'Slingshotting'

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Whilst the IC section doesn't explicitly say:

"When the IC moves away from a unit, it cannot move back within range of that same unit, to rejoin it"

it is clear that is exactly what they are talking about.

 

Otherwise, why is the "move at the same lowest rate whilst joined" part around?

 

'Ermm, if Jump Pack Bob is on the edge of the squad, he can scoot around using jump feature. But if Bob cannot get clear of the squad, by no means can Bob use his 12" movement, even though Jump Packs allow for clearance over Land Raiders, etc. and has to move at Infantry speed.'

 

The "move at the same lowest rate whilst joined" IS meant for different move rates, which is exactly what Stelek is trying to loophole. You can build a scenario in which the Jumper IC cannot escape his unit, and so cannot use Stelek's loophole, and yet if his way was how the rule was to be played, it would still work inspite of that scenario.

 

Imagine a Jumper IC is the middle of a 100 strong unit, for instance. The unit is spread out, and so the IC cannot "leave" the unit, yet a Jump pack would allow him to jump over intervening men to 12" away. Why? Because that is what the "move at the same lowest rate whilst joined" rules are all about. Not because the Jumper IC cannot physically do it. As a limiting mechanic.

 

But if the Jumper IC can somehow break free of the unit, he can move his full 12". Not because he has anymore capacity to do so due to what equipment he has, but because he is, supposedly, free of the unit. Which he rejoins.... :huh:

 

Well, as 40K is a 3D game, I will just fly my Jumper IC up so he is 2.001" above his squad of 100, and thereby also get a full 12" of movement out of him, also. Cool?

Of course not.

 

My examples show Stelek's version is just wishful thinking.

 

GW:

"These are the rules for IC + Squad movement, 'move at the same lowest rate whilst joined'"

Stelek:

"You never unequivocally said that the IC, on leaving the unit, cannot rejoin the same said unit, by rejoining them at the end of the IC's movement?"

GW:

"No, but just in case you have poor understanding, then what would the point of the 'move at the same lowest rate whilst joined' be then?"

Stelek:

"Your honour, GW hasn't answered only the question"

Judge:

"You know the rules, GW"

GW:

*sighs* "No, we never never unequivocally said that the IC, on leaving the unit, cannot rejoin the same said unit, by rejoining them at the end of the IC's movement, but...."

Stelek:

"That is all your honour"

 

It is much like someone saying that when a squad that has blown up a transport, they cannot assault the occupants, because inspite of the exception in the vehicles section, it does point the reader back to the assault section, which clearly shows that you cannot shoot A and then assault B.

 

The exception redefines the rule, inspite of referring back to the rule.

 

In Stelek's case, he is saying that his lose reading works, even though there is no part, ever, which says "this is an exception to 'move at the same lowest rate whilst joined' rule"

 

Whilst leaving and joining are not written to unequivocally rule out Stelek's moving cups trick, they do by common sense that even a 10 year old would grasp [because, remember, these are rules to be used by pre-teens too]. And even if that isn't enough for some people, how about the 'move at the same lowest rate whilst joined' section. That definitely clarifies it, as though it were ever in doubt.

Or has GW written a rule that never applies, deliberately?

I don't think so, and neither do you.

 

So lets stop supporting a reading that whilst seems to have some credibility, falls down badly in light of 'move at the same lowest rate whilst joined'

 

Or are we saying that we have to endure, if only for one game, a player denying our squad from assaulting the passengers because, regardless of the exception in the Vehicles section, the exception refers back to the rule, which doesn't acknowledge the exception in the Vehicle, and clearly says that a squad cannot shoot one thing and assault another.

 

We wouldn't countenance such a poor reading comprehension in that instance, so why are we humouring it with regards to this bogus sling shot?

[dswanick]

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.

