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.

Unless there is something I'm missing, it seems to me that RAW, embarking on a transport after having used fire & fade stratagem is legal RAW. I very much doubt this is the intention, but the old 8th ed FAQ that prevented units (I'm looking at you ynnari dark reapers) from embarking on transports through this stratagem is gone and the new wording in the 9th edition rulebook has not been amended accordingly.

I would say no. Because even though it counts as the movement phase, you are not doing a "normal move, an advance, or... fall back".

What makes you think FAQs from 8th are no longer valid ? All FAQs have been updated recently, and are still valid. Which means no, you cant do that.

Q: Can units embark inside a transport in a phase other than the
Movement phase, such as when they are using the Fire and Fade
Stratagem from Codex: Craftworlds, or when a unit performs a
Soulburst action to move again?
A: No, unless the rule in question specifically states that
the unit can embark inside a Transport.

The FAQ I posted is an FAQ for the 8th edition rulebook. It's no longer valid. As for the first answer, that's something I had thought of before and it introduces additional issues... such as units using fire & fade to move in the same turn they come out of deepstrike

From the 9th ed rulebook:

"Reinforcement units cannot make a Normal Move, Advance, Fall Back or Remain Stationary in the turn they arrive for any reason, but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, fight etc) Models in units that arrived as Reinforcements count as having moved a distance in inches equal to their Move (M) characteristic in this Movement phase. If models in the unit have a minimum Move characteristic, those models count as having moved a distance in inches equal to their maximum Move characteristic "

Assuming the FAQ is no longer valid because it was for the 8th Ed rulebook, and we're now using the 9th Ed Rulebook, do you think it won't be Re-FAQ'ed?

I totally think it will. I've only posted it so that pple would help me find a loophole in my RAW interpretation

I would agree you can, with current FAQs, use Fire and Fade after arriving as reinforcements. By the same reasoning.

The primary reason for the rule preventing normal moves after deep strike was to prevent trivial charges. As the stratagem prevents you from charging anyway I dont see this as an issue.

The problem Stux and eparedes0785 .... is that you are not making a "Normal Move" and because the words are capitalized it means something. Fire and Fade doesn't say Normal Move. So no embarking.

Fair enough... can I then deepstrike a raider with say 5 grotesque DT's and flame my opponent's army after having fire and faded with it? It's probably not worth the investment before anyone says...

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
The problem Stux and eparedes0785 .... is that you are not making a "Normal Move" and because the words are capitalized it means something. Fire and Fade doesn't say Normal Move. So no embarking.

That was exactly my point, I agree.

It's good for contesting objectives then?

eparedes0785 wrote:
It's good for contesting objectives then?

Yes, in that if you cleared an enemy unit off an objective with shooting then this may allow you to move onto it yourself.

Breton wrote:
Assuming the FAQ is no longer valid because it was for the 8th Ed rulebook, and we're now using the 9th Ed Rulebook, do you think it won't be Re-FAQ'ed?

They merely updated the codex FAQs and left the 8th edition questions there. It wouldn't be surprising if they kept the questions and answers from the 8th edition main rulebook FAQ for things that didn't change between 8th and 9th edition.

Per the rules for out of phase actions and given the stratagem wording that the unit moves as if the moves “as if it were the movement phase”, I see no reason the unit cannot make a Normal Move or Fall Back Move, albeit it one of 7” or less and then embark per the transport rules.

 alextroy wrote:
Per the rules for out of phase actions and given the stratagem wording that the unit moves as if the moves “as if it were the movement phase”, I see no reason the unit cannot make a Normal Move or Fall Back Move, albeit it one of 7” or less and then embark per the transport rules.

What the out of phase rules you are referencing?

 Sazzlefrats wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Per the rules for out of phase actions and given the stratagem wording that the unit moves as if the moves “as if it were the movement phase”, I see no reason the unit cannot make a Normal Move or Fall Back Move, albeit it one of 7” or less and then embark per the transport rules.

What the out of phase rules you are referencing?

Presumably Core Rules, pg 9, in the box titled "Out of Phase Rules".


