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.

 skchsan wrote:

A unit which all of its models are within 3" of a transport that is not selected to move in the movement phase cannot embark on a transport because it did not end a move.

I select a unit to move which is within 3" of the transport, dont move it, and it has ended its movement within 3" of the transport.

You seem to have missed a part where it states almost in verbatim what you're trying to rebut with.

 p5freak wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 some bloke wrote:


to end your move, you have to have moved - it's the end of a move, not the end of a movement phase, thus the model must move to end it's move within 3".

Citation provided!

No, sorry. I can select a unit to move, dont move it, and it has ended its movement within 3" of the transport, if the transport moved within 3" of the unit who wants to embark.

By selecting a unit to move, and move it 0", and ending its movement within 3" of a transport still fulfills the condition of having ended the move within 3".

A unit which all of its models are within 3" of a transport that is not selected to move in the movement phase cannot embark on a transport because it did not end a move.

I select a unit to move which is within 3" of the transport, dont move it, and it has ended its movement within 3" of the transport.

Which, in fact is a direct contradiction to your prior statement:

 p5freak wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Despite the lack of concise wording, it would be disingenuous to say you count as moving when disembarking but you do not when you're embarking. FWIW, being removrd via embark mechanics is still nonetheless a form of displacement that occurs during movement phase. YMMV, as always however.

Can you give me a citation for that ? If you cant then there is no move necessary to embark. And embarked unit dont count as having moved.

So, which is it that you're claiming? That a movement of 0" does not constitute as a movement?

 p5freak wrote:

 some bloke wrote:


to end your move, you have to have moved - it's the end of a move, not the end of a movement phase, thus the model must move to end it's move within 3".

Citation provided!

No, sorry. I can select a unit to move, dont move it, and it has ended its movement within 3" of the transport, if the transport moved within 3" of the unit who wants to embark.

If you select a unit to move, then the unit counts as having moved by your declaration that it is moving. If it's not moving, you don't select it to move.

A unit that is selected to move, and moves 0", didnt move. If a transport moves within 3" of a unit who wants to embark the unit can be selected to move, and then move 0", ending its movement within 3" of a transport. Requirements for embarking fulfilled, without moving.

 p5freak wrote:
A unit that is selected to move, and moves 0", didnt move.

Incorrect, it moved 0".

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
A unit that is selected to move, and moves 0", didnt move.

Incorrect, it moved 0".

We know that a model in a unit that is selected to move that doesn't itself move does not count as moving. Eg if you have a tactical squad and move most of it but leave the guy with the missile launcher stationary.

So I'm not sure that doesn't apply to the whole unit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
A unit that is selected to move, and moves 0", didnt move.

Incorrect, it moved 0".

Citation please. As Stux said, if a model with a RL didnt move, but all others models did move, the RL model didnt move. Thus, if all models remain stationary, nobody moved.

 p5freak wrote:
A unit that is selected to move, and moves 0", didnt move. If a transport moves within 3" of a unit who wants to embark the unit can be selected to move, and then move 0", ending its movement within 3" of a transport. Requirements for embarking fulfilled, without moving.

Then, following what you say, if the unit is selected and moves 0" didn't move, then the unit didn't move for purposes of moving and embarking. If it didn't move it didn't end a move it didn't make.

All you need to embark it to end your move within 3" of a transport. The unit doesn't have to move. Pick unit to move, move 0", end tour move, transport is already within 3", it moved before the unit was selected to move. Embark, done.

 p5freak wrote:
All you need to embark it to end your move within 3" of a transport. The unit doesn't have to move. Pick unit to move, move 0", end tour move, transport is already within 3", it moved before the unit was selected to move. Embark, done.

The unit has to have a move in order to end it.

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
A unit that is selected to move, and moves 0", didnt move.

Incorrect, it moved 0".

We know that a model in a unit that is selected to move that doesn't itself move does not count as moving. Eg if you have a tactical squad and move most of it but leave the guy with the missile launcher stationary.

So I'm not sure that doesn't apply to the whole unit.

Yes, and as per RAW, the said tac squad cannot embark on a transport because one of it's models did not "end the move" within 3". The unit has been selected to move, but not all models ended a move to be eligible for Embark rule

Embark: If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a
friendly transport, they can embark within it. Remove the unit
from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked
inside the transport

 skchsan wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
A unit that is selected to move, and moves 0", didnt move.

Incorrect, it moved 0".

We know that a model in a unit that is selected to move that doesn't itself move does not count as moving. Eg if you have a tactical squad and move most of it but leave the guy with the missile launcher stationary.

So I'm not sure that doesn't apply to the whole unit.

Yes, and as per RAW, the said tac squad cannot embark on a transport because one of it's models did not "end the move" within 3". The unit has been selected to move, but not all models ended a move to be eligible for Embark rule

Embark: If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a
friendly transport, they can embark within it. Remove the unit
from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked
inside the transport

RAW or not, that is patently absurd. Won't be following that reading for sure.

 Stux wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
A unit that is selected to move, and moves 0", didnt move.

Incorrect, it moved 0".

We know that a model in a unit that is selected to move that doesn't itself move does not count as moving. Eg if you have a tactical squad and move most of it but leave the guy with the missile launcher stationary.

So I'm not sure that doesn't apply to the whole unit.

Yes, and as per RAW, the said tac squad cannot embark on a transport because one of it's models did not "end the move" within 3". The unit has been selected to move, but not all models ended a move to be eligible for Embark rule

Embark: If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a
friendly transport, they can embark within it. Remove the unit
from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked
inside the transport

RAW or not, that is patently absurd. Won't be following that reading for sure.

Absurd, yes. Abso-'ffing-lutely. But at least it's consistent.

To some of us, claiming "I haven't [MOVED] my infantry with heavy weapon when I was embarking into this open topped vehicle, so I don't suffer -1 to hit penalty for moving and firing a heavy weapon" sound way more absurd. But each to their own.

If it embarked I can see an argument for it counting as moving. It isn't where it started its turn, so it has moved.

If the model has literally has not moved - that it is in the exact position it started the turn - then it has not moved. Regardless of whether it was selected for movement.

It's important to distinguish between "this is what the RAW says" and "this is HIWPI". I doubt many of a folks saying "when a unit embarks, it doesn't take any penalties from Moving or Advancing anymore" actually play that way. I gave the RAW answer above, but I certainly wouldn't play it that way. As I mentioned, it's lame and cheesy.

The RAW provides a common ground for all players to work with, but it shouldn't be the "end all, be all" solution to every problem you come across. Use your common sense, and come to an agreeable solution with your opponents. 40k is, after all, a game and if you or your opponent ain't having fun, you've failed to meet the goal of a "game".

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
RAW or not, that is patently absurd. Won't be following that reading for sure.

It's also absurd that my Space Marines ever miss their shots. Can I also choose to not follow the reading that causes them to miss a third of all shots they take?

Oh this ripe old fallacy again. Can you stop pretending this is in any way analagous to [insert situation]? It’s always bunk when you post it.

It's arguably better than "it doesn't say I need to roll a 6-sided dice numbered 1 thru 6".

You can then pick another unit to move, until you have moved as many of your units as you wish.No model can be moved more than oncein each Movement phase.

You do not have to select a unit to move.

If you do select a unit to move, even if it moves 0" it has moved... this isn't that complicated,,, what is this moved 0" means it didn't move and did move at the same time non-sense. Seriously read what you writing, does it really make sense to you XD ?

On that note, looking at the OP, RAW seems to suggest that models that are not on the battlefield can not be effected in anyway, unless otherwise stated... this means the model is not effected by movement penalties for heavy/assault weapons, unless the open-topped vehicle is effected itself from moving, as that is specifically "otherwise stated."

now, I dont know if that is RAI, but i could see an argument for it being easier to aim while you lean your weapons out a firing port on a stationary vehicle then it is to shoot while/ruining or standing... it is a weapons platform after all.

I'll discuss this one with my opponent if I ever think it will come up. But RAW seems pretty obvious, RAI I can go 50/50 .

That’s not entirely true. You can select a unit to move and not move a model in it to avoid hit penalties for Heavy, so selecting doesn’t count as moving. We know this from the core rules. This “moving 0” is moving” is a misnomer.

What people have issue with is the idea that walking into a tank somehow doesn’t count as moving in some people’s view. The unit obviously moves on board... “BuT rAw!” is taking abstraction to the absurd. I’d wager most folk count embarking as moving, because otherwise it’s silly.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
That’s not entirely true. You can select a unit to move and not move a model in it to avoid hit penalties for Heavy, so selecting doesn’t count as moving. We know this from the core rules. This “moving 0” is moving” is a misnomer.

Actually the rules dont say this. Its common sense that a model that stands still didnt move.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

What people have issue with is the idea that walking into a tank somehow doesn’t count as moving in some people’s view. The unit obviously moves on board... “BuT rAw!” is taking abstraction to the absurd. I’d wager most folk count embarking as moving, because otherwise it’s silly.

The rules dont say that a unit has to move if they want to embark. All they have to do, is to end their move within 3" of a transport, and they are removed from the battlefield, which doesnt mean they moved. A disembarking unit didnt move either, it is set up.

You keep arguing RAW against HIPWI. I shan’t engage with that because it’s pointless.

And the rules do say a model that stands still doesn’t move, because otherwise Heavy weapons in a squad where all other models moved would suffer a -1, and it doesn’t. Movement is demonstrably not a unit status. It’s model by model. RAW. Read and comprehend my posts properly please, don’t jump straight to rebuttals for rebuttals’ sake.

SO we can all agree then that if you move a unit but leave a model stationary, then that model has not moved, ergo you can have units which have moved and models which have not moved.

I think that's safe to say.

The next bit then is the question:

Can a model end its move (not "Movement Phase", but "Move") when it has elected not to move?

I think no, in order to end a move, you have to start a move, and thus to start and end a move, you count as having moved, even if you didn't move. You can instead elect not to move, and thus not end a move (having not moved). you will have skipped the start-a-move, end-a-move part of the Movement Phase.

Stating that simply because the model made it through the movement phase, it ended a move, is the same as stating that a model which does not shoot this turn must still roll for an "after this unit shoots" ability (EG flashgits). It's wrong.

Thus, if you cannot end a move without moving (end a move not being synonymous with ending a movement phase) then you cannot embark on a vehicle without moving.

Whether or not you believe that this has an effect on models in an open-topped transport is up to you, but the crux of this is: Can you embark onto a vehicle without moving. I think that you can't.



Let's take this method of thinking to a fictional scenario:

We have a unit with a heavy weapon, and an ability which means that if it moves in the movement phase, it gets +1 to it's save. I don't know if such a unit exists, but let's pretend it does.

p5freak's way of approaching this means the unit can move 0" in the movement phase, gain +1 to saves and, having not moved, not suffer -1 to hit with the heavy weapon.

My way of approaching this is that the unit can move 0", gain +1 to saves, but also suffer -1 to hit with the heavy weapon, as moving 0" = moving.

Opinions?

In an actual example, under p5freak's stance, I choose to advance my darkshroud, move it 0". Jink is now active because I advanced. But since I moved 0", which is like saying it was stationary, I can shoot with my heavy bolter.

Let's rephrase/clarify the concept of 0" movement for discussion's sake.

By 'movement of 0"' we mean that as to mean 'net displacement of 0"'. This means the model has moved, but it's location is the same. Think of it as moving directly forward 3", then moving direct backwards by 3". In total, you've displaced the model 6" (|3"| + |-3"| = 6"), but your relative location is the same (3" + (- 3") = 0"). If a model with a heavy weapon moved up 3" then back 3", it did not 'not moved' - it most certainly moved 6", but it moved in a way that placed him right where he started. Because he moved, he suffers -1 to hit penalty.

By being 'stationary,' the model did not make any sort of movement, whatsoever.

Isn't there also an FAQ that says you have to be able to move to embark. I. E. If you are in melee, surrounded, unless you can fly you can't embark. Doesn't not movimg constitute a similar game state of being unable to move... Again in relation to the OP I don't think this matters because a model that is not on the battlefield is not affected in anyway unless otherwise stated... But you have to move in order to embark, definitely an FAQ on this.

 Type40 wrote:
Isn't there also an FAQ that says you have to be able to move to embark. I. E. If you are in melee, surrounded, unless you can fly you can't embark. Doesn't not movimg constitute a similar game state of being unable to move... Again in relation to the OP I don't think this matters because a model that is not on the battlefield is not affected in anyway unless otherwise stated... But you have to move in order to embark, definitely an FAQ on this.

