'Slingshotting'

[Dan VK]

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.

The rule in question states that this requirement must be met at the end of the Movement phase. The phase is not broken down into mini-phases where each unit gets its own Movement phase. Where are you getting the idea that coherency must be determined immediately upon completion of the independent character's movement? If you are basing your argument on 'is' requiring a present state, then you (and I) should both smack the English language for not having a dedicated future tense, because 'is' is not restricted to the present. This is an example of present tense with future signification; the statement has future meaning granted by context, specifically "at the end of the Movement phase."

 

Are you suggesting that because the rule is phrased so the independent character is withing 2" of the unit, that the independent character must have moved more recently than the unit, because the rule does not state that the unit is within 2" of the independent character, or that the independent character and unit are within 2" of each other? I believe I may have missed something. :)

 

 

[EDIT: Grammar; it's late]

[Brother Tual]

Yes, but at the end of the phase the IC is 2" from the unit and it is at the end of the phase the IC joins.

 

The rule says the joining is done at the end of the movement phase. Not at the end of the IC's movement. The only requirement is the IC is 2" at the end of the phase. Not where units were during the phase. Where units will be doesnt come into it.

[dswanick]

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.

I quite agree with the others. If the IC moves and then a unit moves the ic is in unit coherency at the end of their movement phase. It may or may not be grammatically perfect, but I'll wage that noone at GW is an English Professor and it holds up nicely to the common usage.

[thade]

It may or may not be grammatically perfect, but I'll wage that noone at GW is an English Professor and it holds up nicely to the common usage.

There is certainly more than enough evidence for us to support that claim. <3

 

My super-stupid dice facing example was to show how perfectly literal RAW is super-stupid; it escaped some people, so I guess I'll drop it. :lol:

 

Dan's grammar-analyses of the rule shows that 'their' may refer to either the IC or the unit. Furthermore, Movement effectively takes place simultaneously for each unit during the Movement Phase (as it is not broken down into "mini phases"). So, the IC neither moves before nor after the unit (if it moves at all).

 

In short, yes: the unit may move and join an IC.

[Dan VK]

I quite agree with the others. If the IC moves and then a unit moves the ic is in unit coherency at the end of their movement phase. It may or may not be grammatically perfect, but I'll wage that noone at GW is an English Professor and it holds up nicely to the common usage.

The use of 'their' to refer to 'independent character' and 'unit' without a conjunction joining them is awkward, and by basic rules 'their' refers to the most recent antecedent, which is 'unit', but we know contextually that the Movement phase encompasses the movement of both the 'independent character' and the 'unit'. "... at the end of the controlling player's Movement phase" would be an improvement. "... at the end of the Movement phase" would change the meaning, as it would allow joining a unit in an opponent's Movement phase.

 

 

[EDIT: Argh, ninja'd on my own point! :lol: ]

[Something Wycked]

Your dice example didn't escape me, thade; I simply dismissed it because how to read dice is not a 40k rule and is therefore not RAW, though there is a RAI case in the before mentioned book examples. Reading dice is an item of general knowledge such that anyone familiar with dice knows to read the top. This is not a practice unique to 40k :lol:

 

Dan: You're giving me some hope. Let me run this by your English perfection and see if we can't hammer out the tiny particulars of this.

 

You're stating there is only one movement phase, not separate movement phases for each unit. That being the case, when is the check (are the checks?) for coherency made? Before either the IC or the unit moves? After one, before the other? After both (end of the movement phase)?

 

I ask these questions regarding the "moves at the slowest" rule. When does this rule apply? The proponents of slingshotting being legal by RAW are effectively arguing that this rule can be conveniently ignored.

 

My (newly modified) argument is that:

1) If the IC was in coherency at the start of the movement phase and

2) if the IC is in coherency at the end of the movement phase and

3) if there are no separate movement phases for each IC/unit then

4) the IC was never "detached" and must move at the slowest speed.

 

Also, I think Grey Mage's theory mixes with this rather well. I assume his reading is also correct? There are no "incremental" moves; the IC begins the turn in coherency with the unit and must move at the slowest speed for that entire movement phase regardless of the IC moving out of coherency with the first 2" of movement or not.

[thade]

"How does it mix" is a good question: if there are technically no incremental sub-phases in the Movement Phase proper, how does the IC's movement speed restriction apply?