See, I think you're interpretation of the "RAW legality" is based on a flawed premise. You are operating from the misconception that "the rule doesn't say I can't therefore I can". Here's why:

 

In order for the "tactic" to work it assumes that the Movement Phase is broken down into sub-sections based on individual model movements. (ie: PART 1 UNIT A and IC start the turn, etc..., PART 2 I finalize the movement, etc...) But nowhere does the rule state this to be true. The rules are written such that the whole of the Phase is looked at without recourse to sub-sections.

Think about Unit Coherency for a minute : You may only move each unit once during the Movement Phase, once you stop moving one unit and start moving another you may not move the last unit again this Movement Phase, and each model in a unit must remain within 2" of another model in the same unit in an unbroken chain (for infantry). If the rules had you validating each sub-section of the Movement Phase and not the end result only - you would never be able to legally move a unit 6" in any direction because the first model you moved would be validated to be outside of the Coherency distance from the rest of its unit when you set it down. You would have to move a unit only 2" at a time in order to not break coherency during the sub-section of the Movement Phase for that unit.

 

The same goes for this "tactic" you can declare that an IC is detaching from its attached unit in order to benefit from a faster movement rate, but the detachment isn't "true" until the IC is validated as detached from the unit at the conclusion of your Movement Phase when he is or is not validated as having ended his movement not attached to the unit he started your Movement Phase attached to.

This "tactic" uses an imaginary game mechanic of "intermittent detachment" which is not permitted by the rules, and while not clearly and plainly disallowed is also in direct violation of another, clearly written rule as well as all the previously mentioned common sense, sportsmanship, and logical thinking prohibitions listed above.

[Morollan]

The same goes for this "tactic" you can declare that an IC is detaching from its attached unit in order to benefit from a faster movement rate, but the detachment isn't "true" until the IC is validated as detached from the unit at the conclusion of your Movement Phase when he is or is not validated as having ended his movement not attached to the unit he started your Movement Phase attached to.

This "tactic" uses an imaginary game mechanic of "intermittent detachment" which is not permitted by the rules, and while not clearly and plainly disallowed is also in direct violation of another, clearly written rule as well as all the previously mentioned common sense, sportsmanship, and logical thinking prohibitions listed above.

 

Or, to put it another way, proponents of this tactic have basically made up some rules specifiying i) when an IC is classed as leaving a unit and ii) what happens to the IC's remaining movement after that point.

 

I'm sure I remember reading a long thread about this before and I seem to recall that the consensus was that an IC can move away from the unit but must still move at the speed of the slowest person in that unit for that turn, which would seem to be fair and reasonable.

[dswanick]

Or, to put it another way, proponents of this tactic have basically made up some rules specifiying i) when an IC is classed as leaving a unit

Nope, not at all - the rules are pretty clear when an IC leaves a unit. The IC leaves a unit when it "An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it." (BRB, Pg.48)

and ii) what happens to the IC's remaining movement after that point.

Again, incorrect. There is no "remaining movement" after an IC moves. "Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. You may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit." (BRB, Pg.11)

I'm sure I remember reading a long thread about this before and I seem to recall that the consensus was that an IC can move away from the unit but must still move at the speed of the slowest person in that unit for that turn, which would seem to be fair and reasonable.

I'm almost positive that was not the consensus.

[Morollan]

Or, to put it another way, proponents of this tactic have basically made up some rules specifiying i) when an IC is classed as leaving a unit

Nope, not at all - the rules are pretty clear when an IC leaves a unit. The IC leaves a unit when it "An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it." (BRB, Pg.48)

 

But at what point does the IC detach? End of movement phase? As soon as it is 2.000000000001" from the unit? After the IC has completed it's move?

 

and ii) what happens to the IC's remaining movement after that point.

Again, incorrect. There is no "remaining movement" after an IC moves. "Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. You may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit." (BRB, Pg.11)

 

If there is no "remaining movement" after the IC moves, how does one determine how far he has left to move? At the start of the movement phase the IC is part of the unit and therefore can only move as fast as the slowest member of that unit, as per IC rules. So how are we deciding that after the IC has moved >2" from the unit he 'gets back' the extra movement that he wasn't entitled to at the start of the phase?

