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.

So I referenced the following threads:
Sweep Attacks:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/433490.page

Movement: (the notation is in the assault section of the rule book)
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/393233.page

The rule book states you can basically move forward and then backwards in the same movement, but if you end in the same spot you did not actually move (stationary) but you were not actually stationary you moved at least combat speed or more? So how is it a Flat Out move can move forward and backward, almost not even moving from it's original spot, and still count as only moving something minimal? Seems to me it still moved.

How do you guys rule on instances such as this for house rules? I've always assumed to flat out you had to end at least 12+ from where you started, however, the threads above seem to suggest you could simply spin in circles, get the 4+ cover save, and just take the auto hit in assaults.

Jstncloud wrote:How do you guys rule on instances such as this for house rules? I've always assumed to flat out you had to end at least 12+ from where you started, however, the threads above seem to suggest you could simply spin in circles, get the 4+ cover save, and just take the auto hit in assaults.

That's correct.
Bikes have to move 18" when turbo-boosting to get the cover save.
Flat out isn't like that.

Yep, you're right by RAW. The rule where you physically have to end >X" from your starting position is only for being hit in combat and for turbo-boosting bikes to get their cover save.

As for house rules, it doesn't really come up for us; there seems to just be an unspoken "gentleman's agreement" to not use rules like this.

Cheexsta wrote:Yep, you're right by RAW. The rule where you physically have to end >X" from your starting position is only for being hit in combat and for turbo-boosting bikes to get their cover save.

As for house rules, it doesn't really come up for us; there seems to just be an unspoken "gentleman's agreement" to not use rules like this.

That is what I've always done, I have an unparalleled love for my Valkyries and I've never spun em in circles to get a cover save, I might have a slight arc or something (usually because squadrons can be annoying to place) but you definitely got the 'forward motion' that Flat-Out moves should have.

Jstncloud wrote:That is what I've always done, I have an unparalleled love for my Valkyries and I've never spun em in circles to get a cover save, I might have a slight arc or something (usually because squadrons can be annoying to place) but you definitely got the 'forward motion' that Flat-Out moves should have.

Actually, come to think of it: it might actually work, conceptually, if you just imagine the skimmer performing various evasive maneouvres on the spot to avoid enemy shooting, something that would be very hard for a bike to do.

But I'd still avoid doing it myself; Valkyries and Vendettas get a bad enough rap for being undercosted as it is. But it's perfectly legal

Cheexsta wrote:

Jstncloud wrote:That is what I've always done, I have an unparalleled love for my Valkyries and I've never spun em in circles to get a cover save, I might have a slight arc or something (usually because squadrons can be annoying to place) but you definitely got the 'forward motion' that Flat-Out moves should have.

Actually, come to think of it: it might actually work, conceptually, if you just imagine the skimmer performing various evasive maneouvres on the spot to avoid enemy shooting, something that would be very hard for a bike to do.

But I'd still avoid doing it myself; Valkyries and Vendettas get a bad enough rap for being undercosted as it is. But it's perfectly legal

The question tonight was actually about a Storm Raven and it spawned a debate, however, on that same logic I imagine a skimmer doing a barrel role would be just as hard to hit in melee as it would if it was zipping by at flat-out speeds. A vehicle just chilling is one thing, a vehicle dodging and 'happening' to be in the same place after doing its maneuvers would still be a pain to hit, but the rules basically say "sure zip around but if you don't end far away the dudes can punch you, barrel roll forward rather than in place and it is harder to hit you in melee." Kind of not consistent.

Perfectly acceptable to do this, just remember that how easily a vehicle is hit in CC depends entirely on displacement. Also the vehicle can't shoot or disembark troops and an immobilized result ends up as wrecked (baring special rules).

If you zoom 12" and zoom 12" to the same spot, yes you get a flat-out save....but you still are auto-hit in CC. Always make sure you displace a bit if there are enemies that can assault you around.

So you do actually give up a lot for that 'stationary' 4+ cover. Perfectly acceptable to me.

Nungunz wrote:Perfectly acceptable to do this, just remember that how easily a vehicle is hit in CC depends entirely on displacement. Also the vehicle can't shoot or disembark troops and an immobilized result ends up as wrecked (baring special rules).

If you zoom 12" and zoom 12" to the same spot, yes you get a flat-out save....but you still are auto-hit in CC. Always make sure you displace a bit if there are enemies that can assault you around.

So you do actually give up a lot for that 'stationary' 4+ cover. Perfectly acceptable to me.

I think the group I play with will not be allowing this, it screams "cheese."

I'm guilty of doing this to give a raider a 4+ cover save thats sitting on an objective.

It's not really "gamey". I'd happily allow any of my opponents' vehicles to forgo shooting in exchange for a 4+ cover.

There's no problems with it. The 5th edition rules keep it balanced. You have to sacrifice shooting, embarking, or disembarking to do it, and it doesn't protect you against assault.

In older editions when SMF protected against assault, and skimmers were always hit on a 6 in cc, moving in circles was FAQ'd to not be allowed.

Hückleberry wrote:I'm guilty of doing this to give a raider a 4+ cover save thats sitting on an objective.

How would you be able to give a land raider a flat out cover save? Flat out cover saves are reserved for skimmers, furthermore, you'd need to be 50% blocked to get the obscured save for the Land Raider and that is not easy to do.

Jstncloud wrote:

Hückleberry wrote:I'm guilty of doing this to give a raider a 4+ cover save thats sitting on an objective.

How would you be able to give a land raider a flat out cover save? Flat out cover saves are reserved for skimmers, furthermore, you'd need to be 50% blocked to get the obscured save for the Land Raider and that is not easy to do.

