Switch Theme:

Go Recon into 1'' range without charging?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in de
Been Around the Block





Hi,

I'm quite new to Warhammer 40k, therefore my apologies, if this is a stupid question:
I'm not sure, if I understand the text of the astra militarum Stratagem "go recon" correctly. It says:

"Use this Stratagem at the start of your Shooting phase. Select a unit of Scout Sentinels from your army. This unit can immediately move 2D6" but cannot shoot or charge this turn."

So I see no passage claiming "as in the movement phase" or "you cannot end this move within X'' of the enemy" as it is explicitly stated for the Scout Sentinels scout move. Does this mean I can use "Go Recon" to get a Scout Sentinel within 1'' of an enemy unit without the need for a charge move?

   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




Yep. This was recently brought up while discussing a similar ability, so you may want to read through that thread.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/775799.page
   
Made in de
Been Around the Block





OK, thanks.
But reading that thread I realize that these rules are at least... controversial. I think I will just ask my opponent in advance and try to reach an agreement.
   
Made in gb
Dominating Dominatrix






As with the T'au Ability, you can indeed use it to move within 1" of an enemy as it does not state "as if it were the Movement Phase."

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND SIX (106) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages. 
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




Douglasville, GA

It is definitely something I would discuss with your opponent. Bypassing your opponent being able to use Overwatch is probably something that a lot of people are going to get upset about. Most folks think this is just an oversight by GW, and using it would be tantamount to being a TFG.
   
Made in de
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought






Germany

 flandarz wrote:
It is definitely something I would discuss with your opponent. Bypassing your opponent being able to use Overwatch is probably something that a lot of people are going to get upset about. Most folks think this is just an oversight by GW, and using it would be tantamount to being a TFG.


Its a TFG move to tie up units in melee, preventing overwatch ? Every tournament player does it with pile in and consolidate. They are all TFGs ?
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




Douglasville, GA

I think there's a pretty obvious difference between "I charged in with this unit, took Overwatch, killed a unit, then piled into another unit" and "I just moved in, avoided all Overwatch, and now you're stuck in CC." Maybe you think differently. One offers a chance at defending oneself, the other does not.
   
Made in gb
Dominating Dominatrix






 flandarz wrote:
I think there's a pretty obvious difference between "I charged in with this unit, took Overwatch, killed a unit, then piled into another unit" and "I just moved in, avoided all Overwatch, and now you're stuck in CC." Maybe you think differently. One offers a chance at defending oneself, the other does not.
Both are legal as far as the rules are concerned. If GW don't want the Go! Recon! one to be legal they can errata the stratagem.

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND SIX (106) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages. 
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




Douglasville, GA

Like I said, myself (and others) consider this to be an oversight. And at least I feel like it's not something you should just drop on an opponent. Unless your goal is to make them not want to play with you anymore. That said, if 40k is a "permissive" ruleset, then the only time you should be able to move within 1" of a target is when the rules say you can. As far as I'm aware, the only time when you're given permission to do so is during a charge, consolidate, and pile in.
   
Made in us
Calm Celestian




Tacoma, WA, USA

flandarz, you are going to want to read this thread, because you are definitely wrong about what the rules do and don't say about moving within 1" of enemy models.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/775799.page
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




Douglasville, GA

I did read that thread. In fact, I posted in it. A lot. Did *you* read the thread? Cuz it didn't even end with a consensus on whether it is allowed or not. So, I'm a bit curious as to how that thread proves I'm "definitely wrong".

As I stated above, and others stated in that thread, these gaps are most likely an oversight from GW, not actually intended for the Stratagem or Ability. As every other instance of being allowed to move within 1" of an enemy unit is relegated to the Charge/Fight Phase, we can make general assumptions that these things aren't meant to bypass the restrictions either. So, I kinda stand by my assertion that if you just pop this on an opponent without saying anything, you're gonna run out of people who are gonna wanna play with someone exploiting loopholes for their own benefit.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Well, you're wrong about being given permission to move within 1". You've been given permission to move, and specific phases may or may not list restrictions on being able to move within 1" of an enemy model. The restrictions were given in rules for the movement phase and for the charging phase (restrictions there being you can't move within 1" of enemy models you didn't declare a charge against).

You will note that there is not statement in the fight phase giving you permission to move within 1" of an enemy model - there's just a lack of a restriction on them at that point. There is a big difference between saying that you've been given permission to move within 1" of an enemy model and you've been restricted from moving within 1" of an enemy model. When you've been given permission to move you can move anywhere barring any applicable restrictions.
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




Douglasville, GA

I mean, if we're just gonna devolve into an argument of semantics, then I'll probably dip out. Would you have prefered for me to say "you're allowed to" instead of "given permission to"? The basic argument is: aside from the two instances that have been found, everytime a unit is allowed to move outside of the Charge/Fight phase, they have been restricted to staying outside of 1" of enemy units. Whether the Movement Phase, a Psyker Ability, a Stratagem, or an Ability, it seems that every single one,aside from the OP Stratagem and VMT from the previous thread, have made it clear that you can't use them to get within 1" of an enemy unit. Now, we can do two things here. 1) assume that GW wanted these to be special cases and do what nothing else in the game can do. Or 2) assume this was an oversight from GW and carry on as though they have the restriction everything else has. My personal opinion is that the latter is much less likely to result in people getting miffed with you and declining to play with you again.
   
Made in gb
Dominating Dominatrix






 flandarz wrote:
I mean, if we're just gonna devolve into an argument of semantics, then I'll probably dip out. Would you have prefered for me to say "you're allowed to" instead of "given permission to"? The basic argument is: aside from the two instances that have been found, everytime a unit is allowed to move outside of the Charge/Fight phase, they have been restricted to staying outside of 1" of enemy units. Whether the Movement Phase, a Psyker Ability, a Stratagem, or an Ability, it seems that every single one,aside from the OP Stratagem and VMT from the previous thread, have made it clear that you can't use them to get within 1" of an enemy unit. Now, we can do two things here. 1) assume that GW wanted these to be special cases and do what nothing else in the game can do. Or 2) assume this was an oversight from GW and carry on as though they have the restriction everything else has. My personal opinion is that the latter is much less likely to result in people getting miffed with you and declining to play with you again.
Because every other instance has the "as if the Movement phase" clause. VMT and Go! Recon! do not. They are worded differently, thus work differently. It's no more "semantics" than saying it's "semantics" you need to roll to hit with your Bolters. By your logic we can claim that it's "an oversight from GW" that Space Marines, as awesome as they are, don't automatically hit with bolters. A slightly hyperbolic example, but I hope you can understand my position here. What makes it OK to ignore how one rule works that we don't like and not to ignore another?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/07 14:47:14


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND SIX (106) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages. 
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

So tell me what rules for moving the model you’re using if not implicitly using the Movement Phase rules...

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




Douglasville, GA

The "semantics" comment was in regards to "given permission to".

Worded differently or not, as I (and others) have said, it seems obvious to "reasonable" people that it's not intended to work in that manner. Kinda reminds me of the 1+ MegaNobz before the FAQ. Sure, it was allowed by RAW, but it wasn't something you would use against people you liked. And the fact it got FAQ'd basically immediately shows that it wasn't intended.
   
Made in gb
Dominating Dominatrix






 flandarz wrote:
The "semantics" comment was in regards to "given permission to".

Worded differently or not, as I (and others) have said, it seems obvious to "reasonable" people that it's not intended to work in that manner. Kinda reminds me of the 1+ MegaNobz before the FAQ. Sure, it was allowed by RAW, but it wasn't something you would use against people you liked. And the fact it got FAQ'd basically immediately shows that it wasn't intended.
Which is exactly my point! GW actually release FAQs and Erratas now. They went to such lengths as to errata the Ariel Spotters stratagem to change Names into KEYWORDS, they changed the shooting rules to not force you to fire single use weapons, and they changed the default CCW rule so that you wouldn't get weird situations like Carnifexes being unable to make more than a single tail attack. They also FAQed (rather than errata'd, which was annoying to me but it's better than nothing) issues from the Vigilus books such as the Relic Battle Cannon not benefiting from Grinding Advance and Valkyries breaking specialist detachments.

I feel that it is not unreasonable to conclude that at this point anything that has not been errata'd is either intentional or if unintentional GW do not feel that the rule needs to be changed. Despite knowing it wouldn't actually matter, I have emailed GW all the RaW problems myself and others have found (including things like the 1+ Meganobz, being unable to use Loot It on a transport you bailed out of, etc) so they are not ignorant of the issues.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/07 15:05:40


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND SIX (106) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages. 
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




Douglasville, GA

Well, as far as I'm aware, these issues have only recently been discovered by the community. As in, they came to our attention AFTER the last FAQ/Errata. You may be right that these are intentional, but I feel like they probably are not, and that GW is simply waiting for the next "update" to address them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should also mention that, at least in this instance, using Go Recon to get within 1" of an enemy unit appears to go against the intent of the Stratagem.

"Use this Stratagem at the start of your Shooting phase. Select a unit of Scout Sentinels from your army. This unit can immediately move 2D6" but cannot shoot or charge this turn."

Ie: why would they include "cannot... charge this turn" if you could use it to bypass charging anyway?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/07 15:22:16


 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




There is a difference between moving within an inch and charging.

Again, I agree with you regarding intent. But as written it's very clear (to me, at least) that the rules allow this to work. You are not allowed to move within 1" in the movement phase, which this is not counted as. You are given permission to move your model and would be following the rules for moving your model by moving it within an inch. I would not take advantage of it, personally.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 flandarz wrote:
I mean, if we're just gonna devolve into an argument of semantics, then I'll probably dip out. Would you have prefered for me to say "you're allowed to" instead of "given permission to"? The basic argument is: aside from the two instances that have been found, everytime a unit is allowed to move outside of the Charge/Fight phase, they have been restricted to staying outside of 1" of enemy units. Whether the Movement Phase, a Psyker Ability, a Stratagem, or an Ability, it seems that every single one,aside from the OP Stratagem and VMT from the previous thread, have made it clear that you can't use them to get within 1" of an enemy unit. Now, we can do two things here. 1) assume that GW wanted these to be special cases and do what nothing else in the game can do. Or 2) assume this was an oversight from GW and carry on as though they have the restriction everything else has. My personal opinion is that the latter is much less likely to result in people getting miffed with you and declining to play with you again.


The semantics are important. In this case, moving within 1" is something that has to be specifically denied, not something that you have to be given a special dispensation beyond permission to move. The way you have it, you would have to be given special permission to move within 1" of an enemy model during the fight phase. The fight phase does not list that permission specifically, so going with the way you are treating it no model could move within 1" of an enemy model during the fight phase. Obviously there's something wrong with that interpretation.

The Movement Phase and the Charge Phase are the only phases that have limitations on them for moving near enemy models. Any other movement would have to had a mention of a limitiation, usually a "move like the movement phase". Some spyker abilities, stratagems and abilities invoke the "as if it were the Movement phase", which would invoke the limitation for the movement phase thanks to the most recent FAQ, but not all have that restriction.




 flandarz wrote:
I should also mention that, at least in this instance, using Go Recon to get within 1" of an enemy unit appears to go against the intent of the Stratagem.

"Use this Stratagem at the start of your Shooting phase. Select a unit of Scout Sentinels from your army. This unit can immediately move 2D6" but cannot shoot or charge this turn."

Ie: why would they include "cannot... charge this turn" if you could use it to bypass charging anyway?


That's arguing intent, not RAW. I agree that most people would play it according to "intent", but you do have to understand what the RAW actually says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orbei wrote:
There is a difference between moving within an inch and charging.

Again, I agree with you regarding intent. But as written it's very clear (to me, at least) that the rules allow this to work. You are not allowed to move within 1" in the movement phase, which this is not counted as. You are given permission to move your model and would be following the rules for moving your model by moving it within an inch. I would not take advantage of it, personally.[/quote

This.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/07 16:31:26


 
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




Douglasville, GA

I never argued what the RAW was. My argument, from the beginning, has been to intent. Hence my statement about using this to avoid OW is kind of a TFG move.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And, in this case, it's really easy to gauge what the intent of the rule is, via the clause at the end of the Stratagem. Real hard to argue that GW wanted this to allow you to go within 1" of an enemy unit when it ends with "cannot charge."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/07 17:17:26


 
   
Made in us
Calm Celestian




Tacoma, WA, USA

Sorry if you feel it is semantics, but there is a big difference between a general restriction with exceptions and the rules for moving within 1” of enemy models in the rules.

There are two rules regarding moving within 1” of enemy models and both are “special case” restrictions.

1. Movement Phase: You can’t at all, barring a special rule.
2. Charge Phase: You can’t unless you declared a charge against the model’s unit.

And that is it. Any other time, you are free to move within 1” of an enemy model.
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




Douglasville, GA

So, let's see your list of times when moving within 1" of an enemy unit is allowed outside of the Fight/Charge Phase. How many Abilities allow this? How many Stratagems? Cuz, right now, you listed 2 "special case" restrictions, but considering only we've only run into 2 (3, I guess, if you count Pile-In) scenarios where it is possible to bypass those restrictions, I'm kinda gonna hafta assume that those restrictions are more than "special case". Gotta use common sense here, pal. Even the most hardline RAWist understands that, as written, many rules simply do not work. What's a more sensible interpretation: that not moving with 1" of an enemy unit is a "special case", or that not moving within 1" of an enemy unit is the general rule, and that you have certain times when it is allowed because there are rules in place for it?
   
Made in gb
Dominating Dominatrix






 flandarz wrote:
So, let's see your list of times when moving within 1" of an enemy unit is allowed outside of the Fight/Charge Phase. How many Abilities allow this? How many Stratagems? Cuz, right now, you listed 2 "special case" restrictions, but considering only we've only run into 2 (3, I guess, if you count Pile-In) scenarios where it is possible to bypass those restrictions, I'm kinda gonna hafta assume that those restrictions are more than "special case". Gotta use common sense here, pal. Even the most hardline RAWist understands that, as written, many rules simply do not work. What's a more sensible interpretation: that not moving with 1" of an enemy unit is a "special case", or that not moving within 1" of an enemy unit is the general rule, and that you have certain times when it is allowed because there are rules in place for it?
It doesn't matter "how many" there are. Remember, 8th is all about bespoke rules. The entire system was designed so that there would be no such thing as "general rules".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/07 17:49:16


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND SIX (106) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages. 
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




Douglasville, GA

If that's the case, then it works the opposite way too. You can't say the "general rule" is that you can move within 1" of enemy units, except in special cases, either.

But, again, we use common sense to parse the rules in order to make them work in the best way possible. For example, if I put a sandwich in the company refrigerator, and slap a "Do not eat please" post-it on the top, you could *technically* chew it up and spit it out and be following the "rules as written". But you and I would both know that you weren't following the intent of the note, and in the end you'll just end up looking like a huge jerk.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 flandarz wrote:
So, let's see your list of times when moving within 1" of an enemy unit is allowed outside of the Fight/Charge Phase. How many Abilities allow this? How many Stratagems? Cuz, right now, you listed 2 "special case" restrictions, but considering only we've only run into 2 (3, I guess, if you count Pile-In) scenarios where it is possible to bypass those restrictions, I'm kinda gonna hafta assume that those restrictions are more than "special case". Gotta use common sense here, pal. Even the most hardline RAWist understands that, as written, many rules simply do not work. What's a more sensible interpretation: that not moving with 1" of an enemy unit is a "special case", or that not moving within 1" of an enemy unit is the general rule, and that you have certain times when it is allowed because there are rules in place for it?


As BCD says, the number is irrelevant. It's the way things are set up.

Common sense is fine, play that way if you and your opponent agree to it. You should clear it up beforehand. And you should also understand that from a RAW standpoint for Go Recon he can move within 1", so if you didn't clear it beforehand and your opponent wants to play it by RAW, let him or suggest D6'ing it. Does the other stratagem letting you move that doesn't mention "as if it were the movement phase" also have rules saying you can't charge later that phase, or is that rule more nebulous about their intention?


By the way, this edition the Charge Phase and the Fight Phase are separate phases, they're not a subset of an assault phase.
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




Douglasville, GA

It is even MORE nebulous, yes. Check the thread about the Tau Vectored Maneuvering Thrusters. It doesn't even say: "Cannot charge or shoot" as an after-clause.

You can't really claim that it's the way "things are set up" unless we can find some precedent. Another example of GW saying: "Yeah, moving within 1" of an opponent outside of the Charge or Fight Phases is A-OK." As BCB mentioned, if 8th Edition is all about "bespoke" rules, then it stands to reason that you can't say that moving within 1" is "the way things are set up."

And, lastly, it's still pretty apparent that, at least in this case, the Stratagem isn't meant for movement within 1". As per the clause: "cannot shoot or charge this turn". If they had wanted you to use it to move within 1", I doubt very much they would have cared enough to forbid using it before charging. Wouldn't make much sense, now would it?
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

 flandarz wrote:
It is even MORE nebulous, yes. Check the thread about the Tau Vectored Maneuvering Thrusters. It doesn't even say: "Cannot charge or shoot" as an after-clause.

You can't really claim that it's the way "things are set up" unless we can find some precedent. Another example of GW saying: "Yeah, moving within 1" of an opponent outside of the Charge or Fight Phases is A-OK." As BCB mentioned, if 8th Edition is all about "bespoke" rules, then it stands to reason that you can't say that moving within 1" is "the way things are set up."

And, lastly, it's still pretty apparent that, at least in this case, the Stratagem isn't meant for movement within 1". As per the clause: "cannot shoot or charge this turn". If they had wanted you to use it to move within 1", I doubt very much they would have cared enough to forbid using it before charging. Wouldn't make much sense, now would it?


I think the intent is very unclear. The authors are very obviously aware that they require an "as if it was the movement phase" clause to prevent movement to within 1" of an enemy. The fact that they didn't include this clause indicates that they either made a mistake or intentionally left it out. An argument can be made for both options (hence why we're all on the internet arguing). My take is that Scout Sentinels are supposed to be stealthy. "Go! Recon!" is essentially allowing a Scout Sentinel to trade it's shooting attack for some super stealthy additional movement... movement that allows you to sneak up and surprise someone in combat. The good news is that the enemy doesn't see you coming and doesn't get to overwatch. The bad news is that because you're moving so sneakily, you're not going to get to attack first like you would if you'd just run in.

It's not like a Scout Sentinel "stealth charge" strategy is dominating the competitive scene right now. I'm sure this isn't a high priority GW issue.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




Douglasville, GA

I can agree that an argument can be made for either case, however I feel one option is more reasonable to assume than the other. Ie: there are other, equally stealthy units without any such lack of restrictions upon their Stratagems. And, aside from these two outliers, we haven't seen any other instance where such movement would be acceptable. And, lastly, I don't feel like they would have needed to add the "and cannot shoot or charge" clause to the Stratagem, had moving within 1" been the intent. Just giving up your shooting would have been enough. At least then, the case for "yeah, they want you to use this to move within 1 inch" would have held a bit more water.

Also, considering Counter-Offensive and rolling-off to see who attacks first between units that did not charge are things that exist, at worst you're giving up a 100% chance of attacking first, for a 50% chance. At best, you're still attacking first by spending 2 CP. For me, avoiding all Overwatch for a reduced chance of attacking first would be a deal that I'd take any day.

And yeah. I doubt it's very high on their priorities. Same for VMT. Just kinda gets in my craw when I see someone throw out an obvious gimmick or loophole and ask: "Is this ok?" and all the responses are "Yeah, that's good by RAW." without anyone getting into the practical side of actually abusing the gimmick. This is a game that's meant to be enjoyed with people, and I feel the lawyering for advantage takes away from that heavily.

In the end, I *do* agree that, by strictest RAW, you can do this. I, however, disagree that it is something you SHOULD do. Read my sandwich example above for clarification.
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

 flandarz wrote:
I can agree that an argument can be made for either case, however I feel one option is more reasonable to assume than the other. Ie: there are other, equally stealthy units without any such lack of restrictions upon their Stratagems. And, aside from these two outliers, we haven't seen any other instance where such movement would be acceptable. And, lastly, I don't feel like they would have needed to add the "and cannot shoot or charge" clause to the Stratagem, had moving within 1" been the intent. Just giving up your shooting would have been enough. At least then, the case for "yeah, they want you to use this to move within 1 inch" would have held a bit more water.

Also, considering Counter-Offensive and rolling-off to see who attacks first between units that did not charge are things that exist, at worst you're giving up a 100% chance of attacking first, for a 50% chance. At best, you're still attacking first by spending 2 CP. For me, avoiding all Overwatch for a reduced chance of attacking first would be a deal that I'd take any day.

And yeah. I doubt it's very high on their priorities. Same for VMT. Just kinda gets in my craw when I see someone throw out an obvious gimmick or loophole and ask: "Is this ok?" and all the responses are "Yeah, that's good by RAW." without anyone getting into the practical side of actually abusing the gimmick. This is a game that's meant to be enjoyed with people, and I feel the lawyering for advantage takes away from that heavily.

In the end, I *do* agree that, by strictest RAW, you can do this. I, however, disagree that it is something you SHOULD do. Read my sandwich example above for clarification.


I think it's important to note that I don't think anyone is "abusing" the rules to get a single, relatively poor WS attack that deals a single damage and has no AP unless you pay for an upgrade that gives -1 AP. I think you'd have a hard time arguing that a single, kind of crappy melee attack creates a significant and practical negative play experience. At worst it would likely create a "huh... that's a weird rules interaction" response from most players I know. I mean... Blood Angels Smash Captains can ignore overwatch as can anyone doing a heroic intervention. Getting within 1" of an enemy while ignoring overwatch isn't exactly unseen in the rules. Any army with a character can do it.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: