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.

yakface wrote:
Brother Ramses:

Just look at the tank shock section and see how many times it calls tank shocking 'movement' or a 'move'. You are completely off-base here.

Tank shocking is of course movement and follows all the normal rules for movement except where specified otherwise.

Any other interpretation would mean you could tank shock through impassable terrain(?), ignore taking dangerous terrain tests(?) and apparently if the opponent assaulted your vehicle in the following turn they would hit automatically as your tank would not count as having moved(?).

This, if it wasn't movement they wouldn't tell you there's a minimum movement for tank shocks.

Come on ramses Tankshock and ram not a move lol
There is no stipulation for firing from a firingpoint other than actual movement so if the tank only moves 6inches or less you're getting shot.

Yak I'm with you 100% on this one I do believe

GiantKiller wrote:First of all, wouldn't the chaos rhino have to declare a 12" move to ram since that's its max move?

No. You declare how far you intend to move for a tank shock. For a Ram, you just move the vehicle as fast as possible. No declaration is required, or asked for.

I stopped reading half way, but I see the general discussion is still being discussed on Page 2.

My view on this, there is a difference between the "Maximum speed possible" and "The maximum speed needed to cover the distance."

I mean if I'm driving a mile, yea I can cover it going as slow as possible in my car, but my car is capable of going well over 90mph.

Also, when you ram something, you want to go as fast as possible to cause as much damage as possible to the target. Thesably, your tank is going as fast as it can to do the most damage it is capable of to the target, but it only goes so far.

I know the rules it states the speed is generally based on the distance you move the vehicle, but at the same time it DOES say "The maximum speed possible." And from a logical standpoint, I can travel 5" at Cruising speed, thats the Maximum speed I can travel to cover 5" as fast, and deadly as possible.

This is just my view of things ^_^, trust me I'd love to get it off as well but I just feel that you can drive as fast as possible even to meet small distances.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Spirit of a rule has no place in a RAW arguement. As it stands if it moves 6" or less I can shoot out of my Vehicle even if I rammed. Why? Simply because the rules tell me I can

I think the spirit of the rule is an important guide in this instance. Consider these wordings.

1. Pg 57, col 1, par 3, VEHICLES AND MOVEMENT: "A vehicle that travels up to 6" is moving at combat speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly in order to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower."
2. Pg 57, col 1, par 4, VEHICLES AND MOVEMENT: "A vehicle that travels more than 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."
3. Pg 69, col 1, par 5, line 1, TANKS: Ramming: "Ramming is a rather desperate maneuver and means that the tank must concentrate on moving at top speed towards one enemy vehicle."
4. Pg 66, col 1, par 10, TRANSPORT VEHICLES: Fire Points: "Models firing from a vehicle count as moving if the vehicle moves, and may not fire at all if the vehicle moved at Cruising Speed that turn."

1. A vehicle moving at Combat Speed is advancing SLOWLY.
2. A vehicle moving at Cruising Speed is moving AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.
3. A vehicle making a Ramming attack is moving AT TOP SPEED.

If my car can Cruise at 60 miles and hour for one hour and I hit a wall halfway through the trip, I was still moving at 60 miles an hour, not 30. Even though I stopped short of my goal, I still experienced all the advantages and disadvantages of moving at 60 miles an hour, not 30. And so,

4. If a vehicle makes a Ramming attack at TOP SPEED, if it is CRUISING SPEED or faster, then the models firing from the vehicle may not fire at all.

^- What I said, but using more quotes, and better worded ^_^

DeathReaper wrote:

xlEternitylx wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Does that mean I can move my fast skimmers 24" in a circle and claim a 4+ cover save?

"Note: when assessing how far a vehicle has moved, only take into account the actual distance covered from its original position. Moving backwards or forwards or driving around in circles does not help!" BGB p. 63

No, you may not.

Something tells me that there was some sarcasm lost in text here, but we have already covered it.

Why do you think its a no?

RaW you do get the 4+ cover save from moving in a circle. The P.63 note is about melee attacks, not flat out.

Discussed here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/398346.page

Missed the CC thing. But still, isn't there a rule that says you must have moved 18" away from your start point to claim a save? Or am I confusing that with TB?

