Black Templars going to ground

[ChessMaster]

Ok, here is a tough one.

 

Black Templars Codex says that Righteous Zeal happens to a unit that is NOT pinned or falling back.

 

If I voluntarily Go To Ground (to get a cover save benefit) and I take casualties, do I take the morale test and make my righteous zeal move?

 

This is really tricky. Technically, the crusaders are not pinned. They choose to go to ground voluntarily. So, by taking a morale test and making the righteous zeal move(providing they had at least 1 casualty), they return to normal status, as the new FAQ stated (units that have gone to ground return to normal if they are forced to move due to a special rule).

 

On the other hand, some ppl say that "pinned" and "gone to ground" is the same thing.

 

Any opinions?

[Dan VK]

Ok, here is a tough one.

 

Black Templars Codex says that Righteous Zeal happens to a unit that is NOT pinned or falling back.

 

If I voluntarily Go To Ground (to get a cover save benefit) and I take casualties, do I take the morale test and make my righteous zeal move?

 

This is really tricky. Technically, the crusaders are not pinned. They choose to go to ground voluntarily. So, by taking a morale test and making the righteous zeal move(providing they had at least 1 casualty), they return to normal status, as the new FAQ stated (units that have gone to ground return to normal if they are forced to move due to a special rule).

 

On the other hand, some ppl say that "pinned" and "gone to ground" is the same thing.

 

Any opinions?

Those people are wrong.

Q: If I find a reference to a unit that is ‘pinned’, does it mean a unit that has gone to ground? (p24)

A: Yes, ‘pinned’ is simply a short way of saying ‘gone to ground by failing a pinning test’.

40K BRB FAQ v1.1

 

The FAQ does not say, "Yes, 'pinned' is simply a short way of saying 'gone to ground'." It specifically mentions failing a Pinning test. It is like squares and rectangles; a square is always a rectangle but a rectangle is not always a square. If a unit has 'gone to ground' voluntarily then it is not 'pinned'. If a unit has 'gone to ground' as a result of failing a Pinning test then it is 'pinned'.

 

[EDIT: I forgot to italicize and bold text. :(]

[BigDunc]

I second what Dan VK said.

[Roesor]

I third it O.o

[Acebaur]

I disagree. But I'm not going to argue though about whether or not GtG is pinned or not, because it is irrellevant.(we've already had this discussion in the BT forum. You can see the full thread here) The new FAQ states that units that are FORCED to move may break GtG. RZ is, per our codex IDENTICAL to a consolidate move which as we all know is entirely optional. RZ in no way shape or form forces you to move, it only tells you that you must move in a certain direction.

[Dan VK]

I agree with Acebaur that a Consolidate move, which is what Righteous Zeal grants, is not 'forced to move' as defined in the GOING TO GROUND section of the BRB (page 24).

 

You learn something new every day.

[Algesan]

Only if you read it as "may move up to d6"...", Period. Since it reads "They may move up to d6" in any direction,..." means the option is on the direction. Of course, this is from the BRB so the forcing would on direction with distance being optional, but no more than a d6 in inches. This is the RZ after GtG position which says the only optional part is the distance, the codex still says "must move".

 

Oh, yes you can move .00001" in other situations, say when you have to stay 1" away from an enemy model and you are 1.00001" away. I don't see any requirement to move only by full inches anywhere.

 

The codex says that "This is identical to a Consolidation move that has been achieved through a "Massacre" result and follows all the normal rules given in the WH40K rulebook."

 

From the BT FAQ: "Please ignore all references to the 'Last Man Standing' and 'Massacre!' rules, which have been deleted from the new (5th) edition of 40K."

 

Well, I guess we can toss the entire sentence out of the codex since it is a unified sentence with reference to "Massacre", but then we would really be in trouble because we wouldn't have any limit on our movement technically. So, a bit more research...It seems in 4th Ed normal Consolidation moves were 3" and a "Massacre" Consolidation was a d6". Which means that this is a simplification to make all Consolidation in 5th the same. Okay, we now have some context.

