's a cheap interpretation of the rules, and 2: Because I wasn't in the game, merely a spectator distracting him from his strategy and causing him to get tabled.

Well, if you weren't playing you shouldn't have interfered if his opponent wasn't asking for you help in the matter. Its one thing if you just mention that the guy is totally wrong (which he clearly was) its another thing to get the game off track via an argument.

Yes, you were clearly right as you have shown via your argument, but you really should have saved it until after the game or until you are going to play him unless he or his opponent was asking for your opinion.

It's a very common misconception, and it's been hashed out pretty thoroughly on several occasions now.

What it boils down to is that being Fast allows the Cruising vehicle to fire as if it is moving at Combat Speed... but has no effect on the passengers, nor does it redefine the speed bands. The vehicle is still moving at Cruising Speed... it just fires as if it is moving at Combat Speed.

You had the right rules argument, and he proffered no alternative argument other than "a random forum states otherwise"

Not a lot you can do in that situation.

One more option would be to show him page 110 with the table for vehicle speeds. Ask him how many weapons he could have fired (one) then show him where that is on the table. Nothing is being redefined.

yakface wrote:
Well, if you weren't playing you shouldn't have interfered if his opponent wasn't asking for you help in the matter. Its one thing if you just mention that the guy is totally wrong (which he clearly was) its another thing to get the game off track via an argument.

Yes, you were clearly right as you have shown via your argument, but you really should have saved it until after the game or until you are going to play him unless he or his opponent was asking for your opinion.

Oh, should have mentioned his opponent was arguing with him too. I was merely offering proofs.

When he said "agree to disagree" ask him what his argument was. If he refused or stated well it said so on some forum ask him to show you an argument based on the rules or accept he is wrong. If he can't offer an argument based on rules then he has to accept he is wrong. If he can't remember the "forum argument" he'll have to accept what you've shown in the rulebook until he can offer a counter argument (if that means going home re-reading forums and printing off/remembering arguments to come back then fine). If he still disagrees say you read in some forum that your troops have a 2++ save and were T10 and autohit and wounded/penetrated with every attack and you'll happily agree to disagree...

I'd love it to be otherwise, as my orks are forced to dr their drive-by shooting at about 5 mph, but the rules are pretty clear