Regrouping

[WarpSpawn]

The rule specifically states that restrictions on movement do not apply to models with ATSKNF. consolidation and forbiden regular movement are, as a whole, "restricted movement", and thus do not apply to space marines.

 

if the rule allowed the models to move where lesser models may not, then it would say "usually, models may not move after regrouping" not "may not move normally" moving 3" as described is not moving normally. The rule does not allow for the space marines to move both abnormally (as is standard for regrouping for non marines) and normally. you have to get one or the other as you are getting movement (normal or not).

 

Moving 3" is not a restriction on normal movement. The bit way is says "cannot otherwise move" is a restriction on normal movement.

 

There is nothing to stop abnormal movement and normal movement in the same turn.

 

I'm still waiting for that rules quote to support your argument.

 

Edit: They do not need to say things like "usually" in the rules text as a specific exception will always override a general rule, if there is a contradiction. By your logic, they would also need to say "models usually move 3" when regrouping".

[SeattleDV8]

The only thing that has changed from 4th to 5th as regards regrouping and ATSKNF is the 3" movement after rallying . It seems wrong to allow marines a 9" movement phase, but the basic situation really has not changed. marines move 6" more because of ATSKNF.

[nighthawks]

DV8 - in 4th models consolidated. now they move up to 3".

 

WarpSpawn - quotes (now that I am home to my books)

 

"...it stops falling back and regroups. The unit can immediately MOVE up to 3"... Once it has regrouped, it can not OTHERWISE move during the movement phase..." Regrouping, BRB P.46

 

"usually troops that regroup cannot move normally and always count as moving whether they do or not, but these restrictions do not apply to models subject to this special rule." And They Shall Know No Fear, C:SM P.51

 

the regroup (I have been calling it consolidation) and regular movement ARE a single movement that is NOT normal. models without ATSKNF may move up to 3", and may not otherwise move. otherwise being the key. this IS movement, abnormal, restricted movement, and the text agrees.

 

ATSKNF gives space marines the ability to ignore this restriction. it's the same argument I have had all along, just with quotes. I still (hell, I now more-so) fail to see how the regroup move is NOT the abnormal movement referenced in ATSKNF.

[Legatus]

Ok, first I assumed someone (described in the original post) wanted to exploid shoddy writing to gain some extra movement. But after having re-rerad the rules for regrouping and ATSKNF, that does seem to be what the rules currently say. Then one might of course claim that RAW differs from RAI in this case, but after thinking about it I am not so sure that this is unintentional.

Think about this:

 

1. Space Marie units can move 9" when rallying. But when they do that it means they previously have been falling back 2D6". On average that's 7" they move backward. Being able to move 3" and then another 6" will not get them much further than their original position before falling back. It would have been better if they had not retreated at all. The only time they can truly utilize those extra 3" is when they want to reach some point further back than their original position.

 

2. Moving 3" and then 6" during one movement phase is not much different than a unit that routed an enemy unit during the enemies close combat phase. They can then move D6" at the end of the enemies turn and then proceed to move normally during their own turn. This game mechanic has been part of 40K since 3rd Edition (where it usually was 3" consolidation instead of D6"). Just like a victorious unit moving effectively D6" + normal move, rallying Space Marie units can move 3" + normal move. After they just fell back 2D6".

 

So, Space Marines hardly "gain" much from the extra 3" movement. They basically "lose" less ground from falling back.

[Stormcaller3801]

ATSKNF

 

Usually troops that regroup cannot move normally and always count as moving whether they do so or not, but these restrictions do not apply to models subject to this special rule.

 

Regrouping

 

If the unit successfully passes its Leadership test, it stops falling back and regroups. The unit can immediately move up to 3" (this move is unaffected by difficult terrain, but dangerous terrain tests must be taken as normal).

 

Once a unit has regrouped, it cannot otherwise move during that Movement phase, but otherwise behaves as normal.

 

Where, exactly, does it say that the regroup 3" and normal movement are one and the same? There is no reference to abnormal movement in ATSKNF- it only reiterates that most units cannot move normally, and states that Space Marines are not subject to this restriction.

 

The only other movement that takes place during the movement phase other than regrouping and normal movement is fall back moves, which very specifically state that the fall back move is done instead of normal movement. This declaration of the described movement taking place instead of normal movement is not repeated with regards to the 3" regroup move.

