'Slingshotting'

[Dan VK]

Yeah, I'm well aware of that post. "At the end of their movement phase" in my eyes only refers to the Movement Phase itself being a shared phase between all models owned by the same player. The end of the sentence has less bearing on the action than the beginning, which clearly states "an independant character simply has to move..."

It has been a long thread and I was not sure whether you missed the post or disagreed with it. My apologies, I was not trying to start another argument while everyone is attempting to summarize.

[Brother Tual]

Good O.

 

 

The consensus is slingshotting is bad. The main reason being 'move at the slowest model' rule. Happy days.

 

 

The consequence of this will be an IC attached to an infantry squad at the begining of any turn will ever only be able to move 6".

 

 

Do we agree? it cant go both ways. The IC is either part of the unit (determined at the time of moving) or the IC is free to move his full movement as he detaches. One way allows slingshotting, the other doesnt. We cant pick and choose when to apply this rule.

 

 

Are we happy with this?

[greatcrusade08]

actually the rules are not mutually exclusive, the reason slingshotting cant work, is not that you cant move at your full allowance when you 'detach' its that by detaching and reattaching in the same turn could be interpreted as never having left the unit, and thus the movement limitation would still apply

 

at least thats the way ive been arguing it

[Gentlemanloser]

The consequence of this will be an IC attached to an infantry squad at the begining of any turn will ever only be able to move 6".

 

Totally agreed.

[dswanick]

The consequence of this will be an IC attached to an infantry squad at the begining of any turn will ever only be able to move 6".

 

Totally agreed.

Yes, I do agree that ^this is the strictly RAW-correct interpretation. And that a JI IC being able to jump 12" away from a foot Infantry unit on the "intent" of his detaching, while sane/gentlemanly/logical, is RAI. An RAI that leads to the possibility of this slippery slope "legal loophole".

[thade]

What? haha

 

If an IC starts the Movement phase attached and then ends the Movment phase attached, his movement was (or should have been) restricted by the unit he was with. (In our running example of a JP IC with a tac squad, he can only move 6".)

 

If an IC starts the Movement phase attached to unit A but then ends the Movement phase detached from unit A (whether he is attached to something else or not) then his movement was not restricted. (He could have moved his full 12".)

 

The crux, of course, is that if the IC ends attached to Unit B and then Unit A moves up to attach again...well the rule has been broken, because this means they've stayed together but the IC's movement was not restricted as it should have been.

 

Those two statements follow from the conclusions we've drawn and don't conflict with the rules we've seen. The real trouble (which you are all highlighting) is that this requires the controller to be clear on intent. This may seem weird, but it's not, really. Not when you're nice about it anyway. <3

 

EDIT: Clarification.

[Something Wycked]

That's incorporating RAI into the argument, thade. While I agree with you that is how it should work, for the purposes of RAW and the +OR+ the IC cannot move faster than the attached unit whether his intent is to detach or not. :)

[thade]

Define "stays together with."

 

If by "stays together with" the rules mean he's attached at the start and the end of the phase, then I'm correct.

 

If by "stays together with" the rules mean he's with the unit the entire time, then I'm correct.

 

If by "stays together with" the rules mean he's with the unit at all, then I'm incorrect.

 

Since the last of these three statements is in contradiction with the usual meaning of "stays together with", it must be invalid.

 

So...what am I missing?

 

EDIT: Previously what I was missing was a word.

[dswanick]

So...what am I missing?

I think what you're missing is that the maximum speed of the JP IC is determined at the time you start the combined units move. While it would be nice if the JP IC could move 12" on the intent to detach from the squad, you actually (by RAW) select the combined unit to move, all models may only move 6" (the speed of the slowest non-JP member), the IC is moved out of unit coherency distance (only being allowed to move 6" by virtue of it being a combined unit), and then is detached - at which point it is too late for the IC to move 12" because the combined JP IC & non-JP squad unit has already made its move. A 6" move.

[thade]

This gets back to some of my original points (which were lost somehow?).

 

Define "stays together with".

 

You cannot. The rules do not. That's the Grey Area. :\ That's where I'm at.

[Something Wycked]

Its all in my summation ;) A combined unit moves at the speed of the slowest model and there are no incremental moves, so a fast moving IC does not gain more movement speed once he moves outside of coherency distance, and coherency is checked only at the end of the phase.

