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.

We are just having a discussion on why the INAT FAQ ruled as such Kirsanth. No need to get sarcastic.

If you remember the INAT FAQ usually rules in such a way that it confirms the way most people play.

I am not sure if they have made a ruling on 'send in the next wave' but I am betting most people play it that you can remove said unit from CC.

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.

Why is because it is not stated in clear manner. If it does not say that the power may be used as such it simply can't. There is nothing to infer unless you are trying to milk it for more of a cheese fill. Using another codex for answers such as the IG rule seems a bit weak as well. The IG rule is a stretch to defend the arguement. IG rule have no bearing on the SM.

This thread reminds me of the Logan thread with his ability to each turn grant an ability to his unit. In there they had a hard time defining turn.

I definitely think it is a stretch either way since we don't really have a clear answer.

However the justification for it was Skyleap I believe. So they used another codex to justify their ruling.

You were using IG codex as a reason it should allow to remove from combat, how is that different?

editing to add:
That part is not sarcasm, I am really curious.

Timmah wrote:@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.

I'd have to see how the rule is worded, 'cuz I don't have the IG codex. Lacking that information, I do not feel qualified to comment.

If it does not say that the power may be used as such it simply can't.

Again, this is the "permissive ruleset" argument being misapplied. It's not that I don't understand the concept of a permissive ruleset. It's that we disagree with what the rules permit.

To my thinking, being "removed from the tabletop" doesn't constitute movement, in much the same way that being removed as a casualty doesn't constitute movement.

Again, to my thinking, being "removed from the tabletop" would remove a unit from being locked in CC.

Thus, whether a Deep Strike is considered movement or not isn't really relevant. The unit isn't locked in combat at that point.

Using another codex for answers such as the IG rule seems a bit weak as well.

It's not weak at all. It's called "precedent" and it's the foundation of the American system of common law.

Since you disagree with my conclusion, you are contending one, or both, of these things:

1) Being removed from the tabletop is a form of movement.
2) Being removed from the tabletop does not "unlock" a unit from CC.

What Timmah is doing, quite rightly, is looking for other places in the rules where units are "removed from the tabletop" and then establishing a precedent for how this operation is handled.

If there are places in the rules where removing a model from the tabletop is not treated as a form of movement, then this will destroy the first contention above.

In that case, you'd be forced to prove the second contention, or concede the overall argument.

You were using IG codex as a reason it should allow to remove from combat, how is that different?

I think he's questioning their consistency, not saying they can't use another Codex.

To justify their point, they refer to Skyleap and VoD (other Codices).

To justify his point, he refers to the IG Codex.

They say "it's weak to refer to another codex."

He says "you just did that."

My thinking mirror's Timmah's and Phryxis' on this issue.

Phryxis wrote:

If it does not say that the power may be used as such it simply can't.

Again, this is the "permissive ruleset" argument being misapplied. It's not that I don't understand the concept of a permissive ruleset. It's that we disagree with what the rules permit.

To my thinking, being "removed from the tabletop" doesn't constitute movement, in much the same way that being removed as a casualty doesn't constitute movement.

Again, to my thinking, being "removed from the tabletop" would remove a unit from being locked in CC.

Thus, whether a Deep Strike is considered movement or not isn't really relevant. The unit isn't locked in combat at that point.

From my perspective, it isn't a matter of whether or not "removed from the tabletop" constitutes movement or not.

The entire process of GoI is movement. The unit starts at one point on the board and subsequently ends up on another point of the board in exactly the same state (models, wounds, etc.) as it was at its original position. IMHO, whether or not the individual steps of the process, on their own, constitute movement is irrelevant; the unit, for all practical purposes, is moved from one point of the board to another. GW has established with other rules that they will specify if a unit may be moved from an ongoing assault, and GoI does not have that specification.

Addendum:

Now, I'm kinda speaking out of my butt on this one, but I think I remember how Send in the Next Wave works, and I don't think it's applicable in this case.

With SitNW, the models/unit on the board are removed from the board, Then, that unit comes back on the board just as it was at the start of the game with its original number of models, upgrades, etc. Also, removing the unit from the board grants a kill point, correct?

In this case, assuming my understanding of the rule is correct, I do not believe it is movement. The original unit is, effectively, destroyed, and a totally new unit (for game purposes) enters the game from the board edge, in a similar fashion to how Without Number works. Consequently, I do not believe this is an appropriate rule for comparison to how rules like GoI function.

Moving off the board is still considered movement though. So the original unit could not be removed.