Right. But put more accurately, you must be able to end a move in order to embark. If you are unable to end a move, in this particular case you rbing up, due to being unable to move, then you cannot embark into a transport.

Regarding the second part of your post, let's take another extreme example of this.

Let's say a troupe all equipped with fusion pistol advances, ending it's move within 3" of a Starweaver upfield within 6" of enemy model. The Troupe embarks onto the Starweaver. Because embarking "removes" the state of being "affected" by having advanced and thus not being able to fire any ranged weapon except for assault type, the Troup now shoots their fusion pistols while embarked on the Starweaver.

Does that sound like something you'd agree with? So not only have you gained an ability to advance and shoot a pistol, you've effectively gained d6" + 3" + 60mm on the range of your fusion pistol. Maybe this is what GW intended, maybe not.

Hmm... well, I think you have a point, but it bears noting that you select units to move and/or Advance, but you don't necessarily have to move every model in that unit, and the "penalties" for moving or Advancing apply on a per model basis. Also important to note that, in your example, you wouldn't be able to shoot your Heavy Bolters because the unit Advanced, even if you moved nowhere. And, the rules for shooting state that you "pick a unit" to shoot. Because the unit Advanced, it stopped being a valid choice to shoot it's Heavy Weapons. Mostly because GW kinda messed up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the second example, I certainly wouldn't agree with it. But I also couldn't argue that it isn't RAW to do. I'd just stop playing with someone who wants to cheese the system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Despite claims to the contrary, going by strict RAW doesn't exempt you from TFG status.

 flandarz wrote:
Despite claims to the contrary, going by strict RAW doesn't exempt you from TFG status.

Claiming the most absurd-est possible interpretation of the RAW in order to game the system would make you TFG though.

The key when RAW is not clear (as to have multiple possible meaning) is to go with the interpretation that yields the most consistent application of the rule as possible.

Not necessarily. There's a real consistent RAW that literally no one uses. That being not being able to fire Assault Weapons after Advancing. As mentioned above, units that have Advanced are unable to chosen to shoot, but the Assault rule only says "this model may shoot after Advancing". I doubt there's many folks who go by the strict RAW that because you don't choose models to shoot, you can't fire Assault weapons, but it IS consistent.

Same for this case. Removing modifiers from units that Embark IS consistent. It's still a TFG thing to do, though.

 flandarz wrote:
Not necessarily. There's a real consistent RAW that literally no one uses. That being not being able to fire Assault Weapons after Advancing. As mentioned above, units that have Advanced are unable to chosen to shoot, but the Assault rule only says "this model may shoot after Advancing". I doubt there's many folks who go by the strict RAW that because you don't choose models to shoot, you can't fire Assault weapons, but it IS consistent.

Same for this case. Removing modifiers from units that Embark IS consistent. It's still a TFG thing to do, though.

Not affected =! remove preexisting modifiers. There's not enough information for you to claim otherwise.

You cannot detach interpretation even if you claim "but its RAW!!". RAW is still nonetheless an interpretation (that which attempts to be as unbiased as humanly possible) of the written text.

It literally says "not affected by anything". Unless there's another definition for "anything" that I don't know, that would still include "preexisting modifiers". I don't know what else to tell ya, champ. You got the Transport rules, then the Open-Topped rules which only grant specific exceptions to those rules. Neither one says "not affected by anything except preexisting modifiers". If your argument is RAI, that's fine. But you can't really argue the RAW. It's right there, in black and white. I quoted it, and others have as well.

 flandarz wrote:
It literally says "not affected by anything". Unless there's another definition for "anything" that I don't know, that would still include "preexisting modifiers". I don't know what else to tell ya, champ. You got the Transport rules, then the Open-Topped rules which only grant specific exceptions to those rules. Neither one says "not affected by anything except preexisting modifiers". If your argument is RAI, that's fine. But you can't really argue the RAW. It's right there, in black and white. I quoted it, and others have as well.

That's just HYWPI - to understand "cannot be .. affected in any way" as to mean "remove all pre-existing modifiers".

The RAW is ambiguous, and there are not enough information to determine your interpretation is the "right" one.