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.

So it seems like this is still an issue for people. People wondering whether or not they can gate out of close combat.
Anyway, I think this is a new take on this argument.

Wording:

"the librarian, and any unit he is with, are removed from the tabletop and immediately placed back..."

For those of you that think this is movement out of close combat I would ask you look at Chenkov's send in the next wave ability.

I believe it says the same thing, with, "remove the conscripts from play and then..."

Does this mean I cannot remove my conscripts from play if they are in CC? Now technically they don't come back, they just leave for good (and a new unit comes back). However I would argue that both units are moving even though only one is coming back onto the gaming board.

Opinions/thoughts?

I would say yes, they can be removed from CC. I think the same issue was discussed about Veil of Darkness but it resulted in you can gate out of CC, although I could be wrong.

VoD specifically allows you to take them from base contact.

Does it say you CAN use it when in Close Combat?

If it does, you can. If it doesn't, you cannot.

"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.

Gwar! wrote:Does it say you CAN use it when in Close Combat?

If it does, you can. If it doesn't, you cannot.

"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.

Except it is an argument, and an entirely valid one, when you have already been given explicit permission to do something in a broader situation, and the more specific situation fails to restrict it. An example is Valkyries outflanking with troops inside them, nothing explicitly says they can, but the rules say valkyries as models with scout can outflank, and nothing says they can't outflank if the troops in them don't have scout, so they still can.

Drunkspleen wrote:unrelated text

No.
It does not say it cannot be done STILL does not mean it is allowed - and is an invalid argument in a ruleset that specifies what is allowed.

It does not say it cannot be done STILL does not mean it is allowed

Hold on...

If the rule says that the models are removed, then that's what happens. The only way it's not going to happen is if there is some other rule that restricts.

As people say, the rules are permissive. In this case, the rules permit you to remove the models. Period. Not "if they are not locked in combat" or "if it is not Thursday."

So, you can argue "it doesn't specifically permit you to remove them from combat, so you can't," in which case I'd reply that it also doesn't specifically permit you remove them on a Thursday either, but for some reason, you're not arguing that.

The point here is that the rules say they're removed. Unless there are other rules saying that models can't be removed from CC, under and circumstances (which to my knowledge there are not), then the permissive ruleset is permitting it the models' removal.

The reason VoD says they CAN be removed from CC is because it anticipated this confusion and tried to address it, not because it's necessary to say it in order to give the ability.

To further highlight the problems you create with the logic that remove doesn't mean remove...

On p 24 of the BGB, it tells you how to remove casualties. It refers to this as being "removed" just as the GoI does. If models cannot be removed from close combat, then then models can't be removed as close combat casualties either, and thus all close combats go on forever, with no models ever leaving the table.

So would that imply that GoI indeed can be used to remove yourself from CC? And I'm sorry but I also have a noobish question as I am one.

When exactly would be using GoI? Before CC start, when it's resolved, or during? ._.

Phryxis wrote:

It does not say it cannot be done STILL does not mean it is allowed

Hold on...

If the rule says that the models are removed, then that's what happens. The only way it's not going to happen is if there is some other rule that restricts.

As people say, the rules are permissive. In this case, the rules permit you to remove the models. Period. Not "if they are not locked in combat" or "if it is not Thursday."

So, you can argue "it doesn't specifically permit you to remove them from combat, so you can't," in which case I'd reply that it also doesn't specifically permit you remove them on a Thursday either, but for some reason, you're not arguing that.

The point here is that the rules say they're removed. Unless there are other rules saying that models can't be removed from CC, under and circumstances (which to my knowledge there are not), then the permissive ruleset is permitting it the models' removal.

The reason VoD says they CAN be removed from CC is because it anticipated this confusion and tried to address it, not because it's necessary to say it in order to give the ability.

To further highlight the problems you create with the logic that remove doesn't mean remove...

On p 24 of the BGB, it tells you how to remove casualties. It refers to this as being "removed" just as the GoI does. If models cannot be removed from close combat, then then models can't be removed as close combat casualties either, and thus all close combats go on forever, with no models ever leaving the table.

IMHO, it is a clear case of 'breaking no rule'.

While removing the models from combat isn't actually movement (and therefore allowable), a successful redeployment of them via Deep Strike is considered movement.

So if you successfully redeploy the unit using Gate of Infinity at the end of the day you have therefore moved the unit out of close combat, which is not allowed.

Since you cannot willingly break a rule, you therefore cannot use Gate of Infinity to move models out of combat, unlike Skyleap and Veil of Darkness that give the permission to do so.


With that said, I fully understand your position, I just happen to completely disagree with it!

While removing the models from combat isn't actually movement (and therefore allowable), a successful redeployment of them via Deep Strike is considered movement.

This brings two questions to mind:

1) If being removed from combat isn't movement, then why can't it be done? Just because the models will subsequently move, they're not doing that movement while locked in combat. They're no longer on the table, thus they're not locked in combat.

2) Where does it say that Deep Strike is considered movement? I don't necessarily doubt you here, but I just need to see the rules to understand your position.

Phryxis wrote:

While removing the models from combat isn't actually movement (and therefore allowable), a successful redeployment of them via Deep Strike is considered movement.

This brings two questions to mind:

1) If being removed from combat isn't movement, then why can't it be done? Just because the models will subsequently move, they're not doing that movement while locked in combat. They're no longer on the table, thus they're not locked in combat.

2) Where does it say that Deep Strike is considered movement? I don't necessarily doubt you here, but I just need to see the rules to understand your position.

