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.

That's true. My brain must have been malfunctioning. So in this case, the skimmer rules would allow the skimmer to be moved from it's spot and stay 1 inch away from enemies. So the controlling plaer can elect direction I guess? Also, if this move moved the ghost ark beyond combat speed, does it consider as having moved at cruising speed?

Or, given it cannot move to a legal position, it cannot move in the first place.

There's nothing forcing a skimmer to move 1" away from assaulting units on the next turn. If it does not move, it stays in combat (treat as hit and run electing not to run).

BRB: "If a vehicle that has been assaulted (and survived) does not move in its successive Movement phase, enemy models will still be in base contact with it during its Shooting and Assault phase. Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle (not including Walkers or Chariots) are not locked in combat and can therefore be shot during the Shooting phase. If the vehicle pivots on the spot (to shoot at its attackers for example), move these models out of the way as you shift the vehicle and then place them back into base contact with the vehicle – or as close as possible if there is no room."

Vehicles are only allowed to move 12" in the movement phase. The Neorealist slide doesn't change that fact.
Moving more than 12" breaks a rule - even if it's sliding.
Cite permission to break the rule.

 Neorealist wrote:
You'll also note that you are not ending your movement on top of either. Your skimmer ends it's movement 1" from any enemy unit via the shortest possible route from where it would have ended up if you were allowed to put it there, just as the skimmer rules say.

Given I've said this more than a couple of times now, I'm astonished that I'm still somehow missing people with the rather clear rules as written.

BRB:"Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either."

BRB: "If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it."

Neorealist... you're claiming that you're not being forced to end your movement over a model since the rules allow you to move said model away from other models before ending it's move. I've put the relevant points in bold. The second rule quoted doesn't kick in until you have ENDED your movement. But the first rule specifically states that you can not choose to END your movement over models. And since you have a choice of moving or not moving your skimmer, it is clear you are not forced to make an illegal move by ENDING your movement on a model in order to trigger the second rule.

A scenario where this could happen is if a skimmer tank shocks a unit behind another unit (thus moving over them) and is immobilized during a Death or Glory attempt. Then the skimmer is FORCED to END it's move over a model and thus the rule would kick in to move it the shortest distance away.

The Magna grapple stops when they meet another unit. Currently it's the lash of submission, which I think still exists on a single model, can cause this unless we are reading some rule incorrectly.

 Neorealist wrote:
Yep. But it doesn't stop other rules from 'forcing' you to end your move there should the player happen to have been moving his vehicle over the enemy unit. For example this rule: "... if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase ..." in conjunction with the 'VEHICLES IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE' rules.

In short, you can move your vehicle over the enemy unit, and other rules can then force you to stop moving your vehicle at that point (not necessarily earlier in your move action), activating the second part of the skimmer movement rules. Simple. easy.

So, to paraphrase, you are going to voluntarily pick up your Ghost Ark to move it on top of enemy models and then say "Whoops, looks like I'd be forced to land there!"?

Come on.

If you cannot land anywhere in a 12'' radius, then you cannot move. It's that simple.

 Neorealist wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So you are not going to answer the question because it undermines your entire argument?

No I'm going to answer your question in plain English and you are going to completely miss my answer somehow, apparently?

to recap: 2) No, the skimmer does not end it's movement over top of the enemy unit. It is moved 1" away from that unit instead because of the skimmer rules.

But that is not the skimmer being forced to end its move over a model.

that is you choosing to end its move there, so the extra movement rules does not apply.

Naw wrote:
This got me thinking what would be the circumstances that forced me to stop my move on top of models and only could come up with deep striking.

Not even Deep Striking would trigger this rule.

A tank skimmer tank shocking and getting immobilized through Death or Glory would though.

 Neorealist wrote:

Drager wrote:
You could be forced to end over a unit if you were moving over one unit and tank shocking a different one then where stunned or immobilised by Death or Glory. Only one I could think of.

Or in my argument, you are 'forced' to end your movement because your vehicle had already moved 12" and therefore had no more movement left to travel, normally.

No, that is you choosing to move 12 inches directly to a spot where a model is, that is not being forced to end the move.

