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.

re·peat

/riˈpēt/

Noun

An action, event, or other thing that occurs or is done again.

Yes, there seems to be a bit of that in this thread.


If you're not getting the answer you're looking for by now, pulling out dictionary definitions isn't going to help the situation.

 Crablezworth wrote:
re·peat

/riˈpēt/

Noun

An action, event, or other thing that occurs or is done again.

Please follow the tenets

We have "done it again" - we have "taken the test, AS NORMAL", again. And found we do not need to take a test, as a test has already been taken that applies to that model.

It doesnt really get much simpler than that. Find a rule stating otherwise, or concede

As normal doesn't change the fact that you're told to repeatedly take a test as normal.

Yep, and the test states you take it once per unit. So, as normal, you take it once per unit.

You seem to struggle with this concept.

Model 2 - you go to take a diff test "as normal", find the unit, and therefore the model, already has a diff test taken, and you move on, rule satisfied

Actually address this point, or your constant repetition of a debunked point will be considered trolling.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually address this point, or your constant repetition of a debunked point will be considered trolling.

You know he means business now.

I'm actually taking the quote from the rule book that people seem to be basing the crux of their arguments around, "difficult terrain tests should be taken as normal" (p79) to mean "take a difficult terrain test when applicable (eg, if you disembark into difficult terrain)". The next sentence then says to repeat this process for each model in the unit. RAW I think Crablezworth actually has the right of it here, but I'm just not sure that it was the intention of the Codex-writers. If it was intentional, then it was probably done to make situations where the whole unit is only allowed to move 1" from the access points extremely rare.

I'm with nos on this one. If you repeat the process for each model, you check for difficult terrain, by going to page 90... which actually gives *no* permission whatsoever to make a difficult terrain check per model. Everything under "Moving Into Difficult Terrain" mentions the unit, rather than individual models.

So either you take one test for the entire unit, or if Crablezworth were correct, you take no test at all (since each model is not a unit in and of itself) and get the whole 6" anyway.

Note that, for disembarking, nothing under "Moving Within Difficult Terrain" applies. There *IS* a per-model difference there.

Andilus - so why do you retake the test? The model has already got "Difficult terrain test taken? Yes" marked in its imaginary box.

You have no permission NOR need to repeat it

RAW Crabs is wrong. Has been since page 1, and hasnt actually advanced their argument once.

You know I'd respond but I'm afraid of being reported for trolling..

 Crablezworth wrote:
You know I'd respond but I'm afraid of being reported for trolling..

I hope not.
You are wrong, imo, but afaiac, fwiw, nato, un, pow, carry on.

 Crablezworth wrote:
You know I'd respond but I'm afraid of being reported for trolling..

Then dont repeat the same debunked argument. Explain your position more than you have done, bringing in pertinent examples

So far you havent addressed the core fact that, "as normal" a diff terrain test affects all models in the unit. Meaning when you come to take the test for model 2, you cannot do so as it has already taken a test.

Find a way round that and you may get somewhere in actually making a case.

There is nothing debunked about being told to repeat a process. You haven't addressed that, you just keep talking about how "normally" you test once, which I agree with you, you do a normal test, over and over and over again until all your models have disembarked or you're forced to emergency disembark.

I understand it seems odd to have to roll multiple times and RAI its questionable BUT when you start looking at situation with independent characters disembarking or multiple independent characters disembarking it makes far more sense than one test to rule them all. By the way you are claiming it works if I have 4 independent characters in a transport and they all intend to disembark separately into difficult terrain I only roll once, which does not make sense. 5th ed did disembarking in two stages and it was done by unit, 6th ed does it by model.



If the rulebook told you in some specific context to "move the model normally" and then told you to "do it again" you can look back at the movement rules and think "but that’s not possible, the rules say the unit can only move once per movement phase" you could use that to muddy the waters but you'd still be ignoring a more specific rule telling you to break a general rule. There are plenty of mechanics in 40k that break others, that's why specific wins out over general most if not all the time.

So when it says test for difficult as normal, I fully agree you test as normal, and when it then tells you to repeat that, you should, otherwise you're choosing to ignore part of the rules.

