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.

Gwar! wrote: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.

Ah, but how can you know that I do not know?

Back to the subject at hand, I haven't seen anything that really convinces me that Gate of Infinity should be allowed to remove a unit from Close Combat. The line drawn here is the removal from the board not being defined as movement or not. As it is undefined, I tend to go with the ruling with least amount of advantages. Therefore, I would play it that the Librarian is locked in combat and cannot leave it via GoI.

My FLGS and some other regular tournaments in my area have ruled that it works to leave assault, based on a couple things.

The first is the logic that remove from table is not movement in game terms, therefore the next step (which is considered movement) is not in conflict since you are not locked to assault when that step happens. You are given permission to use the power, and no conflict arises as you perform the steps, so it works in the permissive ruleset.

The second is a long conversation I had with John Spencer over email, where his GW opinion is that it works to leave combat. He mentioned that this whole remove from table not being movement is one of the items where he did receive input from the design studio. Keep the whining about how people don't care what he says to a minimum please. Answers from askyourquestions email address carry weight in my FLGS, especially when I am told the design studio had input on this one, and this is information about how I play it and why, not me trying to convince you to take input from GW's answer service.

sourclams wrote:

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?

For the forum and anything else? I don't even know what that means exactly, so I can't really comment.

But as for the INAT FAQ: like I said in the other thread regarding INAT rulings you don't agree with, if you present a good argument on why our ruling is wrong by the RAW and a poll also shows overwhelming support for your interpretation then that presents a really strong case to have the ruling changed.

In this case, I personally feel as though the pure RAW argument I had in my head before doesn't quite hold up anymore and there certainly seems to be enough support to at least push me to try to have us re-vote on this issue for the next update.

I Voted A.
In my opinion there are 2 distinct steps here.

1) At the start of the Librarian's Movement Phase, they are removed from combat. Removed is not movement in game terms (it is also not death in game terms )

2) They may then deep strike. Deep Strike is movement and you are not allowed to move if locked in combat.

If you are not on the table, can you be locked in combat?

The entire point of removing the models from the board is to avoid this confusion. If it was considered movement all the way through, why not just say "pick a spot, move the models there, scatter same as deep strike"?

The "removing the models" phrase seems placed there to me to be clear that they can get to the deep strike part regardless of where they were or what they were doing, assuming that the libby passed the check to activate the power.

spycer wrote:The entire point of removing the models from the board is to avoid this confusion. If it was considered movement all the way through, why not just say "pick a spot, move the models there, scatter same as deep strike"?

Because if GW said simply, "Pick a spot up to 24" away and move the Librarian (and any unit he is with)...." then some rules lawyer will say "Wait!, infantry can't move across impassable terrain, or through friendly models or within 1" of enemy models, so you can only gate 3" because you have another unit in the way there."

Timmah wrote:I changed my answer based on skyleap. It never gives permission to be removed from combat yet obviously allows it. Meaning, imo, that being removed from the table is not considered movement.

I vote yes for this reason.

Trasvi wrote:I Voted A.
In my opinion there are 2 distinct steps here.

1) At the start of the Librarian's Movement Phase, they are removed from combat. Removed is not movement in game terms (it is also not death in game terms )

2) They may then deep strike. Deep Strike is movement and you are not allowed to move if locked in combat.

If you are not on the table, can you be locked in combat?

Ok.

Then what is it? (In game terms.)

Oh, right, there is no game definition of "removed from the table."

If we're going to parse the rules arguments that Movement is somehow a specific game term, then I want a game definition of "removed from the table." In the main rules, there are only a couple of instances where you remove a model from the table, and they're related to movement or casualties (though there's an argument that embarking on a vehicle might not be movement).

Embarking on a vehicle is not movement. There is nothing that indicates this, as long as the unit did not move before embarking. You can even embark through impassible terrain or other units, when you clearly could not move through either of these.

thebetter1 wrote:Embarking on a vehicle is not movement. There is nothing that indicates this, as long as the unit did not move before embarking. You can even embark through impassible terrain or other units, when you clearly could not move through either of these.

BRB page 66 under embarking, "A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its access points in the Movement hase."

