Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Strimen wrote:Here's how I see it:

1) Welcome to 5th edition, we have of course made rule changes and how we say things to mean stuff during the course of the game. This is a permissive rule set, so you can only do what we say in the rules and you must do exactly that.

The rules permit me to remove models from the tabletop.

Removing models from the tabletop is not movement.

If removing models from the tabletop was movement, then casualties could never be taken from a close combat.

Your post adds nothing to the overall debate, which has already moved far beyond this "it doesn't say I can so I can't" silliness, because in this context the rules specifically say you can.

So, I wanted to get my BGB in my hands so I could re-read the sections on Falling Back off the table, and Embarking.

Doing so has further convinced me that "removing from the table" is a discreet action, apart from movement.

p. 45 If any model from a unit that is falling back moves into contact with a table edge, the entire unit is removed from the game and counts as destroyed...

p. 66: A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its access points in the Movement phase. The whole unit must be able to embark - if some models are out of range, the unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table..."

Let me restate an opinion I hold: The "movement" rules are what's in the movement section of the BGB. Just as the "deep strike" rules are what is in the deep strike section of the BGB.

Therefore, "movement" is what's described in those sections. If you're not doing "movement," ie. avoiding impassable terrain, enemy models, moving under your allowed distance, etc. then it's not movement, it's something else.

In the two quotes above, while it's far from concretely stated, it appears to me that the rules are written with this same mentality. In both cases, it describes how the movement rules are used up to a specific condition, at which point the models are removed.

This is particularly true with embarking. You move up to the transport, you meet certain criteria at the end of your movement. If you do this, you can then "embark" which is a rule in the vehicle section, and it allows the models to be removed from the table.

So, the "something else" that one might do is "embark" or "the first step of GoI," or whatever. It's rules from the vehicles section of the BGB, or the psychic powers section of C:SM. It's not from the movement section of the BGB, so it's not movement.

The more I dig into the rules around GoI (which is proving to be a real problem rule), the more I see a tendency on the part of GW to use something like "goto statements."

They are constantly directing the use of the deep strike rules, or these rules or those rules. They're basically hopping the user from one section of rules to another to perform different actions. While their language and capitalization are inconsistant, I think the use of conceptual "sections" is both intentional and frequent. When they say "movement" they mean that piece of the rules, p11-14.

Phryxis wrote:So, the "something else" that one might do is "embark" or "the first step of GoI," or whatever. It's rules from the vehicles section of the BGB, or the psychic powers section of C:SM. It's not from the movement section of the BGB, so it's not movement.

Ok, so if I understand correctly, you are asserting that there is a third way for a model to be removed from the table that is neither movement nor as a casualty.

If so, which I am willing to concede, then we need some definitions on how that works. For example, you cite that embarking is a form of being removed from the table that does not constitute movement since it is something that is described in the vehicle section of the rulebook rather than in the movement section of the rulebook.

If that is so, can a unit leave an ongoing assault to embark upon a vehicle? If embarking does not constitute movement, then we would need a specific prohibition in the rules disallowing leaving a close combat to embark upon a vehicle. Also, if it doesn't constitute movement, can a unit with a heavy weapon embark and still fire that heavy weapon from the vehicles fire point(s), if any?

As a second, unrelated, argument, I would still like to present precedent, since the entire debate is addressing whether or not units can make use of GoI to leave an ongoing assault.

1. Fleeing combat specifically allows you to leave combat.
2. Casualty removal specifically allows you to be removed from base to base.
3. Hit and run specifically addresses leaving models in base to base.
4. Skyleap specifically addresses leaving models in base to base.
5. Veil of Darkness specifically addresses leaving models in base to base.

Gate of Infinity does not have such a reference. Why is that? If the reference is not needed, why do the other rules have it? If it is needed, why doesn't GoI have it?

With that logic you are saying that embarking of the troops is not movement, so nothing is stopping you from moving your vehicle so that all the models would be with 2" of the access point, very easy to do when there are only 2 or 3 models left. Then on the units Movement phase embark them out of CC, because if they are already withing 2" you don't have to move them, it says to remove them.

If you say GOI can break CC, so can embarking in this instance.

sourclams wrote:If removing models from the tabletop was movement, then casualties could never be taken from a close combat.

