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.

Most units move 6". Taken, at face value and by itself, with nothing from another page or heading would have to be taken as an "unless other wise noted" clause. This is procedurally, the correct method of establishing meaning in a sentence.

The most units wording uses a fixed quantifiable distance measurement that is by sentence structure to state the norm of movement. If then it is the norm you must show an equally quantitive rule as the exception.

Your pulling from 3-4 different pages to come up with the illusion of a rule. This is an incorrect method of determining sentence meaning.

Bikers charge 6"



edited for spelling & clarification(better?)

Gaz

This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.

That is what it means, nothing more. Stop trying to add your own qualifications to a term that they've already clearly defined.

If that is what it means (and nothing more) then the assaulters are not affected by difficult terrain, coherency rules, "Move at the speeed of the slowest" and other important rules, are they?

I think the simple answer is this...

If you try to pull this load of crap 12" assault rule out of your Arse!...Expect to smacked by a whippy stick!

Stupid argument and topic... GBF had it right.. why is this even being discussed....

because people looking for a loophole want to insist on this to cheat their way out of local games and (i highly doubt) tournaments.

I think a few people need to read up on the rules of this forum.

We are not discussing wether this is a good idea, wether we would use this in an actual game or wether it is fluffy or not.
We are discussing what the rules actually say.
A lot of what goes on in the YMDC, is purely intellectual exercises. We all know this. It has been so for ages.

So all poster commenting about "this is stupid", "this is cheating", "this would never fly against a real-world opponent" and "I'd kick your ass if you tried this", please realize where you are and refrain from posting.

Posting such comments on their own could easily be seen as trolling and flame-baiting, and should be avoided.

its a forum get over it. if you dont want people trolling, there's something called a PM system, but that's no fun and thats not what dakka is about.

After having read the rules closely following the rules of sentence definition, I withdraw my earlier statement that this is a RAW vs RAI case.

Raw=bikers move 6". As per my last post; where there is a quantified norm for assault, there is no quatified exception to the norm for bikers.

I will Admit GW could have writen it better. But 10 people wrote this so a little slack is allowed.

Odds are that the various areas that are being quoted weren't even written by the same person or even at the same time. Which further supports that these passages weren't supposed to have some deeper 12" meaning.

This seems to me like someone trying to play Magik the Gathering with the rule book. Trying to fabricate power up combo-rules isn't 40k because GW doesn't put them in the BRB. They break their system with overpowered codices.

When interpretting rules be an engineer and use the first rule of engineering KISS.

MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:No it doesn't need to be faq'd. It clearly says that Eldar jetbikes can move 6 inches if they assault or not. Clearly this states that bikes assault 6 inches.

Well that's from an outdated codex that was written in 4th edition, so that actually makes sense because the rules were different then.

MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:You have to be really hard headed to believe RAW tells you they can assault 12 inches.

So hard headed is a direct interpretation of the rules then? I think you have to be hard headed not to at least consider it as different now.

MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:By your RAW arguement bikes can assault 24 inches. It doesn't say you can't turbo boost in the assault phase. Just that you can't assault after turbo boosting in the movement phase. See I can say dumb things.

No, turbo boosting forbids assaulting completely, an it says as much, so you couldnt make a double 24 inch move at all.

...and I agree you can say dumb things.

enmitee wrote:its a forum get over it. if you dont want people trolling, there's something called a PM system, but that's no fun and thats not what dakka is about.

I am sorry, could you please clarify what you mean by that?

enmitee wrote:...no one you abusive dakkites...

Maybe the rules discussion forum is not a place for you?

AtraAngelis wrote:why is this even being discussed....

Because it is what the rules say.

?

Augustus wrote:

enmitee wrote:...no one you abusive dakkites...

Maybe the rules discussion forum is not a place for you?

@steelmage to: its a forum, its for everyone. because if it wasnt why am i able to post here :S (???)

Steelmage99 wrote:Gaz

This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.

That is what it means, nothing more. Stop trying to add your own qualifications to a term that they've already clearly defined.

If that is what it means (and nothing more) then the assaulters are not affected by difficult terrain, coherency rules, "Move at the speeed of the slowest" and other important rules, are they?

Well spoken.

Also, there is no area in the rules that says "all units assault six unless specified otherwise" what it says on page 33 is:

"The maximum most units can move during assault is 6."

It doesn't even refer to infantry, it says units, which units? It doesn't say, "unless specified otherwise", it just says most, that is not an explicit qualifier.

The next page 34 has a more specific rule, which defines the general rule given previously:

"All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules as in the movement phase,"

So how far do bikes move in the movement phase, from page 53, bikes move 12:

"Bikes can move 12 inches in the movement phase."

