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.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Don't waste my time.

Let us go back a bit. My example mentions open terrain for the models being subjected to the lash. Meaning NO impassable terrain involved.

Yakface. I understand that the path a model takes is important. Allow me to explain something. I'm not talking about passing through solid objects. That is ridiculous. In the example including impassable terrain you give, you are assuming that a bendy line is the only way through. What about measuring to the corner and then after arriving at that point, MEASURE past the corner. ADD these two measurements together and there is your movement for the turn. Not bendy, just two lines or more of movement added together to go around terrain. You can call it bendy if you want.

I don't care that much anymore. If I play a 40k game against someone who has to win so badly that they "bendy" their fallback moves to keep models alive longer, I just won't play against them in the future. If I try to discuss it with them and they insist on continuing. Then the game ends. I've had it happen before. No biggy.

This thread is about Lash of Submission and how it works. I think that the 2d6" movement is "compulsory". It can't be shortened unless you send the unit in the direction of impassable terrain or enemy units. That's my interpretation based on my experience. I'm sorry if you think I'm mentally damaged for coming to these conclusions.

So now it seems that there is some kind of FAQ. Anyone mind letting me know where it is since I just checked GW and didn't see it.

Now aside from the FAQ request. I'm out. I care but having try to explain basic math to me like I'm daft annoys me. I guess that this means I should keep myself to myself. At least for the ill-written 40k. Think I'll stick to WHFB for my discussions.

According to RAW, your interpretation isn't flawed.

According to the FAQ, your interpretation is flawed.

shrug.

Joram, I linked to it in my earlier post.

There is no point arguing RAW when something has been FAQed/erratumed. I guess you could do it for fun, but it has no game effect.

Indeed. The FAQ has resolved everything except selecting the target. A shame they didn't fix this at the same time.

Joram wrote:

Yakface. I understand that the path a model takes is important. Allow me to explain something. I'm not talking about passing through solid objects. That is ridiculous. In the example including impassable terrain you give, you are assuming that a bendy line is the only way through. What about measuring to the corner and then after arriving at that point, MEASURE past the corner. ADD these two measurements together and there is your movement for the turn. Not bendy, just two lines or more of movement added together to go around terrain. You can call it bendy if you want.

What else would that be but "bendy" movement? Call it what you want, but either movement is the distance is calculated by comparing the model's starting position vs. its ending position (movement by displacement) or it is determined by the path the model actually moves (bendy movement).

This issue when concerning the Lash has thankfully been resolved by the GW FAQ, but I only continue the conversation because it applies generally to all forms of movement.

Antonin wrote:Well, the bendy camp is making a number of good points - but are we agreed that if bendy movement is okay then models that are falling back get to use it too? I ask because fall back moves are compulsory movement, (I know, not a defined term) much like lash is compulsory movement; so the rules that apply to lash seem to apply to fall-back moves, and vice versa.

I ask also to get the explanation, because bendy movement makes fallback moves a joke, in many instances, and will nullify the chance for any unit falling back off the board. I know what the RAW says, and frankly it seems to nullify fallback moves (except where beneficial to the falling back unit, of course)

The Fallback move rules (pg 48) specify that the unit moves "directly towards" the closest point of the player's table edge, so no zig-zagging ("bendy") movement is allowed.

And the RAW states move 2d6 inches.

NOT "UP TO" 2d6 inches.

Contradicted by the faq, admitedly, but more relevant that the text quoted in relevance to RAW.

shrug.

I miss a lot.

yakface wrote:
The Fallback move rules (pg 48) specify that the unit moves "directly towards" the closest point of the player's table edge, so no zig-zagging ("bendy") movement is allowed.

But we know bendy movement is allowed, because as you fall back you are allowed to go around terrain, etc. You just have to stay within the fallback corrider. So the term "directly towards" cannot be as firm as claimed.

Also,

democratus wrote:
From the BGB, page 48: "A unit that falls back must move within a corridor lying between its most extended models as shown in the diagram on the left - but each model can move anywhere within this corridor, as you wish."

So the rules follow the stupity as stated.

"directly towards" means as much as you argue.
Yay for 'nids who actually have text related to this.

The term is exactly as valid as the frame of reference that it is used it. Bendy movent is as valid as it is assinine.

Oh wait. I am wrong as I only use printed text.



Or more likely I mis-read it and will be quoted on it.

Oh wait. I am wrong as I only use printed text.

Yep. That's about the size of it. We can close this thread now.

Rather anti-climactic, don't cha' think?

Drive a rhino. or if your really baller get a land raider. Fixed.

Pretty much. However, given the popular wisdom that speaks against anything so gauche as entering one's armoured personnel carriers, one might imagine the causes of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

In 4th. In 5th, riding in transports is fairly safe.