Unless of course there was a rule specifying that one must do so.
Which, oddly enough, there is.

Ok, so if I understand correctly, you are asserting that there is a third way for a model to be removed from the table that is neither movement nor as a casualty.

Not exactly... I'm not really sure if it matters, but this is just how I'm reading it: There's only "removing from the table." Movement isn't being removed from the table, it's moving. Being removed as a casualty is "being removed from the table." So is the first step of GoI.

You don't move off the table. You move into a certain state where removal from the table happens. One thing that really jumped out at me in reading the Fall Back rules, is that they chose not to allow the model to move off the table. The model moves to the very edge of the table, then the whole unit is "removed from the table."

To me this looks like the designers wanting removal from the table to be a specific, discreet action.

Take a look at that quote, you'll see what I mean.

If that is so, can a unit leave an ongoing assault to embark upon a vehicle?

This is a very problematic item for my interpretation.

My solution: The rule says the models must move within 2" of the transport. Since a model locked in combat can't move, they can't do this. They have to move, not just be, within 2".

So, it's def a good question/challenge to my interpretation, but I think there's a semi-concrete way to prevent it, and even if it's a problem, I think it's a lesser problem than is created by other interpretations.

Also, if it doesn't constitute movement, can a unit with a heavy weapon embark and still fire that heavy weapon from the vehicles fire point(s), if any?

Basically the same as above... If the model must move within 2", then they moved. I guess its worth restating, the rules say the model must 'move within 2".' Not 'be within 2".' So, they must conduct a move action that leaves them within 2" of the vehicle.

Gate of Infinity does not have such a reference. Why is that?

I'm not sure, I think we'd have to get into developer intent to answer that.

I hope what's happening is that the developers are cutting down on unnecessary clarification. I've never liked it when they say something that should already be clear, as if it wasn't already clear, causing the reader to think "wait, I thought I already knew that... Huh?"

It sets a precedent, just like this one, where the reader now has to ask "if they don't say it, are they implying I can't?"

Unless of course there was a rule specifying that one must do so.
Which, oddly enough, there is.

Problem is there's also one for GoI, and it's pretty explicit. The reason this is brought up repeatedly, is if "removing from the table" is movement, it breaks casualty removal.

BGB Page 66 wrote:
A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its access points in the Movement Phase.

The have to move if they aren't already within 2", not they have to move 2"

If you are already within 2" you can ignore this step.

BGB Page 66 continued wrote:
The whole unit must be able to embark - if some models are out of range, the unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside, ...

The condition to embark is be within 2" of the access point.
The action of embarking is removing the models.

To go down this route of GoI is not movement, you are saying that in this condition embarking is not moving as well.

sbeasley wrote:

BGB Page 66 continued wrote:
The whole unit must be able to embark - if some models are out of range, the unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside, ...

The condition to embark is be within 2" of the access point.
The action of embarking is removing the models.

To go down this route of GoI is not movement, you are saying that in this condition embarking is not moving as well.

I have to disagree here a bit. If you look at the rule on page 66 you quoted, it actually says, "A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its access points in the Movement phase."
Clearly the condition to embark is not to be within 2", but rather to move within 2". The models still have to move to embark. It is only after they have embarked they are removed from the table, "When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table..." so indeed embarked units are removed but they must move first.

Suppose I move a transport less than 2" away from a unit. The unit still must move to embark. The fact that they are starting their move within the 2" does not preculde them from making a move. This is why the rules specify that voluntary embarking and disembarking can only be done in the movement phase.

As for GoI, this is a psvchic ability that is used at the beginning of the Librarian's Movement phase. It follows that it is used instead of moving normally. I agree that the rules do not use this exact wording, but IMO the fact of when it is used makes it movement. The Necron wargear VoD does state that it is used at the start of the Lord's movement phase instead of moving normally and that it can even be used if enemy models are in base contact. This condition (base contact) would have to be specifically stated to allow it to work with GoI.

Just as you could not embark into a transport while in base contact with an enemy unit, you can't go 24" away using GoI. In both of these instances, you have to follow the Movement phase prohibition that says that units that are locked in close combat may not move in the movement phase. Then Necron and Eldar codex have units that can do so due to a special rule, the SM Librarian does not.

