'Slingshotting'

[Something Wycked]

It's not the Unit joining the IC by moving next to the IC. It's still the IC joining the Unit at the end of the Phase...

This is the RAI, sure. The RAW for ICs joining units is that the IC moves into coherency; there is no RAW for units moving into coherency with ICs.

 

Ergo, Stelek's ungentlemanly slingshot maneuver is illegal, even if we play by the RAI that would make his maneuver "legal" :lol: Thats how I roll.

[thade]

The rules refer to it happening; they don't say it directly. Why would they refer to it as if it was normal if it was illegal?

 

You may say "oversight" and you may even be right...but the fact remains it's in there, and thus it serves as RAW precedent.

 

I already referred to something else the rules don't say directly: you know, the dumbest example ever...the top face of the die bit, that's RAI. There's actually more of a precedent in the BRB for units joining ICs than for always using the top face of the die to determine a roll's result.

 

The only reasons the top face of the die is used are all RAI. It's always been done that way. In other games as well as this one. Dice games are ancient. Et cetera. All of that is RAI, because it is not Written As such in the Rules. Rules-As-Written, we defer to the Most Important Rule insofar as which face to use on that die when it hits the table and whether to be consistent about it for an entire game. Not a bit of RAW precedent, yet we all abide by it and not a single one of us would ever think to challenge it during a game.

 

Why then is this example - which has a RAW precedent - overlooked so casually by the few of you?

 

EDIT: words misaligned.

[Dan VK]

The top of the die is used in the examples in the BRB.

[Gentlemanloser]

This is the RAI, sure. The RAW for ICs joining units is that the IC moves into coherency; there is no RAW for units moving into coherency with ICs.

 

But that's just it. As your own movement can happen in any order, the IC still moves into coherancy, even if the unit moved after the IC.

 

Sure, you can get nitty gritty about and and claim it's not RAW if the IC doesn't move at all, but unless it's a DT test, then you just move the IC a fraction of a MM to satisfy the condition.

[thade]

The top of the die is used in the examples in the BRB.

This is so mind-blowingly awesome. Thank you, Dan.

 

So, it never says you must consistently use the top-face of the die to determine its result...but it often shows it being done that way in examples.

 

So, it never says that units cannot join ICs...but it shows it being done that way in an example.

 

You know, I just don't see the difference.

[Brother Tual]

Page 48 of the BRB.

 

Verbatum

 

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

 

The IC simply has to move to a spot that will be within 2" coherency of a friendly unit at the end of their movement phase. The unit can effectively join an IC if I move the unit within 2" of an IC because the IC can join them at the end of the UNIT'S move.

 

Wild accusations and examples about how to read dice or what Jimmy does with his dog do not help. Stay on topic. We can do better than this.

[Grimtooth]

Page 48 of the BRB.

 

Verbatum

 

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

 

The IC simply has to move to a spot that will be within 2" coherency of a friendly unit at the end of their movement phase. The unit can effectively join an IC if I move the unit within 2" of an IC because the IC can join them at the end of the UNIT'S move.

 

Wild accusations and examples about how to read dice or what Jimmy does with his dog do not help. Stay on topic. We can do better than this.

 

You have still not provided a rule that tells you how to join a unit to an IC. The rule you quoted even tells you that the independent character HAS to move so that he is within 2" coherency at the end of their movement. While you are trying to backdoor it by saying the IC is going to move where he will end up at coherency, it isn't kosher. The rule still binds the IC to performing the move that puts him in coherency to join.

 

So a unit could indeed move 3.99999" toward an IC, but the IC still needs to make that last 2.11111 move to be in coherency at the end of their movement phase. However, the unit is never given permission to join the IC.

[Brother Tual]

Devil's advocate - What is 'ends their move refering to?" the IC or the unit?

[Morollan]

Devil's advocate - What is 'ends their move refering to?" the IC or the unit?

 

You are correct. It refers to the unit. I think we're barking up the wrong tree if we want to prove this tactic is illegal. You can move the IC to a position and then have the unit move up to be within coherency. My problem is the fact that the tactic ignores the 'move at the speed of the slowest' rule and I cannot for one second accept that this was ever intended to allow an IC to detach and reattach in the same turn to bypass that rule.

[Brother Tual]

on the premise 'ends their move' meaning the unit...

 

saying the IC is going to move where he will end up at coherency, it isn't kosher. The rule still binds the IC to performing the move that puts him in coherency to join.

 

Kosher is not a consideration RAW.

 

The rule binds that the IC be within 2" of unit coherency. What is in coherrency is done at the END of the movement phase. It considers only the relevance of final resting place. This is clearly stated in the rules.

 

How such unit become in coherency is also clearly written. All the IC has to do is to move within 2" of the unit. This can be done by having the unit move to the IC because although the IC may have moved first and no longer able to move again, coherency is considered after all moves are made. To move a unit within 2" of each other, can and does involve more than the final resting place of one of the component units. The movement phase is not over after you move one unit. You get to move all of them. The rules express joing a unit is done at the end of the involved units moving phase. I can move the IC first, move 7 other units then move the intended parent unit as my last move.