The Fire and Fade stratagem states that the movement is made as if in the movement phase.
The Out of Phase Rules specify that the normal rules for the movement phase apply to this movement.
The normal rules for moving in the movement phase specify that the selected unit A) make a Normal Move, B) Advance, C) Remain Stationary, or D) Fall Back.


By what chain of logic do these facts lead to any other conclusion than that the unit can make a Normal Move?

eparedes0785 wrote:
I totally think it will. I've only posted it so that pple would help me find a loophole in my RAW interpretation

OK. They're not making a normal move. They can move 7". That is not a normal move. A normal move is Up To their MV which may be modified. They can move exactly (One could even argue no more no less than) 7" regardless of any mods to their MV.

The problem is that in 9th edition the phrasing "as if it were the Movement Phase" for that 7" move.

In order to move as if it were the movement phase, you have to choose one of the four options (and the stratagem says you can't choose Advance).

Otherwise, the stratagem doesn't work, because there are no rules for a generic movement in 9th edition. You have a 7" movement and no rules for what you can or cannot do with it. Good luck trying to use it in a game.

When playing the strat in 9th you move exactly 7". Strats can give you permission to do something you normally wouldnt be able to do. The strat doesnt say you make a normal move, it simply says you move 7".

My view on this is that the issue is caused by the stratagem being written in a time when 'Normal Moves' weren't defined as such. I'd expect this to be covered by an FAQ, but right now, I read RAW the same as p5freak does - you're allowed an exact 7" move, no more, no less.

RAI however, it seems pretty clear that it's supposed to be up to 7".
In this case, I think I'd personally also allow the embark as well - because the updated Harlequins FAQ does have other rules updated to include the 'Normal Moves' term. This could be an oversight, but it could also be intentional.

Agreed that this may be edition lag due to delays in 9th ed updates. But RAW: Cannot embark via out-of-phase move that is not Normal Move, Advance or Fall Back.

P1: 'move 7"' is not explicitly described as a 'Normal Move', 'Advance', or 'Fall Back'.
P2: only units that make a 'Normal Move', 'Advance', or 'Fall Back' may embark in a transport.

I think the main problem during 9th ed transition is that GW tried to tighten up the rules for embarking so that you can't remain stationary and embark on a vehicle, but ended up making it too tight.

A 'healthier' revision could've been:

If a unit makes a Normal Move, an Advance or it Falls Back, did not Remain Stationary, and every model in that unit ends that move within 3" of a friendly Transport model they can embark within it.

But that's not what the rules read currently.

 Super Ready wrote:
I read RAW the same as p5freak does - you're allowed an exact 7" move, no more, no less.

This is easily circumvented by the fact that you count the total path travelled, not merely the final displacement.
Simply move half a micron to the left, followed by half a micron to the right, etc, until your excess move distance is consumed.

 skchsan wrote:
P1: 'move 7"' is not explicitly described as a 'Normal Move', 'Advance', or 'Fall Back'.

It does not need to be explicitly described as such. It being possible for the move to be a normal move is necessitated by the 'as if movement phase' clause and 'out of phase rules', as specified previously in this thread. Unless you have a reading consistent with those two rules that you can lead us through, here, that comes to some other conclusion by a path other than "nuh-uh!"?

Maethbalnane wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
P1: 'move 7"' is not explicitly described as a 'Normal Move', 'Advance', or 'Fall Back'.

It does not need to be explicitly described as such. It being possible for the move to be a normal move is necessitated by the 'as if movement phase' clause and 'out of phase rules', as specified previously in this thread. Unless you have a reading consistent with those two rules that you can lead us through, here, that comes to some other conclusion by a path other than "nuh-uh!"?

Actually, it does need to be explicitly described as such. As skchsan indicated, "Move 7" " is not explicitly described as one of the types of movement in the movement phase. Being told "as if it is the movement phase" means you are following the rules for movement in the movement phase that any type of move must follow, and that you move 7" following these rules. It might be possible that they meant it to be treated as a normal move, but they didn't state it. RAW you can't just assume that it's a Normal Move. Talk about it with your opponent before the game to see if he agrees with you if you want to treat it as a normal move, or check with the TO beforehand if it's a tournament. If you don't, you don't have any right to assume that your opponent will treat it the same as your assumption that it's a Normal Move.

 doctortom wrote:
Actually, it does need to be explicitly described as such. As skchsan indicated, "Move 7" " is not explicitly described as one of the types of movement in the movement phase. Being told "as if it is the movement phase" means you are following the rules for movement in the movement phase that any type of move must follow, and that you move 7" following these rules. It might be possible that they meant it to be treated as a normal move, but they didn't state it. RAW you can't just assume that it's a Normal Move. Talk about it with your opponent before the game to see if he agrees with you if you want to treat it as a normal move, or check with the TO beforehand if it's a tournament. If you don't, you don't have any right to assume that your opponent will treat it the same as your assumption that it's a Normal Move.

