I see numerous posts about people using the swooping hawk "rubber-band" skyleap in their games...

Have any of you guys actually tried pulling this in a tourney because it seems like a truly argueable rules interpretation?

Do you really think that GW's intention was to have a unit on the table that was impossible to shoot at EVER? Are you kidding???

To take this further, are you just playing it this way because you "feel you can" and the intent was left unclear in your eyes?

I just ask because as a player who plans on doing the Games Day Circuit in 07', i want to know who thinks they will really get away with this at an event and who are really basing their armies on such a tactic. Are you just basically forgoing comp of any kind? Has anybody actually attended a GW tourney and tried this?

If I sound accusatory i apologize but i see more and more people seem to be playing it that way and i think if my opponent seriously tried to pull that I would have to hit them with my fire prism.....(the big heavy metal part...)

I play eldar for the most part and even I would never try to pull such a thing....

here is a thread for your consideration.

www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php

I think the word "trampoline" is a much better use for this tactic...."up-and-down-up-and-down-up-and-down"...

Here are the pertinent rules.






By Raw its legal.
By intention....I am starting to lean in favor of the tactic.

I mean why not? Its not a good tactic by any means. It can be abused against certain armies, but tourney wise I would laugh at anyone trying this as viable.

There are a lot of disadvantages to doing this. A few minutes thought is required to rid yourself of the kneejerk reaction I had for this.

Besides, its no cheesier than autarchs/farseers/warlocks on jetbikes fleeting.

Plus, YOURE the one who is going to have to come up with a reason why this is illegal by the rules. Mark em down in comp all you want, it works both ways.

Posted By Hellfury on 12/03/2006 8:27 PM


Plus, YOURE the one who is going to have to come up with a reason why this is illegal by the rules. Mark em down in comp all you want, it works both ways.

Out of curiosity, why would it be in my court to decide and show proof that they cant?

Where is the eldar players proof that says that they can and skyleaping doesnt count as movement? If it was such a clear-cut thing, it wouldnt be one of the biggies in the eldar FAQ that Yak has been assembling.

This is similar to this lame situation...

Player Bob states that his land raider can fly as a skimmer for 1 turn each game. Player Steve says that is incorrect as it doesnt say in the rules that he can specifically do that. Player Bob then states it is up to Player Steve to show him in the rules that he cant...

This is probably be a bad example but you get my point....An eldar player can conceivably have 771 points of a 1500 point army that can never be shot at and can come down to claim objectives in the end game.....thats pretty bad...

Again...has anybody actually tried this in a major event?

 

You are only allowed 1 movement action in the movement phase. The deep strike in is that movement action. Thus, you can't take a second move out, using the skyleap.

Other unites that have secondary moves do so in other phases of the game...jetbike and jetpack assault moves, fleet during shooting phases.

Marking down soft scores of composition for "skyleaping"?

Skyleaping only attempts to save VP. Focus on destroying the rest of the army. Besides, the skyleap move occurs in the movement phase. If one shoots with the hawks, then they're there for the opponent's shooty and assault phase (and trust me hawks don't last long).

For those who deploy out of LOS, skyleap, repeat...it's just a save of VP. Focus on the rest of the list. Again, the only thing they are doing is dropping a grenade pack...

As for RTT missions, it would be tough to max points with this. Sure you might get a win (through VP and objectives) but it will be tough to get the extra 3-4 pts for 'additional points'.

First, the damage it gives is hardly overpowering.  It is relatively expensive for the at most, 5 drops of the grenade per game.  It is roughly 28 points per grenade drop, assuming you get 5 drops.  Then there is scatter....  Against hordes, the number of models killed will not be significant.  Against MEQ, they may lose, what?  At most 1 or 2 per turn if you don't scatter.

The best part of the strategy is for objectives at the end of the game.  Assuming you go last, you have a good shot of denying a table quarter, etc.  HOWEVER, there is a 16% chance you don't.  Which is the the big drawback.  One a "1", you not only don't score with the unit, but they count as destroyed for VP purposes.

I think the most abusive is with three units.  Buts that is over 400 points.

Mez

 

Posted By Poisonrogue on 12/03/2006 9:03 PM

Posted By Hellfury on 12/03/2006 8:27 PM


Plus, YOURE the one who is going to have to come up with a reason why this is illegal by the rules. Mark em down in comp all you want, it works both ways.

Out of curiosity, why would it be in my court to decide and show proof that they cant?

Where is the eldar players proof that says that they can and skyleaping doesnt count as movement? If it was such a clear-cut thing, it wouldnt be one of the biggies in the eldar FAQ that Yak has been assembling.

This is similar to this lame situation...

Player Bob states that his land raider can fly as a skimmer for 1 turn each game. Player Steve says that is incorrect as it doesnt say in the rules that he can specifically do that. Player Bob then states it is up to Player Steve to show him in the rules that he cant...

This is probably be a bad example but you get my point....An eldar player can conceivably have 771 points of a 1500 point army that can never be shot at and can come down to claim objectives in the end game.....thats pretty bad...

Again...has anybody actually tried this in a major event?

911 points if you count Baharroth, as he can do this too. 1001 points exactly if you add intercept and other wargear to max the points out.

The proof are the two rules I previously cited. Now post something to dispute it.

The flaw in perception is that players think of Skyleaping as movement . It may very well be, but according to RAW, it isnt. Atleast until GW comesout with a FAQ stating one way or the other.

I havent played this in a tourney environment but have played it and have had it used against me. Myself and the people that have used it against them and myself agree it is quite dumb. It infuriates players who have kneejerk reactions to playing by the rules and it is just plain and simply isnt a very good tactic.

Sure you can be a cheese head and try this at a tourney, but good luck winning with that combo, not only because it stinks, but your opponent is likely going to mark you down zeros across the board. (I wouldnt mark them down, because comp is a flawed attempt at balance)

A tactic that is likely to bite them on the rear too. Bad reserves and bad scatter. With maxing out on squads for points denial, your much more likely to scatter into something bad. The autarch will help reserves....but a one is a one is a one. I cant tell you how many games I have had reserves NEVER see the light of the battle field becuase of that.

Too be honest, its too early to ask if this has been used at major events. Even the UK heats were or are still using the old codex until heat 2 I beleive. Maybe later. Some people have had the codex for awhile, but in actuality, its only been a street release for less than a month.

@Mezmaron: Agree. However, I don't agree with the abusive part. Abuisive in that you're trying to save 400 vp...but not abuisive for your previous stated reasons. Scatter can disrupt your plan to save vp. They might not all come back on the turn you need them.

I think 3 Falcons do a better job at denying VP and claiming than spring-boarding hawks.

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/03/2006 9:39 PM

 

You are only allowed 1 movement action in the movement phase. The deep strike in is that movement action. Thus, you can't take a second move out, using the skyleap.

Other unites that have secondary moves do so in other phases of the game...jetbike and jetpack assault moves, fleet during shooting phases.

Incorrect. No where does it say in the skyleap rules that they aare movig. Read my first post with the rules above carefully.

