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.

As I do not had the current codex to check on the rule itself, I will just go off of this logic, without using fluff.

When moving normally: you move the unit the distance desired, then you use the distance you moved to dictate what speed the vehicle travelled that turn to cover this distance.

When ramming: according to the fact it says the vehicle moves as fast as possible, you would check the fastest speed the vehicle is capable of, not the distance. Unlike normal movement where your distance dictates the speed used, the ramming reads as fastest speed, of which there are two (three If you include stationary).

Thinking as a robot (which magic the gathering has forced mr to do) it comes down to the words used in the actual ruling. Yes, normal movement uses distance to dictate speed. Ramming dictates it is just the fastest speed avaliable.

Without even using fluff, it is obvious that the fastest speed is cruising. It covers more ground, even if it disallows for shooting.

Mind you, I can not check the actual rule from the book personally, but it would all depend on the exact wording of the rule. If it says distance, then you should and would get your shot. I'd it says speed, I would say no.

Excluding login of vehicles that only have combat speed, or allow their passengers to shoot while going cruising, or any factor outside of basic tanks ramming.

Movement is movement, just in this case it is special movement - you are allowed to break some normal movement rules, namely going within 1" of an enemy.
The fastest speed possible for a vehicle 5" away from an enemy vehicle is 5", UNLESS the vehicle being rammed is exploded. So the fastest speed possible is Combat speed, in this instance.

This is RAW

Edit: Yak - I disagree that you cannot Ram with a vehicle that has embarked / disembarked and is Fast. I read "as fast as possible" as being point-in-time, meaning the fastest speed a Fast vehicle that has had a squad embark is 12", meaning it can Ram and must try to move 12" if possible.

As an example - a superheavy skimmer, like Cobras, which can move 12" normally but has suffered a Drive Damaged, could still ram - "as fast as possible" is normally 12", but in this case it is only possible for it to move 6". In your view it couldnt Ram (it cannot move as fast as possible) but that seems wrong to me!

I thought I was posting in this thread. . .


Ramming means the vehicle has to move "at the highest speed it is capable of".
While turning to see what that means, I pass the section on moving squadrons where it says "all of its vehicles move at the same speed (i.e. they all move at combat speed, at cruising speed, etc.)"
I note that there is no mention of distance.
I keep turning to see what THAT means.

I see that Vehicles and Movement states that moving certain distances means that the vehicles count as moving a certain speed.

From that I have discerned that we are all talking about 2 different things.
Distance moved means your speed is set at a value.
That value must be the highest possible for ramming, even if it is not the same value the distance would declare.

As I read it.

Why then do they add the part about not being able to fire if you already were moving at the highest possible value? You cannot fire out of any vehicle if you go at the highest possible speed (barring machine spirit, which would probably get around this also), so there would be no need to add that to the Ramming rule unless you could in fact move less than the maximum value in a ram.

Fearspect wrote:Why then do they add the part about not being able to fire if you already were moving at the highest possible value? You cannot fire out of any vehicle if you go at the highest possible speed (barring machine spirit, which would probably get around this also), so there would be no need to add that to the Ramming rule unless you could in fact move less than the maximum value in a ram.

Assuming that the author did indeed envision that moving at the fasted speed possible meant that vehicle would count as moving at flat-out or cruising speed (depending on the vehicle type) the inclusion of that rule would have been purely for clarity reasons, so that it was perfectly clear that a ramming vehicle cannot shoot even if the ram physically stops the vehicle from moving its full potential move. The rulebook is chock full of excerpts that are essentially redundant and are included simply for additional clarity...the inclusion of that text doesn't really confirm or deny anything.


Frankly, the rules are a mess. They really, really should have written the vehicle movement rules where you choose the 'speed' the vehicle is moving and then this 'speed' determines how many inches the vehicle is allowed to move. This may actually be what the authors intend with the current rules as written, but it generally seems clear to most people who read it that 'speed' is determined by how far the vehicle moves as opposed to vice-versa. If this is actually the way the author intended it to be read, I think it was a very poor choice because it makes writing rules for vehicles in the progress of moving nigh impossible.

In other words, you can't write rules for vehicles that are in the progress of making a 'flat-out' move because whether or not a vehicle is making a 'flat-out' move isn't determined until *after* the vehicle finishes moving (or at least until the vehicle moves further than 12"), which can create some really stupid issues as I pointed out in another thread, where for example, a skimmer moving flat-out from a piece of terrain into another piece of terrain apparently (according to how most people seem to play) only takes a single Dangerous Terrain test at the start of its move and since most people play that the vehicle doesn't count as moving flat-out until it moves at least more than 12", this means that failing that one DT test doesn't result in a destroyed skimmer...quite bizarre!

IHMO, 'speeds' should be picked when moving and then those speeds determine how far the vehicle is allowed to move (regardless of how far the vehicle actually moved)...and then in all the cases where actual movement of the vehicle should matter (like rolling to hit the vehicle in an assault, ramming damage calculation, skimmer cover save for moving fast, etc) these should all be described using the number of inches moved by the model instead of its designated 'speed'.

