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.

Remember, there is absolutely no precedent for other powers that do work out of combat. Skyleap just says what to do when it is used out of combat, and VoD does not permit leaving close combat. It only allows leaving base contact, without countering the locked status. It's only good for leaving vehicles that can't be locked (a sloppy wording on GW's part).

Therefore, because it is widely accepted that you can do either of these while in combat even though they don't allow it either, option A.

The poll is almost an even split.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I voted B, as both other similar rules specifically say they they allow removal from combat. GoI does not.

That's exactly my line of thinking. If they meant it to do that, then they should have specified it.

I voted B, as both other similar rules specifically say they they allow removal from combat. GoI does not.

I know it's been pointed out, but what is this all about?

Read Skyleap. It clearly DOES NOT say anything of the sort. Can we stop using this as an argument when it's patently false?

According to the rule examples given, and other special rules from other codexes, then I would say that they (the libby and his squad) are able to GoI out of close combat.

However, if my opponent or tournament runner says no, then I am not going to argue it as there is no concrete ruling either way.

I don't know if I already voted, or if it has been closed. But I gots no button to vote. I would have voted A. You can be removed from the board, and as not being in CC... you can move. Considering that it is almost the exact same rule as both of the other abilities... I don't see why it would work any different.

I would just chalk it up to horrible rule writing.

Lt Lathrop wrote:Considering that it is almost the exact same rule as both of the other abilities... I don't see why it would work any different.

I would just chalk it up to horrible rule writing.

Almost being the key word. It isn't exactly like the others, because it is written differently.

Ork weirdboy psykers also have a similar power and it specfically says in the codex or the FAQ (I forget which) that they get out of close combat with it.

Voted B. Every other rule which has a similar effect (Skyleap, VoD, 'Ere We Go) either states explicitly or strongly implies that the unit may be removed from combat. GoI does neither.

Below is the relevant Ork rule.
It refers to "base contact" not "locked in combat"
It also does not state the models are "removed from the table" and then placed back on the table.

C:O p.37 wrote:Weirdboys cannot control their psychic powers. At the beginning of each Ork Shooting Phase, a Weirdboy must roll on the following table to find out which psychic power he must use that turn.
Weirdboys must take a Psychic test before determining the power they use.

5- 'Ere We Go: The Weirdboy closes his eyes tight and, in a storm of green light, teleports his unit to another part of the battlefield. The weirdboy and any unit he is with must be placed anywhere on the board as per the Deep Strike rules. This power must be used even if enemy models are in base contact; if so the enemy models stay in place.

The only time I can think of when a model would be in base contact with an enemy model not be considered "locked in combat" is when the enemy model is a vehicle.

So does it really make a difference if it's "in base contact" or "locked in combat" ?

Yes, because as you just stated their are times when you can be in base contact and not locked in combat. Also note that if the weird boy uses his power while embarked on a transport (i.e. not even really on the table) he still telports with the unit out of the vehicle to somewhere else on the table.

budro wrote:The only time I can think of when a model would be in base contact with an enemy model not be considered "locked in combat" is when the enemy model is a vehicle.

So does it really make a difference if it's "in base contact" or "locked in combat" ?

You're right in that the only instance I know of is in BTB with an enemy vehicle.
Are "in base contact" or "locked in combat" synonymous? Having played 3rd, 4th & 5th Edition I think it's safe to say "Yes"

The reason why I have posted the quote and made the distinction is that from a RAW standpoint they are different.
As the justification for a few arguments against GoI being used to get out of CC is that the unit is considered "locked in combat" not "in base to base with an enemy model". If the argument is the unit is considered "locked" then none of the powers, Veil, Leap, GoI, EWG, would work.

For the record, I voted "yes" as my initial reaction months ago when I read the codex was "yes". I was swayed to "no" due to it not being "permissive" specifically for HTH, however, the "removed from tabletop" makes me agree more with my initial reaction, "Yes, you can GoI out of HTH".

Option B. Three out of four similar powers state explicitly or implicitly that you can leave combat. This is the only one which doesn't.