Having reviewed it over and over I am now certain bikes assault 12. Using intent as an argument doesn't apply because the rules have changed. Essentially these arguments boil down to, "well it use to work like this, so it has to be the same!" Clearly, it isn't the same, the evidence is in black and white, from direct quotes. By that RAI logic a player could claim area terrain still blocks LOS by the magic cylinder, because the area terrain rules are still on page 13 (even though that isn't the same anymore).

Lots of things have changed in 5th, this is another one of them.

Augustus wrote:

AtraAngelis wrote:why is this even being discussed....

Because it is what the rules say.

?

No, Its not. If you keep insisting such I'm going to have to suggest that you go and take a reading comprehension course.

focusedfire wrote:Most units move 6". Taken, at face value and by itself, with nothing from another page or heading would have to be taken as an "unless other wise noted" clause. This is procedurally, the correct method of establishing meaning in a sentence.

Wow you have to be kidding? No, it would have to be taken as undefined, because most calls into question every unit. How about a simple example:

Officer
"Most people are guilty."

Driver
"But I am not!"

Officer,
"I'm giving you a ticket anyway, ods are you are in there with 'most people'."

For the record, bikes are otherwise noted, on page 53, where it says they move 12 inches.

focusedfire wrote:

Augustus wrote:

AtraAngelis wrote:why is this even being discussed....

Because it is what the rules say.

?

No, Its not. If you keep insisting such I'm going to have to suggest that you go and take a reading comprehension course.

Really, reading comprehension course? How about this:

focusedfire wrote:edited for spelling&clarification

Perhaps we could take it together!

BRB pg. 52 "if the Codex doesn't say any different, follow the rules for the appropriate unit type, and if those rules don't say anything different, follow the basic rules for infantry."
They don't say you get a 12" charge for your bikes.
so you get the infantry 6" charge.

It doesn't define the charge as 12" the only definition for charge is over in the assault rule and says "Most units charge 6" " which is a common usage qualifier. In english when such qualifiers are used the exceptions are then expected to be clearly stated.

If bikes are not a "most" unit then there would be a quantifiable statement of a 12" charge. You Have no Quatifiable statement of a charge exceeding 6". Therefore it doesn't exist.


Pls read my posts up-page for clarification

@Augustus At least I catch my mistakes and attempt to correct such. Ability to type and literacy are 2 different things.

Edited for spelling and to reinsert deleted sentence

SeattleDV8 wrote:BRB pg. 52 "if the Codex doesn't say any different, follow the rules for the appropriate unit type, and if those rules don't say anything different, follow the basic rules for infantry."
They don't say you get a 12" charge for your bikes.
so you get the infantry 6" charge.

I think you are right! We should follow the basic rules for infantry, how far do infantry move in the assault phase?

It says infantry move 6 in the assault phase, doesn't it? Actually it doesn't, the Assault phase rules don't even refer to infantry at all! It only talks about units. Check it! It says units move at the same speed as in the movement phase...

The reason infantry assault 6 inches is because they also move 6 in the movement phase. The assault rules do not define an infantry assault distance, they never refer to infantry specifically, just to units.

Bikes assault 12 because they move 12 in the movement phase for the same reason.

focusedfire wrote:It doesn't define the charge as 12" the only definition for charge is over in the assault rule and says "Most units charge 6" " which is a common usage qualifier. In english when such qualifiers are used the exceptions are then expected to be clearly stated.

Charge is not referred to. The book says assault, here's the exact quote:

"The maximum distance most units can move during an assault is 6."

Your English structure argument has now moved into the realm of amusement.

You are attempting to stretch a rule into an area already covered. Most units charge 6". There is no statement saying the bikes are an exception. Movement range and rules for movement were handled in different paragraphs under different title headings.

Charge and assault are used interchangably in the region I'm from. We're arguing rules not dialects.

What's funny is how you dance around the issue of a quantifiable distance being stated. Show me in the book where it says bike "assault"(better?)12 inches". Until then this is just another Arihman thread and I want my pie.

Edited for clarity

Augustus wrote:
I think you are right! We should follow the basic rules for infantry, how far do infantry move in the assault phase?

It says infantry move 6 in the assault phase, doesn't it? Actually it doesn't, the Assault phase rules don't even refer to infantry at all! It only talks about units. Check it! It says units move at the same speed as in the movement phase...

The reason infantry assault 6 inches is because they also move 6 in the movement phase. The assault rules do not define an infantry assault distance, they never refer to infantry specifically, just to units.

Bikes assault 12 because they move 12 in the movement phase for the same reason.

No it doesn't say that at all, you're selectively mis quoting. Again.

It talks about following THE rules for movement, not THEIR ( as in the unit in questions) rules for the movement phase. Becuase this isn't the movement phase, it is in fact the assault phase so the only rules that modify the behaviour of involved units are said units Assualt phase rules. See how the unit types have the turn structure broken up into different section ? See hoe eachs ection has rules that work differently in each phase. See how the bikes do NOT have a rule that lets them move further than 6", unlike cavalry that do or artillery that have their own special rules.