This rule seems to indicate that embarking onto a vehicle is moving. As far as embarking through impassable terrain or other units, there have been debates on this. I personally don't believe it is a legal move.

I just don't see how anyone can vote A; the similar rules in other codexes explicitly say what to do when locked in base contact, but no allowance is given on Gate.

Trasvi wrote:If you are not on the table, can you be locked in combat?

Thats not the point, If you are Locked in Combat at the start of your turn, then you may not move in your Movement Phase (even if you are unlocked later in the phase).

So while being Removed from Combat isn't movement, Deep Striking later is considered movement and breaks the rule that said you couldn't move in this phase.

The only exception is when the rules say you can leave combat.
(In SkyLeaps case it is very clear that they are meant to be allowed leave combat even though it may technically not spell it out)

MasterSlowPoke wrote:I just don't see how anyone can vote A; the similar rules in other codexes explicitly say what to do when locked in base contact, but no allowance is given on Gate.

Gate removes you from the game before you deepstrike, so you aren't moving while in combat. The question pretty much boils down to is being removed from the game considered movement? I would say no because there is nothing in any book that defines being removed from the game as movement. That is why I voted A anyway.

Except being locked in combat prevents you from moving in the entire movement phase, and under "break no rule" by using Gate you will be moving during hte movement phase, and are thus prevented from doing so.

My 2 cents anyway

As for implication in Skyleap - positivist RAW cannot work. Implication that you can do it, exactly as IoN into combat, is sufficient. GoI lacks this implication and therefore does not have the same permission.

thebetter1 wrote:Embarking on a vehicle is not movement. There is nothing that indicates this, as long as the unit did not move before embarking. You can even embark through impassible terrain or other units, when you clearly could not move through either of these.

Ok, let's take the argument that embarking is not movement and extrapolate that position from the similar position that "removed from the table" (in regards to GoI) is not movement.

That would mean that a unit could embark onto a transport vehicle directly from combat and leave the previously engaged unit out in the open with no expressed ability to so much as consolidate.

This is the same argument that is being put forward to allow GoI to be used on units locked in close combat.

If one believes that GoI allows models to be "removed from the table" directly out of close combat, then they must believe that embarking on a vehicle allows the same thing, as the language is the same in both cases.

Except being locked in combat prevents you from moving in the entire movement phase

We're starting to beat a dead horse and cycle over the same points...

Suffice it to say that I don't agree with your point here. I think it's finding more in the rules than is actually written there, and the simplest, most straightforward read does not demand the interpretation you're making.

That said, the rules don't say your interpretation ISN'T correct, and at this point what's needed is a read for precedent, which I don't currently have time to do.

That would mean that a unit could embark onto a transport vehicle directly from combat

Again, cycling over the same points...

The way to make sense of this is to note that rules say that the models must 'move to within 2"' or something similar, and not 'be within 2".' If you can't move, you can't move to.

I realize this is not the most satisfying ruling, but my opinion is that the rules don't allow for a totally satisfying rationalization, but this is the least problematic path I've seen.

Hey, Phryx, that ruling is fine by me.

It reaffirms my assertion that every point in the main rules that talk about models being "removed from the table" are in reference to either moving or as casualties.

That being the case, where do we come up with the idea that being "removed from the table" in GoI is somehow neither movement nor a casualty without some explanation to that effect?

You missed my point. The action of embarking is not movement, as you can do it through impassible terrain (unless someone can give a rule that shows otherwise, which has never happened before), but you have to move first to be able to embark. This is why you cannot embark out of close combat.

This means that being removed from the table does not have to be either a casualty or movement.

What it comes down to, is how good rulesets are written.

One good strategy is to delineate a finite set of actions a player can take. "Move." "In coherency." "Remove from table."

Then you describe these fully.

Then you use these as building blocks for other rules. For example, "Embark" allows you to "remove from table" and it can only be done when you are allowed to "move" and when you're "in coherency" with a vehicle.

GW doesn't have the awareness or rigor to author rules in this way, but in their confused ramblings, they've somewhat gravitated to it. My feeling is that we get the best out of the rules by trying to apply that sort of structure and rigor whenever possible, even if GW itself doesn't fully grasp its value.

