Ok i have I doubt, when i use lash of submision on a unit, and i move them, am I allower to put all the members of the unit base to base so later i shoot lets say a plasma canon and with the area hit all of them?

kaintxu wrote:Ok i have I doubt, when i use lash of submision on a unit, and i move them, am I allower to put all the members of the unit base to base so later i shoot lets say a plasma canon and with the area hit all of them?

RAW yes, but people will argue with you until they're blue in the face.

ok but for example if they say now, how could I show them is a yes.

Im mostly curious, i play eldar and usually when they use it againts me the throw 3 dices, and mostly never comes out, still, i wanted to know which is the explication they can give me to prove its ok,

The most common arguement people have is you move them in the position they were in x amount of inches.

The rules say you move the squad X inches. While I don't agree with grouping them up to the pie plate method, how my circle runs it is as follows:
1. The point you move the models at is marked with the first model moved.
2. The second model attempts to get as close to the first model to reach the same point.
3. So on with the subsequent models.

Eventually, what it should look like is a rough triangular shape, not a giant circle. All models have to try and get as close to the point determined by the roll. It's less abusive that way.



I've added a little diagram to show an example.

The rule says move the unit X inches. It doesn't specifiy a specific direction for the squad. So it would seem, bunch 'em up, spread 'em out, it's all good as long as basic movement rules - as well as the other limitations in the lash rule - are followed.

That being said, if you DO group them up in any way, you should probably expect dirty looks from some opponents.

Yes, it's one of those things where the social aspect limits more than the rules. Lash states that you move them (for which you would of course refer to the movement section of the rules, which allow such clumping) and then imposes certain additional conditions, none of which prevent clumping. Personally, I see no reason to hold it against someone when they simply do what the rules allow them to do, so I let people play Lash against me however they like. If you want to stop your opponents from doing so, your best bet is just to argue that it is overpowered and a bit ridiculous in fluff terms, and could you please agree not to use it that way as a house rule. By the rules, you can't stop them.

I just tell the other player to move the unit x amount of inches in a certain direction. I don't move other peoples models. I'm afraid I'll break them. I'm usually trying to get them closer so I can assault them, though, not shoot them.

Do yourself a favor, and never move anyone but friends models--and even then, ask and be careful.

I usually don't even move friends models.

Whether you believe lash isn't sporting, lash is beatable and the rules let you move the models how you please.

I'll gladly not use lash if you can't use X where X is what makes your army fun/competitive.

Here's what I did. I have several colored paper disks that I carry with me. When I use lash, I pull out the appropriate number of disks and set them on the table where I want the enemy models to go. I then request that my opponent place his models on the disks.

That way I get the exact movement and formation I want while avoiding touching someone else's models.

My position is that under RAW, you do not get to clump models, at least very easily. Specifically, you move the models a set distance, being whatever was rolled on the the 2d6. Therefore, unless you can clump the models and also move them each the full distance, you can't clump them - in other words, each model must move the full distance, not just an ambiguous unit being moved the full distance.

Also, no bendy movement - i.e. the same as with skimmers, you have to move the models in a straight line - you can't use a curvy line to put the models anywhere you want.

If only your interpretation was supported by the rules or what the designers have said, Antonin.

If you really believe there's anything in the rules that mention moving models without clumping, something's clumped in yer head.

I read Antonin as pointing out the lack of "up to" so every model must move the full distance. That position states that clumping is a little harder situationally.

shrug.

I do not care where lash moves my models so long as I personally am the one moving them there.

The lack of "in a straight line" indicates that even if you have to move the full distance, bendy movement is allowable. The reason that isn't allowed when checking for SMF or the bike boost save is that those rules explicitly says so.

Stelek wrote:If only your interpretation was supported by the rules or what the designers have said, Antonin.

If you really believe there's anything in the rules that mention moving models without clumping, something's clumped in yer head.

Back atcha! Kirsanth understands. My position follows the rule - yours does... what? No "up to" results in "move the models the distance indicated". If you are somehow able to still clump them, then more power to you... of course then you also get into the point that Lash makes the models move a certain direction, and obviously to clump them you are not moving them all in the same direction (some are obviously moving in, even slightly, different directions.)

So, clumpmeisters, how is your position allowed by the rules? I see two reasons stated in the rules (direction is specified and distance is specified) that specify that clumping cannot happen.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:The lack of "in a straight line" indicates that even if you have to move the full distance, bendy movement is allowable. The reason that isn't allowed when checking for SMF or the bike boost save is that those rules explicitly says so.

As noted, Lash designates a direction the models must move - bendy movement would result in the models moving in other directions during their move. That conflicts with the stated Lash rules. So, no.

"A psyker may use this psychic power in the Shooting phase instead of using another ranged weapon. Pick any non-vehicle enemy unit visible to the psyker and within 24", and then take a Psychic test in order to use the power. If the test is successful, the target is moved 2D6" by the Chaos player. This move is not slowed by difficult terrain, but dangerous terrain tests are taken as normal. Victims may not be moved off the table, into impassable terrain or within 1" of enemy models. After this, the affected unit must take a Pinning test."

Where's the limitation on direction, Antonin?

I stand corrected! Oops. However, I can't agree with bendy lines in this case - that does not match my reading of the rule. I will need to look at the main book more to offer support, not available right now.

As an aside, is there anything that requires a lashed unit to stay in coherency?

Your opinion or feeling or intuition is fine.

Sadly, the rule says you follow the movement rules.

Please show me the hexes outlining movement on the tabletop, and I'll gladly play the way you believe I should.

Yea, Antonin, your theory doesn't hold up, as it would prevent a unit from being moved around the corner of a building, for instance. Obviously that should be ok, but it requires making a turn at some point in the movement.

Honestly, I really think the "no grouping" issue is due to players looking REALLY hard for a reason why lash is less powerful than it is. Unfortunately, it isn't.

Learn to beat lash using tactics, not rules lawyering.

Sooner you do, the less you'll think about the one-trick pony express that lash is.

