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.

Bojazz wrote:
That is your opinion, and seemingly, yours alone. I've provided several links to threads that all agree that the FAQ says jetbikes suffer the initiative penalty. You've provided nothing to suggest otherwise except your own different interpretation.

An FAQ that doesn't exist anymore versus the current rules.

Gee, I wonder which one is more relevant.

edit: In addition, you'll see people in the dakka thread you quoted saying literally the exact same thing I am here. But you'll only see that if you look at the full thread, not singling one user out.

Heeeyyyy, THERE is some evidence. Thank you for finally providing something with substance. I"m not sure why google decided to put a user filter on that thread.

So you've shown that it was at least contested by some people, though the thread still ends with people resolving to play it at Initiative 1.

Given the new info, I'll have to concede that it is at least a debated rule, as there are people on both sides of the argument. I'll also edit my original link to the thread to remove the user filter, for clarity's sake.

Edit: Also the FAQ doesn't exist anymore, but the wording between the editions is identical, so it's a very solid precedent.

also, the Warseer thread you posted as evidence has a guy saying the same thing I am...

So you have a "debated" rule where one side cites an FAQ that no longer exists, and the other cites actual existing rules.
I wonder which one is more relevant.

It's not a precedent unless you think GW can't change their minds across editions or something. And that FAQ literally never applied to Jetbikes in the first place.

Again, the FAQ only no longer exists because the rulebook changed editions. The wording is *identical*. The exact same logic applies to both editions. The authors clarified how that wording works. That cannot be anything BUT a precedent for how to interpret the rule. Some people feel that means jetbikes suffer an initiative penalty, some people feel it doesn't affect jetbikes.

Bojazz wrote:
Again, the FAQ only no longer exists because the rulebook changed editions. The wording is *identical*. The exact same logic applies to both editions. The authors clarified how that wording works. That cannot be anything BUT a precedent for how to interpret the rule. Some people feel that means jetbikes suffer an initiative penalty, some people feel it doesn't affect jetbikes.

And the people that feel it means jetbikes suffer an initiative penalty have nothing except "Because I want it to!" to go on.
The rules certainly don't support that reading.


It's like saying whether or not the Earth is round is debatable - I'm sure you could find someone to disagree. That doesn't mean the argument has any legs, however.

It's more like saying whether or not the universe is infinite. There is evidence supporting it is, but nobody knows, and it is a heavily debated subject.

With the round earth comparison, we can simply go into space and see for ourselves. This is not the case with the rules, as we cannot ask the writers.

Alas, The threads all result in people resolving to play it as Initiative 1. You've shown me evidence to support another interpretation, which I accept is also a valid interpretation. I will play it as Init 1, unless my opponent wishes to play otherwise.

Bojazz wrote:
That is your opinion, and seemingly, yours alone. I've provided several links to threads that all agree that the FAQ says jetbikes suffer the initiative penalty. You've provided nothing to suggest otherwise except your own different interpretation.

The Dakka thread you linked has nothing like a concensus on this. The FAQ was presented, and the same reasoning was provided as here.

Hmmm... So you could shoot at a unit of the enemy locked in close combat from the back...

lliu wrote:
Hmmm... So you could shoot at a unit of the enemy locked in close combat from the back...

Er... why?

And what does that have to do with the topic here?

 ibushi wrote:
OK so people whining about Shining Spears "forgetting their grenades" etc. is whining and just that.

Cheers!

No, as you just saw, it is nowhere near clear. Explaining to someone that their jetbikes only suffer part of the penalties for charging into terrain (DT test) but not all is a hard sell. Talk it out with your group.

But jetbikes always have to make dangerous terrain checks when they end movement in it, even though they can move over it and suffer no penalties.

This doesn't seem that strange to me.

Fragile wrote:

 ibushi wrote:
OK so people whining about Shining Spears "forgetting their grenades" etc. is whining and just that.

Cheers!

No, as you just saw, it is nowhere near clear. Explaining to someone that their jetbikes only suffer part of the penalties for charging into terrain (DT test) but not all is a hard sell. Talk it out with your group.

They take the DT test for ending in terrain. They never, ever, moved through it.
Exactly as the rules say. Anyone insisting otherwise is either making up rules, or pretending they say something different from what they actually do.

 insaniak wrote:

lliu wrote:
Hmmm... So you could shoot at a unit of the enemy locked in close combat from the back...

Er... why?

And what does that have to do with the topic here?

Because it would hit the enemy.

Nope, you've still lost me. Could you try actually explaining what you're talking about?

I understand what he is saying - Logically he thinks shooting an enemy from the back locked in combat is fine because your dudes wont be in the way..however

1) Combat isnt actually static people move around when trying to slash each other with swords

2) This game isn't based on logic

3) This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Jetbikes and moving....

I would see Jetbikes striking at I1 in the event they were attacking someone who was in DT already, and the Jetbikes were forced to stop in the same DT area when moving into B2B.

Outside of that specific situation, the Jetbikes are not "moving through" the DT, they're avoiding it entirely (probably by flying over it).

So, if "X" is DT, and we have enemy "E" and Jetbikes "J", and "_" is empty terrain where either unit can move:

E_X_J

J could move through X and end at the _ in front of E and strike at regular initiative, as they did not end in DT.

If the case were:

XEX_J

Then J has to end its move in DT, thus making the DT test and now striking at I1.

 Psienesis wrote:
Then J has to end its move in DT, thus making the DT test and now striking at I1.

Do the rules inflict the penalty for ending in, or moving through?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Then J has to end its move in DT, thus making the DT test and now striking at I1.

Do the rules inflict the penalty for ending in, or moving through?

Moving through, which jetbikes arguably dont

sm3g wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Then J has to end its move in DT, thus making the DT test and now striking at I1.

Do the rules inflict the penalty for ending in, or moving through?

Moving through, which jetbikes arguably dont

demonstrably do not. They move over

Over cannot be equal to through.