'Slingshotting'

[thade]

Well. I've purposefully avoided looking at this thread since it was put up...and today, I could no longer help myself. I have only myself to blame for the state of my stress level after having read it.

 

First off, I'm with Brother Ramses insofar as the merit-judgement of Stelek's motivtes...but that's besides the point.

 

ICs cannot join and leave the same unit during the Movement phase because that's not how it werks. (Not a typo.) If, at the end of the Movement phase, the IC is within 2" of a unit, he's attached to it: bam. If he's within 2" of more than one unit, he needs to choose which unit he's attached to: bam. This happens at the end of the Movement phase...not during. So, if he moves, then the unit moves and come the end of the phase he's in coherency with it, he's effectively never left it.

 

That's just semantics and - really - even if you disagree with me it changes nothing.

 

Next up...

 

I do this all the time. I have a Jump Reclusiarch that I start out with an assault squad and - once that jump team dies - he'll go and help other units out. He's got boss-movement, so I can get him where I need him. If I want one of my units to assault an enemy unit and he can lead them there, he will. It's both tactical and fluffy: he leaps in front of them all, screams some intimidating Litanies of Punching Things Really Hard, and he charges in...of course his unit (now attached to him) follows. They can't make the assault, but he can...so - via Response and, ultimately, Pile In! - that unit will be in the throws.

 

Calling it a Slingshot makes it sound like it's some cool shenanigan. Really, it's just the way the game works and - as shenanigans go - it's pretty light.

 

Finally, if this guy is "smart" enough to use his FNP-granting IC to "slingshot" his terminators up - thus exposing the FNP IC to getting engaged and killed by a Power Fist - well who can argue with him, really? ;)

 

What is the rules quandary here? ;)

[ShinyRhino]

What is the rules quandary here? ;)

 

The question of whether an IC can leave and rejoin the same unit in a single Movement phase without abiding by the "move at the speed of the slowest model" rule, essentially.

[thade]

(What's going to be funny here is when we all settle on ICs not being able to use their Jump Packs and still end up in coherency with the same unit which doesn't have jump packs...and it makes me a big jerk head for doing that a great deal.)

 

I need mah rulebook. Where specifically does it say a unit moves as fast as its slowest model? Is that in the IC rules? I don't believe it is. In which case, the ICs can just move as they wish and not worry about whether there's another IC in the unit to therefore be in coherency with a different unit or whatever. This is sort of bollocks...it's one thing to try and bend the rules for an advantage...but here there seem to be no rules to bend. @_@

 

End of the Movement Phase, point at each IC and declare what unit they're attached to if it's not obvious; if it is obvious, they're attached.

[breng77]

It states in the IC rules that the combined unit moves at the speed of the slowest model. An IC cannot leave and then rejoin the same unit as leaving and joining is determined at the end of the movement phase not at the end to the characters movement.

 

That said you can 'slingshot' a unit by moving characters in from other units.

[dswanick]

I need mah rulebook. Where specifically does it say a unit moves as fast as its slowest model? Is that in the IC rules? I don't believe it is.

For the love of the Emperor, thade - please tell me you're joking here :

INDEPENDENT CHARACTERS JOINING & LEAVING UNITS

{Second column, second bullet point}

• While an independent character is part of a unit he must obey the usual coherency rules. The combined unit moves and assaults at the speed of the slowest model while they stay together.

My understanding of this debate hinges, at least partially, on the contention that a jump-pack equipped IC can start previously attached to a unit, detach from the unit, move faster than the speed of the slowest model in the unit, and through the antics of a second IC end up the move phase attached to the same unit he started out the turn attached to without running afoul of the above quoted rule.

[thade]

I'm not joking. I actually don't have my rulebook on hand and - despite what seems to be popular belief - I do not have it word-for-word memorized. I actually did have the 3rd edition DnD player's guide memorized in that way...but I had a lot of free time in my first degree program. I was a psych major and a "free spirit".

 

The "combined unit"...the IC isn't judged as "combined" (or attached) with a unit until the end of each Movement phase. Why can't he move first and then still end up in coherency with a unit he otherwise would've outpaced?

 

We're gettin' dodgy here, gentlemen. Is he attached during the entire Movement phase unless he leaves? And why?

[dswanick]

The "combined unit"...the IC isn't judged as "combined" (or attached) with a unit until the end of each Movement phase. Why can't he move first and then still end up in coherency with a unit he otherwise would've outpaced?