Raider as in Dark Eldar Raider, not Space Marine Land Raider. If the word 'land' is not before the word 'raider' in a conversation that isn't about Land Raiders, then it's not going to be referring to the SM vehicle.

Jstncloud wrote:I think the group I play with will not be allowing this, it screams "cheese."

How so? You are giving up a lot for the 4+ save. If my opponent wants to do it, he can go right ahead. It's perfectly allowed by the rules and there are a lot of downsides to pulling the maneuver.

Nungunz wrote:

Jstncloud wrote:I think the group I play with will not be allowing this, it screams "cheese."

How so? You are giving up a lot for the 4+ save. If my opponent wants to do it, he can go right ahead. It's perfectly allowed by the rules and there are a lot of downsides to pulling the maneuver.

Also, in the specific case of the CCB sweeping, that move-and-move-back serves a real game purpose so it's not cheese at all, it's just how you use that piece of gear.

Nungunz wrote:

Jstncloud wrote:I think the group I play with will not be allowing this, it screams "cheese."

How so? You are giving up a lot for the 4+ save. If my opponent wants to do it, he can go right ahead. It's perfectly allowed by the rules and there are a lot of downsides to pulling the maneuver.

You do not have to agree with the house ruling, however the book explains that if you are 'stationary' that is 'have not moved' you are automatically hit in assaults, it then goes on to say if you move forward and backwards it does not count as moving. So in the movement phase I 'move' flat-out' and land in the same place, 4+ cover save from 'moving flat out' but on the assault table I could be considered 'stationary' and I was not 'actually' stationary. It seems cheese to say "I spin my skimmer in circles, maybe move .000000000000000000001, and get hit in melee on a 4+ and get a 4+ cover save."

Play it how you like where you are, but here, that just does not make sense and the rule book makes it perfectly acceptable to adjust/house rule things to our liking.

Randall Turner wrote:

Nungunz wrote:

Jstncloud wrote:I think the group I play with will not be allowing this, it screams "cheese."

How so? You are giving up a lot for the 4+ save. If my opponent wants to do it, he can go right ahead. It's perfectly allowed by the rules and there are a lot of downsides to pulling the maneuver.

Also, in the specific case of the CCB sweeping, that move-and-move-back serves a real game purpose so it's not cheese at all, it's just how you use that piece of gear.

My argument is not 'can the sweeping attack happen' is it that you would move flat-out to do it, which is typically a cruising speed movement but for assaults it could 'not be cruising.' It seems to me that if you moved, you move. The justification for it being harder to hit a vehicle moving at faster speeds is ,well, the vehicle moved at faster speeds. However, if you move at an even faster speed (Flat-Out) and zip back to the same spot you 'could' have moved 24 inches but would get auto hit in assaults if you landed in the same spot (and not .00000000000001 displaced). This just does not make since, the vehicle may not be displaced but it should be harder to hit than a vehicle that did not move flat-out. Again, you do not have to agree with the house ruling we would like to use, it makes more sense.

Avatar 720 wrote:

Jstncloud wrote:

Hückleberry wrote:I'm guilty of doing this to give a raider a 4+ cover save thats sitting on an objective.

How would you be able to give a land raider a flat out cover save? Flat out cover saves are reserved for skimmers, furthermore, you'd need to be 50% blocked to get the obscured save for the Land Raider and that is not easy to do.

Raider as in Dark Eldar Raider, not Space Marine Land Raider. If the word 'land' is not before the word 'raider' in a conversation that isn't about Land Raiders, then it's not going to be referring to the SM vehicle.

Might want to be clear next time before hand, the SM population is vastly larger than any other army right now and in this case I've played against Dark Eldar a grand total of 1 time that I can remember. If I hear or see raider, I assume land raider, and I think it is a valid assumption/mistake given the fact that the majority of players are more familiar with Space Marines anyways.

Yeah, you're right. If someone states the actual name of a unit in 40k, which is a skimmer, in a discussion of skimmers, it makes more sense to assume they're truncating the name of a different unit which isn't a skimmer.

Or, alternately, when you saw him make a statement which made no sense to you, maybe you should have taken a few seconds to think about it.

Mannahnin wrote:Yeah, you're right. If someone states the actual name of a unit in 40k, which is a skimmer, in a discussion of skimmers, it makes more sense to assume they're truncating the name of a different unit which isn't a skimmer.

Or, alternately, when you saw him make a statement which made no sense to you, maybe you should have taken a few seconds to think about it.

You guys make me laugh, I did take a second to think about it? Why else would I have made a post about it? I could sit here all day long and 'think' about what he said and still have no idea what he was talking about because I have almost no experience playing against Dark Eldar, nor do I have legal access to a copy of their codex (sure there are PDFs online). This post is in the rules section, a vague post is a useless post at best. I needed clarification apparently because I assumed he was talking about a Land Raider, my bad, now I know. I 'learned something' which is the point of coming to the forums anyways.

If the thread is going to continue this way feel free to kindly lock it up, I'd rather not have a discussion about moving flat-out but 'not actually moving' turn into a meaningless argument between me and the 'elitists' who know exepect everyone to know everything about every codex, sorry I don't.

The way to continue the discussion would be to, you know, continue the discussion without all the carry on about being corrected.

Jstncloud, apologies if you think anyone is being elitist by expecting you to know that a Dark Eldar Raider is a skimmer in this game. I perceived you as being a bit snide as well as ignorant in your comment to Huckleberry. If I misread you, then that's my error.