 

So, technically, an IC moving with the intent to leave a unit "stays together with" it until the end of the phase when he is officially determined to be outside of coherency.

 

Again, this is the RAW/+OR+ interpretation as I see it, but I believe in gentlemanly games the IC should be able to have full movement speed if he is, in fact, detaching from the unit. If he's leaving, he's leaving, and firing up the jump pack is a great way to get gone.

 

Edit: the middle line here ("So, technically...") is my not-so-official definition of "stays together with." I think its as simple as that. The IC "stays together with" the unit until he is determined to be outside of coherency distance at the end of the Movement Phase. If he is still in coherency, he is "staying together with" the unit for another turn.

[thade]

Let me emphasize here that it is neither my intention nor desire to be a jerk by belaboring this. I am honestly uncertain that it's settled, thus I persist.

 

The IC's movement is only restricted when he "stays together with" the unit, recall. So, you are implicitly defining "stays together with" to be "attached at the start of the phase". If you see why this doesn't make sense, well, neither do I: that is in fact the source of my confusion.

 

The rules do not define what "stays together with" means; the conventional meaning leads to the IC being able to move his full distance if his intention is to detach. Is that RAI? Yes. Is there clear RAW? No.

[Something Wycked]

I'm exactly defining it as such. The RAW do not allow for detaching an IC from a combined unit except at the end of the Movement Phase; therefore the IC "stays together with" the unit until he is determined to be out of coherency distance at the end of the Movement Phase. No outright definition of "stays together with" is needed, as the mechanics for when to separate the IC from the unit are there.

[Morollan]

I think Something Wycked has summed up my own argument and my thoughts on the subject which haven't really changed in the week since I originally raised the issue of being limited by the speed of the unit he's with at the start of the movement phase (post #80 if anyone's interested).

 

This does mean that an IC only ever gets 6" movement on the turn he detaches from an infantry unit. In all honesty though, in most games I'd not object to someone moving the IC 12" (assuming he's got a jump pack of course!) if he is genuinely leaving the unit but if someone attempted to do so in order to get a slingshot on the same unit then I'm happy that I've got a RAW argument to tell him why he can't. I don't have a problem with the slingshot maneouvre itself but trying to use an attached IC to give this to the unit he's already attached to is, IMO, cheating.

[Gentlemanloser]

A combined unit moves at the speed of the slowest model and there are no incremental moves, so a fast moving IC does not gain more movement speed once he moves outside of coherency distance, and coherency is checked only at the end of the phase.

 

So, technically, an IC moving with the intent to leave a unit "stays together with" it until the end of the phase when he is officially determined to be outside of coherency.

 

Yup.

 

This exactly.

 

You can't move the IC 2.1" (at a max speed of 6" per turn, s when the unit moves, he's a part of it), then say "he's out of coherency distance, now I get to change his max move to 12".

[Grimtooth]

What? haha

 

If an IC starts the Movement phase attached and then ends the Movment phase attached, his movement was (or should have been) restricted by the unit he was with. (In our running example of a JP IC with a tac squad, he can only move 6".)

 

If an IC starts the Movement phase attached to unit A but then ends the Movement phase detached from unit A (whether he is attached to something else or not) then his movement was not restricted. (He could have moved his full 12".)

 

The crux, of course, is that if the IC ends attached to Unit B and then Unit A moves up to attach again...well the rule has been broken, because this means they've stayed together but the IC's movement was not restricted as it should have been.

 

Those two statements follow from the conclusions we've drawn and don't conflict with the rules we've seen. The real trouble (which you are all highlighting) is that this requires the controller to be clear on intent. This may seem weird, but it's not, really. Not when you're nice about it anyway. <3

 

EDIT: Clarification.

 

Which is the crux of my argument.

 

The only way that the loophole becomes possible is by believing that the rules justify a unit moving within 2" of an IC anf forcing the IC to join. My present indicative argument shuts the door on this loophole because it puts the requirement on the IC to place himself within 2" when he moves, not when another unit moves.

 

This semantics game over, "their" and "their" to justify the loophole is just that, a game. The rule as written, despite what some of you believe, is more then sufficient to prevent this loophole when the present indicative is taken as it is written,

[Morollan]

My present indicative argument shuts the door on this loophole because it puts the requirement on the IC to place himself within 2" when he moves, not when another unit moves.