To paraphrase Lt Lathrop from the other discussion thread here:

I believe that if people are arguing that the difference in wording is deliberate, they should really thing about what that means. The authors must have colluded with each other to ensure different wording of the rules. After putting in the work to discuss how they could have made the rule different to the other one, they must have then decided that rather than put in the wording that explicitly forbade the action and made it different to the other rules.
Ie... if you're going to put in the work to make it different, why not make the difference explicit rather than leaving people to battle out the meaning.

Trasvi wrote:Ie... if you're going to put in the work to make it different, why not make the difference explicit rather than leaving people to battle out the meaning.

Because GW are staffed by incompetent halfwits? If we replaced the lot with Poodles we would get a better result.

Agreed. Poodles are very clever dogs.

Trasvi wrote:Agreed. Poodles are very clever dogs.

As are Labradors and Border Collies.

I think we need to just replace all of the Dev team with one of each and rejoice in the new Golden Age for 40k!

We also will need a Chow Chow, because someone has to replace Jervis

Gee, guys... Tell us all again why you still play this game, then?

Why don't you just write up your own system, go hand it to a bunch of ungrateful nitpickers and see what happens?

GeneralRetreat wrote:Gee, guys... Tell us all again why you still play this game, then?

Because no-one else around here plays anything else? Because it has the largest Playerbase due to it being 3 times older than the average age of its players in the last 5 years?

Why don't you just write up your own system, go hand it to a bunch of ungrateful nitpickers and see what happens?

What would happen? We would have a decent flipping system, because I would actually work to make sure the errors are fixed asap.

It would take 1 guy 8 hours a month with a sharpie to fix 40k. Each month, spend a day fixing the new issues that the internet have found, and publish them all in a big Errata download.
But no, GW won't do it, because apparently people who want clear rules are evil f***tards who have no place playing the game so they feel it is ok to publish FAQs a year after the book is released (or in the case of Chaos Dæmons, not at all).

So do it. Stop talking about it and do it already.

Sharpie and and 8 hours; get one full month of errata and corrections published on every codex and the BRB.

Then release it here. I promise to playtest it fully, for one, and I'll bet others would too.

Maybe this will show you exactly how much work goes into something of this scale, and inspire some respect.

Oh! And while you're at it, I want four new models this month and they better not be lame like all the others.

GeneralRetreat wrote:So do it. Stop talking about it and do it already.

Sharpie and and 8 hours; get one full month of errata and corrections published on every codex and the BRB.

Then release it here. I promise to playtest it fully, for one, and I'll bet others would too.

Maybe this will show you exactly how much work goes into something of this scale, and inspire some respect.

LMFAO.

Read my FAQ, I know exactly how much work goes into it.

Also, they don't work for free, neither will I. Arrange a cheque for me and I will be glad to do as you ask once it clears.

Oh! And while you're at it, I want four new models this month and they better not be lame like all the others.

Protip: The people who make the Models are not all the same as the people who make the rules.

GeneralRetreat wrote:So do it. Stop talking about it and do it already.

Sharpie and and 8 hours; get one full month of errata and corrections published on every codex and the BRB.

Then release it here. I promise to playtest it fully, for one, and I'll bet others would too.

Maybe this will show you exactly how much work goes into something of this scale, and inspire some respect.

Oh! And while you're at it, I want four new models this month and they better not be lame like all the others.

Gwar would not have the support of the entire 40k community behind him. You would need to make judgment calls and people don't like those unless they are official. It could be done, but it wouldn't be worth it for an individual to do it. Only the company that owns the game.

Timmah wrote:Gwar would not have the support of the entire 40k community behind him. You would need to make judgment calls and people don't like those unless they are official. It could be done, but it wouldn't be worth it for an individual to do it. Only the company that owns the game.

Also this.

Of course, if you can get GW to hire me, it would be ok

So work is expensive but complaining is free, right?




Edited to add: So you wrote one army's FAQ with significant help. How long did it take you? I think you're awfully full of yourself if you think that that one little document in any way represents the kind of work you're expecting of GW. You yourself said it would take a sharpie and 8 hours of work from one person to fix the whole system, then you laugh at my suggestion to make good on your boast because you wrote one FAQ? Not even the same ballpark.