So it seems like this is still an issue for people. People wondering whether or not they can gate out of close combat.
Anyway, I think this is a new take on this argument.

Wording:

"the librarian, and any unit he is with, are removed from the tabletop and immediately placed back..."

For those of you that think this is movement out of close combat I would ask you look at Chenkov's send in the next wave ability.

I believe it says the same thing, with, "remove the conscripts from play and then..."

Does this mean I cannot remove my conscripts from play if they are in CC? Now technically they don't come back, they just leave for good (and a new unit comes back). However I would argue that both units are moving even though only one is coming back onto the gaming board.

Opinions/thoughts?

I would say yes, they can be removed from CC. I think the same issue was discussed about Veil of Darkness but it resulted in you can gate out of CC, although I could be wrong.

VoD specifically allows you to take them from base contact.

Does it say you CAN use it when in Close Combat?

If it does, you can. If it doesn't, you cannot.

"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.

Gwar! wrote:Does it say you CAN use it when in Close Combat?

If it does, you can. If it doesn't, you cannot.

"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.

Except it is an argument, and an entirely valid one, when you have already been given explicit permission to do something in a broader situation, and the more specific situation fails to restrict it. An example is Valkyries outflanking with troops inside them, nothing explicitly says they can, but the rules say valkyries as models with scout can outflank, and nothing says they can't outflank if the troops in them don't have scout, so they still can.

Drunkspleen wrote:unrelated text

No.
It does not say it cannot be done STILL does not mean it is allowed - and is an invalid argument in a ruleset that specifies what is allowed.

It does not say it cannot be done STILL does not mean it is allowed

Hold on...

If the rule says that the models are removed, then that's what happens. The only way it's not going to happen is if there is some other rule that restricts.

As people say, the rules are permissive. In this case, the rules permit you to remove the models. Period. Not "if they are not locked in combat" or "if it is not Thursday."

So, you can argue "it doesn't specifically permit you to remove them from combat, so you can't," in which case I'd reply that it also doesn't specifically permit you remove them on a Thursday either, but for some reason, you're not arguing that.

The point here is that the rules say they're removed. Unless there are other rules saying that models can't be removed from CC, under and circumstances (which to my knowledge there are not), then the permissive ruleset is permitting it the models' removal.

The reason VoD says they CAN be removed from CC is because it anticipated this confusion and tried to address it, not because it's necessary to say it in order to give the ability.

To further highlight the problems you create with the logic that remove doesn't mean remove...

On p 24 of the BGB, it tells you how to remove casualties. It refers to this as being "removed" just as the GoI does. If models cannot be removed from close combat, then then models can't be removed as close combat casualties either, and thus all close combats go on forever, with no models ever leaving the table.

So would that imply that GoI indeed can be used to remove yourself from CC? And I'm sorry but I also have a noobish question as I am one.

When exactly would be using GoI? Before CC start, when it's resolved, or during? ._.

Phryxis wrote:

It does not say it cannot be done STILL does not mean it is allowed

Hold on...

If the rule says that the models are removed, then that's what happens. The only way it's not going to happen is if there is some other rule that restricts.

As people say, the rules are permissive. In this case, the rules permit you to remove the models. Period. Not "if they are not locked in combat" or "if it is not Thursday."

So, you can argue "it doesn't specifically permit you to remove them from combat, so you can't," in which case I'd reply that it also doesn't specifically permit you remove them on a Thursday either, but for some reason, you're not arguing that.

The point here is that the rules say they're removed. Unless there are other rules saying that models can't be removed from CC, under and circumstances (which to my knowledge there are not), then the permissive ruleset is permitting it the models' removal.

The reason VoD says they CAN be removed from CC is because it anticipated this confusion and tried to address it, not because it's necessary to say it in order to give the ability.

To further highlight the problems you create with the logic that remove doesn't mean remove...

On p 24 of the BGB, it tells you how to remove casualties. It refers to this as being "removed" just as the GoI does. If models cannot be removed from close combat, then then models can't be removed as close combat casualties either, and thus all close combats go on forever, with no models ever leaving the table.

IMHO, it is a clear case of 'breaking no rule'.

While removing the models from combat isn't actually movement (and therefore allowable), a successful redeployment of them via Deep Strike is considered movement.

So if you successfully redeploy the unit using Gate of Infinity at the end of the day you have therefore moved the unit out of close combat, which is not allowed.

Since you cannot willingly break a rule, you therefore cannot use Gate of Infinity to move models out of combat, unlike Skyleap and Veil of Darkness that give the permission to do so.


With that said, I fully understand your position, I just happen to completely disagree with it!

While removing the models from combat isn't actually movement (and therefore allowable), a successful redeployment of them via Deep Strike is considered movement.

This brings two questions to mind:

1) If being removed from combat isn't movement, then why can't it be done? Just because the models will subsequently move, they're not doing that movement while locked in combat. They're no longer on the table, thus they're not locked in combat.

2) Where does it say that Deep Strike is considered movement? I don't necessarily doubt you here, but I just need to see the rules to understand your position.

Phryxis wrote:

While removing the models from combat isn't actually movement (and therefore allowable), a successful redeployment of them via Deep Strike is considered movement.

This brings two questions to mind:

1) If being removed from combat isn't movement, then why can't it be done? Just because the models will subsequently move, they're not doing that movement while locked in combat. They're no longer on the table, thus they're not locked in combat.

2) Where does it say that Deep Strike is considered movement? I don't necessarily doubt you here, but I just need to see the rules to understand your position.

Page 88 (emphasis mine):

"In the Movement phase when they arrive, these units may not move any further. . ."

and:

"In that turns's Shooting phase, however, these units can fire (or run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved in the previous Movement phase."


In the first quote, the inclusion of the words "any further" means that Deep Striking is movement and that move movement in that phase would be further movement.

Also, the use of the word 'obviously' in the second quote, while it doesn't concretely say that Deep Strike is movement it indicates that it is supposed to be blindingly obvious that Deep Striking is considered movement.

while it doesn't concretely say that Deep Strike is movement it indicates that it is supposed to be blindingly obvious that Deep Striking is considered movement.

Ok. Both of these are implicit, not explicit. I understand your argument, but again, it's by implication.

Also, in the second case, they're not saying it's obvious that it's movement, they're saying it's obvious that the unit counts as having moved. This is potentially a very important distinction.

So, I'm not totally convinced by this line of argumentation, but I'm also not as concerned with this point as I am with the first one I brought up...

Even if we assume Deep Striking is a form of movement, and not something one can do while locked in close combat, if a unit is removed from the table, is it not also removed from close combat? Does that not then allow it to move?

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:So would that imply that GoI indeed can be used to remove yourself from CC? And I'm sorry but I also have a noobish question as I am one.

When exactly would be using GoI? Before CC start, when it's resolved, or during? ._.

It isn't used in the Assault phase, so it would of course be 'before'.

kirsanth wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:unrelated text

Blatantly incorrect statement

As I said, if the rules give you permission in a more general situation to do something (e.g. use a psychic power in the shooting phase) and nothing more specific restricts that from happening (e.g. preventing models from being removed from the board when in close combat) then the argument is based on the rules not saying you can't and it's true of most arguments really. I'm just sick of people getting all uppity and dropping the phrase "the rules don't say I can't so I can" into their post to criticise other people without even understanding what that statement means.

First you remove them and they are no longer locked in close combat, then you deepstrike. So when you deepstrike them they are no longer locked in cc because you removed them first.

G

Bump...

Would like to hear what your thoughts are on this yak...

I play a Librarian with GoI, I'd like to hear the best arguments on both sides of this.

I would be inclined to agree with yak, etc and say that it is not allowed to pull from cc. I view the power as a means of movement during the movement phase. To use it as a hit and run/movement would seem to be stretching it further than the writers intended.

I agree with Yak and WarmasterScott and the rest.

I say that it is not allowed. And I won't go into the rules we already have, but as an example of what would be happening on the board (were we all minis fighting for our plastic lives) is this:
During the start of the turn, we are locked in close combat (me being a libby with a squad). During the movement phase, we are locked and all my concentration is going towards killing my enemy.
Now as a libby, it takes concentration to use GoI, so I can't pull my focus away from staying alive/killing the foe to use GoI. Im simply too busy at the moment.

Thats a more psuedo-practical example then hard core rules quoting, but its how I see it.

Cheers

The problem I have with this not being allowable to use in CC is this:

It is written in such a way so that it would be allowable in CC without them needing to specifically say it is. Why would it force you to remove them from the game AND THEN place them back.

Why wouldn't it just be written that you place them elsewhere and use deepstrike rules?

Well, we have a precedent from two other codices that specify that the ability in question (Skyleap and VoD) allows you to remove models from base-to-base.

GoI does not have that specification.

When GW has established a precedent that shows how they intend to write a rule that allows models to be removed from base to base/assault, why should be believe that a rule that doesn't have this specification would allow the same thing? If no such specification were needed, why was it included in Skyleap and VoD? If a specification is needed, why is it left out of GoI?

What is the actual language of the rule? Can someone quote it?

