Switch Theme:

Red Paint Job  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike





General_Chaos wrote:
Jidmah wrote:You're the one ignoring parts of the rule, not us. There is a clear limitation on where "counts as" is applied.


Yah it's really clear... you count as only when you want to and don't count as when you don't.

"Do not incur penalties for this extra inch" not being able to shoot is a penalty, not being able to disembark is a penalty, BUT getting hit on 4+ on your opponents turn is not a penalty for the Ork player it's a penalty for the Opponent.


You have the right idea, as stated above, you are just coming to the wrong conclusion.

Premise: Any fast vehicle upgraded with RPJ moved 13".

Resulting rules:
1) Vehicle may not shoot.*
2) Passengers may not shoot.*
3) Passengers may not disembark.*
4) Vehicle is hit on 6+ in close combat.
5) Vehicle gets a 4+ cover save if it's a skimmer.
6) Vehicle turns immobilized into wrecked if it's a skimmer. *

* are penalties. You can only count as moving 12" instead of 13" for penalties. So if you count as moving 1" less, you get:

1) Vehicle may shoot one weapon and all defensive weapons.
2) Passengers may still not shoot.
3) Passengers may disembark.
4) Vehicle is hit on 6+ in close combat.
5) Vehicle gets a 4+ cover save if it's a skimmer.
6) Vehicle is immobilized as normal.

Same for the other speed threshold:
Premise: Any fast vehicle upgraded with RPJ moved 7".

Resulting rules:
1) Vehicle may only shoot one weapon and all defensive weapons*
2) Passengers may not shoot.*
3) Vehicle is hit on 6+ in close combat.

* are penalties. You can only count as moving 6" instead of 7" for penalties. So if you count as moving 1" less, you get:

1) Vehicle may shoot all weapons.
2) Any number of passengers may use a fire points to shoot.
3) Vehicle is hit on 6+ in close combat.

Ork vehicles treat anything that's not a penalty as if RPJ wouldn't exist. So a red vehicle moving 7" is hit in close combat just like any other vehicle in the game moving 7".

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/06/10 16:00:43


 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'





Battle Creek, MI

The last EXAMPLE spells it all out. Counts as moving 12" = moving 12" you act like that has nothing to do with the rule

   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




It does not alter the text of the rule

Stop pretending it does

An *example* is not the rule, by definition. Stop conflating the two.

You ignore the 1" for any PENALTIES. Stop ignoring this rather key part of the rule, which you have done through every single post here.

A 4+ cover save is not a penalty. You can say it is, but you will just remain wrong
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'





Battle Creek, MI

nosferatu1001 wrote:It does not alter the text of the rule

Stop pretending it does

An *example* is not the rule, by definition. Stop conflating the two.

You ignore the 1" for any PENALTIES. Stop ignoring this rather key part of the rule, which you have done through every single post here.



It is an example of the RULE.... getting cover saves and getting hit on 6+ is not a penalty for the Ork player it's a penalty for the Opponent who ever that is. Bottom line is you COUNT AS moving 6" or 12" so 4+ to hit or no cover save which ever. You are writing to much into this rule to make is even better than it is.

   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

Stop being thick, when it refers to penelties it obviously refers to penelties for the Ork player with the RPJ vehicle in question.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/10 20:04:53


Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike





There really isn't much left to do here. If someone ignores examples, explanations and even rule quotes flat out contradicting his personal opinion, all that's left to is hope that he doesn't give some poor ork player a hard time at the gaming table.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




General_Chaos wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:It does not alter the text of the rule

Stop pretending it does

An *example* is not the rule, by definition. Stop conflating the two.

You ignore the 1" for any PENALTIES. Stop ignoring this rather key part of the rule, which you have done through every single post here.



It is an example of the RULE.... getting cover saves and getting hit on 6+ is not a penalty for the Ork player it's a penalty for the Opponent who ever that is. Bottom line is you COUNT AS moving 6" or 12" so 4+ to hit or no cover save which ever. You are writing to much into this rule to make is even better than it is.


Stop, just stop. Context lets you know who the penalty is referring to - the ork player.

You wont listen to rules quotes, explanations and just have your own personal opinion on this that has no backing in the rules. I think we're all done here - we know what the rules are, you can feel free to house rule them if you wish
   
Made in us
Resentful Grot With a Plan





General_Chaos wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:It does not alter the text of the rule

Stop pretending it does

An *example* is not the rule, by definition. Stop conflating the two.

