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.

Hi all,

Just had a game this weekend where a situation arose that was not clear.

I, Space Wolves, shot and killed Black Templars who were in cover on an Objective.

Their special rule makes them charge out at me d6".

However, my opponent had a Jump Pack IC with them and stated that since he had "joined" them, they were now considered Jump Infantry. Despite the fact none wore Jump packs, and I am quite certain an IC cannot join a squad unless they are of the same gear class, he was adamant he was corrct and I simply finished the game as usual.

Can anyone confirm the correct ruling in this situation please?

I mean, if Logan is striding up the field I cannot put him in a unit with TWC or Skyclaws as he is in TDA and not equipped with either Jump pack or a TW.

He can join that squad perfectly fine, but the IC has to move at the speed of the slowest model in the unit, which would be infantry. None of the other models would become jump infantry. Basically the Jump-Infantry IC would be regular infantry while staying with an infantry unit.

Equipment doesn't matter. I could join my captain on a bike to a unit of terminators if I wanted to.

The part where your opponent screwed up was having his IC magically make the rest of the unit jump infantry. It's right in the movement rules, a unit moves at the speed of the slowest model. If I joined a power armor librarian to a jump pack squad, they would all be forced to move a max of 6".

OK. So being that we can now confirm that they do not become Jump Infantry, they are subject to the regular ruling that they must assault/move forward d6" in order to avenge their fallen from my fire.

His arguement was that they become Jump Infantry and do not roll for this.

AvatarForm wrote:OK. So being that we can now confirm that they do not become Jump Infantry, they are subject to the regular ruling that they must assault/move forward d6" in order to avenge their fallen from my fire.

His arguement was that they become Jump Infantry and do not roll for this.

They don't become JI, but they don't have to move forward either. While they have to take the test, if they pass they can simply opt to stand still, as per the consolidation rules.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:They don't become JI, but they don't have to move forward either. While they have to take the test, if they pass they can simply opt to stand still, as per the consolidation rules.

No, they can't. Righteous Zeal forces them to move towards the enemy when they pass a morale test.

They can still move "up to" the D6" they roll.

Is that the loophole? Does Righteous Zeal say "up to", thus functionally making the movement optional?

I would say that a movement of 0 is not actually satisfying the rule requiring you to move.

nosferatu1001 wrote:They can still move "up to" the D6" they roll.

Mannahnin wrote:Is that the loophole? Does Righteous Zeal say "up to", thus functionally making the movement optional?

TheAvengingKnee wrote:I would say that a movement of 0 is not actually satisfying the rule requiring you to move.

Cannot find the FAQ for Righteous Zeal, however, 0" does not count as movement.

I also cannot find the thread on Warseer where I have seen the "up to" hashed out in length.

Anyone have a definite answer on this?

Huh, it's 'identical to a consolidate move'... so yes, it does allow you to move 'up to' the distance rolled.

I suspect that whoever wrote the rule was somewhat expecting that anyone playing BTs would want to move the full allowed distance.

Mannahnin wrote:Is that the loophole? Does Righteous Zeal say "up to", thus functionally making the movement optional?

As Insaniak pointed out, it is a Consolidate move, and as such follows all the normal rules for a consolidate move - and up to is included in normal moves which a consolidate is.

Remembering when the codex was written generally you wanted to keep your BTs moving, as if they were being shot they werent in combat. With the advent of objectives you now often want to stick still!

Indeed, as the consolidation rules don't require you to move at all, you don't have to.

Cool. Thanks.

With these answers, it appears that it doesnt matter if the IC is present or not. The disagreement was whether they were required to make a Righteous Zeal move, and he supported with the fact of the IC with Jump Pack.

the RZ move is "Up to" the distance rolled.


they do have to move, but they don't have to move the full distance.


they could move 0.000001 inches and still be perfectly legal.

I disagree, GT, up to can be interpreted as distance <= d6". 0 is <= d6".

Rephistorch wrote:I disagree, GT, up to can be interpreted as distance <= d6". 0 is <= d6".

I fear this rule is a case of not being to unsporting. The whole idea of them charging towards the closest enemy is all part of the fluff and part of the fun. Sometimes you just have to go with the flow of the game as win at all cost tactics are never the most fun. Unless you really want to win a tournament or something sometimes ifs more fun to play in a 'cinematic' way that makes the battle seem more interesting. Fluff wise I couldn't see the BT seeing an enemy and beginning to charge towards them and then deciding 'actually maybe we will wait here insted'. For me I would rater do the mroe fun thing and see how it goes.

The Acolyte wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:I disagree, GT, up to can be interpreted as distance <= d6". 0 is <= d6".