It isn't that it isn't incredibly dangerous to some armies, it's that it's needed against those very lists.

Anyway, learn to beat it. If Defilers really give you that much trouble when combined with Lash, I guess you should ask yourself why indirect fire and mutated hull was really removed...then figure out there is an intended combo built into the book, and how you deal with it will decide you winning against Lash--or losing against Lash.

Here is my take on the rule. I would put a die at the point where I want the closest model model to the point to move. I would then put a die where I would want the farthest left and farthest right model to move. All the remaining models in the unit must fall within the triangle formed by dice. You should end up with a triangle or line of some sort as a result of this. For a more pie plate friendly formation, I would strive for a more equalaterial triangle with my corner placement. For a more assault friendly formation, I would strive for as close to a straight line as possible or go with the box method depending on how my opponent forms their units.

Defilers, Dreadnoughts with Plasma cannon, Demolishers, anyone using a flame template, Blastmasters, Missile Launchers w/ frag (against weaker troops), Doom siren, etc. (Obliterators? don't recall offhand)

Actually, I play Chaos. I just get tired of putting together the MtG-like combo - i.e. I have a lash + X, I'll just do that every time, and tactics don't matter

Techboss, thank you for sharing your (very sensible) personal house rule for playing Lash, but I don't see what is has to do with this discussion, which is based on what the rule actually says.

Stelek wrote:Learn to beat lash using tactics, not rules lawyering.

Sooner you do, the less you'll think about the one-trick pony express that lash is.

It isn't that it isn't incredibly dangerous to some armies, it's that it's needed against those very lists.

Anyway, learn to beat it. If Defilers really give you that much trouble when combined with Lash, I guess you should ask yourself why indirect fire and mutated hull was really removed...then figure out there is an intended combo built into the book, and how you deal with it will decide you winning against Lash--or losing against Lash.

So, not to challenge you...
Well, actually, I guess I *am* challenging you... but not in a confrontational/hostile way. Simply in an inquiring one.

What is your tactic for beating it?
Posting that could really help the OP.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

What is your tactic for beating it?
Posting that could really help the OP.

Eric

That belongs in another thread. And if you do a search I'm sure you can find Stelek's many other posts regarding how he deals with/feels about Lash.


As for the original question, I too believe that there is nothing in the rules preventing the models from being moved in a 'zig-zag' or 'bendy' pattern to essentially allow the controlling player to move the models where he wants them to be. The only really big issue that arises when playing this way is when dealing with models that take dangerous terrain tests moving into terrain. A player can (rightly) argue that he can 'zig-zag' the unit into a piece of terrain nearly an infinite amount of times forcing enough dangerous terrain tests to destroy all the models. So you basically have to play with a house rule only allowing a single dangerous terrain test to be taken in these instances.


The alternate choice, to play with the 'straight line in one direction' concept also requires a house rule to deal with the situation when the unit's 'straight line' takes them into something they can't move through like impassable terrain, enemy or friendly models.


I think this calls for a Lash poll to see how most people play!

Well, if they have defilers they don't have obliterator units and odds are they don't have good anti-tank. Alot of players make all or nothing army lists, and having just a pair of tanks (or their equivalent, more on that later) can really make things difficult for players without adequate anti-tank. As a baseline for what is or is not adequate, Here are some examples:

My Tau army only has 2 Railguns; but with their S10, 72" range, 12" mobility to hit flank shots, BS4 upgradeable to BS5 thanks to markerlights, and having 20 S7 shots means I can ignore light vehicles and take out heavy tanks so my priority is never difficult.

My IG army usually runs 6 lascannons, 8 meltaguns (drop), and 6-12 autocannons (or missile launchers, or lascannons) along with 3 x LR (really good at killing open topped vehicles).

This means I can focus fire where needed. In the end, that means I can fire at what I want to. It's critical you be able to do this, as against a good Chaos army there are tons of targets.

I'll give you a quick breakdown on the ways to beat lash from a distance. Just bear in mind that my armies use heavy weapons, mobility, and/or lots of light and heavy fire on units dedicated to said fire types to achieve victory--and dual purpose units are in pretty much all of my armies. Everything in all my armies practice combined arms tactics.

Keep in mind this advice is only marginally applicable to 4th edition, but Lash (and Tri-Falcon) are only powerful in 4th because they were designed using the 5th edition ruleset and as such are more powerful than they were intended to be.

I'll put how to beat Lash in a separate post for each army.

One of the interesting things that a lot of people forget is that if we assume the rules require a straight line, no clumping movment, won't this lead to endless arguements about how the unit was moved? Will we require each model to move exactly 2d6"? require units to maintaing perfect coherency? It's not unworkable, but it would be unweildy.

I recently in the last year or so dug out my old Chaos army and starting playing with it under the new codex with my group. And a Lash prince is usually in every single list I make. Mostly to get us ready for tournaments where this is commonplace.

The way we run the Lash is pretty simple, and seems to follow the vague rules given for the Lash.

If the attempt is successful I roll my 2D6 for the inches moved. Now I pick the spot I want to move that unit on the board and mark it with a dice (never the exact amount, just to give the player a general idea of where i'm putting his guys) . I then take the closet model to that dice and measure out the distance given to me by the dice roll and move that model in that direction. Then I go in line and move each model the same distance. If they happen to clump up due to moving the full distance than that's how it goes. My opponents have learned to form their squads differently when they play against the Lash.

As for snaking movement or zig-zagging, we really try to avoid that. But if i'm forced to move some models around a building or around cover to get a good shot at them I will make models make turns or zags in their movement. The rules for the Lash say nothing about only being able to move models in a straight line.

So in the spirit of the OP, how is this different than fall back moves - with the swap of "towards the nearest table edge" and "at the Chaos player's choosing" or whatever the quotes are?

The unit, and thus each model in it, must move 2d6 inches. Does the unit need to end its move the required number of inches from where it started? All other examples I find have the answer to that as "Yes".