Mannahnin wrote:Option B. Three out of four similar powers state explicitly or implicitly that you can leave combat. This is the only one which doesn't.

Also, the Wierdboy power is not voluntary and does not occur in the Movement phase, but in the Shooting phase.
For that reason I would not consider it equivilent to GoI, VoD or Skyleap. All of those occur in the Movement phase.

Option B. Three out of four similar powers state explicitly or implicitly that you can leave combat.

This is starting to become more interesting to me than the actual rules debate... How can people be reading Skyleap and still saying that GoI doesn't let you leave CC?

It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, and about six people have all said, "yup, clearly a beaver." Huh?

The only way this makes sense, is if you guys think GW writes rules via indirect hint. While that's not TOTALLY unreasonable, it still makes no sense to me in this case.

Can somebody please elobrate beyond stating this as their opinion, and shed some light into why you think Skyleap does say it's allowed ot use in CC, and also that GoI doesn't?

paidinfull wrote:
You're right in that the only instance I know of is in BTB with an enemy vehicle.
Are "in base contact" or "locked in combat" synonymous? Having played 3rd, 4th & 5th Edition I think it's safe to say "Yes"

For the record, these were different in previous additions as well. In fact, one of the big knocks against tyranid lictors was that if they assaulted a vehicle, they couldn't get back into cover with hit and run.

So basically 1 power implies that you can leave combat but doesn't actually say you can
2 say that you can leave B2B but says nothing of combat
1 has nothing

At the very least I would think all 4 should be ruled the same since they all function the same per RAW.

Timmah wrote:At the very least I would think all 4 should be ruled the same since they all function the same per RAW.

Except they don't. 3 allow you to leave Close Combat, 1 doesn't.

Phryxis wrote:

Option B. Three out of four similar powers state explicitly or implicitly that you can leave combat.

This is starting to become more interesting to me than the actual rules debate... How can people be reading Skyleap and still saying that GoI doesn't let you leave CC?

It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, and about six people have all said, "yup, clearly a beaver." Huh?

The only way this makes sense, is if you guys think GW writes rules via indirect hint. While that's not TOTALLY unreasonable, it still makes no sense to me in this case.

Can somebody please elobrate beyond stating this as their opinion, and shed some light into why you think Skyleap does say it's allowed ot use in CC, and also that GoI doesn't?

That's simple.

For Skyleap, it actually does not state that it can be used to leave combat, but does make an implication that it can be. You can argue that all you want. I actually believed that it stated in the rule that it could, as that is how it was played against me, and I never bothered to actually read the rule. After reading the rule, I'm a little perplexed about it, as Skyleap does not specifically grant the ability to leave combat.

GoI is easy; I don't think it should be able to remove a unit from an ongoing assault because it doesn't specifically say it can be used to do so.

Is it really asking for that much to want to see that in the rule?

What always amuses me is the opposite position. Most people have an opinion about the matter, and then start looking at rules to try to find a way to support their position (rather than going into the issue with an open mind). This is where the whole "removed from the board is not movement" argument has come from. It's an effort to parse the wording of the rule to somehow separate the actual action of relocating a unit from one place to another from the rules and restrictions for movement, even though the practical application of GoI results in the unit moving.

edited: grammar

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:At the very least I would think all 4 should be ruled the same since they all function the same per RAW.

Except they don't. 3 allow you to leave Close Combat, 1 doesn't.

2 don't. Skyleap never grants permission, it just implies that removing a unit in CC from the table is allowed by giving a result of that action.

If you want explicit allowance, skyleap doesn't work in CC.
If you follow the implication presented by skyleap (that you can generally remove a unit in CC from the table), then GOI works in CC.

I believe that the argument saying removal is movement and not allowed isn't clearly defined. I'll follow the clear implication from skyleap, A.

Phryxis wrote:

Option B. Three out of four similar powers state explicitly or implicitly that you can leave combat.

This is starting to become more interesting to me than the actual rules debate... How can people be reading Skyleap and still saying that GoI doesn't let you leave CC?