So what, then, is the purpose of stating that a combined unit must move at the speed of the slowest model if an IC can detach from a unit at the start of each of it's movement phases, move as fast as it wants, and still become reattached to the same unit at the end of that movement phase?

[thade]

The "combined unit"...the IC isn't judged as "combined" (or attached) with a unit until the end of each Movement phase. Why can't he move first and then still end up in coherency with a unit he otherwise would've outpaced?

So what, then, is the purpose of stating that a combined unit must move at the speed of the slowest model if an IC can detach from a unit at the start of each of it's movement phases, move as fast as it wants, and still become reattached to the same unit at the end of that movement phase?

You have a veiled assumption here...which is that the rules as a whole are consistent and logical in regards such as this. ^_^ I think we have all proven empirically over our time here that - without a doubt - this is not the case. We have what we have and we do our best with it.

 

A more direct answer to your question: I'm just as confused as you are.

 

Sling-shotting seems to be legal...and it is also (technical term here) "mega dumb." So, instead of allowing something "mega dumb", I think instead this falls under GW's "What? Are you daft?" hidden FAQ and, really, you need only consider the end of the Movement phase for what the IC is attached to.

 

You can RAI stamp me for this, because the RAW is mind-blowingly stupid.

[thade]

Gah, the more I think about this the more it frustrates me! HOW CAN THIS EVEN BE A THING?! The rules seem to forbid a thing that you can still do via daisy-chaining Independent Characters about in some ludicrous rules-lawyer dance. It's either not allowed or allowed, so which is it?!

 

End of the phase, point at each IC and the units they're in coherency with. How they got there doesn't matter. Done.

 

That is how I've seen it played up until now. RAW is in pure and clearly defined contradiction here. RAI is the only answer. The alternative is madness.

 

Or, the technical term: mega dumb.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

It is pretty much a very mean tactic to use, and only seems to have some vague possibility of working because GW could in no way have predicted this. Yeah, they are pretty lose on common sense things, but this is obviously rorting the system, and so they would not have written against this.

 

It is hard for people who see it RAI to argue against it, because GW hasn't written against it. Why would they?

 

In any other situation, the Jumper IC tootles along at the same speed as the Infantry. Oh I guess GW didn't mean it, because Stelek has found what they "really" were getting at when GW wrote "move at the speed of the slowest member" part.

Mmmhmm.

 

This is clearly a case of shenanigans and, like other weird and wonderful interpretations of rules, is nigh on impossible to argue against with "proof" because it was never to be played in that way in the first place, so proof against it practically doesn't exist.

 

I would think not many people know about it, so don't worry about it.

Those who do know about it, probably won't play against you.

Those who do play against you, might not use it against you because they can see it is taking an advantage of poorly written rules and either are ashamed to stoop to it or realise that they would be burning bridges for the sake of a win.

 

Great you won, using a shonky tactic. And now you earn the anger of the rest of the club/LGS, etc.

 

So, imo, it just isn't an issue.

[Isiah]

This is a rules forum only remember. We ain't here to cast shenanigans on anyone if a rule allows (or doesn't disallow) a particular action to be undertaken. Have that moral discussion elsewhere. Here we just debate the rules issues as abstract problems to be worked through.

 

Cheers

I

[greatcrusade08]

well heres the thing

whether or not your are attached to a unit is judged at the end of the movement phase, but that doesnt mean at the beggining your magically not part of the unit.

the rules clearly state that if the Ic wishes to 'leave' the unit during the movement pahse he can do so by moving out of coherancy with them.

 

the argument stelek wants us to swallow is that he can choose to leave the unit during the movement phase and then by placing the faster moving Ic so that he is still within 2" at the end of the turn rejoin them at the end of the phase.. and infact doing this with 2 Ics creates a daisy chain effect.

 

i call shenaningans on that for two reasons, the first being the "move at the slowest speed of the unit" rule, clearly written in the IC rules section

the second is that you cannot be judged to have left a unit until at the end of the movement phase, the mechanic that allows you to leave a unit during movement is fine and good, however if hes still within coherancy at the end of the turn, he clearly hasnt 'left' the unit and therefore its a nonsensical argument to make.

 

these two points gentlemen are very clear, in terms of RAW they may not be written in stone, but by means of the two above rules the rulbeook does preclude the leaving and rejoining for slingshot tactic

it may not say you cant do it, but it doesnt allow you to do it either.

