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.

Posted By Hellfury on 12/04/2006 12:01 AM
If GW made a FAQ ruling that this was a legal manuever, would you still mark an opponent down?

Yes.

Why do you mark anyone down? You have to assume what they do is legal in the first place.

I dont mark anyone down. Comp is a false sense of security only utlized by those who feel an army is beardy.

if it is legal to take, then its is legal in comp. American comp is slowed and I cannot wait for the day when we go to the more reasonable UK standard.

Thats why the rules system for 40K isnt meant for competition. The rules are just too damned flawed to really recognize actual winners.

So they make a comp system to attempt to fix what should have been fixed in the rules.

MTG is a very solid card game system. The rules are very clear and by playing the rules winners are recognized. You dont see WOTC handing out slips of paper asking if that arcbound ravager deck were "'within the spirit of the game". For them the rules are the game. They spend quite a bit of money to make sure the game is solid. Somethings slip through development *coughskullclampcough* but in general, even the screwups they stand behind until it is time to ban a mistake because it is overwhelmingly and obviously broken. Which overall, is very few indeed.

40K is meant for sitting at home and playing games with friends. For GW to push the RaW as they do lately is biting them in the ass, as the rules are flawed. They are good and I can play them, but in situations such as these, it isnt clear.

But thats very off topic. Sorry.

Posted By moosifer on 12/04/2006 10:31 AM

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

Exactly. I personally dont think this is the same as 'stealers fleeting in the opponents shooting phase, but thats subjective anyways.

"Opinions are like Progenoid glands. Everyone has two!"

Just because I am defending a stance does not mean I actually use it.

But poisonrogue does have a point. It can be viewed both ways since movement itself isnt clearly defined, so taking the less advantageous route is the way to go here.

Posted By Hellfury on 12/04/2006 12:01 AM
If GW made a FAQ ruling that this was a legal manuever, would you still mark an opponent down?

That's a tough question, mainly because I can't imagine a situation where GW would actually rule allowing rubber-banding, even in this supposed era of RAW FAQ rulings.

So I'll have to say that I would deal with that situation when and if it ever actually occurs.

The thing about GW's RAW stance on FAQs is that they only stick with it when it fits their needs. They quickly reversed the Tyranid Synapase ruling due to intense player backlash, and the rulebook FAQ they put out is filled with non-RAW rulings.

I strongly feel (and this is just pure opinion and speculation) that there is no possible way they meant for Hawks to be able to rubber-band, as there simply is no counter for the tactic in any army.

 

 

The tactic is a danger to itself...

It was kind of funny this morning.

I played against a friends eldar list with my genestealers. He had two bouncing hawks and didnt even have a chance to bounce back up. Both scattered. One off of the table (on turn 5) one into impassable terrain (on turn 2)... Suffice to say the one that dies on turn five died the same turn he was finally alowed on the table. 4 rounds of nothing just to die the turn he came in. The turn 2 scatter into impassable terrain was lucky to get on the board, but basically died in the same manner. Unlucky? yes, but thats how the game works. Only one of the templates were close enough after scattering to do any damage. This tactic is by no means reasonably solid enough to expect even average turn out because of variables in unit scattering, reserves, grenade scattering. All said and done, I lost 2 genestealers.

Then I look at this thread and the "OMFG!!!!GOUDA CHEETZOR" and I really cant help but laugh.

People need to seriously need to see this in play before kneejerk reactions continue. Mathhammer and actual game play differ significantly enough.

I keep hearing from people how its ok when rules change, but to be honest, unless you have certain elements in your army, CTM is not that easy to deal with and is considerably more lethal than this. But now a infantry based jump pack unit which is effectively carrying CTM but far less lethal and doesnt require the opponent to kill it because it kills itself, is so much more worse?

Can you deal with a drop pod before it drops its underpriced load in your face? Yeah, the mystic and thats it.

Sorry, not convinced.

[edit]

"The thing about GW's RAW stance on FAQs is that they only stick with it when it fits their needs. They quickly reversed the Tyranid Synapase ruling due to intense player backlash, and the rulebook FAQ they put out is filled with non-RAW rulings.