I'm with Timmah, Sourclams, Phryx on this one too.

"Movement" is a technical game term that is defined in the "Movement" section of rules, so its meaning in the rules is restricted to that only. Anything, like removing models from the table, that involves transposing the position of models from one place to another in real space might be "movement" in the conventional sense of the word, but it is not "Movement" in the sense that the rules use the word.

So removing models from the table is not "Movement." "Movement" only happens on the tabletop.

Isn't there a rule that says models aren't allowed to "move" off the table?

@time wizard
It appears that we are actually saying the same thing. I absolutely 100% agree with you that you can neither embark or GoI while in CC

What I was attempting to do was show the same logic that pro GoI while in CC is effectively the same logic as what I stated above of allowing units to embark while in CC, because it used the phrase "remove from the table"

And this is where people will disagree, like I view that moving to within 2" isn't the embark process, but a condition that in order to embark you have to be within 2".

Think of it this way. Let's say I disembark a unit and I barely have enough room to legally disembark them. The next turn I'm going to embark them and the same conditions apply, but they haven't moved, but are still within 2". you say I have to move each model, because that is what the rule states, before I could embark, but that could possibly make it impossible to embark, because one model had to move out of range of 2".

I say the wording means that the models just have to be within 2" of the access point in order to use the embark action, this can be done by already being there, the unit moving to within 2". Then the embark action takes place, removing the models.

Whether you move the models or not, IMO it is still movement by the nature of what is happening. Just like GoI is movement.

So in the end it is the same result for the both of us.

Flavius Infernus wrote:I'm with Timmah, Sourclams, Phryx on this one too.

"Movement" is a technical game term that is defined in the "Movement" section of rules, so its meaning in the rules is restricted to that only. Anything, like removing models from the table, that involves transposing the position of models from one place to another in real space might be "movement" in the conventional sense of the word, but it is not "Movement" in the sense that the rules use the word.

So removing models from the table is not "Movement." "Movement" only happens on the tabletop.

Isn't there a rule that says models aren't allowed to "move" off the table?

I haven't had time to really get into this today, as I've been busy at work, but I want to address this really quickly.

The main rules address what "movement" is in game terms. There are explanations on how it can be done, and restrictions and limitations put forth by the rules. We have pages of rules, fluff, and diagrams.

The assertion being put forth by some is that "removed from the board" is not movement.

Where is "removed from the board" defined as a game term separate from movement (excluding the rules on casualty removal, of course)? Where are the restrictions and allowances? Where are the explanations of when and how it can be done? Where are the diagrams and fluff?

If "movement" is a game term with a specific set of rules applicable to it, then "removed from the board" must also be a game term. If "removed from the board" is not a game term, then how do we know how to do it? (And, no, you can't answer that last one with "common sense tells me how," because common sense says that starting at point A and ending at point B is moving, regardless of how you get there.)

Saldiven wrote:
If "movement" is a game term with a specific set of rules applicable to it, then "removed from the board" must also be a game term. If "removed from the board" is not a game term, then how do we know how to do it? (And, no, you can't answer that last one with "common sense tells me how," because common sense says that starting at point A and ending at point B is moving, regardless of how you get there.)

Not true, common sense says that going from point A to point B MIGHT have been done by moving. You could have teleported their without moving. You could have been pushed there without moving. You could have been deployed their. You could have been accidentally knocked over and possibly placed back near the spot where people think your location was before the accident but you wouldn't count as movving either. Common sense tends to no be that common when dealing with a wide range of people. Luckily the rules state that some of these things count as moving, but not all methods of a model going from point A to point B are counted as moving in this game. And GoI seems to be another one of them.


Just pointing it out.

Strimen wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
If "movement" is a game term with a specific set of rules applicable to it, then "removed from the board" must also be a game term. If "removed from the board" is not a game term, then how do we know how to do it? (And, no, you can't answer that last one with "common sense tells me how," because common sense says that starting at point A and ending at point B is moving, regardless of how you get there.)

Not true, common sense says that going from point A to point B MIGHT have been done by moving. You could have teleported their without moving. You could have been pushed there without moving. You could have been deployed their. You could have been accidentally knocked over and possibly placed back near the spot where people think your location was before the accident but you wouldn't count as movving either. Common sense tends to no be that common when dealing with a wide range of people. Luckily the rules state that some of these things count as moving, but not all methods of a model going from point A to point B are counted as moving in this game. And GoI seems to be another one of them.


Just pointing it out.

Hence proving my point.

Common sense is rarely common and hardly sensical, to paraphrase Samuel Clemmens, I believe.

My question still stands: What are the game term definitions and mechanics for "removed from the board" if they are different from movement? How, exactly, is "removed from the board," exactly, performed?

Strimen shows why "common sense" can't be used to explain how we do it.

There are two terms "Remove from the table" and "Remove from the table as a casualty" The later is defined on page 24. You are removing them, because they are dead, unconscious, or can't fight for some reason. You remove them from the table, because they are no longer part of the game. "Remove from the table" in all other instances the unit is still part of the game. This terminology is not explicitly defined, so it has to be interpreted as to what it means in game terms, so you have to look at context to determine what rules apply and what do not.

Does GoI constitute movement? If it does, it cannot be used in CC because it doesn't contain text that specifically states that it is allowed to break the no movement in CC rule.

First, GoI is used at the beginning of the movement phase, where all movement occurs, suggest movement is involved.

Second, GoI action is very specific as to how GoI acts, the unit is removed and immediately placed back together anywhere within 24" using the deep strike rules.

The key word here is and, not then. And conditions must all be met in order to be true. You cannot have one without the other.

The only defined section is deep striking rules, which again don't explicitly state that deep striking count as moving, but have a lot of the same restrictions as a unit that has moved, plus more.

Deep strike restrictions:
It can't move any more in the movement phase.
In the shooting phase the unit can fire weapons as counted as moving.
May not assault in the assault phase, unless stated in a special rule, because they are too disrupted by there deep strike move.

While not explicitly stated as a move action it is implied as is GoI by context.

This is how I make the call.

Saldiven wrote:

Hence proving my point.

Common sense is rarely common and hardly sensical, to paraphrase Samuel Clemmens, I believe.

My question still stands: What are the game term definitions and mechanics for "removed from the board" if they are different from movement? How, exactly, is "removed from the board," exactly, performed?

Strimen shows why "common sense" can't be used to explain how we do it.

Luckily I'm not arguing from common sense.

Not all terms used in the rules are defined in the rules. It would be really inconvenient (and impossible) for the rules to have to define every single word they use, like "the" or "and" or "is." Where words are not specifically defined in the rules, you have to go to the dictionary, which is not the same as common sense.

In a strict RAW reading, where terms are specifically defined in the rules, and especially where terms are capitalized like "Movement Phase," then the meanings of those terms are restricted by the rules.

"Movement" is defined in the rules, so it means exactly what it says in the rules that it does, and nothing more. "Removed from the tabletop" is not defined in the rules, so you have to use dictionary definitions of the term to find out what it means.

In "Movement," you pick up the models and put them down again within a 6" radius (or whatever the allowance is for that model). Any other form of spacial displacement of models does not count as "Movement" in a strict RAW reading. So picking models up off the table and putting them down somewhere off the table isn't movement.

I'm aware that Yak's original argument says that putting them back on the table counts as "Movement." But I'd argue that, since they're not on the table at that point, they're no longer locked in combat, so they're allowed to "Move" as per Timmah's argument that the phrase "and then" shows that one action is completed before the next one is begun. I mean, what happens if they mishap and get the "remains in reserve" result? They would not have "Moved" at that point according to Yak's description of movement.

I'm curious where the final sentiment ends up... but since no-one has quoted the rules, I figured I would.
See below for relevant quotes.