It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, and about six people have all said, "yup, clearly a beaver." Huh?

The only way this makes sense, is if you guys think GW writes rules via indirect hint. While that's not TOTALLY unreasonable, it still makes no sense to me in this case.

Can somebody please elobrate beyond stating this as their opinion, and shed some light into why you think Skyleap does say it's allowed ot use in CC, and also that GoI doesn't?

[rant]GW certainly writes rules according to what you refer to as "indirect hint". They can't be bothered to parse everything out in painstaking detail; and frankly, even if they did, people on this board would STILL find something to twist, take out of context, and manipulate.
[/rant]

I would really like to see how this "implication" argument carries over to Deffrollas vs. Vehicles in a Ram.

What is more evident to me is that people simply opt with the weaker interpretation in an any area where rules create ambiguity.

I voted A because the Librarian is removed from (which is not movement) before he deep strikes.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:At the very least I would think all 4 should be ruled the same since they all function the same per RAW.

Except they don't. 3 allow you to leave Close Combat, 1 doesn't.

2 don't. Skyleap never grants permission, it just implies that removing a unit in CC from the table is allowed by giving a result of that action.

If you want explicit allowance, skyleap doesn't work in CC.
If you follow the implication presented by skyleap (that you can generally remove a unit in CC from the table), then GOI works in CC.

I believe that the argument saying removal is movement and not allowed isn't clearly defined. I'll follow the clear implication from skyleap, A.

I'm with Gorkamorka on this one. Skyleap does not give implicit permission to leave CC either, and by all the "locked in combat" arguments, it wouldn't allow it. So then, why do they give exact rules on what happens WHEN this occurs? Why write a rule for a situation that can't happen?

My take from this is that GW is a little sloppy, but they clearly intend for all powers that "remove from the table" in function to remove from CC. The whole reason I see for using the phrase 'remove from the table' is to exempt it from the normal movement restrictions for whatever situation the unit is in. Teleport type powers just need to be unified in a USR and assigned to the units in each army that are clearly intended to have them. But since they have all these little weirdnesses for each specific power, and there's quite a time lapse between writings, I think the author of C:SM just had it in his head that 'removed from the table' was clear enough to let everyone know that it should exempt the unit from normal movement restrictions, and thought that the "clean-up" rules would be pretty clear (enemy consolidates, deep strike movement can cause mishap, etc etc etc).

Just my opinion of course. I've yet to use this power in a game this way, although I think it should be there. I'll wait on some official errata... sooo ... 2012?

GeneralRetreat wrote:My take from this is that GW is a little sloppy, but they clearly intend for all powers that "remove from the table" in function to remove from CC.

Please provide us with a Copy of your Birth Certificate and sworn affidavit that you are indeed one of the authors of the rulebook and/or codex.

Unless you are an author, you have no idea what the "intent" was any more than I know what a Monarch Butterfly Larva is thinking of.

Never said I was. I was giving my opinion, as I clearly stated.

I thought this forum was called You Make Da Call? I made my call.

Apparently your ruling on this topic is "make personal attacks on other posters so I can win by attrition."

Thanks for your two cents. Here's your change.

For Skyleap, it actually does not state that it can be used to leave combat, but does make an implication that it can be.

Agree 100%.

And if it implies that Skyleap can be used to leave CC, then why isn't it also implying that GoI can?

Most people have an opinion about the matter, and then start looking at rules to try to find a way to support their position (rather than going into the issue with an open mind).

This is a bit cynical...

I think people hear a rule, make a call as to what they think, and then if they're challenged, they start looking for the rules they were thinking of when they made the initial decision.

I feel like you're implying that people just WANT GoI to work, so they're trying to lawyer up a justification for why. I know, in my case at least, that's not fair. I've put a lot of thought into getting this ruling right. To be told it's just because I have a bias is insulting.

This is where the whole "removed from the board is not movement" argument has come from. It's an effort to parse the wording of the rule to somehow separate the actual action of relocating a unit from one place to another from the rules and restrictions for movement, even though the practical application of GoI results in the unit moving.

