Can speeders or bikes with scout get cover saves by moving 24 inches in the scout move?

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.

**filbert**

Pretty much every single thread in this sub forum could boil down to the arguments expressed in this single thread. What makes it even more frustrating / hilarious (depending on point of view) to the outsider, is that we are, by and large, a group of adult males, on the whole, literate and intelligent, yet we still spend hours arguing over whether an author we will never meet intended one thing or another with a rule in a rule book which I believe most gamers believe to be utterly untested and unbalanced.

**jmurph**

Gwar wrote:When the creators say "these FAQ's are worthless house rules" (Paraphrased of course) how are we "violating our own tenants"?

Because RAW assumes the supremecy of the creators word (infallibility) and that intent is impossible to determine. A FAQ is the creator's word and a direct statement on intent. Further, the main rules even indicate they are optional to some degree or subject to disregard in the case of conflicting interpretations (see The Most Important Rule).

It's the whole problem with assuming the GW rules are airtight technical writing when they are not.

As an aside, I meant TENETS. Violating your tenants is a whole 'nother problem, and probably something nasty landlords do

**Lucidicide**

jmurph wrote:It's the whole problem with assuming the GW rules are airtight technical writing when they are not.

I'm not sure anyone would even come close to saying this. I think many people would say that Gwar! is one of the most RaW supporters on the forum, and he has his own FAQs to deal with those whiskey tango foxtrot rules. I think the issue is that the rules are *very* full of errors and possible interpretations.

For example, my friends and I tend to play in many RaI ways. However, when we can't agree on the intent, we default to RaW whenever possible. RaW is a way to settle disputes without one person needing to feel cheated or compromise -- take the rules as they are. Oops, we forgot to mention this piece of terrain before the game began, how do the rules default it?

I agree, though, that many of the arguments in here get a bit ridiculous. I think everyone has a hard time accepting the other camp because there is some hostility of language and the whole idea of "I can't believe you play this way." I know that I get frustrated listening to the consistent debate between "common sense" and "letter of the rules." At least the RaW standpoint can point to something (the rules) to back up their claims. The common sense argument may not be common sense at all, especially when dealing with an abstraction like 40k.

On the forums, I'm RaW. Bikes get their cover save in the opponent's following shooting phase. Regardless of how far away that shooting phase may be. It may seem like it lacks common sense, but to me it's not common sense that a gun can shoot at full power at 24" but at 24.1" it cannot even attempt to hit the target. Why did they invent guns like that?

**Gwar!**

jmurph wrote:
Gwar wrote:When the creators say "these FAQ's are worthless house rules" (Paraphrased of course) how are we "violating our own tenants"?

Because RAW assumes the supremecy of the creators word (infallibility) and that intent is impossible to determine. A FAQ is the creator's word and a direct statement on intent. Further, the main rules even indicate they are optional to some degree or subject to disregard in the case of conflicting interpretations (see The Most Important Rule).

It's the whole problem with assuming the GW rules are airtight technical writing when they are not.

As an aside, I meant TENETS. Violating your tenants is a whole 'nother problem, and probably something nasty landlords do

Ok, you got me on the landlord pun

However, the FAQs are NOT the "creators word", namely because:
1) Most GW FAQs were written by the INAT crew and GW used them
2) Space Wolves FAQ. Nuff Said

**ChrisCP**

FlingitNow wrote:
It is also not quite correct, as technicalities and loop holes operate to exploit exactly those poorly written laws, at least in the US.

As pointed out this is not nearly as true inthe US as films would have you beleive and in the UK as already pointed out this is not the case. The UK Laws are based on the meaning an intent behind the law not the letter. Essentially the Law could say "today is Tuesday" but it was designed to meaning murder was a hanging offence and it would still meaning murder was a hanging offence even though it doesn't meantion muder or hanging. Granted they wouldn't never actually write it that way.

This is how the legal system works in the country of origin for the rule set we are discussing.

Likewise people trying to claim RAW = The rules and claiming this is a tenet of YMDC, neither of which holds up. YMDC calls FAQs as legal rules yet they change RaW with clarifications that don't change the rules hence by YMDCs definition of RaW it can not possibly be the rules.

The rules by definition are the rules designed by GW. I really don't see who designed the game if not GW. This is where the RaW worshippers break down, they completely misunderstand the purpose of language. Language does not form or create ideas. The rules are a set of ideas greated by GW that form a game we can play with their plastic crack. Language is the tool to communication those ideas. It is not a perfect tool and its miss use further dampens this. GW are far from perfect rules writers yet what they write down does not change the rules, it might lead to us miss interpreting those rules. It might mean what's stated is entirely different from what is intended, but what is stated still does not change the intention, the idea and therefore the rule.