 

Which means the codex reference to Consolidation and "Massacre" only refers to the fact that the movement is a d6" and not just 3". The reason ( in 4th) for the d6" to simulate the unit being caught flat footed or highly motivated. So, what does this give us? The codex says "must move" and as codex overrules the rulebook, "must move" >> "may move".

 

What happens is that the d6 is rolled and that many inches is moved to the nearest enemy unit. Dangerous and difficult terrain tests are ignored. You may not move closer than 1" away from the nearest enemy unit.

 

Conclusion: RZ does break GtG, but there is no playing around with the movement to hide in cover and such, go the full distance.

 

"By the Emperor, you are Black Templars and will charge as far as that d6 will let you. In inches! "

"Initiate Smythe?"

"Yes Neophyte Jones?"

"What is a 'd6'?"

"It is that large cubical rock that falls from the sky at the Emperor's command! Having six distinct sides, it is capable of generating a number from 1 to 6 depending on the markings on each face! Disregard them when they fall because they have never been known to hurt anyone when they fall. Even if you do get hit by one you will pop right back up like nothing happened and with no pain. Any further questions? Yes Neophyte Jones?"

"Initiate Smythe, what is the point of charging forward a few inches? I mean, an inch is like the length of the last bone on my pinkie finger, right?"

"No Neophyte Jones, in this case an inch is a mystical measurement derived from the falling of the Emperor's d6 and denotes a 64:1 scaling so that this inch is actually supposed to be 64 our our inches denoted by the length of the last bone in your pinkie finger. Now, enough questions about the Emperor and his miracles! Return to your pistol and sword practice!"

"By your command Initiate Smythe!"

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Only if you read it as "may move up to d6"...", Period. Since it reads "They may move up to d6" in any direction,..." means the option is on the direction. Of course, this is from the BRB so the forcing would on direction with distance being optional, but no more than a d6 in inches. This is the RZ after GtG position which says the only optional part is the distance, the codex still says "must move".

 

Oh, yes you can move .00001" in other situations, say when you have to stay 1" away from an enemy model and you are 1.00001" away. I don't see any requirement to move only by full inches anywhere.

 

The codex says that "This is identical to a Consolidation move that has been achieved through a "Massacre" result and follows all the normal rules given in the WH40K rulebook."

 

From the BT FAQ: "Please ignore all references to the 'Last Man Standing' and 'Massacre!' rules, which have been deleted from the new (5th) edition of 40K."

 

Well, I guess we can toss the entire sentence out of the codex since it is a unified sentence with reference to "Massacre", but then we would really be in trouble because we wouldn't have any limit on our movement technically. So, a bit more research...It seems in 4th Ed normal Consolidation moves were 3" and a "Massacre" Consolidation was a d6". Which means that this is a simplification to make all Consolidation in 5th the same. Okay, we now have some context.

 

Which means the codex reference to Consolidation and "Massacre" only refers to the fact that the movement is a d6" and not just 3". The reason ( in 4th) for the d6" to simulate the unit being caught flat footed or highly motivated. So, what does this give us? The codex says "must move" and as codex overrules the rulebook, "must move" >> "may move".

 

What happens is that the d6 is rolled and that many inches is moved to the nearest enemy unit. Dangerous and difficult terrain tests are ignored. You may not move closer than 1" away from the nearest enemy unit.

 

Conclusion: RZ does break GtG, but there is no playing around with the movement to hide in cover and such, go the full distance.

 

RZ must be towards the nearest unit. The distance is optional as per Consolidate.

 

Consolidate gives you options on both direction and distance. RZ takes away the option on direction, leaving the option on distance.

 

You only use the rule as per the current BBB.

