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.

@Night Lords: Please start a new thread if you want to discuss this. Or use the thread on the rules in the first place. This is about H&R not whether TFG should be allowed to be mentioned in a thread. Thank you.

sbeasley wrote:@Night Lords: Please start a new thread if you want to discuss this. Or use the thread on the rules in the first place. This is about H&R not whether TFG should be allowed to be mentioned in a thread. Thank you.

Youre right, this I am sorry for, but it was not myself that started this discussion.

Night Lords wrote:

sbeasley wrote:@Night Lords: Please start a new thread if you want to discuss this. Or use the thread on the rules in the first place. This is about H&R not whether TFG should be allowed to be mentioned in a thread. Thank you.

Youre right, this I am sorry for, but it was not myself that started this discussion.

Yes, it was, but let's just leave this.

night lords-we have a discussion on this already. Further, you can PM me on the TFG issue and your points. They are relevant adn might change opinions on the TFG issue, just not in this thread.

sbeasley wrote:@Night Lords: Please start a new thread if you want to discuss this. Or use the thread on the rules in the first place. This is about H&R not whether TFG should be allowed to be mentioned in a thread. Thank you.

I thought the point of this thread was to trap people into believing that eldar jetbikes could move in the enemies assault phase?

Deleted

Night Lords, if you want to discuss tactics in tournaments, go to the tactics board. There they will likely all agree that TFG will have low sportsmanship scores most of the time.

This is not the tactics forum. This forum is all about how to play the game. Not how to win the game (or tournament, for that matter). Now that I've lost the game, perhaps we can get back to anything to do with the OP's query. Like how Jet Packs work the same way as eldar jetbikes, and how we can logically show how each other's arguments are either sound or unsound, valid or invalid, etc.

The context of the social contract between gamers is a reasonable topic for discussion. Especially when done with nuance and while making clear that you are not referring to anyone participating in the discussion.

That said, the new Tenets for YMTC discussion have explicitly forbidden including such material in a rules debate. Doing so noticeably contributes to an atmosphere of hostility in rules discussions.

Mannahnin wrote:The context of the social contract between gamers is a reasonable topic for discussion. Especially when done with nuance and while making clear that you are not referring to anyone participating in the discussion.

I think it is a reasonable discussion, but not in a thread about jetbikes/hit&run. Also, if you want to talk about TMIR, as it is a rule, then I'd agree with you if the discussion was about that rule. Other than that, the "social contract of gaming" discussion belongs in general, not in a rules forum. That's my opinion, I suppose, but it makes sense to me.

RustyKnight wrote:

sbeasley wrote:@Night Lords: Please start a new thread if you want to discuss this. Or use the thread on the rules in the first place. This is about H&R not whether TFG should be allowed to be mentioned in a thread. Thank you.

I thought the point of this thread was to trap people into believing that eldar jetbikes could move in the enemies assault phase?

It was...this thread is all kinds of dangerous.

I find it amazing that you knew what my point was, or my intent was to trap people. But that is beside the point.

While the two topics are related. It is interesting to read peoples thoughts on why H&R can activate in the opponents Assault phase, and why Jet Packs and Eldar Jetbikes and anything else that gives permission to do something in "the Assault" phase was not allowed.

My thought on the subject as why Eldar Jetbikes and Jet Packs do not allowed and H&R is allowed is this.

H&R is allowed, because I would be interacting with the unit due to my opponent's action. So anything I would be doing on my opponents turn is purely reactionary. Like USR FNP It happens because my opponent wounded a model and I failed to save. H&R works because the unit was in the assault and took part of the battle, and after all morals have taken place this USR kicks in.

In the Assault Phase Eldar Jetbikes and Jet Pack units, but the only time that they would be able to react is if they were assaulted and thus engaged, at which point they must "defenders react", and can no longer use there movement, because they are locked in assault.

This is how I see a majority of the rules working together, and is pure speculation as to how you may use the phrase "the Assault" and still come to the expected results. Thoughts?

A jetbike is not allowed to use the 6" movement rule even though it did not assault in the opponent's assault phase for the same reason that the Imperial Guard cannot issue orders during their opponent's turn. The implied condition for those rules is roughly that the unit must be able to act normally during that part of the turn in order to take an action if the only qualifier in a rule is "during the X phase".

In contrast, the condition for hit and run is entirely passive, and does not rest on the unit being able to perform actions. This is strengthened by the statements at the end of the paragraph detailing what happens if units on both sides of the fight have the special rule, because if the rule did not apply to player A's units during player B's turn, then there would be no reason what so ever for the second to last sentence of the paragraph.

Edit: Or, in other words, sbeasley, yeah, what your wrote sounds about right as far as it goes.