How does Swift Action actually work?

[Ironwithout]

176271-received-455050311351491/][/url]

So the White Scars rules Swift Action is above and i think the clear intention was to make you move as far as possible every turn so you have a real benefit to going as fast as possible.... nice and fluffy. But it doesn't work like that in the slightest. Heres my reasoning.

Im going to use a bike squad as a reference for this.

If i have a 5 man bike squad spread out over 8 inches. Now in theory you use the start location of the unit so that can be any point a model in that unit occupies. So I move every model 5 inches forward. This move would mean the leading bike is now 13 inches from the starting location of the rear most bike which means as a unit the unit is now 13 inches from the origional start location so gains the benefits.

On the flip side potentially by this logic if i move a bike unit around the corner of a building moving their maximum 12 inch move actually its possible for the unit not to gain the benefits as they may not be 12 inches from their start location.

The rules seems poorly written. They could have just said something along the lines of if a model moved its maxumim distance in the movement phase it would gain these benefits.

What does everyone think? I dont want to exploit this rule in the slightest but i do want to be playing it properly.

[Quixus]

You specify one point on any one model and compare the position of that point before and after movement.

[Brother Pheidias]

Who plays like that, honestly? The intention of the rule seems perfectly clear to me, why do we have to bother with all these hypothetical abuses? Gah...

[Resonance]

Yeah you move the squad 12" in the movement phase, you get the benefit. you move 3/4 of the squad 10" and the last one 12" the you don't get it. Because the 'unit' didn't move 12". Edited February 9, 2016 by Slipstreams

[Slips]

Keep pointed remarks and personal gibs out of this its unbecoming.

 

The reason we bother with these is so that if we go up against someone who does try and pull those shenanigans we can properly retort and have an agreed-upon consensus to back us up en lieu of an FAQ or Clarification from FW.

 

Dealing with potential rules abuses is mostly knowing how the abuse is conducted.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Slipstreams

[Quixus]

Yeah you move the squad 12" in the movement phase, you get the benefit. you move 3/4 of the squad 10" and the last one 12" the you don't get it. Because the 'unit' didn't move 12".

So how do you decide whether a unit has moved 12"? I can move all models in a unit 12" and the unit is still the same distance from an enemy unit (or any other fixed point on the battle field). Has the unit moved 12"?

 

What about a unit that after the movement phase is 12" closer to an enemy (or other fixed point on the battle field) but not all models have moved that distance? Has the unit moved 12"?

 

Unfortunately the rules are silent on what it means for a unit to move a certain distance, because movement is done on a model by model basis.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Quixus

[Brother Pheidias]

I know, just somewhat frustrated with the state of the game, when this kind of interpretive gaming of the system is something that needs to be adressed.

I remember a quote from somewhere that went "as a rule, games designers do not hide easter-eggs in the rules. If clever reading is required to unlock some hidden advantage, it's the result of wishful thinking"...

[Quixus]

This is not a case of creative interpretation of the rules, it is the absence of a rule one way or the other.

 

Also discussing badly written rules does not necessarily mean using those badly written rules to your advantage. You play the game to have fun not to get a certain advantage over your opponent - well most people do.

 

Interestingly enough in other situations the same insistence on badly written rules is a lot less frowned upon. Think extreme couponing or doing your taxes. But then again in those situations the loopholes are sometimes fixed pretty quickly. Quasi-deep strike has not been for several editions. The Skyshield Landing pad has not been fixed since it was first sold. RAI and RAW are clear on the latter, unfortunately both are the exact opposite for flyers moving off the pad while the shields are raised.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Quixus

[Hesh Kadesh]

I know, just somewhat frustrated with the state of the game, when this kind of interpretive gaming of the system is something that needs to be adressed.

 

I remember a quote from somewhere that went "as a rule, games designers do not hide easter-eggs in the rules. If clever reading is required to unlock some hidden advantage, it's the result of wishful thinking"...

