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.

Can you quote the rule that says counts as moving =/= moving ?

Can you quote the rule that states counts as moving = moving?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Can you quote the rule that states counts as moving = moving?

I dont have to. If a unit counts as moving then its the same as moving. Thats common sense. Rules dont have to explain everything.

"That unit counts as having moved
for any rules purposes, such as firing
Heavy weapons."

This part of 'Da jump' is not a prerequisite for it's use.

IMO Counts as moving = Moving.

The BRB FAQ states count as moving their Move Characteristic. IF a unit has moved their Move Characteristic it has moved. I do not see any other way of reading it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rismonite wrote:
"That unit counts as having moved
for any rules purposes, such as firing
Heavy weapons."

This part of 'Da jump' is not a prerequisite for it's use.

for ANY rules purposes, such as firing
Heavy weapons

Emphasis mine. Cannot be Da Jumped.

 p5freak wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Can you quote the rule that states counts as moving = moving?

I dont have to. If a unit counts as moving then its the same as moving. Thats common sense. Rules dont have to explain everything.

Well that's where we disagree. If x counts as y it does not mean that x IS y. Clearly, obviously and unequivocally. I'm going to use this 3 inch model of Mickey mouse model as a counts as Guilliman. Is the Mickey mouse model Guilliman? No. Obviously.

The only relevant point of the FAQ is this one :

3. Models in that unit cannot move again during that turn
for any reason, other than to make a charge move, to
pile in, or to consolidate.

And so the only relevant question is :

"Does Da Jump count as a move ?"

There is absolutely not reason to believe so, as if it was, it would be stated and so there would have been no need to precise that the unit "count as having moved", because it simply would have moved...

I mean, why would they write the complex "remove the unit from play etc...." rather than the simple "move the unit anywhere on the battlefield but more than 9' etc..."

counts as having moved =/= moved.

EG if a model does not move and then counts as having moved, it did not actually move, but it counts as having done so. did the model move? no. does it count as having moved? yes.
as these answers contradict each other, they are clearly not the same thing.

Da Jump doesn't care whether or not a unit has moved before it is cast. Not a single part of Da Jump requires that you move the models, it asks that you remove them from play and then place them somewhere else.

Movement is restricted by:
-Movement Characteristic
-Phase
-locations of other models

None of these come into play whilst making Da Jump. It simply isn't moving. it's relocating.

defining movement as "the model ends up somewhere else" is the same as defining shooting as "hurting the enemy from a distance", but smite isn't shooting, it's psychic.

Moving = moving, not changing location. Just because GW didn't make up the names for all their phases, and that the words they chose (Such as "Move") can have their own meanings, In the context of the game, they exclusively have the meanings applied to them by the rules.

Movement is also prohibited if you’re coming in from reinforcements.

It’s be great if everyone’s arguments relied on applying all the rules not just deriding and cherry-picking. Or claiming weird linguistic distinctions that simply don’t exist.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Movement is also prohibited if you’re coming in from reinforcements.

It’s be great if everyone’s arguments relied on applying all the rules not just deriding and cherry-picking. Or claiming weird linguistic disctobtions that simply don’t exist.

so we're still trying to establish if da jump is movement.

The statement "this unit counts as having moved for rules purposes EG firing heavy weapons" is irrelevant as this comes into play after Da Jump is completed, and does not state "This action counts as moving and follows the same restrictions as moving". So we can ignore the "The unit counts as having moved" part of the jump, as it is as irrelevant as if it said "The unit counts as having fired in the shooting phase, even if it does not".

Da Jump involves removing a unit and then replacing it somewhere else. "Moving" is a sub section of "The Movement Phase", and whilst the word "Moving" has its own meanings, in 40k it only refers to the act of moving, with your movement, in the movement phase.

So, can you remove a model and redeploy it if it has already been redeployed this turn? (As "Moving" isn't occurring.)

I honestly don't think you can, but I don't have the rules in front of me. this is the question that needs to be answered.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Movement is also prohibited if you’re coming in from reinforcements.

It’s be great if everyone’s arguments relied on applying all the rules not just deriding and cherry-picking. Or claiming weird linguistic distinctions that simply don’t exist.

The reinforcements part still doesn't really change anything in the discussion, as the debate hinges on whether being taken off the board and set up again is actually movement, or if it is just the models having counted as moving after the fact. For this, we need a rules statement that removal and setting up again is movement, not merely that they count as having moved after the fact. In the former case you wouldn't be able to use Da Jump, but in the latter case Da Jump is perfectly legal by RAW.

From what I see, from a RAW standpoint it's legal as I haven't seen an actual rules quote saying that removing a unit from the board and setting it up again is movement, but I would not be surprised if RAI is that GW would consider the unit not able to use Da Jump after Green Tide. I wouldn't prohibit an opponent from doing it though, especially since you could merely have used Green Tide to take the unit off the board and put them back where they were (or within 0.1" or something like that) without having to have to rely on the Weirdboy to get Da Jump off to get them back in battle, and let the Weirdboy do something else instead.

 doctortom wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Movement is also prohibited if you’re coming in from reinforcements.

It’s be great if everyone’s arguments relied on applying all the rules not just deriding and cherry-picking. Or claiming weird linguistic distinctions that simply don’t exist.

The reinforcements part still doesn't really change anything in the discussion, as the debate hinges on whether being taken off the board and set up again is actually movement, or if it is just the models having counted as moving after the fact. For this, we need a rules statement that removal and setting up again is movement, not merely that they count as having moved after the fact. In the former case you wouldn't be able to use Da Jump, but in the latter case Da Jump is perfectly legal by RAW.

From what I see, from a RAW standpoint it's legal as I haven't seen an actual rules quote saying that removing a unit from the board and setting it up again is movement, but I would not be surprised if RAI is that GW would consider the unit not able to use Da Jump after Green Tide. I wouldn't prohibit an opponent from doing it though, especially since you could merely have used Green Tide to take the unit off the board and put them back where they were (or within 0.1" or something like that) without having to have to rely on the Weirdboy to get Da Jump off to get them back in battle, and let the Weirdboy do something else instead.

This part of Da Jump,

That unit counts as having moved
for any rules purposes, such as firing
Heavy weapons.

shows you cannot use Da Jump on a model set up as reinforcements. The unit is counting as having moved for ANY rules purposes. That word any disallows using Da Jump as units being set up as reinforcements cannot be moved again. That part of the rule shows that Da Jump counts as moving for ANY rules purposes.

I'm new to this and I don't know anything...but I do know that counts as move is the same thing as moves.

The same way that planes that come in from the webway count as moving their full movement (and thus don't crash) the jump "moves" the boy unit (the redeploy would be sufficient for meeting a minimum move requirement).

If you can't move after re-deploy, using da jump creates a situation that is disallowed by the rules (unit counts as moving that can't move). IMHO creating a paradox seems to be against the spirit of the rules (or at least should be a redflag that the rules weren't designed with that outcome desired).

I hate the way GW uses counts as (as if the shooting phase, counts as moving) and that leads people with an agenda to try to parse that language into whatever box they are trying to fit in. I'd ask a T.O. before I tried it (not after) preferably at the beginning of the tourney so everyone is on the same page (but that's the answer to most questions on this sub).

The issue is that the ability tacks on the end that "The unit counts as having moved", not that "The unit moved".

In fact, if it is necessary to note that a unit counts as having moved, this surely is proof that the unit did not move - otherwise clarification would not be needed?

It doesn't say in the movement rules, after moving, that a unit which moved "counts as having moved", does it?


counts as having moved =/= moved. in fact, to "count as" moving, you need to have not moved, right? You don't put an Abbadon figure down and state "This counts as Abbadon", do you? "counts as" is invariably a way for saying "this isn't X, but is treated as X". "this jam jar counts as a deff dread".
The fact that the unit, having been placed, then counts as having moved, means that until that time, it does not count as having moved. Ergo, the act of removing and replacing is not moving.

The rule is worded that "the unit may not move", not "the unit may not perform any action which causes it to count as having moved".


IMPORTANT DISTINCTION:
1: You can count as having moved without moving
2: You cannot move without counting as having moved*


*some special rules may actually allow you to move and fire heavy weapons as if you had not moved. Ork Boys cannot, so this is irrelevant.

I just want to clarify that "counts as having moved" is not the same as the act of moving. It is a retrospective addition which takes place after the unit has done something other than moving.

 some bloke wrote:
The issue is that the ability tacks on the end that "The unit counts as having moved", not that "The unit moved".

In fact, if it is necessary to note that a unit counts as having moved, this surely is proof that the unit did not move - otherwise clarification would not be needed?

It doesn't say in the movement rules, after moving, that a unit which moved "counts as having moved", does it?


counts as having moved =/= moved. in fact, to "count as" moving, you need to have not moved, right? You don't put an Abbadon figure down and state "This counts as Abbadon", do you? "counts as" is invariably a way for saying "this isn't X, but is treated as X". "this jam jar counts as a deff dread".
The fact that the unit, having been placed, then counts as having moved, means that until that time, it does not count as having moved. Ergo, the act of removing and replacing is not moving.

The rule is worded that "the unit may not move", not "the unit may not perform any action which causes it to count as having moved".


IMPORTANT DISTINCTION:
1: You can count as having moved without moving
2: You cannot move without counting as having moved*


*some special rules may actually allow you to move and fire heavy weapons as if you had not moved. Ork Boys cannot, so this is irrelevant.

I just want to clarify that "counts as having moved" is not the same as the act of moving. It is a retrospective addition which takes place after the unit has done something other than moving.

It does not matter if the unit has moved or not. You are completely missing out the important part of the rule.

Unit counts as Moved for ANY rules purposes.

Weather the unit has moved or not, it counts as moving for any rules interactions. As you cannot move after coming in from reinforcements this means Da Jump doesn't work.

 some bloke wrote:
"counts as" is invariably a way for saying "this isn't X, but is treated as X".

Yes...treat as if it moved...with all that goes along with that!

This is just a bunch of rules lawyers trying to bend something to work the way they wish it did.

 Larks wrote:
Unstoppable Green Tide removes the unit from the battlefield and sets them up again, as so, a unit "recycled" this way is subject to the following BRB FAQ 1.6 entry:

Spoiler:

Q: What rules apply to units that are removed from the battlefield
after deployment (via abilities, Stratagems or psychic powers),
and are then set back up again on the battlefield?

A: If a rule or ability causes a unit to be removed from the
battlefield and subsequently set back up, the following
rules apply to that unit:

1. Any rules that are triggered by or apply to units that
are ‘set up on the battlefield as reinforcements’ are also
triggered by and apply to that unit when it is set up on
the battlefield.

2. Models in that unit count as having moved a distance
equal to their Move characteristic that turn (and so
suffer the penalty to their hit rolls for moving and
firing Heavy weapons). If the unit has a minimum Move
characteristic, it counts as having moved its maximum
Move characteristic.

3. Models in that unit cannot move again during that turn
for any reason, other than to make a charge move, to
pile in, or to consolidate.

4. If that unit was within 1" of an enemy unit when it was
removed, it does not count as having Fallen Back when
it is set back up on the battlefield.

Da Jump uses the same vernacular, and thus item (2) and (3) come into effect. Specifically, a unit recylced/moved via Unstoppable Green Tide or Da Jump counts as having moved it's full movement characteristic, and cannot move again for any reason.

So UGT is used, and the unit has to obey item (3). A unit that wants to use Da Jump, counts as moving it's movement characteristic per item (2). This contravenes the instruction to not move again in the aforementioned item (3). This "movement" is reinforced by the wording of Da Jump.

And yes, if you "count as moving for all rules purposes", you are in contravention of item (3), being that it is, in fact, a rule.

To sum-up: no, you cannot Da Jump after using Unstoppable Green Tide.

Edit: formatting.

This is simply false. If it were true, you could not dajump a unit after moving it normally, which is plainly silly and is done every day at every tournament.

Dadavester wrote:
.

It does not matter if the unit has moved or not. You are completely missing out the important part of the rule.

Unit counts as Moved for ANY rules purposes.

Weather the unit has moved or not, it counts as moving for any rules interactions. As you cannot move after coming in from reinforcements this means Da Jump doesn't work.

I don't think there's a clear answer on this gents, poor Dr Tom just talked himself from believing that DJ doesn't work the believing it does in the same post.

It can be viewed both ways.

Probably hasn't been FAQ'd because it's such a rare, edge case that isn't particularly useful in the vast majority of situations.

I mean, with the imminent arrival of IH and all their "fun" combos, I think this argument is pretty moot. GW have bigger fish to fry.

Units coming in from reinforcements cannot move any further, correct?
Units affected by Da Jump count as having moved for any rules purposes, correct?

Therefore reinforcements cannot be affected by Da Jump. It is pretty simply if you do not try and twist the meaning. Da Jump is counted as movement for ANY rules purposes, so yes units affected by Da Jump have moved.
What part of ANY rules purposes is difficult?

TBH in a game I would have allowed it, but having seen the rules now I would say no it is not RAW.

Dadavester wrote:

Units coming in from reinforcements cannot move any further, correct?
Units affected by Da Jump count as having moved for any rules purposes, correct?

Therefore reinforcements cannot be affected by Da Jump. It is pretty simply if you do not try and twist the meaning. Da Jump is counted as movement for ANY rules purposes, so yes units affected by Da Jump have moved.
What part of ANY rules purposes is difficult?

TBH in a game I would have allowed it, but having seen the rules now I would say no it is not RAW.

There's no point recapping, but you can see from the rest of the thread that it's nowhere near as clear cut as you seem to think.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dadavester wrote:

Units coming in from reinforcements cannot move any further, correct?
Units affected by Da Jump count as having moved for any rules purposes, correct?

Therefore reinforcements cannot be affected by Da Jump. It is pretty simply if you do not try and twist the meaning. Da Jump is counted as movement for ANY rules purposes, so yes units affected by Da Jump have moved.
What part of ANY rules purposes is difficult?

TBH in a game I would have allowed it, but having seen the rules now I would say no it is not RAW.