A bike cannot move 1" and claim it was an 18" move with zigzags... nor can flyers, nor can any example I can find. All movement I read that can leave a model less than the indicated number explicitely states that in the RAW. Even stranger for compulsary movements.

shrug.

I have a couple of questions regarding the Lash of Submission.

1. Do I have to make a leadership check to target a unit that is not the closest target?

2. If the lash of submisstion works can the caster charge another unit even though the lash is used instead of shooting?

Thanks

inquisitor_bob wrote:I have a couple of questions regarding the Lash of Submission.

1. Do I have to make a leadership check to target a unit that is not the closest target?

2. If the lash of submisstion works can the caster charge another unit even though the lash is used instead of shooting?

Thanks

No and yes.

kirsanth wrote:The unit, and thus each model in it, must move 2d6 inches. Does the unit need to end its move the required number of inches from where it started? All other examples I find have the answer to that as "Yes".

A bike cannot move 1" and claim it was an 18" move with zigzags... nor can flyers, nor can any example I can find. All movement I read that can leave a model less than the indicated number explicitely states that in the RAW. Even stranger for compulsary movements.

You're mixing rules.

Bikes, for example, absolutely may move 9" in one direction, then 9" right back, while only displacing an inch forward and say they moved 18" because, as long as the player moved the models, it's true.
What they CAN'T do is claim the invulnerable save for it because the Invul save states that they have to displace 18", not simply move it.
In fact, where you mention flyers, you support the lash zig-zag.
In instances where you cannot zig-zag, it states that you cannot. Lash makes no such reference.

Eric

yakface wrote:I think this calls for a Lash poll to see how most people play!

I think this we result in the non-Chaos players voting favorably with a non-RAW option.

Stelek wrote:

inquisitor_bob wrote:I have a couple of questions regarding the Lash of Submission.

1. Do I have to make a leadership check to target a unit that is not the closest target?

2. If the lash of submisstion works can the caster charge another unit even though the lash is used instead of shooting?

Thanks

No and yes.

I thought when my model is using a Psychic power instead of shooting it still follows the shooting rules regarding to targeting models as in question 1 and also subsequently charging a unit as in question 2. I did not think I can use the lash, instead of shooting and use the shooting rules, on Unit A I can still charge Unit B.

can you use lash against units in Hand to Hand?

thehod wrote:can you use lash against units in Hand to Hand?

If by use it against units in HtH with a unit other than the caster, Than yes.

If used against the unit in HtH with the caster, than no. As the rules for the lash do not say it is an ability you can use while in HtH combat.

You cannot shoot at units locked in close combat. The Lash of Submission is treated as a ranged weapon. Therefore you cannot use the Lash of Submission on units that are locked in close combat.

A model may only be targeted by a psychic power if the power specifically says you can. Otherwise you cannot.

Lash, overall, is a terribly-written power. Its phrasing is vague and imprecise, and leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Even to draw RAW conclusions, you have to work from inference about many basic questions like “can I choose to move the models less than the distance rolled?” “Can I rearrange them and move them into different formations?” and “can I target a unit in close combat?”

The “RAW” interpretations many players use allowing them to rearrange the models as they please are based on the lack of explicit wording to the contrary in the power description, and the assumption that “move” means movement in the same sense as movement in the movement phase. While this is a pretty safe guess, it’s by no means guaranteed to be the right answer. If, for example, you compare Lash to Fallback movement (as Kirsanth did), they appear somewhat similar. By precedent, and by interpreting lash’s instruction to move the distance rolled as a firm requirement and not as an optional maximum, one could make an argument that Lash should thereby be restricted to moving the entire distance rolled in a specified (single) direction. Unfortunately, despite Warhammer having clear and consistent rules for multiple different types of Compulsory Movement for over a decade, the 40k writers haven’t had the sense to borrow that and build it into the 40k rules as a standard mechanic for Fallback and other similar types of movement. So there IS no standard for how compulsory-type movement effects are supposed to work. Again, the closest thing to actual rules governing it are the bare brief phrasing in lash (41 words), and the movement chapter in the rulebook.

Targeting a unit in close combat is even trickier. The general rules for psychic powers state that they function like shooting except when otherwise specified. The problem with that is that most psychic powers aren’t written so clearly as to actually say “this power doesn’t work like shooting”. Instead they just give a description that may or may not contradict the shooting rules. Lash is one of these. It says to target “any non-vehicle enemy unit visible to the psyker and within 24 inches”. The phrasing ANY is generally read to mean that it ignores all normal shooting targeting restrictions. Which could theoretically allow it to target a unit in HTH. However, if you use the movement phase rules for movement, as you must in order to figure out how the movement works, you are bound by the restriction that you cannot move models within 1” of the enemy. Most players I’ve met or seen discuss it online interpret this as preventing units presently Locked in combat from being moved, because you would have to move models which are within 1” of the enemy.

Overall, Lash is a very powerful and useful power no matter how you interpret it. I just wish GW had done a better job designing and describing it (and pretty much every psychic power, for that matter). As it stands, there are multiple possible and plausible ways to interpret and play it, which means that if you choose to play by one of the more powerful interpretations, you stand a decent chance of having disagreements or unpleasant rules discussions with opponents who aren’t entirely convinced by, or happy with, your interpretation.

For my purposes I’m glad to have a well-designed independent FAQ to fall back on, which is what I agree to with my opponents in friendly games, and encourage local tournament organizers to use. Yakface and the Adepticon rules council did a great job on this thing, with the happy result that when I brought Lash to Adepticon, I didn’t have a single rules dispute or disagreement, despite playing against 11 different opponents with it, none of whom I’d ever met or played with before.

http://www.adepticon.org/files/INAT_FAQ.pdf

Mannahnin wrote:If, for example, you compare Lash to Fallback movement (as Kirsanth did), they appear somewhat similar. By precedent, and by interpreting lash’s instruction to move the distance rolled as a firm requirement and not as an optional maximum, one could make an argument that Lash should thereby be restricted to moving the entire distance rolled in a specified (single) direction.

