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.
Does "counts as having moved" (those EXACT words) mean that the action which caused this effect was in fact the act of "Moving"?
Yes.
I'm going to rewrite the slightly frustrated reply I just deleted in a more polite way.
Please give some citations to your answers. explain yourself. prove yourself right. waltzing in with an air of authority does noting but antagonise.
I KNOW that you think you are right. But self-righteousness =/= Proof.
I'll not point out how you come across with these comments - it would be against dakkas policies on being insulting.
I suggest you read this thread. I have been involved from the beginning, i didnt just waltz in. You answered your own question with the question. If the unit count as having moved, the action that caused this effect is moving.
Anyway, i am still waiting for a rule citation or FAQ that confirms the "count as moving =/= moving" argument. If no one can provide that, then you cant jump a green tided unit.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/03 10:48:55
The rule states counts as having moved for ANY rules purposes. What does this mean to you?
This means to me that the unit counts as having moved for any rules purposes.
It does not mean that Da Jump is a move. As such, Da Jump is not restricted as if it were a move by other rules. What's happening is people are tying 2 rules together which are not the same thing:
"The unit counts as having moved" =/= "da jump is a move".
The rule prohibits "Moving". Not "actions or abilities which cause the model to count as having moved".
Disembarking is not movement, but it does cause the unit to count as having moved for any rules purposes.
Arriving from reinforcements is not movement, but it does cause the unit to count as having moved for any rules purposes.
Moving is movement, and it causes the unit to count as having moved for any rules purposes.
Here is the explanation of why "counts as having moved" does not mean that the action involved was movement.
Please explain why "Counts as having moved" means that the action causing it was in fact a movement!
"Counts as moved for any rules purposes" is just that, counts as moved for any rules purposes. You do not actually move the model itself but it is still movement for the purposes of the rules. So you have -1 to hit with heavy weapons, Space marines would not be able to RF if outside of of half range and so on. According to any rule this unit has now "Moved"
Now, to me, this affects Da Jump and reinforcements. As a unit affected by Da Jump is "counted as moving for rules purposes" and Reinforcements "cannot move any further that turn.." the 2 rules are incompatible.
Does "counts as having moved" (those EXACT words) mean that the action which caused this effect was in fact the act of "Moving"?
Yes.
I'm going to rewrite the slightly frustrated reply I just deleted in a more polite way.
Please give some citations to your answers. explain yourself. prove yourself right. waltzing in with an air of authority does noting but antagonise.
I KNOW that you think you are right. But self-righteousness =/= Proof.
I'll not point out how you come across with these comments - it would be against dakkas policies on being insulting.
I suggest you read this thread. I have been involved from the beginning, i didnt just waltz in. You answered your own question with the question. If the unit count as having moved, the action that caused this effect is moving.
Anyway, i am still waiting for a rule citation or FAQ that confirms the "count as moving =/= moving" argument. If no one can provide that, then you cant jump a green tided unit.
Apples are fruits, fruits are apples.
"motor vehicles are not allowed in this race, they are cheating" "I would like then to use a bicycle!" "That still counts as cheating" "Ah, this means that a bicycle is a motor vehicle!"
You have not provided any citation that an action which causes the unit to count as having moved means that the action counts as a move.
More example:
A unit one a banehammer (IG superheavy with 10-man firing platform). The unit counts as having moved if they or the banehammer moved this turn.
If the banehammer moves, the units inside do not actually move, but they count as having done so.
"This unit counts as having moved" =/= "This action counts as a move", until someone categorically proves that it does.
Please provide example proving that an action which causes a unit to count as having moved is in fact movement.
The issue is timing. The phrase "this unit counts as having moved" is one to be applied after the action has taken place. If "Da Jump" were meant to be a movement, would it not be simpler for them to say "Move the model anywhere on the board outside of 9" from an enemy model - ignore intervening models". They wouldn't go to all the lengths of saying to remove them and replace them, which itself is to get around being a move, then state that they count as having moved (reinforcing that they did not actually move, otherwise this statement would be unnecessary).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/03 11:22:32
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
Does "counts as having moved" (those EXACT words) mean that the action which caused this effect was in fact the act of "Moving"?
Yes.
I'm going to rewrite the slightly frustrated reply I just deleted in a more polite way.