C:SM p.57 wrote:This power is used at the beginning of the Librarian's Movement phase. The Librarian, and any unit he is with, are removed from the tabletop and immediately placed back together anywhere within 24" using the deep strike rules. if the librarian travels alone, there is no risk, but if he takes a unit with him, there is a chance something will go wrong. if the deep strike attempt scatters and a double is rolled, one member of the unit, chosen by the controlling player, is claimed by the warp and removed as a casualty(the survivors scatter normally)

C:N p.15 wrote:A Necron Lord can use a Veil of Darkness at the start of its Movement phase instead of moving normally. The Necron Lord and up to one unit of Necrons (specifically Immortals, Flayed Ones, Warriors, Destroyers, Heavy Destroyers or Wraiths) within 6" of it are removed from the tabletop and both are then immediately placed back together anywhere on the tabletop using the Deep Strike Rules. They Veil may be used even if enemy models are in base contact with the Necron Lord or any of the Necrons that move with him (the enemy models are left behind).

C:IG p.65 wrote:An army that includes Commander Chenkov may purchase this special rule for its Conscript squads, as described in the army list. A unit with this special rule can, at the start of the player's turn, be removed from play as casualties if the controlling player wishes, counting as destroyed. Any unit with this special rule that is removed from play may be brought back into play at the beginning of the controlling player's next turn. The new unit moves onto the board from the player's board edge. The unit arrives with as many models and exactly the same armaments as its full strength predecessor - it is treated as a new, identical unit that has just arrived from reserve.

C:E p.35 wrote:With a great shout, the Exarch and his squad launch high into the sky. The player may elect to remove a unit with Skyleap from the table in its Movement Phase, placing it in reserve. If the squad was engaged in combat, the enemy may make a 3" consolidation move. The squad may then Deep Strike back into play from their following turn, exactly as if they had been held in reserve from the beginning of the game (even in missions that do not allow Deep Strike or reserves). For Example, if they are removed from the table on turn 2, they will re-enter play on turn 3 on the roll of a 3+

Even though I'm advocating a particular strict RAW reading, though, I still think the phrasing is ambiguous enough--and doesn't explicitly cover things like DS mishaps or gating out of transports--that I'd feel a lot better if there were a clarification.

I'll probably just refrain from using the power until it gets clarified (if ever). Avenger and null zone are good enough.

Flavius Infernus wrote: so they're allowed to "Move" as per Timmah's argument that the phrase "and then" shows that one action is completed before the next one is begun.

paidinfull wrote:

C:SM p.57 wrote:The Librarian, and any unit he is with, are removed from the tabletop and immediately placed back together anywhere within 24" using the deep strike rules.

That was not the "and then" part, was it?

kirsanth wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote: so they're allowed to "Move" as per Timmah's argument that the phrase "and then" shows that one action is completed before the next one is begun.

paidinfull wrote:

C:SM p.57 wrote:The Librarian, and any unit he is with, are removed from the tabletop and immediately placed back together anywhere within 24" using the deep strike rules.

That was not the "and then" part, was it?

Oops. Well I guess it's even more ambiguous than I thought, then. Especially with that "immediately" in there--just makes it even less clear.

Too bad, since two of the majorly awesome tactical uses of GoI are to move out of HtH and to disembark from a transport that has already moved. But the ambiguity means it's probably not reliable enough a reading to count on those tactics at a tournament.

So I guess avenger is a pretty good power.

Well, it's a good thing that the word "and" can denote two things in a sequence, which is pretty obvious in this case. Also, "immediately" is not the same as "simultaneously", referring again to a sequence. RAW gating out of combat is preserved.

Wow, I didn't bother to re-read the Skyleap rules. Looks like I should have... Can't believe they were previously cited as proof that you can't GoI out of combat...

With a great shout, the Exarch and his squad launch high into the sky. The player may elect to remove a unit with Skyleap from the table in its Movement Phase, placing it in reserve. If the squad was engaged in combat, the enemy may make a 3" consolidation move.

This is NOT giving special permission to let them leave combat. Instead it's presuming it's possible to remove a unit from combat, and then is addressing what to do with the unit that's been abandoned.

If we accept precedent as an argument (which I'd argue we absolutely should), this is a pretty clear proof.

Indeed. There's nothing in the Skyleap rule that allows them to be removed from close combat, only a very strong implication that they can.

Similar to Bjorn's 5+ invulnerable save, there's nothing in his rules that allow a vehicle to take an invulnerable save, only a very clear implication that he can.

RAW doesn't fail in the case of GOI, it's arguably ambiguous. Precedent would suggest that the most powerful interpretation is indeed the correct one.