 

EG, if he is JP-equipped, at the start of the movement phase he can only move 6" (as he is part of the slower unit) but as soon as he is >2" from the unit he can now allegedly move 12". How does one determine how much further he can now move? Has he used up a third of his initial 6" move to get >2" away and therefore has another 8" (2/3 of his full 12" move) because of the JP? Does he get the full remaining 10" because that brings him to his total of 12"? Is he limited to 4" because he only had 6" movement allowed to him at the start of the phase (and surely that is the point at which movement rates must be considered).

 

I'm sure I remember reading a long thread about this before and I seem to recall that the consensus was that an IC can move away from the unit but must still move at the speed of the slowest person in that unit for that turn, which would seem to be fair and reasonable.

I'm almost positive that was not the consensus.

 

It was a long time ago and my memory may be at fault. If anyone's search-fu is feeling up to it...

[Something Wycked]

Whilst the IC section doesn't explicitly say:

"When the IC moves away from a unit, it cannot move back within range of that same unit, to rejoin it"

it is clear that is exactly what they are talking about.

 

Otherwise, why is the "move at the same lowest rate whilst joined" part around?

This.

 

Is.

 

IT.

 

Stelek begins a Movement Phase. We know that the IC's are attached at the beginning of this Movement Phase because they were joined during deployment or at the end of a prior Movement Phase. We next check for IC/unit attachment at the end of this same Movement Phase.

 

Did the IC start the Phase attached to the unit? YES.

Did the IC end the Phase attached to the unit? YES.

Therefore the IC never left the unit and must move at the slowest model's speed. The other interpretation is rules lawyering at its worst.

 

If they did not begin the Movement Phase attached to one another, then it is perfectly legal to to daisy-chain fast moving IC's and assault units.

[thade]

Sorry, but clever formatting won't win this day.

 

Both sides are still correct...and both sides are still wrong.

 

Here is the question I think that needs answering:

 

When the IC leaves the unit, can he move at his personal maximum speed, or is he limited by the speed of the unit he is detaching from? That is...can the JP Chaplain with my tactical squad leap over a building when he detaches...or must he slog away as if on foot?

 

This question isn't answered in the BRB. Hence, the impasse I presented in my last post here...which you all are overlooking.

[greatcrusade08]

Here is the question I think that needs answering:

 

When the IC leaves the unit, can he move at his personal maximum speed, or is he limited by the speed of the unit he is detaching from? That is...can the JP Chaplain with my tactical squad leap over a building when he detaches...or must he slog away as if on foot?

 

This question isn't answered in the BRB. Hence, the impasse I presented in my last post here...which you all are overlooking.

 

i think its is answered though, just not very well ,

the limitation on moving at the slowest speed carries the caveat of remaining with the unit.. that is if thew Ic remains with the unit he must move at the slowest speed of that unit.

alternatively he can choose to leave the unit (by moving out of coherancy) and becuase he isnt remaining with the unit the movement limitation no longer applies.

so if you choose to detach an Ic in the movement phase he has no limitation on his movement beyond his own capabilites.

 

i think the problme here is that GW has inserted an element of intent into these rules.. do you intend for the IC to remain with the unit? then move at the slowest speed.. do you intend to move away? thats fine, have at it hoss.

abusing the painfully written mechanics of both in order to bypass a clearly writtne rule should never be allowed regardless of what RAW interpretations can be made.

[Something Wycked]

As GC08 says. If he's leaving the unit, he's leaving the unit and not playing rules lawyer shenanigans. He therefore can move his normal allotment.

 

This is one of those "if you plan on X you cannot Y," similar to embarking models and moving Flat Out. It isn't spelled out as clearly as we would like it to be but the restriction on moving at the speed of the slowest model wouldn't exist otherwise. If its legal to simply ignore it, why does it exist?

[greatcrusade08]

like real law, intent plays a big part..

aslong as your making declarations you can never fall foul of this loop-hole..