 

The answer seems to be it should but it doesn't necessarily; hence, my enduring rage at this entire topic. <3

 

@Som'Wyck: You are okay with this RAI-level: "Always read the top face of a rolled die to determine the result of that die" based upon it seeming to be that way in examples in the book. Yet, you are not okay with this RAI-level: "Units can join ICs" based on examples in the book (the Pinning, lack of clear order-of-operations during Movement, ambiguity for the focus of 'their'). Why this distinction?

[Something Wycked]

I am okay with units joining IC's as RAI- thats how my friends and I play it. But this is the OR and a discussion about slingshotting ^_^ I'll grab whatever ground I can to take it away from people like Stelek. :lol:

[thade]

My (sad) point is that RAW makes a solid case for both sides. I feel it may be a candidate for grey area.

 

The movement restriction rule and the leaving/joining in the same phase thing are in direct contradiction to one another. And that's dumb. It both allows and disallows "sling shotting". It can't do both...yet it seems to.

[Morollan]

My (sad) point is that RAW makes a solid case for both sides. I feel it may be a candidate for grey area.

 

The movement restriction rule and the leaving/joining in the same phase thing are in direct contradiction to one another. And that's dumb. It both allows and disallows "sling shotting". It can't do both...yet it seems to.

 

And this is where you point out the discrepancies, look at your opponent and calmly ask him if he really wants to use this murky logic to have his unit with a 12" move and assault range assault an enemy that is 16" away. If he says yes, say goodbye and walk away. I for one do not want to play against someone who would do that.

[Something Wycked]

It both allows and disallows "sling shotting". It can't do both...yet it seems to.

Of course I agree that the rules are written wonky, everyone can agree on that. But... something cannot both be a "yes" and a "no." My view is that it must be 100% allowed to be... allowed.

[Dan VK]

My (sad) point is that RAW makes a solid case for both sides. I feel it may be a candidate for grey area.

 

The movement restriction rule and the leaving/joining in the same phase thing are in direct contradiction to one another. And that's dumb. It both allows and disallows "sling shotting". It can't do both...yet it seems to.

And this is where you point out the discrepancies, look at your opponent and calmly ask him if he really wants to use this murky logic to have his unit with a 12" move and assault range assault an enemy that is 16" away. If he says yes, say goodbye and walk away. I for one do not want to play against someone who would do that.

I feel exactly the same way, and luckily anyone can make a House Rule with opponent consent. It is a sad fact that the rulebook and codices are filled with mistakes, including some that completely change how some very important things are played (for example, Strike squads and Interceptor squads lack the Deep Strike special rule in C:GK). Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on who in my local group you ask :lol: ), how people want to play the rules has no bearing on how the rulebook states the rules are played, which is what we should be discussing in the +OR+, even if we are all in consensus that the rules are stupidpants. ;)

 

Back to the topic, though. As previously stated by others, das slingshot is nothing new: see here. Also, I agree with Grey Mage's assessment of the 'slowest model' rule, Something Wycked, although the wording really is a goatscramble. What does "while they stay together" mean? What does "the combined unit" mean? I do not believe that a model may have a movement speed of 6", and then have his movement speed increased by another 6" because he is now out of coherency. The independent character began the Movement phase attached to a unit, so in that Movement phase he must move at the speed of the slowest model in the unit he is attached to, regardless of whether he moves out of coherency and will no longer be attached to the unit at the end of Movement phase.

 

 

[EDIT: Because it's my favorite thing to do]

[Something Wycked]

Amazing, isn't it, that it took all of this effort just to be able to define how the rules enforce "moving at the speed of the slowest model"?

[Gentlemanloser]

As a total aside;

 

for example, Strike squads and Interceptor squads lack the Deep Strike special rule in C:GK

 

That's incorrect Dan, it's listed for both under the 'Special Rules' section for each unit in the 'Grey Knights Army List' section of the 'dex (Page 91 and 93 respectively).

 

:P

 

Back on topic.

 

I agree with;

 

The independent character began the Movement phase attached to a unit, so in that Movement phase he must move at the speed of the slowest model in the unit he is attached to, regardless of whether he moves out of coherency and will no longer be attached to the unit at the end of Movement phase.