Another quote is "Games Designers don't kmow how to play the game they create". I made it up, but as the end user of a luxury product?

 

This rule hasn't even been stress tested to breaking point. The rules have been out for 3 days, and only a few people have it. We have grainy photos taken by a potato sometimes to judge rules.

 

When rules questions as obvious as 'can i rubber band' in regards to movement, along with many others, such as 'what constitutes an infantry unit' you have to ask questions like these.

 

You are also in the rules section of the forums. Did you expect people to discuss things like this by not discussing the legal application of the rules?

 

And is it the fault of the person if they are doing something legal? If what the Games Designers wanted was something, they should say that. Not do it otherwise.

 

Here, we have an amorphous blob, with no defined point of reference, and a load of models within who have individual move distances, and a rule triggering on one of these models moving from said undetermined Point of Reference to another point of reference a determinate amount of inches away.

 

If they had said 'models', that would have been clearer. If a model moves 6-12" from its starting point, it would be an accounting nightmare, but better written and allowed definite answers.

[Ironwithout]

Just to point out i didn't mean to cause any friction. As i believe i said i knew the intention of the rule. I wanted to discuss it on the bases that I won't always possibly know my opponent I play and if I play the rule the fluffy way and he doesn't that could cause us both to have a poor experience and vice versa. I was asking the question as was hoping for some help to do things the right way to avoid any issues during an actual game and so both my opponent and I have as good an experience as possible.

 

Apologies if i came across in an inappropriate manner

Edited February 9, 2016 by Ironwithout

[Brother Pheidias]

Hesh Kadesh, on 09 Feb 2016 - 2:31 PM, said:

 

A lot of  very true things

 

I don't disagree with you, and my frustrations have nothing to do with discussing the rules. It was very late when I posted originally, and that shows ;)

 

I see the potential for misinterpreting the rule, but I stand by my assertion that the intent is for every model in the unit to move the distance indicated, and that seems implicit to me. But to be fair I probably have too much faith in people to interpret rules sensibly, and I've been thoroughly disappointed enough times, so I really ought to know better by now 

[Ironwithout]

 

Hesh Kadesh, on 09 Feb 2016 - 2:31 PM, said:

 

A lot of very true things

 

 

I don't disagree with you, and my frustrations have nothing to do with discussing the rules. It was very late when I posted originally, and that shows ;)

 

I see the potential for misinterpreting the rule, but I stand by my assertion that the intent is for every model in the unit to move the distance indicated, and that seems implicit to me. But to be fair I probably have too much faith in people to interpret rules sensibly, and I've been thoroughly disappointed enough times, so I really ought to know better by now

Interestingly we are of the same opinion on the intent of the rule then. The difference being you have faith in people interpreting the rules in the correct way. Honestly I don't. My experience has led to me being overly anal about understanding rules. Not so I can enforce them in game as frankly I don't as all i care about is having a laugh. But so when the inevitable happens and we have a rules dispute I have as much information as possible for a decent outcome for both parties.

 

In relation to your first question. "Who plays like this?" In all seriousness i have been waiting for Scars for a fair while now and am chuffed with the rules. But yes people do play like this. since the rules have come out I have had 4 people from my local group who play heavily in 40k tournaments debating this very point. Yes they play to win. Do I mind? Nope but I make sure im in the right sort of mood before I have a game with them. Thats why I ask what may seem like a frustrating question. If you never play people like this it sounds like you have a great gaming group ☺

Edited February 9, 2016 by Ironwithout

[Brother Pheidias]

I was being hyperbolic, got a few highly exasperating friends :P Luckily/unluckily they have no interest in HH, or 40k in general, for that matter.

But yeah, I agree with your points too, just whishing for less strenous gaming ;)

Incidentally, I am waiting on my own order of scars, so I can get into the Heresy proper, so it's obviously a good idea to brush up on the rules and possible pitfalls.

[Resonance]

I wasn't attacking anyone in particular and if it came across this way I apologise, I was more having hard look at what is seemingly an attitude of WAACs that is seeping into 30k!

 

But I understand now that people want to know for when they come across the WAAC players. So my apologies.

 

I have to agree though people will play it to their advantage, I find it fairly obvious RAW and RAI but of course there are people out there with different opinions haha. until we get clarification from FW in an FAQ this will prob be an issue!

 

I would have liked to see this rule be s little more lenient to take into account when your front moves less than your back in a squad. Let's say the unit must move 2/3s of its standard movement.

[Hesh Kadesh]

No drama guys, it happens.

 

:) I've been subject to too many people who are willing to exploit the rules that I think it's better to be overly explicit with rules, and take it to great pains to be that way; although that's possibly due to my nature and personality working in contracts.

 

If we're looking for a Rules as Common Sense Dictates (RACSD) interpretation, here is how I'd write it;

 

Swift Action; Before moving any models of a unit containing one or more models with this rule, place a marker next to any one such model with the Swift Action rule. At the end of the movement phase, provided that all models in that unit with this rule are further than 6" from this marker, then they gain one of the following bonuses until the start of your following Movement Phase.

- 1 

- 2

If the model has the Jump Infantry, Bike, or Jetbike unit type, these models must end 12" away from the marker."

 

I removed the stupid clause for working on vehicles, because guess what. It doesn't get Legiones Astartes (White Scars) because vehicles don't get Legiones Astartes.

[Quixus]

With 6" movement the model that starts next to the marker cannot ever be farther than 6" from the marker. Your houserule also prevents jump infantry from using HoW in the same turn as Swift Action, which the actual rule does not.

[Hesh Kadesh]

Good catch, not sure why I'd included Jump Infantry. As to the measuring, if measuring near edge to near edge, I suppose rewording it to no closer than 6" to the marker. If edge to edge, then it's 6" exactly. 

[Resonance]

Which is why the 2/3 of max move is a good idea, you get a little leeway. Greater than 4" for infantry and 8" for bikes etc.

or even better max movement -1 inch, so 5" and 11"

[Ironwithout]

My local gaming group has voted to use it as each model must move maximum distance to qualify for the buffs which I am happy with as im pretty sure thats how the rule was origionally intended. If i ever got to a HH event i think ill just have to discuss with them before the event.

 

Cheers

[Caustic63]

And here's another Swift Action question... does the reroll 1s to Wound work for shooting attacks? In the rule it states that "in the Movement Phase and/or Assault Phase it gains the following benefits until the start of its controlling player's next turn"

 

This part is worded really awkwardly, as the unit could choose to gain the benefits in the Movement Phase and have them apply until the beginning of next turn (hence through the Psychic, Shooting and Assault Phases) OR this could mean that the benefits only apply during the Movement and Assault phases (and hence won't buff Shooting or Psychic attacks).

 

A third possibility is that this is a typo, and that it should read "in the Shooting Phase and/or Assault Phase".

 

What do all of you think?

[SkimaskMohawk]

You gain the benefits in a specified phase, which then last until the specified turn. Its really not that complicated tho the sentence has superfluous wording

[Resonance]

You get the bonus for the movement in the move or assault phase

[Ironwithout]

You get the bonus for the movement in the move or assault phase

But it doesn't work like that. By that logic you only get the benefit to the cover save in your own movement and assault phase. I see how your reading it but its saying you gain that benefit in the move or assault phase and lasts until the end of you opponents turn.

 

For example if you moved 4" in your movement phase you wouldn't re roll 1's to shoot. But if you then moved an additional 3" in the assault phase then as total you have moved over the 6" you would then re roll 1's in the assault

Edited March 12, 2016 by Ironwithout

[SkimaskMohawk]

It triggers in one of the phases and then lasts until the start of your next turn

[Kais Klip]

What if I'm in difficult terrain, and getting blasted by Knights. If I roll and move 3" in the movement phase, then stumble another 3" by rolling to run, do I get a +1 to my cover save when I get shot by the knight?