 

Given that they found it necessary to describe the fall back move as being in place of normal movement, but did not choose to declare that the 3" regroup move replaced normal movement, that would suggest that the 3" move is not a replacement for normal movement. Furthermore it makes reference to not being able to make any additional movement, which implies that this would be inherently possible if not for the rule forbidding it. As it goes on to specify that you can run in the Shooting phase and can assault in the Assault phase, this leaves only one type of movement that is both available and possible to forbid: the normal 6" movement that is available to the unit.

 

Ergo, ATSNKF's referral to being able to move normally must refer to this otherwise forbidden movement.

[nighthawks]

OK - my last post here because we all seem to have our points and not be accepting the others'

 

1 - movement governed by a set of rules that is NOT found in the "movement" section or the unit type (bike, etc..) section is contrary to normal movement - hence abnormal. When held to this type of movement, the unit in question "may not move normally."

 

2- Regrouping allows for 3" of movement with some specific mechanics. units that regroup "may not otherwise move." this fits the description of abnormal, or not moving normally, from point 1. The ONLY movement allowed is described by the abnormal description, and the clarification that the unit in question is only allowed this abnormal movement. ("may not otherwise move")

 

3- ATSKNF removes the restrictions to normal movement - hence a regrouping unit under ATSKNF moves normally, not abnormally - e.g. NOT in accordance with the rules for regrouping.

 

I make no RAI claims. the text is clear based on definitions common to the language (normal) and the understanding of what "normal" movement is, as defined in the BRB on pgs 11-14, and 51-55. continuous language is not a strong suit of GW, so those arguments that are based on the consistency of the word usage are not strong, particularly in a situation where normalcy is understood in game terms based on 9 pages of description. in cases where an in-game definition is not obvious within the language, such as "in cover," we must pay more attention to the specific wording (as "cover" and "in cover" differ in meaning). this is not one of those cases.

[Stormcaller3801]

Where, exactly, are you finding this? I am looking at pages 11-14, 51-55, and I am not finding anything that makes any use of the word abnormal. Nor am I finding anything that defines normal movement as 'normal movement,' only a statement that most infantry units can move up to 6" and compulsory movement is dealt with further in the rulebook. I.e., the only information with regards to 'abnormal movement' is "see the relevant section." That would be, to the best of my ability to locate, the information about fall back moves and the Rage special rule.

 

Consolidation is a D6 move outside the normal turn structure that takes place during the Assault phase and has no influence upon the Movement phase. Fall Back moves do take place in the Movement phase, and are specifically described as replacing normal movement. Regrouping states you can move 3" as part of regrouping, and cannot otherwise move in the Movement phase. It in no way indicates that the 3" move replaces normal movement- it declares you can move up to 3", and then declares that after regrouping you cannot otherwise move.

 

Where are you finding this definition of abnormal movement? The 3" move is being treated exactly like all other nonstandard movement, of which only fall back moves replace normal movement, and fall back moves specifically state that they replace normal movement.

 

Your argument seems to be based upon the idea that there are specific definitions being laid down that should be followed- except for when they shouldn't.

[Brother Gothard]

nighthawks, I do not want to labour the point, so I will be short, and I think others here will agree with me.

 

You see that under RAW you are defeated, so you bring into the discussion complicated and totally unnecessary terms, like' abnormal movement', 'normal logic', 'common to the language', (and even bring in 4th edition, and even 3rd edition, rules) so that your point can becomes so complex as to be confusing to the general thread, and this I see you using as a tool in your argument.

 

I do not know why you do this, because simply reading the two rules in conjunction yields the result that I and others have argued for (though others more than I), so long as you do not bring in any outside influences like personal bias, feelings of rightness or wrongness, or developer intentions. For this is why GW writes FAQs, so that we can concern ourselves only with the rules as written, and let them deal with right or wrong, justice and injustice.

 

I mean no personal offense, so please do not think of me as being belligerent.

[Mal]

I disagree, yes the rules could say the marines move 9" but it could also be intrepretated that they only move 6", what is intended is of no concequence as this rule was NOT FAQ'd, so we can only use our intrepertation of the rule, and myself, nighthawks and a faw thers intreprate the rule as replacing the reduced 3" movement with the normal 6" movement.

 

In fact I took this to an external debate and asked everyone to think on it for a couple of days... out of nearly 40 people 2 thought they should get the 9" movement, and both of those are known rule lawyers.