 

This semantics game over, "their" and "their" to justify the loophole is just that, a game. The rule as written, despite what some of you believe, is more then sufficient to prevent this loophole when the present indicative is taken as it is written,

 

Why is is semantics to argue over 'their' but not over 'is'? In any event, grammatically your argument doesn't hold water. Does anyone have a problem with "The game is over when the final turn ends"? Could you instead say "The game will be over when..."? Yes. Does it alter the meaning? No. They both mean the same thing and exactly the same applies in the IC rules when talking about coherency.

[Brother Tual]

This does mean that an IC only ever gets 6" movement on the turn he detaches from an infantry unit. In all honesty though, in most games I'd not object to someone moving the IC 12" (assuming he's got a jump pack of course!)

 

Cake and eat it too... You cant allow or deny this movement based on if you agree with the intent of the player. It is either illegal or not.

 

I believe moving an IC that is able to at full distance from any parent unit is legal. The intent of the player does not matter. If this is slingshotting, so be it.

 

I think 'whilst part of' means exactly that and the 'slowest model rule' applies only if the IC begins, moves with and ends his movement with the unit. The IC can detach from a unit during the movement phase and breaks coherency at this point, not at the end of the phase, and is no longer considered 'part of'. The IC does what ever he wants, moving at full pace or not, joining any other unit or not, if a unit (even the original) ends their turn within 2" the IC can join it.

 

Why? The IC is only restricted whilst part of a parent unit. Remains with means exactly that. Not begins and then ends with but remains with.

 

Coherency is normally determined at the end of the phase - the IC can break this rule because his own rules state he breaks coherency DURING this phase. The normal coherency rules only apply if the IC ends his movement as part of a unit. It is crazy talk saying an IC is only considered to move out of coherency at the end of the movement phase. The rules STATE differently.

 

I have always seen the game played this way. No one has ever stopped anyone moving IC's at full distance. I dont think it is right to deny something because you dont like it. I prefer to allow slingshotting, which I have never seen used, than deny freedom of movement with IC's which is normal. Imagine saying to someone moving shrike from a unit of terminators... sorry mate, you can only move him 6". Pfft. Good luck.

 

I vote for Tual +1. -_- Free IC's.

[Morollan]

This does mean that an IC only ever gets 6" movement on the turn he detaches from an infantry unit. In all honesty though, in most games I'd not object to someone moving the IC 12" (assuming he's got a jump pack of course!)

 

Cake and eat it too... You cant allow or deny this movement based on if you agree with the intent of the player. It is either illegal or not.

 

It's illegal. The point I was making, I thought fairly clearly, is that despite it being illegal I don't have a problem with it if it's not being used to abuse the rules and I'd normally let it slide. Try to cheese me with this "He started with the unit and ended with the unit but he's not with the unit really" crap and I'll bring up the RAW.

 

I believe moving an IC that is able to at full distance from any parent unit is legal. The intent of the player does not matter. If this is slingshotting, so be it.

 

I think 'whilst part of' means exactly that and the 'slowest model rule' applies only if the IC begins, moves with and ends his movement with the unit. The IC can detach from a unit during the movement phase and breaks coherency at this point, not at the end of the phase, and is no longer considered 'part of'. The IC does what ever he wants, moving at full pace or not, joining any other unit or not, if a unit (even the original) ends their turn within 2" the IC can join it.

 

Why? The IC is only restricted whilst part of a parent unit. Remains with means exactly that. Not begins and then ends with but remains with.

 

Coherency is normally determined at the end of the phase - the IC can break this rule because his own rules state he breaks coherency DURING this phase. The normal coherency rules only apply if the IC ends his movement as part of a unit. It is crazy talk saying an IC is only considered to move out of coherency at the end of the movement phase. The rules STATE differently.

 

I have always seen the game played this way. No one has ever stopped anyone moving IC's at full distance. I dont think it is right to deny something because you dont like it. I prefer to allow slingshotting, which I have never seen used, than deny freedom of movement with IC's which is normal. Imagine saying to someone moving shrike from a unit of terminators... sorry mate, you can only move him 6". Pfft. Good luck.

 

I vote for Tual +1. :) Free IC's.