 

+++

 

I agree with Acebaur. You cannot play RZ as, in effect, optional and then claim it as compulsory to get it to undo GtG. It makes sense that RZ is optional as per Consolidate and therefore you cannot get the GtG help. :P

[Dan VK]

[EDIT: I missed a previous statement which made my question irrelevant. :P]

[Acebaur]

I'm getting tired of seeing references to moving 0.00001 inches or whatever. True there is no minimum distance in 40K, but everything is measured in whole inches. If you want to assault and are 3.1 inches away from unit in terrain, you need to roll a 4 on the D6 in order to make it.

 

You can't cherry pick parts of the rules and say Well it says "must move". As Wilhelm said, that sentence is dictating what direction you must move, while the fact that RZ is identical to a consolidate makes the distance optional. Since moving at all is optional, breaking GtG can't happen.

[BigDunc]

I now see what you, Acebaur and Marshal Wilhelm, are saying about the "must move..." sentence: it's telling us the direction we must move, not that we must move. I can see that interpretation but I still disagree because I think the wording more strongly represents that we must move. Nor do I think it is cherry picking as BOTH aspects of that sentence are used.

 

It's impossible to determine GW's intention with this rule. GW's motivations for writing the rule a certain way, however, are a little easier to figure out. And despite this being pointless exercise, ultimately, I'm going to give you my opinion. My trigonometry professor this semester, on more than one occasion, talked about why certain formulas or symbols were used in the text book: certain symbols were dropped or replaced to save money on type setting and those symbols remained into the computer age. Type setting is no more, but space on a page and the number of total pages are still relevant. GW, like any other publisher, wants to get it's point across in as few words as possible.

 

To me, the "moving and distance are optional" argument can be written more clearly while using 10-15 less words. It would read "... and passes it, then the unit makes a Consolidation move towards the nearest visible enemy unit." To me, this is a clearly written rule. There could still be a conflict between the direction of RZ and Consolidation, but it would be a very weak argument. If "moving and distance are optional" was GW's intent and it's motivation is to save space, why didn't they write the rule like this?

 

Let's assume their intent was a forced movement (as is supported by the fluff) in a certain direction. Why didn't they write the codex like this, "... and passes it, then the unit must move and it must be towards..." ?? Because it saves space and ultimately money to say that "a unit must move towards..." because grammatically it saves space while accomplishing the same meaning.

 

As pointless as that process is in the world of 40k, that's what's going through my head to determine how to interpret this rule. That's why I think we must move.

 

 

 

Regardless of the interpretation, RZ is not identical to a C-move. If RZ is played as being identical to a Consolidation Move then....

 

1. You don't have to move.

2. You can may in any direction, including away from the enemy (regardless of what RZ say because the same paragraph says 'identical').

 

Using the word 'identical' was just a mistake on GW's part. IMO, that's the word that's causing all the issues. Were the codex to say "This is like a Consolidation...." then I don't think we'd be having this disagreement.

 

The "identical" argument just has to go.

 

 

I'm getting tired of seeing references to moving 0.00001 inches or whatever. True there is no minimum distance in 40K, but everything is measured in whole inches. If you want to assault and are 3.1 inches away from unit in terrain, you need to roll a 4 on the D6 in order to make it.

The movement rules never mention a minimum distance, so as annoying as it might be, the "microscopic movement" approach is valid. Also, NOTHING in 40k is measured in whole inches. If whole inches were the only units of measurement you would never be able to assault someone who is 3.1" away. You'd either be short 0.1" or you'd be on top of their base when you measured 4", and I'm pretty sure the rulebook specifically mentions that's a no-go.

 

 

 

 

Additionally:

RZ must be towards the nearest unit. The distance is optional as per Consolidate.

 

Consolidate gives you options on both direction and distance. RZ takes away the option on direction, leaving the option on distance.

There is no conflict between distance being optional and being forced to move.

 

You get 4" on the roll. You move 1". You have taken advantage of the optional distance and satisfied the requirement to move.

 

The forced aspect of RZ only takes away the option of (not)moving 0".