Also the RaW purists will claimly loadly to the gods on here that they follow RaW and always dop and claim that trying to derive RaI any other way is inconsistent. Yet there is a list of rules above that are all true using pure RaW that none of them actually play or would ever consider using. So they are using commonsense at times and are either drawing a line without realising it or simply lying about it here in worship of the literalist god (I'd imagine in most cases the former).

Their final arguement is that RaW is certain and no other method will get you certain results. Well we've seen arguments on here over the RaW of enough rules to know RaW is not something that can always give a consistent result (*cough*deffrollas*cough*, *cough*Calgar's powerfists*cough* etc etc etc ). They claim you can never be certain of intent unless you ask the writer or are the writer. But often you can just as certain as you are of the RaW because we can never be 100% on anything. The writer could be lying to us about his intent, the writer could have miss remembered his intent, he could unknowingly have multi-personality disorder and think he wrote it for one purpose but in fact it was a different personality writing it for another. We can't be sure of the RaW because we could just be hallucinating. These you can never be sure argue are always vicous circles that mean we never know anything. But again they draw the line without realising it. For me it is just as easy to assume that we are not all hallucinating as to what is in the text as it is for me to assume if the writer gave a model an invulnerable save that the model could use it.

RaW is a method for interpreting the rules from the written text. That is all it is, just like using commonsense is a method. Looking for objective and or subjective intent are again methods.

Ha! thanks for that.

On the bolded point - yes that's exactly where RaW breaks down and obviously as you said we're going to find a solution at such a time - we don't engage in Reductio ad absurdum like you do. However claiming RaI before such a point is silly, simply one could then use it for 'anything' as opposed to when the game actually breaks (Ala blocked table edge and having to abandon the game). That's why sticking to RAW is the most sensible way, otherwise one opens the can of worms for 'RAI this, Rai that, RaI you and RaI me' which you'll notice you do alot - ignoring RaW and saying but I think that should have done it this way so that's RaI while RAW functions quite well in the situation - this is an abuse.

Can never be 100% on anything hey? And more lovely fallacy as a mojor point of argument, "hallucinating" all of us, all the time everytime we read the rulebook, what more we're all having exactly the same hallucination... oh really...

**FlingitNow**

ChrisCP my point is where are you drawing the line. Most of the rules mentioned work perfectly fine and are perfectly clear yet people would still never consider using them. It is perfectly clear by RaW that The Doom does not get a 3+ invulnerable save or that Bjorn's save does nothing. yet we still happily ignore that and use the RaI.

You can't abuse RaI because your opponent has to agree with you on that rule and by TMIR they have to even on the RaW as well. So the rules are fluid, different Tournaments will frequently rule different ways. Players will often just get rules wrong through not reading them properly particularly in new codexes. No one plays pure RaW so claiming something has to be correct purely because it is the RaW and anyone doing differently is cheating or not playing by the rules isn't an argument. Claiming as Nos, yourself and rube have that you do not feel the RaW is outlandish enough to ignore and it is certainly clear enough to use and therefore we should stick to it rather than trying to derive RaI is fine.

However in this case both the 4+ flatout cover save and the 3+ biker cover save work the same way "in game". If I move far enough to gain the cover save in the following player turn I get that cover save. Yet becuase of the wording and the scout move you claim that suddenly the 2 mechanics work entirely differently. One working potentially not only in the following player turn but also the one after that, the other not even working in the first player turn. Does that not sound anti-logical to you?

**Gwar!**

FlingitNow wrote:ChrisCP my point is where are you drawing the line. Most of the rules mentioned work perfectly fine and are perfectly clear yet people would still never consider using them. It is perfectly clear by RaW that The Doom does not get a 3+ invulnerable save or that Bjorn's save does nothing. yet we still happily ignore that and use the RaI.

You can't abuse RaI because your opponent has to agree with you on that rule and by TMIR they have to even on the RaW as well. So the rules are fluid, different Tournaments will frequently rule different ways. Players will often just get rules wrong through not reading them properly particularly in new codexes. No one plays pure RaW so claiming something has to be correct purely because it is the RaW and anyone doing differently is cheating or not playing by the rules isn't an argument. Claiming as Nos, yourself and rube have that you do not feel the RaW is outlandish enough to ignore and it is certainly clear enough to use and therefore we should stick to it rather than trying to derive RaI is fine.

