SM bike assault range question

[MagickalMemories]

He's not talking about ignoring rules, reeg. He's talking about implications vs. actual permission.

whp, what it comes down to for the "sixers" is that 40K is a permission based game. Many people misinterpret that to mean
"permissive." It actually means the opposite. it actually means 'restrictive."
So, unless the rules specifically say you *can,* then you can't.
KWIM?

So, in the case of Beasts. How far do you charge? Twelve inches. How do we know? BRB specifically says so.
How far do bikes charge? Six inches. Why? The book doesn't *specifically* state otherwise.
You said:

Bikes are not limited because the rules for assault move say they use the movement rules, which for bikes is 12".

It says they use the movement rules, not movement distance. The *rules* for movement are things like remaining in coherency, etc.

The SM rulebook has the unit type for Bikes listed as "Bike." I'm sure this isn't news to anyone.
Now, looking at the assault rules in the BRB (pg 34), the quote re: movement rules can be found. No need to repeat them yet again.
Let's move past this, though. Let's go to the "Unit types" descriptions starting on Pg. 51.
Jump Infantry (who have 2 modes of transport - jump pack or hoofing it) are specifically limited on how far they can move. In other words, it specifically says which movement method for assault (their tootsies!).
<skipping bikes momentarily>
Beasts & Cavalry. Is specfifies how far they assault (12").
Artillery. Descibed; they can't.
Now, come back to bikes.
The main rules state assault range as 6". Looking at the Bike entry, we don't see anything that specifically contradicts that.
As the rules are restrictive (permission based), rather than permissive, we're pointed back to the only "general rule" limit specifically given, which is 6".

Make sense? Even if you still disagree, does it make sense?

Eric

P.S. I was going to avoid this discussion. How the *F* did I get dragged into it? LOL

[reegsk]

MM, do you really think we could let you skip over something like this?

I agree, though. You're basically stating what I was trying to say, just in a better way. The rules are there to tell you what you can do, not what you can't do. If they had to cover all of the things you can't do, they'd be even longer than they are now.

[Norseman]

The main rules state assault range as 6". Looking at the Bike entry, we don't see anything that specifically contradicts that.
As the rules are restrictive (permission based), rather than permissive, we're pointed back to the only "general rule" limit specifically given, which is 6".

Does it actually say 6" is the normal assault range? If so the debate is over.

[reegsk]

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

That's the first sentence under the assault rules. I do understand what Todd is arguing. Under "Moving Assaulting Units" they add in the phrase that assaults follow the same rules as in the movement phase. But as MM pointed out, it means the same rules, not the same distance, so Difficult/Dangerous terrain, etc. As I mentioned earlier, though, it would completely nullify this argument if they changed "most" to "all, unless otherwise noted."

[warhammerpainters]

I do get it, thanks Eric for helping save me...I was saying the 6" was an introduction of sorts; used in the context of a typical movement distance used for an example to explain declaring charges on p.33. I argue this is not the default assault distance, I am saying that the default assault distance is the unit movement distance... I think this is where it all hinges, on p.33, but this section is not dealing with assault movement, it is about declaring charges...

EDIT***
I could see the other side of this interpration as well, if it taken as the declaration distance that is in effect a movement distance... hmmm? Bikes would fall into the "most" category since they are not given explicit 12" assault... This would be where the assault movement is ruled then???? Hmmmm?


It all comes down to p.33 yep, sure does...
---------------------------------------------------------------- END EDIT***

I think I am debating at this point... I know it can't be 12" (and after the EDIT, I am not sure it is now...taken the other way...???...starting to change my mind maybe... at least today anyway ), but I just can't follow in the RAW how 6" is justified/legal. It is just made up as far as I can tell based on RAW.

I argue that movement rules would include distance, what other rules would cover it? (I will look through my rulebook tonight) and I would guess there must be a reference to distance somewhere? Which I would think would maybe reference the unit type section for specific movement distances....if different than 6" infantry. This may be a weak point in my position Then there is that darn box-out on p.53 about jet bikes, which leads me to believe they intended to have bikes assault 6" but never implemented it in the rules, by limiting them to 6" like they did assault marines.

I argue that the permission is given(however indirectly...), otherwise why would they have to limit assault marines explicitly to 6" and take back the movement done in the unit type/movement rules (air v. feet)? They did not take it back for bikes so it would remain at 12" and would not need given permission since it is already in place by p.53 and p.34. It does not say they slow down to 6" for assault similar to assault marines. Beast charge full speed into combat, bikes should be just as fast if not faster, so fluff points to 12" as well. Bike fluff says they are highly trained skilled drivers, why slow down if a horse doesn't need to on a crater filled battle field?

I know it comes down to interpretation (or maybe GW just forgot to put it in the rules...) since it does affect balance, etc... I know it can't be 12". Maybe they realized during playtesting... way back to 3rd edition... 12" wouldn't work but it would have been hard to adjust fluff and it was never written into the rules?

[Tarius]

Magicial Memories has it completely right. When playing 40k, you have to do what the rules say, you cant do what they dont say. If they dont say you can take a particular action, then you cant take that action. Otherwise this would be akin to saying that since there isnt anything in the rule book stating I cant take your tank and smash it to little peices, that must mean I can.
The summary is, do what the rules say and not what they dont; in this case, it does not say bikes can move 12" for assault.