The Tidewall is moving terrain, and the (Forge World) Drone Sentry Turret is an immobile vehicle. The Tidewall itself provides no limitations on what can go on it, (other than what can fit), but the DST has a rule that says it cannot move under any circumstances, and must even take damage should another rule force it to make a move.

Is it possible to plop one of these lovely sculpted models (You still sell the missile variant) on one of the Tidewall's rings? Current RAW is a little foggy. On the one hand, the DST can't move. On the other, units on the Tidewall are considered stationary (caveat, considered stationary for shooting). The Turret would not be performing a move action or moving under it's own power. It likewise would be remaining stationary in relation to the terrain it was placed on.

There's no rule preventing the drone from being deployed on the tidewall that I can see, and no rule preventing the tidewall from moving because of an immobile model on it.

RELEVANT TIDEWALL RULE (All parts and formations have this rule)

Mobile Defence Position:If you take a Tidewall XYZ as part of your army, you may move it up to 6" in the Movement phase. It cannot move if there are any enemy models on it, and may only carry friendly models if all members of their unit are on the Tidewall XYZ. Models carried with it are treated as being stationary for the purposes of firing weapons, but cannot move themselves in the same phase. Tidewall XYZs can only move over open ground, and cannot move within 1" of enemy models.

So, the question is: Can a model that is immobilized, or anchored (such as a Storm Surge), or any model that CANNOT MOVE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES ride a piece of mobile terrain? They are not making a move action, nor are they being forced to take a move action. They are traveling along the board, but only because the terrain itself is moving. If not, is the entire Tidewall formation immobilized, or can these models just not even be deployed on it?

Just for poops and chuckles. here's an image of one of the small, Fire Warrior drone turrets riding on a Tidewall

This image is from the Kauyon campaign book. It should be illegal because A) It's not allowed to move. It can only be deployed, then it waits for you to leave it and it gets re-deployed the next time you remain still. B) It needs to be deployed on open ground, which technically the Tidewall isn't.

Models affected by this ruling off the top of my head:
Forge World's Drone Sentry Turret
Forge World's Sensor Grid models
DS8 Tactical Support Turret (new option for Fire Warriors)
Possible the Stormsurge, even though it doesn't really fit on a Tidewall.
Maybe an immobilized piranha or some other vehicle.

This is covered explicitly in the model's rules.

Dakka is not a resource of rules.

I've got all of these rules. Hell, I have provided half of these rules to the Dakka community at one point or another. I'm not asking you to read the rules to me. I'm asking for an interpretation of rules for which there has been some debate about at my local shop. I'm asking because this has come up in games I've watched.

I have had cases where people say it is legal to have models that cannot move on moving terrain, no problem at all. The models aren't moving, the terrain is and the models are just going with it. Remaining stationary on terrain that moves is not like being forced to move because of Tank Shock. The Tidewall rules themselves even say that the models on them cannot move, so of course remaining stationary on moving terrain isn't a form of self-movement.

I have had cases where people say it is NOT legal, because the models cannot move, under any circumstances. Because the terrain is moving, the models are moving, which is illegal because it's a form of circumstance. The remaining stationary bit is more like a form of relentless, and only applies to shooting. Models on moving Tidewalls count as moving in every other sense.

Like every GW rule ever, even if your interpretation of this rule is that it is TOTES CLEAR HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY LOOK AT IT ANY OTHER WAY, there are those who read it a different way and wonder how on Earth you could be so dense as to read it opposite of the way they do.

Not-answering the question like that, not participating in a YMDC by saying, "Duh, read da rule book," is kind of completely asinine, patronizing, and narrow minded. If this is covered explicitly, please do elaborate. Thank you.

I don't think this is going to get covered by actual rules - the number of models that cannot move under their own power are tiny, and likely didn't occur to the rules-writers.

The "counts as stationary" combined with the "cannot move themselves in the same phase" in my eyes shows that they have moved even if it wasn't under their own power. The turrets (both the Forgeworld ones and the tiny Firewarrior one) should be moved along with it, because logically they would be, and it's not "forcing them" to move themselves (a bit like a model in a transport vehicle that has moved counts as moving for shooting) so I don't think it would trigger the Forgeworld turret damage-taking (though I don't have that rule to be sure).

I think the main objections are going to be from people who think you'll be abusing it with a Stormsurge as a giant hoverboard to get around the restriction on the anchors.

The models on the Tidewall, only count as stationary for firing weapons. Anything else, they count as having moved.

 Happyjew wrote:
The models on the Tidewall, only count as stationary for firing weapons. Anything else, they count as having moved.

Which would break the rules for anything that is not allowed to move.

So as far as I can see, deploying a stationary model on the Tidewall would be fine. But the moment you try to move the Tidewall, you are breaking the rules for the stationary model.

Guess it will come down to if you believe moving the Tidewall Rampart forces the occupying Models to also Move.

Quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to be had even though the Authors did not state the Models are also Moving, though it is problematic that it goes both ways. A note that the occupying Models count as having remained stationary during the Shooting Phase can only be needed if they had Moved during the Movement Phase. A clause stating the occupying Models can not move during the phase would only be required if the Models have not Moved. Alas, if only we had a sentence telling us outright that Models occupying the Tidewall Ramparts count this Movement towards their own....

I am away from my book, but the Opening Poster mentioned that the Drone Sentry Turret has a specific clause to what happens if the Turret is forced to move?

JinxDragon wrote:
Guess it will come down to if you believe moving the Tidewall Rampart forces the occupying Models to also Move.

Quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to be had even though the Authors did not state the Models are also Moving, though it is problematic that it goes both ways. A note that the occupying Models count as having remained stationary during the Shooting Phase can only be needed if they had Moved during the Movement Phase. A clause stating the occupying Models can not move during the phase would only be required if the Models have not Moved.

I am away from my book, but the Opening Poster mentioned that the Drone Sentry Turret has a specific clause to what happens if the Turret is forced to move?

From FW's downloadable Vehicle update
New Vehicle Type: Immobile Vehicle. An Immobile Vehicle cannot move under any circumstances after deployment. Any special rules which force it to
move will instead cause the vehicle to take a single Glancing hit. If an Immobile Vehicle sustains a Vehicle Immobilised damage result then it loses an
additional Hull Point instead.

From Imperial Armor III 2nd edition (6th ed)
Immobile Vehicle. An Immobile Vehicle cannot move under any circumstances after deployment. Any special rules which force it to
move will instead cause the vehicle to take a single Glancing hit. If an Immobile Vehicle sustains a Vehicle Immobilised damage result then it loses an
additional Hull Point instead. The Automated Repair System (see Codex: Tau Empire, page 72) cannot be used to to restore Hull Points lost when an
Immobile Vehicle sustains a Vehicle Immobilised damage result, nor does a successful repair attempt grant any ability to move to the Immobile Vehicle.

While I'm at it, the Stormsurge's Anchor ability
Stabilising Anchors: In your Shooting phase, in addition to firing normally, a Stormsurge can begin deploying its anchors; from then on the Stormsurge
cannot move under any circumstances or make Stomp attacks. In the Shooting phase of your next turn, and in each subsequent Shooting phase, a
Stormsurge with its anchors deployed can fire twice. Make the second shooting attack directly after the first has been resolved. The Stormsurge can
retract its anchors at the beginning of any of your Movement phases, and can then move, shoot and make Stomp attacks normally.

The DS8 Support Turret:
DS8 TACTICAL SUPPORT TURRET
Tactical support turrets are not set up when their unit deploys or arrives from Reserve. Instead, if the unit remains stationary in its Movement phase, you can set up the tactical support turret on an area of open ground, within 2" of a model from its unit, and more than 2" away from any enemy models. Once set up, the turret cannot move.
A tactical support turret has a Ballistic Skill of 3. It can fire in the Shooting phase or as part of an Overwatch attack when the rest of the models in its unit shoot, and must target the same enemy unit as the rest of its unit. It can fire on the turn it is set up.
Enemy models cannot attack or affect a tactical support turret in any way, but it is immediately removed as a casualty if there are no other models from its unit within 2" of it, or if an enemy model approaches within 2" of it. Should a unit’s tactical support turret ever be removed as a casualty, it can be returned to play in a future Movement phase as described above.

And I suppose the Forge World Sensor Tower Grid is a special case, but also one that I'm curious about. I've got access to some and I sometimes play team games with the Tidewall player.
Battlefield Debris (Drone Tower)
A Drone tower counts as Impassible terrain and provides no cover. During Deployment, each Drone Tower deployed after the first must be placed no more than 6" away from another Drone Tower. It is hit automatically in close combat and has the profile listed above. A Drone Tower may make shooting attacks in the Shooting phase using its own BS score and does not require the presence of friendly models to do so. It's shooting attacks are resolved per the standard rules by the player that deployed them onto the table, and once reduced to zero wounds, a Drone Tower is removed from the board.

Regarding that last one, I don't see any rules preventing the deployment of terrain on top of other terrain, so I will simply assume that a Sensor Tower on a Tidewall is legal.

Cements that it can not move, period.
Makes me wonder though, does it just remain floating midair as far as the Rules are concerned... they never handled 3-dimensions well.

As for deploying on Terrain, there has been a few debates on that topic in the past. While they often start as Terrain being deployed on Terrain, it quickly becomes apparent that Fortifications have as much permission to deploy onto terrain as a normal Model does. The real knot is determining if a normal Model is allowed to be deployed onto Terrain or if it is forced to, by lack of permission, be deployed onto the table-top itself.

Regardless which is more 'Rules as Written' supported, the Rules are wonky so please talk to your opponent.

 insaniak wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
The models on the Tidewall, only count as stationary for firing weapons. Anything else, they count as having moved.

Which would break the rules for anything that is not allowed to move.

So as far as I can see, deploying a stationary model on the Tidewall would be fine. But the moment you try to move the Tidewall, you are breaking the rules for the stationary model.

Agree with you guys.
Other problem with the picture provided by SinisterSamurai is: DS8 turrets can only be deployed in open ground. Defence Lines (what the Tidewall is) is considered difficult terrain, as it's a subsect of Battlefield Debris. So, how can a DS8 be deployed inside it?