Fall Back moves don't require that you move in a single direction. You can move a model any direction you please so long as it is within a corridor defined by the two outermost models.

From the BGB, page 48: "A unit that falls back must move within a corridor lying between its most extended models as shown in the diagram on the left - but each model can move anywhere within this corridor, as you wish."

Thus, a unit which is spread out 10" wide that rolls an 8 for fall back distance can easily criss-cross for the fall back move and end up less than 1" closer to the board edge than they started.

If only that was a good FAQ.

Hopefully, GW will get off the pot and release the 5th edition FAQ's with 5th edition.

Democratus wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:If, for example, you compare Lash to Fallback movement (as Kirsanth did), they appear somewhat similar. By precedent, and by interpreting lash’s instruction to move the distance rolled as a firm requirement and not as an optional maximum, one could make an argument that Lash should thereby be restricted to moving the entire distance rolled in a specified (single) direction.

Fall Back moves don't require that you move in a single direction. You can move a model any direction you please so long as it is within a corridor defined by the two outermost models.

From the BGB, page 48: "A unit that falls back must move within a corridor lying between its most extended models as shown in the diagram on the left - but each model can move anywhere within this corridor, as you wish."

Thus, a unit which is spread out 10" wide that rolls an 8 for fall back distance can easily criss-cross for the fall back move and end up less than 1" closer to the board edge than they started.

While GW’s phrasing is terrible, and technically allows it, I’ve never met anyone who would try doing that. All my opponents have played that as a means for the fleers to go around obstructions, not a loophole to reduce your flee distance.

Stelek wrote:If only that was a good FAQ..

I'd rather have a great FAQ, which is what the INAT FAQ is. Your (and my) relatively minor criticisms aside, the INAT FAQ is the best FAQ 40k has ever gotten, and likely the best it will ever get.

Stelek wrote:Hopefully, GW will get off the pot and release the 5th edition FAQ's with 5th edition.

And when they overlook critical stuff (as you and I both know they will) hopefully Dave Taylor will continue his custom of borrowing good ideas from Adepticon, and will adopt the next version of the INAT FAQs as soon as Yak the boys update it for 5th.

Democratus: Fall Back moves require you to move the entire 2D6" inches within the corridor indicated.

"A unit falls back directly towards the closest point of the player's table edge or of the base line where the unit deployed/entered the table if it came on at a different place."

"A unit falling back may move around any obstruction in such a way as to get back to their base line by the shortest route." Emphasis mine.

"If a unit cannot perform a full Fall Back move in any direction, without doubling back, it is destroyed."

Mann, you (and alot of others) seem to be under the impression the studio likes the tournament scene and all it breeds. Dave Taylor=not the studio.

You do realize Phil Kelly is a vocal exception to the rule that they hate it, right? Have resented and one might even say despised it, for years and years and years for ruining "their game"?

By the way, I'm not really interested in restarting the debate about yak's version of 40k. If you think I'm in the minority, please define what the majority is? The 85%-90% of players of this game who don't use FAQs? Come on now. GW isn't changing the game for them for nothing, and changing it for tournament players (for the worse, according to most) since we are the "minority".

I'd rather have a great FAQ, which is what the INAT FAQ is. Your (and my) relatively minor criticisms aside, the INAT FAQ is the best FAQ 40k has ever gotten, and likely the best it will ever get

I can't say I agree with you, the INAT FAQ re-writes a lot of rules and simply makes the *wrong* decision in many cases. Is it in-depth and detailed? Yes. Do they make the the wrong decision, re-write rules, and come to odd conclusions in some areas? Yes. For instance, Zagstrukk deep striking. With the Adepticon FAQ, Zagstrukk DS-Assault casualties count towards combat resolution. However these are not inflicted by enemy models and should be treated akin to Warp Spider jump casualties, not towards winning or losing combat. (note: I don't play Orks)

While it is obvious that a lot of work went into it, and it is far more in depth than any FAQ GW is likely to give us, it goes off-target in too many areas for many people, including myself, to ever consider using it.

Although I do like their FAQ to Lash. (note: I don't use Lash either, so this doesn't affect me, most of my HQ's are typically Khorne)

Stelek wrote:Mann, you (and alot of others) seem to be under the impression the studio likes the tournament scene and all it breeds. Dave Taylor=not the studio.

You do realize Phil Kelly is a vocal exception to the rule that they hate it, right? Have resented and one might even say despised it, for years and years and years for ruining "their game"?"

Where did I state or imply that the studio likes or supports the tournament scene?

I will note that many other GW folks have attended and played at tournaments. Adepticon still has a copy of Paul Sawyer's article about his visit to Adepticon on their website for download. And Gav, Jervis, and Alessio have all repeatedly played in UK GTs, to my recollection.

Stelek wrote:By the way, I'm not really interested in restarting the debate about yak's version of 40k. ".

No need to. I brought it up because Lash is written terribly, and (IMO) the INAT FAQ handles it perfectly. I'm going to continue bringing it up, in part because of its own inherent high quality, and in part because of its demonstrated high level of performance. It worked great for me at Adepticon, achieving its goal (smoother games and shorter rules discussions) beautifully. You can also ask the Adepticon organizers for a larger view of whether rules questions and debates were down.

Stelek wrote: If you think I'm in the minority, please define what the majority is? The 85%-90% of players of this game who don't use FAQs? Come on now. GW isn't changing the game for them for nothing, and changing it for tournament players (for the worse, according to most) since we are the "minority".

Who are you quoting? I didn't use the word minority.

My 'minor' criticisms are in fact 'major', and I am not the only one--I am one of many who don't like the inat faq.

That's me extrapolating out. Sorry.