 

You've gone through all that before and you're entitled to your opinion but I'm still not seeing the section of the rules that introduces incremental moves into the game. Until you can find that, you're wrong.

[Brother Tual]

Thats fine, good o.

 

The problem may arise,

 

Alpha strike shrike list - the main components - tactical squad and 10 TH/SS..

 

Shrike list is forced to go second.

 

Deploys defensively, shrike deploys with tactical squad in cover. Terminators go in reserve for deep strike.

 

Terminators come in on turn 2. 14" away from tacticals. Shrike jumps from tacticals to join terminators. Both units run...

 

Are you happy with allowing this move?

 

Turn three - you have moved away from the TH/SS and shrike is at the rear of the unit. I detach shrike and jump him forth - terminators follow up and re-join. Fleet and assault you.

 

When do you stop this?

 

How legitimate is your stance after you have allowed it once but deny it a second time because you dont like the result or intention?

 

Can you see the difficulty? it is confusing.

 

EDIT -

 

IC's change their status during the movement phase. They can stay with a unit or break away from it during the movment phase. They are the only unit that can. The result is their movement is altered by their status which can be changed during the movement phase. This is problematic. I agree. How do you apply this? The 'move at the slowest' rule is a clumbsy fit at best. Circles for square holes...

[Marshal Wilhelm]

actually the rules are not mutually exclusive, the reason slingshotting cant work, is not that you cant move at your full allowance when you 'detach' its that by detaching and reattaching in the same turn could be interpreted as never having left the unit, and thus the movement limitation would still apply

 

at least thats the way ive been arguing it

 

I agree. You cannot leave a unit and still be there, unless you are Dr. Who. Leaving it constitues for the rest of your turn. Which is why Stelek's slingshotting doesn't work. As per "move at the slowest, whilst attached" clarifier.

 

If you do leave the unit, it can be at full noise. As per Bike, Jumper, etc, rules.

 

Gain the benefit of being hidden in the unit? Lose some mobility.

Lose the benefit of being hidden in the unit? Gain former mobility.

[Something Wycked]

Okay, Tual. If ever I play you, it will be 100% disallowed instead of being gentlemanly. Satisfied? :lol:

 

There's an easy fix for the issue you bring up. Ask your opponent if he's familiar with the slingshot maneuver.

If he says no, you're golden.

 

If he says yes, ask if he intends to use it.

If he says no, you're golden.

 

If he says yes, have this discussion and resolve it satisfactorily or don't play that opponent ^_^

 

Further, leaving one unit to join another at full speed is specifically allowed by gentlemanly agreement- you're not "leaving" and "rejoining" the same unit and thus restricted by the "moves at the slowest" rule. But when you "leave" and "rejoin" the same unit, and moved the IC's full movement allowance, that's an illegal move.

 

Also note that the above paragraph is not to be used for this discussion as it does not concern the +OR+ and RAW, it is a gentlemanly agreement about the rules. By RAW and +OR+ standards, the IC moves at the speed of the slowest model he was attached to at the beginning of the phase.

[Brother Tual]

Happy days, problem fixed?

 

I dont slingshot and I hardly ever attach IC's with 12" moves to infantry. It is a rare thing to actually see on the table.

 

I have never questioned IF an IC can move his full distance on leaving a unit. I dare say 99% of players would not either. With this previous experience in mind I couldnt see how slingshotting is NOT supported by RAW. It seems the few here have shown 99% of gamers to be playing the game are wrong and that is a hard pill to swallow. More so when latter posts say it is gentlemanly to allow a 'cheat' move providing it is not, or leading to a slingshot move.

 

With that, slingshotting is not supported by RAW because an IC can only move as fast as the slowest model in the unit he starts the turn with. Do we all see eye to eye?

[Morollan]

With that, slingshotting is not supported by RAW because an IC can only move as fast as the slowest model in the unit he starts the turn with. Do we all see eye to eye?

 

looks into Brother Tual's eye

 

Aye!

[Gentlemanloser]

It seems the few here have shown 99% of gamers to be playing the game are wrong and that is a hard pill to swallow

 

Tell me aobut it!

 

When I tried to explain to folk that last expansion, you could not allocate that Lascannon shot at the unit of Tac marine to the attached Chappy to use his Invulnerable save on it...

 

>_<

 

Aye!

 

Seconded

/salute

 

/target all

/hug