Unless you can cite some rule to the contrary, the 'rules for movement in the movement phase that any type of move must follow' includes the rule whereby you must declare what type of move you are making. And 'a move not otherwise listed' is not an available rules-abiding option.

Could everyone stop twisting about trying to shove an 8th-shaped Stratagem into a 9th-shaped Rules hole? “Normal Move” wasn’t even a concept when this Stratagem was written.

We know the old intent from the old Stratagem.

The Stratagem as written doesn’t fit into the types of move that Embarking now requires.

Either play it as no, you can’t Fire and Fade onto a Transport because a) we genuinely know their intent here and b) the RAW allows you to move 7” but not via one of the types of move that allow embarking so RAW it’s not allowed. Or have a fight about it and the universe implodes or something.

But please, the Stratagem wasn’t written for the current ruleset... do the above suggestion, or agree something with your opponent and move on.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Could everyone stop twisting about trying to shove an 8th-shaped Stratagem into a 9th-shaped Rules hole?

Unfortunately, until errata or a new codex, those are the rules we have.
Speculation that the consequences of this change in rules was not intentional is just that - speculation.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
the RAW allows you to move 7” but not via one of the types of move that allow embarking

Citation, please. Accounting for not merely the narrow text of the stratagem itself, but also all the rules it references or is affected by, and from the current ruleset.

Maethbalnane wrote:

Citation, please. Accounting for not merely the narrow text of the stratagem itself, but also all the rules it references or is affected by, and from the current ruleset.

You need to make a normal move, advance or fall back, in order to embark. The stratagem allows you to move 7", it doesnt say you can make a normal move, advance, or fall back.

EMBARK
If a unit makes a Normal Move, an Advance or it Falls Back, and
every model in that unit ends that move within 3" of a friendly
Transport model they can embark within it.

 p5freak wrote:

Maethbalnane wrote:

Citation, please. Accounting for not merely the narrow text of the stratagem itself, but also all the rules it references or is affected by, and from the current ruleset.

You need to make a normal move, advance or fall back, in order to embark. The stratagem allows you to move 7", it doesnt say you can make a normal move, advance, or fall back.

EMBARK
If a unit makes a Normal Move, an Advance or it Falls Back, and
every model in that unit ends that move within 3" of a friendly
Transport model they can embark within it.

Exactly this.

My post outlined that this Strat was written before some of these move types existed, and as it doesn’t specify it as any of them this move cannot qualify to allow embarking.

 p5freak wrote:

Maethbalnane wrote:

Citation, please. Accounting for not merely the narrow text of the stratagem itself, but also all the rules it references or is affected by, and from the current ruleset.

You need to make a normal move, advance or fall back, in order to embark. The stratagem allows you to move 7", it doesnt say you can make a normal move, advance, or fall back.

This argument still has not accounted for the consequences of 'as if in the movement phase', 'out of phase rules', and paragraph one of "Move Units" in the Movement Phase rules.
And at this point, comes off as a moderately wordy "nuh-uh!"

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Exactly this.

My post outlined that this Strat was written before some of these move types existed, and as it doesn’t specify it as any of them this move cannot qualify to allow embarking.

The fact that the stratagem was written before those rules existed is immaterial to how those rules affect how the stratagem must be read unless and until it receives errata/rewriting/obliviation.



I'll consider weighing in again if someone actually presents an argument that addresses the current Core RAW, rather than choosing to ignore it just because the codex it's being applied to is comparatively outdated.
Until then, maybe consider reading the rules?

Play it like you want to, make house rules, whatever. GW changed lots of rules when 9th arrived, they didnt change fire and fade. RAW, they cant embark.