[thade]

i think the problme here is that GW has inserted an element of intent into these rules..

This can be said of virtually the entire rule set. :) I think I've been referring to it as the GW "What? Are you daft?" rule. The sad reality is, by their metric we are all daft. (Or...possibly...they are.)

 

If you leave the unit and move at full speed, why does this restrict the movement of the unit you just detached from? (It doesn't.) If the unit moves forward and the IC detached and moved forward further...what happens when the phase ends and they are in coherency?

 

This entire debacle is too contrived to be anything other than a mistake. If they really intended for this scenario I just described to be illegal, they'd have to be pretty clear about it...and they're not. At all.

[Something Wycked]

If you leave the unit and move at full speed, why does this restrict the movement of the unit you just detached from? (It doesn't.)

Correct, though I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

 

If the unit moves forward and the IC detached and moved forward further...what happens when the phase ends and they are in coherency?

If they are in coherency at the end of the phase, you have performed an illegal move- the IC must have moved at the speed of the slowest model and his move needs to be adjusted accordingly- shorten it to match or keep it the same length but in a slightly different direction to prevent being within 2" of the unit.

 

This entire debacle is too contrived to be anything other than a mistake. If they really intended for this scenario I just described to be illegal, they'd have to be pretty clear about it...and they're not. At all.

Of course its a mistake that they're not clear enough with their rules :huh:

 

Bottom line: Arguing that you can detach an IC, move him his full normal movement, and then reattach him at the end of the Movement Phase is directly flaunting the "moves at the slowest" rule. If you can simply ignore that rule, then why is the rule there?

[Brother Tual]

Marshall,

 

There is no such rule limiting which unit an IC can join beyond it being friendly and able to be joined under normal coherency rules.

 

Moves at the slowest speed only applies to an IC whilst it is attached. It states the COMBINED unit. A detached IC that has not moved (despite starting the phase joined) is not subject to this rule. This is very clear and simple. It is stated in the rule book clearly. Please dont gloss over the first line.

 

You cant get 100 strong units and you cant move models upwards into the air under normal conditions. This is not a strong argument RAW my friend. It is nonsense.

 

The move at the slowest speed rule applies when the IC remains with the unit. It works however due to the way IC's can attach/detach its restrictions are avoidable. Not my fault.

 

 

I have never based my arguments here on misconceptions or assumptions. The movement phase is conducted by moving one unit at a time. You do not move your whole army (unless you play DRAIGOWING ) at the same time. The movement phase is therefore segmented somewhat although not formally because you can choose any order this occurs.

 

Your point on coherency is false. Coherency is a rule limiting the final resing place of models within a unit. It is not a governing aspect DURING model movement. This is clearly stated in the rules.

 

The same goes for this "tactic" you can declare that an IC is detaching from its attached unit in order to benefit from a faster movement rate, but the detachment isn't "true" until the IC is validated as detached from the unit at the conclusion of your Movement Phase when he is or is not validated as having ended his movement not attached to the unit he started your Movement Phase attached to.

 

This again is false. An IC detaches when he simply moves out of coherency. This is written in the rule book. This normally happens at the start of his or the parent units movement. There is no rule stating detachment is considered at the end of the phase. You made this up. There is no such thing as true detachment. This is your mental process trying to justify your position without having appropriate support.

 

Wycked, the rules support an IC leaving a unit and rejoining any friendly unit. If the IC moves out of coherency it has left the unit. This is what the rules say.

Did the IC start the Phase attached to the unit? YES.

Did the IC end the Phase attached to the unit? YES.

Therefore the IC never left the unit and must move at the slowest model's speed.

You can see this staement is incorrect. The IC has left the unit when it broke coherency. This is what the rules say.

 

When the IC leaves the unit, can he move at his personal maximum speed, or is he limited by the speed of the unit he is detaching from? That is...can the JP Chaplain with my tactical squad leap over a building when he detaches...or must he slog away as if on foot?