There is a reason we do not use pictures for Rule disputes....

In all cases the models have not moved if they are on the tidewall and IT moves.

The very rules of the tidewall are the same as everything else: count as stationary but cannot themselves move.

So if you claim that moving the tidewall is impossible if the various immobile vehicles and turrets are on it(assuming any of them can be deployed on it); then a unit of firewarriors on it would also prevent it from moving via circular cause and effect: the tidewall moves making the firewarriors unable to move making the tidewall unable to move allowing the firewarriors to move which allows the tidewall to move which then comes back to preventing the firewarriors from being able to move starting the cycle again.

Counts as stationary means that the rules do not consider the model as having moved/moving; actual physical location on the table may have changed but the rules say it did not move; and that is what we care about: the rules.

TL;DR: The wall can either move with a model that cannot move, or it can never move with any models.

It really is poorly written, I thought about that same circular pattern and a few other problems.

Most of the problems stem from the fact the Authors have done very little to explain how the unit occupying the Fortification is being 'carried.' This is not surprising as Game Workshop often does this, assuming a single common word is clear enough to explain the delicate Rule Interactions we will experience on the table-top. The Authors simply assumed that this one word would be enough to explain, not just the question of if the Unit on top is being Moved but also any question concerning how this 'potential movement' interacts with already existing Rules concerning Movement....

Has anyone written team@whitedwarf.co.uk or gamefaqs@gwplc.com to ask?

Aside from generating hope they will one day release some Errata to explain it, what would that actually achieve?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
In all cases the models have not moved if they are on the tidewall and IT moves.

How so? Is the model that is on the Tidewall still in the same place it was before after the Tidewall moves?

So if you claim that moving the tidewall is impossible if the various immobile vehicles and turrets are on it(assuming any of them can be deployed on it); then a unit of firewarriors on it would also prevent it from moving via circular cause and effect: the tidewall moves making the firewarriors unable to move making the tidewall unable to move allowing the firewarriors to move which allows the tidewall to move which then comes back to preventing the firewarriors from being able to move starting the cycle again.

More or less, yes.

However, it's fairly clear from the Tidewall's rules that we're supposed to assume that the models on the Tidewall are moved along with it. ie: There is an implied rules that says 'When you move the Tidewall, any friendly models that are on it are moved along with it.'

So not mobile units, that's fine. They're free to move anyway, they just move with the Tidewall in this case.

For immobile units... that's not fine, as they're not allowed to move.

Counts as stationary means that the rules do not consider the model as having moved/moving;

Except the rule in question doesn't say that the models on the tidewall count as stationary. It says that they count as stationary for the purposes of firing weapons.

So they moved. They just count as not having moved for the purposes of resolving their shooting.

this is similar to orks and gitfindas.

counting as stationary for shooting and being stationary are not the same.

end result is models on the tidewall were not stationary.

I got a question about the tidewall and movement. If there is a vehicle on top of the tidewall and it wrecks while on it. Can the tidewall still move with terrain on top of it?

Insaniak: the middle bit is the important bit; if the tidewall itself moves then all units on it become immobile.

So if it only works for mobile units, then it never works for any units.

Changing physical location is not the same as moving. A turret or stabilized stormsurge has not moved; it has not followed any of the rules for movement. If the tidewall moves over dangerous terrain the models on it do not have to test: they are not on dangerous terrain, they are not moving through, into, nor out of dangerous terrain. Models on the moving tidewall are not moving: the terrain is.

The only reason why transported(as in transport vehicle) models "move" when the transport moves is because the transport rules tell us that they do count as moving.

Same goes for deepstrike: it is only because those rules tell us the unit counts as moving that they do so(and in the case of vehicles: they count as cruising even if you deepstrike one so that it is within 6" of your board edge. Or in other words if it had struck-in within the distance of a combat speed move in normal reserves)

Oberron wrote:
I got a question about the tidewall and movement. If there is a vehicle on top of the tidewall and it wrecks while on it. Can the tidewall still move with terrain on top of it?

well, the terrain is ON it, and the tidewall cannot move OVER difficult terrain. So I'd say yes.

"Yo dawg, I heard you like cover saves..."

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Insaniak: the middle bit is the important bit; if the tidewall itself moves then all units on it become immobile.[

So if it only works for mobile units, then it never works for any units.

Yes, hence the assumption I mentioned.

Changing physical location is not the same as moving.

Changing physical location is the very definition of moving.


You're creating a distinction that isn't present in the rules. There is nothing in the rules that suggests that a model that moves without following the movement rules shouldn't be considered to have moved.

The only reason why transported(as in transport vehicle) models "move" when the transport moves is because the transport rules tell us that they do count as moving.

Indeed. But that's a different situation, as the models in the transport aren't actually on the table. So any rules interactions with them can only occur where the rules specifically tell us to do so.

Same goes for deepstrike: it is only because those rules tell us the unit counts as moving that they do so

I disagree. They moved. The rules don't have to tell us that.

Is this guy trying to put like... Stormsurge on his tide wall? That doesn't work.. I'd pack up my models, tell the TO how I stomped your face and you were a bad sport, claim a win, and move on. 0's across the board for even THINKING of attempting such impossible feats and bend the rules for tau scum

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Is this guy trying to put like... Stormsurge on his tide wall? That doesn't work.. I'd pack up my models, tell the TO how I stomped your face and you were a bad sport, claim a win, and move on. 0's across the board for even THINKING of attempting such impossible feats and bend the rules for tau scum

Wouldn't the Stormsurge judt take d3 no-save wounds each time the Tidewall moved? Pretty that's covered in the rules.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Is this guy trying to put like... Stormsurge on his tide wall? That doesn't work.. I'd pack up my models, tell the TO how I stomped your face and you were a bad sport, claim a win, and move on. 0's across the board for even THINKING of attempting such impossible feats and bend the rules for tau scum

Wouldn't the Stormsurge judt take d3 no-save wounds each time the Tidewall moved? Pretty that's covered in the rules.

SJ

Where are you getting that idea?

Models that can't move yet are displaced by an effect such as Tank Shock are removed from play, yet any effect that removes a model from play will only deal D3 wounds to a Gargantuan Creature. Does the Stormsurge have any specific rules regarding what happens if it is forced to move after it's anchors are deployed?

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Models that can't move yet are displaced by an effect such as Tank Shock are removed from play, yet any effect that removes a model from play will only deal D3 wounds to a Gargantuan Creature. Does the Stormsurge have any specific rules regarding what happens if it is forced to move after it's anchors are deployed?

SJ

This I didn't know, but is good to know! Tau players, please move your stormsurge on the tide wall all the time after being anchored! It's useful AND effective! For me!

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Models that can't move yet are displaced by an effect such as Tank Shock are removed from play,

Do you have a reference for this rule?

I think he's referring to the paragraph before 'Units Already Falling Back' in the Tank Shock rules:

"If some enemy models in the enemy unit would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position (it makes no difference whether the unit is Falling Back or not), these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance, leaving at least 1" between them and the vehicle whilst maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board. Any models that cannot manage this are crushed and removed from play as casualties with no saves allowed. Crunch!"

But of course, this is only relevant to Tank Shock, and is not a general rule.

Just remove them from play then

This is all resolved with frame of reference.

The Tidewall is moving Terrain and is a moving frame of reference for dealing with movement. Whatever can stand on it can do so without actually moving. The models move in reference to the terrain under their feet which in this case is a moving terrain that is itself moving in relation to the battleground. The models though are not moving in relation to the moving terrain that is under their feet.

If I set up my forces on a battleground table and move the whole table one inch to the left, have the models moved? In game terms, no. All of the model's relative positions are intact.

Same goes for the Tidewall. When the Tidewall moves the models that are riding on it do not move in relation to the models on the Tidewall or the terrain they are standing on (which in this case is the Tidewall). The moving terrain is a frame of reference (think of playing chess while riding in a car that is on a spinning planet orbiting around a sun).

Also, not sure why this is an issue of concern. Is there some killer combo that can be unlocked here?

col_impact wrote:
This is all resolved with frame of reference.

The Tidewall is moving Terrain and is a moving frame of reference for dealing with movement. Whatever can stand on it can do so without actually moving. The models move in reference to the terrain under their feet which in this case is a moving terrain that is itself moving in relation to the battleground. The models though are not moving in relation to the moving terrain that is under their feet.

If I set up my forces on a battleground table and move the whole table one inch to the left, have the models moved? In game terms, no. All of the model's relative positions are intact.

Same goes for the Tidewall. When the Tidewall moves the models that are riding on it do not move in relation to the models on the Tidewall or the terrain they are standing on (which in this case is the Tidewall). The moving terrain is a frame of reference (think of playing chess while riding in a car that is on a spinning planet orbiting around a sun).

Also, not sure why this is an issue of concern. Is there some killer combo that can be unlocked here?

Reread the rules. The reason the stormsurge doesn't work is because it can't have moved in anyway what so ever at all to anchor and fire twice. Tide wall says models have moved, but count as not having moved for shooting purposes. Since the stormsurge has counted as moved, it can't work with a moving tide wall. As it can't have moved at all in any form, but it has even according to the rules of tide wall. That's what was discussed and been proven.

I did read the rules.



The Tidewall forbids models that are being carried on it from moving. So the Stormsurge does not move.

The frame of reference that the Stormsurge would use to measure movement has moved (the moving terrain) but the Stormsurge itself does not move.

col_impact wrote:
I did read the rules.

Spoiler:

Models carried with it are treated as being stationary for the purposes of firing weapons, but cannot move themselves in the same phase.

The Tidewall forbids models that are being carried on it from moving. So the Stormsurge does not move.

The frame of reference that the Stormsurge would use to measure movement has moved (the moving terrain) but the Stormsurge itself does not move.

You're horribly and utterly wrong. The tide wall states a model has moved but acts ad if it hasn't for shooting purposes. The stormsurge says it can't move at all period. The stormsurge has moved. Stormsurge can't fire twice. Sorry, any other way is wrong, and no amount of your attempt to twist anything will change that. If you truly believe it isn't this way, I'm sorry to inform you that you are wrong, and will have to change your way of thinking. It is what it is. Sorry

Pain4Pleasure wrote:


You're horribly and utterly wrong. The tide wall states a model has moved but acts ad if it hasn't for shooting purposes.