"The player may elect to remove a unit with skyleap from the table in its movement phase, placing it in reserve."

Where is the movement?

Until that is sorted out, RAW says its legal.

Bottom line: Top tier players and army lists don't care if you skyleap 400+ points. That tactic won't work against them or their lists. Keep it for non-competitive play.

I agree with Hellfury. It's valid because of "remove" vs. "movement" wording to deepstrike then remove. But what's the point? A grenade pack? VP denial?

I don't believe it is a solid play given the amount of error involved. 1) roll for re-entry and 2) scatter.

Just to go on another sort of tangent...how can people say that the templates suck? If you have three hawk units doing this, then that is a possible 15 pie plates on the table during a game at str 4 AP5. That is pretty destructive vs guard, orks, dark eldar, eldar and anything else without a 3+...

not everyone plays marines you know..

Posted By nikeforever22 on 12/03/2006 9:49 PM

I think 3 Falcons do a better job at denying VP and claiming than spring-boarding hawks.

except the falcons can be shot down, the hawks cant.

Very true. Not everyone does play marines, thankfully. (Bless all of you who dont)


Ok, blow by blow.

#1 Roll for reserves (Risk)
#2 Hawks drop grenades, 2/3 chance of scattering d6" (Not as bad as ordnance, but not exactly great either)
#3 Hawks deepstrike and roll for scatter. (Risk )
#4 Use Skyleap in movement phase to place in reserves (alot of griping about "spirit of the game"'' and "designers intent" when this happens)

Overall, not overly impressive, even when there are 4 grenades being dropped by baharroth and the hawk units.

If youre playing a swarm...well sorry. Thats the price you pay for taking up alot of space. Something has to have an effect on you. You cant win every game through attrition.

Posted By Poisonrogue on 12/03/2006 10:11 PM

Posted By nikeforever22 on 12/03/2006 9:49 PM

I think 3 Falcons do a better job at denying VP and claiming than spring-boarding hawks.

except the falcons can be shot down, the hawks cant.

People had the same gripes about Crystal targetting matrix. The precedent has already been set.

Its still around too in the form of eldar jet bikes.

@Poisonrogue: As I said, use it in non-tourny play. However, at tourny play expect 75% 3+ saves. If you can beat 3+ then you can beat whatever else comes to play.

Back to the Falcons vs Hawks. Use em both. These 6 units can be decent for end of game objective grabs...but watchout for random game length. On the flip side, there's more to the win than saving VP...you have to kill stuff too. What if the opponent is 6 inches near the objective and you have a chance to scatter ontop and lose them. Mainly viable in recon where you can guarantee vp and double vp. Otherwise there's the possibility of a draw and not obtaining the additional RTT points.

I'll let Hellfury explain from here since I seem to be thinking along the same lines and it appears to be a "double post". My bad.

Posted By Hellfury on 12/03/2006 9:52 PM

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/03/2006 9:39 PM

 

You are only allowed 1 movement action in the movement phase. The deep strike in is that movement action. Thus, you can't take a second move out, using the skyleap.

Other unites that have secondary moves do so in other phases of the game...jetbike and jetpack assault moves, fleet during shooting phases.

Incorrect. No where does it say in the skyleap rules that they aare movig. Read my first post with the rules above carefully.

"The player may elect to remove a unit with skyleap from the table in its movement phase, placing it in reserve."

Where is the movement?

Until that is sorted out, RAW says its legal.

You say that by RAW it is legal, but in saying that arent you reading more into the definition yourself. You are making the assumption that skyleaping doesnt count as moving unless I am mistaken. You cant have it both ways. You cant make your own interpretation as to what constitutes "moving" then claim RAW. I think that therein lies the true problem. There is no true RAW definition as to what constitutes moving. I could just as easily say that skyleaping counts as moving because model positions are being changed therefore the RAW of deepstriking disproves your thesis. In my own opinion, when presented with a rules query that could easily be argued and proven in two seperate ways entirely you must look at the intent of the writers. As stated before, I hardly think they intended to have an almost invinceable unit on the board, much less three..

Can i see your arguement? Yes, of course, but i hope you can see mine. I am just staing that there is eveidence in favor of both interpretations and isnt the usual solution when given two possible rulings to assign the least advantageous?

Posted By nikeforever22 on 12/03/2006 10:19 PM
@Poisonrogue: As I said, use it in non-tourny play. However, at tourny play expect 75% 3+ saves. If you can beat 3+ then you can beat whatever else comes to play.

Back to the Falcons vs Hawks. Use em both. These 6 units can be decent for end of game objective grabs...but watchout for random game length. On the flip side, there's more to the win than saving VP...you have to kill stuff too. What if the opponent is 6 inches near the objective and you have a chance to scatter ontop and lose them. Mainly viable in recon where you can guarantee vp and double vp. Otherwise there's the possibility of a draw and not obtaining the additional RTT points.

Good point about  "What if the opponent is 6 inches near the objective and you have a chance to scatter ontop and lose them." I hadnt thought of that one.

Posted By Hellfury on 12/03/2006 10:17 PM.

#1 Roll for reserves (Risk)
#2 Hawks drop grenades, 2/3 chance of scattering d6" (Not as bad as ordnance, but not exactly great either)
#3 Hawks deepstrike and roll for scatter. (Risk )
#4 Use Skyleap in movement phase to place in reserves (alot of griping about "spirit of the game"'' and "designers intent" when this happens)


If youre playing a swarm...well sorry. Thats the price you pay for taking up alot of space. Something has to have an effect on you. You cant win every game through attrition.

Lets be truly honest though...if you are deepstriking with zero intent of having a target to shoot at and with no fear of getting shot at yourself(because your just jumping again), there will always be plenty of safe places to jump on the board...

Yes, the swarm armies pay a price by taking up space, but they should at least have the option to counter a threat with all sorts of horrible death... >

Posted By Poisonrogue on 12/03/2006 10:23 PM

Posted By Hellfury on 12/03/2006 9:52 PM

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/03/2006 9:39 PM

 

You are only allowed 1 movement action in the movement phase. The deep strike in is that movement action. Thus, you can't take a second move out, using the skyleap.

Other unites that have secondary moves do so in other phases of the game...jetbike and jetpack assault moves, fleet during shooting phases.

Incorrect. No where does it say in the skyleap rules that they aare movig. Read my first post with the rules above carefully.

"The player may elect to remove a unit with skyleap from the table in its movement phase, placing it in reserve."

Where is the movement?

Until that is sorted out, RAW says its legal.

You say that by RAW it is legal, but in saying that arent you reading more into the definition yourself. You are making the assumption that skyleaping doesnt count as moving unless I am mistaken. You cant have it both ways. You cant make your own interpretation as to what constitutes "moving" then claim RAW. I think that therein lies the true problem. There is no true RAW definition as to what constitutes moving. I could just as easily say that skyleaping counts as moving because model positions are being changed therefore the RAW of deepstriking disproves your thesis. In my own opinion, when presented with a rules query that could easily be argued and proven in two seperate ways entirely you must look at the intent of the writers. As stated before, I hardly think they intended to have an almost invinceable unit on the board, much less three..

