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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

I usually don't even move friends models.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shrug.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where's the limitation on direction, Antonin?

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

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

Your opinion or feeling or intuition is fine.

Sadly, the rule says you follow the movement rules.

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

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

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

Learn to beat lash using tactics, not rules lawyering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

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

Eric

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shrug.

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

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

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

Thanks