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.

inquisitor_bob wrote:I have a couple of questions regarding the Lash of Submission.

1. Do I have to make a leadership check to target a unit that is not the closest target?

2. If the lash of submisstion works can the caster charge another unit even though the lash is used instead of shooting?

Thanks

No and yes.

kirsanth wrote:The unit, and thus each model in it, must move 2d6 inches. Does the unit need to end its move the required number of inches from where it started? All other examples I find have the answer to that as "Yes".

A bike cannot move 1" and claim it was an 18" move with zigzags... nor can flyers, nor can any example I can find. All movement I read that can leave a model less than the indicated number explicitely states that in the RAW. Even stranger for compulsary movements.

You're mixing rules.

Bikes, for example, absolutely may move 9" in one direction, then 9" right back, while only displacing an inch forward and say they moved 18" because, as long as the player moved the models, it's true.
What they CAN'T do is claim the invulnerable save for it because the Invul save states that they have to displace 18", not simply move it.
In fact, where you mention flyers, you support the lash zig-zag.
In instances where you cannot zig-zag, it states that you cannot. Lash makes no such reference.

Eric

yakface wrote:I think this calls for a Lash poll to see how most people play!

I think this we result in the non-Chaos players voting favorably with a non-RAW option.

Stelek wrote:

inquisitor_bob wrote:I have a couple of questions regarding the Lash of Submission.

1. Do I have to make a leadership check to target a unit that is not the closest target?

2. If the lash of submisstion works can the caster charge another unit even though the lash is used instead of shooting?

Thanks

No and yes.

I thought when my model is using a Psychic power instead of shooting it still follows the shooting rules regarding to targeting models as in question 1 and also subsequently charging a unit as in question 2. I did not think I can use the lash, instead of shooting and use the shooting rules, on Unit A I can still charge Unit B.

can you use lash against units in Hand to Hand?

thehod wrote:can you use lash against units in Hand to Hand?

If by use it against units in HtH with a unit other than the caster, Than yes.

If used against the unit in HtH with the caster, than no. As the rules for the lash do not say it is an ability you can use while in HtH combat.

You cannot shoot at units locked in close combat. The Lash of Submission is treated as a ranged weapon. Therefore you cannot use the Lash of Submission on units that are locked in close combat.

A model may only be targeted by a psychic power if the power specifically says you can. Otherwise you cannot.

Lash, overall, is a terribly-written power. Its phrasing is vague and imprecise, and leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Even to draw RAW conclusions, you have to work from inference about many basic questions like “can I choose to move the models less than the distance rolled?” “Can I rearrange them and move them into different formations?” and “can I target a unit in close combat?”

The “RAW” interpretations many players use allowing them to rearrange the models as they please are based on the lack of explicit wording to the contrary in the power description, and the assumption that “move” means movement in the same sense as movement in the movement phase. While this is a pretty safe guess, it’s by no means guaranteed to be the right answer. If, for example, you compare Lash to Fallback movement (as Kirsanth did), they appear somewhat similar. By precedent, and by interpreting lash’s instruction to move the distance rolled as a firm requirement and not as an optional maximum, one could make an argument that Lash should thereby be restricted to moving the entire distance rolled in a specified (single) direction. Unfortunately, despite Warhammer having clear and consistent rules for multiple different types of Compulsory Movement for over a decade, the 40k writers haven’t had the sense to borrow that and build it into the 40k rules as a standard mechanic for Fallback and other similar types of movement. So there IS no standard for how compulsory-type movement effects are supposed to work. Again, the closest thing to actual rules governing it are the bare brief phrasing in lash (41 words), and the movement chapter in the rulebook.

Targeting a unit in close combat is even trickier. The general rules for psychic powers state that they function like shooting except when otherwise specified. The problem with that is that most psychic powers aren’t written so clearly as to actually say “this power doesn’t work like shooting”. Instead they just give a description that may or may not contradict the shooting rules. Lash is one of these. It says to target “any non-vehicle enemy unit visible to the psyker and within 24 inches”. The phrasing ANY is generally read to mean that it ignores all normal shooting targeting restrictions. Which could theoretically allow it to target a unit in HTH. However, if you use the movement phase rules for movement, as you must in order to figure out how the movement works, you are bound by the restriction that you cannot move models within 1” of the enemy. Most players I’ve met or seen discuss it online interpret this as preventing units presently Locked in combat from being moved, because you would have to move models which are within 1” of the enemy.