Everyone stand back, I'm makin' da' call!

You can use Gate of Infinity even if you are locked in combat.

Whew, everyone all right? No injuries? Good.

AWAY!

*Flies away*

You do that a lot.

I has yet to help, or even contribute anything useful.

I read it as this. First the models are removed from the game THEN they are deep struck back in. Yes, they count as moving, but they move AFTER they have been removed from combat. Them leaving combat is not movement, its them being removed from the game. Then immediately after leaving the game the Librarian then deepstrikes. Sense they weren't in combat, but out of play, this kind of sillyness is allowed.

Timmah wrote:Moving off the board is still considered movement though. So the original unit could not be removed.

Hey, I don't have any problem with that interpretation, either, actually.

It's much more simple, and further clarifies the inability for GoI to remove models from an ongoing assault.

The only reason I posted the opinion I did was to concede the stipulation that the simple act of removing a unit from the board, in a vacuum, is not movement. In my opinion, the unit would only have actually moved if it is subsequently replaced on the board in a different location. Simply removing the unit (as a casualty or the result of a sweeping advance, for example), to me, isn't movement, so I was willing to concede that SitNW could be used on a unit that was currently locked in an assault, since that unit then became a casualty.

I still would like to see a quotation of the exact rules for SitNW, because I really might be talking out my heiny on the rules for it. If my understanding is correct, the unit removed by SitNW is not "moved (-ing) off the board." It is instead removed as a casualty, which is allowed by the main rules, even if locked in an assault.

IMHO, whether or not the individual steps of the process, on their own, constitute movement is irrelevant; the unit, for all practical purposes, is moved from one point of the board to another.

It's relevant insofar as you have to engage my postulates and conclusions in order to disprove them.

You're doing that, but indirectly. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that being "removed from the tabletop" may or may not be a form of movement, based on what happens afterwards. That's a muddy way of looking at things which I'd hope we can avoid, but the rules certainly could be written in such a way that we can't avoid it.

Note also that "practical purposes" don't necessarily enter into this.

The word "movement" has a meaning in the broader sense of the English language. And you're correct, if something is sitting one place, some things happen, and then it's somewhere else, that thing has, in the general use of the word, undergone "movement."

However, rules often provide more specific, contextual meanings to words. For example, "movement" in 40K doesn't just mean that stuff goes from one place to another. There are a whole set of rules for how this is done, restricting where models can go, through what, over what, etc. etc.

So, is movement just the general meaning? Or is it the specific rules around movement described in the BGB?

If you're not measuring 6" for infantry, 12" for jump infantry, moving the model around intervening models, etc. etc. is that "movement?" Or is it some other mechanism called a different thing? For example being "removed from the tabletop?"

40K isn't a very well written or thought out system. It doesn't fully embrace the concept of "reserved words." Other systems (DnD 4E is a good example), create reserved words, use them deliberately and consistently, and thus reduce confusion. In that sort of system, "movement" would have a specific meaning. You'd know if something was "moving" or being "removed," and you'd know what that meant.

So, all that said, you may be right, because 40K is a sloppy, poorly thought out system, the best definition we get for "movement" may just be "starting one place and ending up in another."

In my opinion, though, we shouldn't resort to that interpretation unless we have to. We should consider "movement" to be the set of actions permitted by that section of the BGB, and anything not covered there is not "movement." If this breaks other rules, then your resolution may be our only option. I just don't see that being the case right now.

Phryxis wrote:
In my opinion, though, we shouldn't resort to that interpretation unless we have to. We should consider "movement" to be the set of actions permitted by that section of the BGB, and anything not covered there is not "movement." If this breaks other rules, then your resolution may be our only option. I just don't see that being the case right now.

This is basically how I think about it as well. Not say its right since this is a gray area in the rules. But it seems like GoI should work in combat just for consistencies sake.

But Deepstrike is also considered movement, or am I missing something again?

It's not weak at all. It's called "precedent" and it's the foundation of the American system of common law.

So how does American law apply to the rule set of a table top game? GW has stated that an individual codex is rules unto itself not precedence of overall codexes. I also see that just with the judicial system you are twisting poorly written words. I understand as written can be used to such effect but I don't think it was meant to be so broken. I also don't like how people twist poor writing /speaking to gain extra benefits(which is why I left law school and became a game designer(much lighter crowds)). Also to this effect has caused games to have rule lawyers and other less desirable gaming partners.

WarmasterScott wrote:It's not weak at all. It's called "precedent" and it's the foundation of the American system of common law.

So how does American law apply to the rule set of a table top game? GW has stated that an individual codex is rules unto itself not precedence of overall codexes. I also see that just with the judicial system you are twisting poorly written words. I understand as written can be used to such effect but I don't think it was meant to be so broken. I also don't like how people twist poor writing /speaking to gain extra benefits(which is why I left law school and became a game designer(much lighter crowds)). Also to this effect has caused games to have rule lawyers and other less desirable gaming partners.

Because precedence is the argument used against GoI out of CC. See skyleap in the eldar codex.

Timmah wrote:

WarmasterScott wrote:It's not weak at all. It's called "precedent" and it's the foundation of the American system of common law.

So how does American law apply to the rule set of a table top game? GW has stated that an individual codex is rules unto itself not precedence of overall codexes. I also see that just with the judicial system you are twisting poorly written words. I understand as written can be used to such effect but I don't think it was meant to be so broken. I also don't like how people twist poor writing /speaking to gain extra benefits(which is why I left law school and became a game designer(much lighter crowds)). Also to this effect has caused games to have rule lawyers and other less desirable gaming partners.

Because precedence is the argument used against GoI out of CC. See skyleap in the eldar codex.

But precedence isn't mine. Mine is that because the rule doesn't state that it can be used as such, it can't. Because it's muddy doesn't mean you can add more because it doesn't say say no either. Till I see you give an official statement from GW on the subject I would leave it up to you and your opponent decide on a game by game basis.

Deleted by the Modquisition as a direct attack.

Phryxis wrote:In my opinion, though, we shouldn't resort to that interpretation unless we have to. We should consider "movement" to be the set of actions permitted by that section of the BGB, and anything not covered there is not "movement." If this breaks other rules, then your resolution may be our only option. I just don't see that being the case right now.

I agree with this idea in general. I prefer to have things more well spelled out before me in a game's rules set. To me, we must first "break no rule." There are explicit times where the main rule book says you can remove models from base to base/assault (during casualty removal, hit and run, failing a morale test and fleeing, etc). In the main rules, there are only a few instances where models are "removed from the board," and those instances are such instances as casualty removal, embarking on a transport, fleeing the board, etc.

The only instance where models that are in base to base/assault are "removed from the board" in the main rules is as a casualty or the result of a sweeping advance (which is also being removed as a casualty). The other instances that allow for a model to be removed from an ongoing assault do not, normally, remove the model from the board, though that possibility exists (fleeing off the board), and the unit is considered a casualty if that does happen; ie., the unit doesn't get to come back on the board. In either case, the other examples of ways to leave combat are explicitly called movement, and have a specific allowance in the rules for that movement to take place.

Next, removing a model as a casualty is the only instance in the BGB that I can think of where being "removed from the board" is not explicitly stated as being movement. If you embark on a transport, you're considered as moving. If you flee off of the board, you're moving.

I know I'm rambling here, but I hope you can follow my thoughts (I'm at work and posting sentences between answering phones and such). The point I'm trying to make is that I don't understand how the "remove from the board" in GoI is somehow not movement, when most other instances of "removed from the board" are considered movement. I really, truly, and honestly believe that a rule must have a specific allowance in order for a unit to be removed from an ongoing assault. There is too much precedence in rules from other codices and from the main rule book that give an allowance for removal from an ongoing assault for us to let GoI get away without that specific allowance.

You are trying to be way too smart for your own good. No matter what statements are made here doesn't set a precedence around the world just for the game you have control over. I don't see how ceding a little to your side has any hidden anything. It's a game I play for fun not stake all my views etc into. I take my job and design more seriously because my team and I can create those concrete "precedence." In this situation I have no true control over the rules except where I play and thankfully not with you phryx or we would be tired from arguing. I find your personnel attacks or negative statements toward me cloud a debate. If you choose to make assumptions of my skills without actual evidence to create "precedence" you sound like a hypocrite.

This thread is being repoened. A reminder, attacks on other posters or opining on your view of what their capacities are, violate Dakka RUle #1 and can lead to your suspension/Banning.

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't understand how the "remove from the board" in GoI is somehow not movement, when most other instances of "removed from the board" are considered movement.

I'm not sure the other instances are considered movement, but I don't have my BGB in front of me to look.

That said, I'd view the things you mention (embarking, falling back off table), not to be "removed from the table as a form of movement," but instead "forms of movement that lead to being removed from the table."

Phryxis wrote:

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't understand how the "remove from the board" in GoI is somehow not movement, when most other instances of "removed from the board" are considered movement.