Yes he can. He can move under his own normal movement restrictions. He is not considered part of a unit and is therfore not restricted by the slowest model rule.

 

If its legal to simply ignore it, why does it exist?

Oversight. It happens. It happens in real legislation too.

 

 

The rules are;

 

An IC can detach from a unit by moving out of coherency. This is not defined to happen at the end of the phase. This definition was invented on this forum.

 

An IC can join any friendly unit by moving within 2" of it. This is not limited by previous parent units.

 

An IC is not subject to 'move at the slowest' when not attached. This is clearly written and not an assumption made by me. I am not inferring this.

 

These three things are allowed by the rules. They are enabled.

the rule doesn't say I can't therefore I can

The rules say I can therfore I can.

 

There is no rule about 'true' detachment or 'if IC begins and end in the same unit it remained in that unit' rule. These are invented rules.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

This can be said of virtually the entire rule set. I think I've been referring to it as the GW "What? Are you daft?" rule. The sad reality is, by their metric we are all daft. (Or...possibly...they are.)

 

If you leave the unit and move at full speed, why does this restrict the movement of the unit you just detached from? (It doesn't.) If the unit moves forward and the IC detached and moved forward further...what happens when the phase ends and they are in coherency?

 

It is just as Something Wycked wrote.

 

The IC, leaving the unit, moves at his full speed. The unit, can also move at its full speed. They cannot be 2" or less from each other at the end their movement, as they are no longer joined. In the same way as opposing units cannot be within 1" of one another, unless Assaulting, the IC and friendly unit cannot be within 2" of one another, if the IC has left the unit, in that movement phase.

 

Imagine this:

Mum:

"Timmy, take the dog out of the house, it needs to 'freshen up'"

Timmy:

"Okay" *takes dog outside*

Mum:

"Why is the dog in so soon? It went straight away?"

Timmy:

"Well, I led the dog out the door, did a 180º turn, and came back in"

Mum:

?!!

Timmy:

"Have I not literally obeyed your request?"

Mum:

o_O

[thade]

No where in the IC rules does it say an IC cannot (or can) "leave and join a unit in the same Movement phase". To join, the IC simply must move within coherency of the unit...or the unit must move to be within coherency of him. (If you disagree with this last part, you missed it. Re-read the attachment rules carefully.)

 

If the IC leaves the unit, he may move at his full speed; that is the interpretation people are making here. I feel I must emphasize that it is an interpretation; however sensible, it is not RAW. It neither says the IC can or cannot move at his full rate as he moves the unit. It's not clear whether he's no longer part of the unit. The rules simply say:

 

In order to join a unit, an independent character simply has to move so that he is within 2" coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase.

 

An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it.

Both of these rules really hinge on one thing:

 

This is to make clear to the opponent if the character has joined a unit or not.

SO the IC leaves the squad, leaping 12" ahead, out of coherency. If his movement is unrestricted by the unit when he leaves, this is legal. Subsequently when the unit moves, it moving back into coherency with him is legal, as units can in fact join ICs (and there are no rules per what-moves-first).

 

NOT SO FAST, THADE!

 

o_O

While an independent character is part of a unit.... The combined unit moves and assaults at the speed of the slowest model while they stay together.

(Emphasis mine.)

 

Well, what we have here is possibly the biggest smack in the face of consistency I've yet seen in this rule set. What does "while stay together" mean? Welcome to RAI-land, where we're basically screwed unless we're very nice to one another. The clearest interpretation (to me) that blocks this shenanigan seems to be that they're staying together if they're still attached at the end of the Movement phase. (Hopefully we all agree on that interpretation? If not, there's our problem, right there.) However, that's RAI. >_<

 

RAW is where this transcends the previous category of mega dumb and becomes monstro-dumb.

