Jump to content

Furioso Librarian


Brother Joseph

Recommended Posts

I would say you cannot move. When you are imobilized you are not allowed to move in any way. Wings of Sanguinius only gives you the possibility to move like Jump-infantry, so it allows you a special way of movement but not movement in general. So if movement is prohibited WoS does have no effect.

 

Cheers

Sang

I disagree. This is a psychic power, not an actual physical movement. Psychic powers would not necessarily require use of one's limbs. I would think that, since other psychic powers are still operational, this would be as well. Of course, this would only be in the movement phase and would not allow the dreadnought to assault under any circumstances.

 

Just my two cents.

the way its written, it changes the way you move. It isn't like POTMS where it says you can do something even when you can't. If it can't MOVE then it can't MOVE as jump infantry, because it can't move in the first place. The power augments the movement. just my .02

This q has come up a few times and the short answer in some people say yes and some people say no. Its yet anothr example of GW coming up with a fun new idea then not actually thinking of all the implications. The best thing seems to be to come to a consensus in your looking gaming group or with your opponent before the game starts.

 

My 2 cents, yes you can move in the movement phase with the wings but not in the assault phase. Also any decision would also impact on the "can an imobilised vehicle be magna grappled" debate as well.

 

The problem is that its back the the usual issue of RAW vs narrative and fluff consistency.

Immobilized - Can't move

 

Moving 12" via jump pack has the word Move in it.

This.

 

That.

 

Those.

 

It's not GW's fault that everybody tries to logic their way around to their advantage. Only other option they have is writing an extra tedious, bureaucratic manuscript of at least 700 pages with every single action and how it affects every single situation, and vice versa. Much like WotC did with magic:the gathering, just because players are prone to rewire their logic to exploiting stuff or too daft to understand causality.

Also any decision would also impact on the "can an imobilised vehicle be magna grappled" debate as well.

 

My thoughts on this are similar to my thoughts on the OT: an immobilized vehicle is immobilized do to some form of mechanical error/damage that has incapacitated its normal, mechanically-driven movement. That does not prevent non-mechanically driven movement due to dragging/pushing the model with another, psychic powers that enable magical forms of transportation (be they teleportation or sprouting psychically constructed wings), or any sort of effect by a weapon that may move the model through inertia of the blast/beam/whatever, gravity distortion, or through some other means.

 

It's just logical. In the real world, if my car is immobilized and I attach a wench to a suitably sturdy and well-planted object, I can drag my car anywhere I want. Similarly, if the same immobilized car happens to be targeted with a particular weapon with enough inertial force, my car is going to go flying. It doesn't matter that it is immobilized.

 

On the OT, the FAQ states that a Furioso Librarian can still use a psychic shooting attack if all weapons are destroyed. I equate this situation with an immobilized vehicle trying to make a psychic movement. To say that a vehicle with disabled weapons can make a psychic shooting attack but that a vehicle with disabled mechanical movement can't make a psychic move would be a bit pick-and-choose-ish. It would seem that you should either be able to do both or neither.

Think about it, you've got buggered legs, no movement, no control. ou spread your wings, take off and try to land on legs that don't work....

 

It's common sense that imobile dreads can't use wings.

 

This

 

 

No way.

 

 

I know the lib cant move because hes immobile, but seriously it seems counter-intuitive.

 

If he can make a giant piece of metal fly through the air with his thoughts, why couldn't he stop it falling over?

 

No, it makes more sense to me that he can indeed move with Wings rather then not, but its been FAQ'd so its a moot point.

I know the lib cant move because hes immobile, but seriously it seems counter-intuitive.

 

If he can make a giant piece of metal fly through the air with his thoughts, why couldn't he stop it falling over?

 

No, it makes more sense to me that he can indeed move with Wings rather then not, but its been FAQ'd so its a moot point.

 

What makes sense and what the rules say are generally quite different.

the way the rule is written, it "allows the libby to move as if he had a jump pack". Now, rules wise, the psychic power isnt an extra move, it isn't a "he must choose to either use his mechanical legs and go 6" or use his extra special psychicness!!" all the psychic power does is augment his movement. WoS allows dread to move 12" like jump pack. Immobilized doesn't allow dread to move. If dread can't move, it can't MOVE as if it had a jump pack. I'm not seeing where the confusion is, seems pretty cut and dry to me...
the way the rule is written, it "allows the libby to move as if he had a jump pack". Now, rules wise, the psychic power isnt an extra move, it isn't a "he must choose to either use his mechanical legs and go 6" or use his extra special psychicness!!" all the psychic power does is augment his movement. WoS allows dread to move 12" like jump pack. Immobilized doesn't allow dread to move. If dread can't move, it can't MOVE as if it had a jump pack. I'm not seeing where the confusion is, seems pretty cut and dry to me...

 

This.

Just because something is written ambiguously, doesn't mean people who try and find the literal explanation for it are 'logicking their way to an advantage'. It might not even be an advantage

 

That's the thing. It's not written ambiguously. It makes perfect sense by all rules interpretations. Twisting and turning, trying to find a way to make the Wings power work when it has clearly been stated NOT to work is pretty much the exact definition of "Logicking their way to an advantage".

Just because something is written ambiguously, doesn't mean people who try and find the literal explanation for it are 'logicking their way to an advantage'. It might not even be an advantage

 

That's the thing. It's not written ambiguously. It makes perfect sense by all rules interpretations. Twisting and turning, trying to find a way to make the Wings power work when it has clearly been stated NOT to work is pretty much the exact definition of "Logicking their way to an advantage".

 

And it definitely WOULD be an advantage, in this case

Now it has been FAQed, yes. But the issue had never arisen before. So when people suddenly saw the possibility of the psychic power allowing a vehicle to move as Jump Infantry it threw up a new rules conundrum.

 

It's healthy to analyse wordings of rules. In this instance, it would be an advantage and is also a misinterpretation of the wording, but it is not always so.

Now it has been FAQed, yes. But the issue had never arisen before. So when people suddenly saw the possibility of the psychic power allowing a vehicle to move as Jump Infantry it threw up a new rules conundrum.

 

It's healthy to analyse wordings of rules. In this instance, it would be an advantage and is also a misinterpretation of the wording, but it is not always so.

 

Oh they did faq this? ...I must have an older version; when did the new one come out?

Now it has been FAQed, yes. But the issue had never arisen before. So when people suddenly saw the possibility of the psychic power allowing a vehicle to move as Jump Infantry it threw up a new rules conundrum.

 

It's healthy to analyse wordings of rules. In this instance, it would be an advantage and is also a misinterpretation of the wording, but it is not always so.

 

Oh they did faq this? ...I must have an older version; when did the new one come out?

 

i just checked the faq as well, and came up with nothin...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.