Can i see your arguement? Yes, of course, but i hope you can see mine. I am just staing that there is eveidence in favor of both interpretations and isnt the usual solution when given two possible rulings to assign the least advantageous?

I want to see yours and do understand your stance.

But really, youre giving more of a fight than anyone else on any other boards so far yet and I like it, as I want this ruling that I am advocating to be dispproved.

Judging from the answers i think my intent has gotten skewed.

1. I am not saying that I fear the hawks

2. I am not looking for an excuse to try this trick or validation from anybody

I am simply asking if people would truly try getting away with this rules interpretation at a major event, or even a small one I guess. The fact that everybody says to use it just in friendly play seems to suggest that the users are figuring its a little dodgy themselves or they wouldnt say to keep it out of a tourney. I guess it was more of a general consensus question.

Well for general consensus, I would say it sucks, not unsporting.

I would tell an opponent "You got baharroth and three units of hawks for trampoline? Knock your self out big boy." *snickers*

If I were to use this tactic, enmasse, then I better have a damn good game plan, as the risk is too high for me to try this, not for being beardy, but because it is insane. Its like taking three monoliths in a 1500 game. The opponent is just going to phase me out. Not the best analogy, but good for questions of cheesy intent.

In a major event your more likely to get away with it, as power gamers are out in the droves, not only to have fun, but to win.

the smaller bucolic events are where your going to have troubles as less metropolitan minds struggle to grasp the rules.

I would personally say that this tactic is just about as unsporting as a Tyranid army fleeting all their genestealers in their opponents shooting phase (which is perfectly legal by the RAW).

Rubber-banding is legal by the RAW but it isn't sporting because there is a high probability for doubt on the intent of the tactic (just like fleeting in your opponent's turn).

Three small units of Skyleaping Hawks would absolutely decimate any non-MEQ army with only a 1 in 6 chance of failing to show up in the final turn of the game.

While Crystal Targeting matrixes used to be pretty annoying to deal with (the same as Tau Battlesuits and Eldar Jetbikes currently still are), there are still realtively numerous ways to deal with them: any unit with Indirect fire or quick moving units that can get around the intervening terrain can deal with the pop-up tactics employed by these units.

With hawks, barring DH's mystics there is simply nothing an opposing player can do to slow their opponent down (and even then the hawks have no need to DS anywhere near the Mystic or any enemy model for that matter). It does not fit with any previous tactic that GW has allowed into the game.

While it may not be the most effective tactic in the world, especially against MEQ armies, it can be very frustating to opponents as there is absolutely nothing they can do about it, in no way shape or form.

I would absolutely positively mark someone down on sportsmanship for using this tactic in a tournament game, but not before I explained to them why I felt that it wasn't appropriate in my personal opinion.

If GW made a FAQ ruling that this was a legal manuever, would you still mark an opponent down?

Poisonrogue, you have noticed one of the three basic assumptions that are necessary for reading and applying the rules of any game. This one is called the "closed world assumption."

The closed world assumption says that you can do everything that the rules say you can do, but if the rules don't specifically say that you can do it, then it's not allowed. Think of it like a train schedule: the schedule lists all the times that trains will arrive at the station. The schedule doesn't list the times that trains *don't* arrive, but you're supposed to assume, because of the nature of the document, that trains don't come at times not listed. So under the closed world assumption the rules say everything that you can do, but things not mentioned automatically can't be done.

Therefore if the rules say you can remove the models in the movement phase, but don't say that it counts as movement, then you use the closed world assumption to conclude that you can remove them without it counting as movement.

Without the closed world assumption it isn't possible to read and apply any rules because somebody can always argue "well the rules don't say I can't do it," which is a form of a fallacy called the argument from ignorance.

I definitely agree with Poisonrogue that this needs to be gutted by an FAQ (as Yakface did, but GW should too).  I agree that having a single squad doing this the whole game is not likely to have much effect on the game, but that is not how the cheesiest players will be using it.  Take a list like this as an example.

3x falcons w/everything + Fire Dragons = 900+ pts

3x Swooping hawks w skyleap and some gear = 400pts

2x 3 jetbikes = 124pts

lightly armed autarch =rest of the points

1500

Now, assuming the hawks do their thing and the falcons do theirs, while the jetbikes hide. The Hawks will probably drop about 12 templates over the course of the game.  That is enough to do serious damage to GEQ armies, and chip away at MEQ armies.  You would have to be pretty stupid to lose your hawks on the drop, since they are just landing and taking off again they only need to find a spot with 12" of no enemies and just drop there over and over again.  The falcons can work with the templates to wipe out one squad or vehicle at a time with little risk at all.  Then at the end of the game they plop everyone on the objectives or table quarters and win the game. 

This army is broken because it is good at preventing the enemy army from moving or standing still.  The three Falcons with Fire Dragons could wreck any force sent to get them, so to deal with the falcons, its best to castle up, which makes the templates that much better.  This isn't a very killy army, but its damn near impossible to scratch.  If it can take out 500pts of enemies each game then it will pretty much always win.

I've never really been into tournaments because you run into armies like this at them.  VP denial is a really good way to win games, so people play armies that will win.  Fine, my issue comes when someone shows up at the gaming group with something like this.  Lists like this are absolutely no fun to play against, but many casual gamers want to win by using a few awesome special rules.  I would get upset when I get randomly paired (how we do it in our gaming group) with the 35 count seer council player or the army above.  Both of those lists were or are legal by RAW, but the game is not going to be fun at all.  I don't want to refuse to play the person, because then I come off like a jerk and a spoil sport, but there is no point in playing the game.  I can't get his massive psyker unit below half strength or wiped out without an army geared to do specifically just that, so I'm going to lose.

If the hawks had to land they could scatter into the open and be shot to bits.  All of the units in the game need to be vulnerable in some way.  Hawks should not be an exception.

Well I totally agree with yak and samwise on this one. While according to RAW it is not illegal, it is still cheesy to the max. GW can easily fix this by making skyleap kind of like the "empty your guns" ability on the dire avengers. You jump one turn, the next turn you come down your jets are drained of energy and you have to wait a turn before there is enough power to use them again

You cant Sky Leap on the turn you Deep Strike as the rules for Deep Striking a very clear, ie after you have used Deep Strike you CAN NOT make any further moves.

I thought it was very simple myself and am confussed as to why there are three pages to this topic????/

 

Posted By Hellfury on 12/03/2006 8:27 PM

Looking at those two entries there is some confusion since the eldar codex does not say skyleap counts as a move action, instead just chooses to remove the unit from the board during the movement phase. 

If only GW had decided to place the words "this action counts as movement during the movement phase" then this would be alot more cut and dry

Posted By Hellfury on 12/04/2006 12:01 AM
If GW made a FAQ ruling that this was a legal manuever, would you still mark an opponent down?

Yes.

Why do you mark anyone down? You have to assume what they do is legal in the first place.

I dont mark anyone down. Comp is a false sense of security only utlized by those who feel an army is beardy.

if it is legal to take, then its is legal in comp. American comp is slowed and I cannot wait for the day when we go to the more reasonable UK standard.

Thats why the rules system for 40K isnt meant for competition. The rules are just too damned flawed to really recognize actual winners.

So they make a comp system to attempt to fix what should have been fixed in the rules.

MTG is a very solid card game system. The rules are very clear and by playing the rules winners are recognized. You dont see WOTC handing out slips of paper asking if that arcbound ravager deck were "'within the spirit of the game". For them the rules are the game. They spend quite a bit of money to make sure the game is solid. Somethings slip through development *coughskullclampcough* but in general, even the screwups they stand behind until it is time to ban a mistake because it is overwhelmingly and obviously broken. Which overall, is very few indeed.

40K is meant for sitting at home and playing games with friends. For GW to push the RaW as they do lately is biting them in the ass, as the rules are flawed. They are good and I can play them, but in situations such as these, it isnt clear.

But thats very off topic. Sorry.

Posted By moosifer on 12/04/2006 10:31 AM

Posted By Hellfury on 12/03/2006 8:27 PM

Looking at those two entries there is some confusion since the eldar codex does not say skyleap counts as a move action, instead just chooses to remove the unit from the board during the movement phase. 

If only GW had decided to place the words "this action counts as movement during the movement phase" then this would be alot more cut and dry

Exactly. I personally dont think this is the same as 'stealers fleeting in the opponents shooting phase, but thats subjective anyways.

"Opinions are like Progenoid glands. Everyone has two!"

Just because I am defending a stance does not mean I actually use it.

But poisonrogue does have a point. It can be viewed both ways since movement itself isnt clearly defined, so taking the less advantageous route is the way to go here.

Posted By Hellfury on 12/04/2006 12:01 AM
If GW made a FAQ ruling that this was a legal manuever, would you still mark an opponent down?

That's a tough question, mainly because I can't imagine a situation where GW would actually rule allowing rubber-banding, even in this supposed era of RAW FAQ rulings.

So I'll have to say that I would deal with that situation when and if it ever actually occurs.

The thing about GW's RAW stance on FAQs is that they only stick with it when it fits their needs. They quickly reversed the Tyranid Synapase ruling due to intense player backlash, and the rulebook FAQ they put out is filled with non-RAW rulings.

I strongly feel (and this is just pure opinion and speculation) that there is no possible way they meant for Hawks to be able to rubber-band, as there simply is no counter for the tactic in any army.

 

 

The tactic is a danger to itself...

It was kind of funny this morning.

I played against a friends eldar list with my genestealers. He had two bouncing hawks and didnt even have a chance to bounce back up. Both scattered. One off of the table (on turn 5) one into impassable terrain (on turn 2)... Suffice to say the one that dies on turn five died the same turn he was finally alowed on the table. 4 rounds of nothing just to die the turn he came in. The turn 2 scatter into impassable terrain was lucky to get on the board, but basically died in the same manner. Unlucky? yes, but thats how the game works. Only one of the templates were close enough after scattering to do any damage. This tactic is by no means reasonably solid enough to expect even average turn out because of variables in unit scattering, reserves, grenade scattering. All said and done, I lost 2 genestealers.

Then I look at this thread and the "OMFG!!!!GOUDA CHEETZOR" and I really cant help but laugh.

People need to seriously need to see this in play before kneejerk reactions continue. Mathhammer and actual game play differ significantly enough.

I keep hearing from people how its ok when rules change, but to be honest, unless you have certain elements in your army, CTM is not that easy to deal with and is considerably more lethal than this. But now a infantry based jump pack unit which is effectively carrying CTM but far less lethal and doesnt require the opponent to kill it because it kills itself, is so much more worse?

Can you deal with a drop pod before it drops its underpriced load in your face? Yeah, the mystic and thats it.

Sorry, not convinced.

[edit]

"The thing about GW's RAW stance on FAQs is that they only stick with it when it fits their needs. They quickly reversed the Tyranid Synapase ruling due to intense player backlash, and the rulebook FAQ they put out is filled with non-RAW rulings.

Thats not going to be so easy for this, as there is two distinct camps of thought regarding skyleap. Its not as universally "cheesy" as some like to think, even for non eldar players.

For the tyranid issues, even non tyranid players agreed that it made absolutety no sense. Though, does immunity to wraithcannons seem fair? Looks like people got more than they bargained for when they complained.

Beleive me, if this was as cheesy as all get out, it would be quite obvious that it would be wrong. Emperical evidence speaks otherwise though.

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 12/04/2006 5:15 AM

You say that by RAW it is legal, but in saying that arent you reading more into the definition yourself. You are making the assumption that skyleaping doesnt count as moving unless I am mistaken.

Poisonrogue, you have noticed one of the three basic assumptions that are necessary for reading and applying the rules of any game. This one is called the "closed world assumption."

The closed world assumption says that you can do everything that the rules say you can do, but if the rules don't specifically say that you can do it, then it's not allowed. Think of it like a train schedule: the schedule lists all the times that trains will arrive at the station. The schedule doesn't list the times that trains *don't* arrive, but you're supposed to assume, because of the nature of the document, that trains don't come at times not listed. So under the closed world assumption the rules say everything that you can do, but things not mentioned automatically can't be done.

Therefore if the rules say you can remove the models in the movement phase, but don't say that it counts as movement, then you use the closed world assumption to conclude that you can remove them without it counting as movement.

Without the closed world assumption it isn't possible to read and apply any rules because somebody can always argue "well the rules don't say I can't do it," which is a form of a fallacy called the argument from ignorance.

Here is another side to that argument.

Since movement isnt clearly defined what if I said:

"Sorry I can't remove any casualties because removing the model off the table would count as moving and this model has already moved this game turn."

Same thing.

 

What else would you call Skyleap but movement. Does every miniscule thing need to be spelled out in the rulebooks? I think someone said that nowhere does it say bolters need line of sight, but we all know they do. Can I now shoot around corners because the rules don't say I can't?

Live models have already moved and will move again. Dead ones don't count, since they can't move anymore. Removing them is for convenience.

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/04/2006 5:46 PM
What else would you call Skyleap but movement.

Going by the rules, I'd call it 'removing them from the table...'

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/04/2006 5:46 PM
Does every miniscule thing need to be spelled out in the rulebooks?

Well yes, of course it does. That's what a rulebook is for...

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/04/2006 5:46 PM
Can I now shoot around corners because the rules don't say I can't?

No. For that, you would need a rule that says that you can shoot around corners, since the LOS rules are already laid out against it.

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/04/2006 6:01 PM
Live models have already moved and will move again. Dead ones don't count, since they can't move anymore. Removing them is for convenience.

What does convenience have to do with anything?

Removal is stated (though just as movement, not clearly defined) in the rules. Convenience isnt.

From Websters.com

Remove (re-move) ri-moov
1: to move from a place or position; take away or off:

didja see that? "MOVE" from a place or position.