Its not included in 'Send in the next wave' either. Does that mean I can't use the ability if they are in close combat? (see original argument)

Deepstrike is a type a movement. As such it would need an allowance to remove models from CC, as I read it.

They are not on the table when they 'deepstrike' in though.

So they are not moving?
Is that what you imply?

I view the power as a means of movement during the movement phase.

Clearly yak (and others) also views it along similar lines.

My question is "why" this is the case, when the rules say that the model is "removed from the tabletop"...

To me, if a model is removed from the tabletop, it's no longer locked in combat.

No, they are moving. But when they make their move, they are no longer on the table.

Being removed from the table is not movement. Otherwise things like 'send in the next wave' would not work in CC.

(if you go read my initial post you would understand my argument)

Phryxis wrote:

I view the power as a means of movement during the movement phase.

Clearly yak (and others) also views it along similar lines.

My question is "why" this is the case, when the rules say that the model is "removed from the tabletop"...

To me, if a model is removed from the tabletop, it's no longer locked in combat.

But are they moving?

In other words, do they start at one point on the table and end up at another point on the table.

That, in a nutshell, is the definition of moving.

You see, it's kind of like those old math rules:

2 + (3 + 4) = (2 + 3) + 4

Regardless of the mechanism by which you take the action, the end result is the same. The models start out at one point on the table and end up at another point on the table. That, as I said, is the definition of moving; it equals the same thing. That is why, in my opinion, the rule in question needs to specify if it can remove models from base to base/assault as it does for Skyleap and VoD.

Edited for clarity.

@saldiven

So are you saying I cannot use 'send in the next wave' to remove my models if they are in CC?

They are moving from a point on the table to off the table. Which is still technically moving per your point.

Yea, it would be really wierd if something in the IG codex did not work as everyone assumed.

That would be too weird.
/sarcasm

No idea on the specific wording of that one. Things that let models be removed from CC state as much.

We are just having a discussion on why the INAT FAQ ruled as such Kirsanth. No need to get sarcastic.

If you remember the INAT FAQ usually rules in such a way that it confirms the way most people play.

I am not sure if they have made a ruling on 'send in the next wave' but I am betting most people play it that you can remove said unit from CC.

Phryxis wrote:

I view the power as a means of movement during the movement phase.

Clearly yak (and others) also views it along similar lines.

My question is "why" this is the case, when the rules say that the model is "removed from the tabletop"...

To me, if a model is removed from the tabletop, it's no longer locked in combat.

Why is because it is not stated in clear manner. If it does not say that the power may be used as such it simply can't. There is nothing to infer unless you are trying to milk it for more of a cheese fill. Using another codex for answers such as the IG rule seems a bit weak as well. The IG rule is a stretch to defend the arguement. IG rule have no bearing on the SM.

This thread reminds me of the Logan thread with his ability to each turn grant an ability to his unit. In there they had a hard time defining turn.

I definitely think it is a stretch either way since we don't really have a clear answer.

However the justification for it was Skyleap I believe. So they used another codex to justify their ruling.

You were using IG codex as a reason it should allow to remove from combat, how is that different?

editing to add:
That part is not sarcasm, I am really curious.

Timmah wrote:@saldiven

So are you saying I cannot use 'send in the next wave' to remove my models if they are in CC?

They are moving from a point on the table to off the table. Which is still technically moving per your point.

I'd have to see how the rule is worded, 'cuz I don't have the IG codex. Lacking that information, I do not feel qualified to comment.

If it does not say that the power may be used as such it simply can't.

Again, this is the "permissive ruleset" argument being misapplied. It's not that I don't understand the concept of a permissive ruleset. It's that we disagree with what the rules permit.

To my thinking, being "removed from the tabletop" doesn't constitute movement, in much the same way that being removed as a casualty doesn't constitute movement.

Again, to my thinking, being "removed from the tabletop" would remove a unit from being locked in CC.

Thus, whether a Deep Strike is considered movement or not isn't really relevant. The unit isn't locked in combat at that point.

Using another codex for answers such as the IG rule seems a bit weak as well.

It's not weak at all. It's called "precedent" and it's the foundation of the American system of common law.

Since you disagree with my conclusion, you are contending one, or both, of these things:

1) Being removed from the tabletop is a form of movement.
2) Being removed from the tabletop does not "unlock" a unit from CC.

What Timmah is doing, quite rightly, is looking for other places in the rules where units are "removed from the tabletop" and then establishing a precedent for how this operation is handled.

If there are places in the rules where removing a model from the tabletop is not treated as a form of movement, then this will destroy the first contention above.

In that case, you'd be forced to prove the second contention, or concede the overall argument.

You were using IG codex as a reason it should allow to remove from combat, how is that different?

I think he's questioning their consistency, not saying they can't use another Codex.

To justify their point, they refer to Skyleap and VoD (other Codices).

To justify his point, he refers to the IG Codex.

They say "it's weak to refer to another codex."

He says "you just did that."

My thinking mirror's Timmah's and Phryxis' on this issue.

Phryxis wrote:

If it does not say that the power may be used as such it simply can't.

Again, this is the "permissive ruleset" argument being misapplied. It's not that I don't understand the concept of a permissive ruleset. It's that we disagree with what the rules permit.

To my thinking, being "removed from the tabletop" doesn't constitute movement, in much the same way that being removed as a casualty doesn't constitute movement.

Again, to my thinking, being "removed from the tabletop" would remove a unit from being locked in CC.

Thus, whether a Deep Strike is considered movement or not isn't really relevant. The unit isn't locked in combat at that point.

From my perspective, it isn't a matter of whether or not "removed from the tabletop" constitutes movement or not.

The entire process of GoI is movement. The unit starts at one point on the board and subsequently ends up on another point of the board in exactly the same state (models, wounds, etc.) as it was at its original position. IMHO, whether or not the individual steps of the process, on their own, constitute movement is irrelevant; the unit, for all practical purposes, is moved from one point of the board to another. GW has established with other rules that they will specify if a unit may be moved from an ongoing assault, and GoI does not have that specification.

Addendum:

Now, I'm kinda speaking out of my butt on this one, but I think I remember how Send in the Next Wave works, and I don't think it's applicable in this case.

With SitNW, the models/unit on the board are removed from the board, Then, that unit comes back on the board just as it was at the start of the game with its original number of models, upgrades, etc. Also, removing the unit from the board grants a kill point, correct?

In this case, assuming my understanding of the rule is correct, I do not believe it is movement. The original unit is, effectively, destroyed, and a totally new unit (for game purposes) enters the game from the board edge, in a similar fashion to how Without Number works. Consequently, I do not believe this is an appropriate rule for comparison to how rules like GoI function.

Moving off the board is still considered movement though. So the original unit could not be removed.

Everyone stand back, I'm makin' da' call!

You can use Gate of Infinity even if you are locked in combat.

Whew, everyone all right? No injuries? Good.

AWAY!

*Flies away*

You do that a lot.

I has yet to help, or even contribute anything useful.

I read it as this. First the models are removed from the game THEN they are deep struck back in. Yes, they count as moving, but they move AFTER they have been removed from combat. Them leaving combat is not movement, its them being removed from the game. Then immediately after leaving the game the Librarian then deepstrikes. Sense they weren't in combat, but out of play, this kind of sillyness is allowed.

Timmah wrote:Moving off the board is still considered movement though. So the original unit could not be removed.

Hey, I don't have any problem with that interpretation, either, actually.

It's much more simple, and further clarifies the inability for GoI to remove models from an ongoing assault.

The only reason I posted the opinion I did was to concede the stipulation that the simple act of removing a unit from the board, in a vacuum, is not movement. In my opinion, the unit would only have actually moved if it is subsequently replaced on the board in a different location. Simply removing the unit (as a casualty or the result of a sweeping advance, for example), to me, isn't movement, so I was willing to concede that SitNW could be used on a unit that was currently locked in an assault, since that unit then became a casualty.

I still would like to see a quotation of the exact rules for SitNW, because I really might be talking out my heiny on the rules for it. If my understanding is correct, the unit removed by SitNW is not "moved (-ing) off the board." It is instead removed as a casualty, which is allowed by the main rules, even if locked in an assault.

IMHO, whether or not the individual steps of the process, on their own, constitute movement is irrelevant; the unit, for all practical purposes, is moved from one point of the board to another.

It's relevant insofar as you have to engage my postulates and conclusions in order to disprove them.

You're doing that, but indirectly. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that being "removed from the tabletop" may or may not be a form of movement, based on what happens afterwards. That's a muddy way of looking at things which I'd hope we can avoid, but the rules certainly could be written in such a way that we can't avoid it.

Note also that "practical purposes" don't necessarily enter into this.

The word "movement" has a meaning in the broader sense of the English language. And you're correct, if something is sitting one place, some things happen, and then it's somewhere else, that thing has, in the general use of the word, undergone "movement."

However, rules often provide more specific, contextual meanings to words. For example, "movement" in 40K doesn't just mean that stuff goes from one place to another. There are a whole set of rules for how this is done, restricting where models can go, through what, over what, etc. etc.

So, is movement just the general meaning? Or is it the specific rules around movement described in the BGB?