[ChessMaster]

My 2 cents

 

First, a review

 

Consolidate:

You MAY move up to d6 towards any direction

 

Righteous Zeal:

You MUST MOVE towards the nearest visible unit after passing a morale test. This is Identical to consolidation.

 

I really don't see which part of the movement is optional. The RZ does not say you MAY move. It says you MUST. Consolidation says you may move UP to d6. This is normally 0 to 6 inches. But zero is not an option (since you MUST move). What I usually do in RZ cases which I don't want to move is just move 1 inch. I don't think not moving at all is an option. It is clearly stated in the rule that you must move, and this ovverides the "may" option of the consolidate rule.

[shatter]

Righteous Zeal, eh?

 

I'm surprised to see the usage of the less known rule Righteous Mild Enthusiasm.

 

:D

[Roesor]

Exactly, it is a 'must' movement, the 'like a consolidation move' simply refers to how it is done, i.e. rolling a d6. Because obviously it isn't exactly the same.

[Dan VK]

If RZ is played as being identical to a Consolidation Move then....

 

1. You don't have to move (and therefore are not forced).

2. You can may in any direction, including away from the enemy.

My 2 cents

 

First, a review

 

Consolidate:

You MAY move up to d6 towards any direction

 

Righteous Zeal:

You MUST MOVE towards the nearest visible unit after passing a morale test. This is Identical to consolidation.

 

I really don't see which part of the movement is optional. The RZ does not say you MAY move. It says you MUST. Consolidation says you may move UP to d6. This is normally 0 to 6 inches. But zero is not an option (since you MUST move). What I usually do in RZ cases which I don't want to move is just move 1 inch. I don't think not moving at all is an option. It is clearly stated in the rule that you must move, and this ovverides the "may" option of the consolidate rule.

Righteous Zeal states the unit must move towards the nearest visible enemy unit. This is identical to a Consolidate move (C:BT page 23)

 

The problem is that forcing the unit to move is not identical to a Consolidate move. The move is identical to a Consolidate move except in the ways it is stated to be different ("towards the nearest visible enemy unit"), or the rule contradicts itself in the same paragraph, making the rule unusable.

[BigDunc]

The rule does contradict itself and the only logical solution is to ignore the word 'identical'.

 

 

I've edited my above comment like 5 times now, which address some of the comments made below it.

[BigDunc]

Also, if movement was not required, why doesn't the codex say "... and passes it, the unit moves towards the nearest visible enemy unit." ?? "Must" is not required in order to convey the required direction, so why include it? Because it grammatically accomplishes both the requirement to move and the direction that must be moved.

[Algesan]

The only reason I went back to the old 4th Ed rules is because the RZ rule was written during 4th and the entire "identical to Consolidation" sentence sounded a bit awkward, especially with the reference to "Massacre" which according to the BT FAQ would toss the entire sentence.

 

The only thing I see "identical" is the method of determining the distance of the move in 4th Ed and is not relevant in 5th Ed, so the reference to "identical to Consolidate move achieved by Massacre result" (paraphrase) can be discarded. The intent was that the BT under the effects of RZ must move d6" towards nearest visible enemy unit.

 

I come to the conclusion that the full distance rolled must be moved unless otherwise blocked because that is a better read of the original intent. Also, shatter said it for me better than I could about shaving the movement:

 

Righteous Zeal, eh?

 

I'm surprised to see the usage of the less known rule Righteous Mild Enthusiasm.

 

:P

[Marshal Wilhelm]

My 2 cents

 

First, a review

 

Consolidate:

You MAY move up to d6 towards any direction

 

Righteous Zeal:

You MUST MOVE towards the nearest visible unit after passing a morale test. This is Identical to consolidation.

 

I really don't see which part of the movement is optional. The RZ does not say you MAY move. It says you MUST. Consolidation says you may move UP to d6. This is normally 0 to 6 inches. But zero is not an option (since you MUST move). What I usually do in RZ cases which I don't want to move is just move 1 inch. I don't think not moving at all is an option. It is clearly stated in the rule that you must move, and this ovverides the "may" option of the consolidate rule.