I really think this would have allowed them to present the least confusing set of rules for vehicles, both for them to write consistently and for players to understand.

But c'est la vie!

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"
-Takeshishin

Seems like this article could be of use in this thread:
http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2009/09/how-to-distinguish-rules-from-fluff/

yakface wrote:The rulebook is chock full of excerpts that are essentially redundant and are included simply for additional clarity...the inclusion of that text doesn't really confirm or deny anything.

I disagree. I think it's important to interpret the rules in such a way as to give effect to as much of the (non-fluff) language as possible. While we know this is probably incorrect, we have to assume that the language that's there is there for a reason. Accordingly, we should not interpret the rules in such a way that renders language superfluous.

Hope this helps!
-GK

GiantKiller wrote:
I disagree. I think it's important to interpret the rules in such a way as to give effect to as much of the (non-fluff) language as possible. While we know this is probably incorrect, we have to assume that the language that's there is there for a reason. Accordingly, we should not interpret the rules in such a way that renders language superfluous.

Hope this helps!
-GK

I'm not talking about fluff, I'm talking about rules that are effectively redundant, but are included for clarity (so as to help readers not get confused). Authors include these anytime they feel as though the rules as written may potentially be misinterpreted.

The presence of this particular rules passage (saying ramming vehicle may not shoot as it is moving at top speed) cannot conclusively (logically) prove the rule one way or the other because it contains an actual solid rule (the vehicle isn't allowed to shoot when ramming) along with an explanation why (because the vehicle is moving at top speed). Unfortunately, the terminology used in the explanation (speed) is at the heart of the disagreement.

Or to put it another way, say in a perfect world that the rules for vehicle speed were crystal clear that you nominated a speed for your vehicle before moving (in all cases) and then that speed is what determined how far you were allowed to move the model.

If this were the case, then the ramming rules would be crystal clear (I would wager) to nearly everyone and that same passage could and would exist just fine saying the exact same thing it says now and would support the 'opposite' viewpoint just fine.


Now, don't get me wrong, I'm on your side (I think) in that I believe a vehicle which gets stopped during a ram counts as having moved only as far as it did for the purposes of shooting, but the inclusion of THAT particular rules passage can in no way logically support that interpretation because at the end of the day you never know why an author included a rules passage, all you have is the actual rules itself (which in this case are not conclusive in regards to that one sentence).

Speed=TimeXDistance

I have 1 hour to drive at Top Speed. If my car's Top Speed is 120 miles an hour and I am stopped after only 60 miles, I was still moving at 120 miles an hour, not 60. Even though I stopped short of 120 miles, I still experienced all the advantages and disadvantages of moving at 120 miles an hour, not 60.

I have 1 movement phase to move at Top Speed. If my Top Speed is 12" per movement phase and I am stopped after only 6", I was still moving at 12" per movement phase, not 6". How do I not experience all of the advantages and disadvantages of moving at 12" per movement phase?

Because, real life examples aside, the game rules do not support that position. At all.

Also, its time / distance, miles PER hour. You're also assuming instantanteous acceleration to 120 mph, where in reality s=ut + 0.5at^2 would come into play. Seriouolsy, dont bring real life examples in (its in the tenets, you read them, right?) and especially dont bring real life examples that are that flawed into it...

I think the rules do support this position.

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.
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 because the vehicle meets the conditions of having traveled at Cruising Speed whether or not it traveled more than 6".

Some people are trying to reverse the logical conditions of "If X, then Y" to also mean "If Y, then X." I do not think logic or the rules allow for that.

Sorry, show actual rules for a change.

1) "This represents" means "The following is an explanation of the rule, in fluff terms"

2) See 1)

3) if it were truly rules you could never ram more than one vehicle - after all, your claim is that "top speed" has any bearring in rules, therefore "towards one enemy vehicle" must be ruels as well. Oh wait, its not

Again, stop ignoring the first part of the rules. "A vehicle that travels up to 6" is moving at combat speed"

This dictates that the SPEED you are travelling at is DEFINED by the distance you have MOVED.

Not the other way around, as you erroneously claim

Also, as far as s=ut + 0.5at^2 is concerned, you are insinuating a constant acceleration a. I'm pretty sure that my car can get up to 120 miles an hour long before 60 miles is reached. I am also pretty sure that a Transport Vehicle can get up to Cruising Speed before 6" is reached.

Consider it. You're in a tank, which, travelling as fast as it can, rams another tank. You're not going to be in any shape for shooting anything for a while, regardless of whether you go through the enemy or bounce off them.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:Also, as far as s=ut + 0.5at^2 is concerned, you are insinuating a constant acceleration a. I'm pretty sure that my car can get up to 120 miles an hour long before 60 miles is reached. I am also pretty sure that a Transport Vehicle can get up to Cruising Speed before 6" is reached.