 

I put on my evil hat (it's that kind of day) and - at the beginning of the Movement phase - I move the IC out of coherency with the unit, using his jump pack. At the end of the phase, I move that same unit back into coherency with him. During the top of the Movement phase, they were not staying together. Obviously...because, they didn't stay together. The IC left. And then they followed him anyway, like loyal puppies. They didn't stay together, but they are back together. Reunited. In monstro-dumb land.

 

That, gents, is a literal RAW reading of the rule right thar. And that be monstro-dumb.

 

Now I'm starting to see why the local interpretations of the attachment rules seem to be "End of Movement phase and within coherency? Attached!".

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Now I'm starting to see why the local interpretations of the attachment rules seem to be "End of Movement phase and within coherency? Attached!".

 

This has always been the issue with GW. They are lazy rules writers. Whilst this was fine when they were young and/or small, if you are charging top rate for your miniatures, like a professional company would, then you can jolly well write rules like a professional company. Another reason why I am falling out of love with 40K on table, enjoy playing Space Marine, and just imagine about the fluff. PP is ticking all my boxes at the moment. Even if they don't do anything better than GW's best, as long as they don't perform the same daftness, they are far ahead.

 

Only the poorest of interpretations reads the rules that way.

 

Owen drives around at 30 kph in a 100 kph zone. "The speed limit says up to 100 kph, and this is what I am doing."

It is clear that the road is meant for 100 kph. Streams of irate commuters stuck behind pedantic Owen demostrate his thinking is out of step with reality. etc.

 

Herbert asks Jamal the sweets factory owner for a sweet. Yes, is the response.

"Can I have another one?" Herbert enquires.

"Sure, take what you want."

Herbert then makes a phone call and a removalist truck appears. Herbert then proceeds to pack several tons of sweets into the truck.

Jamal:

"What is happening?"

Herbert:

"I am taking what I want"

 

I know and love some people with autism. Autism makes it hard for the sufferer to understand intent, dry humour and irony. They just don't get it. You have to be very careful with what you say, or just accept that they will not get your jokes and instructions, etc.

 

As these people who are "interpreting" the IC rules whilst ignoring the "move as per slowest" section, yet don't suffer from autism [as shown by all their other posts and conduct] really is just deliberate perversion of the rules. I have shown this with my anecdotes and rationale. They know this is not what the rules are saying, but because it could be read like that, and it suits, and it is hard to find cold unequivocal examples to refute it, this practice of perverting rules carries on.

 

Then it comes down to a "Well, you cannot prove that what I have said the interpretation is not true [very easily] and so because I have a technical point, I will continue to stand on it. I dare you to push me off" wrestle.

 

I cannot see the point of the OR, if this is all it becomes. You cannot prove me wrong, I like it how I've read it, so there!

 

Surely we should be coming up with a point or clarity that Jonny Newb can read and go 'Oh yep, this is the rule'?

 

It is clear what the rules are, regardless of whether some want to recognise that or not. Why are people defending a position that is obviously wrong, just because it is hard to kill? We should be helping clear up the rules, not pedantically holding onto poor positions just because of a slackness in the rules.

 

"Haha, I am an excellent arguer, I have seen a point that is hard [impossible?] to completely crush, so to show my intellectual prowess, I will defend that position"

You are joking me, right?

 

It seems the OR is in one of its funny moods again :lol: . I better go before I get a warning. :lol:

[dswanick]

Moves at the slowest speed only applies to an IC whilst it is attached. It states the COMBINED unit.

And your contention is that no IC is ever attached during the Movement Phase because you just declare at the beginning of the Movement Phase that it is detaching, move it wherever you want at whatever speed you want and then re-attach it. So GW published a rule which has no meaning, will never apply, and just wastes ink and paper? Really. :down: That's cheating, enjoy. :)

[greatcrusade08]

@thade, there are a couple of issues with your logic, for the most part its correct but you assert

If the IC leaves the unit, he may move at his full speed; that is the interpretation people are making here. I feel I must emphasize that it is an interpretation; however sensible, it is not RAW.