 

Consolidate:

You may move up to d6"

You may move in any direction

 

RZ:

You must move towards the nearest enemy.

 

Therefore

You may move up to d6"

On moving, it must be towards the nearest enemy.

 

RZ never talks about distance, it only talks about direction. Only Consolidate talks about distance and gives it as "up to" [optional]

[BigDunc]

What Marshal Wilhelm is saying is that RZ only touches on one thing, the required direction. The 'must' is in relation to the required direction, not the requirement to move. Think of it like this:

 

...you must MOVE TOWARDS THE NEAREST....

 

Though I can see this interpretation, I don't agree with it. While the capitalized emphasis might work, there's still the word 'must' and 'move' in the same sentence, one after the other, and this interpretation just doesn't feel right. It could say for example:

 

...[RZ] must be towards the nearest visible enemy....

 

But it doesn't. Perhaps GW intended for the move to be optional, but they screwed up the wording like they screwed up when they added 'identical' to the paragraph. To me, the wording is too strong in favor of requiring a move and a direction.

 

 

RZ never talks about distance, it only talks about direction. Only Consolidate talks about distance and gives it as "up to" [optional]

Consolidate talks about distance being optional up to a maximum; RZ states the minimum required distance (anything allowed by Consolidate but not 0").

 

There is no conflict between distance being optional and being forced to move.

 

You get 4" on the roll. You move 1". You have taken advantage of the optional distance and satisfied the requirement to move.

 

The forced aspect of RZ only takes away the option of (not) moving 0".

[Roesor]

It's quite simple...

^_^! They killed Jim! Let's get the bastards!!! CHARGE!

 

Think about the actual context, it's a move that is the result of a loss of a squad member, designed to show their blind rage towards the enemy at losing a battle brother, they wouldn't run 'a short way' they would run as far as they could. And they are templars, they would run, unless they were so devstated by the loss that they would fall back.

You must move, you must move the whole D6 if possible. Despite whether or not it's tactically advisable,

NEOPHYTE JIM IS DEAD! TACTICS BE DAMMED!

The only thing, the ONLY thing that alters this is a Chaplin. WHo thinks for a brief second and proclaims that the unit that shot Jim is there! *points* And it would just so happen that it would make greater tactical sense to kill that squad also.

 

As for it affecting gtg.

If you are gtg then you are NOT pinned. You cannot be pinned, unless you take a pinning test, no test no pin, even weapons that would automatically pin would actually only mean that the pinning test auto fails.

Therefore RZ morale tests can be taken because gtg is not pinned.

Returning to normal after enemy action causing a move.

It's a move. You have to do it (distance being still arguable). It is ONLY ever caused by enemy action.

Ergo...you return to normal. Ergo you move. Ergo... You goddamn charge. You're not an Ultramarine. You are a Templar.

 

...and they. Killed. Jim.

[Dan VK]

It's quite simple...

:cuss! They killed Jim! Let's get the bastards!!! CHARGE!

 

Think about the actual context, ...

Unfortunately, while fluff context may help to interpret what the designers were trying to write, it does not change what the designers actually did write (which I think you interpreted correctly, I should note). Your post, however, is absolutely epic.

 

For Jim! ;)

[Roesor]

That is also true, I mean...if they printed a mistake or something that they didn't think was clear, it would be in the errata or FAQ, so whatever is written is what it is.

And do not mourn for jim, he died doing what he loved, being dragged in front of his mentor to be used as a storm shield.

[Hellios]

That is also true, I mean...if they printed a mistake or something that they didn't think was clear, it would be in the errata or FAQ, so whatever is written is what it is.

And do not mourn for jim, he died doing what he loved, being dragged in front of his mentor to be used as a storm shield.

 

I hope you are joking... but just in case I'm going to do something now!

 

 

 

*facepalm*

[Roesor]

I'll see your facepalm and raise you an arse sah!

 

*moons*