Show me the Tidewall rules that state that the model has moved. I just pointed you to the Tidewall rule that forbids the Stormsurge from moving.

It even states being treated as stationary for firing purposes. Why state that if the model hasn't moved at all? Awe, did I ruin your day? In all honesty, TO and itc and such have already started nerfing these dumb tau rules. This being one where they even state the dumb thing can't anchor. So, no matter what you think, you're wrong

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
It even states being treated as stationary for firing purposes. Why state that if the model hasn't moved at all? Awe, did I ruin your day? In all honesty, TO and itc and such have already started nerfing these dumb tau rules. This being one where they even state the dumb thing can't anchor. So, no matter what you think, you're wrong

I have just shown you in the rules how my argument is correct.

You have retorted by stomping your foot in the ground.

I suggest you start quoting rules and using logic and reason if you want to challenge my argument. No amount of foot stomping is going to win it for you.

I have stated my argument. Your rule you showed, shows my argument. It actually proves me right, not you. Now, please quote a rule IN your favor, not the oposition, makes you look foolish tbh

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I have stated my argument. Your rule you showed, shows my argument. It actually proves me right, not you. Now, please quote a rule IN your favor, not the oposition, makes you look foolish tbh

Yes, in my quote I see the word "carried", I do not see the word moved. I see that the rule even forbids models that are being carried on it from moving. So a Stormsurge that is "carried" by the Tidewall does not move. In fact the Tidewall rule forbids it.

When the stormsurge is anchored it must remain on the table exactly where it was anchored. That very location. If it enters its shooting phase and is no longer where it was anchored it has not abided by the rules. Therefore if it is on the tide wall, and the tide wall moves, and it anchored, it didn't follow the rules as it is not where it anchored. Simple as that. Anything else is blatant cheating. It actually strengthens why my group doesn't play against tau. Our previous tau player now plays marines, cause he couldn't get games.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
When the stormsurge is anchored it must remain on the table exactly where it was anchored. That very location. If it enters its shooting phase and is no longer where it was anchored it has not abided by the rules. Therefore if it is on the tide wall, and the tide wall moves, and it anchored, it didn't follow the rules as it is not where it anchored. Simple as that. Anything else is blatant cheating. It actually strengthens why my group doesn't play against tau. Our previous tau player now plays marines, cause he couldn't get games.

The Stormsurge is anchored exactly in the same position on the terrain it is standing on. You measure movement in reference to the terrain the model is on.

The Stormsurge did not move. Movement is a thing that happens in the movement phase and in the movement phase the player elected not to move the Stormsurge.

The Tidewall rule forbids the Stormsurge from moving.

col_impact wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
When the stormsurge is anchored it must remain on the table exactly where it was anchored. That very location. If it enters its shooting phase and is no longer where it was anchored it has not abided by the rules. Therefore if it is on the tide wall, and the tide wall moves, and it anchored, it didn't follow the rules as it is not where it anchored. Simple as that. Anything else is blatant cheating. It actually strengthens why my group doesn't play against tau. Our previous tau player now plays marines, cause he couldn't get games.

The Stormsurge is anchored exactly in the same position on the terrain it is standing on. You measure movement in reference to the terrain the model is on.

The Stormsurge did not move. Movement is a thing that happens in the movement phase and in the movement phase the player elected not to move the Stormsurge.

The Tidewall rule forbids the Stormsurge from moving.

Oh it has moved. Your blatant ignorance for obvious rules for attempted tau cheese is insane my boy. I insist you try this, watch as you are unable to do so as others won't let you, due to it being against the rules, and then proceed to try and find friends. Tau scum is scum

Hoo boy. Leave the thread alone for a few days and all hell breaks lose. I appreciate the patience and impartiality most of you have shown.

JinxDragon wrote:There is a reason we do not use pictures for Rule disputes....

The picture is from Games Workshop's official datasheet in WZD: Kauyon, but I understand that it doesn't affect RAW and only has a minimal effect on RAI.

Vash108 wrote:Has anyone written team@whitedwarf.co.uk or gamefaqs@gwplc.com to ask?

I have written Forge World, as the standard GW response regarding interaction of an older Forge World model is to disavow all knowledge of Operation Codename Project Mysterious Black Box and say that FW handles it's own issues. They've mentioned submitting the issue to a FAQ team. WD may be worth an email.

Vector Strike wrote:

Oberron wrote:
I got a question about the tidewall and movement. If there is a vehicle on top of the tidewall and it wrecks while on it. Can the tidewall still move with terrain on top of it?

well, the terrain is ON it, and the tidewall cannot move OVER difficult terrain. So I'd say yes.

"Yo dawg, I heard you like cover saves..."

I've heard RAW arguments saying that, because the Tidewall itself is Battlefield Debris and not Open Ground, it cannot move, as it's rules indicate that it can only move over open ground, and any area that it occupies stops being open ground. Other arguments have put forward that since that all levels of a ruin in a occupy the same 2D space, that any effects from any other terrain stacking scenario carry their rules all the way down to the table. I don't particularly subscribe to either argument, but a person make the claim.

insaniak wrote:Changing physical location is the very definition of moving.

I don't believe that the BRB explicitly defines what movement is in game terms, but they do say that a standard 6" movement, "represents most creatures moving at a reasonable pace but stopping several times to scan the surrounding landscape for enemies, communicate with their commanders, identify the best lines of advance and so on." One could easily argue that a model on a Tidewall simply rides, and therefore does not move as the action it is performing does not move as it doesn't represent the above.

You're creating a distinction that isn't present in the rules. There is nothing in the rules that suggests that a model that moves without following the movement rules shouldn't be considered to have moved.

Other than the circular reasoning that prevents them from moving. In this very same post, you point out an assumption you've made, and in a previous post, you mention an implied aspect of the rule. Is that not the same thing as creating a distinction that isn't present within the rules?

The only reason why transported(as in transport vehicle) models "move" when the transport moves is because the transport rules tell us that they do count as moving.

Indeed. But that's a different situation, as the models in the transport aren't actually on the table. So any rules interactions with them can only occur where the rules specifically tell us to do so.

Same goes for deepstrike: it is only because those rules tell us the unit counts as moving that they do so

I disagree. They moved. The rules don't have to tell us that.

Do these not count as distinctions? In one, a model is not on a table, so the rules MUST tell us that they've moved, and then in another the models start off the table, so the rules don't need to mention it. This strikes me as inconsistent, though there are interesting arguments within.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:Is this guy trying to put like... Stormsurge on his tide wall? That doesn't work.. I'd pack up my models, tell the TO how I stomped your face and you were a bad sport, claim a win, and move on. 0's across the board for even THINKING of attempting such impossible feats and bend the rules for tau scum

I'm trying to put a Forge World Drone Sentry Turret (30 point vehicle that doesn't move) or a DS8 Support turret on a Tidewall. A Stormsurge's base doesn't fit within a Tidewall's command disc, and I'm not sure it'd be legal to simply rest one on top of a disc. I've brought up the Stormsurge, though, as it is a current model, and one from the GW line, that forbids movement under any circumstances, unlike a Drone Sentry turret which is both Forge World and at least one edition out of date.

But I appreciate that you'd threatened violence over a potentially legal and fluff-legitimate interpretation of rules interactions, which is possibly RAI, and then insist that you've won, yet would consider the other player to be the bad sport. I'm also amused that you'd think any TO would let you "stomp [someone's] face" and simply accept your judgement and pass you on to the next round. I think you'd actually have quite a few consequences, if not an arrest or the other player returning in kind, then at the very least an ejection from the tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:The Stormsurge is anchored exactly in the same position on the terrain it is standing on. You measure movement in reference to the terrain the model is on.

The Stormsurge did not move. Movement is a thing that happens in the movement phase and in the movement phase the player elected not to move the Stormsurge.

The Tidewall rule forbids the Stormsurge from moving.

Can you cite that movement is in reference to terrain?

Pain4Pleasure wrote:Oh it has moved. Your blatant ignorance for obvious rules for attempted tau cheese is insane my boy. I insist you try this, watch as you are unable to do so as others won't let you, due to it being against the rules, and then proceed to try and find friends. Tau scum is scum

If you would like to cite rules, then please actually cite them. "Tau scum" is irrelevant bias, and I request that you leave the hostility and Imperial roleplay insults elsewhere.

@sinister samurai Please let us know what the verdict is from GW! And also in the meantime, maybe you can discuss with the TO before a tourney or just check with your opponent what it does, and then point out your reasonings. I am a tau player and I do believe that the models on top would be moving with the tidewall. If not its weird, because if the models go to ground to get the 2+ cover save, that means the tidewall would move and thus leaving the models behind, and in doing that actually forces the model to move away from the wall technically.

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to
their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement,
you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the
units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move
before you start to move another unit. Note that you don’t have to move all (or any) of
your units – indeed, there are several tactical advantages to remaining stationary, as we’ll
explain later in the rules. Once you’ve completed a unit’s move, you cannot go back and
change it, so think carefully before giving the order to advance.

Spoiler:

Which Models are Moving
Whether or not a model moves can change how effective it will be in the Psychic or
Shooting phases. You may decide that only some of the models in a unit are going to
move this turn. If this is the case, declare which models are remaining stationary just
before you start moving the other models of that unit. Remember that all models in the
unit must still maintain unit coherency (see below).

Spoiler:

MOVING THROUGH TERRAIN
As part of their move, models can move through, up or over any terrain they encounter,
unless the terrain is noted as being impassable.
Models can also use their move to ‘climb up’ terrain, as long as the model is able to finish
the move on a location where it can be stood. When measuring a move where a model
climbs terrain, add the distance the model moves horizontally to the distance it has
moved vertically; the result is considered to be the distance the model has moved.
In addition to the rules presented in this section, certain types of terrain can affect how
far your models can move, as they clamber over defence lines or pick their way through
tanglewire, for example. The rules for how these different types terrain affect movement
are in the Battlefield Terrain section.