If you're not measuring 6" for infantry, 12" for jump infantry, moving the model around intervening models, etc. etc. is that "movement?" Or is it some other mechanism called a different thing? For example being "removed from the tabletop?"

40K isn't a very well written or thought out system. It doesn't fully embrace the concept of "reserved words." Other systems (DnD 4E is a good example), create reserved words, use them deliberately and consistently, and thus reduce confusion. In that sort of system, "movement" would have a specific meaning. You'd know if something was "moving" or being "removed," and you'd know what that meant.

So, all that said, you may be right, because 40K is a sloppy, poorly thought out system, the best definition we get for "movement" may just be "starting one place and ending up in another."

In my opinion, though, we shouldn't resort to that interpretation unless we have to. We should consider "movement" to be the set of actions permitted by that section of the BGB, and anything not covered there is not "movement." If this breaks other rules, then your resolution may be our only option. I just don't see that being the case right now.

Phryxis wrote:
In my opinion, though, we shouldn't resort to that interpretation unless we have to. We should consider "movement" to be the set of actions permitted by that section of the BGB, and anything not covered there is not "movement." If this breaks other rules, then your resolution may be our only option. I just don't see that being the case right now.

This is basically how I think about it as well. Not say its right since this is a gray area in the rules. But it seems like GoI should work in combat just for consistencies sake.

But Deepstrike is also considered movement, or am I missing something again?

It's not weak at all. It's called "precedent" and it's the foundation of the American system of common law.

So how does American law apply to the rule set of a table top game? GW has stated that an individual codex is rules unto itself not precedence of overall codexes. I also see that just with the judicial system you are twisting poorly written words. I understand as written can be used to such effect but I don't think it was meant to be so broken. I also don't like how people twist poor writing /speaking to gain extra benefits(which is why I left law school and became a game designer(much lighter crowds)). Also to this effect has caused games to have rule lawyers and other less desirable gaming partners.

WarmasterScott wrote:It's not weak at all. It's called "precedent" and it's the foundation of the American system of common law.

So how does American law apply to the rule set of a table top game? GW has stated that an individual codex is rules unto itself not precedence of overall codexes. I also see that just with the judicial system you are twisting poorly written words. I understand as written can be used to such effect but I don't think it was meant to be so broken. I also don't like how people twist poor writing /speaking to gain extra benefits(which is why I left law school and became a game designer(much lighter crowds)). Also to this effect has caused games to have rule lawyers and other less desirable gaming partners.

Because precedence is the argument used against GoI out of CC. See skyleap in the eldar codex.

Timmah wrote:

WarmasterScott wrote:It's not weak at all. It's called "precedent" and it's the foundation of the American system of common law.

So how does American law apply to the rule set of a table top game? GW has stated that an individual codex is rules unto itself not precedence of overall codexes. I also see that just with the judicial system you are twisting poorly written words. I understand as written can be used to such effect but I don't think it was meant to be so broken. I also don't like how people twist poor writing /speaking to gain extra benefits(which is why I left law school and became a game designer(much lighter crowds)). Also to this effect has caused games to have rule lawyers and other less desirable gaming partners.

Because precedence is the argument used against GoI out of CC. See skyleap in the eldar codex.

But precedence isn't mine. Mine is that because the rule doesn't state that it can be used as such, it can't. Because it's muddy doesn't mean you can add more because it doesn't say say no either. Till I see you give an official statement from GW on the subject I would leave it up to you and your opponent decide on a game by game basis.

Deleted by the Modquisition as a direct attack.

Phryxis wrote:In my opinion, though, we shouldn't resort to that interpretation unless we have to. We should consider "movement" to be the set of actions permitted by that section of the BGB, and anything not covered there is not "movement." If this breaks other rules, then your resolution may be our only option. I just don't see that being the case right now.

I agree with this idea in general. I prefer to have things more well spelled out before me in a game's rules set. To me, we must first "break no rule." There are explicit times where the main rule book says you can remove models from base to base/assault (during casualty removal, hit and run, failing a morale test and fleeing, etc). In the main rules, there are only a few instances where models are "removed from the board," and those instances are such instances as casualty removal, embarking on a transport, fleeing the board, etc.

The only instance where models that are in base to base/assault are "removed from the board" in the main rules is as a casualty or the result of a sweeping advance (which is also being removed as a casualty). The other instances that allow for a model to be removed from an ongoing assault do not, normally, remove the model from the board, though that possibility exists (fleeing off the board), and the unit is considered a casualty if that does happen; ie., the unit doesn't get to come back on the board. In either case, the other examples of ways to leave combat are explicitly called movement, and have a specific allowance in the rules for that movement to take place.

Next, removing a model as a casualty is the only instance in the BGB that I can think of where being "removed from the board" is not explicitly stated as being movement. If you embark on a transport, you're considered as moving. If you flee off of the board, you're moving.

I know I'm rambling here, but I hope you can follow my thoughts (I'm at work and posting sentences between answering phones and such). The point I'm trying to make is that I don't understand how the "remove from the board" in GoI is somehow not movement, when most other instances of "removed from the board" are considered movement. I really, truly, and honestly believe that a rule must have a specific allowance in order for a unit to be removed from an ongoing assault. There is too much precedence in rules from other codices and from the main rule book that give an allowance for removal from an ongoing assault for us to let GoI get away without that specific allowance.

You are trying to be way too smart for your own good. No matter what statements are made here doesn't set a precedence around the world just for the game you have control over. I don't see how ceding a little to your side has any hidden anything. It's a game I play for fun not stake all my views etc into. I take my job and design more seriously because my team and I can create those concrete "precedence." In this situation I have no true control over the rules except where I play and thankfully not with you phryx or we would be tired from arguing. I find your personnel attacks or negative statements toward me cloud a debate. If you choose to make assumptions of my skills without actual evidence to create "precedence" you sound like a hypocrite.

This thread is being repoened. A reminder, attacks on other posters or opining on your view of what their capacities are, violate Dakka RUle #1 and can lead to your suspension/Banning.

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't understand how the "remove from the board" in GoI is somehow not movement, when most other instances of "removed from the board" are considered movement.

I'm not sure the other instances are considered movement, but I don't have my BGB in front of me to look.

That said, I'd view the things you mention (embarking, falling back off table), not to be "removed from the table as a form of movement," but instead "forms of movement that lead to being removed from the table."

Phryxis wrote:

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't understand how the "remove from the board" in GoI is somehow not movement, when most other instances of "removed from the board" are considered movement.

I'm not sure the other instances are considered movement, but I don't have my BGB in front of me to look.

That said, I'd view the things you mention (embarking, falling back off table), not to be "removed from the table as a form of movement," but instead "forms of movement that lead to being removed from the table."

With the exception of casualties, can you think of any other instance of removing a model from the table that is not considered movement?

To me, this means that leaving the table is either as movement or as a casualty. The main rules don't give another option, to the best of my recollection. It's obvious that a rule like GoI, Skyleap, VoD, etc. is not making the models a casualty; if it were, the opponent would, at the least, gain a KP. Since they're not a casualty (upon which I think we can both agree), the action is either movement or some third option that has, as yet, not been defined by the rules (which may very well be the case, knowing GW's rules writing history). I personally believe it is movement, as I cannot find anything in the rules to support the idea that "removed from the table" in the context of GoI is some nebulous action neither movement nor casualty.

Similarly, this line of reasoning is why I believe that SitNW works on units in assault; that unit is removed as a casualty, and a new (albeit identical) unit moves on from the board edge.

(OT: Haha...wow, Phryx, this may very well be the longest exchange on this topic in YMDC history that hasn't devolved into name calling and other trollishness. Very refreshing.)

@ Saldiven:

I must say that is a very convincing argument. I would have to check the SitNW ability and make sure it says remove as a casualty. If it does, then I think we can confirm that leaving the table is always either a movement or a casualty.

(at least I'm pretty convinced.)

I am pretty certain it does, as I recall them giving another point. But I shall have to look as well.

Timmah wrote:@ Saldiven:

I must say that is a very convincing argument. I would have to check the SitNW ability and make sure it says remove as a casualty. If it does, then I think we can confirm that leaving the table is always either a movement or a casualty.

(at least I'm pretty convinced.)

I seem to recall that it does, but I'm not really certain. I don't own the codex, and I've only read through it a couple of times.

I have to admit that I could be completely wrong on this one; I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Haha...I don't play marines and I've never played against a GoI Librarian, so I don't really have a dog in the hunt, you know?

I'm just saying that you don't have to worry about offending me by positing differing opinions, as long as you're nice about it

That really is an interesting point Saldiven. However, I am not certain we can say that all "remove from the table" type actions are necessarily due to movement or casualty, at least without specifically being told that. The reason I say that is that we are given a few instances where being removed from the table is the result, but are not told those instances are all inclusive. Thus I don't think it means that every effect that pulls something from the table necessarily falls under movement or a casualty.

By way of example, were you to survail my car for a week and list all the people whose entry results in them driving it, you would see that myself and my wife both result in the car being driven. However, if I later loan the car to my father, the fact that his entrance into the car results in it being driven does not make him me or my wife. He is merely an addition to the list of people who upon entering the car can drive it.

Also, I would point out that the BRB only has examples of models leaving the table by way of movement or casualty removal, but that does not preclude codexes having rules or situations where units leave the table by some method other than movement or casualty removal. In this case, GoI seems to allow for it.

As to defining Movement, I would go so far as to say that GW defines movement not just as pick up from point A and replace at point B some distance away. GW assumes that the miniatures are actually occupying every point inbetween A and B for movement, requiring moving along a different path if units or terrain get in the way. So I don't really think you can call removing a model from the table and placing it somewhere else by means of Deep Strike "movement" in the normal sense. I would be inclined to agree that the removal aspect is not movement, but the Deep Strike counts as the movement of the unit for the turn. Essentially what Phryxis said.

Great discussion though! It is rare to have such a well thought bit of rules debate going on.

Here's how I see it:

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

2) GoI - Says to use this power during hte start of your movement phase. Remove models from the board. Redeploy anywhere within 24" inches of their last position.

3) Stop refering to old codicies (especially eldar and necrons which are very old) about how we might have said similar things in the past, those were written under a different rules set with different lingo. Instead see point 1 where we say do what we say because it is a permissive rule set and not what you think we ment or used to say in old rules not applicable to an army that comes from another codex. That would be like using Thunder hammers from Dark angles codex instead of the thunder hammers from the marine codex written for 5th.

So in summary do what the rules say and gate out of combat, because its a two stage process done at the start of your movement phase. Pick up your models and redeploy. This was how it was ruled in both of the first and second rounds of 'Ard Boyz that I attended at two different stores with two different sets of judges.

Strimen wrote:Here's how I see it:

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

The rules permit me to remove models from the tabletop.

Removing models from the tabletop is not movement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a very problematic item for my interpretation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sbeasley wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Just pointing it out.

Strimen wrote:

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

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


Just pointing it out.

Hence proving my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is how I make the call.

Saldiven wrote:

Hence proving my point.

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

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

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

Luckily I'm not arguing from common sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

paidinfull wrote:

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

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

kirsanth wrote:

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

paidinfull wrote:

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

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

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

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

So I guess avenger is a pretty good power.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flavius, I wanted to address this point of yours:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

now:

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

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

Can someone explain how that reasoning now applies to VoD?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMO Veil of Darkness, Skyleap, and ‘Ere We Go all allow the unit to leave combat. They all (with less clear phrasing, in the case of Skyleap) explicitly or implicitly grant permission to do so.

Gate of Infinity does not give any indication one way or another. IMO since the other three all make clear (again, slightly less so in the case of Skyleap) that it is allowed in their rules, the fact that Gate of Infinity does not authorize it explicitly or implicitly is evidence that it does not so permit.

Do I think it's conclusive? No. But when I read it I come to the exact opposite conclusion as Phryxis. The [Clarification] tag seems appropriate to me, and I'll happily play it however INAT rules, whether that changes or not.

I agree, the [Clarification] tag is acceptable here

But when I read it I come to the exact opposite conclusion as Phryxis.

Which is odd, because we actually agree on a lot of what's going on here...

For the sake of clarity, let's call the sides YesLeave (GoI does allow the Librarian to leave CC) and NoLeave.

Let's break it down:

We all agree that Skyleap rules imply (strongly) that Skyleap can be used to leave CC. Where we differ, is whether this implication is limited to Skyleap (NoLeave), or if it applies to all situations of "removal from the table" (YesLeave).

Consider what judgement about the authors both sides are making...

YesLeave: The authors believe "remove the model from the table" should work in CC, and they view it as self-evident.

NoLeave: The authors wrote Skyleap and forgot to mention that it was a special case that it could leave CC, but did remember to mention what to do when it leaves CC.

Forgive my sarcasm, but that really is what's going on. It requires a real contempt for the competence of the author to take the NoLeave side. You have to assume that the author either forgot a critical part of the rule, or felt that the most effective way to write the rule was via implication.

In my opinion this goes beyond presuming to know designer intent... This is presuming to know the designer is incompetent.

One interpretation assumes that the author has written a coherant ruleset, and attempts to make the best possible sense of it. The other interpretation assumes that the author just screwed up. To me, the latter assumption is just not part of a good rules examination.

But we DO know the authors are incompetent. . . I mean, that's more or less the reason for the existence of this subforum, right? To decide on issues the authors have left unclear through incompetence?

Phryxis wrote:Forgive my sarcasm, but that really is what's going on. It requires a real contempt for the competence of the author to take the NoLeave side.

In case you haven't noticed, GW writers are more incompetent than the UK Government and a bag of Onions put together.

Interesting. We can assume that the writers are incompetent, but arguing RAI is impossible because we don't know anything about the writers?

thebetter1 wrote:Interesting. We can assume that the writers are incompetent, but arguing RAI is impossible because we don't know anything about the writers?

No, we know the writers are incompetent. This is verifiable unbiased fact. Look at a codex.

What we cannot do is argue what we think the Authors intended, because we are not them. For all we know Robin Wotzit who wrote the Guard Codex intended Special Weapons teams to dispense magical candy from the gumdrop forest. What we DO know however is that he left them with no grenades of any kind while for some reason giving Heavy Weapons teams Frag and Krak.

Again very interesting. We can look at any codex to see that the writers are incompetent, but examining rules to see what the writers meant is illogical because we are not them? That is a bit inconsistent, especially when one considers that you called the first one verifiable and unbiased, even though RAI is often verifiable as well.

BeRzErKeR wrote:But we DO know the authors are incompetent. . . I mean, that's more or less the reason for the existence of this subforum, right? To decide on issues the authors have left unclear through incompetence?

No. The purpose of the forum is to discuss rules that people aren't sure about. That's not always (I would say in most cases not) due to the actual rule being unclear.

It's also worth pointing out that poor rules writing is only a sign of incompetence if the writer is incapable of writing clearer rules, as opposed to not putting more effort into clarity because the rules are written within specified guidelines and there is no considered need for clearer rules.

It's also worth reminding everyone that Dakka has a policy of not allowing personal attacks. That includes attacks against those who aren't a part of the forum and therefore have no opportunity to defend themselves. So let's stick with discussing the rules, rather than insulting the designers, please.

Phryxis wrote:NoLeave: The authors wrote Skyleap and forgot to mention that it was a special case that it could leave CC, but did remember to mention what to do when it leaves CC.

Forgive my sarcasm, but that really is what's going on. It requires a real contempt for the competence of the author to take the NoLeave side. You have to assume that the author either forgot a critical part of the rule, or felt that the most effective way to write the rule was via implication.

Or use context.
When does a consolidate move apply?

The YesLeave need to assume that the rule that combat cannot be left is overwritten without anything being written about it.
And that models can move in the turn they are locked in combat despite a rule saying that models cannot move that turn.

The YesLeave need to assume that the rule that combat cannot be left is overwritten without anything being written about it.
And that models can move in the turn they are locked in combat despite a rule saying that models cannot move that turn.

No. I've been clear how I interpret the rules, and neither of these sentences are accurate representations of what I've said. You're refusing to engage the merits of my arguments, and instead simply restating your own views.

Please do the the service of trying to following my line of reasoning, rather than just erecting strawmen because you view my posts as too ridiculous to actually bother reading. We know what your opinion is. Repeating it does nothing. Post to expand the conversation, or don't post.

That's across the board.

We can make jokes about how dumb everyone at GW is, but really, is it that funny? Is it that important that we all chime in on it? Or is it just a dodge to avoid facing the possibility that you're clinging to a flawed read on the rules?

The fact is, if you're forced to resort to "the rules designers are stupid" as a basis for an interpretation, you've already failed.

How about we do it fairly.

Roll a D6. On even, it is allowed. On odd, its not allowed.

Problem solved. Lets go get a beer.

Phryxis wrote:Forgive my sarcasm, but that really is what's going on. It requires a real contempt for the competence of the author to take the NoLeave side. You have to assume that the author either forgot a critical part of the rule, or felt that the most effective way to write the rule was via implication.

In my opinion this goes beyond presuming to know designer intent... This is presuming to know the designer is incompetent.

Or that sloppy editing resulted in the loss of the relevant clause. GW's editing goes beyond the point of sad and is legitimately and consistently incompetent.

Actually GW does this kind of thing all the time, sadly. A very similar situation arose with the Vampire Counts book. In Fantasy, a general rule of spellcasting is that a spell (even a beneficial one) cannot target a unit in HtH combat unless specified in the description of the spell. The spells Van Hel's Danse Macabre is used to move a unit, or allows a unit in HtH to re-roll its attacks. But it never actually gives permission to be cast on a unit in combat. Leaving us to conclude that either a) they forgot to say it, or b) they're trying to cover an odd situation where you cast it on a unit and then get them into combat afterwards some odd way. Invocation of Nehek (the basic raise your guys back spell) had the same issue. You want to see a really rough argument over this stuff?

http://thecolonialgt.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1293

One interpretation assumes that the author has written a coherant ruleset, and attempts to make the best possible sense of it. The other interpretation assumes that the author just screwed up. To me, the latter assumption is just not part of a good rules examination.

All that said, in general I agree that the approach you are advocating is the best one. I just do not think that the result you are coming up with is necessarily the correct one, in part based on prior experience with multiple similar situations with GW rules.