People lose their minds over "normal". Normal is subjective, in the first part "move as normal" it says that because a jetbike or bike can move more than six, which you can still technically do when disembarking so long as wherever you end up you're still within 6 inches of the hatch the model disembarked from. Normal in the context of the difficult terrain test can simply mean you roll two dice, again seeing as there's no such thing as an abnormal difficult terrain test I'm not really sure why people are inferring so much by the word's presence in the sentence.

Whether the word normal appears twice or not at all in the method for models disembarking doesn't change the fact that you're told specifically to repeat the process over and over per model, there is nothing "normal" about testing per model. Normal just infers that the concept works essentially the same in that you have to decide right from the start if you'll be attempting to move into difficult terrain and that carries with it the possibility that you may never actually roll high enough to get into said terrain.



So in summation, when the rulebook tells you to repeat a process, you have to repeat a process.

No, I debunked it by pointing out that the model already *has* takenn then test. It has a value for diff terrain in its imaginary table of max movement for the disembark, because the terrain test "as normal" applied to the whole unit.

The process was repearted - and part of the process is checking if you *need* to take a difficult terrain test. You cannot take it.

The rules are very specifically telling you to repeat even there is nothing normal about taking a DT test per model, but the rules are telling you just that. The rules often break the rules. By your logic Battle Focus doesn't work because the BRB says you shoot or run. Specific always trumps general rules

So the rules are telling you to make potentially illegal moves?

First model out rolls a 6. Every other model rolls a 1. Unit is now out of coherency and has made an illegal move.

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
The rules are very specifically telling you to repeat even there is nothing normal about taking a DT test per model, but the rules are telling you just that. The rules often break the rules. By your logic Battle Focus doesn't work because the BRB says you shoot or run. Specific always trumps general rules

I take it you didnt read my post, which deal with specific over general.

You are told to report the test, as normal. The model HAS taken a difficult terrain test. Find the specific requirement to take the test on a per model basis, ignoring the unit basis of the test. There is no such language present

 Crablezworth wrote:
BUT when you start looking at situation with independent characters disembarking or multiple independent characters disembarking it makes far more sense than one test to rule them all. By the way you are claiming it works if I have 4 independent characters in a transport and they all intend to disembark separately into difficult terrain I only roll once, which does not make sense.

That would depend on when you think each ic leaves its host unit.

 Crablezworth wrote:
So when it says test for difficult as normal, I fully agree you test as normal, and when it then tells you to repeat that, you should, otherwise you're choosing to ignore part of the rules.

As you would, when you end up with potentially multiple results, all of which can only apply to the unit as a whole, not each individual model, which you would have moved, possibly before knowing how far you are allowed to.

 Crablezworth wrote:
which does not make sense.

It certainly doesn't.
You can't have this both ways, arguing "sense" looks a little circumspect whilst advocating the method you are.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You are told to report the test, as normal. The model HAS taken a difficult terrain test. Find the specific requirement to take the test on a per model basis, ignoring the unit basis of the test. There is no such language present

Though I agree with your overall assessment, this doesn't help at all.

The model has taken a test vs find the permission to do that.
It doesn't work.

The unit has to take the test, no individual model will.

 fuusa wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
BUT when you start looking at situation with independent characters disembarking or multiple independent characters disembarking it makes far more sense than one test to rule them all. By the way you are claiming it works if I have 4 independent characters in a transport and they all intend to disembark separately into difficult terrain I only roll once, which does not make sense.

That would depend on when you think each ic leaves its host unit.

 Crablezworth wrote:
So when it says test for difficult as normal, I fully agree you test as normal, and when it then tells you to repeat that, you should, otherwise you're choosing to ignore part of the rules.

As you would, when you end up with potentially multiple results, all of which can only apply to the unit as a whole, not each individual model, which you would have moved, possibly before knowing how far you are allowed to.

 Crablezworth wrote:
which does not make sense.

It certainly doesn't.
You can't have this both ways, arguing "sense" looks a little circumspect whilst advocating the method you are.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You are told to report the test, as normal. The model HAS taken a difficult terrain test. Find the specific requirement to take the test on a per model basis, ignoring the unit basis of the test. There is no such language present

Though I agree with your overall assessment, this doesn't help at all.