Not sure the first spoiler shines any light on this particular interaction.
Not sure the second one does either, although, it does help the argument that you can declare a model as stationary if you choose not to move it, this is not strong, however.
The third one, however, does detail that certain types of terrain can affect how a model has moved, though I think that simply affects distance.

What Spoiler 3 does best, though, is strongly imply a "narrative RAI" interpretation of terrain and movement rules. And units remaining stationary in relation to the "ground" under their boots as a floating fortress carries them from place to place definitely feels like a "narrative RAI." I could see how an ad-hoc Stormsurge bolting itself forcefully into the bulkhead could damage the device, and how perhaps terrain with no solid foundation might not do much to prevent recoil and allow fast aiming.

So far, I'm in favor of Forge World and Fire Warrior drone turrets, large and small, being allowed to "move" in these cases. Sensor grids, and damaged/terrain-ified vehicles, as well. I don't think that's cheesy, or rules bendy. Stormsurges, again, don't fit on the discs. There's also a new Tidewall formation which, allegedly, lets a Tidewall portion move up to 9" under certain circumstances. A Stormsurge riding a Tidewall droneport up to 9" and still getting double fire would be mild to medium cheese, even if there's a lot of other limitations that would require good play to get that done.

It's nowhere near as cheesy as a group of space marines players being such whiney babies and personal bullies that they've forced a local player to change factions rather than learning to play better, but hey, each group has its own set of rules. Thankfully, GW and FW have created another option called 30k for Marine players that are afraid of 40k's xenos.

bleak wrote:
@sinister samurai Please let us know what the verdict is from GW! And also in the meantime, maybe you can discuss with the TO before a tourney or just check with your opponent what it does, and then point out your reasonings. I am a tau player and I do believe that the models on top would be moving with the tidewall. If not its weird, because if the models go to ground to get the 2+ cover save, that means the tidewall would move and thus leaving the models behind, and in doing that actually forces the model to move away from the wall technically.

This is a great point. But now I've got to ask, does going to ground count as a form of movement in an of itself?

Col - can i ask why you are measuring relative to the terrain piece to determine if the unit has moved? What rule tells you to use that method?

In my mind it does count as having moved. only in the shooting phase it doesn't count as having moved.

col_impact wrote:

The Stormsurge is anchored exactly in the same position on the terrain it is standing on. You measure movement in reference to the terrain the model is on.

There is no rule in the rulebook that tells us to measure movement relative to anything other than the playing surface.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Oh it has moved. Your blatant ignorance for obvious rules for attempted tau cheese is insane my boy. I insist you try this, watch as you are unable to do so as others won't let you, due to it being against the rules, and then proceed to try and find friends. Tau scum is scum

You need to dial down the hyperbole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SinisterSamurai wrote:
I don't believe that the BRB explicitly defines what movement is in game terms,...

I didn't say it was the Rulebook definition.

GW generally doesn't use defined keywords, so we're left in those cases to use the word's normal meaning.

Without a specific definition telling us that a model is only considered to be 'moving' if you are following the specific process outlined for the movement phase, we're left with the conclusion that any model that is moving is, in fact, moving.

Other than the circular reasoning that prevents them from moving. In this very same post, you point out an assumption you've made, and in a previous post, you mention an implied aspect of the rule. Is that not the same thing as creating a distinction that isn't present within the rules?

To a degree, yes.

It comes down to how far you're willing to bend the rules to get to a workable solution. In general, I find the simplest approach that requires the fewest rules changes is the best, unless an alternative would add something valuable to the game.

The simplest approach in this case is to not allow the Tidewall to move if it has an immovable object sitting on it. But I would have no particular problem with playing it the other way, as it has a certain cinematic value to it

Let's take a situation that will/could actually come up; it involves scratchbuilt terrain so I am going to give you the rules for that first:
Tyranid digestion vents
An area of terrain that is always open ground.
Start of each game turn roll a die; if the roll is equal or less than the current game turn digestive mists rule is applied to the area. Digestive mists provides a 5+ cover save to any model that would have 1 or more shooting attacks draw line of sight through the vents area. Digestive mists force a toughness test on all models entering, exiting, or moving through the vents area terrain; a failed test causes an automatic wound that receives a cover save.
If the digestive mists are already in play at the beginning of the game turn the die is still rolled, if the die result is greater that the current game turn the mists have dissipated for the turn and have no effect until they return.

So now you have the terrain the tidewall is moving over, and models on the tidewall. Those models are not entering, exiting, or moving through the mists(by rules, fluff: absolutely) so would not test.

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:

The Stormsurge is anchored exactly in the same position on the terrain it is standing on. You measure movement in reference to the terrain the model is on.

There is no rule in the rulebook that tells us to measure movement relative to anything other than the playing surface.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Oh it has moved. Your blatant ignorance for obvious rules for attempted tau cheese is insane my boy. I insist you try this, watch as you are unable to do so as others won't let you, due to it being against the rules, and then proceed to try and find friends. Tau scum is scum

You need to dial down the hyperbole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SinisterSamurai wrote:
I don't believe that the BRB explicitly defines what movement is in game terms,...

I didn't say it was the Rulebook definition.

GW generally doesn't use defined keywords, so we're left in those cases to use the word's normal meaning.

Without a specific definition telling us that a model is only considered to be 'moving' if you are following the specific process outlined for the movement phase, we're left with the conclusion that any model that is moving is, in fact, moving.

Other than the circular reasoning that prevents them from moving. In this very same post, you point out an assumption you've made, and in a previous post, you mention an implied aspect of the rule. Is that not the same thing as creating a distinction that isn't present within the rules?

To a degree, yes.

It comes down to how far you're willing to bend the rules to get to a workable solution. In general, I find the simplest approach that requires the fewest rules changes is the best, unless an alternative would add something valuable to the game.

The simplest approach in this case is to not allow the Tidewall to move if it has an immovable object sitting on it. But I would have no particular problem with playing it the other way, as it has a certain cinematic value to it

My apologies. It just irks me extremely when I see players who got a good dex attempting to warp or twist, or as you said change a few rules around or attempt to look at a rule differently so that I can benefit them in the greatest way possible. I am glad to see that in here there ARE tau players that do understand they will not be able to have the stormsurge anchor and for twice on a tide wall. The col just needed to learn and understand that is all. He was refusing to and I got hot headed. I apologize

Can someone quote the Rules detailing how we measure a Models movement?

JinxDragon wrote:
Can someone quote the Rules detailing how we measure a Models movement?

Being at work I don't have the rule book in front of me, but we measure from the models base.

Measure from the base to where?

From the starting point to the ending point. You can't have the front of the base end farther than its allowed to move from where it began ie: a jump pack marine can move to where the front of his base is no more than 12" away from where it started. You could use the back of the base, front, middle, side... As long as you are measuring to the same spot every time and it doesn't break its maximum distance.

1) Have the Tau player balance his models on the Tidewall.
2) Have the Tau player move the Tidewall.
3) If the models fall off, they were moving. If not, they were only being carried and the terrain itself did all the moving.
4) Laugh if a model falls off the side of the table and breaks.

Steady hands win!

models are treated as stationary for firing weapons is not the same thing as models do not count as moving.

If the stormsurge even fits on the tidewall..

it counts as moving during the movement phase if the tidewall moves.

As someone who plays Imperial forces (SM, Ad Mechanicus, IK), I am okay with someone doing this on a personal level. I personally, don't see the stationary model as moving and will play it as such until GW/FW rules it otherwise. When the vehicle anchors itself, it is anchoring to the terrain ie the Tidewall. The tidewall is moving not the model imo. If the model on the tidewall moved that would be different. Nowhere do I see mention of the Tidewall being a transport, which has specific rules involving movement.

It's nowhere near as cheesy as a group of space marines players being such whiney babies and personal bullies that they've forced a local player to change factions rather than learning to play better, but hey, each group has its own set of rules. Thankfully, GW and FW have created another option called 30k for Marine players that are afraid of 40k's xenos.

This is just condescending and rude. To make the assumption that all SM players are bullies and want you to not play xenos armies. I have 0 problems with someone playing Xenos armies, in fact I enjoy it. I might have issues with particular models or rules of said models because let's face it some models in this game are broke af and op. And I know xenos players have the same issues with some of the things I have. It is FINE for people to dislike broken stuff. This game would be very boring without xenos armies. I might dislike how eldar are pretty much op broken from a balance standpoint, but I don't want people to stop playing them. I enjoy the challenge. It sounds like you have some bad eggs in your local group who need to go jump off a bridge.

blaktoof wrote:
models are treated as stationary for firing weapons is not the same thing as models do not count as moving.

If the stormsurge even fits on the tidewall..

The only way to fit a Stormsurge on the Tidewall is to remove the base and put a foot on one of each of the larger "disc" sections.

 Kanluwen wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
models are treated as stationary for firing weapons is not the same thing as models do not count as moving.

If the stormsurge even fits on the tidewall..

The only way to fit a Stormsurge on the Tidewall is to remove the base and put a foot on one of each of the larger "disc" sections.

In that case its hard to argue the tidewall can even move the thing, as its also on openground/difficult terrain and any distance it has moved from its starting point is real movement across the terrain as well.

can a model partially on a tidewall and partially off be moved by it? It says it can only carry friendly members if they are on the tidewall.

If the are on the open ground are they on the tidewall, it doesn't say wholely on the tidwall or must be only on the tidewall, however it also does not give you permission to be on open ground and move too.

regardless of that, it would count as moving during the movement phase as there is no permission to count as not moving, and the permission to count as stationary exists for firing weapons not for moving.

 NorseSig wrote:
As someone who plays Imperial forces (SM, Ad Mechanicus, IK), I am okay with someone doing this on a personal level. I personally, don't see the stationary model as moving and will play it as such until GW/FW rules it otherwise. When the vehicle anchors itself, it is anchoring to the terrain ie the Tidewall. The tidewall is moving not the model imo. If the model on the tidewall moved that would be different. Nowhere do I see mention of the Tidewall being a transport, which has specific rules involving movement.

