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.

I see numerous posts about people using the swooping hawk "rubber-band" skyleap in their games...

Have any of you guys actually tried pulling this in a tourney because it seems like a truly argueable rules interpretation?

Do you really think that GW's intention was to have a unit on the table that was impossible to shoot at EVER? Are you kidding???

To take this further, are you just playing it this way because you "feel you can" and the intent was left unclear in your eyes?

I just ask because as a player who plans on doing the Games Day Circuit in 07', i want to know who thinks they will really get away with this at an event and who are really basing their armies on such a tactic. Are you just basically forgoing comp of any kind? Has anybody actually attended a GW tourney and tried this?

If I sound accusatory i apologize but i see more and more people seem to be playing it that way and i think if my opponent seriously tried to pull that I would have to hit them with my fire prism.....(the big heavy metal part...)

I play eldar for the most part and even I would never try to pull such a thing....

here is a thread for your consideration.

www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php

I think the word "trampoline" is a much better use for this tactic...."up-and-down-up-and-down-up-and-down"...

Here are the pertinent rules.






By Raw its legal.
By intention....I am starting to lean in favor of the tactic.

I mean why not? Its not a good tactic by any means. It can be abused against certain armies, but tourney wise I would laugh at anyone trying this as viable.

There are a lot of disadvantages to doing this. A few minutes thought is required to rid yourself of the kneejerk reaction I had for this.

Besides, its no cheesier than autarchs/farseers/warlocks on jetbikes fleeting.

Plus, YOURE the one who is going to have to come up with a reason why this is illegal by the rules. Mark em down in comp all you want, it works both ways.

Posted By Hellfury on 12/03/2006 8:27 PM


Plus, YOURE the one who is going to have to come up with a reason why this is illegal by the rules. Mark em down in comp all you want, it works both ways.

Out of curiosity, why would it be in my court to decide and show proof that they cant?

Where is the eldar players proof that says that they can and skyleaping doesnt count as movement? If it was such a clear-cut thing, it wouldnt be one of the biggies in the eldar FAQ that Yak has been assembling.

This is similar to this lame situation...

Player Bob states that his land raider can fly as a skimmer for 1 turn each game. Player Steve says that is incorrect as it doesnt say in the rules that he can specifically do that. Player Bob then states it is up to Player Steve to show him in the rules that he cant...

This is probably be a bad example but you get my point....An eldar player can conceivably have 771 points of a 1500 point army that can never be shot at and can come down to claim objectives in the end game.....thats pretty bad...

Again...has anybody actually tried this in a major event?

 

You are only allowed 1 movement action in the movement phase. The deep strike in is that movement action. Thus, you can't take a second move out, using the skyleap.

Other unites that have secondary moves do so in other phases of the game...jetbike and jetpack assault moves, fleet during shooting phases.

Marking down soft scores of composition for "skyleaping"?

Skyleaping only attempts to save VP. Focus on destroying the rest of the army. Besides, the skyleap move occurs in the movement phase. If one shoots with the hawks, then they're there for the opponent's shooty and assault phase (and trust me hawks don't last long).

For those who deploy out of LOS, skyleap, repeat...it's just a save of VP. Focus on the rest of the list. Again, the only thing they are doing is dropping a grenade pack...

As for RTT missions, it would be tough to max points with this. Sure you might get a win (through VP and objectives) but it will be tough to get the extra 3-4 pts for 'additional points'.

First, the damage it gives is hardly overpowering.  It is relatively expensive for the at most, 5 drops of the grenade per game.  It is roughly 28 points per grenade drop, assuming you get 5 drops.  Then there is scatter....  Against hordes, the number of models killed will not be significant.  Against MEQ, they may lose, what?  At most 1 or 2 per turn if you don't scatter.

The best part of the strategy is for objectives at the end of the game.  Assuming you go last, you have a good shot of denying a table quarter, etc.  HOWEVER, there is a 16% chance you don't.  Which is the the big drawback.  One a "1", you not only don't score with the unit, but they count as destroyed for VP purposes.

I think the most abusive is with three units.  Buts that is over 400 points.

