open top

[MagickalMemories]

All I am saying is that the STATE a vehicle has moved lasts until the PLAYERS next movement phase.

I agree with that.

What I don't agree with is that disembarking during a following phase (opponent's shooting, for example) causes instant death to the models inside. I don't see anything supporting that in the wording of the rule. If only affects the current movement phase.

E

[Norseman]

Ok tell me what I am saying in this sentence

You can not fire any heavy weapons from a fast vehicle if it has moved flat out in that movement phase.

What about this...

You require 6s to hit a fast vehicle that has traveled flat out in that movement phase.

Can you see my logic...

[don_mondo]

Ok tell me what I am saying in this sentence

1. You can not fire any heavy weapons from a fast vehicle if it has moved flat out in that movement phase.

What about this...

2. You require 6s to hit a fast vehicle that has traveled flat out in that movement phase.

Can you see my logic...

No, not really.
1. Can't shoot heavy weapons in the same movement phase in which a vehicle moves flat out.

2. require a 6 to hit a vehicle in the same movement phase in which it moves flat out.

Which is why they phrased it differently for assaulting vehicles, for example:
"Attacking a vehicle that moved at cruising speed in its previous turn."
All the to hit requirements state the movement from the previous turn (or immobilized).

And also phrased it differently for the effects of cover for moving flat out:
A skimmer that is not immobilised and has moved flat out in its last Movement phase counts as obscured (cover save of 4+) when fired at.
Again, references "last movement phase"

See the difference?

[MagickalMemories]

No, not really.
1. Can't shoot heavy weapons in the same movement phase in which a vehicle moves flat out.

2. require a 6 to hit a vehicle in the same movement phase in which it moves flat out.

Which is why they phrased it differently for assaulting vehicles, for example:
"Attacking a vehicle that moved at cruising speed in its previous turn."
All the to hit requirements state the movement from the previous turn (or immobilized).

And also phrased it differently for the effects of cover for moving flat out:
A skimmer that is not immobilised and has moved flat out in its last Movement phase counts as obscured (cover save of 4+) when fired at.
Again, references "last movement phase"

See the difference?

That's what I was going to say... only you said it better.

Eric

[Ironhide]

Ok tell me what I am saying in this sentence

You can not fire any heavy weapons from a fast vehicle if it has moved flat out in that movement phase.

You shouldn't have put a model with a heavy weapon in the vehicle? Especially when an assault weapon would have been better!

[mrrshann618]

As someone who has just got done doing many hours of Java classes the way that Norseman describes it is the same that many people would recognize it.

IE Flat out boolean = Y
Since the boolean indicates that the vehicle moved flat out the class would reference that boolean variable to see if the vehicle did indeed move flat out during that movement phase. Since the variable is a persistent variable until the next time the variable has the ability to change,then "that movement phase" would be determined by that variable when it was created.

If vehicle moved flat out during instance of class/method operation then these variables within the various methods are activated.

On a side note I'm going to reference my posting on Heresy Online, one that don_Mondo was also part of.
I stated that according to the rules as they are written, any time a destroyed/wrecked result is the end result then you do not look at the prior conditions to that result. You would simply follow the rules for that result.

[Ironhide]

Argh! Boolean! Variable! Argh! It's the holidays and school is out! Keep your techie speak away from me!

[Adunaphel]

IE Flat out boolean = Y

Since the boolean indicates that the vehicle moved flat out the class would reference that boolean variable to see if the vehicle did indeed move flat out during that movement phase. Since the variable is a persistent variable until the next time the variable has the ability to change,then "that movement phase" would be determined by that variable when it was created.

If vehicle moved flat out during instance of class/method operation then these variables within the various methods are activated.

Head explodes.

I have been watching this thread grow with some interest. I tend to agree with IH and Mr. IPostTooMuch. Granted, I have only played the game with idiots in my basement.

I think the wording of the rule for flat-out is just there to make sure that some fool doesn't disembark and assault when the vehicle has moved flat out.

I also think that there needs to be more beer drinking and general fun in this group...

Karl

[don_mondo]

I also think that there needs to be more beer drinking and general fun in this group...

Karl

Beer, Scotch, and other various alcoholic beverages!!

