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.

Therion:

Of course, you're one hundred percent certain that we have no way to back up our interpretations, right? And are willing to lengthen the discussion while contributing literally nothing to it? Well done.

Children calm down please.


The only way to play is to play by the rules. The rules say 'move' so movement rules apply.I.e. Sqiad coherency. As exceptions to the movement rules are already noted i.e. no difficult terrain tests no further clarification is needed. This spell is broken enough already without people trying to scatter units everywhere.

Or you might as well 'argue' that the Lash might give the target unit a 2+ cover save on the grounds that it doesnt say it doesnt.

The rule just says 'move' and that the movement isn't affected by rough terrain. So anything that would be a legal move would fall under this. This includes bunching up the models you moved, because that's legal, but not moving them out of coherency, because that isn't legal. Since these are the only clarifications we have, anything that satisfies them is legal. Nowhere in the rule does it say that the unit you move has to end in the same formation it began in, or that all the models have to move in the same direction, or that they have to move the full distance.

The rule has been worded very vaguely, and is very easy to take advantage of. It would be better if the rule allowed you to move all the models exactly 2d6 inches in a specified direction, but that's not what it says. We can only hope the rules writers feel the need for a breath of fresh air and remove their heads from the confines of their own large intestines long enough to issue a correction.

I saw you trying to argue an interpretation (a house rule) without backing it up in any meaningful way, I called your bluff and you mucked it.

That's what I like about GW clear and concise rules/wording.  I think if your on a design team the first time someone mentions a effect were you actually touch and move another person's models you take things to a whole new level.  The design team might all be chums but in the real world you often play people you have never met at a tournament.  Just how are you supposed to give full marks for sportsmanship to an opponent when he's moving two of your units every round.  You better not drop any miniatures in the process or knock a bit off because you for sure are not getting top scores then.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Therion. If someone wants to claim that "move a unit" means something other than what the only part of the rulebook to address "moving a unit" says, the onus is on him to prove it.

It is clear though. The unit is moved. Just as clear as the 10 or so fantasy rules that say the same thing. And up until now everyone has clearly known that the phrase "move a unit" means refer to the movemnt rules to see what that means (with a few exceptions that might be noted in the rule such as no terrain tests).

You guys are making up a new rule and deciding that it must be applied. My point, though mocked because I mised a point, is still valid. If you make up these new rules what is the fine print sorrounding them. Can I move one model through another? On top of another? Into another (killing it?)?

This formation move thing just doesnt exist and never has in the realm of 40k.

lol, this is rediculous.

I can't believe that this argument has gone on this long, or that i read the whole stupid thing.

It is dead simple.

Unless someone can prove that you use movement rules other than those in the movement section of the BGB, of which non are provided in the discription of the power, then you use the established movement rules. Period.

Anything else is the incorrect way to play it.

If you choose to play it incorrectly, cool for you, but you would be wrong.

Looks like this topic moved a ways in the time I was gone, but apparently someone didn't think through my comment on IG using their guys to prevent movement, because nothing forces you to make them a battlecannon target as a result. You can put a ring of dudes in such a way that prevents you from moving their guys in any meaningful fashion, and if you battlecannon some conscripts who cares?

Aside from that, I wouldn't make the assumption that Chaos can field enough useful ordnance guns to make that pay off vs. IG anymore. If you field even a single defiler you're gimping your army, because it eats up a slot for 3 obliterators, and if you actually field a vehicle in your Chaos army it'll be dead in short order because you can't get four of them anymore and your only anti-horde and anti-tank options are in Heavy.

All that aside, you're not beating Eldar with lash princes, so who cares how good it is against those hypothetical space marine lists who don't have a psychic hood?

-------------------------------------------------------

As far as the movement rules go, it's pretty clear cut and it does allow you to change formation. The reason this type of rule works with Fantasy is because there ARE such a thing as coherent unit formations in Fantasy. There is no such thing as a "formation" in 40k with which to guide your movement, so don't go inventing rules that preserve formations (since they don't exist).

So, you roll 2d6, and then move the unit as if it had a maximum range of 7" or whatever, with the caveat that you have to move every individual model that exact distance. That's the point where it differs from normal movement and it's the only point I can find (and the difficult terrain blahblah).

That is going to be a very hard rule to enforce, but I think it should hopefully prevent most of the real cheating - since in general to modify the formation in such a way as to totally mess with it would require some models being moved less than the maximum distance.

The only example of a rule that "moves a unit X inches" that would preserve formations is Warp Spider jump jets, which say you: Pick a direciton, then move the unit that way 2d6". Unfortunately for game mechanics whoever wrote up the lash was too stupid to follow this mechanic, and gave your opponent ways to abuse your units, and also gave him a reason to put his grubby paws on your models.

If I had to guess I would say they'll FAQ it so that this becomes the norm, if it even makes it out of publishing in the form it is currently in. I'd also bet that due to the maximum movement restriction you'll see most people play it this way to avoid complications.

don't see why this is so complicated. Imagine you have a special ability that gives you a special move for one of your own units 2D6" ignoring rough terrain. Obviously it otherwise follows all the normal move rules, right? So Lash works exactly the same, except you're moving an enemy unit. That's certainly how i'll be playing it...

Based on the responses in this thread, apparently it is.

I'll make it even simpler, so that when you avoid responding it will make you look even more ridiculous: No where does it say that Fleet moves use the normal movement rules. Is it legal to make a Fleet move directly through another model? Is that how you play it?



Right, I picked up on that after a few posts worth of you being cute about it. You say something that is easily construed as agreement with Antonin. Then, when everyone assumes you're agreeing with him, you don't bother to clarify, you "play along" like your poor self explanation makes us all dumb.

You're "calling bluffs," and outmaneuvering us all. This isn't a rules discussion, it's really a competition, and you just keep winning. We're all such morons compared to you.

Let's stop this now. Put forth your interpretation or shut up. Nobody is benefitting from your useless, baseless arrogance. Especially you.

Thank you.

No, thank you.

This thread is really quite funny.
"Please quote me for reference"
What, you can't remember what you said?
My own interpretation would be that you can alter the formation, because it would be damned fiddly otherwise for large units. But I would say that you should move the entire unit the full distance if you get me- if you roll 7, no moving 'em 6 or anything.

Da Boss, agreed, but that really won't stop bunching. It just means your opponent will need to think a little more when doing it. Something like this:



Of course, that could actually get fairly complex with a large unit, but it should be possible to bunch up enough to get maximum hits with a small blast template before bunching additional models becomes unfeasible.

Is there somewhere in the movement rules that states that a model can't double back on itself as many times as it wants?  I know that such a statement exists in the Skimmers Moving Fast rules, but I'm fairly certain that it doesn't exist anywhere else.

I suppose you're right.

Buoyancy, the SMF rules actually seem to reinforce the idea that you can, in fact, circle or double back:

"Players may not claim their skimmers are 'circling' or moving 4" one way and 3" back. Skimmers are dependent on their speed and agility for avoiding enemy fire, and adequate velocity cannot be attained while circling."--BGB pg. 69

The bit in bold seems to be saying that circling or doubling back is in fact possible; if it were prohibited in general, it would not be necessary to specifically prohibit it here.

There's another relevant quote regarding hitting vehicles in CC, though I'm not too sure what to make of it:

"When assessing how far a vehicle has moved, only take into account the actual distance covered, moving forwards and backwards doesn't help!"--BGB pg. 71

A lot hinges on what is meant by "actual distance covered". Does it mean that it is always the case that the distance between the start and end point = the distance that model counts as moving? Or could "actual distance covered" and "distance moved" have two different values under normal circumstances, and the one cannot count for the other only in this particular instance? The answer is unclear to me.

Personally, it's uncertain enough that while I wouldn't feel comfortable using it to my advantage, but I wouldn't be confident enough to argue that it is decisively not the case if my opponent wanted to play it this way. Yay, more house rules needed in a game absolutely overflowing with them already.

They need to clean up the wording. This is so gonna be FAQed in 2 years.

Over-analyzing. That rule is there solely to prevent you from leaving a vehicle in the same place it currently is, while claiming the benefits of moving (e.g., skimmers moving fast, hitting in hth). Don't try to read it as implying that the ABSENCE of mention in other movement types is therefore meaningful.

Janthkin, like I said, I do believe the rules actually do nothing to prohibit circling or doubling back or other kinds of non "flat out" movement. I am just examining those rules that could conceivably have a bearing on it, and this is all there is.

I will try my level best to not exploit Lash worse than it is, and will use my understanding of the rules. If someone else tries to clump up my models, I will get a ruling from the judge, and will rely on that ruling for the tournament.

Even if every other chaos player wants to see the rule through rose-tinted glasses, that will not change my understanding of the rule. However, it's a free country, so hold whatever understanding you want of the rule! Hopefully we will have a very clear and precise ruling on point in an FAQ...

now, I wish to address another rule. Since there is a camp of posters that believes that the movement rules applies, I put the question to that camp as to whether other types of movement rules apply. For instance, do the rules that apply to a unit that has broken apply? They do appear to apply better than the standard movement rules - you move 2d6, and it is an "involuntary" move, in a direction not of the choosing of the moved unit. Furthermore, it takes place during your opponent's shooting phase (like fallback) and not during the unit's movement phase. Using your position that the lash move follows the movement rules, it is readily apparent that the lash move most closely mimics the fallback move, and therefore those are the appropriate rules to use.

You will note that I do not follow that theory - I believe the rule is clear and provides its own set of movement rules. However, for the sake of discussion, how does your approach handle the fallback move as being the appropriate set of rules?

All the rule says is that the unit is moved 2d6" in a direction chosen by the Chaos player. There's not much there. Can the unit move through impassable terrain? Can the unit move through other models? If not, then why not?



I'm not sure what you're saying, but I would point out that a Fall Back move does not require the unit to maintain formation. On the contrary, it describes numerous situations in which the unit MUST change formation (to return to coherency, etc). It also says that the models can move anywhere within the "fall back corridor" and does so very clearly and directly. I don't see why you'd present this example, as it's clearly an example of "moving a unit" meaning that the models can change their formation.

Honestly it just seems like you're in denial right now. GW has published a rule so totally ridiclous that your brain is trying to use rules lawyering to nerf it in order to spare your sanity. It's like repressed memories or something. Rest assured that I'm right there with you, wanting to curl up in a little ball and pretend I didn't give hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars to these people, but I'm sorry dude... It's already happened. Chaos gets to bunch your guys up and snipe them. Sorry.

I don't see how. The rule may be vague about just what they can move through but it pretty clearly states they the UNIT moves the 2d6 inches you rolled and in the direction you chose. The entire unit moves in the ONE direction and the EXACT distance that you rolled. If you bunched them up that would imply both different lengths of movement and different directions.

How on earth can you say the rule clearly states that you pick a direction when it doesn't even say that.

Read the rule and come back when you're ready to admit:

1. Fleet and jetpack assault moves use the movement in the movement phase rules.
2. It's ok for movement outside the movement phase to use movement phase rules.
3. The movement phase rules allow you to move up to the maximum distance.
4. You move the unit as you wish just like it was the movement phase and they were your models, with 2D6" max movement.

Posted By onlainari on 08/14/2007 2:56 AM
How on earth can you say the rule clearly states that you pick a direction when it doesn't even say that.

Read the rule and come back when you're ready to admit:

1. Fleet and jetpack assault moves use the movement in the movement phase rules.
2. It's ok for movement outside the movement phase to use movement phase rules.
3. The movement phase rules allow you to move up to the maximum distance.
4. You move the unit as you wish just like it was the movement phase and they were your models, with 2D6" max movement.

I've read this quite a few times.  "If the test is successful the target is moved 2d6 inches by the chaos player".  Funny how its so plainly worded. 

"Pick any non vehicle enemy unit"

"The target is moved 2d6 inches by the chaos player"

No it doesn't state in one direction but nor does it state that your moving individual models.  Its pretty plain that your moving the entire unit at once at the exact distance that you rolled since it tells you to move them the exact distance rolled "Moved 2d6 inches by the chaos player".  Otherwise why not just run them far outside of unit coherency?  Movement doesn't always use the movement phase rules in this game.  Especially when the opposing player is the one doing the movement outside of the movement phase and during his own turn.

The rule is pretty plain when your not actively trying to break it for your own profit.  But then alot of rules are like that in this game.  The trick is to get a judge that doesn't like pure BS.

ShumaGorath, I reiterate the point I've been making for most of this thread: can you give me a quotation and page reference from the BGB that tells us what it means to "move a unit", and how to go about doing this? Therion and Antonin have so far declined to do this; perhaps you will oblige me.

T-C - That's because your position is bass-ackwards; you DON'T cite to the main rulebook for how Lash works; Lash isn't in the main book. We keep citing to the lash rules itself and showing you that it contains the movement rule. As for how you move a unit, that's simple - roll 2d6, take one model, move it that many inches, take the next model, move it the same distance in the same direction as before, rinse and repeat. At the end, unless some hanky-panky has taken place (and don't get me started about how awful the disputes are going to be about that item!) you have an entire unit that is moved that 2d6 distance. Simple.

Where a term is defined in the BGB, we must use that definition of the term, not whatever definition we care to make up or that is commonsensical. This is why we know that when a Daemon Prince is said to have 4 wounds, it means that he can ordinarily fail four saves before dying, not that he starts the game with 4 nasty injuries. The rules for Lash say you move a unit, and the BGB tells you what it means to move a unit.

Are you guys freakin serious? I mean I only read this tower of bullcrap because my Girl is out for the evening and I'm building a unit of Genestealers.
Don't tell meall of you are doing the same thing!

It boils down to these facts:

a) the psychic power is very powerful and unbalanced against the other powers
b) some armies can easily counter it, some don't -> pretty unbalanced for me
c) gladly, only dubious 40k gamer or power gamer will use nasty combos like taking 2 units with this power.
d) arguing about what a move is or what movement rules you use in the shooting phase just makes fools out of yourselves.

Thats all I can think off for now.

And to go back ON TOPIC AFTER GOD KNOWS HOW MANY POSTS:

No, i think its not top tier because the top tier tournament armies can counter it or at least lessen its effect.
So in a Tournament it would be the doom for some armies and for other just annoying surprise. Not what I call game breaking.

Greets
Schepp himself