Wow. Resorting to dictionary quotes when dealing with GW rules.

OK amatuer. Try completing the full definition, not just one that suits your argument.

How about this?

Remove:
2. To transfer or convey from one place to another: removed the family to Texas.
3.To take off: removed my boots.
4. To take away; withdraw: removed the candidate's name from consideration.
5. To do away with; eliminate: remove a stain.
6. To dismiss from an office or position.

Notice what selective use of definitions get you? All other definitions say nothing whatsoever about "movement".

The first definition is always the most widely used and relevant one. This really is a silly thread on how semantics makes it ok to cheat. Anyone with common sense knows this answer. [edit] way to go name calling, my low post count in no way means I am a novice 40k player. You should watch your mouth.

You call it cheating, the rest of the world who plays by the rules recognizes that it is legal, whether it is cheesy or not. (which it is very cheesy)

Watch my mouth? This is YMDC and if youre gonna play with the big boys, you better bring logic to the table and debate like a man, not make threats like "you should watch your mouth".

Buck up.

Amatuer:

1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
2. Sports. An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition.
3. One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.

that sort of implies that you dont post on YMDC a whole lot, so youre not used to how people frequently post here. if you like definitions so much, maybe you should read closely instead of jumping to conclusions about namecalling.

So you are saying you troll the boards professionally. Sad as that may be, I'll look past that.
Cheesy or not, a move is a move. Remove, even has the word move in it. The ROOT WORD of remove is move! I can't believe I have to explain it this much! I can feel it...my common sense is tingling.

Wow. 5 posts to your screen name and its a never ending explanations to the ignorant. It must be tough for you.

 

Yet it is not legal. You can only have 1 movement action in a phase. Deep Strike in is one action. Skyleaping would be another.

 

Seems logical to me, and in adherence to the rest of the rules. You have not presented any evidence to the contrary other then your opinion of how they work. Please cite some rules that allow you to have two movement actions in one phase.

Posted By cincisamurai on 12/09/2006 7:41 PM
With something as cut and dried as this, yes, even 1 post is one too many, much less 4 pages of this tripe. I know that to you, winning is everything, but to most normal people, we don't like to play against rules lawyers, especially ones who debate obviously illegal maneuvers. If this proclivity of yours in some way a developmental problem, or hereditary, I will never know, nor do I wish to inguire, but I advise you to sit back and look at why you do what you do. Is it to aggrevate normal people, or can you just not stomach the fact that you indeed wrong and aren't man enough to admit it. That being said, this forum was a mistake to come to and I will not be back, I heard bad rumours about this place and lo-and-behold, they are very true. Later.

Then you havent read the thread fully. I do not advocate this tactic, for the umpteenth time.

Youre the one trolling. Reread the thread. I am arguing rules. Youre just slinging mud.

Because I am sick of seeing Cincisamurai's posts, here is a quote from the GW Autarch tactics thing they put up recently.  It can be seen here.

Late in the game, an Autarch can allow you to pull off this trick every turn and still shoot those lasblasters while you do it.

Now I know GW isn't the best source for rules interpretation, but this seems pretty clear you can "rubberband" them every turn if you want.

Yeah, sadly GW made it more convoluted by saying "and still shoot those lasblasters while you do it."
That wont be possible when you are removed from play in the movement phase.

Cincisamurai, Hellfury, please make an effort to attack the argument, not the person. Ad hominem attacks just demonstrate that your better reasoning and communication skills have failed.

Cincisamurai, General Hobbs, your argument is falling into two fairly common traps.

1. Relying upon a personal opinion of what constitutes "common sense", as opposed to the rules as written, which are the shared framework with which people who hold different opinions can play a game together.

2. Using a dictionary definition which does not take into account the conventions or context of wargames. For example, the word "assault" in the Encarta dictionary is defined as "1. physical or verbal attack: a violent physical or verbal attack". By this definition, both shooting and HtH attacks would constitute assaults. Within the context of the 40k rules, however, we understand that assault excludes shooting attacks.

There are many occasions in the game in which the player places or removes models which do not constitute movement by the unit. Deployment and casualty removal are two of the most common.

Premise 1: Unit movement in wargames has an understood and common meaning of movement of the unit across the play area, measured and restricted by the rules for movement laid out in the appropriate section. Units in many games have a specific Move or Speed stat to indicate exactly how far they move. In 40k that's simplified to standardized distances and restrictions based on unit Type, the terrain involved, and the presense of other units.

Premise 2: Skyleap does not correspond to unit movement or utilize any of the rules described in the movement chapter. It does not involve movement across the table. It is not measured. It does not interact with terrain or other units. It does not even use the word "move" in its rules. It uses the phrase "removed from the table", which is actually closer to the language describing casualty removal than it is to the movement rules.

Conclusion: The use of Skyleap does not constitute movement by the unit.

 

So then DeepStriking is not movement either, and your landspeeders should be able to shoot.

Yes deepstriking counts as moving, as stated in the end of the deepstrike rules.

Deep Striking is definitely not movement, as demonstrated by the sentence in its rules which states "Troops arriving via Deep Strike may not move or assault on the turn they arrive."

They arrive, but they may not move. This would be a paradox if Deep Strike was movement.

True, but they "count" as moving.

Sure.

They count as having moved for the purposes of shooting.

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/09/2006 8:01 PM
Cincisamurai, Hellfury, please make an effort to attack the argument, not the person. Ad hominem attacks just demonstrate that your better reasoning and communication skills have failed.

Whatever are you talking about Mannahnin?  I see no post from Cincisamurai... *grins impishly*

Posted By Drake_Marcus on 12/10/2006 10:32 AM

Whatever are you talking about Mannahnin?  I see no post from Cincisamurai... *grins impishly*

I like how Drake, as the youngest mod, as it were, is drunk with his sense of new-found power.

Posted By Drake_Marcus on 12/10/2006 10:32 AM
Whatever are you talking about Mannahnin?  I see no post from Cincisamurai... *grins impishly*

Didn't read Hellfury's post that quotes it in full, then...? 

Hey, he does a good job. 

I tend to be lighter-handed with post deletions.  Many posts which could be deleted to a better job of themselves displaying what a stupid thing someone wrote.  I think of it as  the "giving someone enough rope to hang themselves" approach.

Posted By Drake_Marcus on 12/10/2006 10:32 AM

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/09/2006 8:01 PM
Cincisamurai, Hellfury, please make an effort to attack the argument, not the person. Ad hominem attacks just demonstrate that your better reasoning and communication skills have failed.

Whatever are you talking about Mannahnin?  I see no post from Cincisamurai... *grins impishly*

Umm.... How is one supposed to perceive that post you made, Drake?

On one hand (because I have been here awhile and know that posts get deleted on occassion) It seems a boyish glee to wield the ax or it seems read literally that now you have deleted the post, that Ragnar's remark is directed solely at me.

I will take the first option.

I agree; it's the glee.

Just wanted to add.. beardy but legal.