You are choosing a path that will, in 12 inches, end your model over another model, they explicitly can not do this as they can not end their move over models.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you are claiming you were unaware you could move there, and so you are "forced" to leave it there? No, that isnt any defintion of "forced" that makes sense - you are FORCING the skimmer to move there, it is not being FORCED to move there.

100% this, Nos is correct.

Once again, How are folk presuming that the intent of the player in that scenario actually makes a difference rules-wise. Regardless of wether or not I as a player intended on putting the Ghost Ark over top of the enemy unit or if it simply happened as a result of some other circumstance doesn't actually matter.

In order to fulfill the skimmer movement rules it merely needs to end up in a situation where it would otherwise be forced to end it's movement phase within 1" of an enemy unit. There is no rule asking you to determine the reason why the player chose to put it in that scenario.

 Neorealist wrote:
Once again, How are folk presuming that the intent of the player in that scenario actually makes a difference rules-wise. Regardless of wether or not I as a player intended on putting the Ghost Ark over top of the enemy unit or if it simply happened as a result of some other circumstance doesn't actually matter.

In order to fulfill the skimmer movement rules it merely needs to end up in a situation where it would otherwise be forced to end it's movement phase within 1" of an enemy unit. There is no rule asking you to determine the reason why the player chose to put it in that scenario.

Actually, there is.
When the rule used the word "forced" it asked us to take intent into consideration. If there's other places to move, you were not forced to end your move there.

Tell us how exactly you are forced to put the GA on another model. Is your opponent holding a gun to your head?

You are NEVER forced to move the GA. You do it voluntarily and on purpose. You CHOOSE to let it land on another model.

rigeld2 wrote:Actually, there is.
When the rule used the word "forced" it asked us to take intent into consideration. If there's other places to move, you were not forced to end your move there.

That is an interesting interpretation of the word 'forced' And one which has no specific rules-support.

using a plain English definition of the word (taken from dictionary.com)
forced
adjective
required by circumstances; emergency: a forced landing of an airplane.

We find no conflict with my idea that the circumstances I've described (stranding the skimmer over top of an enemy unit intentionally) invalidate any part of the relevant rules. The skimmer is required by the circumstances of it's move in that scenario to be displaced.

 Neorealist wrote:
[quote=rigeld2 The skimmer is required by the circumstances of it's move in that scenario to be displaced.

No it is not as that is an illegal move in the first place. since, with a skimmer, you can not end your move over a model.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Actually, there is.
When the rule used the word "forced" it asked us to take intent into consideration. If there's other places to move, you were not forced to end your move there.

That is an interesting interpretation of the word 'forced' And one which has no specific rules-support.

using a plain English definition of the word (taken from dictionary.com)
forced
adjective
required by circumstances; emergency: a forced landing of an airplane.

We find no conflict with my idea that the circumstances I've described (stranding the skimmer over top of an enemy unit intentionally) invalidate any part of the relevant rules. The skimmer is required by the circumstances of it's move in that scenario to be displaced.

It was never required , you chose to do it

DeathReaper wrote: No it is not as that is an illegal move in the first place. since, with a skimmer, you can not end your move over a model

Once again. Given how at this point I'm no longer 'risking' sounding redundant but forced to merely parrot my own earlier comments:
The skimmer is not ending it's movement over a model. It has been placed in circumstances where it 'otherwise' (if not for the skimmer rules themselves) would be ending it's movement over a model. It's an extremely critical distinction, one which you and several others seemingly continually miss

The point that many are trying to get you, Neorealist, to understand is simple, if you make a single choice where there would be another option to not end above a model then you are not being forced to end your move above a model. It's the actual forced part of the rule that makes it trigger. Since you were not forced to do so there is no trigger and must perform the action that is the other option, in the above setup it would be to not move. If the GA was somehow forced to flee... then there is a possible argument but otherwise it is a choice.

 Neorealist wrote:

DeathReaper wrote: No it is not as that is an illegal move in the first place. since, with a skimmer, you can not end your move over a model

Once again. Given how at this point I'm no longer 'risking' sounding redundant but forced to merely parrot my own earlier comments:
The skimmer is not ending it's movement over a model. It has been placed in circumstances where it 'otherwise' (if not for the skimmer rules themselves) would be ending it's movement over a model. It's an extremely critical distinction, one which you and several others seemingly continually miss

a distinction invented by yourself, and not at all applicable to the rules.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Actually, there is.
When the rule used the word "forced" it asked us to take intent into consideration. If there's other places to move, you were not forced to end your move there.