Nevertheless, I would give the squad inside the ability to shoot (but not without some grumbles ), but the tank itself would not be able to.

yakface wrote:
Brother Ramses:

Just look at the tank shock section and see how many times it calls tank shocking 'movement' or a 'move'. You are completely off-base here.

Tank shocking is of course movement and follows all the normal rules for movement except where specified otherwise.

Any other interpretation would mean you could tank shock through impassable terrain(?), ignore taking dangerous terrain tests(?) and apparently if the opponent assaulted your vehicle in the following turn they would hit automatically as your tank would not count as having moved(?).

And Teleport Shunt told you that you moved the model 30" and that it counted as moving yet it was still done INSTEAD of moving.

The very rules entry of Tank Shock tells you that INSTEAD of moving normally, you can attempt a tank shock attack. It goes back to the other argument,

"Instead of shooting , you can run."

And as I said, the rules themselves tell you exactly what you can do. Do the rules give you permission to tank shock or ram through impassable terrain? Then you cannot. Do the rules tell you that the tanks becomes skimmers and skimmers become flyers? No then they do not.

So as has been asked but deflected to different rules sectionstell that have no bearing on the topic, where in the rules entry for RAMMING does it allow you to fire from the vehicle?

Brother Ramses wrote:where in the rules entry for RAMMING does it allow you to fire from the vehicle?

I'm going to take a wild guess... And say it doesn't? o_o

Brother Ramses wrote:
And Teleport Shunt told you that you moved the model 30" and that it counted as moving yet it was still done INSTEAD of moving.

The very rules entry of Tank Shock tells you that INSTEAD of moving normally, you can attempt a tank shock attack. It goes back to the other argument,

"Instead of shooting , you can run."

And as I said, the rules themselves tell you exactly what you can do. Do the rules give you permission to tank shock or ram through impassable terrain? Then you cannot. Do the rules tell you that the tanks becomes skimmers and skimmers become flyers? No then they do not.

So as has been asked but deflected to different rules sectionstell that have no bearing on the topic, where in the rules entry for RAMMING does it allow you to fire from the vehicle?

There is a difference between normal movement allowed in the movement phase and specialized movement which has additional permissions and restrictions. Running IS movement, which is why you cannot move into impassable terrain, within 1" of enemy models, etc, while doing it despite the fact that it is non-standard movement. Similarly, disembarking is non-standard movement which is why GW FAQ'd to make it clear that you can't disembark 'through' enemy models or impassable terrain.

It is unequivocally clear that tank shocking is moving, it is just done instead of moving normally. The rules for tank shocking say over and over again that Tank Shocking is movement as do the rules for ramming.

You are trying to argue that ramming and tank shocking are not movement when the rules clearly say that they are. Just because Tank Shocking/Ramming are done instead of NORMAL movement does not suddenly not make them moves, they are abnormal movement in that they have additional permissions and restrictions about how a vehicle performing them can move...but that doesn't make them not movement!


And yes, with your argument you are saying that they are not movement so therefore when the rules for tank shock say I can make a tank shock in any direction that would mean (since they allegedly don't follow the rules for movement) that I would be able to move the vehicle through impassable terrain and/or through difficult terrain without penalty. The Tank Shock rules give me the permission to move in any direction that I turn the vehicle, so there would have to be a rule to preventing the vehicle from moving through impassable terrain to make that an illegal move!

And you completely side-stepped my other big-glaring hole with what would happen if your interpretation were correct: What would enemy models need to hit a vehicle in the following turn that tank shocked/rammed? If they didn't move, then are they hit automatically?


I mean seriously, just look at the rules for tank shock:

"To make this kind of attack, first turn the vehicle on the spot in the direction you intend to move it and declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move. The vehicle must move at least at combat speed."


Not only do they actually use the word move TONS of time in these rules (throughout the whole page) but 'Combat Speed' is an actual term for vehicle movement! How can a vehicle move at least combat speed if it isn't moving?

Yak, seriously read the first 6 words before the comma in the rules quote you just italicized. They are attacks made by vehicles that are employed with specific directions that include moving, but that does not make them movement as defined by GW.