No, I'm pointing out that useless attempts at bringing real life into a game abstracted into IGOUGO turns is, unsuprisingly, useless.

You are also, again, entirely ignoring that the rules state the Speed you travel at is defined by the distance you have actually moved - nothing else. Feel free to show actual rules, as the Tenets of YMDC require of yuo, showing otherwise, if you wish to continue your argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
3) if it were truly rules you could never ram more than one vehicle - after all, your claim is that "top speed" has any bearring in rules, therefore "towards one enemy vehicle" must be ruels as well. Oh wait, its not

I don't understand the what you think is the link in my logic between "Top Speed" and "towards one enemy vehicle." You must move at Top Speed to perform a Ramming Attack. You cannot perform a Ramming attack against your own vehicles, and you must be targeting one enemy vehicle. If that vehicle is destroyed, the writers at Games Workshop have included a caveat to cover what happens next.

Pg 69, col 2, par 7, lines 2-3, TANKS: Ramming: "If the vehicle that is rammed is not removed the rummer halts. However, if a the rammed vehicle is removed because it suffers a 'destroyed - explodes!' result, the rummer continues to move, until it reaches its maximum move distance or another enemy (which it will tank shock or ram again!).

I have included every rule I have referenced two posts ago. They were in the post to which you originally responded.

1-6" combat speed, 6.0001-12" cruising speed.

Durza wrote:Consider it. You're in a tank, which, travelling as fast as it can, rams another tank. You're not going to be in any shape for shooting anything for a while, regardless of whether you go through the enemy or bounce off them.

Real world logic has little bearing on the rules. Remember, this is a game where having a fragmentation grenade explode at your feet does nothing more than make you wait until your opponent gets a little closer before you try to hit him... and where you're completely immune to the effects of said grenade if you happen to be standing in the open.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
3) if it were truly rules you could never ram more than one vehicle - after all, your claim is that "top speed" has any bearring in rules, therefore "towards one enemy vehicle" must be ruels as well. Oh wait, its not

I don't understand the what you think is the link in my logic between "Top Speed" and "towards one enemy vehicle."

I'm pointing out the error in you using fluff as rules. Your repeated error, totally ignornig the actual rules you quoted

Ghenghis Jon wrote:I have included every rule I have referenced two posts ago. They were in the post to which you originally responded.

The post you havent bothered reading, clearly.

You see the part at the start of each speed definition, which tells you that the speed you are classified as moving at is defined by the distance you have actually moved? The bit you entirely ignored? THOSE are the actual rules, and they show the exact opposite of what you are making up here.

The speed you have actually moved is what determines the speed band you are in. So, if you have moved 5" you are, by definition, moving at Combat Speed. NOthing else is supproted by real rules

Just out of curiosity, some vehicles have the 'Lumbering Behemoth' special rule, which states that you roll a d6 for cruising speed. If I declare a ram, would I have to roll the d6 before measuring distance?

It can't hurt, since you cannot actually limit how far your tank will travel anyway. Roll before, move the first 6" then roll, doesn't actually matter so long as you have already declared that a ram is happening.

I'm pretty sure someone will say you don't roll at all, as you have to move the 'maximum distance'.

Happyjew wrote:Just out of curiosity, some vehicles have the 'Lumbering Behemoth' special rule, which states that you roll a d6 for cruising speed. If I declare a ram, would I have to roll the d6 before measuring distance?

Yes, however it's well worth noting if you ram something 3" away you will most likely not explode it and will therefore have moved combat speed.

Yep, as before - you move as fast as possible, which if you dont explode a vehicle may well be less than your total move allowance

I have another issue with movement and declared movement that maybe you could help me with. Correct me if I am wrong: those of you in one camp say that it is the actual distance moved and not the intended speed of the movement that determines the speed of a vehicle. As far as the rules are written, speed=distance. So unless other wise stated (as in Don't Press Dat!), for anything that makes a special move (like Ramming and Tank Shock) that requires a declared or understood attempted speed, that speed is irrelevant to the actual distance traveled for game purposes.

Following that train of thought, that the distance and not the intent determines the game conditions, am I allowed to measure for regular moves that do not require a declared speed (combat, cruising, flat out, turbo-boost)? I was told by someone I highly respect that to measure more than 12" from my Nob Bikers is to declare a turbo-boost. I strongly feel that this should be the case to prevent pre-measuring. But other than etiquette, is there any basis in the rules against this type of meta gaming?

Ghenghis Jon wrote: I was told by someone I highly respect that to measure more than 12" from my Nob Bikers is to declare a turbo-boost.

It would be a workable house rule, but isn't supported by the current movement rules.

In previous editions, measuring anywhere you weren't actually moving was a definite no-no. In the current edition, you're allowed to measure in different directions to see where the model can reach. There is nothing that says that if you measure a certain distance you are obliged to move that far. The only thing that is going to get you into trouble with the normal restrictions on pre-measuring is if you measure further than the model can actually move.