'Slingshotting'

[Morollan]

What is not agreed on,

 

An IC is part of a unit until the end of the movement phase (or unit movement - what ever. It makes no difference) however can leave coherency prior to this check but is considered part of this unit until this check.

 

An IC is not part of a unit as soon as he leaves through moving 2" away and is not required to be in coherency. There is no coherency check for the IC. The IC is his own unit on leaving.

 

Do we agree this is the issue?

 

Essentially, yes.

 

We have all been playing the game wrong an Morollan is right. IC's cannot move more than the slowest model of the original parent unit.

 

Not really fair to conclude that I'm the only person who considers this to be the way the game is played. Other people have agreed with me during the debate and you cannot speak for the entire 40k community anymore than I can.

 

When does an IC leave a unit? End of movement phase.

Post #260. Argument 2. Wrong. The rules state DURING. The IC leaves during the movement phase and is determined to have broken coherency at this point.

 

I already confirmed that the phrasing of that part of my post was wrong. I should have said "When does an IC leave a unit? After his movement". Is that still during the movement phase? I think so. RAW.

 

The IC can split off during the movement phase but the check to determine coherency is at the end of the movement phase. Until that time he is bound by the 'move at the speed of the slowest' rule. I've not seen any argument that successfully refutes that point.

This doesnt make sense. An IC can leave the unit but hasnt left it? What? Thats not what the rules say any way, The say 'leave a unit by moving out of coherency distance..' This is when the IC left. Not at the end of the turn. The unit checks for coherency at the end of the turn. Not what is IN the unit is checked at the end of the turn.

 

IC is part of unit at start of turn. Move the IC and, after movement, check coherency. If he's >2" he's no longer part of the unit.

 

Argument 3. If you say an IC is not part of the unit, how can you say he remained with the unit even if he begins and ends within 2" of the unit? Slingshotting is legal.

 

There's no internal consistency to that argument and it does leave the door open to slingshotting, despite GC08 saying it was illegal.

 

Only one of the above versions is RAW. The other two rely on inferences or interpretaions to be true. (obviously the parts I highlighted reflect this.)

 

I still vote for me +1.

 

Your argument relies on your interpretation of movement rules and the non-RAW system of incremental movement because you believe that the IC detaches at >2" and gains extra movement. There is no RAW to support this stance.

 

The game is not difficult. If 99% play it this way, it is the right way because it is THE way the game is played, unless you only play that 1% that do it differently.

 

Again, I don't think you speak for the whole 40k community, or even 99% of it. In any event, this is the OR Forum not an opinion poll.

[Something Wycked]

Well-summed, GC08. Comments:

 

argument one: (ala stelek)

I'm fairly certain we've all agreed this is illegal.

 

argument 2

The argument put together by a few of us that I've cleaved to for the last few pages.

 

argument 3

An Ic only has to move at the slowest speed whilst he remains with the unit, he can seperate during the movement phase and therefore isnt restricted to the slowest movement of his former unit.

the rules on page 48 show that if an Ic seperates froma unit that unit is not considered to have moved giving credence o the argument that he seperates when he moves and not at the end of the phase

This does seem to have some logic to it, but it ignores the "moves at the slowest" rule entirely. Ignoring this rule while moving away from the squad but reapplying the rule if trying to rejoin an IC to the squad he just left is rather problematic and not supported by RAW. Ergo, if this argument is correct, then Stelek's slingshot is necessarily legal as well. :P

 

When does an IC leave a unit? End of movement phase.

Post #260. Argument 2. Wrong. The rules state DURING.

Ahem... Wrong. Of course the rules state "during" the Movement Phase; the end of the phase is during the phase, isn't it? What other phase can the IC leave? Shooting? Assualt? No, neither. He leaves during the Movement Phase, the exact timing of which happens at the end of the move.

[Brother Tual]

To re-attach you have to seperate. To seperate you have to NOT remain together. It doesnt take into account if parent unit is both the original and final unit. There is no rule stating this or anyting remotely close to this. If an IC is deemed to have left a unit, you cannot consider the IC to have remained with the unit under any circumstances because he has left it (even if only during movement)

[greatcrusade08]

keep arguing amongst yourselves.

slingshotting is illegal and Ics can move their maximum distance when seperating from a unit, thats how ive always played it, the rules speak to this (unless you interpret them differently)

and everyone i know plays the same.

 

im done, im getting bored of this and dont want to start getting annoyed

 

To re-attach you have to seperate. To seperate you have to NOT remain together. It doesnt take into account if parent unit is both the original and final unit. There is no rule stating this or anyting remotely close to this. If an IC is deemed to have left a unit, you cannot consider the IC to have remained with the unit under any circumstances because he has left it (even if only during movement)

i will anser this with a question.

how can you have left a unit, if your attached to them at the end of the turn?

you cant claim to have seperated just to avoid the move at the slowest speed rule.

[Brother Tual]

the exact timing of which happens at the end of the phase.

 

Nup. The exact timing is when the model is moved 2". The unit is checked for coherency at the end of the phase. The IC is not part of the unit as soon as he moves that 2" away. Coherency check with original parent unit not required.

 

Again, I don't think you speak for the whole 40k community, or even 99% of it.

True. I have played alot of games in alot of tournaments V alot of players and alot of those players are highly respected players (in the 40K circles in AU) and this is how the game is played. 100% of my 15 years of gaming has seen IC's move at full distance irrespective of parent units when the IC detaches. I gave 1% to the few posting otherwise here but it is more likely to be less than 0.1% of actual gamers. Benefit of the doubt.

 

im done, im getting bored of this

I change my vote... GC08 +1 :P

 

I agreed with the consensus here to end this. I am still going to play the game how I and my gaming partners have always done. This thread has no applicable answer.

[Something Wycked]

100% of my 15 years of gaming has seen IC's move at full distance irrespective of parent units when the IC detaches.

Its how my friends and I play the game, too. ;) But this happens to be the +OR+ and RAW is king here, not how the game should be played :P

[thade]

The question remains, when does the IC's state change? I.E. when does he detach? Upon his initial movement (when he intends to detach) or at the end of the phase, when the measurement is taken? We have two possible cases, which orbit the same word: "intent".

 

1. If intent to detach is enough, he may move his full movement.

 

2. If intent to detach is not enough, he may not.

 

"Stays together with" is based upon intent. You can't really know what a player intends (unless he's a really nice guy) when he moves his IC, only what he appears to intend given the state of things at the end of his Movement phase. If the IC "stays together with" his or her unit, his or her movement is restricted. When the IC is leaving the unit, the IC is no longer "staying together with" the unit; that is, the IC intends to detach.

 

What does "stays together with" really mean? How do you determine whether a player intended for an IC to stay together with a unit or not?

 

That is still the quandary as I see it.

[Gentlemanloser]

and this is how the game is played.

 

I'd just like reiterate my point about Chappies and Lascannons in the last edition.

 

Even if 100% of he games played it that way, it wasn't how the rules worked. :P