Tank shock and Ramming are defined as vehicle attacks. How said attacks are carried out, in this case by moving the models a certain way, does not define them as movement.

And the point that you missed of,

"Instead of shooting, you can run."

Is that when you run, you are not shooting because you are doing something INSTEAD of shooting.

How can you ram if you don't move though? Not to break into your conversations, but... In order to ram anything, you have to be moving, or motion itself has to be involved. In terms of the Shooting/Running thing, its hard to use that as an argument since Running and shooting ARE two different things. However ramming still requires movement. When the codex points out instead of moving you may do these things, I think its just pointing out the other options avaliable. Because in order to Ram something, momentum must be built up, by.. Well, Movement.

Arguing logic against rules still, I know, but a vehicle is never able to ram something unless it moves.

Brother Ramses wrote:Yak, seriously read the first 6 words before the comma in the rules quote you just italicized. They are attacks made by vehicles that are employed with specific directions that include moving, but that does not make them movement as defined by GW.

Tank shock and Ramming are defined as vehicle attacks. How said attacks are carried out, in this case by moving the models a certain way, does not define them as movement.

The underlined is not correct.

If you tank shock or ram you move combat or cruising speed.

tank shocking is not normal movement (It is an attack that gives you special rules on how to move), but it is movement since you go combat or cruising speed when performing a tank shock or ram.

Moving them at least combat speed makes it clear that it is movement and an attack.

Well Takes the problem lies in people let real world definitions influence their reading of the rules.

In this instance, moving a tank a certain way and at a certain speed so that it collides with another tank to cause damage is defined as Ramming.

Did the tank move from one point to another? Was the tank physically moved from one point to another?

Yes on both counts, but the mechanics of the rule do not define it, what GW defines it as is what it is written as, Ramming.

The same applies to Tank Shock. GW even goes as far to tell you that it is done instead of moving and that it is a vehicle attack. Yet the mechanics involve actually moving the model. Again a situation that the mechanics of the rule do not define it, GW defines it as what it is written, as Tank Shock.

This isn't the first time that moving a model and Movement have come up as an argument. Neither is it the first time that the trying to define a rule by its mechanics instead of what GW has defined it as has come up before either.

Yak, I need to point out that you saying,

"The rules don't say I can't Tank Shock through Impassable Terrain so I can"

Is not kosher in the slightest. The rules need to say that you CAN Tank Shock through IT. They do not, so therefore you cannot.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Yak, seriously read the first 6 words before the comma in the rules quote you just italicized. They are attacks made by vehicles that are employed with specific directions that include moving, but that does not make them movement as defined by GW.

Tank shock and Ramming are defined as vehicle attacks. How said attacks are carried out, in this case by moving the models a certain way, does not define them as movement.

The underlined is not correct.

If you tank shock or ram you move combat or cruising speed.

tank shocking is not normal movement (It is an attack that gives you special rules on how to move), but it is movement since you go combat or cruising speed when performing a tank shock or ram.

Moving them at least combat speed makes it clear that it is movement and an attack.

You almost have it. They are both attacks that use movement mechanics to resolve themselves. That does not make them movement.

Alright, since we are going to stick to the written rule:

1. Pg 57, col 1, par 3, VEHICLES AND MOVEMENT: "A vehicle that travels up to 6" is moving at combat speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly in order to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower."
2. Pg 57, col 1, par 4, VEHICLES AND MOVEMENT: "A vehicle that travels more than 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."
3. Pg 69, col 1, par 5, line 1, TANKS: Ramming: "Ramming is a rather desperate maneuver and means that the tank must concentrate on moving at top speed towards one enemy vehicle."
4. Pg 66, col 1, par 10, TRANSPORT VEHICLES: Fire Points: "Models firing from a vehicle count as moving if the vehicle moves, and may not fire at all if the vehicle moved at Cruising Speed that turn."

Ok, Regardless of if this is counted as a movement action, look at the highlighted text.

In order to ram, it is considered moving at top speed.

Cruising is considered moving as fast as possible.

Models can not fire if Cruising speed was used.