If "remove = movement" then I can never "remove" models that have died on the turn that I assaulted with the unit. That would be 2 movements. I am fairly confident that remove is not meant to be a movement.

ender502

Its been confirmed by a number of sources within GW as legal. I would expect this to be confirmed in the forthcoming FAQ along with things like Shining Spears having Eldar Jetbikes, Auratauch Jetbikes not being able to Fleet, and Warding/Witnessing conflicts. Whether you choose to accept that is your affair, but their are plenty of things that are much cheesier that people routinely play that work the rules a bit, like 10+ man Death Company lists, Psy Cannons killing turbo boosting bikes, Siren Daemon Princes, and so on.

From a practicality standpoint, speaking as someone who owns the models to play this tactic, its not worth it. You are basically talking about a unit that puts out a far inferior template than a Whirlwind for double the cost and can only be expected to drop it the last four turns. While it is certainly true that the Hawks are unkillable VP (asuming they dont splat on an unlucky DS roll) on an uncluttered table, you are talking about 160ish points to maybe kill 4 marines total over the course of a game per squad. Against horde armies, you are better off with las blasters and running the hawks conventionally, anyhow. The worst thing you are going to do is deprive your opponent of 500 points of non threatening units to kill, while your army is trying to fight 500 points down. Realistically, the biking seer council is far more reliable VP denial and it actually is a threat.

Yes, but what about the Aurataurauataurachs? And the Autranaunachs? I'm just glad it doesn't apply to the Autarch.

Sorry, but psycannons toasting turbo-boosting bikes isn't anywhere close to cheesy...

They cost more than a Whirlwind but a whirlwind can be shot at, these guys are invulnerable to everything except bad luck with reserves and scatters.

That said, if someone tried to use it against me, I'd be happy to, I'd just ignore them and wipe out the rest of his army with superior numbers.

Posted By fourganger88 on 12/12/2006 8:20 AM
They cost more than a Whirlwind but a whirlwind can be shot at, these guys are invulnerable to everything except bad luck with reserves and scatters.

And a whirlwind has the strength and AP a heavy bolter, while the grenade pack has the strength and AP of a bolter.  It's amazing how nasty this tactic is (assuming you never die on a scatter) on almost everything but MEQs

Anyone whoe is claiming that this is fair because the hawks can't kill much with their template drop either doesn't understand the way VPs are scored, or lacks the imagination to escalate this case to a maximum VP denial list.

People are calling shenanigans because this is a unique (to 40k) case where you can spend points, that are guaranteed to be scoring at the end of the game regardless of your opponents actions, that will also have a small chance to do damage over the course of the game. If you could put all of your points into such a ploy, you would be guaranteed a win every game vs. anything but exactly the same list. As it stands you can only squeeze about 800 points into it, so the remainder will have to go into Holofield Falcons (which prior to this Skyleap reading were the most resilient unit in the game). The falcons can reliably hide from and outlast most enemy attacks, preserving their VP, while the hawks automatically preserve theirs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenanigan
Making 40k into a single player game is fair and fun how?

With that out of the way, it is legal rulewise unless deepstrike can be convincingly be shown to be movement or somehow negate the units movement phase.  I'd start with the cross references between reserves and deepstrike, where reserves does mention being movement.  I'd then argue that a model that cannot move does not get a movement phase.  True the models cannot move when engaged in an assault, which explains why the exception is specifically made.  No exception is specifically mentioned for skyleaping on the turn you deepstrike.

If all of this were ruled against, I guess I'd chase 3 Falcons around the table for 6 turns while being pelted with some templates.  I'd inevitably lose 200+ points of models, check my loss, make a note to never play this guy again, and move on.

Stalling would be a viable alternative in a serious tournament setting.  Gosh we only made it to turn 2.  Guess it's a draw.

 

Posted By Moz on 12/12/2006 9:58 AM

...either doesn't understand the way VPs are scored...

...this is a unique... case where you can spend points, that are guaranteed to be scoring at the end of the game regardless of your opponents actions,

 

You're contradicting yourself here.

Ah good point, I should say they are guaranteed to be surviving.

If you can't kill off an eldar list that is operating essentially down 500 points (minimum investment for three squads of rubber hawks) then you have bigger problems. Yes, its VP denial, but then so is every single SM squad that lives with one survivor, thanks to "They shall know no fear", especially when they pod in safely and get their entire first trigger pull risk free. There is also the daemon bomb, ect. Also, not all games are decided by VPs.

One thing that has been irking me through this discussion is the assuption that the large str4 ap5 blast template will not accomplish much. True it isn't great against marines, but I mostly play IG. A weapon like this makes Ork, swarm Nids, and IG completely powerless. 12-15 large ap 5 blasts can wreck an IG army. So "this unit isn't really that good" argument isn't sound. This is a very powerful unit against certain targets. The fact that it is unkillable just throws it over the edge.

   Even against marines if three squads can account for 12 marines (2 six man las/plas for ex.) over the course of the game that still adds up to 230vp's that only the possibility of a bad reserve roll on the last turn can compensate against.

   This is all in addition to these troops being pretty good at taking out veicles if they decide to engage. Tau have reason to be afraid if three squads of these bastards can come onto the table and stick haywire grenades to their skimmers. My gripe is that these troops do have their own merits in combat, plus the option to dance around in the sky if they want to not ever be shot. This makes them excellent troops. In a VP denial army they will always preserve themselves and do some damage. I think there shouldn't be an ALWAYS in 40k.  Every unit should be able to be killed by the enemy in some way, shape or form.  If this goes uncorrected it will make 40k a more idiotic game.  I want to get victory points for killing the enemy, not because they decided not show up for roll call.

Oh and a couple of other things for Phazael.  Who from GW is saying that its confirmed?  Plus, you can fit three squads of min sized hawks for under 400pts

Just saw this from the latest Black Gobbo.  Can't tell what to make of it.

"Many players will take an Autarch purely for his ability to add +1 to your Reserves rolls, meaning that in any mission with Reserves, you will have a real edge over your opponent — your units have a far better chance of turning up on time and on target. This ability combines very nicely with the Swooping Hawk Exarch Power Skyleap. Skyleap allows you to remove your Swooping Hawks from play, and then Deep Strike them back into play as if they were held in Reserve all along, dropping a S4 Large Blast Marker anywhere on the board in the process. Late in the game, an Autarch can allow you to pull off this trick every turn and still shoot those lasblasters while you do it." - from Phil Kelly.

Huh?

In addition to not answering the damn question, he claims that the hawks can still shoot their lasblasters.  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

Yes, but are you a hot little potato right now?

Youre not taking crazy pills, GW is just silly.

Now if they didnt give that little quip about shooitng before they could skyleap in the movement phase, then it would be fair evidence that this may well be a bonafide intent of the designers to trampoline the hawks the turn they deepstrike. But....It seems GW wants this unit to break every known rule and convention by writing stuff like this. Becuase kids love kroot-berserker-lascannon-shadowfield-kroxigors.