It's nowhere near as cheesy as a group of space marines players being such whiney babies and personal bullies that they've forced a local player to change factions rather than learning to play better, but hey, each group has its own set of rules. Thankfully, GW and FW have created another option called 30k for Marine players that are afraid of 40k's xenos.

This is just condescending and rude. To make the assumption that all SM players are bullies and want you to not play xenos armies. I have 0 problems with someone playing Xenos armies, in fact I enjoy it. I might have issues with particular models or rules of said models because let's face it some models in this game are broke af and op. And I know xenos players have the same issues with some of the things I have. It is FINE for people to dislike broken stuff. This game would be very boring without xenos armies. I might dislike how eldar are pretty much op broken from a balance standpoint, but I don't want people to stop playing them. I enjoy the challenge. It sounds like you have some bad eggs in your local group who need to go jump off a bridge.

Except the quote was not referring to all SM players. Just a certain group, of which one member straight up said "We nerfed Necrons because we don't like this one guy we play with. He's switching to Eldar so we're going to nerf them as well."

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:

The Stormsurge is anchored exactly in the same position on the terrain it is standing on. You measure movement in reference to the terrain the model is on.

There is no rule in the rulebook that tells us to measure movement relative to anything other than the playing surface.

Exactly. And since the Tidewall is terrain, the Tidewall is the playing surface. So the Stormsurge does not move. The playing surface does.

In fact the burden is on you to show how the Stormsurge indeed moves.

In game terms, the Stormsurge does not move.

The Stormsurge makes no move in the movement phase and elects to remain stationary.

The Stormsurge makes no move through the terrain (accomplishes 0" horizontal, 0" vertical)

The Tidewall rule forbids the Stormsurge from moving.

So all the rules support the Stormsurge as having not moved. The playing surface underneath the Stormsurge has moved.

col_impact wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:

The Stormsurge is anchored exactly in the same position on the terrain it is standing on. You measure movement in reference to the terrain the model is on.

There is no rule in the rulebook that tells us to measure movement relative to anything other than the playing surface.

Exactly. And since the Tidewall is terrain, the Tidewall is the playing surface. So the Stormsurge does not move. The playing surface does.

In fact the burden is on you to show how the Stormsurge indeed moves.

In game terms, the Stormsurge does not move.

The Stormsurge makes no move in the movement phase and elects to remain stationary.

The Stormsurge makes no move through the terrain (accomplishes 0" horizontal, 0" vertical)

The Tidewall rule forbids the Stormsurge from moving.

So all the rules support the Stormsurge as having not moved. The playing surface underneath the Stormsurge has moved.

Did you read any of the many people explaining to you how your logic doesn't work? I really don't see how it's hard for you to understand.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Did you read any of the many people explaining to you how your logic doesn't work? I really don't see how it's hard for you to understand.

I am the only one who has the support of the rules, reason, and logic on this. Anyone who wants to counter needs to show how the Stormsurge moves in game terms. I have successfully shown how the playing surface that the Stormsurge anchors to has moved while the Stormsurge itself has not moved and remains stationary.

blaktoof wrote:
models are treated as stationary for firing weapons is not the same thing as models do not count as moving.

If the stormsurge even fits on the tidewall..

it counts as moving during the movement phase if the tidewall moves.

If models on a moving tidewall are also moving, or counts as moving; then they are breaking the tidewall moving rules(which are nearly identical to the stormsurge's ).

Nothing on a moving tidewall can possibly be moving or the tidewall can never move with models on it(making its rules that reference models on it while moving useless)

blaktoof wrote:
models are treated as stationary for firing weapons is not the same thing as models do not count as moving.

If the stormsurge even fits on the tidewall..

it counts as moving during the movement phase if the tidewall moves.

You need to revisit the rules in question.

During the movement phase, any model that is "carried" by the Tidewall elects to not move and to remain stationary.

Furthermore, the Tidewall rule forbids any model it carries from moving.

You just need to wrap your head around this. This is a case of the playing surface moving and the models remaining stationary and not moving at all.

NorseSig wrote:This is just condescending and rude. To make the assumption that all SM players are bullies and want you to not play xenos armies. I have 0 problems with someone playing Xenos armies, in fact I enjoy it. I might have issues with particular models or rules of said models because let's face it some models in this game are broke af and op. And I know xenos players have the same issues with some of the things I have. It is FINE for people to dislike broken stuff. This game would be very boring without xenos armies. I might dislike how eldar are pretty much op broken from a balance standpoint, but I don't want people to stop playing them. I enjoy the challenge. It sounds like you have some bad eggs in your local group who need to go jump off a bridge.

I apologise for not being clear. I'm not making broad sweeping statements. I'm making a specific reference to a single individual in this topic.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:Is this guy trying to put like... Stormsurge on his tide wall? That doesn't work.. I'd pack up my models, tell the TO how I stomped your face and you were a bad sport, claim a win, and move on. 0's across the board for even THINKING of attempting such impossible feats and bend the rules for tau scum

Pain4Pleasure wrote:When the stormsurge is anchored it must remain on the table exactly where it was anchored. That very location. If it enters its shooting phase and is no longer where it was anchored it has not abided by the rules. Therefore if it is on the tide wall, and the tide wall moves, and it anchored, it didn't follow the rules as it is not where it anchored. Simple as that. Anything else is blatant cheating. It actually strengthens why my group doesn't play against tau. Our previous tau player now plays marines, cause he couldn't get games.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:Oh it has moved. Your blatant ignorance for obvious rules for attempted tau cheese is insane my boy. I insist you try this, watch as you are unable to do so as others won't let you, due to it being against the rules, and then proceed to try and find friends. Tau scum is scum

Don't worry, though: P4P issued a clear and sincere apology... for being baited into angry anti-tau vitriol by this otherwise civil discussion of a rule. He's tote's sorry that this hate was the other guy's fault.
About half the players I go up against are Imperial, and the flavor and light-hearted role-play is appropriate at the game table. Every once in a while, though, I meet the occasional player that actually buys into fictional Imperial propoganda often inadvertently. When one buys into it this hard nowadays, I can just recommend 30k. 100% less Xenos means they can enjoy their game more and I don't have to deal with actual for-real racism based on my choice of fictional toy collections. I hear 30k is way more balanced anyway. Everybody wins.

Kanluwen wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
models are treated as stationary for firing weapons is not the same thing as models do not count as moving.

If the stormsurge even fits on the tidewall..

The only way to fit a Stormsurge on the Tidewall is to remove the base and put a foot on one of each of the larger "disc" sections.

This is correct, it would not fit on a Tidewall.
http://www.gamestrust.de/uploads/inline/pic-45139-popup.jpg
http://www.gamestrust.de/uploads/inline/pic-45140-popup.jpg
http://www.gamestrust.de/test,warhammer-40-000-tau-empire-tidewall-rampart-test,id1752,2.html

There are other models that do fit, however, and the Stormsurge is simply one example of a modern GW model that prevents it from moving. At 30-45 points for a twin-linked Tau weapon, a Drone Sentry Turret isn't the most terrible armor 11 vehicle, but it isn't great and doesn't move. It's already got twin-linked, so plopping on a Tidewall means that you don't benefit from Firebase, and are spending 60 points for 6" movement over open ground and a 4+ cover save and either 4 drones (excellent) or the possibility of reflecting shots (Meh, especially when the enemy is close and you'll be rolling to see if your own shots auto-glance you, instead). Nothing else will fit on the disc, so it's a bad choice for an 85 point Gunrig (nothing else can operate the railgun, and if you use the Drone Turret to operate it, it's only BS2 and wouldn't be able to fire its own weapons at the same time), unless you're using Tidewall Defense Network (someone on the shieldline can fire the gun) or a gunfort (someone on another gunrig can fire your railgun). Mostly, though, it'd just look cool and be good fluff play. But no one knows or cares about it that model, so the Stormsurge is the focus of the discussion.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Did you read any of the many people explaining to you how your logic doesn't work? I really don't see how it's hard for you to understand.

None of the rules work. Going to ground on a Tidewall does not work, and means the models would remain in place if the Tidewall were to move. Models on a Tidewall are only stationary for the purposes of shooting, implying they are considered moving otherwise. However, no models on are allowed to move, so if moving the models via tidewall counts as moving, any model on it would prevent it from moving. A Tidewall is only able to move over open ground, but any place that it exists becomes Battlefield Debris (Defense Line), and therefore not open ground, so once a Tidewall is deployed, it can't move because it is never over open ground.

The Rules for movement do not define what movement is, other than measuring from the same point on a base for determining using that model's movement. Models on a Tidewall would be using the Tidewall's movement, not theirs, so measuring from the base doesn't apply.

Looking at RAW doesn't work, because the RAW doesn't work.

col_impact wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
models are treated as stationary for firing weapons is not the same thing as models do not count as moving.

If the stormsurge even fits on the tidewall..

it counts as moving during the movement phase if the tidewall moves.

You need to revisit the rules in question.

During the movement phase, any model that is "carried" by the Tidewall elects to not move and to remain stationary.

Furthermore, the Tidewall rule forbids any model it carries from moving.

You just need to wrap your head around this. This is a case of the playing surface moving and the models remaining stationary and not moving at all.

you need to revisit the tidewall rules and wrap your head around it.

it never states the model does not count as moving, it states that models that are carried by the tidewall count as stationary for firing.

the stormsurge rules state the model cannot move under any circumstance.

The tidewall never states the models count as not moving during movement phase.

additionally the stormsurge does not fit on the tidewall, so its is moving in relation to the open ground it is also on- this part of course is moot as the rules issue above already shows the problem.

The models are moving, they just get to count as stationary for firing. However they do not get permission to count as not moving outside of firing- that is not stated anywhere within the tidewall rules.

 SinisterSamurai wrote:
A Tidewall is only able to move over open ground, but any place that it exists becomes Battlefield Debris (Defense Line), and therefore not open ground, so once a Tidewall is deployed, it can't move because it is never over open ground.