 

So respectfully, guys, stop trying to force your own intrepratitions on us, we disagree, and you will not be able to change that, if we encounter the disagreement ingame then we D6 for it.

 

End of Discussion.

[WarpSpawn]

D6ing for it is not always an acceptable solution, otherwise we might as well randomly generate the rules each time we play.

 

But you are right about one thing, you guys are clearly not going to be convinced so there is probably no point making further efforts to that end.

[nighthawks]

because I was, apparently, a bit confusing in my last post, I will attempt to clarify. please work with me, and understand that I am not trying to be antagonistic, I am only pointing to what I see to be clear as day.

 

ATSKNF states "usually troops that regroup cannot move normally and always count as moving whether they do or not, but these restrictions do not apply to models subject to this special rule."

 

as I read this, the restrictions that do not apply to SMs are both "cannot move normally" and "count as moving do or not". therefore, any non-standard (AKA "abnormal, not normal, etc...) movement allowance is replaced with NORMAL movement, or the option to not move, and NOT count as having moved.

 

regrouping specifies the following points:

1 - models may move up to 3" and may not otherwise move. this is a special type of movement, occuring in the movement phase. it is NOT normal movement. further, it is the movement allowed to models that regroup. the restriction on other movement in no way makes the 3" move a seperate move unto itself, it is simply a further restriction on allowed movement (so as to prevent a unit with some special movement ability from attempting to use it).

 

Normal movement is movement according to the rules for the unit type. infantry follows the rules on pages 11-14. other unit types (bikes, cavalry, etc.. ) follow infantry rules modified as stated on their entry from pages 51-55. some units, like LotD, have rules such as slow and purposeful, that defines the normal movement for these units. movement that is constrained by another set of rules that is temporary and specific to an occurance in the game, such as regrouping or falling back, constitues special, non-standard, "abnormal" movement. I use the term "abnormal" because it is the same as saying "not normal." what counts as moving normally and NOT moving normally are therefore pretty clear.

 

the 3" movement allowed by regrouping is not a bonus, it is a limitation to NORMAL movement, to which no further movements may be added ("may not otherwise move"). as this movment is allowed and normal movement (or ANY other movement) is not, it replaces normal movement. it does not matter that the description does not say so explicitly.

 

Therefore, as regrouping movement is restrained and not normal, and models with ATSKNF are not subject to the restrictions to normal movement when regrouping, but move normally, they DO NOT get a 3" move with the specified restrictions to further movement, and do not count as having moved even if they do not - they simply have the option to move normally.

[Stormcaller3801]

Think it's worth pointing out that per the FAQ, the D6 roll should take place if it comes up during play, otherwise a mutually agreeable solution should be found.

 

as I read this, the restrictions that do not apply to SMs are both "cannot move normally" and "count as moving do or not". therefore, any non-standard (AKA "abnormal, not normal, etc...) movement allowance is replaced with NORMAL movement, or the option to not move, and NOT count as having moved.

 

This appears to be the crux of the problem: you read the rule and interpret it as the 3" move replacing normal movement, whereas we are reading it and seeing it as a separate entity from the normal unit movement. Nothing states outright that there is a replacement going on- nothing states outright that it isn't, either. And that leads to another variance in interpretation: you read the part about 'cannot otherwise move' and see that as a poorly worded declaration that it is a replacement. We read it as a fairly straightforward statement indicating that the 3" is a separate entity in and of itself.

 

So it comes down to whether or not you think this is an area where GW has bungled in their writing, or whether you think GW is being very specific in their choice of words. From everything I've heard, it could well be either case- and nothing in previous editions resolves the question because the 3" move for regrouping is unique to 5th edition.

 

Being as I'm currently working on a rather large Tau army, and will not be reconstituting my Marines until that army is done, I don't really have a stake in this fight- or at the very least, it would be in my better interest to accept the 6" move instead of the 9" one. But I honestly cannot justify that position to myself, as I really do think that Marines should get the full 9" move and cannot find any wording in the rules that convinces me otherwise.

[WarpSpawn]

FAQ'ed or not, RAW or not, the concept of rolling a D6 to decide something is not at all acceptable in some situations. To use an hypothetical and deliberately extreme example, if an opponent insisted that their standard, codex marine terminators moved as jump infantry and refused to back down, I'm sorry but I am not entering into a roll off to see who is right.

 

I'm not going to get into how this applies to this particular subject but if an opponent irrationally tries to hold their ground on a major issue that is blatantly wrong, I'd rather not even get into an argument and would just find someone else to play instead.