They could have made a FAQ for the stuff, but instead they choose to write that tripe.

Screw rules, just throw your dollies on the table and make gun noises.

I mean, this is the porsche of wargaming, right? Its not like I could invite a group of friends over to the sandlot behind my house and do the same thing with some firecrackers and G.I.Joes or anything....

Posted By Hellfury on 12/12/2006 6:24 PM
Youre not taking crazy pills, GW is just silly.

Now if they didnt give that little quip about shooitng before they could skyleap in the movement phase, then it would be fair evidence that this may well be a bonafide intent of the designers to trampoline the hawks the turn they deepstrike. But....It seems GW wants this unit to break every known rule and convention by writing stuff like this. Becuase kids love kroot-berserker-lascannon-shadowfield-kroxigors.

They could have made a FAQ for the stuff, but instead they choose to write that tripe.

Screw rules, just throw your dollies on the table and make gun noises.

I mean, this is the porsche of wargaming, right? Its not like I could invite a group of friends over to the sandlot behind my house and do the same thing with some firecrackers and G.I.Joes or anything....

Well if those were GW GI Joes.... you'd not want to use firecrackers.... maybe saltine or club crackers because that'd be all you could afford after paying GW prices for GI Joe sized figures.....

What seems like a good fix, to keep the unit viable, but at the same time make it actually have to be on the table during the enemy shooting phase would be to make it so the Skyleap power was used to remove the unit at the start of the turn and then they had to make a reserve roll the same turn to see if they would deepstrike in again.

This goes against the wording of the rules, but the wording of the rules is stupid.  This way the hawks could still flit around the board dropping bombs, plus they could shoot, and also be vulnerable to counter-attack.

Posted By Samwise158 on 12/12/2006 10:53 AM
One thing that has been irking me through this discussion is the assuption that the large str4 ap5 blast template will not accomplish much. True it isn't great against marines, but I mostly play IG. A weapon like this makes Ork, swarm Nids, and IG completely powerless. 12-15 large ap 5 blasts can wreck an IG army. So "this unit isn't really that good" argument isn't sound. This is a very powerful unit against certain targets. The fact that it is unkillable just throws it over the edge.

   Even against marines if three squads can account for 12 marines (2 six man las/plas for ex.) over the course of the game that still adds up to 230vp's that only the possibility of a bad reserve roll on the last turn can compensate against.

   This is all in addition to these troops being pretty good at taking out veicles if they decide to engage. Tau have reason to be afraid if three squads of these bastards can come onto the table and stick haywire grenades to their skimmers. My gripe is that these troops do have their own merits in combat, plus the option to dance around in the sky if they want to not ever be shot. This makes them excellent troops. In a VP denial army they will always preserve themselves and do some damage. I think there shouldn't be an ALWAYS in 40k.  Every unit should be able to be killed by the enemy in some way, shape or form.  If this goes uncorrected it will make 40k a more idiotic game.  I want to get victory points for killing the enemy, not because they decided not show up for roll call.

Oh and a couple of other things for Phazael.  Who from GW is saying that its confirmed?  Plus, you can fit three squads of min sized hawks for under 400pts

Couple things:

1) 4 Hawks w Exharch and skyleap can be crammed into 400 points, which makes it roughly the same as a Fury Librarian and 60% more than a Whirly, which both do the same thing more effectively with more risk.  Anyone with any intention of using their hawks for something other than bouncing every turn will likely not use minimum unit size and the people who do run full on rubber will be taking an Autarch to maximize the tactic.  Thats where I get the 500 point figure from.

2)  On average, you will get ten blasts, in total, over the course of a game.  Many of these will deviate out of optimum placement.  Asuming you beat the odds and manage to hit four marines every time you drop a plate, you will do a total of 20 wounds and kill roughly six marines over the course of the entire game.  Against horde armies, the hawks do far more damage with Las blasters, anyhow.  In any case, CC based lists will largely not care about the grenades once turn four rolls around, anyhow, because anything not dead is probably in CC by then.

3) Landing all three units safely, placing them down one at a time and they can die landing on each other, is not exactly a sure thing, especially if you are playing anyone with numbers in their list.  In fact, you need three seperate areas of 12" diameter and not within a foot of the table edge to do it risk free.  If the table has that much free space on it, then you are either already locked up to your balls in CC with your army, using way too few tooled up models in your lists, or already getting your poop pushed in anyhow.  The only truely risk free training wheels deepstrike comes in the form of pods in this game.  Further, to be truely unkillable, the eldar player has to go second, as they have to stay on table to take objectives on the final turn.  A librarian hiding back and dropping Fury every turn is arguably as unkillable and deffinately more effective for less points than a rubber hawk squad (to say nothing of orbital melta strikes), so nigh unkillable units of doom are hardly unheard of.  Finally, Hawks have been the bane of Tau for years, so there is nothing new there.

4) Every known rules inquiry to GW has come back saying that rubber hawks are a go.  Why anyone would want to do this, baffles me, though.  Spiders are almost as hard to kill and far deadlier.

 

Who/where did you make your GW inquiry at? My inquiry came back as that you only get 1 movement action in the phase, so no, you can't deepstrike and skyleap in the same turn.

 

I feel compelled to respond to your posts because I think each one of your posts is bunk in some way or another.

1.  You point out that in order for the hawks to be useful for something other than bouncing they need to be better equipped.  If the player is using them for VP denial then he may pump them up to a lot of points or he may want to sink his points into making his Grav Tanks and their units better.  I know that if I wanted to cheese it out as much as possible, 3 min hawk units with skyleap and intercept only comes to 411pts.  The only non bouncy use for them in a VP denial army would be to make a suicide run against a monolith or a pimped out land raider.  They likely wouldn't survive this attack, so I wouldn't try and make them too expensive.  Its also worth noting that this is a job that a Whirlwind or Fury Librarian couldn't do, plus both of those choices either aren't scoring units or will likely not be useful when grabbing objectives.  As the Autarch goes, a jetbike autarch with reaper launcher would be a good accompaniment to the hawks and would likely be a pain to kill w/JSJ and his speed.  You're right that this comes to more than 500pts but if the Autarch was in the middle of the Falcons he couldn't be targeted.

2.  I calculate that you'll average 12 blasts a game.  If you have a 2/3 chance on turn 2 and a 5/6th chance every turn after that.  It adds up to twelve over the course of six turns.  It may not be terribly effective against marines, since there are less of them, but the large blasts will be much more effective against Imperial Guard, Orks, Foot Eldar, and Nids.  10 lasblaster shots will only kill about 2-3 guardsmen on average, and then the hawks will be exposed to a counterattack.  The template threat will not allow an armor save in the open, which will herd the guardsmen into cover, bunching them up.  It will at least kill a similar amount of soldiers, most liley more, and can really punish squads that venture into the open, plus there is no way to counter attack.  Close combat armies won't be any better off because they'll just be chasing Grav Tanks around getting picked off little by little.  The VP denial bouncy hawks army is made to hide, but have a few weapons that can take potshots with little risk and fierce units (3 falcons w/snakes) that can pounce on an isolated squad.  This combination makes it really risky for enemy squads to spread out across the board, which contributes to point 3...