That is an interesting interpretation of the word 'forced' And one which has no specific rules-support.

using a plain English definition of the word (taken from dictionary.com)
forced
adjective
required by circumstances; emergency: a forced landing of an airplane.

We find no conflict with my idea that the circumstances I've described (stranding the skimmer over top of an enemy unit intentionally) invalidate any part of the relevant rules. The skimmer is required by the circumstances of it's move in that scenario to be displaced.

Please, explain what circumstances required you to end your move over an enemy unit. You require that to say that you were forced to end your move there.

DeathReaper wrote:a distinction invented by yourself, and not at all applicable to the rules.

No, it's a perfectly legitimate scenario within the rules, I didn't invent anything.

As in, it's perfectly possible to place a vehicle such that it is both over top of an enemy unit and has no movement left and then literally follow the 2nd of the Skimmer rules. There is no 'invention' required and I find it rather disingenuous of you that you would cast such dispersions on my logic.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Actually, there is.
When the rule used the word "forced" it asked us to take intent into consideration. If there's other places to move, you were not forced to end your move there.

That is an interesting interpretation of the word 'forced' And one which has no specific rules-support.

using a plain English definition of the word (taken from dictionary.com)
forced
adjective
required by circumstances; emergency: a forced landing of an airplane.

We find no conflict with my idea that the circumstances I've described (stranding the skimmer over top of an enemy unit intentionally) invalidate any part of the relevant rules. The skimmer is required by the circumstances of it's move in that scenario to be displaced.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

I'm not sure if you're baiting us or just being as wrong as one can humanly be.

Tell me: what did you do just before the GA lands on top of another model?

 Neorealist wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:a distinction invented by yourself, and not at all applicable to the rules.

No, it's a perfectly legitimate scenario within the rules, I didn't invent anything.

As in, it's perfectly possible to place a vehicle such that it is both over top of an enemy unit and has no movement left and then literally follow the 2nd of the Skimmer rules. There is no 'invention' required and I find it rather disingenuous of you that you would cast such dispersions on my logic.

Except you were not forced to end your movement there. No circumstances required that your movement end there.
Please, explain why you disagree - your assertion is that something did force you to end your movement there.

You don't meet the defi ition of forced you posted if you have foreknowledge. I am not talking about your intent, that is irrelevant I am talking about capabability and awareness, which you possess. You are aware of other courses of action and are capable of performing them and as such are not forced, you are in fact forbidden.

 Neorealist wrote:

DeathReaper wrote: No it is not as that is an illegal move in the first place. since, with a skimmer, you can not end your move over a model

Once again. Given how at this point I'm no longer 'risking' sounding redundant but forced to merely parrot my own earlier comments:
The skimmer is not ending it's movement over a model. It has been placed in circumstances where it 'otherwise' (if not for the skimmer rules themselves) would be ending it's movement over a model. It's an extremely critical distinction, one which you and several others seemingly continually miss

Well... if the skimmer is NOT ending it's movement over a model then how are you calling upon this rule?

BRB: "If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it."

In order to use this rule you must END the movement of the skimmer over a model. You can't legally do that. However the authors recognize that sometimes this might happen despite doing nothing illegal so they made this rule. But purposefully ending your movement on a model is strictly forbidden.

BRB:"Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either."

Sigvatr wrote:I'm not sure if you're baiting us or just being as wrong as one can humanly be.

Tell me: what did you do just before the GA lands on top of another model?

*shrug* I was asked to refer to what definition of the word 'forced' I was using within the context of my posts, and the poster doing so was using an alternate (and unsupportable) definition of same. (using the word incorrectly, in other words)

To answer your actual question: I Moved the Ghost Ark? I'm not sure what I chose to do prior to placing the Ghost Ark over top of the enemy unit has any relevance, can you indicate why you feel this information is useful?

Let's ignore the word 'forced' for now (or use whatever definition you want because it doesn't matter).

Let's say you want to move your Ghost Arc and you end your move on top of a model...

BRB:"Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either."