Page 88 (emphasis mine):

"In the Movement phase when they arrive, these units may not move any further. . ."

and:

"In that turns's Shooting phase, however, these units can fire (or run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved in the previous Movement phase."


In the first quote, the inclusion of the words "any further" means that Deep Striking is movement and that move movement in that phase would be further movement.

Also, the use of the word 'obviously' in the second quote, while it doesn't concretely say that Deep Strike is movement it indicates that it is supposed to be blindingly obvious that Deep Striking is considered movement.

while it doesn't concretely say that Deep Strike is movement it indicates that it is supposed to be blindingly obvious that Deep Striking is considered movement.

Ok. Both of these are implicit, not explicit. I understand your argument, but again, it's by implication.

Also, in the second case, they're not saying it's obvious that it's movement, they're saying it's obvious that the unit counts as having moved. This is potentially a very important distinction.

So, I'm not totally convinced by this line of argumentation, but I'm also not as concerned with this point as I am with the first one I brought up...

Even if we assume Deep Striking is a form of movement, and not something one can do while locked in close combat, if a unit is removed from the table, is it not also removed from close combat? Does that not then allow it to move?

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:So would that imply that GoI indeed can be used to remove yourself from CC? And I'm sorry but I also have a noobish question as I am one.

When exactly would be using GoI? Before CC start, when it's resolved, or during? ._.

It isn't used in the Assault phase, so it would of course be 'before'.

kirsanth wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:unrelated text

Blatantly incorrect statement

As I said, if the rules give you permission in a more general situation to do something (e.g. use a psychic power in the shooting phase) and nothing more specific restricts that from happening (e.g. preventing models from being removed from the board when in close combat) then the argument is based on the rules not saying you can't and it's true of most arguments really. I'm just sick of people getting all uppity and dropping the phrase "the rules don't say I can't so I can" into their post to criticise other people without even understanding what that statement means.

First you remove them and they are no longer locked in close combat, then you deepstrike. So when you deepstrike them they are no longer locked in cc because you removed them first.

G

Bump...

Would like to hear what your thoughts are on this yak...

I play a Librarian with GoI, I'd like to hear the best arguments on both sides of this.

I would be inclined to agree with yak, etc and say that it is not allowed to pull from cc. I view the power as a means of movement during the movement phase. To use it as a hit and run/movement would seem to be stretching it further than the writers intended.

I agree with Yak and WarmasterScott and the rest.

I say that it is not allowed. And I won't go into the rules we already have, but as an example of what would be happening on the board (were we all minis fighting for our plastic lives) is this:
During the start of the turn, we are locked in close combat (me being a libby with a squad). During the movement phase, we are locked and all my concentration is going towards killing my enemy.
Now as a libby, it takes concentration to use GoI, so I can't pull my focus away from staying alive/killing the foe to use GoI. Im simply too busy at the moment.

Thats a more psuedo-practical example then hard core rules quoting, but its how I see it.

Cheers

The problem I have with this not being allowable to use in CC is this:

It is written in such a way so that it would be allowable in CC without them needing to specifically say it is. Why would it force you to remove them from the game AND THEN place them back.

Why wouldn't it just be written that you place them elsewhere and use deepstrike rules?

Well, we have a precedent from two other codices that specify that the ability in question (Skyleap and VoD) allows you to remove models from base-to-base.

GoI does not have that specification.

When GW has established a precedent that shows how they intend to write a rule that allows models to be removed from base to base/assault, why should be believe that a rule that doesn't have this specification would allow the same thing? If no such specification were needed, why was it included in Skyleap and VoD? If a specification is needed, why is it left out of GoI?

What is the actual language of the rule? Can someone quote it?

Its not included in 'Send in the next wave' either. Does that mean I can't use the ability if they are in close combat? (see original argument)

Deepstrike is a type a movement. As such it would need an allowance to remove models from CC, as I read it.

They are not on the table when they 'deepstrike' in though.

So they are not moving?
Is that what you imply?

I view the power as a means of movement during the movement phase.

Clearly yak (and others) also views it along similar lines.

My question is "why" this is the case, when the rules say that the model is "removed from the tabletop"...

To me, if a model is removed from the tabletop, it's no longer locked in combat.

No, they are moving. But when they make their move, they are no longer on the table.

Being removed from the table is not movement. Otherwise things like 'send in the next wave' would not work in CC.

(if you go read my initial post you would understand my argument)

Phryxis wrote:

I view the power as a means of movement during the movement phase.

Clearly yak (and others) also views it along similar lines.

My question is "why" this is the case, when the rules say that the model is "removed from the tabletop"...

To me, if a model is removed from the tabletop, it's no longer locked in combat.

But are they moving?

In other words, do they start at one point on the table and end up at another point on the table.

That, in a nutshell, is the definition of moving.

You see, it's kind of like those old math rules:

2 + (3 + 4) = (2 + 3) + 4

Regardless of the mechanism by which you take the action, the end result is the same. The models start out at one point on the table and end up at another point on the table. That, as I said, is the definition of moving; it equals the same thing. That is why, in my opinion, the rule in question needs to specify if it can remove models from base to base/assault as it does for Skyleap and VoD.

Edited for clarity.

@saldiven

So are you saying I cannot use 'send in the next wave' to remove my models if they are in CC?

They are moving from a point on the table to off the table. Which is still technically moving per your point.

Yea, it would be really wierd if something in the IG codex did not work as everyone assumed.

That would be too weird.
/sarcasm

No idea on the specific wording of that one. Things that let models be removed from CC state as much.