Edit: I reference Bjorn to refute the 'it doesn't say you can so you can't' mindset. Nothing in either the SW codex or the main book allows vehicles to take wounds, therefore invulnerable saves can never be taken because they are only available when a model is wounded. Since 'IDSYCSYC' thinking is to go with the most limiting interpretation, clearly Bjorn isn't allowed to ever take his invulnerable save. Ever. GW writing is not nearly technical enough to make the IDSYCSYC blanket statement in response to a rules argument. You do have to look at all the other variables, else you get very stupid interpretations.

You don't get to apply RAI to skyleap but not to GoI. That's just being manipulative. Skyleap can be used to leave combat for the same reason as Gate of Infinity: it doesn't say I can't, and it does say I can. The little thingy about the enemy getting a 3'' consolidation is not permission to leave combat, yet it is accepted that the unit can.

You don't get to apply RAI to skyleap but not to GoI. That's just being manipulative. Skyleap can be used to leave combat for the same reason as Gate of Infinity: it doesn't say I can't, and it does say I can. The little thingy about the enemy getting a 3'' consolidation is not permission to leave combat, yet it is accepted that the unit can.

I think we're saying the same thing, right?

GoI can be used in combat... Skyleap can be used in combat.

My point was to say that since Skyleap doesn't specifically say that you can use it to leave combat, but it does say what to do when you leave combat, then the designers must be assuming that it's clear to the reader that "remove from the table" can remove you from combat.

Flavius Infernus wrote:
Luckily I'm not arguing from common sense.

Not all terms used in the rules are defined in the rules. It would be really inconvenient (and impossible) for the rules to have to define every single word they use, like "the" or "and" or "is." Where words are not specifically defined in the rules, you have to go to the dictionary, which is not the same as common sense.

In a strict RAW reading, where terms are specifically defined in the rules, and especially where terms are capitalized like "Movement Phase," then the meanings of those terms are restricted by the rules.

"Movement" is defined in the rules, so it means exactly what it says in the rules that it does, and nothing more. "Removed from the tabletop" is not defined in the rules, so you have to use dictionary definitions of the term to find out what it means.

In "Movement," you pick up the models and put them down again within a 6" radius (or whatever the allowance is for that model). Any other form of spacial displacement of models does not count as "Movement" in a strict RAW reading. So picking models up off the table and putting them down somewhere off the table isn't movement.

I'm aware that Yak's original argument says that putting them back on the table counts as "Movement." But I'd argue that, since they're not on the table at that point, they're no longer locked in combat, so they're allowed to "Move" as per Timmah's argument that the phrase "and then" shows that one action is completed before the next one is begun. I mean, what happens if they mishap and get the "remains in reserve" result? They would not have "Moved" at that point according to Yak's description of movement.

Great discussion everyone, its been very interesting to read both sides!

Flavius, I wanted to address this point of yours:

I felt I needed to bring up the point of how loosely the rules in the 40K rulebook are written when it comes to the writer's assumptions of how the basic tenants of the rules function with each other. I'm sure the reason it does is squarely for the purpose of making a set of rules that is relatively small, but the effect is that often the rules simply assume that players will refer back to other sections of the book in order to handle 'common sense' situations without explicitly telling players to do this.

So while the movement rules for the movement phase certainly covers how units are able to move normally in the movement phase, there are also basic restrictions in that section of the rulebook that I believe are meant to be followed by any type of movement in the game unless specified otherwise, among those being the inability to move through impassable terrain, moving at the speed of the slowest model in the unit and the need to maintain coherency.

There are many, many cases of models being 'moved' in the game where it isn't specified whether or not it is considered 'movement'. In some cases the rule specifically says something like "move", "moving" or "movement" (like 'running') and other times the rule just infers that it is movement (like disembarking).

I would argue that in ALL cases a model is moved from place on the table to another place on the table you have to assume that this is considered 'movement' and that this movement must follow the basic principles for movement unless otherwise specified.

If we don't make this assumption then we end up with players using 'run' movement to move all their models out of coherency or embarking/disembarking through an impassable wall onto a vehicle within 2".