Thats not going to be so easy for this, as there is two distinct camps of thought regarding skyleap. Its not as universally "cheesy" as some like to think, even for non eldar players.

For the tyranid issues, even non tyranid players agreed that it made absolutety no sense. Though, does immunity to wraithcannons seem fair? Looks like people got more than they bargained for when they complained.

Beleive me, if this was as cheesy as all get out, it would be quite obvious that it would be wrong. Emperical evidence speaks otherwise though.

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 12/04/2006 5:15 AM

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.

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.

Here is another side to that argument.

Since movement isnt clearly defined what if I said:

"Sorry I can't remove any casualties because removing the model off the table would count as moving and this model has already moved this game turn."

Same thing.

 

What else would you call Skyleap but movement. Does every miniscule thing need to be spelled out in the rulebooks? I think someone said that nowhere does it say bolters need line of sight, but we all know they do. Can I now shoot around corners because the rules don't say I can't?

Live models have already moved and will move again. Dead ones don't count, since they can't move anymore. Removing them is for convenience.

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/04/2006 5:46 PM
What else would you call Skyleap but movement.

Going by the rules, I'd call it 'removing them from the table...'

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/04/2006 5:46 PM
Does every miniscule thing need to be spelled out in the rulebooks?

Well yes, of course it does. That's what a rulebook is for...

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/04/2006 5:46 PM
Can I now shoot around corners because the rules don't say I can't?

No. For that, you would need a rule that says that you can shoot around corners, since the LOS rules are already laid out against it.

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/04/2006 6:01 PM
Live models have already moved and will move again. Dead ones don't count, since they can't move anymore. Removing them is for convenience.

What does convenience have to do with anything?

Removal is stated (though just as movement, not clearly defined) in the rules. Convenience isnt.

From Websters.com

Remove (re-move) ri-moov
1: to move from a place or position; take away or off:

didja see that? "MOVE" from a place or position.

Wow. Resorting to dictionary quotes when dealing with GW rules.

OK amatuer. Try completing the full definition, not just one that suits your argument.

How about this?

Remove:
2. To transfer or convey from one place to another: removed the family to Texas.
3.To take off: removed my boots.
4. To take away; withdraw: removed the candidate's name from consideration.
5. To do away with; eliminate: remove a stain.
6. To dismiss from an office or position.

Notice what selective use of definitions get you? All other definitions say nothing whatsoever about "movement".

The first definition is always the most widely used and relevant one. This really is a silly thread on how semantics makes it ok to cheat. Anyone with common sense knows this answer. [edit] way to go name calling, my low post count in no way means I am a novice 40k player. You should watch your mouth.

You call it cheating, the rest of the world who plays by the rules recognizes that it is legal, whether it is cheesy or not. (which it is very cheesy)

Watch my mouth? This is YMDC and if youre gonna play with the big boys, you better bring logic to the table and debate like a man, not make threats like "you should watch your mouth".

Buck up.

Amatuer:

1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
2. Sports. An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition.
3. One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.

that sort of implies that you dont post on YMDC a whole lot, so youre not used to how people frequently post here. if you like definitions so much, maybe you should read closely instead of jumping to conclusions about namecalling.

So you are saying you troll the boards professionally. Sad as that may be, I'll look past that.
Cheesy or not, a move is a move. Remove, even has the word move in it. The ROOT WORD of remove is move! I can't believe I have to explain it this much! I can feel it...my common sense is tingling.

Wow. 5 posts to your screen name and its a never ending explanations to the ignorant. It must be tough for you.

 

Yet it is not legal. You can only have 1 movement action in a phase. Deep Strike in is one action. Skyleaping would be another.

 

Seems logical to me, and in adherence to the rest of the rules. You have not presented any evidence to the contrary other then your opinion of how they work. Please cite some rules that allow you to have two movement actions in one phase.