 

For relatively minor, ambigously written rules that's another matter.

 

I now return you to your regularly scheduled rules debate.

[Stormcaller3801]

Well no- but I also wouldn't say that's a disagreement over the rules. That's something else entirely, one of those situations where it isn't so much a time to try to come to a mutual agreement about how to interpret something as it is a time to ask your opponent whether he or she truly is serious about this- and upon receiving confirmation either begin packing up your stuff in preparation for leaving or begin offering warnings about the front door and possible impacts in the gluteus maximus.

[WarpSpawn]

But the thing is that the line between the extreme, absurd examples and minor ambiguities is not always clear and is very much down to personal opinion. I'm not so sure I see this example as being worth getting all that upset about but some will view it as self evident and not deserving of a roll-off, no matter which side they are one. That in itself is a whole other debate and one that is unlikely to be settled here.

 

That said, I don't really want to drag this off topic further so I'll leave talk of roll-offs at that.

[Ming]

We play as follows based on our understanding of the rules:

 

ALL units retreating roll their 2d6 and do compulsory moves at the beginning of the tuirn, before any other actions. If allowed to check morale and rally, they do so first. When they fail, they continue to move towards the table edge. If they rally, they can consolidate 3 inches, but no other movement is allowed, and they count as having moved.

 

Marines can auto-rally (not have to check), subject to the restriction that there are no enemy units within 6 inches, otherwise they too have to continue to fall back. Rallied marines, if in coherency already, do not have to move and do not count as having moved for purposes of shooting. If they do move, normal movement issues apply.

 

Rallied marines can move their full 6 inche movement, no consolidation first. They must move back into coherency regardless.

 

Note also - there are other issues concerning marines breaking from combat that also seem to cause fun times...Although marines have ATSKNF and can not be wiped out by the sweeping advance, they can be made to take additional armor saves as they retreat. Marines, unlike other armies, can rally below 50% strength. If a marine unit breaks away, and the enemy consolidates towards the marines to be within 6 inches, the marines will have to continue to retreat until they get far enough away to autorally.

[Brother Gothard]

DISCLAIMER: Whatever my tone may sound like, I'm not being belligerent. I REALLY DO think that this can be resolved with simply argumentation, and if we just clarify the hinge premises of our arguments, one party will understand they are wrong, or be much maligned.

 

nighthawks: I'm going to quote your post and number your paragraphs to make it easier to reply to:

 

1 ATSKNF states "usually troops that regroup cannot move normally and always count as moving whether they do or not, but these restrictions do not apply to models subject to this special rule."

 

2 as I read this, the restrictions that do not apply to SMs are both "cannot move normally" and "count as moving do or not". therefore, any non-standard (AKA "abnormal, not normal, etc...) movement allowance is replaced with NORMAL movement, or the option to not move, and NOT count as having moved.

 

3 regrouping specifies the following points:

1 - models may move up to 3" and may not otherwise move. this is a special type of movement, occuring in the movement phase. it is NOT normal movement. further, it is the movement allowed to models that regroup. the restriction on other movement in no way makes the 3" move a seperate move unto itself, it is simply a further restriction on allowed movement (so as to prevent a unit with some special movement ability from attempting to use it).

 

4 Normal movement is movement according to the rules for the unit type. infantry follows the rules on pages 11-14. other unit types (bikes, cavalry, etc.. ) follow infantry rules modified as stated on their entry from pages 51-55. some units, like LotD, have rules such as slow and purposeful, that defines the normal movement for these units. movement that is constrained by another set of rules that is temporary and specific to an occurance in the game, such as regrouping or falling back, constitues special, non-standard, "abnormal" movement. I use the term "abnormal" because it is the same as saying "not normal." what counts as moving normally and NOT moving normally are therefore pretty clear.

 

5 the 3" movement allowed by regrouping is not a bonus, it is a limitation to NORMAL movement, to which no further movements may be added ("may not otherwise move"). as this movment is allowed and normal movement (or ANY other movement) is not, it replaces normal movement. it does not matter that the description does not say so explicitly.

 

6 Therefore, as regrouping movement is restrained and not normal, and models with ATSKNF are not subject to the restrictions to normal movement when regrouping, but move normally, they DO NOT get a 3" move with the specified restrictions to further movement, and do not count as having moved even if they do not - they simply have the option to move normally.