Ah you can't do that. So you move it back to where it was and try again...

You then find that you can't move anywhere without breaking a rule, therefore you can't move your skimmer.

The rule

BRB: "If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it."

This never comes into effect because you never actually ended your move over a model. You tried to do it but that kind of move is illegal and couldn't go thru with it.

 Neorealist wrote:


To answer your actual question: I Moved the Ghost Ark?

Thanks. Correct. You voluntarily chose to move the Ghost Ark. Any consequence therefore isn't forced by any means, but the consequence of your own doings.

/thread.

*sigh* You are arguing intent again. To be perfectly clear: What I am proposing is moving the model the maximum possible distance over an enemy unit and letting the interaction between the requirement to stop moving at that point and the fact that it is now over top of an enemy unit so you 'cannot' stop moving at that point kick in the 2nd skimmer movement rule.

it is not an illegal move to move the skimmer over the enemy unit. The 1st part of the skimmer rules themselves give permission for this.
It is also not an illegal move to stop moving the skimmer once you have covered the maximum possible distance it could travel that phase. The movement rules explicitly state this in fact.

However, following both of the above perfectly legal rules results in a skimmer sitting over top of an enemy unit, which is illegal in the context of the skimmer rules. Fortunately we are given a mechanic to resolve this scenario, by displacing the skimmer the mimimum possible distance from the enemy unit so it is 1" away and in a legal position.

End result, the skimmer is not ending it's move over top of the enemy unit, it is ending it's move 1" away from said unit; but would otherwise have ended it's move over top of the enemy unit if you did not use the skimmer movement rules.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:


To answer your actual question: I Moved the Ghost Ark?

Thanks. Correct. You voluntarily chose to move the Ghost Ark. Any consequence therefore isn't forced by any means, but the consequence of your own doings.

/thread.

This. It's really clear.

1) There's no rule saying it must move.
2) You therefore have a legal move available which is to not move your skimmer.
3) Every other move is illegal as it would lead to you trying to end the move over a model, which skimmers are not allowed to do.

Moving the Skimmer on top of an enemy model is not the only move the vehicle can make as it can remain where it is, and so therefore you are not being forced to end your move over a model. QED

You are intentionally moving the target on another unit.

This isn't anywhere being close to debatable. This is as hard of a fact as it can get.

You are not allowed to make said move as skimmers may not end their move on another unit.

Hard fact. RAW.

You have zero logical basing to make your point.

Neorealist wrote:*sigh* You are arguing intent again. To be perfectly clear: What I am proposing is moving the model the maximum possible distance over an enemy unit and letting the interaction between the requirement to stop moving at that point and the fact that it is now over top of an enemy unit so you 'cannot' stop moving at that point kick in the 2nd skimmer movement rule.

it is not an illegal move to move the skimmer over the enemy unit. The 1st part of the skimmer rules themselves give permission for this.
It is also not an illegal move to stop moving the skimmer once you have covered the maximum possible distance it could travel that phase. The movement rules explicitly state this in fact.

However, following both of the above perfectly legal rules results in a skimmer sitting over top of an enemy unit, which is illegal in the context of the skimmer rules. Fortunately we are given a mechanic to resolve this scenario, by displacing the skimmer the mimimum possible distance from the enemy unit so it is 1" away and in a legal position.

End result, the skimmer is not ending it's move over top of the enemy unit, it is ending it's move 1" away from said unit; but would otherwise have ended it's move over top of the enemy unit if you did not use the skimmer movement rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:a distinction invented by yourself, and not at all applicable to the rules.

No, it's a perfectly legitimate scenario within the rules, I didn't invent anything.

As in, it's perfectly possible to place a vehicle such that it is both over top of an enemy unit and has no movement left and then literally follow the 2nd of the Skimmer rules. There is no 'invention' required and I find it rather disingenuous of you that you would cast such dispersions on my logic.

Except you were not forced to end your movement there. No circumstances required that your movement end there.
Please, explain why you disagree - your assertion is that something did force you to end your movement there.

I haven't seen you explain how you were forced - ie, using your definition, required by circumstances - to end your move there. Please do so.
If you cannot, then you accept the fact that you were not forced to end your move there, so the "sliding" can't apply, and therefore it's an illegal move.