 

RAI is an interpretaion of the rules. I value it but it is not relevant when considering the official standing of the rule. Slingshot moves. It is a loop hole. It is 'wrong' but it can be done.

 

I dont think it was intended either. I think it happened because GW want players to be able to enjoy freedom in moving IC's so they didnt have to miss out on using their heros because of red tape.

[ShinyRhino]

This is one of those unresolvable rules disputes that leads to punches in the nose or hurt backsides.

 

I personally refuse to believe that an IC who begins the Movement phase attached to a unit and end the phase attached to that same unit has ever left that unit, so he cannot use his 12" jump pack move. He can move 12" and join a DIFFERENT unit, but not move 12" to purposely string out and rejoin his own unit who were only able to move 6".

 

No one will ever convince me otherwise, because the precedent of Flat Out-moving transports denying passengers the ability to embark/disembark provides the idea of "intent." If one's intent is to move the IC 12", he must detach from the unit to do so. To be detached, he must begin the phase attached, and end it detached. Attach+Attach=Attach. Attach+Attach/=Detach.

 

It really doesn't matter who moves first or who moves to coherency with whom in this IC versus unit thing because of that reason. Intent. If you intend to move your IC 12", you declare his detachment so as to be exempt from the "move at the speed of the slowest model" rule. By declaring that intent, you acknowledge that you must end the phase detached from the unit in order to gain that extra 6" of movement.

[greatcrusade08]

I agree but for a different reason.

its all well and good saying its RAW to be able to do it, but if another rule directly contradicts is then you have no real RAW to fall back on.

its clear that whilst the IC remains with the unit it must move at the slowest speed, if he starts the turn attached and ends the turn attached then he stayed/remains with them.

 

its that simple IMO

[thade]

RAW says both that you can and you cannot "sling shot". It is both legal and illegal, thus I feel it's Grey Area and should be relegated to RAI. I've tried to show that through examples and analogy, but I've failed. <3 A non-issue, perhaps.

 

I'm with you all on the RAI interpretation every step of the way; I support it being played that way.

 

I also support what amounts to a simplified rules-change: end of the Movement phase, IC in coherency = IC attached. (Again, that's how I've seen it played up to now and I've honestly yet to see it be game-breaking.)

 

Sling-shotting seems cheeky. It's unnecessary whether your group allows it or a variant, or not at all.

[Grimtooth]

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.

 

Note the use of the verbiage noted in the rule below;

 

"....simply has to move so that he is within 2" coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase."

 

The above emboldened is the 3rd person singular present indicative of the word be. The verbiage of the rule indicates that after the friendly unit has ended their Movement phase, the IC moves so that his present indicative (locates a situation or event in present time) is within 2" coherency. If you move the IC so that he will be joined at a later time by a unit at the end of their Movement phase, you are not using the present indicative.

 

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

 

If the rule was written as above, then making a move that "plans" the IC to be within 2" of a yet to be moved unit would be "kosher".....lol.

[Grey Mage]

Its my opinion that 'slingshotting' is wrong.

 

I dont think its against RAW though, for one reason only: there is nothing in the IC rules that says they cannot leave and rejoin a unit in the same turn. He simply leaves when he chooses, and is rejoined if hes within 2" of a unit.

 

The most pressing argument I see against this ability, RAW, works rather well- but isnt how anyone seems to play it.

 

-A model moves at the slowest speed of its unit.

-You dont move incrementally, you either move or you dont- so at the time the character leaves the unit, hes forced to move at the speed of the unit he was previously with if it is slower than his own. Why? Because until after he has moved he is NOT a seperate unit from the squad he was joined to because until then hes not out of coherency.

-Thus, Shrike for example, could not move 12" when he left a unit of infiltrated hammernators, only 6", wich would make any slingshotting pointless.

[Grimtooth]

Its my opinion that 'slingshotting' is wrong.

 

I dont think its against RAW though, for one reason only: there is nothing in the IC rules that says they cannot leave and rejoin a unit in the same turn. He simply leaves when he chooses, and is rejoined if hes within 2" of a unit.

 

The most pressing argument I see against this ability, RAW, works rather well- but isnt how anyone seems to play it.

 

-A model moves at the slowest speed of its unit.

-You dont move incrementally, you either move or you dont- so at the time the character leaves the unit, hes forced to move at the speed of the unit he was previously with if it is slower than his own. Why? Because until after he has moved he is NOT a seperate unit from the squad he was joined to because until then hes not out of coherency.

-Thus, Shrike for example, could not move 12" when he left a unit of infiltrated hammernators, only 6", wich would make any slingshotting pointless.

 

That first part sounds like,

 

"It doesn't say I can't so I can!"

 

The IC needs to move so he is within 2" of a unit he joins. That means that if were to ask after an IC has moved,

 

"Is he within 2" coherency of a friendly unit that has ended their Movement phase?"

 

You cannot answer,

 

"He will be."

 

You can only answer,

 

"He is."