Point of order : Again I'll refer you to the box on page 52 " different unit types". Reading this-- as suggested before-- reveals that the rules so far have in fact only ben dealing with infantry, so when page 33 talks about "units" it defaultly mean infantry units.

I find it astonishing the number of people who claim this is a RAW "loophole" but yet seem incapable of actually following the principles of RAW.

This isn't the typical knuckle-headed argument of "I'm fielding 38 Bloodletters in my Tau! Why? BECAUSE YOU SUCK!" Whichever side of the argument you're on, I appeal for one thing: Buy me bikes before they sell out.

This 6"/12" question is a legitimate rules discrepancy, and, importantly, the intent of the rules is not clear.

It's no secret that many players try to advantageously interpret vaguely worded rules against the spirit of the game, but this is different. The rules strongly imply a 12" bike assault, and since the unit is fast attack, it seems reasonable on the surface.

For experienced veterans of 40k, it may seem obvious that a 6" bike assault is the intent. For a relative newcomer like myself, I squint at the 33 point Chaos Marine Bikes and wonder why I would ever take them. Is a 12" assault the answer to that question?

From a game mechanics point of view, there are a lot of complex possibilities from a 12" bike assault. It allows first turn charges if enemy units are deployed right up to the line, and that's just the start. We could bash away with the theory-hammer for hours.

What point am I trying to make?
1. Good find, Augustus
2. Tournaments should use a house rule to cover this discrepancy
3. We will all complain when the next two GW FAQ's neglect to clarify this rule.

You have got to be kidding me. Are you still argueing over what is intent or in the rules. Please try this at my store. I'd love to see you laughed out of the store.

Only a slow would let you do this. RAW doesn't support you. You are reading into something that isn't there.

Yes the statement about Eldar moving 6 inches in the assault phase means that the charge distance is 6 inches.

The rule book doesn't say I always win so I can claim victory during every game. This is your logic on this.

(Why would GW intend bikes to assault 12 inches when they never have? Why would they have eldar bikes go 6 inches in the assualt phase even if not assaulting. We all know the rule to this so stop looking for a loophole that isn't there. I for one have closed that hole and have had support filling it in with dirt. Stop trying to shovel your gak.)

1) No find Augustus

2)I want my turtle pie

3) Any one who supports the bikes get 12" movement needs a reading class.

4) For the relative newcomer, watch out for the people who try to lure you into 40k the gathering.

5) No wonder we are over run with idiotic lawsuits in this country.


edited for spelling and order

The people who are arguing the jet bike point are just trying to throw this off topic. It has nothing to do with the argument. That is a special jet bike rule and completely unrelated.

The problem lies in the wording of Assault Moves. It says "MOST units may move a maximum of 6". Later, it says it follows all standard movement rules.

The rules assume most units are infantry. Bikes are not infantry.

The rule COULD go either way due to mildly interpretive wording.

I've never seen anyone try to assault 12" with bikes, but I've never seen anyone USE them either. But I could see where they could make the argument.

Whilst the discussion is in the spirit of the YMDC 'we discuss the RAW'. It degrades the usefulness of YMDC overall. There was a time where I could be in a rules discussion at my FLGS and could cite a topic on dakka as a relevant argument for why it should be played that way. Nowadays I would just be ashamed to admit that I read most of this.

Onward with the RAW discussion. Another element against your interpretation Augustus is that movement distances are explicitly stated as 'may move X " in the movement phase'. Now we are using the rules for the movement phase, but we are not in the movement phase . In order to move any distance at all in the assault phase, it must be specified how far you are allowed to move. Most units move 6", jetbikes and cavalry have special exceptions.

No, IS related as Jetbikes and eldar are supposed to be the fastest in the game.

No problem with wording. Basic English, you cannot pull from another paragraph to modify the meaning of a sentence.

The rule says "MOST UNITS", no mention of infantry.

Edited due to that I was being assinine and respect for Moz

Augustus wrote:

MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:No it doesn't need to be faq'd. It clearly says that Eldar jetbikes can move 6 inches if they assault or not. Clearly this states that bikes assault 6 inches.

Well that's from an outdated codex that was written in 4th edition, so that actually makes sense because the rules were different then.

No, it is from the main rulebook, on the same page as the main rules for bikes.

Anyway, as a wise man above has just said, this conversation has moved wel beyond being worthwhile. The RaW is a little unclear, but falls on the side of 6" rather than 12". (I'd say 60/40). RaI is probably more like 90/10. Those of you who are arguing from a semantics point of view because you enjoy the debate, fair enough.

Those of you who would try to use this loophole in a game, I'd pack up halfway through and concede the game to you. It is not even worth rolling a dice to decide which interpretation to use.

I'm not reading any more though!!