[thade]

I'm actually not calling shenanigans on people who do (or don't) try to make this fly; I'm actually calling shenanigans on the rule set itself. This is a pretty silly loophole...silly enough that it alone made me lose my temper a bit.

 

I'm good now. <3 But no clearer as to whether they intend this to be one way or another.

 

Around where I'm at we've been playing that they can leave and rejoin in the same Movement phase and I don't see that changing...so if you care what happens in Thade's neck of the woods, there it be. If you don't, well...it's cool as you're in your neck of the woods. :)

[nurglez]

My friends and I usually declare at the start of the movement phase "that this IC is going to detach", mainly for when moving through difficult terrain and splitting up, and we move either the IC or the squad, then the other one.

 

While slingshotting is legal, and a well planned one can greatly affect a game (giving a squad an extra 3+ inches for assault range), I agree that this kind of slingshotting is "illegal", perfectly legal if you detached the turn before, or were joined to a different unit.

 

If you start and end the movement phase in coherence with the squad, then you should have moved at the slowest speed, in my opinion.

[greatcrusade08]

While slingshotting is legal, and a well planned one can greatly affect a game

exactly, real slingshotting can work in many ways, such as leaving a few stragglers of a fast moving unit (JP. bikes etc) so that you can join a chaplain, priest or whatever, thet way when you charge you do so with bonuses, re-rolls or furious charge for example.

its tactical.

[thade]

its tactical.

No. No, it is not. :)

 

It is not tactical. It is not elegant. It is definitely not on purpose. It is an oversight.

 

The rules specifically state that an attached IC and his unit move only as fast as the slowest model in it. That this can be circumvented by joining a different unit which is thus joined by the unit the first IC just left is - as I said before - mega dumb. It's too complex for a rule set that is entirely premised on not being too complex.

 

So, if they're cool with it, then there's no reason to play it any other way than the way I see it around here: the Movement phase itself is a time of change, the end of the phase is when you determine who's attached to what. Frankly, it says no where that an IC can't leave and then re-attach in the same Movement phase (which is the same effectively as disregarding attachment state during Movement).

 

But then...why do they mention any restriction on movement speed at all?

 

Finding and using loopholes is not tactical, nor is it intrinsically cheesy or cheating. It is simply over-complicated.

 

I personally think this is one area where RAI rules the day, as RAW I still see it in conflict.

[greatcrusade08]

sorry some confusion i meant actual 'legal' slingshotting as mentioned by nurglez, the tactic of joining an Ic to a unit in the movement phase to gain an advantage..

i think we have already reached the conclusion that an Ic cannot leave and rejoin a unit in the same phase, that is dumb, i agree

 

mis-interpreting rules for advantage is a big no-no for me, its why im glad the BRB is a hardback :)

[Brother Tual]

the rules clearly state that if the IC wishes to 'leave' the unit during the movement phase he can do so by moving out of coherancy with them.

 

This is the point. As the rules are written the IC ceases to be part of the unit when he breaks coherancy. This can be done at the start of the movement phase. Not 'magically' but by moving one of the said units so the IC is no longer in coherency. You now have two seperate units. UNITA has completed its move and now the IC is free to move as per its normal rules. I can move the IC full movement in any direction. I can join any unit I wish to. RAW then allows this IC to join the very unit it just detached from because this is done at the end of the movement phase and occurs automatically if finishing this move within 2" of UNITA. I dont really have a CHOICE. (I do because I chose to move the IC here)

 

The movement rules even stipulate I can move a unit, take back the movement and re-do this movement phase. The rules governing movement are very lax IMHO. The totality of this section is basically dont move more than you are allowed too and 2" coherency. Basic

 

I agree it is not 'fun' but it is not breaking the rules. I can detach an IC at the start of the movement phase and join any unit at the end of this phase. It is not limited as embarking/disembarking is. In a tournament game you cannot deny your opponent from doing this because you dont like it.

 

You can potentially use assault marines or bikes to slingshot IC's into combat by reversing the process. No where near as effective but possible.

 

Moving at the slowest speed is a rule easily avoided by ICs. It is a rule limiting movement within the unit to keep the rules simple and forces whole units to behave as one. I believe, as most do, this is how IC's were intended to function BUT the rules allow this to be avoided.