Mannahnin wrote:All that said, in general I agree that the approach you are advocating is the best one. I just do not think that the result you are coming up with is necessarily the correct one, in part based on prior experience with multiple similar situations with GW rules.

I am genuinely curious as to your reasoning behind the bolded part of this statement. Unless you're talking about some other rules situation entirely, what Phryxis is advocating is that this rule works the exact same way as other similar rules in the exact same situation. What the other people against seem to be advocating is that the rule act a completely different way in the exact same situation because it's ambiguous.

If "prior experience with multiple similar situations" is valid precedence, then how in the world do we come to the conclusion that 43% of the people who read this rule are coming to?

Or that sloppy editing resulted in the loss of the relevant clause.

I'm sure that this isn't news to you, but it seems to be very hard for other posters to grasp: We have to read the rules as written, and try to put together the most consistent meaning we can. We can't disregard what the rules say on a whim because the people who wrote them tend to be screwups (in our ever so lofty opinion).

Obvious to some of us, inconvenient fact for those to prideful to admit when they're wrong.

In reference to the examples you cite, there's a significant difference between GoI and Danse Macabre...

Danse Macabre is clearly intended to enhance a unit while it's in CC, so not being able to cast it on a unit in CC makes no sense. This is obvious to the reader immediately, and this is precisely when one starts looking at intent. Clearly the author didn't intend to write a spell that couldn't be used. The situation forces us, whether we like it or not, to admit that the author probably just screwed up.

GoI may or may not allow you to leave CC. If it did, this would hardly be a novel concept in the game, and while it's useful, it's also not at all game breaking. Some people seem to think it's "too powerful." That's their opinion, but in no way does that opinion force us to conclude it wasn't the designer's intent that it can be used to leave CC. Neither interpretation of GoI is game-breakingly great or ridiculously useless, so to assume that the rules don't mean what they say makes no sense at all.

Also, mentioning the idea that GoI is "too powerful" brings up another point... We're talking about a Librarian's psychic power here. Psychic powers are not weak. There's a S5AP3 template attack, there's an S10AP1 blast, etc.

Consider what GoI does for you in that light... It lets you Deep Strike up to 24" away, and adds the possibility of killing off a model for the privilege. Deep Striking isn't particularly predictable or safe, you can't assault out of it, and you end up packed in and vulnerable to shooting.

A unit can move up to 12" per round either via running or assaulting. GoI lets you go up to 24", then adds in considerable risk, uncertainty, and removes the possibility to assault. It's not "too powerful" to be able to do that out of CC, it's more like "the only decent reason to take it."

It really comes down to two points.

1: Is remove from table considered movement in game terms?
2: If remove from table is not movement, should you consider the changed condition of being off table and no longer locked to CC when you attempt the next instruction, which is to resolve placement using the deep strike rules?

My opinion is no it isn't movement, and yes you should consider the changed condition. Number one has been talked to death, I'm not going to dwell on it. Number two though, this is the stickier point (in my opinion). If you look at the overall functions of the game, you can follow any rule step by step, without having to "remember" previous conditions or locations in case an action hits a conflict mid step.

All instructions are meant to be followed in a linear fashion, and there is no "rewind" function, or requirement to "look ahead" for conflicts in any individual rule. That's why the sideways land raider at the deployment line trick works to effectively travel over 12".

Kaaihn is absolutely correct.

Many of the options you get in this game are packages of multiple actions, such as GoI, which removes you from the table and then deep strikes you. There is no requirement to "look ahead" to make sure that everything in the package is legal before using the package at all.

This means that even if you are still locked when you are off the board, which hardly anyone believes, you are still allowed to deep strike, because there are two conflicting rules and one is clearly more specific.

Of course, the main debate here is whether leaving the table is moving, which I have seen nothing to suggest.

Honestly, I think we are all trying to treat GOI as a case of normal movement when it is clearly a special power that follows exceptions rather than norms. Consider if the Librarian fails his GoI psychic test. The Librarian and his unit can still move normally in the ensuing movement phase because attempting to use his psychic power does not count as regular movement. If the power doesn't work, no models are removed and no one re-enters play using Deep Strike so the affected unit does not count as having moved. They can subsequently move, shoot, and assault following the normal rules for a unit of their given type (infantry, jump infantry, etc.).

If the Librarian passes his psychic test, the unit is removed from play and re-enters play using the Deep Strike rules. Since the actual use of the power is not restricted by the Librarian being in CC, it is unreasonable to assume that the effects of the power would be restricted by that factor. Once the models have re-entered play, they are subject to the same restrictions as every other model that deep strikes. Since GoI is a psychic power used in the Movement phase, the affected models clearly count as having moved for that turn.

What about a hypothetical situation where they fail to come back in safely after deep striking (mishap and ahve to wait another turn?) Surely this ability would be allowed following such a mishap?

Because... they get removed from the board (not movement)
and then a turn later, their actual movement occurs. What happens? They *should* be allowed to, as they're not locked in combat and so therefore can move/deepstrike as normal. So what is the difference between coming in on the same turn they are removed, and coming in one turn later?

Trasvi wrote:What about a hypothetical situation where they fail to come back in safely after deep striking (mishap and ahve to wait another turn?) Surely this ability would be allowed following such a mishap?

Because... they get removed from the board (not movement)
and then a turn later, their actual movement occurs. What happens? They *should* be allowed to, as they're not locked in combat and so therefore can move/deepstrike as normal. So what is the difference between coming in on the same turn they are removed, and coming in one turn later?

Why does there have to be a difference? They seem exactly the same to me.

paulguise wrote:How about we do it fairly.

Roll a D6. On even, it is allowed. On odd, its not allowed.

Problem solved. Lets go get a beer.

Don't you dare think for a minute that the high road is going to get you anywhere around here mister.

As for the arguement. To me it is clear that there are two steps. You first remove the models from the board, then deploy them. You cannot move if locked in CC, but you can be removed from the table. I.e. dying is perfectly acceptable in CC. Once you have been pulled from the board, there is no way you could still be in CC... thus you not being able to move since you are in CC no longer applies... simply because you are not in CC. After that point the rule shouldn't have any more issues.

As for GW and their abilities to do... anything. I always looked at not arguing RAI because GW as a whole is so unable to be consistent from rule to rule, or make sense inside a rule... or edit... or write... or create rules that interact correctly... that there really was no possibly way to argue RAI. There is almost no standard basis for many of the hardcore rules we debate (not just "did I play this right," stuff... but like "how is this supposed to work, stuff"). The rules were written badly, that's it. That's why both GW and 3rd parties (INAT) have to go out of their way to rewrite so many of them... and yet we still argue about more of them.

That being said, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say the guy who worked on one rulebook/codex... may not have used the same language as another. Furhtermore, may not have realized that the way it was written would be compared word for word against other similar rules. It would be reasonable to say that 4 rules with the same effect, would work the same way... and that the rules were just written a tad different... as no one expected them to be scrutinised this way. I think it would be harder to say that the whole of GW all worked together to make sure to specifically state that the others could leave CC... and left one rule out. I feel it would be something you would clarify if you were going to put that much forthought into specifically NOT allowing GOI to leave CC, by leaving out the language, you would just include other language that explicitly forbade it. On top of this, the eldar rule also leaves out the language but implies you can. Thus, I would say if GW was putting in an effort to make sure GOI couldn't where the other 3 could. They would have made the language in the other 3 uniform and explicit, not 2 uniform and 1 implicit... and then made the GOI, as the odd man out... also explicit.

Phryxis wrote:In reference to the examples you cite, there's a significant difference between GoI and Danse Macabre...

Danse Macabre is clearly intended to enhance a unit while it's in CC, so not being able to cast it on a unit in CC makes no sense. This is obvious to the reader immediately, and this is precisely when one starts looking at intent. Clearly the author didn't intend to write a spell that couldn't be used.

Ah, but the primary function of Danse Macabre is actually to MOVE a unit. Often to get it INTO combat. In fact, having a new secondary function which enhances it in combat is not the primary ability, and if the “enhance a unit already in combat” portion did not function, it would still be a very useful spell.

Actually, the bigger argument was about Invocation of Nehek. Check out the phrasing on that some time.

Phryxis wrote: The situation forces us, whether we like it or not, to admit that the author probably just screwed up.

IMO, just the same as Skyleap.

Kaaihn wrote: If you look at the overall functions of the game, you can follow any rule step by step, without having to "remember" previous conditions or locations in case an action hits a conflict mid step.

All instructions are meant to be followed in a linear fashion, and there is no "rewind" function, or requirement to "look ahead" for conflicts in any individual rule.

This is not correct. There are multiple rules which require us to look backwards. The Dark Eldar Webway portal is activated in the shooting phase, but you cannot do so if the model moved or shot in that turn. Heavy weapons are another classic example.

sourclams wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:All that said, in general I agree that the approach you are advocating is the best one. I just do not think that the result you are coming up with is necessarily the correct one, in part based on prior experience with multiple similar situations with GW rules.