 

thats not right, a model may move his full distance unless rules say differently, its a permissive ruleset after all.

since the only rule that states he must move at the slowest speed of the unit comes with the caveat of "whilst they remain together" then by seperating the Ic they are no longer together and normla rules apply.

that is clearly RAW, at least thats how i see it anyway.

 

i think people confuse RAW as something that muist be laid out with little or no working out required, tbh if the rulebook was written that way it would be a full 3 times its current size.. its an a+b = c argument, c isnt stated in the rulebook, but as both a and b are stated then c can only be read a single way.

its RAW that the movemtn limitations only apply "whilst the Ic remains with the unit"

 

the second point is more of an add on to previous arguments

An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it.

 

we can run rings around the meaning of "stays together", but this quoted sentence has a literal meaning, whether its during or at the end the clear intent is to leave the unit, no longer be attached, if the intent is to sperate and then rejoin a moment later then you havent actually left.

sure the argument can be made that you have left the unit for a certain amount of time, but isnt it about perspective.. at what point do we stop and judge whether an Ic has truelly left a unit.. sure the mechanic shows the movement is done during the movement phase, but whether or not an IC is deemed to be with a unit or not is made at the end of the phase..

 

So whilst player A can assert the Ic has left the unit, at the end of the phase player B can show that the IC clearly hasnt left the unit and demand the Ic be moved back in line with its true maximum movement

[Brother Tual]

Marshall,

 

I am posting here to promote understanding. Not to increase confusion.

 

This is the official rules section. Not the 'what I think section'. Thade himself said,

I put on my evil hat (it's that kind of day) and - at the beginning of the Movement phase - I move the IC out of coherency with the unit, using his jump pack. At the end of the phase, I move that same unit back into coherency with him. During the top of the Movement phase, they were not staying together. Obviously...because, they didn't stay together. The IC left. And then they followed him anyway, like loyal puppies. They didn't stay together, but they are back together. Reunited. In monstro-dumb land.

 

That, gents, is a literal RAW reading of the rule right thar. And that be monstro-dumb.

 

I agree it is monstro dumb. It is however how it is written. Your opinion of this rule is not important here and your way of justifying this opinion is in-correct.

 

Marshall,

 

really is just deliberate perversion of the rules. I have shown this with my anecdotes and rationale. They know this is not what the rules are saying, but because it could be read like that, and it suits, and it is hard to find cold unequivocal examples to refute it, this practice of perverting rules carries on.

I have shown using the actual rules as written to present and support how this rule works. I have tried to present this as simply as I can. You have used anecdotes and rational to counter my position. You cannot find cold and unequivocal examples to refute this because they dont exist. I dont like this rule either but it is how it is. I am not challenging the counter or using 'awesome argueing skills' I am simply saying the rules say it is possible. If you find it difficult to counter claim because you cannot point to a rule to support your claim who is really adding to the confusion?

 

And your contention is that no IC is ever attached during the Movement Phase because you just declare at the beginning of the Movement Phase that it is detaching, move it wherever you want at whatever speed you want and then re-attach it. So GW published a rule which has no meaning, will never apply, and just wastes ink and paper? Really. That's cheating, enjoy.

 

I didnt write the rule. I did read it though. Have you?

 

The rule has meaning. It direcrtly prevents units moving faster than they otherwise can. This rule negates the need for a 'majority' movement type rule like the one present in the rules governing armour saves. When an IC detaches it becomes a different unit. The rules do not say 'was combined' or 'intends to be combined' and must move at the slowest pace. It says CLEARLY - when combined. Thats it. The problem for your position is the freedom given to IC's during movement. This freedom is EXPRESSED in the rules.

 

This entire rule argument has no actual bearing in the movement phase. All models move the same distance as normal. The benefits are achieved in the assault phase.

 

I have presented RAW arguments thus far. My opinion is the same as others. RAI is a more fairer application. But you cannot deny your opponent because you dont like the rules. Otherwise GC08 would say all GK players are cheating because he doesnt like the printed rules governing them.