 

Yes the RAW state to leave a unit the IC moves out of coherency. But when is coherency measured and judged? At the end of your Movement Phase. It's then you check to see if the IC is out of 2" of any unit and is therefore alone, or within 2" of any unit, and decide which they have to join.

 

Until then, the IC is either on their own already, or part of the unit they were with at the start of the turn.

 

You don't measure or rule coherency at all times throughout your movement phase, or as noted above, you'd never be able to move a single mini more than 2" away from the other minis in their own unit.

[Dan VK]

As a total aside;

 

for example, Strike squads and Interceptor squads lack the Deep Strike special rule in C:GK

 

That's incorrect Dan, it's listed for both under the 'Special Rules' section for each unit in the 'Grey Knights Army List' section of the 'dex (Page 91 and 93 respectively).

 

:lol:

Huh, you are very, very correct. I have no idea how I missed that. If it would not be threadomancy, I would apologize to a few people...

[Brother Tual]

This is frustrating. Everything in parenthesis are my comments.

 

Page 11. Movement.

 

In his turn (RAW you have to be male to play 40K :no: ), a player may move any of his units - All of them if he wishes - upto their maximum movement distance. (Every thing can move upto their maximum distance - Maximum move ENABLED) Once a unit has completed all of its movement, the player selects another unit and moves that one, and so on... etc (We can all read the rule book.)

 

The next bit - 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. (If you move a unit, this move is its final resting place)

 

Page 12. Coherency

 

When you are moving a unit, the individual models in it can each move up to their maximum movement distance (OH NO! this is going to be an issue!)- but remember that units have to stick together, otherwise individual models become scattered as the unit looses its cohesion as a fighting force. So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" (as you can see you determine what is in coherency at the end of the movement phase. There is no requirement to keep coherency DURING movement. This rule STATES - not infers - each model can move upto its MAXIMUM movement)

 

Page 47. Independant Characters

 

Independant characters are represented by individual models, which fight as units in their own right. (This is for the RAI people) One of the most useful abilities of independant characters is to join other units in battle, so they can move in to bolster the battle line where the fighting is fiercest. (The obvious intent in the first rule effecting IC's is to give them absolute freedom in movement.)

 

Independant characters follow the movement rules for models of their type... (This cements the rule about moving models at full pace)

 

Page 48

 

Independant Characters are allowed to join other units... (rule that enables IC's to join units. This is un-restricted)

 

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. (We have alreday discussed what this means - simply to be 2" from a unit at the end of the movement phase. This is unrestricted)

 

While an independant character is part of a unit, (This is clear - the IC has to be PART of a unit for this rule to apply) he must obey the usual coherency rules. The combined (This means the IC and the unit - combined cant mean anything else) moves and assaults at the speed of the slowest model while they stay together. (For this rule to apply the IC has to be part of the unit. The following rule will detail when an IC is no longer part of a unit. Every reference in this rule to the unit and IC states they must be together, combined or part of, to apply. This is absolutely clear. Saying a unit starts a turn together and ends the turn together is considered joined is NOT a rule. It is invented.)

 

An independant character can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it. (All an IC has to do is move away from a unit. Once more than 2" it is NO LONGER PART of the unit. An IC's movement does not end here. He can continue to move. As he is no longer part of a unit he can move in any direction at full pace, obviously 2" of his full move is used to break coherency. All the rules quoted above ENABLE the IC to move at full pace. They actually STATE this. As the coherency rules only apply to the final resing place of a unit, a unit can effectively move away from an IC and as soon as the closest model is 2" away the IC is no longer part of this unit and is not subject to movement restrictions or coherency rules. The key words are DURING, it is not the beginning, end or whatever but DURING and - by moving out of coherency DISTANCE. Coherency distance does not suffer the concept of 'what is' in coherency. It is a range of 2". Not a rule.)

 

There is no mumbo jumbo in my argument, no invented concepts, opinions or exploitations. I have supplied my supporting material to the letter with the written rule and as this is the OR forum RAW trumps RAI. This is not a difficult phase of the game. Because you dont like the rule does not make it illegal.

[ShinyRhino]

This might as well be locked as a Grey Area rule. The argument is becoming like politics or religion...everyone has their stance, and no one will be swayed one way or the other regardless of what anyone says.