I am genuinely curious as to your reasoning behind the bolded part of this statement. Unless you're talking about some other rules situation entirely, what Phryxis is advocating is that this rule works the exact same way as other similar rules in the exact same situation. What the other people against seem to be advocating is that the rule act a completely different way in the exact same situation because it's ambiguous.

If "prior experience with multiple similar situations" is valid precedence, then how in the world do we come to the conclusion that 43% of the people who read this rule are coming to?

There are two concepts at work here.

One is that you can use similar rules situations as precedents to judge an ambiguous situation. I am, in general, fully in support of that principle.

The other is that I have "prior experience with multiple similar situations" of GW writing a rule badly, and their meaning having to be inferred, since it is not explicitly explained. Skyleap and Invocation of Nehek being prime examples.

IMO, the reasoning that the INAT council uses (that being removed and immediately placed elsewhere on the table using the Deep Strike rules constitutes a type of movement) is reasonably convincing.

Also IMO, within the context of four different special rules which teleport units, which all function somewhat differently (so there is not one consistent way they’re all meant to work), and of which, three explicitly or implicitly allow the unit to leave HTH, the fact that the fourth does not say anything about it one way or another implies to me that the fourth (GoI) is not intended to allow leaving HTH.

That said, I do understand the argument Phryxis is making based on Skyleap. Since Skyleap does not explicitly and directly grant permission, that we can infer that all such powers are intended to allow leaving HtH. I don’t think it’s a bad argument.

I think the situation is genuinely ambiguous, and my having come to the opposite conclusion is certainly in part a product of my general experience with GW’s rules-writing tendencies and habits. The current INAT ruling is in line with my own thinking, but I would not be upset if they reversed it.

Mannahnin wrote:

Kaaihn wrote: If you look at the overall functions of the game, you can follow any rule step by step, without having to "remember" previous conditions or locations in case an action hits a conflict mid step.

All instructions are meant to be followed in a linear fashion, and there is no "rewind" function, or requirement to "look ahead" for conflicts in any individual rule.

This is not correct. There are multiple rules which require us to look backwards. The Dark Eldar Webway portal is activated in the shooting phase, but you cannot do so if the model moved or shot in that turn. Heavy weapons are another classic example.

Actually, this is correct. Looking back to see whether something happened previously in the battle is not nearly the same as going backwards in the game, such as re-entering the movement phase to decide not to move a unit so that it can fire its heavy weapons. The game does not go backwards unless explicitly stated, nor does it force anyone to ever look ahead to see if an illegal situation could be reached.

For example, it is clearly legal to infiltrate one's entire army up to the opponent's table edge when their entire army is in reserves, even though this creates an illegal situation (models are required to move on but are not allowed to). Yet nobody argues that you cannot infiltrate up in a situation like this, because you are not required to look ahead.

Mannahnin wrote:
Also IMO, within the context of four different special rules which teleport units, which all function somewhat differently (so there is not one consistent way they’re all meant to work), and of which, three explicitly or implicitly allow the unit to leave HTH, the fact that the fourth does not say anything about it one way or another implies to me that the fourth (GoI) is not intended to allow leaving HTH.

To be fair, none of them explicitly allow leaving combat. It's something the players almost unanimously agreed is legal for three powers, because it is "implied," yet for the fourth power it is "not implied." Sounds a lot like RAI.

Gwar! wrote:Does it say you CAN use it when in Close Combat?

If it does, you can. If it doesn't, you cannot.

"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.

Does it say you can stay on the table no matter what if you are in CC? If it does, then you can ignore effects that say you are removed from the board. If it doesn't then sorry, you are removed from the board.

See? I can do it too.
The argument doesn't work here.

Lt Lathrop wrote:
Does it say you can stay on the table no matter what if you are in CC? If it does, then you can ignore effects that say you are removed from the board. If it doesn't then sorry, you are removed from the board.

See? I can do it too.
The argument doesn't work here.

Actually it does state something like that. DS states no further movement is allowed - how does one move further, if one has not moved?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This debate reminds me of when people were stating that because a Lictor's rules allow it to affect rolls regardless of being in play, an Astropath (iirc) could affect rolls regardless of being in play.
One states (or in the case of Skyleap - implies) an exception, one does not. Without an exception, the rules stand as written.

Actually it does state something like that. DS states no further movement is allowed - how does one move further, if one has not moved?

This isn't relevant. Even if we assume that Deep Striking is movement, it doesn't matter. The model has been removed from the table, it's no longer locked in combat, it may move.

This debate reminds me of when people were stating that because a Lictor's rules allow it to affect rolls regardless of being in play, an Astropath (iirc) could affect rolls regardless of being in play.
One states (or in the case of Skyleap - implies) an exception, one does not. Without an exception, the rules stand as written.

This debate reminds ME of the time where you were on the wrong side of both the rules as written AND a popular vote, and yet still acted like everyone who disagrees with you is a simple minded clod, but because you were wrong in that case, you just had to think of other arguments about Lictors where you weren't wrong, and pretend this was that argument currently in progress.

Oh, wait, that's this time.

You've just been doing it so long, I thought surely we were on to a new debae.

Look. You're saying the SAME thing over and over. Do you not understand that? People are making points, you're ignoring them, and saying "you need an exception." Over and over.

Let's pretend for a second that you haven't been shown to be wrong by logical argumentation, and also by popular vote. Just for pretend. In that case, you'd still be repeating the same things over and over, without adding anything, making any new point or novel argument. Even if you were RIGHT, this is a totally unhelpful, unilluminating, generally useless behavior.

Now, I've given at least three distinct reasons why I feel that no exception is needed. You have yet to refute those reasons, or really even exhibit any hint of having actually read any of them.

What flaws can you find in them?

Let me guess: "Without an exception, the rules stand as written."

Great.

thebetter1 wrote:

Of course, the main debate here is whether leaving the table is moving, which I have seen nothing to suggest.

I agree the whole ruling for this paticular power does not rest on what happens when you deep strike. its is removing from the table considered movement.

If it is not then goi will work as intended. If it is then it will not.

Phryxis wrote:This isn't relevant. Even if we assume that Deep Striking is movement, it doesn't matter. The model has been removed from the table, it's no longer locked in combat, it may move.

Wrong again.

whocares wrote:the movement rules say, "Units locked in combat may not move during the movement phase." Not, "Models locked in combat may not move during the movement phase unless they are removed from combat first."

They were locked in combat, ergo they can not move that phase. What happens in between is irrelevant.

Yakface is correct, for the deepstrike rules to be relevant, you would have to be arguing that deepstriking is not movement, which is an argument I have heard.

Phryxis wrote:This debate reminds ME of the time where you were on the wrong side of both the rules as written AND a popular vote, and yet still acted like everyone who disagrees with you is a simple minded clod, but because you were wrong in that case, you just had to think of other arguments about Lictors where you weren't wrong, and pretend this was that argument currently in progress.

Oh, wait, that's this time.

I stopped there. Popular vote is currently . . . what, 45-55?
Was the rest as useful?

the movement rules say, "Units locked in combat may not move during the movement phase." Not, "Models locked in combat may not move during the movement phase unless they are removed from combat first."

Ok, and just as the poster's name says "whocares?"

That's his opinion, and I don't agree. At this point, I'm not sure yakface even agrees anymore.

The conceit here is ridiculous. It's not actually clever to show that rules DON'T say a given thing by rewriting them to say that thing excessively specifically, and then showing how it's not the same as what they do say.

Allow me to demonstrate:

The rules also don't say "units which begin the movement phase locked in combat may not move for the remainder of that movement phase, even if they are no longer locked in combat."

See? Anybody can do it.

The simplest read here is that locked units can't move, unlocked units can. To expand this to mean that units that were locked at ANY point during the movement phase can't move for the rest of that phase is not necessary. The burden of proof is on you, or anybody making this claim, to show that the most straightforward reading isn't accurate.

Blurting "wrong again" doesn't cut it.

But it's not really your goal to further the discussion, is it?

I stopped there.

Nothing says "thoughtful debate" like smugly informing people that you're not reading their posts.

Popular vote is currently . . . what, 45-55?

Actually it's 59% to 41%. I'm sure it's totally beneath you to notice, but 59% is larger than 41%...

Or, wait, let me guess again: Unless the poll specifically allows for 59% being larger than 41%, it's not?

Well, that's the end of my post. Since I know you're not reading, I'll put a special tag at the end, so you know when it's your turn to blurt something terse, snide and useless.

*BLURT*

I read your posts, I just stopped to respond when you stopped writing about a post.

Further discussion is like further movement, both require something to further.

I'm going to sum up the last two posts:

Phryxis - Does it look, act, and quack like a duck? If yes, it is a duck.

kirsanth - Is there a sign pointing at it that says it's a duck? If not, then it is not a duck.

sourclams wrote:I'm going to sum up the last two posts:

Phryxis - Does it look, act, and quack like a duck? If yes, it is a duck.

kirsanth - Is there a sign pointing at it that says it's a duck? If not, then it is not a duck.

Hrm...that's pretty much what I said about GoI being the same as movement since the total effect of the power is to move the unit from one point to another....

Then I was told that being "removed from the table" doesn't count as movement, so any subsequent movement doesn't matter....