I'm not sure the other instances are considered movement, but I don't have my BGB in front of me to look.

That said, I'd view the things you mention (embarking, falling back off table), not to be "removed from the table as a form of movement," but instead "forms of movement that lead to being removed from the table."

With the exception of casualties, can you think of any other instance of removing a model from the table that is not considered movement?

To me, this means that leaving the table is either as movement or as a casualty. The main rules don't give another option, to the best of my recollection. It's obvious that a rule like GoI, Skyleap, VoD, etc. is not making the models a casualty; if it were, the opponent would, at the least, gain a KP. Since they're not a casualty (upon which I think we can both agree), the action is either movement or some third option that has, as yet, not been defined by the rules (which may very well be the case, knowing GW's rules writing history). I personally believe it is movement, as I cannot find anything in the rules to support the idea that "removed from the table" in the context of GoI is some nebulous action neither movement nor casualty.

Similarly, this line of reasoning is why I believe that SitNW works on units in assault; that unit is removed as a casualty, and a new (albeit identical) unit moves on from the board edge.

(OT: Haha...wow, Phryx, this may very well be the longest exchange on this topic in YMDC history that hasn't devolved into name calling and other trollishness. Very refreshing.)

@ Saldiven:

I must say that is a very convincing argument. I would have to check the SitNW ability and make sure it says remove as a casualty. If it does, then I think we can confirm that leaving the table is always either a movement or a casualty.

(at least I'm pretty convinced.)

I am pretty certain it does, as I recall them giving another point. But I shall have to look as well.

Timmah wrote:@ Saldiven:

I must say that is a very convincing argument. I would have to check the SitNW ability and make sure it says remove as a casualty. If it does, then I think we can confirm that leaving the table is always either a movement or a casualty.

(at least I'm pretty convinced.)

I seem to recall that it does, but I'm not really certain. I don't own the codex, and I've only read through it a couple of times.

I have to admit that I could be completely wrong on this one; I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Haha...I don't play marines and I've never played against a GoI Librarian, so I don't really have a dog in the hunt, you know?

I'm just saying that you don't have to worry about offending me by positing differing opinions, as long as you're nice about it

That really is an interesting point Saldiven. However, I am not certain we can say that all "remove from the table" type actions are necessarily due to movement or casualty, at least without specifically being told that. The reason I say that is that we are given a few instances where being removed from the table is the result, but are not told those instances are all inclusive. Thus I don't think it means that every effect that pulls something from the table necessarily falls under movement or a casualty.

By way of example, were you to survail my car for a week and list all the people whose entry results in them driving it, you would see that myself and my wife both result in the car being driven. However, if I later loan the car to my father, the fact that his entrance into the car results in it being driven does not make him me or my wife. He is merely an addition to the list of people who upon entering the car can drive it.

Also, I would point out that the BRB only has examples of models leaving the table by way of movement or casualty removal, but that does not preclude codexes having rules or situations where units leave the table by some method other than movement or casualty removal. In this case, GoI seems to allow for it.

As to defining Movement, I would go so far as to say that GW defines movement not just as pick up from point A and replace at point B some distance away. GW assumes that the miniatures are actually occupying every point inbetween A and B for movement, requiring moving along a different path if units or terrain get in the way. So I don't really think you can call removing a model from the table and placing it somewhere else by means of Deep Strike "movement" in the normal sense. I would be inclined to agree that the removal aspect is not movement, but the Deep Strike counts as the movement of the unit for the turn. Essentially what Phryxis said.

Great discussion though! It is rare to have such a well thought bit of rules debate going on.

Here's how I see it:

1) Welcome to 5th edition, we have of course made rule changes and how we say things to mean stuff during the course of the game. This is a permissive rule set, so you can only do what we say in the rules and you must do exactly that.

2) GoI - Says to use this power during hte start of your movement phase. Remove models from the board. Redeploy anywhere within 24" inches of their last position.

3) Stop refering to old codicies (especially eldar and necrons which are very old) about how we might have said similar things in the past, those were written under a different rules set with different lingo. Instead see point 1 where we say do what we say because it is a permissive rule set and not what you think we ment or used to say in old rules not applicable to an army that comes from another codex. That would be like using Thunder hammers from Dark angles codex instead of the thunder hammers from the marine codex written for 5th.

So in summary do what the rules say and gate out of combat, because its a two stage process done at the start of your movement phase. Pick up your models and redeploy. This was how it was ruled in both of the first and second rounds of 'Ard Boyz that I attended at two different stores with two different sets of judges.