Please give some citations to your answers. explain yourself. prove yourself right. waltzing in with an air of authority does noting but antagonise.
I KNOW that you think you are right. But self-righteousness =/= Proof.
I'll not point out how you come across with these comments - it would be against dakkas policies on being insulting.
I suggest you read this thread. I have been involved from the beginning, i didnt just waltz in. You answered your own question with the question. If the unit count as having moved, the action that caused this effect is moving.
Anyway, i am still waiting for a rule citation or FAQ that confirms the "count as moving =/= moving" argument. If no one can provide that, then you cant jump a green tided unit.
Apples are fruits, fruits are apples.
"motor vehicles are not allowed in this race, they are cheating"
"I would like then to use a bicycle!"
"That still counts as cheating"
"Ah, this means that a bicycle is a motor vehicle!"
You have not provided any citation that an action which causes the unit to count as having moved means that the action counts as a move.
More example:
A unit one a banehammer (IG superheavy with 10-man firing platform). The unit counts as having moved if they or the banehammer moved this turn.
If the banehammer moves, the units inside do not actually move, but they count as having done so.
"This unit counts as having moved" =/= "This action counts as a move", until someone categorically proves that it does.
Please provide example proving that an action which causes a unit to count as having moved is in fact movement.
The issue is timing. The phrase "this unit counts as having moved" is one to be applied after the action has taken place. If "Da Jump" were meant to be a movement, would it not be simpler for them to say "Move the model anywhere on the board outside of 9" from an enemy model - ignore intervening models". They wouldn't go to all the lengths of saying to remove them and replace them, which itself is to get around being a move, then state that they count as having moved (reinforcing that they did not actually move, otherwise this statement would be unnecessary).
I posted this above,
"Counts as moved for any rules purposes" is just that, counts as moved for any rules purposes. You do not actually move the model itself but it is still movement for the purposes of the rules. So you have -1 to hit with heavy weapons, Space marines would not be able to RF if outside of of half range and so on. According to any rule this unit has now "Moved"
Counts as moved IS moved for rules purposes, they even mention -1 to hit for heavy weapons as an example.
Do you want to contend that because the model wasn't moved, it was removed and re-setup it therefore it hasn't moved?
Does "counts as having moved" (those EXACT words) mean that the action which caused this effect was in fact the act of "Moving"?
Yes.
I'm going to rewrite the slightly frustrated reply I just deleted in a more polite way.
Please give some citations to your answers. explain yourself. prove yourself right. waltzing in with an air of authority does noting but antagonise.
I KNOW that you think you are right. But self-righteousness =/= Proof.
I'll not point out how you come across with these comments - it would be against dakkas policies on being insulting.
I suggest you read this thread. I have been involved from the beginning, i didnt just waltz in. You answered your own question with the question. If the unit count as having moved, the action that caused this effect is moving.
Anyway, i am still waiting for a rule citation or FAQ that confirms the "count as moving =/= moving" argument. If no one can provide that, then you cant jump a green tided unit.
Apples are fruits, fruits are apples.
"motor vehicles are not allowed in this race, they are cheating"
"I would like then to use a bicycle!"
"That still counts as cheating"
"Ah, this means that a bicycle is a motor vehicle!"
You have not provided any citation that an action which causes the unit to count as having moved means that the action counts as a move.
More example:
A unit one a banehammer (IG superheavy with 10-man firing platform). The unit counts as having moved if they or the banehammer moved this turn.
If the banehammer moves, the units inside do not actually move, but they count as having done so.
"This unit counts as having moved" =/= "This action counts as a move", until someone categorically proves that it does.
Please provide example proving that an action which causes a unit to count as having moved is in fact movement.
The issue is timing. The phrase "this unit counts as having moved" is one to be applied after the action has taken place. If "Da Jump" were meant to be a movement, would it not be simpler for them to say "Move the model anywhere on the board outside of 9" from an enemy model - ignore intervening models". They wouldn't go to all the lengths of saying to remove them and replace them, which itself is to get around being a move, then state that they count as having moved (reinforcing that they did not actually move, otherwise this statement would be unnecessary).
I posted this above,
"Counts as moved for any rules purposes" is just that, counts as moved for any rules purposes. You do not actually move the model itself but it is still movement for the purposes of the rules. So you have -1 to hit with heavy weapons, Space marines would not be able to RF if outside of of half range and so on. According to any rule this unit has now "Moved"
Counts as moved IS moved for rules purposes, they even mention -1 to hit for heavy weapons as an example.
Do you want to contend that because the model wasn't moved, it was removed and re-setup it therefore it hasn't moved?
This is getting hard to explain now.
"Counts as having moved" means, to me, that any rule from here on which looks back and determines whether or not the model moved, will interpret that the model did in fact move.
"this model may not move" means to me that the model may not move. It does not mean that the model may not do anything which would cause it to count as having moved. These two things are similar, but different.
One is restricting actions which can take place, the other is applying a result for the sake of future actions.
"moving" is a specific thing, and is a more restrictive thing than "any action which results in a model counting as having moved".
Another example - the IG superheavies with their firing platforms, whose rules state that if the superheavy or the unit moves in the preceding movement phase, then the unit counts as having moved when they shoot.
Move and then embark. the unit, at this point, counts as having moved.
Now, if the vehicle moves, the unit counts as having moved.
as a unit cannot move more than once, and as the superheavy moving would cause the unit to "count as having moved", does the unit move twice? is this, therefore, not allowed?
The "this unit counts as having moved" is a modifier placed on a unit after the event. EG if a transport does something which "counts as having moved", then as soon as it finishes, the unit inside cannot disembark, as the vehicle counts as having moved from this point onwards.
I stand by that they are different things. From the RAW, they are both allowed. "may not move any further" is not the same as "may not perform any action, including moving, which would result in the unit counting as having moved".
If you want to go for Rules As Interpreted Using English, then the rule states "A model may not move any further", not "the model may not move again", which means that as long as you remove it from point A, redeploy to point B, then da jump to point C, which closer to A than B was, then it has moved less far, therefore has not "moved any further". It has instead moved closer.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
The rules for moving a model are found in the Movement Phase of the rules. Using Da Jump does not use those rules in any way, shape, or form. Therefore Da Jump is not movement.
However, a unit that used Da Jump counts as having moved because it says so and invokes the Reinforcement rules.
alextroy wrote: The rules for moving a model are found in the Movement Phase of the rules. Using Da Jump does not use those rules in any way, shape, or form. Therefore Da Jump is not movement.
However, a unit that used Da Jump counts as having moved because it says so and invokes the Reinforcement rules.
But it only "counts as having moved", and nothing in the reinforcement rules restricts actions which cause the unit to count as having moved. It does restrict moving, and by extension anything which itself counts as moving, but not anything which causes a unit to count as having moved.
Is the rule "Moving", or "counts as moving"? No. Therefore, is it restricted by a rule which prevents moving? No.
After completing the rule, the unit counts as having moved, for the sake of any rules purposes. As such, it suffers -1 to hit with heavy weapons, etc.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
alextroy wrote: The rules for moving a model are found in the Movement Phase of the rules. Using Da Jump does not use those rules in any way, shape, or form. Therefore Da Jump is not movement.
However, a unit that used Da Jump counts as having moved because it says so and invokes the Reinforcement rules.
But it only "counts as having moved", and nothing in the reinforcement rules restricts actions which cause the unit to count as having moved. It does restrict moving, and by extension anything which itself counts as moving, but not anything which causes a unit to count as having moved.
Is the rule "Moving", or "counts as moving"? No. Therefore, is it restricted by a rule which prevents moving? No.
After completing the rule, the unit counts as having moved, for the sake of any rules purposes. As such, it suffers -1 to hit with heavy weapons, etc.
After completing the rule the units counts as having moved for the sake of any rules purposes - Can you see how this now conflicts with the reinforcement move? As the unit cannot move any further that turn, yet after completing Da Jump it now counts as having moved for any rules purposes. It has now broke the reinforcement rule as it is counted as moving for any rules purposes.
alextroy wrote: The rules for moving a model are found in the Movement Phase of the rules. Using Da Jump does not use those rules in any way, shape, or form. Therefore Da Jump is not movement.
However, a unit that used Da Jump counts as having moved because it says so and invokes the Reinforcement rules.
But it only "counts as having moved", and nothing in the reinforcement rules restricts actions which cause the unit to count as having moved. It does restrict moving, and by extension anything which itself counts as moving, but not anything which causes a unit to count as having moved.
Is the rule "Moving", or "counts as moving"? No. Therefore, is it restricted by a rule which prevents moving? No.
After completing the rule, the unit counts as having moved, for the sake of any rules purposes. As such, it suffers -1 to hit with heavy weapons, etc.
After completing the rule the units counts as having moved for the sake of any rules purposes - Can you see how this now conflicts with the reinforcement move? As the unit cannot move any further that turn, yet after completing Da Jump it now counts as having moved for any rules purposes. It has now broke the reinforcement rule as it is counted as moving for any rules purposes.
The rule does not prohibit a unit counting as having moved - it prohibits moving. these are 2 different things.
If the rule was "this counts as moving", then 100% yes, the action which counts as moving is not allowed as per reinforcements, which prevents moving.
Counting as having moved is a state in which a unit can have not moved and yet still count as having done so. Its only purpose for existing is to put a restriction on units actions which would otherwise not apply due to the unit not having moved. Any rule, therefore, must not itself count as moving, or this would be unnecessary. Therefore, these rules are not restricted by rules which prevent units from moving, as they aren't moving, don't count as moving, but do apply the same restrictions on a models future actions - they count as having moved, but they did not.
If a unit has moved, it doesn't count as having moved, it simply has moved.
for a thing to count as something else, it has to not be the something else in the first place. There is no need to count an apple as an apple - it simply is an apple.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
UGT brings the unit in as reinforcements. These cannot move again. Rules to prove this have been shown.
The FAQ for things like Da Jump state the unit counts as Moved if affected by this. Rules to prove this have been sown.
Therefore the you cannot use Da Jump on reinforcements without breaking the rules.
What is so hard to understand there?
Im going to leave it at that as it is clear people either want to rules lawyer for advantage or are not reading it correctly.
Da Jump is a psychic ability (a spell), not a move.
Spoiler:
(Snipped, wrong about that) ->Listed specifically in a FAQ as redeployment.
Moving happens in the movement phase
One of the effects of the unit that Da Jump has been cast on is 'counts as having moved' (past tense).
The unit never moved, they were targeted by a psychic ability that redeploys them.
EDIT Late edit sorry.
False.
A rule that states "after this rule has been invoked, the model now has state X" is different from a rule that states "If a unit has state X, this rule cannot be invoked".
How hard is this?
The RULE does not count as MOVEMENT. The Rule changes the STATE of a model from UNSPECIFIED to "COUNTS AS MOVED".
If the rule stated "If a model shoots with this weapon, it now counts as having moved for the remainder of the turn" you wouldn't state that the weapon cannot be fired after moving, would you?
Are you seriously suggesting that Da Jump cannot be invoked of a unit moved normally by walking 5 inches?
I suggest you read this thread. I have been involved from the beginning, i didnt just waltz in. You answered your own question with the question. If the unit count as having moved, the action that caused this effect is moving.
This is false.
Moving is a verb. Moved is an adjective. There is no rule (I challenge you to show me) that states that you can't "COUNT" a unit has having moved multiples times.
I can say "Joe Moved", followed immediately by "Joe counts as having Moved". Simply because I stated it twice does not mean Joe MOVED twice.
You are changing the state of the model from "Counts as Moved" to "Counts as Moved". There is no rule in the book that states you cannot change the state of a model to something it already had. You can change it's state to "counts as moved" an infinite number of times.
You just can 't move it again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/03 13:26:53
You can’t prove a negative. If that’s where this thread is at it needs binning.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
JohnnyHell wrote: You can’t prove a negative. If that’s where this thread is at it needs binning.
I'm not really sure what you're saying - what negative needs to be proven?
It's come down to 2 camps:
1: an effect which causes a unit to count as having moved is, by extension, itself movement.
and
2: an effect which causes a unit to count as having moved is not movement - only movement is movement.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
IMO "counts as having moved" basically means "whenever you are asked if you have moved, answer with 'Yes!', no matter what happened before".
Therefore, you cannot deduct that "counts as having moved" automatically means that you actually did move.
However, do I see the paradox between UGT telling you to not move and the unit counting as having moved after jumping. Kind of like "Did you move?" "Yes!" "But you weren't allowed to!".