 

the rules clearly state that if the IC wishes to 'leave' the unit during the movement phase he can do so by moving out of coherancy with them.

 

This is the point. As the rules are written the IC ceases to be part of the unit when he breaks coherancy. This can be done at the start of the movement phase. Not 'magically' but by moving one of the said units so the IC is no longer in coherency. You now have two seperate units. UNITA has completed its move and now the IC is free to move as per its normal rules. I can move the IC full movement in any direction. I can join any unit I wish to. RAW then allows this IC to join the very unit it just detached from because this is done at the end of the movement phase and occurs automatically if finishing this move within 2" of UNITA. I dont really have a CHOICE. (I do because I chose to move the IC here)

 

The movement rules even stipulate I can move a unit, take back the movement and re-do this movement phase. The rules governing movement are very lax IMHO. The totality of this section is basically dont move more than you are allowed too and 2" coherency. Basic

 

I agree it is not 'fun' but it is not breaking the rules. I can detach an IC at the start of the movement phase and join any unit at the end of this phase. It is not limited as embarking/disembarking is. In a tournament game you cannot deny your opponent from doing this because you dont like it.

 

You can potentially use assault marines or bikes to slingshot IC's into combat by reversing the process. No where near as effective but possible.

 

Moving at the slowest speed is a rule easily avoided by ICs. It is a rule limiting movement within the unit to keep the rules simple and forces whole units to behave as one. I believe, as most do, this is how IC's were intended to function BUT the rules allow this to be avoided.

[dswanick]

Moving at the slowest speed is a rule easily avoided by ICs. It is a rule limiting movement within the unit to keep the rules simple and forces whole units to behave as one. I believe, as most do, this is how IC's were intended to function BUT the rules allow this to be avoided.

1. The "move at the speed of the slowest" rule is an IC rule. It's meant to apply to ICs and only incidentally also applies to other units of models with different speeds, and manipulating the rules to "avoid" the limit is cheating.

2. I dare you to explain to anyone that an IC which started the turn attached to a unit and ended its turn attached to the same unit didn't "remain with the unit". Go ahead, say it out loud. :tu: Sounds assinine, doesn't it.

[thade]

Honestly, both angles sound equally mega dumb to me; either one exists or the other. I'd really like to see which it is. People perhaps don't see eye-to-eye with me on just how mega dumb this is. Allow me to elucidate so you may all fully share in my rage.

 

Nothing says the IC cannot leave and rejoin a unit in one go...that is an inference people are making based upon the rule that says the IC's movement is restricted by the unit he is with. In other words, that he cannot leave and join the same unit is RAI.

 

It's not clear when he leaves or joins a unit...just that it happens in the Movement phase. So, does he leave it immediately upon deciding to (in which case, he may use his full movement as he leaves) or does he leave at the end of the Movement phase, when his attachment state is discerned (in which case, when he attempts to detach from a squad he's restricted by the squad's slower movement, in our examples). Either one of those is RAI; the rules don't say which is correct.

 

So...when he can or cannot take advantage of his jump pack is unclear. The entire thing is mega dumb and I'm still at a loss. It is a contradiction and RAI has a fair case on both sides.

[greatcrusade08]

It is a contradiction and RAI has a fair case on both sides.

 

i disgaree, the argument that you cannot leave and join in the same phase is RAI, that i can agree with. But the argument that he can leave and rejoin is an abuse/interpretation of RAW and has no RAI value.

people who argue that side of the argument choose to ingore the "move at the slowest speed" rules and also the idea that you can leave a unit and still be part of it at the end of the same phase.

its obviously not intended to be interpreted that way as those two rules prevent that particular mechanic.

 

i do however share your annoyance at such a big middle in what is supposed to be a simple rule.. GW yet again shows it cannot word anything properly.

 

heres how id run it:

at the start of the phase (or before you move each specific unit) you declare that an Ic is to seperate from its parent unit.. if you choose to seperate the IC then you cannot rejoin the same unit in the same turn, otherwise you havent truelly left it.