Vaktathi wrote:

I'd rather have a great FAQ, which is what the INAT FAQ is. Your (and my) relatively minor criticisms aside, the INAT FAQ is the best FAQ 40k has ever gotten, and likely the best it will ever get

I can't say I agree with you, the INAT FAQ re-writes a lot of rules and simply makes the *wrong* decision in many cases. Is it in-depth and detailed? Yes. Do they make the the wrong decision, re-write rules, and come to odd conclusions in some areas? Yes. For instance, Zagstrukk deep striking. With the Adepticon FAQ, Zagstrukk DS-Assault casualties count towards combat resolution. However these are not inflicted by enemy models and should be treated akin to Warp Spider jump casualties, not towards winning or losing combat. (note: I don't play Orks)

IMO the number of places where they got it *wrong* is vanishingly small and virtually insignificant beside the hge number of things they got right or made more clear. Again, I have to point to my experience at Adepticon and note that between 11 different people I played against in 40k, I never had a rules debate, and virtually every question that came up was resolved very quickly with the aid of the FAQ.

Vaktathi wrote:While it is obvious that a lot of work went into it, and it is far more in depth than any FAQ GW is likely to give us, it goes off-target in too many areas for many people, including myself, to ever consider using it.

I can understand your reasoning, and a few years ago (when I was a bit more fixated on RAW and officiality) I might have agreed with it. At present, having seen what a superior job some players and hobbyists do at supporting the hobby (both in the Indy GT circuit and in the INAT FAQ), I have come to the reasoned and sober conclusion that waiting for or expecting GW to perform to my standards is a silly thing to do. And ignoring such great resources is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Stelek wrote:My 'minor' criticisms are in fact 'major', and I am not the only one--I am one of many who don't like the inat faq.

Having read pretty much all the debate, criticism, and feedback the INAT FAQ got on this site and on a couple of others, I understand that your objections were strong ones, and that there were many areas where you disagreed with the rulings made in the FAQ and the reasoning behind them.

However, from my recollection the areas of strong debate were often on fairly minor points and rulings. Or on strict interpretations of confusing rules that a large number of people aren’t playing right in the first place, where any clear and consistent ruling (even one against the strict RAW) improves the game. IMO the INAT FAQ does a great deal of good and helps with probably 95% of the issues and questions people have. Degrading or ignoring it because of the other 5% is, IMO, counterproductive.

Actually, I ignore it because it isn't from GW.

No more, no less a reason exists for me to do so; and none will.

And I’m sure some folks will only run software published by Microsoft on their PC. Their choice. They might be able to use more fun stuff if they made a different choice, but it’s up to them.

Everyone runs an office suite.

Since that's all MS publishes that a normal person would use, what's the correlation?

One product versus dozens?

Seems like a specious argument to me.

Mannahnin wrote:And I’m sure some folks will only run software published by Microsoft on their PC. Their choice. They might be able to use more fun stuff if they made a different choice, but it’s up to them.

These have nothing to do with each other!

It's not official if Games Workshop hasn't made it, which has nothing to do with the usage of software from a different company.

All the homegrown FAQs amuse me. You'd think the fact that multiple separate groups have compoiled pages long documents in an effort to clear up a game that they pay a fairly good ammount of money to play would get the attention of the dev team. Unfortunately the reality of this situation has proved this wrong. Either way the fact remains that someone can write the best FAQ ever, post it on the internet and it still won't have any bearing on the game because in the end it is just one person or a group of independent people putting their ideas down and not in any way an official solution.

Of course it's unofficial. Do you imagine that anyone involved in its creation thinks otherwise? It's a set of house rules (no more or less than any tourney FAQ) that allows 40k to run smoothly, something it cannot do in its official incarnation. For what it is, it's very good.

kirsanth wrote:So in the spirit of the OP, how is this different than fall back moves - with the swap of "towards the nearest table edge" and "at the Chaos player's choosing" or whatever the quotes are?

The unit, and thus each model in it, must move 2d6 inches. Does the unit need to end its move the required number of inches from where it started? All other examples I find have the answer to that as "Yes".

A bike cannot move 1" and claim it was an 18" move with zigzags... nor can flyers, nor can any example I can find. All movement I read that can leave a model less than the indicated number explicitely states that in the RAW. Even stranger for compulsary movements.

shrug.

Both bikes and skimmers can move 1" and claim that it was 18" with zigzags, it just won't qualify for moving the 18". The rules have specific sections stating that certain bonuses require being X" away from your starting position to apply. See Turbo-boost on page 76, and page 69 on "Skimmers Moving Fast".

I mentioned flyers, not skimmers.

For bikes I understand. Would be like Fall Back in zigzags.

The idea I think was more relevant was movement with a required distance. Bikes can choose to move less. Flyers, Falling Back units and Lash targets cannot.

I do understand what people are saying/playing.
But some of that is silly, and some is questionable.
Here's to hoping it is part of the 5thE faq setup.

I just took a look at that FAQ and I keep seeing repeatedly [rules change], which after looking at the others that say [RAW] or [clarification], revealed to me that those rules are basically.....changing the rules to make things easier.

While nice for clarity, that's....blatantly wrong. And I checked the lash rules, which just like some of the posters here tries to add the "specific direction" bit that isn't talked about AT ALL in the description of the power.

My group allows clumping, because you can fenagle the distances to be such that models end up next to each other. We also like to not take an hour and a half to move the unit, especially with me trying not to touch my opponent's models, by holding the tape measure for each model saying "ok that one....here. And that one....here. And the next one....here." Nah, we generally measure the distance of the furthest guy, maybe the closest guy, and say if we want to bunch any up in between, and then the opponent moves his own models. Saves time.

Keep in mind though that YES, it counts as a shooting attack, so if you use it on one unit you CANNOT assault a different unit. This helps limit the power a tad because you can't lash a nearby unit that could come in to support far away, then charge the one in front of you to destroy it unsupported. If you're lashing things further back, expect to be unable to assault.

Spellbound:

I just took a look at that FAQ and I keep seeing repeatedly [rules change], which after looking at the others that say [RAW] or [clarification], revealed to me that those rules are basically.....changing the rules to make things easier.

While nice for clarity, that's....blatantly wrong.

Define "blatantly wrong."