Saldiven wrote:Hrm...that's pretty much what I said about GoI being the same as movement since the total effect of the power is to move the unit from one point to another....

Then I was told that being "removed from the table" doesn't count as movement, so any subsequent movement doesn't matter....

Another nice summation.

Moral of the story - discuss it with your opponent - like many of the issues that go past 3 pages here.

kirsanth wrote:
Actually it does state something like that. DS states no further movement is allowed - how does one move further, if one has not moved?

To quote Lewis Carroll:

`Take some more tea,' the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.

`I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone, `so I can't take more.'

`You mean you can't take less,' said the Hatter: `it's very easy to take more than nothing.'

Ah, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

Probably the pivotal novel in the genre of literary nonsense.

Moral of the story - discuss it with your opponent - like many of the issues that go past 3 pages here.

Perhaps another moral is that GW doesn't get it.

How long would it take for them to FAQ this? An hour?

Phil Kelly wrote Skyleap. You walk up to his desk, you point to the rule, you ask him what he meant by it. That takes, what, 90 seconds?

Then you write down his response, and put it in a PDF. An hour.

We've spent a LOT more than that arguing it, getting irritated with one another, etc.

Thanks GW. FAQ your crap. Now.

Phryxis wrote:

Thanks GW. FAQ your crap. Now.

Not just a FAQ, errata broken and/or ambiguous rules.

The discussions about ambiguous rules run to page after page, but the number of rules themselves that need fixing isn't that overwhelming.

I'm sure someone from GW lurks these threads, or someone tells someone who knows someone who says something, etc.

If a portion of a rule that could clarify the rule in question ended up being omitted by a proofreader or editor, that's what errata are for.

Rant over, off soapbox, thanks for listening.

kirsanth wrote:

Saldiven wrote:Hrm...that's pretty much what I said about GoI being the same as movement since the total effect of the power is to move the unit from one point to another....

Then I was told that being "removed from the table" doesn't count as movement, so any subsequent movement doesn't matter....

Another nice summation.

Moral of the story - discuss it with your opponent - like many of the issues that go past 3 pages here.

As nice as this seems, it does not really work to discuss everything with your opponent beforehand. There will always be that one time when you forgot to bring something up first, and mentioning something like this before the battle tends to work against you. For example, one of the fixed game tables at my LGS has some non-removable buildings on it, which I generally say is impassible, but my opponents really like to dispute this when they have armies that would benefit by moving in/on them.

thebetter1 wrote:For example, one of the fixed game tables at my LGS has some non-removable buildings on it, which I generally say is impassible, but my opponents really like to dispute this when they have armies that would benefit by moving in/on them.

How is that an example of pre-game discussion working against you? If you know your opponents prefer to play the buildings differently to you, that's something that is essential to have discussed before the game starts, to make sure you're both playing the same game.

It's also a bit difficult, since I simply wouldn't take GoI (or probably a Librarian at all), if it didn't work in CC.

kirsanth wrote:

Lt Lathrop wrote:Does it say you can stay on the table no matter what if you are in CC? If it does, then you can ignore effects that say you are removed from the board. If it doesn't then sorry, you are removed from the board.

See? I can do it too.
The argument doesn't work here.

Actually it does state something like that. DS states no further movement is allowed - how does one move further, if one has not moved?

The rule, as you quoted it, says you can't move any further. Which means: either it is saying you can't move any further, after you have done all the moving (i.e. deepstriking or whatever the mechanic is) or it means you can't move at all after using that ability... but the ability doesn't count as traditional moving.

Even if you wanted to interpret DS as saying you can't move any further, because DS is a movement (which is a weak argument by itself). It doesn't matter. As you are not in CC when you go to move.

My argument was about the idea that you can just say a rule doesn't give you permission to do something... when it is just as easy to make an argument either way. There is no actual substance to just saying "Doesn't say you can." The point was the ability states to remove yourself from the board. You cannot ignore being removed from the board when you die... no more than you can ignore being removed from the board via another effect... the ability was used, as per its rules.

It is the same language as the SAG. So, by the argument that "it doesn't say you can" the SAG doesn't work on anyone in CC, because you can't be removed from play because that counts as moving.

If you do think you can be removed from the table from CC... then you are out of CC, and the no movement clause no long applies to you.

Lt Lathrop wrote:
My argument was about the idea that you can just say a rule doesn't give you permission to do something... when it is just as easy to make an argument either way. There is no actual substance to just saying "Doesn't say you can." The point was the ability states to remove yourself from the board. You cannot ignore being removed from the board when you die... no more than you can ignore being removed from the board via another effect... the ability was used, as per its rules.

It is the same language as the SAG. So, by the argument that "it doesn't say you can" the SAG doesn't work on anyone in CC, because you can't be removed from play because that counts as moving.

I know you are really trying to avoid stating "it does not say you can't" but that is actually the other side of "it does not say you can"
In the poll thread someone was asking (to paraphrase) why they should be treated differently when they are worded differently, but not differently enough. The issue is why should they be treated the same when they are worded differently?

As for the SAG - I simply think you (pl.) are missing something or overlooking a related point -- it is not the same for the reasons I just (re)stated. "Removed from play" =/= "removed from the table" there are certainly aspects that are the same, "removed from" for example.

SAG removes models from play. There is no movement for them after or during that period, they are not part of the game anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thebetter1 wrote:As nice as this seems, it does not really work to discuss everything with your opponent beforehand. There will always be that one time when you forgot to bring something up first, and mentioning something like this before the battle tends to work against you. For example, one of the fixed game tables at my LGS has some non-removable buildings on it, which I generally say is impassible, but my opponents really like to dispute this when they have armies that would benefit by moving in/on them.

We need a facepalm ork. Badly.
Editing to add:
The rest of that response keeps being cut off:
thebetter1's post shows to me that more discussion is needed.
I regularly bring lists of issues that have been encountered and should be discussed, along with the FAQs, errata, and other rules.
I update all of them regularly - especially when threads like this make it apparent that "obvious" issues are simply "common sense" responses.
When playing random people, or people I have not played before I discuss the ones relating to the armies and game types that we will be playing.
And I do not mean to imply that I bring a list of answers to the issues in my lists (FAQs/Errata excluded), rather the outline of the issue and how it is generally played out, so that if it is something new to my opponent, we can discuss it (somewhat) objectively prior to any part of the game hinging on one interpretation.
If something gets left out, or comes up later, I will let my opponent play however they deem fit.

kirsanth wrote:
I know you are really trying to avoid stating "it does not say you can't" but that is actually the other side of "it does not say you can"
In the poll thread someone was asking (to paraphrase) why they should be treated differently when they are worded differently, but not differently enough. The issue is why should they be treated the same when they are worded differently?

This statement doesn't pass the Bjorn Fallacy (as I'm dubbing it). In short, GW doesn't write rules at a technical level that lets you assume that just because two similar situations have slightly different rules, that they should therefore be different situations.

sourclams wrote:

kirsanth wrote:
I know you are really trying to avoid stating "it does not say you can't" but that is actually the other side of "it does not say you can"
In the poll thread someone was asking (to paraphrase) why they should be treated differently when they are worded differently, but not differently enough. The issue is why should they be treated the same when they are worded differently?

This statement doesn't pass the Bjorn Fallacy (as I'm dubbing it). In short, GW doesn't write rules at a technical level that lets you assume that just because two similar situations have slightly different rules, that they should therefore be different situations.

The Bjorn fallacy doesn't hold a cup of water. The save is against pen and glances. It is clearly stated so get off the bjorn comparison.

Would it be off topic to ask whether or not the enemy unit is allowed a consolidation move if Gate of Infinity is ruled as not movement? That would, after all, make it consistent with all of the other powers which allow a unit to leave combat in that manner.

kirsanth wrote:I know you are really trying to avoid stating "it does not say you can't" but that is actually the other side of "it does not say you can"
In the poll thread someone was asking (to paraphrase) why they should be treated differently when they are worded differently, but not differently enough. The issue is why should they be treated the same when they are worded differently

That's not what I was saying.

I would be willing to accept that what I was saying is, essentially, "It does not say you can't"... but that is my point. The whole argument of "It doesn't say you can" is the weakest argument here. The fact is, that argument is not allowed via the Tenets of YMDC, and for good reason.

Specifically that the argument doesn't explain any sort of reasoning why you think the way you do. Only that by declaring the rules don't give you permission to do something... means that everyone else's opinions are folly. But why? You can make a lot of empty claims saying that the RAW don't give permission to do a lot of things in this game; things that are clearly allowed and accepted as RAP. And, as I showed, you can easily come up with wording for any set of rules to make it seem as though the rules do not give permission any effect. The very idea that "The rules do not say you can leave CC with GOI," and "The rules do not say you can ignore being removed from the board because you are in CC." Are two different sides of this argument, with the exact same "the rules do not say you can..." phrasing.

If you want to use that argument... you need to back it up with something other than your opinion that the rules don't allow for something. Which is actually why we are discussing the rules, because people have different opinions. And then if you were to back up your argument... then you would likely just be saying the same sorts of things you have already said, as to why you believe a certain thing. Thus, the whole argument of "the rules do not say you can" is just an attempt to further your argument without presenting any new evidence to actually support your claims.

solkan wrote:Would it be off topic to ask whether or not the enemy unit is allowed a consolidation move if Gate of Infinity is ruled as not movement? That would, after all, make it consistent with all of the other powers which allow a unit to leave combat in that manner.