Again, this is insultingly cynical and judgemental. You're questioning the motivation of people who are making this argument, suggesting it's deliberate parsing and dissembling, as if reading the rules in this way is not possible without an ulterior motive.

I won't lie, to me the precedent set with Skyleap is so abundantly clear, that I have to struggle to remind myself that anybody who doesn't see it isn't "stupid," or a "liar." But I do succeed in that struggle. I can't understand how people don't see it, but I don't resort to accusing them of disingenuousness, as you appear to be doing.

Unless you are an author, you have no idea what the "intent" was any more than I know what a Monarch Butterfly Larva is thinking of.

Not just snide, but completely false.

We have a very good idea what the author was thinking because of how Skyleap is written. The author does NOT specifically say that "removed from the table" can happen in CC, yet they say something that assumes that the model has been removed from CC. This makes it abundantly clear that their intent is that the model can be removed from CC.

Now, I understand, the guy that wrote Skyleap is not the guy that wrote the BGB. So maybe they view this differently. But what we do know for sure, is that the guy who wrote Skyleap (Phil Kelly) does think that you can "remove from the table" when a model is locked in CC.

Regardless, this is a total abuse of the "RAW not intent" line. It's one thing when the RAW are clear, and somebody says "yeah, but they didn't mean that" and overturns RAW. It's another thing ENTIRELY when the rules are unclear, and somebody is looking for hints at how the author intends for them to be interpreted. At the very least, we're dealing with that situation.

I've gotta say, this whole thing is blowing my mind. Not only are people reading the opposite of what I am from Skyleap, they're reading so much the opposite that they think it's grounds to get snarky and derisive...

If nothing else, look at the poll results. More people agree with me than with you. I guess most people are stupider than you?

I had to vote A on this due to the wording of GoI. The rule reads as a 3 step process that others have pointed out before;

Step A) Remove All models in said unit from the tabletop.

The Librarian, and any unit he is with, are removed from the tabletop...

There is precedence for removing models from the table top while locked in combat. Quoting from the BBB page 24 (and subsequently it would be 39 if it didn't point you to 24) Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is removed from the table as a casualty.

Apples to oranges you say. Read the bolded section, it is only going to prove precendence of remove from table can happen when locked in an assault, by more than one means. Whether it is casualty, GoI, Skyleap, etc. That list can go on almost forever, but the point is that removed from the table is the actual effect at this point, not deep strike, not movement, and it is one that can be used while locked in combat.

Step B) Nominate a point on the table and measure if it is within 24"

A fairly simple action. Just one suggestion at this point, make sure that you're marking exactly where the librarian was before since he is removed from the table.

Step C) Follow the Deep Strike rules at this point

Again a fairly straight forward section, with a single twist from GoI. In the case of doubles on a scattered roll remove a model from the unit. Here is where this power differs from Skyleap and from VoD in a big way. A relatively safe move is made very complicated by having someone along for the ride.


This is my view on it and why I went with the A vote. Even though it does have vague wording on it it does have that specific phrase "removed from the table" that makes this, at least IMHO, an escape from CC option. I can see both sides to this arguement, but there is one thing to say about the other 3 codices mentioned; All 3 of them are made for a different edition of the game. While on the surface all 3 codices and the rules are compatible, it's worth mentioning that they came from a time of slightly different rules. Just a little food for thought.

Lets get this back on track, folks.

Yakface already asked once for people to keep the actual rules discussion to the existing thread.

This thread is for people to post how they play it. Not for rules arguments. And definitely not for jumping on people for having an opinion.

Phryxis wrote:I've gotta say, this whole thing is blowing my mind. Not only are people reading the opposite of what I am from Skyleap, they're reading so much the opposite that they think it's grounds to get snarky and derisive...

I absolutely agree.

insaniak wrote:Lets get this back on track, folks.

Fair enough.

So Yakface, after having put this up and watched both vocal minorities throw their view out there, the slim majority is in favor with the more powerful option between the two interpretations.

How, if at all, does this change anything for this forum, the FAQ, or anything else?