Mez

 

Posted By Poisonrogue on 12/03/2006 9:03 PM

Posted By Hellfury on 12/03/2006 8:27 PM


Plus, YOURE the one who is going to have to come up with a reason why this is illegal by the rules. Mark em down in comp all you want, it works both ways.

Out of curiosity, why would it be in my court to decide and show proof that they cant?

Where is the eldar players proof that says that they can and skyleaping doesnt count as movement? If it was such a clear-cut thing, it wouldnt be one of the biggies in the eldar FAQ that Yak has been assembling.

This is similar to this lame situation...

Player Bob states that his land raider can fly as a skimmer for 1 turn each game. Player Steve says that is incorrect as it doesnt say in the rules that he can specifically do that. Player Bob then states it is up to Player Steve to show him in the rules that he cant...

This is probably be a bad example but you get my point....An eldar player can conceivably have 771 points of a 1500 point army that can never be shot at and can come down to claim objectives in the end game.....thats pretty bad...

Again...has anybody actually tried this in a major event?

911 points if you count Baharroth, as he can do this too. 1001 points exactly if you add intercept and other wargear to max the points out.

The proof are the two rules I previously cited. Now post something to dispute it.

The flaw in perception is that players think of Skyleaping as movement . It may very well be, but according to RAW, it isnt. Atleast until GW comesout with a FAQ stating one way or the other.

I havent played this in a tourney environment but have played it and have had it used against me. Myself and the people that have used it against them and myself agree it is quite dumb. It infuriates players who have kneejerk reactions to playing by the rules and it is just plain and simply isnt a very good tactic.

Sure you can be a cheese head and try this at a tourney, but good luck winning with that combo, not only because it stinks, but your opponent is likely going to mark you down zeros across the board. (I wouldnt mark them down, because comp is a flawed attempt at balance)

A tactic that is likely to bite them on the rear too. Bad reserves and bad scatter. With maxing out on squads for points denial, your much more likely to scatter into something bad. The autarch will help reserves....but a one is a one is a one. I cant tell you how many games I have had reserves NEVER see the light of the battle field becuase of that.

Too be honest, its too early to ask if this has been used at major events. Even the UK heats were or are still using the old codex until heat 2 I beleive. Maybe later. Some people have had the codex for awhile, but in actuality, its only been a street release for less than a month.

@Mezmaron: Agree. However, I don't agree with the abusive part. Abuisive in that you're trying to save 400 vp...but not abuisive for your previous stated reasons. Scatter can disrupt your plan to save vp. They might not all come back on the turn you need them.

I think 3 Falcons do a better job at denying VP and claiming than spring-boarding hawks.

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/03/2006 9:39 PM

 

You are only allowed 1 movement action in the movement phase. The deep strike in is that movement action. Thus, you can't take a second move out, using the skyleap.

Other unites that have secondary moves do so in other phases of the game...jetbike and jetpack assault moves, fleet during shooting phases.

Incorrect. No where does it say in the skyleap rules that they aare movig. Read my first post with the rules above carefully.

"The player may elect to remove a unit with skyleap from the table in its movement phase, placing it in reserve."

Where is the movement?

Until that is sorted out, RAW says its legal.

Bottom line: Top tier players and army lists don't care if you skyleap 400+ points. That tactic won't work against them or their lists. Keep it for non-competitive play.

I agree with Hellfury. It's valid because of "remove" vs. "movement" wording to deepstrike then remove. But what's the point? A grenade pack? VP denial?

I don't believe it is a solid play given the amount of error involved. 1) roll for re-entry and 2) scatter.

Just to go on another sort of tangent...how can people say that the templates suck? If you have three hawk units doing this, then that is a possible 15 pie plates on the table during a game at str 4 AP5. That is pretty destructive vs guard, orks, dark eldar, eldar and anything else without a 3+...

not everyone plays marines you know..

Posted By nikeforever22 on 12/03/2006 9:49 PM

I think 3 Falcons do a better job at denying VP and claiming than spring-boarding hawks.

except the falcons can be shot down, the hawks cant.

Very true. Not everyone does play marines, thankfully. (Bless all of you who dont)


Ok, blow by blow.

#1 Roll for reserves (Risk)
#2 Hawks drop grenades, 2/3 chance of scattering d6" (Not as bad as ordnance, but not exactly great either)
#3 Hawks deepstrike and roll for scatter. (Risk )
#4 Use Skyleap in movement phase to place in reserves (alot of griping about "spirit of the game"'' and "designers intent" when this happens)

Overall, not overly impressive, even when there are 4 grenades being dropped by baharroth and the hawk units.

If youre playing a swarm...well sorry. Thats the price you pay for taking up alot of space. Something has to have an effect on you. You cant win every game through attrition.

Posted By Poisonrogue on 12/03/2006 10:11 PM

Posted By nikeforever22 on 12/03/2006 9:49 PM

I think 3 Falcons do a better job at denying VP and claiming than spring-boarding hawks.

except the falcons can be shot down, the hawks cant.

People had the same gripes about Crystal targetting matrix. The precedent has already been set.

Its still around too in the form of eldar jet bikes.

@Poisonrogue: As I said, use it in non-tourny play. However, at tourny play expect 75% 3+ saves. If you can beat 3+ then you can beat whatever else comes to play.

Back to the Falcons vs Hawks. Use em both. These 6 units can be decent for end of game objective grabs...but watchout for random game length. On the flip side, there's more to the win than saving VP...you have to kill stuff too. What if the opponent is 6 inches near the objective and you have a chance to scatter ontop and lose them. Mainly viable in recon where you can guarantee vp and double vp. Otherwise there's the possibility of a draw and not obtaining the additional RTT points.

I'll let Hellfury explain from here since I seem to be thinking along the same lines and it appears to be a "double post". My bad.

Posted By Hellfury on 12/03/2006 9:52 PM

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/03/2006 9:39 PM

 

You are only allowed 1 movement action in the movement phase. The deep strike in is that movement action. Thus, you can't take a second move out, using the skyleap.

Other unites that have secondary moves do so in other phases of the game...jetbike and jetpack assault moves, fleet during shooting phases.

Incorrect. No where does it say in the skyleap rules that they aare movig. Read my first post with the rules above carefully.

"The player may elect to remove a unit with skyleap from the table in its movement phase, placing it in reserve."

Where is the movement?

Until that is sorted out, RAW says its legal.

You say that by RAW it is legal, but in saying that arent you reading more into the definition yourself. You are making the assumption that skyleaping doesnt count as moving unless I am mistaken. You cant have it both ways. You cant make your own interpretation as to what constitutes "moving" then claim RAW. I think that therein lies the true problem. There is no true RAW definition as to what constitutes moving. I could just as easily say that skyleaping counts as moving because model positions are being changed therefore the RAW of deepstriking disproves your thesis. In my own opinion, when presented with a rules query that could easily be argued and proven in two seperate ways entirely you must look at the intent of the writers. As stated before, I hardly think they intended to have an almost invinceable unit on the board, much less three..

Can i see your arguement? Yes, of course, but i hope you can see mine. I am just staing that there is eveidence in favor of both interpretations and isnt the usual solution when given two possible rulings to assign the least advantageous?

Posted By nikeforever22 on 12/03/2006 10:19 PM
@Poisonrogue: As I said, use it in non-tourny play. However, at tourny play expect 75% 3+ saves. If you can beat 3+ then you can beat whatever else comes to play.

Back to the Falcons vs Hawks. Use em both. These 6 units can be decent for end of game objective grabs...but watchout for random game length. On the flip side, there's more to the win than saving VP...you have to kill stuff too. What if the opponent is 6 inches near the objective and you have a chance to scatter ontop and lose them. Mainly viable in recon where you can guarantee vp and double vp. Otherwise there's the possibility of a draw and not obtaining the additional RTT points.

Good point about  "What if the opponent is 6 inches near the objective and you have a chance to scatter ontop and lose them." I hadnt thought of that one.

Posted By Hellfury on 12/03/2006 10:17 PM.

#1 Roll for reserves (Risk)
#2 Hawks drop grenades, 2/3 chance of scattering d6" (Not as bad as ordnance, but not exactly great either)
#3 Hawks deepstrike and roll for scatter. (Risk )
#4 Use Skyleap in movement phase to place in reserves (alot of griping about "spirit of the game"'' and "designers intent" when this happens)


If youre playing a swarm...well sorry. Thats the price you pay for taking up alot of space. Something has to have an effect on you. You cant win every game through attrition.

Lets be truly honest though...if you are deepstriking with zero intent of having a target to shoot at and with no fear of getting shot at yourself(because your just jumping again), there will always be plenty of safe places to jump on the board...

Yes, the swarm armies pay a price by taking up space, but they should at least have the option to counter a threat with all sorts of horrible death... >

Posted By Poisonrogue on 12/03/2006 10:23 PM

Posted By Hellfury on 12/03/2006 9:52 PM

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/03/2006 9:39 PM

 

You are only allowed 1 movement action in the movement phase. The deep strike in is that movement action. Thus, you can't take a second move out, using the skyleap.

Other unites that have secondary moves do so in other phases of the game...jetbike and jetpack assault moves, fleet during shooting phases.

Incorrect. No where does it say in the skyleap rules that they aare movig. Read my first post with the rules above carefully.

"The player may elect to remove a unit with skyleap from the table in its movement phase, placing it in reserve."

Where is the movement?

Until that is sorted out, RAW says its legal.

You say that by RAW it is legal, but in saying that arent you reading more into the definition yourself. You are making the assumption that skyleaping doesnt count as moving unless I am mistaken. You cant have it both ways. You cant make your own interpretation as to what constitutes "moving" then claim RAW. I think that therein lies the true problem. There is no true RAW definition as to what constitutes moving. I could just as easily say that skyleaping counts as moving because model positions are being changed therefore the RAW of deepstriking disproves your thesis. In my own opinion, when presented with a rules query that could easily be argued and proven in two seperate ways entirely you must look at the intent of the writers. As stated before, I hardly think they intended to have an almost invinceable unit on the board, much less three..

Can i see your arguement? Yes, of course, but i hope you can see mine. I am just staing that there is eveidence in favor of both interpretations and isnt the usual solution when given two possible rulings to assign the least advantageous?

I want to see yours and do understand your stance.

But really, youre giving more of a fight than anyone else on any other boards so far yet and I like it, as I want this ruling that I am advocating to be dispproved.

Judging from the answers i think my intent has gotten skewed.

1. I am not saying that I fear the hawks

2. I am not looking for an excuse to try this trick or validation from anybody

I am simply asking if people would truly try getting away with this rules interpretation at a major event, or even a small one I guess. The fact that everybody says to use it just in friendly play seems to suggest that the users are figuring its a little dodgy themselves or they wouldnt say to keep it out of a tourney. I guess it was more of a general consensus question.

Well for general consensus, I would say it sucks, not unsporting.

I would tell an opponent "You got baharroth and three units of hawks for trampoline? Knock your self out big boy." *snickers*

If I were to use this tactic, enmasse, then I better have a damn good game plan, as the risk is too high for me to try this, not for being beardy, but because it is insane. Its like taking three monoliths in a 1500 game. The opponent is just going to phase me out. Not the best analogy, but good for questions of cheesy intent.

In a major event your more likely to get away with it, as power gamers are out in the droves, not only to have fun, but to win.

the smaller bucolic events are where your going to have troubles as less metropolitan minds struggle to grasp the rules.

I would personally say that this tactic is just about as unsporting as a Tyranid army fleeting all their genestealers in their opponents shooting phase (which is perfectly legal by the RAW).

Rubber-banding is legal by the RAW but it isn't sporting because there is a high probability for doubt on the intent of the tactic (just like fleeting in your opponent's turn).

Three small units of Skyleaping Hawks would absolutely decimate any non-MEQ army with only a 1 in 6 chance of failing to show up in the final turn of the game.

While Crystal Targeting matrixes used to be pretty annoying to deal with (the same as Tau Battlesuits and Eldar Jetbikes currently still are), there are still realtively numerous ways to deal with them: any unit with Indirect fire or quick moving units that can get around the intervening terrain can deal with the pop-up tactics employed by these units.

With hawks, barring DH's mystics there is simply nothing an opposing player can do to slow their opponent down (and even then the hawks have no need to DS anywhere near the Mystic or any enemy model for that matter). It does not fit with any previous tactic that GW has allowed into the game.

While it may not be the most effective tactic in the world, especially against MEQ armies, it can be very frustating to opponents as there is absolutely nothing they can do about it, in no way shape or form.

I would absolutely positively mark someone down on sportsmanship for using this tactic in a tournament game, but not before I explained to them why I felt that it wasn't appropriate in my personal opinion.

If GW made a FAQ ruling that this was a legal manuever, would you still mark an opponent down?

Poisonrogue, you have noticed one of the three basic assumptions that are necessary for reading and applying the rules of any game. This one is called the "closed world assumption."

The closed world assumption says that you can do everything that the rules say you can do, but if the rules don't specifically say that you can do it, then it's not allowed. Think of it like a train schedule: the schedule lists all the times that trains will arrive at the station. The schedule doesn't list the times that trains *don't* arrive, but you're supposed to assume, because of the nature of the document, that trains don't come at times not listed. So under the closed world assumption the rules say everything that you can do, but things not mentioned automatically can't be done.

Therefore if the rules say you can remove the models in the movement phase, but don't say that it counts as movement, then you use the closed world assumption to conclude that you can remove them without it counting as movement.

Without the closed world assumption it isn't possible to read and apply any rules because somebody can always argue "well the rules don't say I can't do it," which is a form of a fallacy called the argument from ignorance.

I definitely agree with Poisonrogue that this needs to be gutted by an FAQ (as Yakface did, but GW should too).  I agree that having a single squad doing this the whole game is not likely to have much effect on the game, but that is not how the cheesiest players will be using it.  Take a list like this as an example.

3x falcons w/everything + Fire Dragons = 900+ pts

3x Swooping hawks w skyleap and some gear = 400pts

2x 3 jetbikes = 124pts

lightly armed autarch =rest of the points

1500

Now, assuming the hawks do their thing and the falcons do theirs, while the jetbikes hide. The Hawks will probably drop about 12 templates over the course of the game.  That is enough to do serious damage to GEQ armies, and chip away at MEQ armies.  You would have to be pretty stupid to lose your hawks on the drop, since they are just landing and taking off again they only need to find a spot with 12" of no enemies and just drop there over and over again.  The falcons can work with the templates to wipe out one squad or vehicle at a time with little risk at all.  Then at the end of the game they plop everyone on the objectives or table quarters and win the game. 

This army is broken because it is good at preventing the enemy army from moving or standing still.  The three Falcons with Fire Dragons could wreck any force sent to get them, so to deal with the falcons, its best to castle up, which makes the templates that much better.  This isn't a very killy army, but its damn near impossible to scratch.  If it can take out 500pts of enemies each game then it will pretty much always win.

I've never really been into tournaments because you run into armies like this at them.  VP denial is a really good way to win games, so people play armies that will win.  Fine, my issue comes when someone shows up at the gaming group with something like this.  Lists like this are absolutely no fun to play against, but many casual gamers want to win by using a few awesome special rules.  I would get upset when I get randomly paired (how we do it in our gaming group) with the 35 count seer council player or the army above.  Both of those lists were or are legal by RAW, but the game is not going to be fun at all.  I don't want to refuse to play the person, because then I come off like a jerk and a spoil sport, but there is no point in playing the game.  I can't get his massive psyker unit below half strength or wiped out without an army geared to do specifically just that, so I'm going to lose.

If the hawks had to land they could scatter into the open and be shot to bits.  All of the units in the game need to be vulnerable in some way.  Hawks should not be an exception.

Well I totally agree with yak and samwise on this one. While according to RAW it is not illegal, it is still cheesy to the max. GW can easily fix this by making skyleap kind of like the "empty your guns" ability on the dire avengers. You jump one turn, the next turn you come down your jets are drained of energy and you have to wait a turn before there is enough power to use them again

You cant Sky Leap on the turn you Deep Strike as the rules for Deep Striking a very clear, ie after you have used Deep Strike you CAN NOT make any further moves.

I thought it was very simple myself and am confussed as to why there are three pages to this topic????/

 

Posted By Hellfury on 12/03/2006 8:27 PM

Looking at those two entries there is some confusion since the eldar codex does not say skyleap counts as a move action, instead just chooses to remove the unit from the board during the movement phase. 

If only GW had decided to place the words "this action counts as movement during the movement phase" then this would be alot more cut and dry