Overall, Lash is a very powerful and useful power no matter how you interpret it. I just wish GW had done a better job designing and describing it (and pretty much every psychic power, for that matter). As it stands, there are multiple possible and plausible ways to interpret and play it, which means that if you choose to play by one of the more powerful interpretations, you stand a decent chance of having disagreements or unpleasant rules discussions with opponents who aren’t entirely convinced by, or happy with, your interpretation.

For my purposes I’m glad to have a well-designed independent FAQ to fall back on, which is what I agree to with my opponents in friendly games, and encourage local tournament organizers to use. Yakface and the Adepticon rules council did a great job on this thing, with the happy result that when I brought Lash to Adepticon, I didn’t have a single rules dispute or disagreement, despite playing against 11 different opponents with it, none of whom I’d ever met or played with before.

http://www.adepticon.org/files/INAT_FAQ.pdf

Mannahnin wrote:If, for example, you compare Lash to Fallback movement (as Kirsanth did), they appear somewhat similar. By precedent, and by interpreting lash’s instruction to move the distance rolled as a firm requirement and not as an optional maximum, one could make an argument that Lash should thereby be restricted to moving the entire distance rolled in a specified (single) direction.

Fall Back moves don't require that you move in a single direction. You can move a model any direction you please so long as it is within a corridor defined by the two outermost models.

From the BGB, page 48: "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."

Thus, a unit which is spread out 10" wide that rolls an 8 for fall back distance can easily criss-cross for the fall back move and end up less than 1" closer to the board edge than they started.

If only that was a good FAQ.

Hopefully, GW will get off the pot and release the 5th edition FAQ's with 5th edition.

Democratus wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:If, for example, you compare Lash to Fallback movement (as Kirsanth did), they appear somewhat similar. By precedent, and by interpreting lash’s instruction to move the distance rolled as a firm requirement and not as an optional maximum, one could make an argument that Lash should thereby be restricted to moving the entire distance rolled in a specified (single) direction.

Fall Back moves don't require that you move in a single direction. You can move a model any direction you please so long as it is within a corridor defined by the two outermost models.

From the BGB, page 48: "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."

Thus, a unit which is spread out 10" wide that rolls an 8 for fall back distance can easily criss-cross for the fall back move and end up less than 1" closer to the board edge than they started.

While GW’s phrasing is terrible, and technically allows it, I’ve never met anyone who would try doing that. All my opponents have played that as a means for the fleers to go around obstructions, not a loophole to reduce your flee distance.

Stelek wrote:If only that was a good FAQ..

I'd rather have a great FAQ, which is what the INAT FAQ is. Your (and my) relatively minor criticisms aside, the INAT FAQ is the best FAQ 40k has ever gotten, and likely the best it will ever get.

Stelek wrote:Hopefully, GW will get off the pot and release the 5th edition FAQ's with 5th edition.

And when they overlook critical stuff (as you and I both know they will) hopefully Dave Taylor will continue his custom of borrowing good ideas from Adepticon, and will adopt the next version of the INAT FAQs as soon as Yak the boys update it for 5th.

Democratus: Fall Back moves require you to move the entire 2D6" inches within the corridor indicated.

"A unit falls back directly towards the closest point of the player's table edge or of the base line where the unit deployed/entered the table if it came on at a different place."

"A unit falling back may move around any obstruction in such a way as to get back to their base line by the shortest route." Emphasis mine.

"If a unit cannot perform a full Fall Back move in any direction, without doubling back, it is destroyed."

Mann, you (and alot of others) seem to be under the impression the studio likes the tournament scene and all it breeds. Dave Taylor=not the studio.

You do realize Phil Kelly is a vocal exception to the rule that they hate it, right? Have resented and one might even say despised it, for years and years and years for ruining "their game"?

By the way, I'm not really interested in restarting the debate about yak's version of 40k. If you think I'm in the minority, please define what the majority is? The 85%-90% of players of this game who don't use FAQs? Come on now. GW isn't changing the game for them for nothing, and changing it for tournament players (for the worse, according to most) since we are the "minority".