So, the safe side would not to use them in tandem, but this definitely needs official clarification.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
I've kinda stepped back on this one because my stance keeps changing. On the one hand, Da Jump never states that it's the same as moving, so it should be fine to use with UGT. On the other hand, the unit that is Da Jumped "counts as having moved", so you run into a situation where a unit that isn't allowed to move now counts as having moved. On the OTHER other hand, it's such a rare situation that it took a year of the Codex being out before anyone even tried it, so, either way, the benefit is likely negligible to non-existent. I mean, yeah, the OP used it to hold an Objective, but he also could have skipped it and just Da Jumped a different unit up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/04 12:16:49
skchsan wrote: Isn't the "cannot be selected to move again" caveat to the movement phase alone?
Is there a difference between Moving and moving?
lastly, is move/moving/count as moving during movement phase same as move/moving/count as moving in the psychic phase?
a: nope, hence the FAQ ruling that you can not TP harlies that have deepstriked.
b: yes, hence the FAQ ruling that a deep striker can charge , pile in and, consolidate.
c: yes, again, can't twilight pathways a unit that has deepstriked.
at least that's the precedence from FAQs.
Automatically Appended Next Post: now whether any of this means you can not redeploy a unit that has deepstriked... I have no idea.
No where does it specifically say redeploying is Movement (i.e. any of the options presented in the Movement section of the BRB)
But does redeploying count as "movement," I am not sure, redeploying does not say "move a unit" it says "deploy a unit" sooo,,, you are moving the model (i.e. physically you are moving the model) but are you "moving" the model (i.e. a game term).
I believe this is an unanswerable question with out knowing what was intended. All I know is I can not TP in the psychic phase after deepstriking, so I think it is reasonable to think one can not deepstrike and then use da-jump based on precedence. But actual RAW its hard to know because GW mixes game terms around like a bake mixes cake batter.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/04 12:24:59
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
What precedence says you can't remove a model from the board that has a "cannot move" status on it?
The closest example I can come up with this that a unit within 1" of enemy models cannot move unless it Falls Back, but the rules allow you to remove them from the board and set them back up and specifics the unit does not count as Falling Back.
So the precedence we actually have on this subject says "remove and redeploy" is not movement.
The precedence being that additional movement can not be used on a deepstriked model.
So RAI, i am thinking, is the designers didn't intend to allow a unit to go anywhere after they have been redeployed...
But like you point out, in terms of RAI, there is precedence showing that it is not movement.
hmmm, I think I am leaning towards it is allowed by RAW,,,, I just get the hindering feeling that it is not RAI.
But that doesn't stop it from being RAW.
You can da-jump a unit that has moved. Redeploying does not seem to be "Movement" at least as outlined by the movement section of the book (which we know is what they mean by movement because charging / pile / consolidate is allowed) .
So I guess its legit.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
alextroy wrote: What precedence says you can't remove a model from the board that has a "cannot move" status on it?
The closest example I can come up with this that a unit within 1" of enemy models cannot move unless it Falls Back, but the rules allow you to remove them from the board and set them back up and specifics the unit does not count as Falling Back.
So the precedence we actually have on this subject says "remove and redeploy" is not movement.
The issue isn't this, it is that Da Jump says "the unit counts as moved for any rules purposes" and, as it counts as moved, does it conflict with the reinforcement rule which states it cannot move further?
I believe yes as, imo, 'counts as moved for any rules purposes' conflicts with the reinforcement rule as the unit cannot move again. Others believe that because it is not movement, as you state, it can be done.
We need clarity on what exactly "counts as moved for any rules purposes" means.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/04 14:16:19
What makes me lean towards thinking it is allowed is that it doesn't count as though it has moved until after they jump. but i dunno ,,, definitly needs clarification.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Dadavester wrote: We need clarity on what exactly "counts as moved for any rules purposes" means.
There's no clear definition, but RAI for "can't move after deep striking" is probably "you can't deep strike 9" away from enemy model and then move again to get even closer so you can get charges off with 3"~4" of enemy unit."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/04 15:45:14
I agree with that logic. Some units have the ability to move in the shooting phase, so the most likely reason for that rule was to prevent exactly what you said.
alextroy wrote: What precedence says you can't remove a model from the board that has a "cannot move" status on it?