Regardless of distance covered, whether it was 11", 5", or 0.165", the tank moves Cruising speeds to reach that destination, even if it just sits in place, squeeling it's tracks or whatever the term for the tank's tires are, it moves as FAST as it can, i.e. Cruising speeds. And if you also notice, it specifically says in ramming: "tank must concentrate on moving" Which means it DOES move according to the RAW, even if the model itself doesn't, even if it rams into models in base contact, it "Moves" at "Top speed" not "Top Distance"

Just FYI, Flat Out would be as fast as possible for some vehicles.

Brother Ramses wrote:Just FYI, Flat Out would be as fast as possible for some vehicles.

If thats the maximum speed, then theres no question if the models inside can still shoot or not, since the vehicle is incapable of moving at a cruising rate, thus even ramming speeds for these vehicles (The flat out only ones) would be safe to attempt shots from.

Take - no, "this represents" means "the following isnt rules, we're just explaining fluff" - you cant use it as a rules argument, because it isnt rules. For example a Fast vehicle does get to fire guns at Cruising, and isnt moving as fast as possible.

BR - "instead of moving normally" means you are moving "specially" - you are still following the movement rules, with some exceptions. Also, you can move through I.T. under your interpretation because IT is a restriction on moving, and you are stating it is not rulebook Movement - meaning you are allowed to displace X", and have no restriction stating this cannot be through IT. This is nonsense, and when you reach an absurd result such as this you should see that your position is flawed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Take - no, "this represents" means "the following isnt rules, we're just explaining fluff" - you cant use it as a rules argument, because it isnt rules. For example a Fast vehicle does get to fire guns at Cruising, and isnt moving as fast as possible.

BR - "instead of moving normally" means you are moving "specially" - you are still following the movement rules, with some exceptions. Also, you can move through I.T. under your interpretation because IT is a restriction on moving, and you are stating it is not rulebook Movement - meaning you are allowed to displace X", and have no restriction stating this cannot be through IT. This is nonsense, and when you reach an absurd result such as this you should see that your position is flawed.

The question isn't about the vehicle, but the units inside of it, and the vehicle they are in ramming. And other then that, I have no idea what your pointing out to me, as I've already used the rules from the book itself to make my point on this topic.

Brother Ramses wrote:Yak, seriously read the first 6 words before the comma in the rules quote you just italicized. They are attacks made by vehicles that are employed with specific directions that include moving, but that does not make them movement as defined by GW.

You seem to be confusing the difference between the MOVEMENT PHASE and movement. Movement can (and does) happen in every single phase. There is standard movement in at least two of these phases (normal movement in the movement phase and assaults in the assault phase) and then there are a whole HOST of different specialized movements.

Running is non-standard movement (its rules say it is). Consolidation is a special type of move (its rules say it is). Pile-in moves are a special type of move (its rules say it is), Star Engine movement is a special type of movement. Disembarking is a special type of movement. Even Deep Striking is a special type of movement. Ramming and Tank Shocking are again special types of movement.

All of these things (and many others) are still movement that follow all the rules for movement except where specified otherwise.

Tank shock and Ramming are defined as vehicle attacks. How said attacks are carried out, in this case by moving the models a certain way, does not define them as movement.

Yes, actually they ALL do. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

And the point that you missed of,

"Instead of shooting, you can run."

Is that when you run, you are not shooting because you are doing something INSTEAD of shooting.

And the rules for Tank Shocking/Ramming do NOT say this. First of all, they say instead of moving NORMALLY (which you seem to keep leaving out of your quotes) that, by definition means that they are non-normal movement.

Nobody will disagree that they are non-standard movement because they clearly say they aren't. But there are tons of clear references in their rules that Tank Shocking and Ramming are indeed movement.

Brother Ramses wrote:Well Takes the problem lies in people let real world definitions influence their reading of the rules.

In this instance, moving a tank a certain way and at a certain speed so that it collides with another tank to cause damage is defined as Ramming.

Did the tank move from one point to another? Was the tank physically moved from one point to another?

Yes on both counts, but the mechanics of the rule do not define it, what GW defines it as is what it is written as, Ramming.