One thing at a time. This is a different issue, and sort of relies on whether or not you thing GOI can even remove you from combat in the first place.

At the risk of repeating myself. . .
Every other power/ability that does allow for removal from CC at least implies that this removal is allowed.

GOI does not have any such wording.

The rules system states what is allowed. If not allowed, it is disallowed. This is why I brought up the (much malligned) Lictor/Astropath debate. That is an example of powers/abilities that are similar but are not the same.
Oddly the differences in the wordings are fantastically alike.

I have no illusions that I will (or honestly desire to) convince anyone. No one has added "new evidence" on either side in pages of this debate because the text has been read already. You want me to write a list of "no you cannot" reasons, I want you to write a list of "yes you can" reasons. Neither exist, but only one should.

Okay, I'm going to take a shot at a fresh perspective on this.

The basic problem here is whether using GoI is movement or not. I believe it is because of the following.

GoI states that the power is used at the beginning of the Librarian's Movement phase. This is similar to the Necron veil of darkness in that VoD is also used at the start of the Lord's movement phase, but VoD goes on to say "...instead of moving normally." {Codex:Necrons page 15} Here the rules are saying that using VoD is in fact, movement.

VoD then goes on to say that the Lord (and attached unit if applicable) "...are removed from the tabletop and both are then immediately placed back together anywhere on the tabletop using the deep strike rules." VoD also states that it may be used even if in base contact with enemy models.

The 2 differences between VoD and GoI are that VoD specifically states 'instead of moving normally' and that it can be use even if in base contact, so it can be used by models locked in combat.

What is the same is that in both rules is that both rules state that they are used at the beginning of the character's movement phase and that the (Librarian or Lord) and unit are immediately removed from the tabletop and placed back (some distance) using deep strike rules.

Now deep strike rules say the unit enters play and that they must begin in reserve. Clearly, units using GoI and VoD are not arriving from reserve. But if they follow the deep strike rules, those rules say the units arrive from reserve, and from BRB page 94 under Rolling for Reserves; "...the player picks any one of the units arriving and deploys it, moving it onto the table as described later."

So clearly, arriving from reserves is moving (as is deploying) and deep strike is a type of arrival and is also moving. So units arriving onto the table using deep strike rules are moving onto the tabletop. This is further reinforced by 2 other sentences in the deep strike rules.

From page 95, 5th paragraph; "In the Movement phase when they arrive, these units may not move any further..." and further down in the 7th paragraph we see that the units may not assault because, "...they are too disrupted by their deep strike move." Both of these sentences reinforce the fact that deep striking is in fact, moving.

That is coupled with the fact that both of these powers are used at the start of the Movement phase. This phase occurs after the start of the player's turn, and before the Shooting phase. When we look at the rules of the Movement phase we see what units are allowed to do, and not allowed to do during this phase, and one of the things units are not allowed to do is move in the Movement phase if they are locked in close combat with the enemy.

Now I am fully aware of and expecting that some posters here will pick apart my logic and refute the points I brought up, and I think that's fine since that's what rules forums are for. I just hope everyone can take the time to read through this argument with an open mind. Maybe I have shown a fresh perspective or at least a different point of view. In either event, thanks for reading.

Time Wizard

PS - FWIW, I play marines, use a Librarian with GoI, and have never used it to gate out of close combat.

Lt Lathrop wrote:
I would be willing to accept that what I was saying is, essentially, "It does not say you can't"... but that is my point. The whole argument of "It doesn't say you can" is the weakest argument here. The fact is, that argument is not allowed via the Tenets of YMDC, and for good reason.

I think it's not factually correct to say that a "rules don't say you can" argument is not allowed on YMDC. In fact, I think it's one of the most common and strongest arguments that it's possible to make.

By their nature, rules can't tell you everything that you can't do. There is literally an infinite number of things you can't do, so there's no feasible way that a set of rules can enumerate them all. So really the only way a set of rules can work is if you assume that anything not explicitly allowed by the rules is against the rules.

(The logical term for this assumption is the "closed world assumption." The analogy is a train schedule: the schedule tells you what times trains arrive, but not what times trains *don't* arrive. You're just supposed to assume that any time not specified is a time that a train doesn't arrive. So with rules you assume that any action not backed up by a rule is not allowed by those rules.)

If you don't use this assumption, then you wind up with the situation where the arguments that go "the rules don't say my grots can't have plasma cannons" are sound, and then basically any argument can be made.

The statement that the rules don't allow you to ignore removing models because of BtB is factually incorrect. If removing models is movement, then the rules do explicitly prohibit it.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Lt Lathrop wrote:
I would be willing to accept that what I was saying is, essentially, "It does not say you can't"... but that is my point. The whole argument of "It doesn't say you can" is the weakest argument here. The fact is, that argument is not allowed via the Tenets of YMDC, and for good reason.

I think it's not factually correct to say that a "rules don't say you can" argument is not allowed on YMDC. In fact, I think it's one of the most common and strongest arguments that it's possible to make.

By their nature, rules can't tell you everything that you can't do. There is literally an infinite number of things you can't do, so there's no feasible way that a set of rules can enumerate them all. So really the only way a set of rules can work is if you assume that anything not explicitly allowed by the rules is against the rules.

(The logical term for this assumption is the "closed world assumption." The analogy is a train schedule: the schedule tells you what times trains arrive, but not what times trains *don't* arrive. You're just supposed to assume that any time not specified is a time that a train doesn't arrive. So with rules you assume that any action not backed up by a rule is not allowed by those rules.)

If you don't use this assumption, then you wind up with the situation where the arguments that go "the rules don't say my grots can't have plasma cannons" are sound, and then basically any argument can be made.

The statement that the rules don't allow you to ignore removing models because of BtB is factually incorrect. If removing models is movement, then the rules do explicitly prohibit it.

A statement like that, or any statement on YMDC needs to be backed up with rules. A claim that the rules do not give permission to do something needs to be backed up just like any claim that the rules allow you to. If you are going to say that the rules do or do not allow something, it is your opinion. Opinions need to be backed up with rules, as they are your interpretations of those rules. Simply stating that "the rules don't say you can, so you can't" is a poor argument. We wouldn't be here if the rules were clear. Obviously there is some interpretation of the rules that allow for someone to do something a certain way.

I am not saying that you can't use "the rules don't say you can, so you can't" as a line of reasoning. But you can't if you don't intend to back it up. A hollow statement like that, or any other, is useless and pointless... and is the weakest argument you can bring to the forums; furthermore if you are going to back that argument up with rules and your analysis... then there is no point making a claim like "the rules don't say you can, so you can't" because you are going to actually explain the thought process as to why the rules do or do not allow a certain act.

A lot of people could save a lot of posts simply by explaining why they think the way they think... instead of taking 3 posts to shout meaningless catch lines... while other people are trying to actually explain/understand the rules.

Lt Lathrop wrote: A lot of people could save a lot of posts simply by explaining why they think the way they think... instead of taking 3 posts to shout meaningless catch lines... while other people are trying to actually explain/understand the rules.

Like I tried to do a couple of posts ago?

Lt Lathrop wrote:A statement like that, or any statement on YMDC needs to be backed up with rules. A claim that the rules do not give permission to do something needs to be backed up just like any claim that the rules allow you to. If you are going to say that the rules do or do not allow something, it is your opinion. Opinions need to be backed up with rules, as they are your interpretations of those rules. Simply stating that "the rules don't say you can, so you can't" is a poor argument.

Is it really possible for the rules to state everything that is not allowed?

The mind boggles.

Is it really possible for the rules to state everything that is not allowed?

The mind boggles.

Why do you insist on doing this? I'm going to have to assume that it's a form of low effort trolling, because your avatar image is a cat that "reads," but clearly you don't.

Seriously, READ what people write. And if you can't be bothered to read what they write, don't be snarky about how stupid they are in the strawman version of their post that exists only in your head.

It's getting extremely tiresome to watch you call people stupid, but do it behind a passive aggressive shield. You're not so smart as you think. Drop the attitude.

Lathrop makes a very valid, very clear point. We all understand that this is a permissive ruleset, and it's not possible to enumerate all the things you CAN'T do. We all understand that "if the rules don't say you can, then you can't." But that's not the whole argument. You still have to show that they DON'T say you can.

Considering that GoI says "remove from the table" pretty clearly, it's on you to show how you can't do that in a given situation.

The problem here is an attitude of arrogance. Yes, people have come here and made stupid arguments. "It doesn't say I can't!" Yes, that's stupid. Knowing that's stupid doesn't make you smart. And then pretending that's all anyone who disagrees with you is saying is also not smart.

We're trying to have a rules discussion, and explore them in detail. Let's not let this turn into an opportunity to be obtuse and insulting. The goal should be to understand what others are saying, not to resist understand them as long as possible, to "prove" how wrong their points are.

OK, this thread's all set.

LOCKED.