 

First, as far as I'm concerned your argument loses steam as soon as it starts. In 2, you say "therefore, any non-standard ... movement allowance is replaced with NORMAL movement ... ." There is nothing in the rules that even hints at one thing replacing another, period. If Marines did not have ATSKNF, they would get 3" consolidation, and then the restriction of not being able to move normally, and having to shoot as though they had moved. Because Marines do have ATSKNF, they get 3" consolidation, but suffer no restrictions. You claim that your reading is as clear as day, except that it is inserting words AND meanings into the rules that aren't even HINTED at.

 

However I know that alone will not convince you, so I'll continue into the rest of your argument.

 

As regards 3, this is not stated clear enough to help only your argument. However, I agree that 3" movement is a result of regrouping. I agree that the 3" movement is not normal movement. However we part there: the 3" movement is not a restriction on normal movement, period. It does not say that units "move 3" instead of their normal movement" or "may only move 3 inches." No, what it says is that units that regroup stop falling back and can immediately move 3". Where you are getting "(so as to prevent a unit with some special movement ability from attempting to use it)" is totally beyond me, and it seems that you threw that in there ad hoc to help you out.

 

Paragraph 4 has nothing to do with the discussion, so I'm going to ignore it. There is no distinction in the rulebook between normal and non-normal movement. Moreover, neither does the regrouping entry on pg 46 of the BRB. That YOU USE the term abnormal, or non-normal, has no bearing.

 

Paragraph 5, you make a serious error, resulting from an incorrect assumption from paragraph 2. You are supposing that the 3" movement replaces the unit's movement in the movement phase. Why? Where does it say that? The 3" movement is immune to terms like "bonus" or "restriction" because it is not contexted that way in the rulebook. It is something that units can do as a result of regrouping. That you claim that, "it does not matter that the description does not say so explicitly" is a fatal error. It DOES MATTER that the entry does not say so explicitly, for that is the ENTIRE CRUTCH of your argument.

 

In 6 you conclude from erroneous premises, so I will skip that.

 

Ming: I really like the way you've laid out your post, so I'm going to quote your post and add numbers to each paragraph to make it easier to reply to:

 

1 ALL units retreating roll their 2d6 and do compulsory moves at the beginning of the tuirn, before any other actions. If allowed to check morale and rally, they do so first. When they fail, they continue to move towards the table edge. If they rally, they can consolidate 3 inches, but no other movement is allowed, and they count as having moved.

 

2 Marines can auto-rally (not have to check), subject to the restriction that there are no enemy units within 6 inches, otherwise they too have to continue to fall back. Rallied marines, if in coherency already, do not have to move and do not count as having moved for purposes of shooting. If they do move, normal movement issues apply.

 

3 Rallied marines can move their full 6 inche movement, no consolidation first. They must move back into coherency regardless.

1 and 2 follow from the rules, and I dont think anyone here will disagree with you (or if they will, they'll have a heck of a time supporting this from the rules). However, I want to clarify something: in 2, when you say "if in coherency already, do not have to move..." I'm assuming you mean, they do not have to take that 3" consolidation move, nor to they have to make a normal move in the movement phase. Is that correct? For the rest of my post, I'll assume it is.

 

But then, in moving from 2 to 3, you take a departure from what is written in the rulebook. For some reason, you pull out the conclusion that marines do not Consolidate before transitioning into their movement phase. Why is this? Nothing that you said before leads to this, so why conclude it? Its not in the rules that they do not consolidate, so why assume they cannot? Moreover, you then state, in 3, that they "must move back into coherency regardless." How do you suppose that marines do not suffer any movement restrictions (as verbatim per ATSKNF), but then are forced to forgo consolidation, and then also forced to move back into coherency in the movement phase? I'm not being rhetorical, I really want an answer on this point. ATSKNF states strictly that marines do not suffer movement restrictions; do you not view being forced to move back into coherency in the movement phase as a restriction; isn't that exactly what the 3" consolidation movement is for?

[nighthawks]

Bro G

 

it's simple, and YOU are adding words. the BRB does not say "models may not move normally" after regrouping, it states that models that regroup "may move up to 3in" and "may not otherwise move" in the movement phase.

 

ATSKNF says marines are unlike other units in that other units "may not move normally..." after regrouping while marines can.