Posted By cincisamurai on 12/09/2006 7:41 PM
With something as cut and dried as this, yes, even 1 post is one too many, much less 4 pages of this tripe. I know that to you, winning is everything, but to most normal people, we don't like to play against rules lawyers, especially ones who debate obviously illegal maneuvers. If this proclivity of yours in some way a developmental problem, or hereditary, I will never know, nor do I wish to inguire, but I advise you to sit back and look at why you do what you do. Is it to aggrevate normal people, or can you just not stomach the fact that you indeed wrong and aren't man enough to admit it. That being said, this forum was a mistake to come to and I will not be back, I heard bad rumours about this place and lo-and-behold, they are very true. Later.

Then you havent read the thread fully. I do not advocate this tactic, for the umpteenth time.

Youre the one trolling. Reread the thread. I am arguing rules. Youre just slinging mud.

Because I am sick of seeing Cincisamurai's posts, here is a quote from the GW Autarch tactics thing they put up recently.  It can be seen here.

Late in the game, an Autarch can allow you to pull off this trick every turn and still shoot those lasblasters while you do it.

Now I know GW isn't the best source for rules interpretation, but this seems pretty clear you can "rubberband" them every turn if you want.

Yeah, sadly GW made it more convoluted by saying "and still shoot those lasblasters while you do it."
That wont be possible when you are removed from play in the movement phase.

Cincisamurai, Hellfury, please make an effort to attack the argument, not the person. Ad hominem attacks just demonstrate that your better reasoning and communication skills have failed.

Cincisamurai, General Hobbs, your argument is falling into two fairly common traps.

1. Relying upon a personal opinion of what constitutes "common sense", as opposed to the rules as written, which are the shared framework with which people who hold different opinions can play a game together.

2. Using a dictionary definition which does not take into account the conventions or context of wargames. For example, the word "assault" in the Encarta dictionary is defined as "1. physical or verbal attack: a violent physical or verbal attack". By this definition, both shooting and HtH attacks would constitute assaults. Within the context of the 40k rules, however, we understand that assault excludes shooting attacks.

There are many occasions in the game in which the player places or removes models which do not constitute movement by the unit. Deployment and casualty removal are two of the most common.

Premise 1: Unit movement in wargames has an understood and common meaning of movement of the unit across the play area, measured and restricted by the rules for movement laid out in the appropriate section. Units in many games have a specific Move or Speed stat to indicate exactly how far they move. In 40k that's simplified to standardized distances and restrictions based on unit Type, the terrain involved, and the presense of other units.

Premise 2: Skyleap does not correspond to unit movement or utilize any of the rules described in the movement chapter. It does not involve movement across the table. It is not measured. It does not interact with terrain or other units. It does not even use the word "move" in its rules. It uses the phrase "removed from the table", which is actually closer to the language describing casualty removal than it is to the movement rules.

Conclusion: The use of Skyleap does not constitute movement by the unit.

 

So then DeepStriking is not movement either, and your landspeeders should be able to shoot.

Yes deepstriking counts as moving, as stated in the end of the deepstrike rules.

Deep Striking is definitely not movement, as demonstrated by the sentence in its rules which states "Troops arriving via Deep Strike may not move or assault on the turn they arrive."

They arrive, but they may not move. This would be a paradox if Deep Strike was movement.

True, but they "count" as moving.

Sure.

They count as having moved for the purposes of shooting.

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/09/2006 8:01 PM
Cincisamurai, Hellfury, please make an effort to attack the argument, not the person. Ad hominem attacks just demonstrate that your better reasoning and communication skills have failed.

Whatever are you talking about Mannahnin?  I see no post from Cincisamurai... *grins impishly*

Posted By Drake_Marcus on 12/10/2006 10:32 AM

Whatever are you talking about Mannahnin?  I see no post from Cincisamurai... *grins impishly*

I like how Drake, as the youngest mod, as it were, is drunk with his sense of new-found power.

Posted By Drake_Marcus on 12/10/2006 10:32 AM
Whatever are you talking about Mannahnin?  I see no post from Cincisamurai... *grins impishly*

Didn't read Hellfury's post that quotes it in full, then...?