While I don't think it is impossible to play the game this way, it certainly strongly runs against the way that most people (I've seen) naturally interpret the game.


And beyond just movement, if you start to go down the hard-road line that the main rules only apply to the specific instances they are presented in, then you really run into an issue when it comes to resolving wacky wounds and casualty removal.

The only rules for turning a hit into a wound and turning a wound into a casualty are found in the rules for shooting (which the assault rules then reference back to). So playing 'hardline' 40K means that any hits or wounds caused by a non-shooting, non-assault source simply do *nothing* as there are no rules for processing these types of hits and wounds.

So when a vehicle explodes and the models within D6" take S3 hits? These hits do nothing, because there are not hits as defined in the shooting rules and those are the only rules which tell you how to turn a hit into a wound. The same thing is true with a whole HOST of special rules that simply cause random hits/wounds (like Tau flechette launchers, etc, etc, etc).


When it comes to Gate of Infinity, I don't even think I'm not even trying to present a RAW argument anymore. I think you guys have a very good point about the models being removed from the table first. But ultimately, we're still talking about semantics. At the end of the day, Gate of Infinity is moving a unit out of combat to somewhere else on the table, and in general that kind of thing is prohibited by the rules for close combat unless specified otherwise.

So can you make a decent RAW argument that this 'removal' is not movement? I think you can, but where does it stop? Are units allowed to 'run' through impassable terrain and completely break coherency too?

This is exactly the kind of thing we generally try to address with the INAT. In this case, I do believe that the overall situation is nebulous enough that it deserves clarification for tournaments, and I don't think our ruling with the stricter interpretation is out of line.


But to everyone else who is concerned, I will bring this point back up the next time we do the INAT update for the SW codex (which is relatively soon) and I will bring up the counter-arguments you've presented here and we'll see...

Also, I think it couldn't hurt to also run a poll on this topic to see how people choose to play this issue (I'll get on that).

For myself, I think that Skyleap actually presents the biggest problem with the 'Can't gate out of combat' argument.

Until going back and double-checking, I had thought that Skyleap specifically stated that leaping out of combat was allowd. As someone else brought up earlier, it doesn't. It tells you what to do if the unit leaps from combat, but doesn't actually grant permission to do so in the first place.

Obviously, if they're telling us what to do if they leave combat, the intention is that they're allowed to do so.

Transposing that back to the Gate, the fact that it doesn't mention anything about what happens if the unit leaves combat is a bit of a sticking point, but in light of the Skyleap argument, the fact that Gate doesn't specifically allow Gating from combat doesn't seem like enough to disallow it. If Hawks can leap from combat without being specifically allowed, I see no reason not to allow Marines to do likewise.


Not strictly a RAW argument, but it's good enough for me.

I would argue that in ALL cases a model is moved from place on the table to another place on the table you have to assume that this is considered 'movement' and that this movement must follow the basic principles for movement unless otherwise specified.

I think this is actually consistent with the point of view being espoused by the "GoI out of CC" side of the debate.

It's my impression that the designers intended for exactly what you're saying to be the rule. This is why they always make it a point to say that these "teleport" sorts of powers involve removing the model from the table. They avoid a host of questions by doing this, and also keep the scope of what is "movement" very limited.

So, my point here, is that when the model is "moved from one place on the table to another place on the table," the designers make sure this is possible based on the rules presented in the movement sectin.

When there is something exceptional going on, a "teleport" type move, they make sure it's not from one point on the table to another, but in fact OFF the table, then to another point on the table.

Overall, reading the rules around this issue have changed my perspective on GW's design. A week ago I would have agreed very much with your general sentiment of "looseness," but after looking at these rules, I'm actually much more impressed with the rigor GW is undertaking. To me, their use of the word "movement" seems much more deliberate, much more specific and focused, and not the loose "here to there" that you're describing.

There are a LOT of rules to read, and a lot of powers that produce translocation effects, so that consistency may fall apart (and I'd love anybody to find one that does so), but from what I've seen, GW has been very careful to cordon off "movement" into a very specific set of options, and then to draw a line between that and other more exceptional abilities.

That said, GW is still far behind many other systems in terms of structure to their approach, use of reserved words, etc. etc. They're better than I gave them credit for, though.

