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.

SilverMK2 wrote:*Shrugs*

If you really want to be that way, fine. I was just trying to be helpful. INAT is generally a good place to look to see how rules are played if there is any confusion.

Oh, I agree with you completely, the INAT is a very fine piece of work indeed, I just don't think it's neccesary in this case. Once again, sorry if I come across as rude, I tend to be a bit blunt.

If the rule says you can move up to D6 and you choose to move zero, do you count as having moved? I'm thinking of situations where the unit might have heavy weapons or be in dangerous terrain/affected by an Eldar Doomweaver.

Homer

Homer S wrote:If the rule says you can move up to D6 and you choose to move zero, do you count as having moved? I'm thinking of situations where the unit might have heavy weapons or be in dangerous terrain/affected by an Eldar Doomweaver.

Homer

As Righteous Zeal occurs during your opponent's shooting phase, it doesn't affect firing with heavy weapons. The other two points would affect it though, which is why I so vehemently defend my right to not move.

I just checked out the INAT to see what they say and they are silent on this subject.

RZ is only dealt with on another issue.

The rule is clear, the problem is people dont actually READ all the rules needed to arrive at the conclusion.

Up to d6" includes 0", although if you elect for 0" you won't count as moving and so won't trigger the Monofilament Web rules.

Given that they're more likely to be falling back than average marines I don't think it's unsporting to make the actual movement optional. They have to take a morale check for every phase they take a casualty instead of just on 25% losses.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Most TOs are going to go with the rules as written, which are clear: up to D6" is up to D6"

Indeed, and TBH I'd go so far as to say that I wouldn't feel comfortable playing a game where the TO arbitrarily changes the rules. Considering that the rule was written for 4th ed, I'd be fine with movement being compulsory as long as I get to consolidate into combat. Can't both have the cookie and eat it.

Why would the BT be allowed to consolidate? They are not winning combat, they are losing to shooting attacks.

of coure, you are more than welcome to charge and be counter-charged, but that was not the situation.

SilverMK2 wrote:*Shrugs*

If you really want to be that way, fine. I was just trying to be helpful. INAT is generally a good place to look to see how rules are played if there is any confusion.

Silver, thanks for clarifying that.

Avatar - Righteous Zeal, read it, love it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Avatar - Righteous Zeal, read it, love it.

Indeed.

Righteous Zeal is identical to a consolidation move towards the closest enemy. The intention in 4th was for Templars to be able to use the rule to assault people who shot them. In 5th this is no longer allowed, but since there's no such thing as "massacre" any more movement isn't compulsory, as it follows the normal consolidation rules. As such, I'd be happy to play it as if I had to move "because it's the spirit of the rule" if I also get to consolidate into combat, which is equally part of the original intentions.