 

The only way you can get that situation is if the unit ends their Movement phase first and then the IC moves to within 2" of them.

[Morollan]

Much as I hate arguing for this tactic, I can't support your interpretation because in order to satisfy the stated requirement, the question has to be asked after the movement of the unit. Is the IC within 2" coherency of Unit A? Yes/No

 

I still don't think it's legal but not for the reason you're presenting.

[Grimtooth]

S presentNo, the IC has to to move so he is (present indicative) within 2" of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase. Look at the ONLY way that statement can be true;

 

The unit stays still. That ends their Movement phase. The IC moves so he is (present indicative) within 2" of them.

 

Or

 

The unit moves 6". That ends their Movement phase. The IC moves so he is (present indicative) within 2" of them.

 

The following does not fulfill the rule;

 

Move the IC. He is (present indicative) NOT within 2" of a unit. He might be in a position to be within 2" after the unit has ended their movement phase, but that is forcing the IC out of his present indicative requirement.

[Morollan]

The following does not fulfill the rule;

 

Move the IC. He is (present indicative) NOT within 2" of a unit. He might be in a position to be within 2" after the unit has ended their movement phase, but that is forcing the IC out of his present indicative requirement.

 

I'm afraid it does fulfil the rule because, as I previously stated, the question is asked after the unit's movement, not the IC's.

 

Move the IC. Move the unit. Is he within 2" of the unit after their movement?

[Brother Tual]

Ramses, isnt the 'present' determined at the end of the movement phase. This certainly when IC's joining units occurs.

 

He has to move so he IS 2" away from a unit AT THE END OF THEIR MOVEMENT. You determine what IS at the end of the movement phase.

[Grey Mage]

Its my opinion that 'slingshotting' is wrong.

 

I dont think its against RAW though, for one reason only: there is nothing in the IC rules that says they cannot leave and rejoin a unit in the same turn. He simply leaves when he chooses, and is rejoined if hes within 2" of a unit.

 

The most pressing argument I see against this ability, RAW, works rather well- but isnt how anyone seems to play it.

 

-A model moves at the slowest speed of its unit.

-You dont move incrementally, you either move or you dont- so at the time the character leaves the unit, hes forced to move at the speed of the unit he was previously with if it is slower than his own. Why? Because until after he has moved he is NOT a seperate unit from the squad he was joined to because until then hes not out of coherency.

-Thus, Shrike for example, could not move 12" when he left a unit of infiltrated hammernators, only 6", wich would make any slingshotting pointless.

 

That first part sounds like,

 

"It doesn't say I can't so I can!"

 

The IC needs to move so he is within 2" of a unit he joins. That means that if were to ask after an IC has moved,

 

"Is he within 2" coherency of a friendly unit that has ended their Movement phase?"

 

You cannot answer,

 

"He will be."

 

You can only answer,

 

"He is."

 

The only way you can get that situation is if the unit ends their Movement phase first and then the IC moves to within 2" of them.

This argument hinges on your interpretation of the word 'their' in 'their movement phase'. However, gramatically speaking it would be just as appropriate to have this refering to the unit being joined as the character, wich makes this whole line of thinking fairly worthless for RAW.

[Grimtooth]

By trying to move the IC first and then the unit you would need this rule,

 

"The unit has to move so it is within 2" of the friendly IC at the end of his movement."

 

However the rule is stating that the IC must be the proactive. It puts the power so to speak, with the present indicative, in the hands of the IC and IC only. The IC and IC only has the requirement to move within 2" of a friendly unit when they have ended their movement.

 

The entire argument hinges on the verbiage. The verbiage does not allow for planning to move the IC within 2", it puts the burden on him to move within 2", hence the use of "is" and not "be".

 

If it was,

 

The IC has to move he will be within 2" of a friendly unit at the end of their movement.

 

Future tense is not present indicative. Where the IC is versus where the IC will be.

[Dan VK]

This argument hinges on your interpretation of the word 'their' in 'their movement phase'. However, gramatically speaking it would be just as appropriate to have this refering to the unit being joined as the character, wich makes this whole line of thinking fairly worthless for RAW.

Actually, in that sentence the most recent antecedent for 'their' is 'unit', and it is less grammatically appropriate for the generally plural 'their' to refer to the singular 'independent character'. It is more likely, and entirely grammatically correct and appropriate, that 'their' refers to both the 'independent character' and the 'unit'; individual units do not have separate Movement phases, but players do as part of their respective turns.

[Brother Tual]

If I move the IC and then move the unit 2" from the IC, *IS* the IC not 2" from the unit at the end of THEIR movement phase?

 

Where the IC *is* is measured at the end of the units movement phase, not the end of the IC's movement phase.

[Grimtooth]

If I move the IC and then move the unit 2" from the IC, *IS* the IC not 2" from the unit at the end of THEIR movement phase?

 

Where the IC *is* is measured at the end of the units movement phase, not the end of the IC's movement phase.

 

What you have just described is how the IC will be in 2" coherency of a friendly unit at the end of their movement. That is not the rule.