The model has taken a test vs find the permission to do that.
It doesn't work.

The unit has to take the test, no individual model will.

So is your contention that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't because there's no permission to test per model rather than unit?

No.
You only have permission to disembark the unit, you don't have it for disembarking individual models.
If you did, you could leave some models in their transport, with others outside which is expressly forbidden.

Given that the entire unit is moving and the permission and mechanism only exists to take the test en masse, that is the only way to do it (I'm sounding like punch and judy now) as you would "normally."

= disembarkation, though odd in some ways, ie the models "appear" and move, rather than move "normally," the rules see this in "normal" terms, so follow the "normal" procedure.

"Normal" = roll for the unit as a whole.

 fuusa wrote:
No.
You only have permission to disembark the unit, you don't have it for disembarking individual models.

Very good point. If I've worked this out in my head right, this means you must always disembark a unit and any attached ICs together, even if you use the disembark "move" to then split them up. Because the split doesn't happen until the end of that movement phase, the IC is still a member of the unit at the point of disembarkation.

Except of course for three specific permission to disembark just the squad or just the IC.

 Happyjew wrote:
Except of course for three specific permission to disembark just the squad or just the IC.

In which case you will still only be disembarking either 1 or more units.
For eg, an ic, in a transport joined to a unit is one unit.
If the ic decides to disembark alone, it will do so as a unit, not a model.

As I said earlier, when a unit of ic's in a transport was mentioned, it depends of how you view the way ic's leave units, most specifically when, though this is perhaps part of a broader issue, as simply the act of disembarking can separate them.

An ic leaves a unit by moving out of coherency with the other models.

1. So, the ic moves away. the rest of the unit remains stationary. The parting of the waves happens as soon as you place the ic and either don't move the other models, or move them away.
2. Ic's only are considered to have left the unit at the end of the movement, when coherency is checked.

There will be significant divergence of outcome and this, in itself, may be a reason why the disembark mechanism has changed.

A unit of 4 ic's in a transport in difficult terrain, they all want to split off, can you explain how/why would it only be one test?

 Crablezworth wrote:
A unit of 4 ic's in a transport in difficult terrain, they all want to split off, can you explain how/why would it only be one test?

At the point of disembarkation, they'd still be part of the same unit - just, one that's temporarily out of coherency, but moving to split ICs off at the end of the Movement phase allows you to do this.

 Crablezworth wrote:
A unit of 4 ic's in a transport in difficult terrain, they all want to split off, can you explain how/why would it only be one test?

It wouldn't be one test, as I just said, each ic would be a separate unit, not because they are individual models, but they "separate" from the unit, becoming units in their own right, because they disembarked.

 Super Ready wrote:

At the point of disembarkation, they'd still be part of the same unit - just, one that's temporarily out of coherency, but moving to split ICs off at the end of the Movement phase allows you to do this.

That's not correct.
Each ic would leave the unit as it disembarked, forming its own unit, way before the end of the movement phase, the disembarking rules fully allow this.

As far as coherency goes, generally, if you play it as the ic is part of the unit, until the end of the movement phase, regardless of model proximity, it can lead to all sorts of illegal moves.

What many people don't seem to realise, is that despite only having to check at the end, coherency is an on-going concern during the units movement.
By that, I don't mean as you move models, they must be coherent, but that you cannot move a model in such a way, that coherency will be impossible to achieve (unless you are attempting to regain coherency for a scattered unit, or some-such).

Imagine, if you will, a unit of 3 models, 2" apart in a line.
The one on the left, moves to the left, 6".
The one on the right, moves to the right 6".
Already this is an illegal move, there is no-way I can move the central one in order to be coherent.

This ^ = coherency as an on-going concern during movement.

Now, put an ic into the unit.
Ic wants to leave, so moves away. If that doesn't mean he has left coherency and therefore the unit, until it is checked at the end of the movement phase, that means that the rest of his unit are under an obligation to move in such a way as to maintain coherency by the end of the movement phase.
They will be compelled to chase after the ic, because the entire unit must end up coherent = nonsense.

Apologies to the op for wandering a bit.