With this I don't agree. The Tidewall is defence lines, but what's under it isn't. I don't see why you're stating this, but saying that where the Tidewall stops it become defence terrain (nowhere in its rules say that) makes no sense.

col_impact wrote:

Exactly. And since the Tidewall is terrain, the Tidewall is the playing surface

Right up until the point where you move it. At which point it becomes something that is moving. And so anything that is on it is also moving, unless a rule tells you to ignore that fact.

In fact the burden is on you to show how the Stormsurge indeed moves.

That's easy: After you move the Tidewall, is the Stormsurge still in the exact same place on the table that it was before you moved the Tidewall?

If the answer is no (which it will be) the the Stormsurge has moved.

Then, again, the tidewall cannot move with models on it because models on a moving tidewall cannot move.

How are you reconciling models on it not being allowed to move but moving?

If the fire warriors are not moving when the tidewall moves(as they are forbidden from doing so by the tidewall moving) then neither is the stormsurge/immobile whatever.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Then, again, the tidewall cannot move with models on it because models on a moving tidewall cannot move.

How are you reconciling models on it not being allowed to move but moving?.

Already covered earlier in the thread.

By strict RAW, you're correct - the Tidewall can't move if it has models on it.

 Vector Strike wrote:

 SinisterSamurai wrote:
A Tidewall is only able to move over open ground, but any place that it exists becomes Battlefield Debris (Defense Line), and therefore not open ground, so once a Tidewall is deployed, it can't move because it is never over open ground.

With this I don't agree. The Tidewall is defence lines, but what's under it isn't. I don't see why you're stating this, but saying that where the Tidewall stops it become defence terrain (nowhere in its rules say that) makes no sense.

This was something that came up at my FLGS. I emphasize the friendly, though, so we didn't dwell. At some point the discussion referenced template weapons hitting all levels of a ruin to indicate that the entire board could be viewed as a 2D top-down map, and dimension 3 had little actual meaning to the game, rules-wise. We simply enjoy circular and logical paradoxes there.

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Exactly. And since the Tidewall is terrain, the Tidewall is the playing surface

Right up until the point where you move it. At which point it becomes something that is moving. And so anything that is on it is also moving, unless a rule tells you to ignore that fact.

In fact the burden is on you to show how the Stormsurge indeed moves.

That's easy: After you move the Tidewall, is the Stormsurge still in the exact same place on the table that it was before you moved the Tidewall?

If the answer is no (which it will be) the the Stormsurge has moved.

The tidewall is terrain which is playing surface. The Stormsurge is in the exact same place on the playing surface on which it stands. Are you saying otherwise? Do you have a rule that says while moving the Tidewall is a vehicle and not a piece of terrain?

In the case of the Tidewall a portion of the battlefield itself is given permission to move.

The models that are on the Tidewall are "carried" but do not move. They do not move in their movement phase and are declared stationary. Further, a Tidewall rule forbids them from moving.

We measure movement in relation to the battlefield under the models. In this case its a moving chunk of battlefield.

If I move the entire battlefield by nudging the table 1" to the left during a game that has progressed to round 3, do all models on the table count as having moved? The models have not moved in relation to the battlefield or each other but they have all physically moved an inch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Then, again, the tidewall cannot move with models on it because models on a moving tidewall cannot move.

How are you reconciling models on it not being allowed to move but moving?.

Already covered earlier in the thread.

By strict RAW, you're correct - the Tidewall can't move if it has models on it.

Incorrect, you have failed to show that the Stormsurge moves in game terms.

RAW works fine here. You are failing to treat the Tidewall as terrain. Do you have a rule that allows you treat the Tidewall as anything but terrain?

Oh no, we have a lvl 3 believer here. Show me the rule that states a mode can end farther on the board than where it began without moving, and also show me a rule that allows the tide wall to move with models that can't move on it, and show me the rule that allows for any terrain what so ever to move independent with models on it please.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Oh no, we have a lvl 3 believer here. Show me the rule that states a mode can end farther on the board than where it began without moving, and also show me a rule that allows the tide wall to move with models that can't move on it, and show me the rule that allows for any terrain what so ever to move independent with models on it please.

The Tidewall rules. The Tidewall moves the board itself. Are you saying the Tidewall is not terrain?

Really!! then sir I'm sorry I was wrong this whole time! But you also were wrong sir.. You don't move the tide wall! You say that you wanna move the board! So we need to move my modes forward or backward, as well as the terrain, but it'll all be relatively in the same place. Since, like you said, the tide wall doesn't move, the board does. Man, what a powerful piece. That's insane. You didn't really quote any rules but.. You must be right

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Really!! then sir I'm sorry I was wrong this whole time! But you also were wrong sir.. You don't move the tide wall! You say that you wanna move the board! So we need to move my modes forward or backward, as well as the terrain, but it'll all be relatively in the same place. Since, like you said, the tide wall doesn't move, the board does. Man, what a powerful piece. That's insane. You didn't really quote any rules but.. You must be right

The Tidewall is terrain which is an element that comprises the board on which you play.

This is all really simple to resolve if everyone simply treats the Tidewall by its definition as terrain.

Nah, you're wrapping your head around it wrong and refuse to actually provide actual rules. Even people who also have the rules and mode are against you. No tourney or event will allow you to play the way you say. Idk why you fight so hard. Have fun, I'm out, you're being to focused on a rule that isn't actually there

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
No tourney or event will allow you to play the way you say.

I very much doubt that.

The rules as written are simply unclear, and give no guidance on how immobile models should be treated. While I suspect that the majority of events will go with the 'no movement' interpretation for simplicity, it would be a stretch to suggest that all of them will. I can very easily see some TOs allowing it on the basis that it's really not that big a deal.

How about this angle:

The wall counts as difficult terrain. Models on the wall are IN difficult terrain.

BRB section under "Moving Within Difficult Terrain" states that any models in a unit that start their movement in difficult terrain they are affected by the terrain and must take a Difficult Terrain Test.
If the models on the wall have "moved" then they must take a test. If they do not take a test...they have not moved.

 Brillow80 wrote:
How about this angle:

The wall counts as difficult terrain. Models on the wall are IN difficult terrain.

BRB section under "Moving Within Difficult Terrain" states that any models in a unit that start their movement in difficult terrain they are affected by the terrain and must take a Difficult Terrain Test.
If the models on the wall have "moved" then they must take a test. If they do not take a test...they have not moved.

That's sort of like arguing that if I refuse to roll a saving throw on my model, it hasn't taken a wound...

 insaniak wrote:

 Brillow80 wrote:
How about this angle:

The wall counts as difficult terrain. Models on the wall are IN difficult terrain.

BRB section under "Moving Within Difficult Terrain" states that any models in a unit that start their movement in difficult terrain they are affected by the terrain and must take a Difficult Terrain Test.
If the models on the wall have "moved" then they must take a test. If they do not take a test...they have not moved.

That's sort of like arguing that if I refuse to roll a saving throw on my model, it hasn't taken a wound...

BRB doesn't give you the option, you must take the test.

Moving Within Difficult Terrain
If any models in a unit start their move in difficult terrain, they are affected by the terrain
and must take a Difficult Terrain test. No models in the unit can move more than the
distance indicated by the test, even if they are not in difficult terrain.

The emphasis is mine.

Yes, that was my point.

If you're going to argue that the model counting as moving would require it to take a difficult terrain test, then a failure to take that test isn't proof that the model didn't move... just proof that you didn't take the difficult terrain test.

 insaniak wrote:
Yes, that was my point.

If you're going to argue that the model counting as moving would require it to take a difficult terrain test, then a failure to take that test isn't proof that the model didn't move... just proof that you didn't take the difficult terrain test.

In this case I was applying inference and is a perfectly viable method of deducing precedent. But yes, it can be argued both ways then.

The rules for the wall do not grant permission to skip a Difficult Terrain Test.
Therefore

A) It is not needed because the models have not moved
or
B) The wall rules make no mention of having to take the test

In this rule-set a rule applies until it is specifically states as not applying. So the second case, no mention of having to take a test doesn't hold weight.

Sorry, got distracted and didn't finish my thought:

If they did move they should have to take a Difficult Terrain Test.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we need to stick to game definitions and not confuse them with common definitions.

Tidewall defines what happens as "carried" and no where is the term "carried" linked to "moving the model." Models riding a Tidewall count as "carried" and not as moving.

When we look at the movement phase where movement is defined and go through the sequence we note that anything on the Tidewall elects to remain stationary (and actually must not move per Tidewall rule).

If we just stick to treating the Tidewall as terrain (ie an element of the battlefield itself) and to game definitions of moving then we can come to no other conclusion that the models on the Tidewall do not move.

If you still are stuck in thinking that they move you are using something other than a game definition of moving. You are wholly unable to point to a rule or step in the game that says "models on the Tidewall are moved"

A model on the Tidewall starts and ends the movement phase in the exact same position on the battlefield when it is carried by the Tidewall.

The only thing that has moved is an element of the battlefield in relation to other elements of the battlefield.

col_impact wrote:

Another thing to keep in mind is that we need to stick to game definitions and not confuse them with common definitions.

That only works in a game that sticks to game definitions and doesn't confuse them with common language.

That's the big downside to GW's 'conversational' approach to rules writing. It adds a whole boatload of imprecision into their rules, and has been the source of any number of broken, silly, or unclear rules over the many editions of all of their games.

When we look at the movement phase where movement is defined ...

It isn't.

We're given a general process for moving models. We're not told whether or not anything else that results in the model moving should also be considered moving, aside from certain specific situations where we are told that it doesn't.

The logical conclusion to draw from that is that if the model moves, then the model moves.

If you still are stuck in thinking that they move you are using something other than a game definition of moving. You are wholly unable to point to a rule or step in the game that says "models on the Tidewall are moved"

Indeed.

On a similar note, if, in the middle of the shooting phase, I thump my fist on the table causing my heavy weapon trooper to shift an inch to the right, you would be similarly unable to point to a rule or step in the game that says that my model has moved.

So that should be perfectly legal, no?

A model on the Tidewall starts and ends the movement phase in the exact same position on the battlefield when it is carried by the Tidewall.

If the Tidewall has moved, then this is patently false.