He did define it. You just chose to cut your quote short. He explained how claims of a "specific direction" were not to be found in the rule. This is the "blatantly wrong" part.

How does that make a self-declared rules change "blatantly wrong"? It isn't an interpretation, a claim about what the rules say. It is a house rule instituted by the events that use this FAQ. How can such a thing be "right" or "wrong?" It simply is.

Sorry for coming into this with my two cents a few days late.

"A psyker may use this psychic power in the Shooting phase instead of using another ranged weapon. Pick any non-vehicle enemy unit visible to the psyker and within 24", and then take a Psychic test in order to use the power. If the test is successful, the target is moved 2D6" by the Chaos player. This move is not slowed by difficult terrain, but dangerous terrain tests are taken as normal. Victims may not be moved off the table, into impassable terrain or within 1" of enemy models. After this, the affected unit must take a Pinning test."


I copied the preceding from tegeus-Cromis' page one post.

It says move them 2d6". Not up to 2d6". The distance is written as an absolute amount. Now you could move each one of the models individually in a criss-cross fashion to pull them together a bit so long as they are each moved the full distance of 2d6".

I don't recall ever seeing the phrase "bendy move" in the BGB.

Joram wrote:
I don't recall ever seeing the phrase "bendy move" in the BGB.

It's just a general term. Without "bendy move"-ing everything in the game moves in straight lines only. But it is a little cheap to be able to say "I zig zagged all your dudes when I lashed them so instead of 8" they moved 5" and are now they're in perfect formation to take a flamer to the face" although I do it, very often. No one I've ever played has had a problem with it.

I understand the "blatantly wrong" bit too. That FAQ just breaks the rules, they are too vague to handle Lash as is. The game really isn't designed in mind for tournament play. But using that FAQ as if it is the end all be all to the rules is wrong. Blatantly wrong because it simply changes many rules people come to the mighty internets to argue about. Lash should, in my opinion (which doesn't make it any more valid than anyone else), be able to move units out of formation. Sometimes you need to move a unit into a corridor that is 6" wide but the way the unit is formed it is 8" across and wide. By the fluff and rules of Lash it can be done. Your psychically commanding the group to move somewhere they aren't going to chime in and say "We can't do that, Allen, Bob, Jim and Terry really don't want to not be standing like this, so we're not going to be able to go there, pick somewhere else".

In all fairness, RAW never says to test each time a unit enters terrain. Only to test for each model in the unit. Technically running of 14 different minefields should not be harder than running over 1, so long as it is done in one round of movement.

shrug.

inquisitor_bob wrote:I have a couple of questions regarding the Lash of Submission.

1. Do I have to make a leadership check to target a unit that is not the closest target?

2. If the lash of submisstion works can the caster charge another unit even though the lash is used instead of shooting?

Thanks

Yes to both.

"A psyker may use this psychic power in the shooting phase instead of using another ranged weapon.

Lash is a shooting attack, regardless of its lack of "weapon" statlines. Therefore any requirements/restrictions applicable to shooting or derived from shooting apply.

DeathGod wrote:

inquisitor_bob wrote:I have a couple of questions regarding the Lash of Submission.

1. Do I have to make a leadership check to target a unit that is not the closest target?

2. If the lash of submisstion works can the caster charge another unit even though the lash is used instead of shooting?

Thanks

Yes to both.

"A psyker may use this psychic power in the shooting phase instead of using another ranged weapon.

Lash is a shooting attack, regardless of its lack of "weapon" statlines. Therefore any requirements/restrictions applicable to shooting or derived from shooting apply.

Actually no. Lash is used instead of a shooting attack but does not work like it. It has a special condition that say "pick any target within". That makes it diffrent from a normal shooting attack.

DeathGod is correct. If a psycker may use this psychic power in the shooting phase instead of another ranged weapon, then pick any non-vehicle enemy unit visible to the psyker and within 24" subject to the normal rules for shooting ranged weapons. What's different from a normal shooting attack is that you don't roll to hit, you simply pass the Psychic Test necessary to cast the power.

Not sure where you read the "subject to the normal rules for shooting ranged weapons" in regards of lash, but the rule for it only states that you pick any non-vehicle enemy unit.

"A psyker may use this psychic power in the Shooting phase instead of using another ranged weapon."

Yeah, but that says nothing about how you choose a target or how the power actually works. Only that you use it instead of another ranged weapon.

According to the rule book all powers works as shooting attacks unless othervise specified in the power and in the lash description it do specify how to pick the target.

Kallbrand:

If something is used instead of another ranged weapon, then it follows that something follows the rules for ranged weapons. So you're right, the Lash of Submission rules do specify how to pick a target: They specify to follow the shooting rules with a range of 24" and restricted to non-vehicle units.

Targeting for a ranged weapon or any replancement for them is covered in RAW as Nurglitch points out.

If you want to ignore the text, feel free. The rules themselves are clear and in text for reference. The rules show how to choose a target and how to resolve the difference from "regular" shooting attacks, which is referenced in the text for Lash.

I'm with Nurglitch for once. "Another ranged weapon" implies that Lash is a ranged weapon, which means it needs to comply with the normal rules for shooting.

Im a bit curious how you get the "pick a non-vehicle unit within 24 and visible to the psycher" to include that it follows the normal shooting rules. That actually states that it does something else then follow them. The fact that you use it instead of another ranged weapon doesnt say anything that overrides that.

The bgb even says that if a power does specify how to pick a target, it overrides the normal shooting rules.

Anyway, there have been a marthon debate over the net about it and it will get FAQed and changed(with 5th ed.) so its easier to understand soon. And unless the FAQ changes anything significant you will be able to choose whatever you want within range.

OK, again I have to point out tegeus-Cromis' page one post. Unless he misquoted the Lash of Submission rules, it clearly states "pick any non-vehicle unit".

I can honestly say you guys are reading too much into this psychic power. Making assumptions about which rules it uses or doesn't use.

It should be as simple as this:

1-Choose a target non-vehicle enemy unit within 24" and visible to the psyker.