You ignore the 1" for any PENALTIES. Stop ignoring this rather key part of the rule, which you have done through every single post here.



It is an example of the RULE.... getting cover saves and getting hit on 6+ is not a penalty for the Ork player it's a penalty for the Opponent who ever that is. Bottom line is you COUNT AS moving 6" or 12" so 4+ to hit or no cover save which ever. You are writing to much into this rule to make is even better than it is.


Except that the main rules says that (pp 63) when assessing how far a vehicle has moved only take into the account the actual distance covered from it's original position... So if you move 13" or 7" from point A to B you are hit on 6's, it doesn't matter if you counted as 12 or 6. Just like if you moved 12" (cruising speed). This would be the same reason if the vehicle moved 12" to do sweeping attacks (necrons) but only displaced 3" they would be hit on 4's and not 6's. This means that the actual displacement effects the chance to hit, not the speed category (even though they are closely linked). The 4+ cover save from shooting is a whole other argument I'm not getting into. Note the cover save from shooting skimmers does not make this distinction as far as I know. If it did then I would say the rule is pretty clear cut.

The thing thing about any discussion concerning why orks did something usually ends with because they are orks, and noone seems to argue, or offer further questioning.
 
   
Made in us
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair






This is another case where you are given an example that says something entirely different from the rule:

Rule: Move an extra 1" that does not incur penalties(for the Ork Player).

Example: Move 13" count as 12".

Difference: Ignoring penalties allows vehicles to fire extra weapons, passengers to fire while vehicles move at a higher speed, disembarkation in flat-out(all within that 1", of course); Count as 1" less means that for all intents and purposes the vehicle has moved 1" less than it actually did.

For most of 5th edition we have been applying a mix of both the rule and the example without realizing there could be any occasion were the difference matters(and ignoring the example when ramming).

I will admit I am somewhat lost as to what some people are arguing here, but we need to reach a consensus on which one takes precedence: the meaning of the rule, or the example provided by GW.

There is another case where the rules and the example differ: Vehicle difficult terrain checks/effect. And currently I have been shouted down that the example is the rule that must be gone with: when you first attempt to enter(or move within) rough terrain, take a test, it the test results in immobilization stop, if not ignore all other terrain.

Since the example is the rule in VDT; then it must also be the same in RPJ: count as 1" less for all purposes.


This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.



 
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'





Battle Creek, MI

Jidmah wrote: all that's left to is hope that he doesn't give some poor ork player a hard time at the gaming table.
I just love how you people just KNOW their right about this. If GW ever FAQ'd this it wouldn't do all the fantastical things you wish Red paint would do. It's really really clear how Phil Kelly intended it in his example. You count as moving 12" that says it all and you can ignore that all you like.

I am an Ork player and a damn good one and If you can't win with your Orks without rules lawyering something to your advantage then so be it.

   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






General_Chaos wrote:
Jidmah wrote: all that's left to is hope that he doesn't give some poor ork player a hard time at the gaming table.
I just love how you people just KNOW their right about this. If GW ever FAQ'd this it wouldn't do all the fantastical things you wish Red paint would do. It's really really clear how Phil Kelly intended it in his example. You count as moving 12" that says it all and you can ignore that all you like.

I am an Ork player and a damn good one and If you can't win with your Orks without rules lawyering something to your advantage then so be it.


Thank you!
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




General_Chaos wrote:
Jidmah wrote: all that's left to is hope that he doesn't give some poor ork player a hard time at the gaming table.
I just love how you people just KNOW their right about this. If GW ever FAQ'd this it wouldn't do all the fantastical things you wish Red paint would do. It's really really clear how Phil Kelly intended it in his example. You count as moving 12" that says it all and you can ignore that all you like.

I am an Ork player and a damn good one and If you can't win with your Orks without rules lawyering something to your advantage then so be it.


Way to assume people play Orks. I dont.
Your argument remains, as ever, invalid, as it ignores the actual rules.
   