I'd rather have a great FAQ, which is what the INAT FAQ is. Your (and my) relatively minor criticisms aside, the INAT FAQ is the best FAQ 40k has ever gotten, and likely the best it will ever get

I can't say I agree with you, the INAT FAQ re-writes a lot of rules and simply makes the *wrong* decision in many cases. Is it in-depth and detailed? Yes. Do they make the the wrong decision, re-write rules, and come to odd conclusions in some areas? Yes. For instance, Zagstrukk deep striking. With the Adepticon FAQ, Zagstrukk DS-Assault casualties count towards combat resolution. However these are not inflicted by enemy models and should be treated akin to Warp Spider jump casualties, not towards winning or losing combat. (note: I don't play Orks)

While it is obvious that a lot of work went into it, and it is far more in depth than any FAQ GW is likely to give us, it goes off-target in too many areas for many people, including myself, to ever consider using it.

Although I do like their FAQ to Lash. (note: I don't use Lash either, so this doesn't affect me, most of my HQ's are typically Khorne)

Stelek wrote:Mann, you (and alot of others) seem to be under the impression the studio likes the tournament scene and all it breeds. Dave Taylor=not the studio.

You do realize Phil Kelly is a vocal exception to the rule that they hate it, right? Have resented and one might even say despised it, for years and years and years for ruining "their game"?"

Where did I state or imply that the studio likes or supports the tournament scene?

I will note that many other GW folks have attended and played at tournaments. Adepticon still has a copy of Paul Sawyer's article about his visit to Adepticon on their website for download. And Gav, Jervis, and Alessio have all repeatedly played in UK GTs, to my recollection.

Stelek wrote:By the way, I'm not really interested in restarting the debate about yak's version of 40k. ".

No need to. I brought it up because Lash is written terribly, and (IMO) the INAT FAQ handles it perfectly. I'm going to continue bringing it up, in part because of its own inherent high quality, and in part because of its demonstrated high level of performance. It worked great for me at Adepticon, achieving its goal (smoother games and shorter rules discussions) beautifully. You can also ask the Adepticon organizers for a larger view of whether rules questions and debates were down.

Stelek wrote: If you think I'm in the minority, please define what the majority is? The 85%-90% of players of this game who don't use FAQs? Come on now. GW isn't changing the game for them for nothing, and changing it for tournament players (for the worse, according to most) since we are the "minority".

Who are you quoting? I didn't use the word minority.

My 'minor' criticisms are in fact 'major', and I am not the only one--I am one of many who don't like the inat faq.

That's me extrapolating out. Sorry.

Vaktathi wrote:

I'd rather have a great FAQ, which is what the INAT FAQ is. Your (and my) relatively minor criticisms aside, the INAT FAQ is the best FAQ 40k has ever gotten, and likely the best it will ever get

I can't say I agree with you, the INAT FAQ re-writes a lot of rules and simply makes the *wrong* decision in many cases. Is it in-depth and detailed? Yes. Do they make the the wrong decision, re-write rules, and come to odd conclusions in some areas? Yes. For instance, Zagstrukk deep striking. With the Adepticon FAQ, Zagstrukk DS-Assault casualties count towards combat resolution. However these are not inflicted by enemy models and should be treated akin to Warp Spider jump casualties, not towards winning or losing combat. (note: I don't play Orks)

IMO the number of places where they got it *wrong* is vanishingly small and virtually insignificant beside the hge number of things they got right or made more clear. Again, I have to point to my experience at Adepticon and note that between 11 different people I played against in 40k, I never had a rules debate, and virtually every question that came up was resolved very quickly with the aid of the FAQ.

Vaktathi wrote:While it is obvious that a lot of work went into it, and it is far more in depth than any FAQ GW is likely to give us, it goes off-target in too many areas for many people, including myself, to ever consider using it.

I can understand your reasoning, and a few years ago (when I was a bit more fixated on RAW and officiality) I might have agreed with it. At present, having seen what a superior job some players and hobbyists do at supporting the hobby (both in the Indy GT circuit and in the INAT FAQ), I have come to the reasoned and sober conclusion that waiting for or expecting GW to perform to my standards is a silly thing to do. And ignoring such great resources is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Stelek wrote:My 'minor' criticisms are in fact 'major', and I am not the only one--I am one of many who don't like the inat faq.

Having read pretty much all the debate, criticism, and feedback the INAT FAQ got on this site and on a couple of others, I understand that your objections were strong ones, and that there were many areas where you disagreed with the rulings made in the FAQ and the reasoning behind them.