2-Take psychic test.

3-Roll 2d6 and move the enemy unit that far in inches. Ignoring difficult terrain, testing for dangerous terrain, etc.

4-Enemy unit takes a pinning test.

I don't understand where any of you think that the unit can move less than the amount rolled. I will grant that if you choose to move the enemy unit toward a table edge or your own units than they will have to stop short of the total rolled. But those are the only conditions supplied by the psychic power.

Bendy-movement is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard in 40k.

Joram wrote:OK, again I have to point out tegeus-Cromis' page one post. Unless he misquoted the Lash of Submission rules, it clearly states "pick any non-vehicle unit".

I can honestly say you guys are reading too much into this psychic power. Making assumptions about which rules it uses or doesn't use.

It should be as simple as this:

I agree with that, but there are addendums to what you said.

1-Choose a target non-vehicle enemy unit within 24" and visible to the psyker.

2-Take psychic test.

2a - Make a target priority test if said unit is not the closest viable enemy unit.

3-Roll 2d6 and move the enemy unit that far in inches. Ignoring difficult terrain, testing for dangerous terrain, etc.

4-Enemy unit takes a pinning test.

I don't understand where any of you think that the unit can move less than the amount rolled. I will grant that if you choose to move the enemy unit toward a table edge or your own units than they will have to stop short of the total rolled. But those are the only conditions supplied by the psychic power.

Bendy-movement is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard in 40k.

Show me where it specifies that a unit has to move in a straight line.
No opinions. Facts only, please.

Where it says to move them 2d6", it does not specify HOW they must be moved (re: straight or "bendy" lines). They can be moved in a square, if the Sorcerer's player chooses.

Eric

The psychic power says move them 2d6". Again, I repeat. It does not say "up to 2d6".
It also says "any unit". The word "any" implies standard targeting rules don't apply.

Now since I don't have it in front and am using someone else's quote of the rule, I could be in error. But I already said that.

Any diagram in the movement or assault sections of the BGB show movement in a straight line. The only reason movement might be "bendy" is to go around difficult, dangerous, or impassable terrain. But these inches of movement are accounted for due to there being rules covering them, but bendy movement doesn't exist.

Let us just assume that the unit in question is completely in the open. Lash of Submission user rolls a 9" result. If you move them 3" from point A to point B, does this count as moving them 9" just because a player says so. No, it IS 3" of movement. This is not an opinion. This is a fact.

Show me Bendy movement anywhere in a rulebook, FAQ, or any other official GW publication.

Joram wrote:The psychic power says move them 2d6". Again, I repeat. It does not say "up to 2d6".
It also says "any unit". The word "any" implies standard targeting rules don't apply.

Your assertion of the text is correct. Your inference of its' meaning is not.
Unless otherwise mentioned, Psyhic powers work like shooting. For an example of what DOESN'T work like shooting, and how it is worded, take a gander at the rest of the Psychic powers in the codex. Hopefully, you'll see the diffeence.

Joram wrote:Any diagram in the movement or assault sections of the BGB show movement in a straight line. The only reason movement might be "bendy" is to go around difficult, dangerous, or impassable terrain. But these inches of movement are accounted for due to there being rules covering them, but bendy movement doesn't exist.

Just because it doesn't show a curved or bent line doesn't mean that movement is impossible. If you reason in your post that we can't move in a crooked line for one purpose (Lash), because the diagrams in the book only show straight lines then, in the next sentence you imply that it's okay not to move crooked for reasons you approve of (going around terrain), you totally undermine your own credibility. Clearly, you're saying "You can't, because I don't think you should," even if that isn't your words. Be consistent.

Joram wrote:Let us just assume that the unit in question is completely in the open. Lash of Submission user rolls a 9" result. If you move them 3" from point A to point B, does this count as moving them 9" just because a player says so. No, it IS 3" of movement. This is not an opinion. This is a fact.

You are correct. It is a fact that moving 3" forward is moving 3". If that same piece moves 3" forward, 3" back, then 3" forward again, how much is that? If you did your math correctly, you'll come up with the answer as 9". If you didn't, yo should go back & add 3+3+3 again.
Note that the rule says the models MOVES 2d6 inches, not DISPLACES 2d6". If the rule was that it had to displace that distance, then nobody could reasonably argue against your point.

Joram wrote:Show me Bendy movement anywhere in a rulebook, FAQ, or any other official GW publication.

How would you like that proof? Written or in imagery?

Eric

Written.

Joram wrote:

Bendy-movement is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard in 40k.

Really? So if models are standing around the corner of an impassable building and they move around the corner you take the straight distance from their starting point to their ending point? You let them essentially pass right over the impassable terrain at no penalty because a model's move is determined solely by its ending point in relation to its starting point?

I'm sorry but that is utterly ridiculous.


The 'path' a model moves does indeed matter in 40k. The above example (moving around an impassable object) is one illustration of this point, but there are others.

The Skimmers Moving Fast rule dictates that vehicles must end up more than 6" from their starting point in order to get the bonus. This indicates that it is possible to move 6" forward and then 6" back to the same spot, a skimmer just won't get the SMF bonus if it does so.

The Turbo-boosting rules also reinforce this point as they dictate that a model must move more than 18" in a straight line in order to get the bonus. Again, the reference to moving in a straight line illustrates that movement is performed along a 'path' instead of simply being determined by the final position of the model vs. its starting position.

Joram wrote:Show me Bendy movement anywhere in a rulebook, FAQ, or any other official GW publication.

Done. Page 44 shows a model moving in a way that MUST be "bendy". The bottom picture shows 3 Assault Marines performing a Pile In move. The middle model *can not* move through another model. Therefore it must be "bending" around the model his arrow crosses.

Well, the bendy camp is making a number of good points - but are we agreed that if bendy movement is okay then models that are falling back get to use it too? I ask because fall back moves are compulsory movement, (I know, not a defined term) much like lash is compulsory movement; so the rules that apply to lash seem to apply to fall-back moves, and vice versa.