 

I would have burnt the rule book long ago if it didnt have nice pictures in it.

[Grimtooth]

I see this in the rules;

 

In order to join a unit, an independent character simply has to move so that he is within 2" coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase.

 

But I do not see this;

 

In order to join an independent character, a unit simply has to move so that it is within 2" coherency distance of a friendly independent character at the end of their Movement phase.

 

which this whole debacle seems to be resting on. Can anyone give me a page reference to the second emboldened text above?

 

And come to think of it, where in the rules does it say OTHER then disembarking a unit and leaving the IC in the vehicle (which is a specific rule for that instance) can a unit leave an IC by moving out of coherency of the IC? Again I have this rule;

 

An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it.

 

But I do not see this rule;

 

A unit can leave an independent character during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it.

 

The only time that you are ever given permission to move a unit away from an independent character is as I noted above with disembarkation on page 67. So unless I am missing an actual page from my BRB, where is the permission given for a unit to move within 2" of a independent character and considered themselves joined to said independent character OR move away from said independent character and not be joined? It seems the RAW points that only the IC can determine who he joins/leaves and only the IC can take the action to join/leave.

[JamesI]

Well said Ramses. The IC must move away to detach from a unit, but the IC also must move into range to attach. So, an IC can not detach and reattach to a unit in the same movement phase.

[thade]

Ramses, check that page again; I did say to "read it carefully". <3

 

Specifically, one of the last bullet points discusses what happens when an IC moves into coherency with a unit that is Pinned that the IC is Pinned as well, "or vice versa" . Vice versa means that if a unit moves into coherency with an IC that is Pinned, the unit becomes Pinned.

 

This would only be possible if it was legal to have a unit move into coherency with an IC and attach to him.

 

I hate, hate, hate the phrase "permissive rule set". It has little to no meaning here. It is poorly defined and a hopeful RAI-way of looking at the rule set. The rule set is not an exhaustive list of the things we can or cannot do. It is instead a set of guide lines that tell us many of the things we can or cannot do. In a rule set where "The Most Important Rule" is to do whatever is necessary for both opponents to have fun, resolving disputes with hand shakes and smiles or - at the end of your rope - a dice off, you don't really have a rule set that's hard and fast enough for the level of interpretation we've gotten to here.

 

It is not a "permissive rule set". It is a "gentlemen's agreement rule set". It only really works - even for competitive play - when both parties are cool to each other and having a good time; bonus if a brew is in hand. This is not a game for nit-picky rules lawyers, however much they want it to be.

 

EDIT: word ordering, forgot a hyphen

[Morollan]

Ramses, check that page again; I did say to "read it carefully". <3

 

Specifically, one of the last bullet points discusses what happens when an IC moves into coherency with a unit that is Pinned that the IC is Pinned as well, "or vice versa" . Vice versa means that if a unit moves into coherency with an IC that is Pinned, the unit becomes Pinned.

 

This would only be possible if it was legal to have a unit move into coherency with an IC and attach to him.

 

By the same token though, surely the "move at the rate of the slowest" sentence would only be possible if an IC was deemed to be attached throughout the turn, with none of this detach, move as far as i fancy then re-attach all in the same turn shenanigans?

[thade]

That, Morollan, is precisely where I see the contradiction in the IC attachment rules.

 

On the one hand, the IC can move his full speed if he leaves the unit...and then, subsequently a unit can join him (nothing says it cannot be the same unit).

 

On the other hand, if the IC and the unit stay together, the IC's movement is restricted by the unit.

 

I don't know which is correct, honestly. My sense is that "stays together" is correctly interpreted as "Did you honestly mean for them to stay together, or did it end up that way? Then the IC's movement is restricted by the unit he was with, and vice versa." However, correct interpretation isn't RAW. And the RAW isn't clear.

[falldown]

If an IC starts with the unit and ends with the unit, saying you can ignore a rule in between because you moved the IC first is dumb as hell regardless of how you want to skew the writing to allow it.