Yes, and ramming is movement as defined several times in its own rules. I can construct a logically supported argument to prove that tank shocking is movement, your counter continues to be: when they refer to movement in ramming & tank shocking they aren't talking about 'movement' as defined by GW.

So please, construct an argument proving what the strict definition of 'movement' is that you claim it is? Because you will not be able to do it (because it does not exist).

The same applies to Tank Shock. GW even goes as far to tell you that it is done instead of moving and that it is a vehicle attack. Yet the mechanics involve actually moving the model. Again a situation that the mechanics of the rule do not define it, GW defines it as what it is written, as Tank Shock.

And Tank Shock is non-standard movement, so what?

Yak, I need to point out that you saying,

"The rules don't say I can't Tank Shock through Impassable Terrain so I can"

Is not kosher in the slightest. The rules need to say that you CAN Tank Shock through IT. They do not, so therefore you cannot.

I honestly don't know how to respond to this.

Rules (for any game) work like this:

The rules give you permission to do things and then within that set of permissions they also place restrictions which narrow down what you're actually allowed to do.

So in the basic rules for movement, for example, they essentially say: infantry models can move up to 6" in any direction. This gives you permission to move in any direction up to 6", so at this point you can literally move your models anywhere within the 6" they grant. Of course, the rules then go on to tell you stuff you CANNOT do within that framework, so they say stuff like: you can't move into impassable terrain, you can't move onto friendly models, you can't move off the table, etc.

This is how all rules work. You need permission from the rules to do anything, but then once that permission is granted, you need restrictions to limit what choices you actually have.


The ONLY reason you can't 'move' into impassable terrain is because the rules for impassable terrain deny models to move into it. You have been claiming that Tank Shocking and Ramming are not 'movement'.

The Tank Shocking and Ramming rules tell me that I can turn my vehicle, declare a distance (full speed for Ramming) and then move (which is not actually a move according to you) the model in that direction until it encounters specific things (friendly models, enemy models, etc). What IS NOT LISTED is impassable terrain amongst those things, nor are there any rules in the Tank Shocking/Ramming section for what happens when this move (that is not a move) encounters difficult/dangerous terrain.

So the Tank Shocking/Ramming rules give me the permission to move (that is not a move) into impassable terrain because I HAVE to move (that is not a move) the direction and distance declared until I reach something listed that would stop me. Therefore, I HAVE to move (that is not a move) my vehicle into impassable terrain.

Do you understand? I'm seriously having a bit of a hard time wrapping my head around how you can continue to confuse the basic nature of how rules function (permission vs. restriction).


And you have once again ignored the same point I brought up before (twice now):

If Tank Shocking and Ramming are not movement are you really trying to claim that opposing models would hit them automatically if they assault a vehicle that made a Tank Shock/Ram in the next turn because it did not 'move'? Would you really try to deny that a Skimmer which Tank Shocked/Rammed more than 12" does not get the 4+ cover save from enemy shooting because it didn't 'move'?

You do understand that you are arguing a ludicrous and unsupportable (with logic) position?

Takes - actually you haven't used rules, you have used fluff. Those red underlined sections are not rules - they cannot be, they start "this represents" (for example) and givws a reason For the rule . The reason I talked about the vehicl being Fast is that, if you take fluff to be rules you get a contradiction


Yak - agree with most of whhat you say to br, their position is absurd, however I don't agree with your conclusion on fast + dis/embarking units. The requirements for ram state yiu move as fast as possible- meaning 12" if you have embarked a unit. In other words I see it as a point in time determination, not an absolute. a superheavy eldar tank (12" move normally ) suffering one drive damage, should still be able to ram

I'm going to chime in on the Ramming section of rules, since that seems to be the specific point of contention.

In the Ramming section, it states you move as fast as possible. Fine, I understand there are two camps on this (one says you 'count' as moving max speed even if you haven't, the other states the you move, then see how far you have gone).

The reason I think that it pushes the argument toward the latter is that it then goes to state specifically that the tank cannot shoot after ramming. If it counted as moving at the max speed regardless of actual distance traveled, there would be no need for this rules caveat to even exist. You would either be going Cruising speed for normal tanks, or Flat out for anything that is Fast or Skimmer (but still a tank), and thus wouldn't be able to shoot anyway.