There's no point recapping, but you can see from the rest of the thread that it's nowhere near as clear cut as you seem to think.

To be blunt it doesnt matter what i think, it matters what the rules say. And they say above, unless anyone can produce a rule/faq/errata that states different the above is RAW.

Haasbioroid wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
"counts as" is invariably a way for saying "this isn't X, but is treated as X".

Yes...treat as if it moved...with all that goes along with that!

This is just a bunch of rules lawyers trying to bend something to work the way they wish it did.

Yupppppp.

Are there any rules that prohibit redeploy type abilities after a unit has moved.

wow in a whole year this has not come up?! haha glad i asked it. So weird! it might not seem a viable tactic which is what i'm finding weirder! if it is legal its massively powerful and i'm shocked no one has done it or thought twice about doing it already.

Like in my game it got me 2points for defending an obj right in the middle of the board a GT unit would otherwise not be able to get back on.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't think there's a clear answer on this gents, poor Dr Tom just talked himself from believing that DJ doesn't work the believing it does in the same post.

It can be viewed both ways.

Probably hasn't been FAQ'd because it's such a rare, edge case that isn't particularly useful in the vast majority of situations.

I mean, with the imminent arrival of IH and all their "fun" combos, I think this argument is pretty moot. GW have bigger fish to fry.

I always said from a RAW standpoint that DJ works, just that from a RAI standpoint they might not have meant it to.

Dadavester wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dadavester wrote:

Units coming in from reinforcements cannot move any further, correct?
Units affected by Da Jump count as having moved for any rules purposes, correct?

Therefore reinforcements cannot be affected by Da Jump. It is pretty simply if you do not try and twist the meaning. Da Jump is counted as movement for ANY rules purposes, so yes units affected by Da Jump have moved.
What part of ANY rules purposes is difficult?

TBH in a game I would have allowed it, but having seen the rules now I would say no it is not RAW.

There's no point recapping, but you can see from the rest of the thread that it's nowhere near as clear cut as you seem to think.

To be blunt it doesnt matter what i think, it matters what the rules say. And they say above, unless anyone can produce a rule/faq/errata that states different the above is RAW.

Many of us have already explained at length why your belief on what the rules "say" is wrong or at the very least open to interpretation.

Da Jump is not moving therefore its use is legal.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dadavester wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dadavester wrote:

Units coming in from reinforcements cannot move any further, correct?
Units affected by Da Jump count as having moved for any rules purposes, correct?

Therefore reinforcements cannot be affected by Da Jump. It is pretty simply if you do not try and twist the meaning. Da Jump is counted as movement for ANY rules purposes, so yes units affected by Da Jump have moved.
What part of ANY rules purposes is difficult?

TBH in a game I would have allowed it, but having seen the rules now I would say no it is not RAW.

There's no point recapping, but you can see from the rest of the thread that it's nowhere near as clear cut as you seem to think.

To be blunt it doesnt matter what i think, it matters what the rules say. And they say above, unless anyone can produce a rule/faq/errata that states different the above is RAW.

Many of us have already explained at length why your belief on what the rules "say" is wrong or at the very least open to interpretation.

Da Jump is not moving therefore its use is legal.

It is not an interpretation. The rules state Da Jump counts as moving for all rules purposes. The reinforcement rules state you cannot move further in that turn. Reinforcement rules are RULES. So as per Da Jumps' 'counts as moving for any RULES purposes' the unit cannot move as per the reinforcement rule. That is very clear.

If you disagree provide some rules citiation to back up your claim just like myself, and others have.

Dadavester wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dadavester wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dadavester wrote:

Units coming in from reinforcements cannot move any further, correct?
Units affected by Da Jump count as having moved for any rules purposes, correct?

Therefore reinforcements cannot be affected by Da Jump. It is pretty simply if you do not try and twist the meaning. Da Jump is counted as movement for ANY rules purposes, so yes units affected by Da Jump have moved.
What part of ANY rules purposes is difficult?

TBH in a game I would have allowed it, but having seen the rules now I would say no it is not RAW.

There's no point recapping, but you can see from the rest of the thread that it's nowhere near as clear cut as you seem to think.

To be blunt it doesnt matter what i think, it matters what the rules say. And they say above, unless anyone can produce a rule/faq/errata that states different the above is RAW.

Many of us have already explained at length why your belief on what the rules "say" is wrong or at the very least open to interpretation.

Da Jump is not moving therefore its use is legal.

It is not an interpretation. The rules state Da Jump counts as moving for all rules purposes. The reinforcement rules state you cannot move further in that turn. Reinforcement rules are RULES. So as per Da Jumps' 'counts as moving for any RULES purposes' the unit cannot move as per the reinforcement rule. That is very clear.

If you disagree provide some rules citiation to back up your claim just like myself, and others have.

Agreed.