Your model started and ended its movement phase in the exact same position on the Tidewall... but if the Tidewall has moved, then it is in a different position on the battlefield.

Removed by insaniak. Please see Dakka's rule #1

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Another thing to keep in mind is that we need to stick to game definitions and not confuse them with common definitions.

That only works in a game that sticks to game definitions and doesn't confuse them with common language.

That's the big downside to GW's 'conversational' approach to rules writing. It adds a whole boatload of imprecision into their rules, and has been the source of any number of broken, silly, or unclear rules over the many editions of all of their games.

Sorry. Moving happens at specific times and cicumstances. If something is clearly idenitified as "carried" then it's up to you to prove with rules and rule logic that "carried" is the same as moving.

insaniak wrote:

When we look at the movement phase where movement is defined ...

It isn't.

We're given a general process for moving models. We're not told whether or not anything else that results in the model moving should also be considered moving, aside from certain specific situations where we are told that it doesn't.

The logical conclusion to draw from that is that if the model moves, then the model moves.
.

The conclusion that I am allowed to make with the rules and rule logic is that the model is "carried".

insaniak wrote:

If you still are stuck in thinking that they move you are using something other than a game definition of moving. You are wholly unable to point to a rule or step in the game that says "models on the Tidewall are moved"

Indeed.

On a similar note, if, in the middle of the shooting phase, I thump my fist on the table causing my heavy weapon trooper to shift an inch to the right, you would be similarly unable to point to a rule or step in the game that says that my model has moved.

So that should be perfectly legal, no?

Is there a rule that permits the player to thump his fist during the shooting phase to move models? There is no such rule. The action was wholly illegal and the game state will be repaired prior to the illegal action. Any movement that was not game movement will have to be undone. If it cannot be repaired to a mutually agreeable game state then the disruptive player will likely have to forfeit the game.

You are struggling with understanding Tidewall since you keep confusing nongame definitions of movement with game definitions of movement. Don't do that. The models in 40k are constantly moving since the planet is spinning. Does that movement force all 40k models to count as having moved? They are also constantly vibrating and never truly fully stationary. Does molecular vibration count as movement?

insaniak wrote:

A model on the Tidewall starts and ends the movement phase in the exact same position on the battlefield when it is carried by the Tidewall.

If the Tidewall has moved, then this is patently false.

Your model started and ended its movement phase in the exact same position on the Tidewall... but if the Tidewall has moved, then it is in a different position on the battlefield.

The Tidewall is terrain. It is the battlefield. The model starts and ends its movement phase in the exact same position on the battlefield that is underneath its feet and will have completed the movement phase as stationary.

If the model's position has been changed in reference to other elements of the battlefield it has been changed by being "carried" and not by being "moved"

Stick to game definitions and game logic. Don't confuse "carried" with "moved" unless you can point to a rule that allows you to equate them.

Can we just lock this thread? This debate has gotten no where and y'all are more stubborn than an unbroken horse.

Show me rules for carried in the brb that talks about models that are carried don't move please.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Show me rules for carried in the brb that talks about models that are carried don't move please.

The burden to show a rule that equates "carried" with "move models" is on you.

col_impact wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Show me rules for carried in the brb that talks about models that are carried don't move please.

The burden to show a rule that equates "carried" with "move models" is on you.

No, see you can't show me a rule supporting it, or even showing it exists. So it doesn't exist. Which means it been moved. Unless you can provide it..

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Show me rules for carried in the brb that talks about models that are carried don't move please.

The burden to show a rule that equates "carried" with "move models" is on you.

No, see you can't show me a rule supporting it, or even showing it exists. So it doesn't exist. Which means it been moved. Unless you can provide it..

No. My argument wins out unless it can be shown by some rule that "carried" equates to "moving models."

col_impact wrote:
Sorry. Moving happens at specific times and cicumstances. If something is clearly idenitified as "carried" then it's up to you to prove with rules and rule logic that "carried" is the same as moving.

There is no need to prove that 'carried' is the same as 'moving'.

We can tell that the model is moving, on account of how it is moving.

Is there a rule that permits the player to thump his fist during the shooting phase to move models?

Nope. There is also no rule that permits players to breathe, scratch themselves, or carry out any other action that has no effect on gameplay.

Your claim is that movement that does not follow the process outlined in the movement phase does not constitute movement. As such, anything that results in the model moving outside that process would similarly not constitute moving. Players could, in fact, choose to pick models up at any point outside the movement phase and put them anywhere else on the board, and those models would not be considered to have moved because they did not follow the process that you claim defines what does and doesn't constitute 'movement'.

You are struggling with understanding Tidewall since you keep confusing nongame definitions of movement with game definitions of movement.

There is no struggle. I've been playing 40K for more than 20 years now, which is more than long enough to notice that GW don't use keywords the way you want them to be applied here.

Model move in the movement phase using the rules found in that section of the rulebook and modified by either the terrain rules or the unit type rules.

Any, lets call it displacement(since the word movement is so contentious in this issue), of the models physical location outside of those rules is not movement within the rules.

A unit inside of a transport does not have to test for dangerous terrain as the transport moves through it(if the actual unit was moving they would, they merely "count as" moving in the shooting phase).

Artillery is forbidden from moving without 1 crew/gun but an ork big guns unit on the tidewall as it moves can still have the wall move with 3 guns and 1 or 2 crew(because the unit itself is not moving, they can't due to both rules).

A unit that moves up onto the wall prevents the wall from moving(units on the wall when the wall moves cannot move that phase; same as trying to fire a weapon, at all for non-vehicles or at full bs for vehicles, before firing an ordnance weapon).

 insaniak wrote:

Is there a rule that permits the player to thump his fist during the shooting phase to move models?

Nope. There is also no rule that permits players to breathe, scratch themselves, or carry out any other action that has no effect on gameplay.

Your claim is that movement that does not follow the process outlined in the movement phase does not constitute movement. As such, anything that results in the model moving outside that process would similarly not constitute moving. Players could, in fact, choose to pick models up at any point outside the movement phase and put them anywhere else on the board, and those models would not be considered to have moved because they did not follow the process that you claim defines what does and doesn't constitute 'movement'.

No that does not follow from my argument. Players follow rules and perform actions that are permitted according to game definitions and game play.

The scenario you describe is an illegal action that is simply not permitted in the rules. A player that breaks the rules in the fashion you describe would have to remedy the game state.

The game has to designate something as moving for it be moving.

You are confusing game definitions with common definitions. The game does not permit me to shoot rubber bands at my opponent's models when we are in the shooting phase.

col_impact wrote:
The game has to designate something as moving for it be moving..

And that's where I thikn we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The game has to designate something as moving for it be moving..

And that's where I thikn we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

That's cool. That just means my RAW argument stands uncontested by anything in the rules.

By following the rules and adhering to game definitions, we can conclude that models that ride on a Tidewall do not count as moving.

Sure, you can conclude that.

Whether or not that conclusion is correct is going to depend on how you define movement. Hence the 'agree to disagree' part.


I would put this one very firmly in the 'discuss with your opponent before the game' category.

 insaniak wrote:

We can tell that the model is moving, on account of how it is moving.

The rules for moving require us to select a unit then move it up to its max movement distance. We must complete that movement before moving to another unit. If we are moving the Tidewall, we cannot be moving the SS.

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

We can tell that the model is moving, on account of how it is moving.

The rules for moving require us to select a unit then move it up to its max movement distance. We must complete that movement before moving to another unit. If we are moving the Tidewall, we cannot be moving the SS.

units can move outside of the movement phase. (e.g.- fallbkack, various psychic powers, as result of certain attacks/special rules that either the unit moving has/or an unit targeting the unit moving has)

The SS cannot even fit on the tidewall, so it is moving in relation to the table when the tidewall moves. This brings into question many issues:

You are only given permission to actively move your models in relation to the table during your movement(generally) if the tidewall is "carrying" a stormsurge that is on it as well as the table, the SS is moving as per the movement rules- which is not allowed to do as it is not selected to move- this means you are breaking the rules. This puts the RAW in a situation where if you have a SS on it, you may not move the tidewall-because moving it causes you to move another model along the table- it is not entirel(not even half..) on the tidewall, and you did not select that unit to move so you have no permission to move it.

the tidewall has 0 RAW stating models on it do not count as moving during the movement phase.

Each and every example of models moving outside of the movement phase specifies that those models move, are moved, count as moving/having moved, etc.

There are currently no rules other than the tidewall that displaces a model to a new location on the table that does not have them move.

The tidewall is New, and a new situation.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Each and every example of models moving outside of the movement phase specifies that those models move, are moved, count as moving/having moved, etc.

There are currently no rules other than the tidewall that displaces a model to a new location on the table that does not have them move.

The tidewall is New, and a new situation.

it is new.

It also introduces a new thing called "Carried" which does not exist and is poorly defined.

we know that carried models may not move, does this mean they do not count as moving during the movement phase? This is not stated or granted permission anywhere.

other ways that move models outside of the movement phase directly move the models, when a tidewall moves and the models are "carried" you are not directly moving the models by nominating and stating how far they go within the movement they are allowed to make, this does not mean the models are not moved- nothing states they are not moved. In fact we are only told they get to count as stationary[not moving RAI] for firing. Firing, typically happens in the shooting phase. Nothing states they get to count as stationary, or similar wording, for outside of firing. Movement in the movement phase is outside of firing.

We know that they moved relative to where they were on the board, as the tidewall moving is also moving where they were in relation to the open ground the tidewall is moving on.

we know that a SS does not fit on a tidewall, therefore moving t he tidewall with a SS on it is ALWAYS causing the SS to move across the board as well as being carried by the tidewall. There is no rules permission for this in the BRB or the tidewall rules.

We can discuss RAI, because there is no RAW about whether models on the tidewall count as moving or not. There is also no RAW for how to treat models that cannot fit their base completely on the tidewall- as they do move relative to the open ground beneath the tidewall if the tidewall is allowed to move with them on it.

No such thing as "carried", nor does Tidewall imply that this new rule exists. If you want to argue that, you should be in the forum to propose new rules.

The tide wall's movement restricts those on it from moving in the movement phase as well. I'd say it's all pretty straight forward as written. The only time an object or model cannot be moved by the tide wall (aka the magic carpet) is if it states explicitly that it may not move under any circumstances. Great examples of this are to be found in the Storm Surge's stabilizers, or an immobilized vehicle (the original poster was nice enough to give some examples on page one) where it IS legal is where a unit must remain stationary in the movement phase, because the tidewall explicitly states that any models/units on it count as being stationary. So the Firewarrior deployed turrets are completely fine. And of course any shooting that requires you to remain stationary to fire at full ballistic skill will function at full ballistic skill.

Is there something additional here that we're trying to figure out? Other then whining at each other about made up rules?

Mobile Defence Position:If you take a Tidewall XYZ as part of your army, you may move it up to 6" in the Movement phase. It cannot move if there are any enemy models on it, and may only carry friendly models if all members of their unit are on the Tidewall XYZ.

Pretty sure it says carry in the rules.

It says the word carry, not an actual rule called carry. Nothing to argue about, open up a dictionary and learn what the word means if you're still confused.

GreyDragoon wrote:
No such thing as "carried", nor does Tidewall imply that this new rule exists. If you want to argue that, you should be in the forum to propose new rules.

The tide wall's movement restricts those on it from moving in the movement phase as well. I'd say it's all pretty straight forward as written. The only time an object or model cannot be moved by the tide wall (aka the magic carpet) is if it states explicitly that it may not move under any circumstances. Great examples of this are to be found in the Storm Surge's stabilizers, or an immobilized vehicle (the original poster was nice enough to give some examples on page one) where it IS legal is where a unit must remain stationary in the movement phase, because the tidewall explicitly states that any models/units on it count as being stationary. So the Firewarrior deployed turrets are completely fine. And of course any shooting that requires you to remain stationary to fire at full ballistic skill will function at full ballistic skill.

Is there something additional here that we're trying to figure out? Other then whining at each other about made up rules?

In the center bit you are making up an arbitray distinction between "cannot move this phase", "cannot move", and "cannot move under any circumstances" in relation to the tidewall moving with models on it.

You are saying the first 2 are ok, but the 3rd is not; which is inconsistent. They are either all ok and being carried by the moving tidewall is not moving(and therefore half the rule actually functions); or none of them are and the writers wasted ink for half the rule.

GreyDragoon wrote:
It says the word carry, not an actual rule called carry. Nothing to argue about, open up a dictionary and learn what the word means if you're still confused.

Trust me, you do not want to go down the dictionary route, as every meaning of "carry" (which makes sense in this situation) all have to do with moving things.

Going back to the OP

I'd definitely throw this into the ask your TO/game group/opponent first before playing.

Its too bad this list is getting longer and longer.

-Bloodthirster changing flight modes on turn it DS
-Ravenwing libby leading ravenwing strike force
-etc

 insaniak wrote:
Your claim is that movement that does not follow the process outlined in the movement phase does not constitute movement. As such, anything that results in the model moving outside that process would similarly not constitute moving. Players could, in fact, choose to pick models up at any point outside the movement phase and put them anywhere else on the board, and those models would not be considered to have moved because they did not follow the process that you claim defines what does and doesn't constitute 'movement'.

Hrm, so it is your professional opinion that one cannot Deep Strike immobile creatures, since it counts as having moved? Furthermore, one is completely unable to teleport them across the field using Gate of Infinity to carry them?

 Arkaine wrote:
Hrm, so it is your professional opinion that one cannot Deep Strike immobile creatures, since it counts as having moved?

That would depend on the specific unit and its rules.

Space Marine Drop Pods, for example, are immobile units that can Deep Strike... but they don't actually become immobile until after they arrive.

I'm not sure how many other units there are in the game that can Deep Strike these days.

Furthermore, one is completely unable to teleport them across the field using Gate of Infinity to carry them?

Ruleswise, no, I don't think that would be legal.

I would allow it, though. The chances of it actually being a useful tactic are fairly slim.

blaktoof wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

We can tell that the model is moving, on account of how it is moving.

The rules for moving require us to select a unit then move it up to its max movement distance. We must complete that movement before moving to another unit. If we are moving the Tidewall, we cannot be moving the SS.

units can move outside of the movement phase. (e.g.- fallbkack, various psychic powers, as result of certain attacks/special rules that either the unit moving has/or an unit targeting the unit moving has)

The SS cannot even fit on the tidewall, so it is moving in relation to the table when the tidewall moves. This brings into question many issues:

Whether it can fit is really moot, we argue a few things that currently are impossible in the game. (mostly for the sake of argument.) However, I know at least one person personally that would demand WMS since its terrain.

You are only given permission to actively move your models in relation to the table during your movement(generally) if the tidewall is "carrying" a stormsurge that is on it as well as the table, the SS is moving as per the movement rules-

I have shown that it is not. You are forbidden to move the SS at the same time you are moving another unit. Therefore if the Tidewall is moving, the SS cannot be "moving" by definition.

This puts the RAW in a situation where if you have a SS on it, you may not move the tidewall-because moving it causes you to move another model along the table- it is not entirel(not even half..) on the tidewall, and you did not select that unit to move so you have no permission to move it.

Show anywhere in the movement rules where the underlined is written.

Fragile wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
This puts the RAW in a situation where if you have a SS on it, you may not move the tidewall-because moving it causes you to move another model along the table- it is not entirel(not even half..) on the tidewall, and you did not select that unit to move so you have no permission to move it.

Show anywhere in the movement rules where the underlined is written.

It's in the Tidewall's movement rules, if you consider models on a Tidewall to be moving.
Here it is:

Mobile Defence Position: If you take a Tidewall XYZ as part of your army, you may move it up to 6" in the Movement phase. It cannot move if there are any enemy models on it, and may only carry friendly models if all members of their unit are on the Tidewall XYZ. Models carried with it are treated as being stationary for the purposes of firing weapons, but cannot move themselves in the same phase. Tidewall XYZs can only move over open ground, and cannot move within 1" of enemy models.

A) that is not in the movement rules(within the core of the game.

B) that can only prove that the models carried are not, themselves, moving(as they simply cannot move when it does)

C) in the case of the storm surge you now have 2 rules stating that it cannot move. But that does not matter because neither gives you any permission to move, just that the stormsurge is carried on the moving terrain(similar situation to if you were able to get a model on top of a vehicle and then move the vehicle (of course you cannot stack models in this way).

What if I take SM allies and deploy my StormSurge on top of the Rhino? Then I could move the Rhino and the StormSurge wouldn't technically be moving!

maceria wrote:
What if I take SM allies and deploy my StormSurge on top of the Rhino? Then I could move the Rhino and the StormSurge wouldn't technically be moving!

Yeah, not quite.

maceria wrote:
What if I take SM allies and deploy my StormSurge on top of the Rhino? Then I could move the Rhino and the StormSurge wouldn't technically be moving!

Not really apples to apples there.

So since we're 4 pages in, would the original poster put "Still discussing for the next 4 pages" as there is still not a concensus on the rule and though I love reading GW Hate and how stupid other's opinions are - it would save some time.

After reading 4 pages, what I have seen is "discuss it with your opponent" and tourney organizers are going to house rule it.

Thanks!

Fragile wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

We can tell that the model is moving, on account of how it is moving.

The rules for moving require us to select a unit then move it up to its max movement distance. We must complete that movement before moving to another unit. If we are moving the Tidewall, we cannot be moving the SS.

units can move outside of the movement phase. (e.g.- fallbkack, various psychic powers, as result of certain attacks/special rules that either the unit moving has/or an unit targeting the unit moving has)

The SS cannot even fit on the tidewall, so it is moving in relation to the table when the tidewall moves. This brings into question many issues:

Whether it can fit is really moot, we argue a few things that currently are impossible in the game. (mostly for the sake of argument.) However, I know at least one person personally that would demand WMS since its terrain.

You are only given permission to actively move your models in relation to the table during your movement(generally) if the tidewall is "carrying" a stormsurge that is on it as well as the table, the SS is moving as per the movement rules-

I have shown that it is not. You are forbidden to move the SS at the same time you are moving another unit. Therefore if the Tidewall is moving, the SS cannot be "moving" by definition.

This puts the RAW in a situation where if you have a SS on it, you may not move the tidewall-because moving it causes you to move another model along the table- it is not entirel(not even half..) on the tidewall, and you did not select that unit to move so you have no permission to move it.

Show anywhere in the movement rules where the underlined is written.

WMS does not work at all here, because the model cannot fit on the tidewall period, part of it will always be hanging off even if you say "WMS" its base is physically bigger than all the parts of the tidewall. It doesn't work, RAW or RAI. The parts of the models base not on the tidewaill will always be over the playing surface that is not the tidewall.

Movement is defined in the BRB, by nominating a model and then moving it x distance across terrain.

A model on a tidewall that is both on the tidewall and not on the tidewall absolutely is MOVING relative to the terrain for the part of the model that is not on the tidewall. part of the model is still the model, so moving the tidewall in this case does move the model relative to the playing surface that the tidewall is not.

unrelated to all of the above, the tidewall has no RAW permission to count as stationary, or not moving, during the movement phase.

maceria wrote:
What if I take SM allies and deploy my StormSurge on top of the Rhino? Then I could move the Rhino and the StormSurge wouldn't technically be moving!

I appreciate the sarcasm, but it's not the same thing. I believe that Fortifications are the only models that let two models occupy the same 2D position on the gameboard. A Rhino doesn't count as terrain until after it loses the ability to move.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
So since we're 4 pages in, would the original poster put "Still discussing for the next 4 pages" as there is still not a concensus on the rule and though I love reading GW Hate and how stupid other's opinions are - it would save some time.

After reading 4 pages, what I have seen is "discuss it with your opponent" and tourney organizers are going to house rule it.

Thanks!

Sounds reasonable.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
After reading 4 pages, what I have seen is "discuss it with your opponent" and tourney organizers are going to house rule it.

That's pretty much it. The relevant points seem to have all been fairly thoroughly hashed out by this point, so I think it's time to move on.