The closest example I can come up with this that a unit within 1" of enemy models cannot move unless it Falls Back, but the rules allow you to remove them from the board and set them back up and specifics the unit does not count as Falling Back.
So the precedence we actually have on this subject says "remove and redeploy" is not movement.
The issue isn't this, it is that Da Jump says "the unit counts as moved for any rules purposes" and, as it counts as moved, does it conflict with the reinforcement rule which states it cannot move further?
I believe yes as, imo, 'counts as moved for any rules purposes' conflicts with the reinforcement rule as the unit cannot move again. Others believe that because it is not movement, as you state, it can be done.
We need clarity on what exactly "counts as moved for any rules purposes" means.
A unit must give up it's shooting attacks to use Smoke Launchers. A unit that cannot shoot is still allowed to use it's Smoke Launchers.
Isn't this the same sort of thing?
A unit that cannot shoot can do something that requires it to not shoots versus a unit that cannot move can still do something that means the unit counts as having moved.
Just because a unit cannot move does't mean it cannot do something that means it counts as having moved.
p5freak wrote: I still havent seen a rule citation or a FAQ which confirms "count as moving =/= moving".
Likewise, there has been no rule citation that a unit that counts as hving moved (past tense) due to some action has the action treated as moving while doing it. Barring that citation, you have permission to do the action. The onus is on your side to show that the action is treated as moving while doing it for it to be a prohibition to taking the action. A unit counting as that it had moved (past tense) after the action is taken is not the same as the action itself counting as movement.
There is some utterly ludicrous reaching and hairsplitting going on.
I actually dare someone to email this to the FAQ team and ask them to film the resulting eye roll and publish that as the FAQ.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
p5freak wrote: I still havent seen a rule citation or a FAQ which confirms "count as moving =/= moving".
Likewise, there has been no rule citation that a unit that counts as hving moved (past tense) due to some action has the action treated as moving while doing it. Barring that citation, you have permission to do the action. The onus is on your side to show that the action is treated as moving while doing it for it to be a prohibition to taking the action. A unit counting as that it had moved (past tense) after the action is taken is not the same as the action itself counting as movement.
Which is the crux of the matter.
The other side to "counts as moved = moving" is it invalidates ALL extra "move" abilities on any unit that did a regular movement in the movement phase (with the exception of Metabolic Overdrive which nicely says "move again".) So no Da Jump after moving normally, no WarpTime after moving normally, No Hive Commander after moving normally, etc. because all of those rules lack the "again." The units moved twice! Horror! Since this is bananas, and nobody plays this way, the argument is just silly.
Remember when people "rolled their eyes" about Da Jump not being usable turn 1 with the first version of the Tactical Reserves rule, and GW proved us all right when they changed the rule to allow it?
Q: Can a Character that has been set up on the battlefield using the Denizens of the Warp Stratagem use the Daemonic Ritual ability to summon a Daemon unit during the same phase?A: No – units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved for all rules purposes and the Daemonic Ritual ability is used instead of moving.
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.
Q. The rules for reinforcements say that when a unit is set up on the battlefield as reinforcements, it cannot move or Advance further that turn, but can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.).Can such a unit make a charge move? Can it pile in and consolidate?A: Yes to both questions – the unit can declare a charge and make a charge move, and if it is chosen to fight, it can pile in and consolidate.
Can such a unit move or Advance for any other reason e.g. because of an ability such as The Swarmlord’s Hive Commander ability, or because of a psychic power such as Warptime from the Dark Hereticus discipline, or because of a Stratagem like Metabolic Overdrive from Codex : Tyranid s, etc.?A: No.
UNSTOPPABLE GREEN TIDE
Orks Stratagem
Wave after wave of Orks overwhelm the enemy’s defence lines.
Use this Stratagem at the end of your Movement phase. Select a unit of BOYZ from your army that has less than half its starting number of models and remove it from the battlefield. You can then set it up again wholly within 6" of the edge of the battlefield and more than 9" from any enemy models, at its full starting strength.
The unit has been redeployed, it counts as having moved for movement purposes per the FAQ. Also per the FAQ it cannot move again for ANY REASON for a power or ability. The only thing it can do "movement related", or have done to it, is declare a charge.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/04 19:57:43