[kturock]

and someone said that this incarnation of 40k was a beer and pretzels game. I guess it is if you actaully live in the 'Big Bang Theroy' world. {a tv show about genius geeks}
this is a 5+ page discussion about what should be a very simple rule. If you go 'flat out' in an 'open top' vehicle and you vehicle is destroyed, do the riders have a chance to survive?
And there is no way to get an official answer from anybody at GW.

This just proves my rant from several posts ago; that most all of the posters from this topic, disputed. Poor rules [badly written] by a poor company [no customer support].

Just remember, next time you have some spare $, to give it to poor starving GW, so they can release another set of rules.

[Ironhide]

Only 5 pages? Man, kturok, you should take a gander at the DakkaDakka forum called "WH40k You Make the Call". Saw a 10 pager(I beleive it was a 10 pager) about whether or not IG Stormtroopers could use the "First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire" special order, because STs had hot-shot lasguns instead of lasguns. Some newb came on and finally pointed out that the special order only applied to "guardsmen" and that the stat line entry for STs says "Stormtroopers", not "guardsman".

[kturock]

Only 5 pages? Man, kturok, you should take a gander at the DakkaDakka forum called "WH40k You Make the Call". Saw a 10 pager(I beleive it was a 10 pager) about whether or not IG Stormtroopers could use the "First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire" special order, because STs had hot-shot lasguns instead of lasguns. Some newb came on and finally pointed out that the special order only applied to "guardsmen" and that the stat line entry for STs says "Stormtroopers", not "guardsman.

But it wasn't on Dakka that I was beratteted for picking on poor innocent GW. "Leave poor, GW alone".
It wasn't on Dakka that 5th ed. was called 'a beer and pretzels' set of rules.

Then again, I guess some here want to make this more like Dakka. I'll leave that open to personal interpetaion.


How about a resolution to this entire line of BS.
Which units are open topped and would evn be affected by this?
Which of these then named units, can move at the speed that would cause this?
Then, which of any of the riders would actually have a chance, based on past practise, to have a save to survive. [ie. orks due to their inherant nature. SM due to their armor. et c.]

Then, before each game, where armies that MAY have these units, the respective players and/or refs come to a determination.

Basicly a set of home rules. Don't put it in print because GW will then sue you for IP infringement. [then again maybe if they do, they'll actually have enough money to pay someone to write a set of good, complete rules.] {Naaaa}

[Ironhide]

The resolution, as it has always been, is that if you have a rules disagreement; roll a D6.

[MEDEVL]

In cases like this (and most other cases to be honest) I HATE the D6 resolution because I think it rewards people who delibrately try to bend the rules with a 50% chance of getting their way. The rules are obviously only intended to be interpretted one way, though the ambiguities of language (and the stupidity of mankind) seem to make these cases pop up all too often. It just seems like people argue how they want the rule to be and hope they can squeeze a D6 roll out of an opponent rather than just accept it for what it is.

[kturock]

The resolution, as it has always been, is that if you have a rules disagreement; roll a D6.

But if you have the exact same dispute, week after week, are you going to roll every week?
Take this rule problem you are discussing now.

It's obvious that there has been an impasse.
Both sides agree that will will not change their mind, until they get a definative answer from someone like Jervis, Andy or some offical source, like WD.

So this week, today matter of fact, you guys are going to play at your FLGS. You know this could come up, you've been going on over it for over a week.

What are you going to do? Roll now, to get it over with?
Wait till someone's open top gets shot down/up and roll then?

Ok. Next week is another game. The same players are there.
What'll you do then?
Roll before hand and then use it?
Wait till someone's open top gets shot down/up and roll then?

What about next week?
You same guys are gonna play again. Probably with the same armies, maybe different forces but the same armies. Th possiblity exsists that it can happen yet again.

SO wat are you going to do about t?
Hope to get and answer from GW? [and not be told to get a better army.]
What happens if each of the 2 sides calls GW and speaks to 2 different people and the person agrees with you. You then have 2 different answers, both are 'official'.


Are you going to roll each and every week? Until the 6th ed. comes out, and hope that it corrects it or resolves it?

The d6 answer is great for a rule and no one has the codex or rulebook handy, or just can't find it in the book. [or worse won't admit they he is wrong and it's not in the rules.]

One of the guys I used to game with, back in 2nd ed. was the type mentioned. He's lawyer any rule till it suited him. [untill we turned it around against him.] WE ended up having 3 people per 2 player game. 1 to be a ref.