I fear this rule is a case of not being to unsporting. The whole idea of them charging towards the closest enemy is all part of the fluff and part of the fun. Sometimes you just have to go with the flow of the game as win at all cost tactics are never the most fun. Unless you really want to win a tournament or something sometimes ifs more fun to play in a 'cinematic' way that makes the battle seem more interesting. Fluff wise I couldn't see the BT seeing an enemy and beginning to charge towards them and then deciding 'actually maybe we will wait here insted'. For me I would rater do the mroe fun thing and see how it goes.

In most cases I would agree, but I don't think it's fair to limit the army's ability to hold objectives, especially when the rule allows them not to move at all. I would think a space marine could justify not charging the enemy if they had to protect the emperor's corpse, for instance.

Rephistorch wrote:

The Acolyte wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:I disagree, GT, up to can be interpreted as distance <= d6". 0 is <= d6".

I fear this rule is a case of not being to unsporting. The whole idea of them charging towards the closest enemy is all part of the fluff and part of the fun. Sometimes you just have to go with the flow of the game as win at all cost tactics are never the most fun. Unless you really want to win a tournament or something sometimes ifs more fun to play in a 'cinematic' way that makes the battle seem more interesting. Fluff wise I couldn't see the BT seeing an enemy and beginning to charge towards them and then deciding 'actually maybe we will wait here insted'. For me I would rater do the mroe fun thing and see how it goes.

In most cases I would agree, but I don't think it's fair to limit the army's ability to hold objectives, especially when the rule allows them not to move at all. I would think a space marine could justify not charging the enemy if they had to protect the emperor's corpse, for instance.

In order to satisfy both viewpoints, my opponent could still position them on the side of the objective that was opposite to my troops, RZ move 1" when required to roll, and still be on the objective. You will only leave the objective when you are standing at the side closest to my troops.

I would enjoy hearing how any TOs dealt with players choosing not to move at all in a Tournament setting. Or perhaps official rulings put in place before the commencement and their justification.

AvatarForm wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

The Acolyte wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:I disagree, GT, up to can be interpreted as distance <= d6". 0 is <= d6".

I fear this rule is a case of not being to unsporting. The whole idea of them charging towards the closest enemy is all part of the fluff and part of the fun. Sometimes you just have to go with the flow of the game as win at all cost tactics are never the most fun. Unless you really want to win a tournament or something sometimes ifs more fun to play in a 'cinematic' way that makes the battle seem more interesting. Fluff wise I couldn't see the BT seeing an enemy and beginning to charge towards them and then deciding 'actually maybe we will wait here insted'. For me I would rater do the mroe fun thing and see how it goes.

In most cases I would agree, but I don't think it's fair to limit the army's ability to hold objectives, especially when the rule allows them not to move at all. I would think a space marine could justify not charging the enemy if they had to protect the emperor's corpse, for instance.

In order to satisfy both viewpoints, my opponent could still position them on the side of the objective that was opposite to my troops, RZ move 1" when required to roll, and still be on the objective. You will only leave the objective when you are standing at the side closest to my troops.

I would enjoy hearing how any TOs dealt with players choosing not to move at all in a Tournament setting. Or perhaps official rulings put in place before the commencement and their justification.

Queue tournament organiser in next post...

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

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.

Check out the INAF FAQ - that might have something to cover this situation.

SilverMK2 wrote:Check out the INAF FAQ - that might have something to cover this situation.

I hate to come across as unpleasant, but why would a 3rd party FAQ, no matter how good it is, be needed for an issue that is perfectly clear in the rules?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:I hate to come across as unpleasant, but why would a 3rd party FAQ, no matter how good it is, be needed for an issue that is perfectly clear in the rules?

Because it is used in tournaments all over the world as the "deciding" FAQ - it has contributors from top players and all levels of the wargaming community and is continually revised?

And the fact that there is debate about this "perfectly clear" rule indicates that it may not be perfectly clear?

I can't believe you are arguing what "up to" means. Any TO will say that "up to" means anywhere from 0-6 depending on the roll. You don't actually have to move.

The rule IS clear. Just because there is discussion on it doesn't alter that fact.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rule IS clear. Just because there is discussion on it doesn't alter that fact.

I'm not disputing that, simply that there may be a difinitive "source" of clearness that is well regarded in the wargaming world that you can point to. The fact that there is discussion over the rule means that there is at least some confusion as to how it is to be played.

SilverMK2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rule IS clear. Just because there is discussion on it doesn't alter that fact.

I'm not disputing that, simply that there may be a difinitive "source" of clearness that is well regarded in the wargaming world that you can point to. The fact that there is discussion over the rule means that there is at least some confusion as to how it is to be played.

There is, it's called the Warhammer 40,000 Ruleboook. Additional sources really aren't required TBH.

*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.