 

It's not clear when he leaves or joins a unit...just that it happens in the Movement phase. So, does he leave it immediately upon deciding to (in which case, he may use his full movement as he leaves) or does he leave at the end of the Movement phase, when his attachment state is discerned (in which case, when he attempts to detach from a squad he's restricted by the squad's slower movement, in our examples

 

if and IC wants to join a unit its done at the end of the movement phase by being within coherancy, if he wants to leave its done during the movement phase, with the mechanic of moving out of coherancy.

what i dont get is how you can move the Ic so it ends up still within coherancy of the same unit, yet claim he left the unit during the same movement phase.

yet thats how some people interpet these rules and that really bugs me tbh.

i think the argument is that he moves away from the unit 8" and then the unit moves 6" to be within coherancy again ready for the end of the phase, but thats completely assinine and if someone tried that on me id be less than amused

[Brother Tual]

My understanding of how the rules are written is this.

 

Part 1

 

UNITA and IC begin the turn as one unit. If I want to detach the IC from UNITA this is done WHEN I move either 'unit' independantly. I make this choice. I effectively choose to make this happen by simply moving either UNITA or the IC out of coherency. At this point in the movement phase one unit has completed its move whilst the other has not. The unit or IC that has not moved is free to move as per its normal restrictions. This unit is independant of the other. This is normal. The move at the slowest speed rule does not apply because I have two different units. This rule only applies IF the IC remains within the unit for the movement phase. You cannot deny me moving my IC 12" even if I move him first from the unit. I am allowed to move him out of the unit at his full pace. I am allowed to move him at his full pace if I move the unit away from him. You cannot point to a rule and stop me from doing this. This is considered legal.

 

Part 2

 

I finalise the movement of the second unit. Be it the IC OR the unit. The IC can join any unit it wishes to at this stage. I can even join it to a unit embarked on a transport. You cannot point to a rule and stop me from doing this. This is considered legal.

 

Part 3

 

My IC moves within 2" of the lead model of UNIT A. I am allowed to do this. You cannot point to a rule and stop this. Legal.

 

Part 4

 

An IC finishes its move 2" from a unit and now must join it or another unit it may be in coherency with. You cannot point to a rule and stop this. LEGAL.

 

Part 5

 

The IC and UNITA behave for the remainder of the phase as one unit. LEGAL

 

========================================================================================

 

I agree this is exploiting a loop hole in the rules but it is LEGAL. There is no rule stating if and IC starts in a unit and finishes its turn in the same unit it is considered part of that unit for the whole phase. RAW allows it to behave independantly despite the non-sense of it. It only has a rule if the IC DOES remain in the unit for the whole phase.

[dswanick]

Whole lotta dancing around loop-holes to exploit non-ironclad rules wording

========================================================================================

Thank you for clearly, precisely, and painstakingly detailing how this cheat works.

There is no rule stating if and IC starts in a unit and finishes its turn in the same unit it is considered part of that unit for the whole phase.

Other than the rules of common sense, gentlemanly decency, and intellectual honest - no, there isn't. But this is one of thade's "it's so commonly known, GW doesn't feel the need to spell it out for us like we're kindergarteners" rules interpretations. Or as he likes to say "What are you, daft?". :) Just remember, GW doesn't have a rule for reading the top face of a d6, either.

 

Just don't be surprised if you use this cheat and you start loosing gaming buddies. And don't be surprised when a TO kicks your but to the curb for trying it.

[greatcrusade08]

to be fair to Tual he does say it is a exploitation of a rules loophole, he maintains that its legal by RAW and in a vaccum hes correct.. that doesnt necessarily means hes an unsporting opponent, hes just arguing that RAW takes precedence over RAI

however most TOs worth thier salt will probably look on this rule the same way the rest of us do.. its silly

[Brother Tual]

Thank you for clearly, precisely, and painstakingly detailing how this cheat works.

People dont accept information contrary to their understanding unless hit with it for the tenth time. You are welcome. :huh: It is frustrating for me too.

 

This is the official rules section no? Cheating is breaking or bending the rules like rubber band measuring etc. Sling shoting is just poor gamesmanship.

The rules are written as they are. Adept or not they will never be able to govern 100% of all situations. The question is if 'slingshot' moves are legal. The simple answer, RAW, is yes. My example shows how this is done. I supported my example according to RAW, not my opinion. My opinion is the same as others posting here. It is wrong.

 

I dont use this 'tactic' and I never will BUT you cannot deny your opponent doing just because you dont like it. As you said, you dont have to play them again. Problem solved. I would allow my opponent to use this loop hole against me. I wouldnt like it, but I cant deny it short of stopping the game.

 

Same with if your opponent decides to start reading the left hand side of the dice. Stop playing, pack up your toys and play someone else.