However, from my recollection the areas of strong debate were often on fairly minor points and rulings. Or on strict interpretations of confusing rules that a large number of people aren’t playing right in the first place, where any clear and consistent ruling (even one against the strict RAW) improves the game. IMO the INAT FAQ does a great deal of good and helps with probably 95% of the issues and questions people have. Degrading or ignoring it because of the other 5% is, IMO, counterproductive.

Actually, I ignore it because it isn't from GW.

No more, no less a reason exists for me to do so; and none will.

And I’m sure some folks will only run software published by Microsoft on their PC. Their choice. They might be able to use more fun stuff if they made a different choice, but it’s up to them.

Everyone runs an office suite.

Since that's all MS publishes that a normal person would use, what's the correlation?

One product versus dozens?

Seems like a specious argument to me.

Mannahnin wrote:And I’m sure some folks will only run software published by Microsoft on their PC. Their choice. They might be able to use more fun stuff if they made a different choice, but it’s up to them.

These have nothing to do with each other!

It's not official if Games Workshop hasn't made it, which has nothing to do with the usage of software from a different company.

All the homegrown FAQs amuse me. You'd think the fact that multiple separate groups have compoiled pages long documents in an effort to clear up a game that they pay a fairly good ammount of money to play would get the attention of the dev team. Unfortunately the reality of this situation has proved this wrong. Either way the fact remains that someone can write the best FAQ ever, post it on the internet and it still won't have any bearing on the game because in the end it is just one person or a group of independent people putting their ideas down and not in any way an official solution.

Of course it's unofficial. Do you imagine that anyone involved in its creation thinks otherwise? It's a set of house rules (no more or less than any tourney FAQ) that allows 40k to run smoothly, something it cannot do in its official incarnation. For what it is, it's very good.

kirsanth wrote:So in the spirit of the OP, how is this different than fall back moves - with the swap of "towards the nearest table edge" and "at the Chaos player's choosing" or whatever the quotes are?

The unit, and thus each model in it, must move 2d6 inches. Does the unit need to end its move the required number of inches from where it started? All other examples I find have the answer to that as "Yes".

A bike cannot move 1" and claim it was an 18" move with zigzags... nor can flyers, nor can any example I can find. All movement I read that can leave a model less than the indicated number explicitely states that in the RAW. Even stranger for compulsary movements.

shrug.

Both bikes and skimmers can move 1" and claim that it was 18" with zigzags, it just won't qualify for moving the 18". The rules have specific sections stating that certain bonuses require being X" away from your starting position to apply. See Turbo-boost on page 76, and page 69 on "Skimmers Moving Fast".

I mentioned flyers, not skimmers.

For bikes I understand. Would be like Fall Back in zigzags.

The idea I think was more relevant was movement with a required distance. Bikes can choose to move less. Flyers, Falling Back units and Lash targets cannot.

I do understand what people are saying/playing.
But some of that is silly, and some is questionable.
Here's to hoping it is part of the 5thE faq setup.

I just took a look at that FAQ and I keep seeing repeatedly [rules change], which after looking at the others that say [RAW] or [clarification], revealed to me that those rules are basically.....changing the rules to make things easier.

While nice for clarity, that's....blatantly wrong. And I checked the lash rules, which just like some of the posters here tries to add the "specific direction" bit that isn't talked about AT ALL in the description of the power.

My group allows clumping, because you can fenagle the distances to be such that models end up next to each other. We also like to not take an hour and a half to move the unit, especially with me trying not to touch my opponent's models, by holding the tape measure for each model saying "ok that one....here. And that one....here. And the next one....here." Nah, we generally measure the distance of the furthest guy, maybe the closest guy, and say if we want to bunch any up in between, and then the opponent moves his own models. Saves time.

Keep in mind though that YES, it counts as a shooting attack, so if you use it on one unit you CANNOT assault a different unit. This helps limit the power a tad because you can't lash a nearby unit that could come in to support far away, then charge the one in front of you to destroy it unsupported. If you're lashing things further back, expect to be unable to assault.

Spellbound:

I just took a look at that FAQ and I keep seeing repeatedly [rules change], which after looking at the others that say [RAW] or [clarification], revealed to me that those rules are basically.....changing the rules to make things easier.

While nice for clarity, that's....blatantly wrong.

Define "blatantly wrong."

He did define it. You just chose to cut your quote short. He explained how claims of a "specific direction" were not to be found in the rule. This is the "blatantly wrong" part.