So can you make a decent RAW argument that this 'removal' is not movement? I think you can, but where does it stop? Are units allowed to 'run' through impassable terrain and completely break coherency too?

No (obviously we know this). But I think it's easy to show why. The rules say that Running is movement. If you see the word "movement," "moved," "moving" they literally mean the movement rules. I haven't been able to find a place where they say a model is "moved" and it DOESN'T do so following the movement rules (I have not looked that hard).

Similarly, when they say "removed" they mean just that. The model isn't "moved off the table.' It's "removed." They're very careful to use that word. Not "taken away" or "killed" or "picked up" or some similar term.

I think we're doing GW a disservice here by assuming that their language is always loose, fluffy and inconsistent. While they certainly stray into this from time to time, when it comes to the terms critical to GoI, I think they're very consistent, and very deliberately so.

I don't think our ruling with the stricter interpretation is out of line.

I wouldn't, if it weren't for Skyleap. Reading those rules, and still ruling that GoI can't take models out of CC seems very unreasonable to me. To me this completely closes debate as far as GoI out of CC. The way Skyleap is written is as much proof as is needed to how this should be played.

Still, GoI is tremendously instructive in how we understand the designer's mindset, and how we go about parsing their rules. I think we still need to ask "what is movement," but we need to ask that with the knowledge that Skyleap means that whatever movement means, the designers don't think it means you can't Skyleap out of CC.

Just two quick cents to think about. Fundamentally, GoI is a psychic power and should be interpreted using the rules for psychic powers. GoI tells you the specific time it can be used (start of the movement phase) and then it tells you to do the following steps: (1) remove all affected models from play (2) nominate a point anywhere on the board and (3) place the affected models back into play using the "Deepstrike" special rules. IIRC, the rules for psychic powers still say that powers can be used normally in close combat unless it has a shooting profile. Since GoI does not have a shooting profile, it can be used while the Librarian is in close combat.

Not to spin this argument around any further but I'm a little more than confused by some of the rationale that's presented here.
based on the movement rules quoted here

At the start of the player turn, a unit in HTH, from what I can tell, the consensus is the unit is considered "locked in combat"

now:

"MOVING AND CLOSE COMBAT: Units already locked in close combat with the enemy may not move during the Movement phase."

so the argument is... if I'm considered "locked in close combat" i cannot move.

Can someone explain how that reasoning now applies to VoD?

The Veil may be used even if enemy models are in base contact with the Necron Lord or any of the Necrons that move with him (the enemy models are left behind)."

If I'm not missing something... VOD wouldn't work by this reasoning as the unit is considered to still be "locked in close combat". VOD only states they can move if they are in base contact, not "locked in CC", an example of a situation like this in 5th would be in BTB with an enemy vehicle.

To be clear, I am definitely never going to tell my friends that play Necrons they can't Veil... but I'm really wondering about the argument against GoI out of CC now.

None of the abilities listed stop the units from being "locked in combat"
From what I understood if I'm in HTH at the start of my turn and a stray template kills my last opponent in the melee, that unit can't fire as it was considered "locked"...
am I missing something?

sourclams wrote:Indeed. There's nothing in the Skyleap rule that allows them to be removed from close combat, only a very strong implication that they can.

Similar to Bjorn's 5+ invulnerable save, there's nothing in his rules that allow a vehicle to take an invulnerable save, only a very clear implication that he can.

RAW doesn't fail in the case of GOI, it's arguably ambiguous. Precedent would suggest that the most powerful interpretation is indeed the correct one.

Edit: I reference Bjorn to refute the 'it doesn't say you can so you can't' mindset. Nothing in either the SW codex or the main book allows vehicles to take wounds, therefore invulnerable saves can never be taken because they are only available when a model is wounded. Since 'IDSYCSYC' thinking is to go with the most limiting interpretation, clearly Bjorn isn't allowed to ever take his invulnerable save. Ever. GW writing is not nearly technical enough to make the IDSYCSYC blanket statement in response to a rules argument. You do have to look at all the other variables, else you get very stupid interpretations.

It states in his entry it's a save against pens or glances like cover save. There is is no vague wording. I have the codex in my hand and it says that he may take the save in response to pens or glance.