Made in us
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair






nosferatu1001 wrote:
General_Chaos wrote:
Jidmah wrote: all that's left to is hope that he doesn't give some poor ork player a hard time at the gaming table.
I just love how you people just KNOW their right about this. If GW ever FAQ'd this it wouldn't do all the fantastical things you wish Red paint would do. It's really really clear how Phil Kelly intended it in his example. You count as moving 12" that says it all and you can ignore that all you like.

I am an Ork player and a damn good one and If you can't win with your Orks without rules lawyering something to your advantage then so be it.


Way to assume people play Orks. I dont.
Your argument remains, as ever, invalid, as it ignores the actual rules.


So Nos; then you now agree with me that you do not check to see if a vehicle is immobilized from difficult terrain until after it has finished all movement?

Because that is what the actual rules say; but then you and most other posters in those threads claimed that you have to follow the example as the rules.

This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.



 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike





Kel, the RPJ is not in disagreement with the Rule, as pointed out, multiple times. The example does not say anything about for what purposes you count as moving 12", just that you could count as moving 1" less. Thus, the terrain precedence doesn't hold.

General Chaos: Personal attacks means you are out of any actual arguments. Which is the same as admitting to be wrong.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
Made in us
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair






Nothing about RPJ, either the rules nor the example are voluntary. All movement incorporates the +1" at all times; it just does not matter until the vehicle moves between 6"-7", 12"-13", 18"-19" or 36"-37".


You are misapplying a definition of the word could to be permissive(an allowance of possibilities).

Could in this case means "has the capability to" as this interchange:

"For example, a vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12"."

"For example, a vehicle has the capability to move 13" and still count as moving 12"."

You are attempting to apply:

"For example, a vehicle has the allowed possibility to move 13" and still count as moving 12"."

which honestly still does not change the fact that the 13" moving RPJ vehicle counts as moving 12" with no definition of what it counts as moving less for: it simply counts as moving less which would mean in all situations.


This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.



 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Excpet, by the rule, it doesnt - only for the penalties does it count as moving 1" less.
   
Made in us
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair






Well nos; by the rule you do not test for Difficult terrain on vehicles until after you have finished moving through all areas for that phase.

So if the incongruous examples are worthless, then they must be worthless everywhere.

This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.



 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

I utterly fail to see how that has any bearing here.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair






Rule says X; example says Y.

It is the exact same situation.

Only with the Terrain issue I was told that the Example(which is a direct copy-paste from the 4th edition Rulebook) was the correct "rule".

Now the same people are trying to say that with RPJ, the rule supersedes the example.

This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.



 
   
Made in nl
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle






nosferatu1001 wrote:Excpet, by the rule, it doesnt - only for the penalties does it count as moving 1" less.


just where does it say that it only counts for penalties?
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

Robbietobbie wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:Excpet, by the rule, it doesnt - only for the penalties does it count as moving 1" less.


just where does it say that it only counts for penalties?


Exactly in the RPJ rule description.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kommissar Kel wrote:Rule says X; example says Y.

It is the exact same situation.

Only with the Terrain issue I was told that the Example(which is a direct copy-paste from the 4th edition Rulebook) was the correct "rule".

Now the same people are trying to say that with RPJ, the rule supersedes the example.


Apples to oranges I guess.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/11 15:52:44


Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in nl
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle






Nope.. RPJ says does not incur penalties for that extra inch etc. and then says: a vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12". end of sentence. It doesn't say it only counts as 12 for shooting.. To get aerial assault the movement needs to be cruising speed and for the cover save it needs to be flat-out.
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





Robbietobbie wrote:Nope.. RPJ says does not incur penalties for that extra inch etc. and then says: a vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12". end of sentence. It doesn't say it only counts as 12 for shooting..

It must count as 13" for movement - as there are no penalties associated with moving 13".
It must count as 12" for shooting as there are penalties associated with moving 12".

To get aerial assault the movement needs to be cruising speed and for the cover save it needs to be flat-out.

Correct.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair






Grey Templar wrote:
Kommissar Kel wrote:Rule says X; example says Y.

It is the exact same situation.

Only with the Terrain issue I was told that the Example(which is a direct copy-paste from the 4th edition Rulebook) was the correct "rule".

Now the same people are trying to say that with RPJ, the rule supersedes the example.


Apples to oranges I guess.


No quite.

Apples to apples; If the example is to be ignored in one, it must be ignored in the other.

Bottom line is Count as means is.