I ask also to get the explanation, because bendy movement makes fallback moves a joke, in many instances, and will nullify the chance for any unit falling back off the board. I know what the RAW says, and frankly it seems to nullify fallback moves (except where beneficial to the falling back unit, of course)

1) Lash is never defined as Compulsory movement.

2) During a fall back you can, indeed, use "bendy" movement so long as you stay within the corridor defined by the outermost models in the unit. (BGB, p.48).

Well, the new FAQ takes care of the disputes on Lash ( I think.) I see that GW is careful not to say that a unit can be clumped (despite the explicit question on that point) but they lay out enough rules on how Lash is used that it is indisputable that models can be clumped.


Sigh. Go go powergamers!

Democratus wrote:1) Lash is never defined as Compulsory movement.

So it is optional?

No. You are wrong. The move must be made. No "up to" or "may" move involved.
Unless you wrote in there yourself.

Well, regardless of who was right or wrong earlier, new developments mean that Democratus is right now.

I also agree with that. ^_^

I daresay that FAQ is relevant where valid - but the Q&A about why doesnt change the text quoted. FAQs are as relevant as the venue they are written for.

Um, that's an official GW errata/FAQ document.

yep.

Don't waste my time.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Don't waste my time.

Let us go back a bit. My example mentions open terrain for the models being subjected to the lash. Meaning NO impassable terrain involved.

Yakface. I understand that the path a model takes is important. Allow me to explain something. I'm not talking about passing through solid objects. That is ridiculous. In the example including impassable terrain you give, you are assuming that a bendy line is the only way through. What about measuring to the corner and then after arriving at that point, MEASURE past the corner. ADD these two measurements together and there is your movement for the turn. Not bendy, just two lines or more of movement added together to go around terrain. You can call it bendy if you want.

I don't care that much anymore. If I play a 40k game against someone who has to win so badly that they "bendy" their fallback moves to keep models alive longer, I just won't play against them in the future. If I try to discuss it with them and they insist on continuing. Then the game ends. I've had it happen before. No biggy.

This thread is about Lash of Submission and how it works. I think that the 2d6" movement is "compulsory". It can't be shortened unless you send the unit in the direction of impassable terrain or enemy units. That's my interpretation based on my experience. I'm sorry if you think I'm mentally damaged for coming to these conclusions.

So now it seems that there is some kind of FAQ. Anyone mind letting me know where it is since I just checked GW and didn't see it.

Now aside from the FAQ request. I'm out. I care but having try to explain basic math to me like I'm daft annoys me. I guess that this means I should keep myself to myself. At least for the ill-written 40k. Think I'll stick to WHFB for my discussions.

According to RAW, your interpretation isn't flawed.

According to the FAQ, your interpretation is flawed.

shrug.

Joram, I linked to it in my earlier post.

There is no point arguing RAW when something has been FAQed/erratumed. I guess you could do it for fun, but it has no game effect.

Indeed. The FAQ has resolved everything except selecting the target. A shame they didn't fix this at the same time.

Joram wrote:

Yakface. I understand that the path a model takes is important. Allow me to explain something. I'm not talking about passing through solid objects. That is ridiculous. In the example including impassable terrain you give, you are assuming that a bendy line is the only way through. What about measuring to the corner and then after arriving at that point, MEASURE past the corner. ADD these two measurements together and there is your movement for the turn. Not bendy, just two lines or more of movement added together to go around terrain. You can call it bendy if you want.

What else would that be but "bendy" movement? Call it what you want, but either movement is the distance is calculated by comparing the model's starting position vs. its ending position (movement by displacement) or it is determined by the path the model actually moves (bendy movement).

This issue when concerning the Lash has thankfully been resolved by the GW FAQ, but I only continue the conversation because it applies generally to all forms of movement.

Antonin wrote:Well, the bendy camp is making a number of good points - but are we agreed that if bendy movement is okay then models that are falling back get to use it too? I ask because fall back moves are compulsory movement, (I know, not a defined term) much like lash is compulsory movement; so the rules that apply to lash seem to apply to fall-back moves, and vice versa.

I ask also to get the explanation, because bendy movement makes fallback moves a joke, in many instances, and will nullify the chance for any unit falling back off the board. I know what the RAW says, and frankly it seems to nullify fallback moves (except where beneficial to the falling back unit, of course)

The Fallback move rules (pg 48) specify that the unit moves "directly towards" the closest point of the player's table edge, so no zig-zagging ("bendy") movement is allowed.

And the RAW states move 2d6 inches.

NOT "UP TO" 2d6 inches.

Contradicted by the faq, admitedly, but more relevant that the text quoted in relevance to RAW.

shrug.

I miss a lot.

yakface wrote:
The Fallback move rules (pg 48) specify that the unit moves "directly towards" the closest point of the player's table edge, so no zig-zagging ("bendy") movement is allowed.

But we know bendy movement is allowed, because as you fall back you are allowed to go around terrain, etc. You just have to stay within the fallback corrider. So the term "directly towards" cannot be as firm as claimed.

Also,

democratus wrote:
From the BGB, page 48: "A unit that falls back must move within a corridor lying between its most extended models as shown in the diagram on the left - but each model can move anywhere within this corridor, as you wish."

So the rules follow the stupity as stated.

"directly towards" means as much as you argue.
Yay for 'nids who actually have text related to this.

The term is exactly as valid as the frame of reference that it is used it. Bendy movent is as valid as it is assinine.

Oh wait. I am wrong as I only use printed text.



Or more likely I mis-read it and will be quoted on it.

Oh wait. I am wrong as I only use printed text.

Yep. That's about the size of it. We can close this thread now.

Rather anti-climactic, don't cha' think?

Drive a rhino. or if your really baller get a land raider. Fixed.

Pretty much. However, given the popular wisdom that speaks against anything so gauche as entering one's armoured personnel carriers, one might imagine the causes of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

In 4th. In 5th, riding in transports is fairly safe.