However in this case both the 4+ flatout cover save and the 3+ biker cover save work the same way "in game". If I move far enough to gain the cover save in the following player turn I get that cover save. Yet becuase of the wording and the scout move you claim that suddenly the 2 mechanics work entirely differently. One working potentially not only in the following player turn but also the one after that, the other not even working in the first player turn. Does that not sound anti-logical to you?

Ah, TMIR, I love that rule.

Gwar: So, hey there, lets play some warhammers.
TFG: TMIR says the rules don't matter, so I want all my Marines to be T11 and have a 2+ Re-rollable Invulnerable Save.
Gwar: No.
TFG: You are making the game unfun for me, which is breaking TMIR, which means you are cheating (Cheating being the Willful breaking of rules for gain) which means I win by Default.
Gwar: -Slaps with a Brick before going to play Freespace 2-

True Story. In short, if you want to use TMIR, then I will use it to get T11 Marines.

**ChrisCP**

? Ididn't think that was what we were addressing in the last section of our conversation, but - I think your having trouble identifying "in its last Movement phase" and "In the following enemy Shooting phase," as two different checks? Sigh annoucments ate all of my recess grrr "thanks for taking one of my dogs blah blah blah blaaa"

**puma713**

Gwar! wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:ChrisCP my point is where are you drawing the line. Most of the rules mentioned work perfectly fine and are perfectly clear yet people would still never consider using them. It is perfectly clear by RaW that The Doom does not get a 3+ invulnerable save or that Bjorn's save does nothing. yet we still happily ignore that and use the RaI.

You can't abuse RaI because your opponent has to agree with you on that rule and by TMIR they have to even on the RaW as well. So the rules are fluid, different Tournaments will frequently rule different ways. Players will often just get rules wrong through not reading them properly particularly in new codexes. No one plays pure RaW so claiming something has to be correct purely because it is the RaW and anyone doing differently is cheating or not playing by the rules isn't an argument. Claiming as Nos, yourself and rube have that you do not feel the RaW is outlandish enough to ignore and it is certainly clear enough to use and therefore we should stick to it rather than trying to derive RaI is fine.

However in this case both the 4+ flatout cover save and the 3+ biker cover save work the same way "in game". If I move far enough to gain the cover save in the following player turn I get that cover save. Yet becuase of the wording and the scout move you claim that suddenly the 2 mechanics work entirely differently. One working potentially not only in the following player turn but also the one after that, the other not even working in the first player turn. Does that not sound anti-logical to you?
Ah, TMIR, I love that rule.

Gwar: So, hey there, lets play some warhammers.
TFG: TMIR says the rules don't matter, so I want all my Marines to be T11 and have a 2+ Re-rollable Invulnerable Save.
Gwar: No.
TFG: You are making the game unfun for me, which is breaking TMIR, which means you are cheating (Cheating being the Willful breaking of rules for gain) which means I win by Default.
Gwar: -Slaps with a Brick before going to play Freespace 2-

True Story. In short, if you want to use TMIR, then I will use it to get T11 Marines.

Okay. Then I will shoot at them with my Str 20 Bolters from 72" away.

Your statement is flawed on the second sentence from TFG. TFG wants to use TMIR to say that "rules don't matter". Well, if you break TMIR, it doesn't matter, because TMIR doesn't matter, from the first sentence. And, if rules don't matter, then he doesn't auto-win because you're not "cheating" as there is no rule (per TMIR) to say that, because rules don't matter.

I hope you get the point that, as usual, you're being ridiculous. TMIR isn't saying that rules don't matter. It's saying that the most important rules are that rules aren't that important and that if you and your opponent agree, you can play it however you like (where most RAW loyalists fall apart when they actually step to the tabletop and pull out their dice).

And you can construe this as a personal attack if you like.

**Clthomps**

How on earth can people argue that intent can not be ascertained to a degree suitable enough to play a game plastic army men?

You do realize that people are sentenced to life in prison (or death) based on assumed intent.

**Gwar!**

Clthomps wrote:You do realize that people are sentenced to life in prison (or death) based on assumed intent.

In the US maybe.

**ChrisCP**

P.S. Topic seems to be dying too lol.

**FlingitNow**

Clthomps wrote: You do realize that people are sentenced to life in prison (or death) based on assumed intent.

In the US maybe.

Yeah in the UK the death penalty only applies if you do 31mph in a 30 limit. If you murder someone you'll get half hour in jail tops...

**reds8n**

.. it's not that hard people, we just ask you to be polite.