And without the example calling out the very specific situations that the 13" moving vehicle counts as moving 12" for; then it simply counts as moving 12" for all intents and purposes.

Rigeld2: there is a penalty for moving 13" in the movement phase: no embarking nor disembarking of passengers.

A trukk with RPJ that counts as moving 13" for movement can neither embark nor disembark passengers as it has moved flat out(and yes, the trukk is a fast transport vehicle; so this is exactly relevant to your claim).

Just for Clarification: I could just as easily be arguing for the rule and not the example, I chose to argue in favour of the example in this case because of the terrain debate(where the exact same posters claiming the example should be ignored here claimed that the example is rules there).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/06/11 16:45:28


This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.



 
   
Made in nl
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle






rigeld2 wrote:
Robbietobbie wrote:Nope.. RPJ says does not incur penalties for that extra inch etc. and then says: a vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12". end of sentence. It doesn't say it only counts as 12 for shooting..

It must count as 13" for movement - as there are no penalties associated with moving 13".
It must count as 12" for shooting as there are penalties associated with moving 12".

To get aerial assault the movement needs to be cruising speed and for the cover save it needs to be flat-out.

Correct.


It seems really silly to me to count a vehicle as having moved at two different speeds in the same phase..
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Robbietobbie wrote:Nope.. RPJ says does not incur penalties for that extra inch etc. and then says: a vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12". end of sentence. It doesn't say it only counts as 12 for shooting.. To get aerial assault the movement needs to be cruising speed and for the cover save it needs to be flat-out.


So when it says "penalties" you choose to ignore that, in favour of removing the context from the example?

KK - i dont see this as the example being wrong, not as wrong as the DT example certainly - they just didnt repeat the "for any penalties" part in the example.
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





Robbietobbie wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Robbietobbie wrote:Nope.. RPJ says does not incur penalties for that extra inch etc. and then says: a vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12". end of sentence. It doesn't say it only counts as 12 for shooting..

It must count as 13" for movement - as there are no penalties associated with moving 13".
It must count as 12" for shooting as there are penalties associated with moving 12".

To get aerial assault the movement needs to be cruising speed and for the cover save it needs to be flat-out.

Correct.


It seems really silly to me to count a vehicle as having moved at two different speeds in the same phase..

It's not the same phase. During my shooting phase, it counts as moving 12" - because I need to not incur the penalty of not shooting.
During your shooting phase, it counts as moving 13" - because there's no permission to ignore a bonus.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in nl
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle






nosferatu1001 wrote:
Robbietobbie wrote:Nope.. RPJ says does not incur penalties for that extra inch etc. and then says: a vehicle could move 13" and still count as moving 12". end of sentence. It doesn't say it only counts as 12 for shooting.. To get aerial assault the movement needs to be cruising speed and for the cover save it needs to be flat-out.


So when it says "penalties" you choose to ignore that, in favour of removing the context from the example?

KK - i dont see this as the example being wrong, not as wrong as the DT example certainly - they just didnt repeat the "for any penalties" part in the example.


I see that as meaning that if the ork player moves the vehicle 13" but wants to shoot he can instead count is as having moved 12 for all purposes. If the vehicle didn't have any weapons left there would be no penalty and it would just count as moving 13" regardless.

@rigeld 2 it is the same phase, the movement phase. The plane doesn't move in the shooting phase.

Another question then: would you also take the 4+ cover save for going flat out but if the vehicle get's immobilized that turn say "oh but it has RPJ so it now being wrecked is a penalty for me so I'll count it as having moved at cruising speed"?
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




So you ignore the word PENALTIES and pretend it doesnt exist?

You ignore the 1" for any PENALTIES to the Ork player. Thats it.

Yes, you would - being wrecked when moving 13" is a penalty associated with that extra inch, so you ignore it. Just like you're ignoring the word "penalty" in the rule for RPJ, and pretending it doesnt matter.
   
Made in nl
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle






you're not listening to me. I'm not ignoring the word penalties. There needs to be a penalty involved to be able to count it as having moved 12 instead of 13. So it gives you the choice of either having moved 13 with the effects of that movement (the cover save and being wrecked when immobilized) or cruising speed (getting aerial assault)

IMO one excludes the other. Counting something as moving at cruising speed first, then flat-out and then cruising speed is ridiculous
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: