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.

Schepp, it's strange that you talk about tourneys on the one hand, but claim that arguing about what rules to use for non-movement phase movement just makes fools of everyone involved. Now, I have no plans to go to any tourneys, but I daresay that a player at a tourney facing dual fzorgle, or using dual fzorgle, is going to find the issue quite relevant indeed.

As far as tiering is concerned, I basically agree with your assessment, but I don't think it unlikely that we'll see a few dual fzorgle wins nonetheless. C99's stealer shock GT list was hardly "top tier" in that it would be severely disadvantaged against mech lists, but he was lucky enough to face no mech lists at all, played well, and consequently won the thing. A dual fzorgle list is nowhere near as disadvantaged against mech opponents as stealer shock is, since all you're really losing are two psychic powers. (Also, C99 fought an uphill battle in the painting department; not everyone is going to need a perfect battle score to win Best Overall. Of course, not everyone can get good sportsmanship running a dual fzorgle list, either. . . .) It could be game-, or rather tourney-breaking--sometimes.

You've been prestented with numerous problems with your ruling, and you're not listening.

1) If the Fzorgle rule contains all the rules you need, then where does it say you can't move the models through impassable terrain? Through other models? It doesn't. So it must be legal to do that, right? And further, other rules such as Fleet, Tau Jetpacks, etc. are also allowed to move through impassable terrain, other models too, right?

2) You've deciced (based on nothing) that "moving a unit" means that the unit must maintain the exact same formation. Instead of basing our definition of what "moving a unit" means on nothing, let's instead look for references to it in the BGB? On p. 48 it says "A unit that falls back must move within a corridor lying between its most extended models as shown in the diagram on the left - but each model can move anywhere within this corridor as you wish." This is "moving a unit" and it specifically says that you can move the models individually. If "moving a unit" means what you say it means, then how come it doesn't mean that in the BGB?

No please feel free to ignore those two things and tell tegeus-Cromis that he's wrong again.

Exactly. He's decided that "moving a unit" means "pick a direction and move it in that direction".

I have decided that "moving a unit" means "use the movement in the movement phase rules". That means no breaking unit coherency, no moving through friendly models, move up to the maximum distance etc.

Posted By Phryxis on 08/14/2007 8:47 PM

We keep citing to the lash rules itself and showing you that it contains the movement rule.

1) If the Fzorgle rule contains all the rules you need, then where does it say you can't move the models through impassable terrain? Through other models?

It does so, right in the Lash rule.  Allow me to quote (again, see page 11 of this thread for the original citation in full) the relevant part, in the Lash rules:  "Victims may not be moved off the table, into impassible terrain or within 1" of enemy models." 

Seems to say right there that you can't move into impassible terrain.  no rule about not moving through friendly models, so you can; though you cannot move through enemy models, by the Lash rules.

Any other questions?

How about the question I've asked you three times already, and which you keep ignoring?

Which question is that?

This may have been answered, if so I am sorry.  Would the Lash allow the Chaos player to target an IC in the opposing army?

Since the power is used during the shooting phase and does not allow the chaos player to choose a "model", it would seem to fit that the Chaos player would still have to follow the IC rules so you could protect the IC even if it was solo thus a "unit" by having a vehicle closer than the IC to the Chaos army.

Basically I play DE and use a WWP to get to the opposing army.  If they were able to target my portal carriers and pull them forward and kill them before I open the WWP, well it would suck.  So I am trying to figure out a way to make sure I can counter that ability.  Once I am out of the portal the Lash does them no good really.

I assume that the Lash will not allow them to pull me out of assault with them?

 

NeverMore

Yes, the same two questions I've asked you several times already. You did a wonderful job of focusing on the one part of the first question you can speak to, ignoring the rest of it, and then ignoring the second question altogether.

Surely you're aware you're doing this?

Let's try it again...

First question isn't just about your claim that the Fzorgle rule has all you need. It's about the fact that numerous other rules depend on using the normal movement rules in order to remain sane. Your argument is that the rules for special movement have all that is needed to adjudicate the move. Let's assume that's the case. Then let's look at the rules for Fleet. They contain no reference to enemy models, friendly models or impassable terrain.

If all the rules are there, then there's nothing stopping movement through impassable terrain, friendly or enemy models.

Get it?

The second question, which I've already posted twice, is about six posts above this one. You can use your mouse to grab the scrollbar on the right hand side of your browser and scroll up until you can see it.

While you're up there, practicing your reading comprehension, you might note that I already predicted once that you'd ignore my two points, and instead tell tegeus-Cromis he's wrong. I'm going to bet that you do it again. But I'm also going to warn you that when you do it again, you'll officially have crossed over into "slowed," and the movement rules don't allow you to come back from that lowly plane.

Make me proud.

Oh, wait, you did respond to my question. My bad. You haven't responded to my answer, though.

This Lash of Unanswered Questions could generate an entire FAQ by itself.

Posted By Phryxis on 08/15/2007 8:46 PM

Any other questions?

It's about the fact that numerous other rules depend on using the normal movement rules in order to remain sane.

[deleted items]

The second question, which I've already posted twice, is about six posts above this one. You can use your mouse to grab the scrollbar on the right hand side of your browser and scroll up until you can see it.

first question:  It sounds like you are talking about other rules.  I'm talking about this rule.  I don't really feel like weighing in on fleet, for example, it's really not germaine to the topic at hand.  My answer to the question you pose, as close as I can read it, is that each instance of moving requires a different analysis.  Some use the "regular" movement rules; some use a pared down version; some provide their rules for how to move.  This is in the last category.

Your second question was, frankly, incomprehensible to me.  I think it started out as a statement, and then tried to tack a question on.  I just could not see a real question in that whole paragraph at all.  I was hoping you would restate it so I could address it, but with your self-referential statement, I am still at the same loss.

With that said, I feel that I have put forward the points I can.  Some people you can convince; some you cannot.  Feel free to have the last word and post; I don't believe I'll have anything additional to say, though. 

How about this: We're both talking about 40K rules, ok?

I know you don't feel like weighing in on Fleet, because it creates huge problems for your ruling on Fzorgle. It is germaine because a ruleset depends on consistency.

You're trying to get a usable ruling on Fzorgle. Fine. The ruling you came up with is semi-usable. And in turn it makes other rules unusable. In the net, you're making the ruleset less usable.

Your solution to this seems to be to use the normal movement rules "when necessary" and then the specific rules "when they're clear enough." I hope I don't have to point out how utterly flawed and subjective that is.



Sure, and chimps don't know how airplanes work. And yet airplanes still work.

Unlike an airplane, my point is very simple. Simple enough that you could get it if you weren't focused entirely on not hearing what's being said ot you.

Fzorgle says "move a unit." You say "move a unit means some crap I just made up to nerf Fzorgle." As stupid as that is, it might still be arguable if there was nowhere in the rules that discuss what "moving a unit means." But guess what? There are places in the rules that do just that. I cited one. The one I cited makes NO requirement that the models stay in the same formation they started in. In fact it specifically says they don't have to, and that individual models may move in different directions.

It says "move a unit" and then it describes how that's done. Once again, consistency is important. You've established that you like to make up rules "when necessary" as defined by your own subjective view of which rules need nerfing and which ones aren't clear enough, but the rest of us don't have you around to tell us how to play all the time, so we have to go on what the rules actually say, rather than how they make you feel.



I'm fairly sure you could do more, but you're clearly not interested in challenging the validity of your own arguments. Apparently your version of the scientific method is to come up with a hypothesis, and then get huffy and petulant when somebody points out problems with it.

You've categorically refused to respond to one problem with your ruling, then blamed your lack of reading comprehension on me en route to ignoring the second problem.

You can throw up your hands and say "let's agree to disagree" but I can assure you, we have not exhausted our ability to examine the rules on this issue. Instead, it's you that's exhausted your willingness to listen to anybody else's points.

You may think protecting your ego is the most important outcome, but the real takeaway here is comfort with the fact that people are going to expect to Fzorgle your units by normal movement rules. If you stake your ego on it, you're going to either spend your game time arguing, or come out feeling cheated. The fact is, nobody is going to buy your ruling at all, so you might as well get on board with reality now, rather than later, as a whole room full of gamers peer pressure you into a getting a clue.

No one in my gaming area is. We try to avoid twisting rules so far beyond their obvious intention that it endangers the very fabric of reality though, so my group is probably pretty dissimiler than the "room of peer pressuring gamers" your talking about.

I think there strong arguments on both sides. My instinct would be to move each model the distacnce shown on the dice and no less. You can still buch things up by moving models in different directions, as long as they remain coherent everything is hunky-dory.

The rule definately needs an FAQ, no need for any name calling or interweb wrestlemania. GW screwed up by not making the rule clear in the first place.

Posted By ShumaGorath on 08/16/2007 9:56 PM

No one in my gaming area is. We try to avoid twisting rules so far beyond their obvious intention that it endangers the very fabric of reality though, so my group is probably pretty dissimiler than the "room of peer pressuring gamers" your talking about.

If by twisitng rules you mean playing the game with the rules that are provided, then, yes, your groups is probably pretty different than others; and can I please have Gav Thorpe's and Jervis Johnson's phone numbers because you must have them since you know exactly what this rule intends. Give me a break.

 

Oh, come on.

I'm not twisting anything. I've already explained why my interpretation, the prevailing interpretation in these forums, is the closest to correct. I'm not suggesting that this interpretation is ironclad fact (once again GW has put out problematic rules) but it is the most supportable. To pretend that it's actually the LEAST supportable is ridiculous.

I directed my previous posts at Antonin, but you can feel free to jump right in. If my arguments are so stupid that they warp spacetime, I'm sure you can explain why they're so wrong instead of posting an overlong and underimpressive "nuh-uh."