 

regrouping allows a single movement (in the movement phase) that differs from normal movement. I described normal movement, pointed to where to find it, etc.. but you think it was eroneous. fine. don't use statements about falling back movement "replacing" normal movement if you refuse to allow that such a thing exists. the restriction "may not otherwise move" is proof enough that the regrouping models are allowed one type of movement in the movement phase during which they regroup. thus there is no need for EXPLICITLY stating "this movement, which has been defined and limited in such a way as to demonstrate that it is abnormal, replaces normal movement."

 

the special rule's wording, combined with the phrasing and the use of the word "otherwise" in the BRB regrouping rule, make it very clear that movement IS allowed TO ALL UNITS after regrouping and is the ONLY movement allowed. there is NO statement that you may move, now you may not, splitting into multiple sub-phases of movement. there is a statement that you may move in this prescribed way, and no more. THIS is the movement referred to in ATSKNF. IF ATSKNF were worded "may not normally move" or "normally, may not move" then you would be correct, as this would point to a FULL restriction on movement (A full restriction which, incidentally, must be in the regrouping rules for your interpretation to be valid). but the special rule points to a usual unit's limitation on "mov[ing] normally". 3" is movement, it IS allowed to a usual unit, and it is NOT NORMAL.

 

there is no "regouping move". there is movement, in the movement phase, allowed when "regrouping", with the specific limitation that THAT IS ALL YOU ARE ALLOWED.

 

this restriction is lifted by ATSKNF, entirely. so marines move up tp 6", "normally" while everyone else moves up to 3".

 

If anyone asside form myself and Ming agree to this, PLEASE chime in.

[Tengu]

I am sorry, Nighthawks, but Brother Gothard's post is the only logical conclusion that can be reached from the rules as they are written. So much so that I find it difficult to understand how anyone thinks differently.

 

You are trying to work your interpretation of a possible rules intent by adding words here and there and then using your new wording to support your argument.

 

The 3" move is part of the action of regrouping, which marines do automatically. The restriction on movement in the movement phase is in a totally new paragraph and it is this restriction that ATSKNF addresses.

[nighthawks]

Humor me. what word am I adding here:

 

"If a unit successfully passes its Leadership test ... it stops falling back and regroups. the unit can immediately move up to 3inches.

 

Once a unit has regrouped, it cannot otherwise move during the movement phase..."

 

"Usually troops that regroup cannot move normally ... but these restrictions do not apply."

 

the usual is: unit moves in a way that is not normal. agreed to by ATSKNF.

the not normal way is 3", and otherwise nothing, as stated by regrouping.

 

really, what am I missing?

[SeattleDV8]

The thing that keeps me on the fence is whether the 3" move is part of regrouping or if it is the special movement allowed to units that regroup.

I know that that sounds like the same thing but is the crux of this discussion.

I feel that it is the latter you test-regroup-are allowed 3" or if a marine test-regroup-and return to normal movement.

If the 3" move is part of regrouping then it is legal for marines to make a 9" move.

Unfortunately the not helped by the wording in Paragraphs 4 and 5.

In 4 the move is clearly after regrouping, a special movement.

In 5 it is less clear "..unit has regrouped, it cannot otherwise move..." makes it sound as if the 3" is part of regrouping.

Whatever the case I will still play it with just the normal movement.

[Mal]

I have a question for everyone here....

 

its actually an old question, but its relevance should be obvious...

 

if 10 people see the same event how many different descriptions of the event will you have if you question all 10 people?

 

scientifically proven, all 10 people will give a different account of the same event.

 

simply put, our minds work differently and we interpretate things differently, both arguments for and against require at least 1 assumption, and its here that the problem lies, GW were aware that problems like this could occur, and if in game neither player can show that a rule is either against the rules or supported by the rules to the fullest exclusion of all other possabilities, then you D6 for it, and discuss after the game... unfortunately this discussion is getting precisely nowhere.

 

we all all convinced that our own interpretations is the right one and are unwilling to be shifted from that belief, unfortunately until GW come out and tell us one way or the other, we will remain convinced of our own beliefs.

 

So I would like to request that this question is posed to GW (sorry I cant remember which mod does that for us) and until such a time as we are given an answer we cease this fruitless debate, if we continue we will only cause ire.

[Tengu]

You are inferring a link between the 3" regroup move and normal movement in the movement phase. The rules as written do not make such a link.

 

For your logic to be correct the rule would have to say "a unit that regroups may only move 3" instead of the normal 6". It does not. It gives the 3" move in one paragraph together with the act of regrouping.

 

In an entirely new paragraph it then forbids a regrouped unit from any other movement in the movement phase, with a further penalty of counting as having moved.

 

It is this second paragraph that ATSKNF addresses.

 

There is no wording that links these two paragraphs. You are inferring a link because you have decided that marines should not be able to move 9" and are working backwards to justify it.

 

I understand what you are trying to do and I would probably agree with you but only if these two parts of the rule were not in separate paragraphs. It is that one thing that indicates to me that they are unrelated.

 

Also, as another pointed out above, in 4thEd Marines were able to move 6" more than non-marine units when regrouping. In other words, noone was permitted to move after regrouping etc Marines.

 

All that the new rule has done is to add a 3" move for everyone. Marines still move just 6" further than everyone else. To imply otherwise makes the ATSKNF rule 3" less effective than before. I sincerely doubt that this was GW's intention.

 

It should also be noted that the wording "Usually troops ... may not move normally" is a direct copy/paste from 4th Ed and thus was not written with the 5th Ed rule in mind.

[Morticon]

Kudos to you lot for remaining cool and mature in the face of vastly differing opinions.

 

I can't add anything any clearer than any of the other posters, but sadly Nighthawks, I have to disagree with you.

 

I don't necessarily think the 9" was intended - but I do however believe its really really clear.

 

If you plotted these rules on a time-line you'd have something like this:

 

1. Squad falls back.

2. Squad regroups ( via ATSKNF)

3. Squad moves 3" - (according to the first paragraph/sentence of Regrouping)

4. The squad may not move any further. (according to the first paragraph/sentence of Regrouping)

5. Point 4 gets over-ruled by the specific ATSKNF rule.

6. Squad can now move normally.

 

See- Nighthawks, I understand your thinking regarding "cannot move normally" and that pertaining to the 3". But, I dont think it does simply because it hasnt taken effect yet in the sequence.

 

My thoughts as to why we can move a crazy 9"

[Cale]

correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the very simillar language in 4th agreed to mean that SMs stop falling back and may stand and fire as if they had not moved or move normally, where all other units that regroup concolidated 3", counted as having moved, and that was it?

 

Maybe that was agreed between people who were wrong. Among people who were right, we allowed Marines to move 3" and then act normally--including standing and shooting as if they hadn't moved. =P

 

In other words, no. The rules for ATSKNF haven't really changed. They used to work they way they still do, and they still don't work the way you're saying they do.

 

the abnormal movement that ATSKNF nullifies IS the 3" consolodation AND lack of movement beyond that (I think we all can agree that this is "abnormal" movement). space marines, in contrast move normally (6" is all I can figgure is "normal" movement), not 3" consolodate + 6" normal movement. the paragraph splitting of the consolodation and movement after regrouping rules seems to me to be more for clarity of the sequence now, not a separation of the restrictions inherant to regrouping (general units).

 

Here your failure shows through clearly. ATSKNF doesn't nullify abnormal movement. It doesn't say that anywhere. What ATSKNF does is remove restrictions on normal movement. The question, then, is simply this:

 

Does the 3" consolidation move restrict normal movement?

 

The answer, of course, is no. You can easily make a 3" consolidation move and then move normally. It fails to restrict your normal movement in any way.

 

The answer to the question, then, is simple. ATSKNF breaks a handful of very specific rules. Unless the rule in question falls into that set of rules, it is not broken by ATSKNF. The rule which allows regrouping models to move 3" does not fall into that specific set of rules, so it is not broken by ATSKNF. End of story. Marines may consolidate 3" upon regrouping.

 

The fact that they may then act normally doesn't really have anything to do with the consolidation move. They're entirely separate, one bearing not even the smallest bit on the other.

 

the advantage of being able to NOT move and behave as such or move normally and still assault, compared with all other units being limited to 3", having moved, and no assaults is quite an advantage in and of itself. I am actually amazed that people think the wording suggests that we should get an additional 3" as well. it's not likely intended, and not obviously RAW to my eyes.

 

It doesn't matter what advantage there is. Honestly, 3" doesn't turn an already incredibly good ability into a broken one, nor does it really add anything to be all that concerned about. The intent of the writers seem clear. What you're suggesting is nothing more than an obvious misinterpretation of the rules which appears to have no basis beyond your desire to see the rule be less powerful than it is. Certainly there isn't anything at all in the rules as they are written to support your position.