3.  There will likely be enough room so that DS is possible with very minimal risk.  The Eldar Grav Tanks can work to keep several areas clear on thier side of the board without too much trouble.  Granted, this won't protect the Hawks from some abysmally unlucky rolls, but I doubt they will have much problem finding open space.  Yes, if the Eldar go first then the enemy will get a turn of shooting at the hawks, but in this case, the falcons could be put on the objective grabbing detail, and the hawks can try and land someplace cozy, or like I said, land on turn five and go on a suicide run turn 6, if the VP total needs a re-adjustment.  It isn't guaranteed, but its pretty close.
     A Fury Libby is nowhere near unkillable.  Any unit that can deep strike with some decent firepower could kill him, plus fast units like pirhanas, grav tanks, or speedy Daemon princes can run him down.  Orbital Bombardments aren't scoring units and are unkillable because they are bombs.  Not only that, but they are extremely hard to use effectively.  A large str4 ap 5 blast may not be as deadly but its more accurate, flexible and reliable.

4.  I can't really comment on this one.

Those who have stated that Hawks aren't broken if they are used in the context of a balanced Eldar army are correct.  One or two units of rubber banding hawks aren't going to make that great of an impact.  Where they become broken is in the context of a VP denial army for the reasons I explained above.  If the RAW skyleap ruling is confirmed, the players using it will probably be using it in the VP denail force, not the traditional one.  That is why it should be corrected in FAQ.

I play in the LA area. And neither Deepstriking, nor Skypleaping, are movement. They are simply things that occur during the movement phase (with DS occuring at the beginning, by rule). Honestly, I can't believe anyone is flipping out over this has actually sat down and played games with it. Its not a winning tactic, its a play not to lose tactic which gets you nowhere in competitive events. Honsetly, if I faced someone with three units of Swooping Dorks, I would rather they bounced them every turn because they damage they can inflict on the table (especially against mechanized) is a hell of a lot more serious.

I play at the Baltimore Bunker, where the national HQ is. They are forms of movement. Just because they do not say "movement", they take place in the movement phase, thus, they are movement. And because you can only make one form of movement in the phase, you can't Deepstrike and  Skyleap. It clearly says in the Deepstrike entry in the rules that models count as already having been moved. And in the Skyleap entry, it says you can "remove"  a unit. That is a form of movement.

Anyways, I digress. I was just wondering where you had inquired at, because all the ones I have done with GW have been the opposite of yours. I do know that GW is setting up a better way to officially and uniformly answer questions like these.

 

Hobbs, this form of logical fallacy is known as the Appeal to Authority. No matter WHO says a thing, that doesn't inherently make it true.

The rulebook states that a unit which Deep Strikes cannot move in the same turn. It also states that they count as having moved for purposes of shooting.

If you want to claim that Deep Strike counts as movement, you need to actually support that argument or disprove mine (posted previously in this thread). Repeating your opinion over and over isn't proof.

Right...

Although Im in the camp that re-move is a form of move-ment; I admit its only my opinion; although I like to think a perfectly valid one.

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/13/2006 4:05 PM
Hobbs, this form of logical fallacy is known as the Appeal to Authority. No matter WHO says a thing, that doesn't inherently make it true.

The rulebook states that a unit which Deep Strikes cannot move in the same turn. It also states that they count as having moved for purposes of shooting.

If you want to claim that Deep Strike counts as movement, you need to actually support that argument or disprove mine (posted previously in this thread). Repeating your opinion over and over isn't proof.

They count as having moved because Deep Strike is a form of movement. It takes place in the movement phase. LOL. How much plainer can it be?

Prove that deep strike is a form of movement...Prove that removing them is a form of movement...

The problem is, Hobbs, is that when you call GW for a ruling you can call 10 mins later and get a completly different answer for the same question.

Thats why people find asking any employees of GW (short of a games dev person)a question to be sporadic at best concerning consistency.

They are no more qaulified to answer rules questions than anyone else here just because they work at GW.

By RaW, skyleaping isnt movement, and if a GW employee tells you it is, they are simply very much mistaken.

Now if GW is setting up a better way to answer questions, thats great. It really is. Bbut they have to get over the reputation they have earned in the last decade for making inconsistent answers to questions asked.

Saying you play at the baltimore BB has no more merit than my saying that I am jes goodwin's daddy.

The point is: Who cares?

Fleet of foot must not be legal either, since its movement in the shooting phase.....

/sarcasm

Your argument is pointless, anyhow, as there are forms of movement that occur with Deep Strike, anyhow, such as Lictors, Marines disembarking from a pod (I can just imagine you at a RTT telling some SM player that he can't exit his pod because you can't move after deep striking), the fact that a Speeder counts as having moved 12", and the million teleport/DS combos Necrons have. You can also wind up fleeing from CC if Repentia or BTs assault you during your own turn. The very foundation of your argument is flawed.

But lets say for the sake of argument that no movment after deep striking is an absolute. Removing models from the table is never specifically cited as movement anywhere in the main rulebook, even in the section where they talk about re-embarking into a transport. Neither is Deep Strike. Further, the wording of skyleap only procludes actual movement if you wish to use the ability and states that it must happen in the movement phase. Reserve arrival happens at the start of the movement phase in all cases. You can't roll bikes up and then summon Daemons any more than you can drive up a rhino, kick out the teleport homer, and THEN call in the Termies. It MUST occur first, which means the option to skyleap always comes after deep striking occurs. However you want to rationalize the rules, that is how they are written.

All that said, I still think its a dumb tactic that will only serve to annoy people without improving your chances of winning. Hawks can do so much more on the table against hordes/skimmers and the templates are practically useless against MEQs.

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/13/2006 4:20 PM
They count as having moved because Deep Strike is a form of movement. It takes place in the movement phase. LOL. How much plainer can it be?

Deep Strike is not a form of movement. It's a form of Deployment.

Skyleap is not a form of movement. It's a method of removing the models from the table and placing them in Reserve.

'It happens in the Movement Phase' does not make it Movement. Otherwise, Death or Glory suddenly becomes 'movement'... and therefore illegal if the model has already moved that turn... something that is also not supported by actual rules.

Likewise, if 'removing from the table' in the Movement phase counts as movement, you would be unable to remove casualties from a failed Dangerous Terrain test. This, after all, happens after they have moved... but still in the movement phase.

Good lord...

I stopped reading around the top of page 3, so sorry if I'm rehashing old points here.

1) Deepstrike takes place at the beginning of a player's turn, not in the movement phase.  It's a slight, but significant, difference.

2) If removing models counts as movement, then a DH Inquisitor with Mystic just became useless as it wouldn't be legal to remove the casualties caused when a unit deepstrikes.

Actually, if removing was movement and deepstriking was movement and you can't do both in a turn...Then veiled Necron lords and Daemonhosts aren't legal.

Hey! Nice examples there skyth!