Further to this, it then only states that the vehicle cannot shoot, but makes no mention of passengers. It is for this reason I put this up for discussion.

Brother Ramses wrote:Just FYI, Flat Out would be as fast as possible for some vehicles.

Like I've said countless times Ramses Tank shock/Ram are movement. You cannot argue this at all if you are than know if it's not movement than it can't take DT tests.
I've told you countless times the rules under firepoints allow me to fire when I tank shock/ram as long as the vehicle moves 6" or less.
In a permissive ruleset that is all I need quite honestly, for some reason you think it's not movement and is some super special condition be whatever it may.

Now I ask you, Where in standard movement does it say passengers may fire? Short answer; FirePoints the same place it says I can for tank shock/ram beings they're a type of move ...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Takes - actually you haven't used rules, you have used fluff. Those red underlined sections are not rules - they cannot be, they start "this represents" (for example) and givws a reason For the rule . The reason I talked about the vehicl being Fast is that, if you take fluff to be rules you get a contradiction

Takeshi, actually. Second, if it's listed in the book as part of the rule itself, even as an example or explanation, it's a valid point to make when arguing the semantics of how to interpret what is meant. The argument is centered around the question of when you ram, does it make you move "As fast as possible" in terms of distance, or "as fast as possible" in terms of the available speed for the vehicle. Bringing in the logic of a fast vehicle, do fast vehicles allow passengers to still shoot if they move cruising speeds? Regardless of not of what the VEHICLE is capable of, the question is for the passenger. Going back to yak's mention logic, it's restriction and permission based. Unless a fast vehicle allows for the restriction to be bypassed with any of it's own permissions, it had no real place in the debate.

Now, back to the issue about my use of "fluff." its there to help understand the rule, therefore it Is part of that rule. Examples will always be a tool used In semantics, I've known this for a long time from various other games. Examples are the loopholes used to open up new options, and help work out rules, as we currently are trying to. Believing otherwise is the same as saying that the examples in a dictionary aren't valid ways to explain what a word means, by your logic of it being fluff since it's just there for the purpose of explanation.

When you ram, you wanna move as fast and hard as possible, not just fast enough to knock some dents into the target. As such, the crew inside a transport would want to prepare themselves for impact, and clear themselves from the firepoints invade crap goes wrong, or just to make sure no debris clips them as they fire away. I see fluff and logic as valid arguments as they are always going to be used when arguing rules semantics.

This says it all:

1. Pg 57, col 1, par 3, VEHICLES AND MOVEMENT: "A vehicle that travels up to 6" is moving at combat speed.

2. Pg 57, col 1, par 4, VEHICLES AND MOVEMENT: "A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed.

If the vehicle travels up to 6" is moving at combat speed.

If the vehicle travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed.

ramming or not, you have moved at one of those two speeds if you have traveled the required distance.

and you must at least move combat speed.

fluff is not rules Takes, and has no place in a Rules discussion.

I'm not sure why Takes is ignoring my most recent post, I think it lays things out quite clearly.

Just get your guys our of the tank before you tank shock move them 6" and then shoot said target. Then every one can stop getting pissed about a 5" Intended cruising speed.

Primestick wrote:Just get your guys our of the tank before you tank shock move them 6" and then shoot said target. Then every one can stop getting pissed about a 5" Intended cruising speed.

Well with tank shocking you can shoot as normaly beings you only have to move at combat speed
It's Ramming where the debate is at, and I could as well Ram, disembark than shoot.
However that's not where the OP's question is either.

It's Takeshi! Not takes! Gah! And I'm not ignoring posts, I just do not see posts at all times. I'll respond fully when I am able, for now I just ask people get my name right >_<.

Takeshi - the reason for my post was to explain that, frankly, trying to use fluff as actual rules gives a contradiction - for example Fast vehicles are NOT trying to move as fast as possible when they move at cruising, and CAN fire weapons.

The only rules based conclusion is that all that matters is how far you have actually moved. Just ignore BRs diversion on a move not being a move, as it is an absurd argument that leads to absurd consequences.