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.

Many Fliers have a minimum and maximum move (ex: 20" - 70") which requires them to move somewhere between that range, and if they fail to do so they are destroyed. I've noted that many Imperial Fliers, when on their last bracket, only have a single number.

Does this mean that if an Imperial Flier, such as a Storm Raven who is on their last bracket, no longer has a minimum move requirement? This would allow it to stay stationary without declaring that it will hover, and thus retain it's -1 to be hit.

Correct, if the movement value is a single number than there is no minimum move distance.

RAW, it no longer has a minimum move, but, wow, thats ridiculous It doesnt make any sense that a damaged flyer no longer has a minimum move. The minimum move means it must have a certain speed to remain airborne. The -1 to hit represents its fast movement speed, making it harder to hit. It should say 20"-20" on its last bracket.

BCB, another rule oddity for your signature

All of the Space Marine flyers who don't have a minimum move listed for their last bracket have the 'Hover Jet' rule.

Not true. The Xiphon interceptor doesnt have the hover jet rule. Nothing forces me to use hover jet on a flyer who is on its last bracket. Which means i still have the airborne, hard to hit, and supersonic abilities.

 p5freak wrote:
Not true. The Xiphon interceptor doesnt have the hover jet rule. Nothing forces me to use hover jet on a flyer who is on its last bracket. Which means i still have the airborne, hard to hit, and supersonic abilities.

To be fair though, in that bracket it's also hitting on 5s, 6s when it does move due to Heavy.

Yeah, it's a bit silly. But it's not really a problem.

So a book written in a lunch break and noted for errors and inconsistencies has an inconsistency? Suffice it to say that all of the Space Marine flyers IN THE CODEX who don't have a minimum move listed for their last bracket have the 'Hover Jet' rule.

That's super bizarre. A couple of the Edlar Flyers have 20"-25" on their last bracket.
Maybe the last bracket is supposed to be the min/max move together. Like 20" is how far is HAS to move. No more, no less. But without clarifying that is the intend, we indeed default to no longer having a minimum move

-

 Galef wrote:
That's super bizarre. A couple of the Edlar Flyers have 20"-25" on their last bracket.
Maybe the last bracket is supposed to be the min/max move together. Like 20" is how far is HAS to move. No more, no less. But without clarifying that is the intend, we indeed default to no longer having a minimum move

-

As already noted, with the exception of the Xiphon Interceptor these models can already move less than 20" a turn via the 'Hover Jet' rule.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Galef wrote:
That's super bizarre. A couple of the Edlar Flyers have 20"-25" on their last bracket.
Maybe the last bracket is supposed to be the min/max move together. Like 20" is how far is HAS to move. No more, no less. But without clarifying that is the intend, we indeed default to no longer having a minimum move

-

As already noted, with the exception of the Xiphon Interceptor these models can already move less than 20" a turn via the 'Hover Jet' rule.

Right, I was just pointing out that if *IF* the intent was that 20" was both min and max movement, those units would have to use Hover Jet rule to move less and therefore lose any Hard to Hit ability or other rules.

But as I said, I don't think there is anything to back that up. And If they are in the lowest bracket, why punish them further?

-

 Stux wrote:


To be fair though, in that bracket it's also hitting on 5s, 6s when it does move due to Heavy.

Yeah, it's a bit silly. But it's not really a problem.

Again not true. The xiphon interceptor doesnt suffer the -1 penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons.

 Ghaz wrote:


As already noted, with the exception of the Xiphon Interceptor these models can already move less than 20" a turn via the 'Hover Jet' rule.

Yes, but they lose airborne, hard to hit, and supersonic when they hover.

 Galef wrote:
That's super bizarre. A couple of the Edlar Flyers have 20"-25" on their last bracket.
Maybe the last bracket is supposed to be the min/max move together. Like 20" is how far is HAS to move. No more, no less. But without clarifying that is the intend, we indeed default to no longer having a minimum move

-

Eldar flyers should never be forced into a corner like Imperial ones can, they get to rotate before and after they move, so if you get stuck it was intentionally done so by not rotating at the end of the previous move (or deploying backwards against the board edge).

Why would a nearly wrecked aircraft be able to do something (i.e., move less than 20" a turn and yet keep the 'Airborne', 'Hard to Hit' and 'Supersonic' rules) that an aircraft in tip-top condition could not do?

 Ghaz wrote:
Why would a nearly wrecked aircraft be able to do something (i.e., move less than 20" a turn and yet keep the 'Airborne', 'Hard to Hit' and 'Supersonic' rules) that an aircraft in tip-top condition could not do?

It shouldn't, much the same way Flamers shouldn't autohit aircraft, but GW are not good at writing rules.

 Ghaz wrote:
Why would a nearly wrecked aircraft be able to do something (i.e., move less than 20" a turn and yet keep the 'Airborne', 'Hard to Hit' and 'Supersonic' rules) that an aircraft in tip-top condition could not do?

Because Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

So it's logical ruleswise to have a degrading profile in a game that suddenly gets better at the bottom bracket?

 Ghaz wrote:
So it's logical ruleswise to have a degrading profile in a game that suddenly gets better at the bottom bracket?

But a Storm Raven does not get better. a Storm Raven who is on their last bracket can only go up to 20 inches, in all other profiles it can move more than that.

So it demonstrably gets worse.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So it's logical ruleswise to have a degrading profile in a game that suddenly gets better at the bottom bracket?

But a Storm Raven does not get better. a Storm Raven who is on their last bracket can only go up to 20 inches, in all other profiles it can move more than that.

So it demonstrably gets worse.

But it's demonstrably better than using the 'Hover Jet' rule where it loses the 'Airborne', 'Hard to Hit' and 'Supersonic' rules. So again, why is the bottom bracket of the degrading profile better at moving less than 20" than the top bracket?

 Ghaz wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So it's logical ruleswise to have a degrading profile in a game that suddenly gets better at the bottom bracket?

But a Storm Raven does not get better. a Storm Raven who is on their last bracket can only go up to 20 inches, in all other profiles it can move more than that.

So it demonstrably gets worse.

But it's demonstrably better than using the 'Hover Jet' rule where it loses the 'Airborne', 'Hard to Hit' and 'Supersonic' rules. So again, why is the bottom bracket of the degrading profile better at moving less than 20" than the top bracket?

It is not better. It is slower.

If you need to move 12”, is it better to inflict a -1 hit penalty when shot or not?

I also think there's a distinct difference between being able to move more than 20" and being forced to move more than 20". Just my two cents on the argument. Carry on.

 Ghaz wrote:
So a book written in a lunch break and noted for errors and inconsistencies has an inconsistency? Suffice it to say that all of the Space Marine flyers IN THE CODEX who don't have a minimum move listed for their last bracket have the 'Hover Jet' rule.

How many Space Marine Flyers IN THE CODEX don't have the Hover Jet rule? Just the 1?

 p5freak wrote:
The -1 to hit represents its fast movement speed, making it harder to hit. It should say 20"-20" on its last bracket.

This is probably what they meant to write, perhaps even did, then someone went "duh, 20-20? must be a typo" and removed the "-20".

Given how good GW are at making copy-paste errors, its not exactly a terrible theory.