I think what they meant by "ignore all penalties" was that it is cut and dried. If you move 7" you are moving cruising speed. Orky stuff with RPJ allows you to move 7" and still be considered combat speed. same with the 12" and 13" measurement. What gets me though is on the 13" measurement it would have moved flat-out, and since you need 6's to hit anything that moved cruising speed, what would you need to hit an ork vehicle that moved at said speed of 13"? Does it get a 4+ cover save at that point? All other things that move flat-out indeed gain a 4+ cover save. I would say that they intended for the Orks to get a little bit more movement because they are in fact little green guys that THINK they can go faster.
Red Paint Job.
I'M NOT SAYING THIS RULING IS RAW, IT'S JUST A FAIR, SIMPLE RULING WHICH WORKS FAR BETTER THAN ANYTHING THAT CAN BE CONSTRUED AS RAW.
You get a 'bonus' 1" move; if you choose to ignore it, you move as normal, if you choose to use it, you move an extra 1", but discount the extra move from your total distance moved.
So if you move 7", you can choose to either count as moving at Cruising or Combat, depending on what you decide.
Thanks Talthewicked
*original post begins here*
Red Paint Job is a glorious upgrade, however, it seems some people disagree with me on how it works, RAW.
RAW, not necessarily RAI, that means you can move 1" extra distance, and ignore all penalties for doing so, as it says in the rule.
That means you can move 7", be hit on 6+ in melee the next turn, and fire 1 primary and all secondary weapons, as though you had moved 1" less.
Some people disagree with me on this, proposing that you simply can move 1" extra, but discount that extra movement for all purposes.
This is wrong, since if you can only move 7" maximum, that means you CANNOT get the 6+ to hit in melee benefit; this in itself is a penalty, and in the wording of the rule, it says you do not incur any penalties for the extra movement bonus; a direct contradiction of the wording of the rule, regardless of whether that is the intended function.
So there are only two sensible conclusions to draw.
1. What I stated above, 1" extra movement, ignoring all penalties, as the rule actually says you do.
2. You can move 1" extra, and that counts for all purposes (allowing non-fast vehicles to move Flat Out), which doesn't follow the wording of the rules at all, but doesn't directly contradict it like my opposition's proposal.
Discuss, please.
This seems to me to be the fairest, and simplest, way to play the rule.
You get a 'bonus' 1" move; if you choose to ignore it, you move as normal, if you choose to use it, you move an extra 1", but discount the extra move from your total distance moved.
So if you move 7", you can choose to either count as moving at Cruising or Combat, depending on what you decide.
Thanks Talthewicked
*original post begins here*
Red Paint Job is a glorious upgrade, however, it seems some people disagree with me on how it works, RAW.
That's the wording of the rule.
RAW, not necessarily RAI, that means you can move 1" extra distance, and ignore all penalties for doing so, as it says in the rule.
That means you can move 7", be hit on 6+ in melee the next turn, and fire 1 primary and all secondary weapons, as though you had moved 1" less.
Some people disagree with me on this, proposing that you simply can move 1" extra, but discount that extra movement for all purposes.
This is wrong, since if you can only move 7" maximum, that means you CANNOT get the 6+ to hit in melee benefit; this in itself is a penalty, and in the wording of the rule, it says you do not incur any penalties for the extra movement bonus; a direct contradiction of the wording of the rule, regardless of whether that is the intended function.
So there are only two sensible conclusions to draw.
1. What I stated above, 1" extra movement, ignoring all penalties, as the rule actually says you do.
2. You can move 1" extra, and that counts for all purposes (allowing non-fast vehicles to move Flat Out), which doesn't follow the wording of the rules at all, but doesn't directly contradict it like my opposition's proposal.
Discuss, please.
- Status
1 - 2 of 40 Posts
1 - 2 of 40 Posts
- Status