[Brother Tual]

How is my above post 'grey' my friend?

[Morollan]

How is my above post 'grey' my friend?

 

Because it rather conveniently ignored the section on page 11 which clearly states "All of the models in a unit move at the speed of the slowest model". So the maximum movement of a model in that unit is still 6".

[greatcrusade08]

tbh thats where i see the problem.

Tuals run down of the RAW rule is pretty spot on, however you dont read rules in a vaccuum..

here we have a set of rules that shows through several complex mechanics that steleks slingshot is technically legal, but in order for it to be legal we have to accept that a whole seperate rule is defunct under that interpretation of those mechanics.

that should stop most people, and make them think that perhaps their interpretation is wrong?

 

in my little world if one parent says yes and one says no, it means no.. just like maths:

positive + positive = positive

negative + negative = negative

positive + negative = negative

 

tbh the reason why we cant agree about the RAW here, is becuase GW are so bad at writing rules RAW has very little actual meaning, how many times have we seen clear cut rules get turned upside down with a single FAQ? how many times does the interpretation of a signle word change the way a rule works?

we can argue the letter of the rules, but wouldnt it be better to argue the usage of the rules?

we are all in agreement that steleks slingshot is a douchebag move, the "it doesnt say i cant" argument is the bread and butter of ruleslawyers everywhere, people who have little concept of the moral contract inherant with any social game, even competative gamers are capable of seeing that.

 

what we have here is interpretation of rules for gain, whether its legally correct is in doubt, but whether its morally correct is in no doubt.. and even TOs IMO will see that.

to recommend it as a tactic under the grey area ruleslawyer BS, is a douche move and stelek should be ashamed of himself, hes just hoping no-one will argue against it, becuase lets face it the counter argument to steleks slingshot has alot of weight..

you cant just igore one whole rule becuase you interpret the mechanics of a seperate rule/s to contradict it.

 

by all means lets put this in the grey area section, but lets not forget that we all know which side of this bread really is buttered.

[thade]

How is my above post 'grey' my friend?

 

Because it rather conveniently ignored the section on page 11 which clearly states "All of the models in a unit move at the speed of the slowest model".

This is why it's grey, for both sides. Anybody that sees one or the other solution as fact is disregarding or ignoring a rule. We are in fact cycling at this point.

 

I'm firmly in the mindset that this is a RAW Grey Area.

[Brother Tual]

Its not ignoring any rule. I quoted it in full. It says at the start- While part of a unit... This qualifies the rule to only apply when part of the unit. It cant mean anything else! You cant simply state a fraction of the rule, the part you want to be true, and claim it to be definative.

 

The rest of the rules strongly claim the opposite. They even state - can each move up to their maximum movement distance - yet this rule is ignored to better defend the position of making sling shot illegal. I dont like the rule. I dont use it. But I would not deny someone its use when it is allowed and supported by the rules.

[thade]

Brother Tual, how do you account for an IC being restricted by the Movement of a unit he remains attached to? Specifically, how do you define "stays together with"?

 

That is the part I see ignored.

[Morollan]

Its not ignoring any rule. I quoted it in full. It says at the start- While part of a unit... This qualifies the rule to only apply when part of the unit. It cant mean anything else! You cant simply state a fraction of the rule, the part you want to be true, and claim it to be definative.

 

I quoted the rule exactly as it appears in the rulebook (pg11).

 

DIFFERENT MOVEMENT DISTANCES IN A UNIT

All of the models in a unit move at the speed of the slowest model

 

The rest of the rules strongly claim the opposite. They even state - can each move up to their maximum movement distance

 

And that maximum movement distance is clearly stated to be the speed of the slowest model. Nowhere in the rules does it state the the IC miraculously gains a higher movement speed at the instant that he leaves coherency. He still has a maximum move of 6" because that was his speed when he started his move.

[Something Wycked]

The rest of the rules strongly claim the opposite. They even state - can each move up to their maximum movement distance

 

And that maximum movement distance is clearly stated to be the speed of the slowest model. Nowhere in the rules does it state the the IC miraculously gains a higher movement speed at the instant that he leaves coherency. He still has a maximum move of 6" because that was his speed when he started his move.

Emphasis mine...

 

+1 Morollan.