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.

Here is your proof:

Fade and Fire
Use this stratagem after a <Aeldari of some sort> unit from your army shoots in your Shooting phase. That unit can immediately move 7" as if it were the Movement phase (it cannot Advance as part of this move). However, it cannot charge in the same turn that it does so.

Since the unit moves as if it were the movement phase we reference:

OUT OF PHASE RULES
Some rules allow a model or unit to move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power outside of the normal turn sequence. If such a rule explicitly mentions to do so as if it were a different phase than the current one (e.g. ‘that unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase), then any rules that are normally used in that phase (in the example, this would be the Shooting phase) apply when that unit shoots.
The only exception to this are Stratagems; if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). You can find out more about Stratagems in the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book.

And then we reference:

Movement Phase, 1. MOVE UNITS wrote:Start your Movement phase by selecting one unit from your army to move; that unit can either make a Normal Move, it can Advance, or
it can Remain Stationary (see right). If a unit is within Engagement Range (pg 4) of any enemy models when it is selected to move, it cannot make a Normal Move or Advance; it can either Remain Stationary or it can Fall Back (see right). After you have finished moving that unit, you can then select another unit from your army to move in the same manner, and so on, until you have done so with as many of your units as you wish.

So per the rules as clearly stated in 9th Edition, when you use Fire and Fade you must choose what type of movement you are making since that is how you move in the Movement phase. You can't Advance and won't Remain Stationary, so you must either make a Normal Move or Fall Back.

Per the transport rules on Embarking:

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. A unit cannot embark within a Transport model that is within Engagement Range of enemy models, and it cannot embark if it has already disembarked from a Transport model in the same phase. Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked within the model.

It simply RAW that a unit using Fire and Fade can embark in a transport. Must be why they removed that FAQ answer that said they can't from the 9th Edition FAQs.

Great analysis, and I'm definitely in agreement with the principle of your point. The RAI is clear... but unfortunately, I've just spotted something in that allowance that screws it up again.
I should point out that I'd never dream of actually ruining someone's play with this interpretation, but...

Focusing for a moment on the line that would allow the unit to translate that 7" move into a Normal Move (or Fall Back):

If such a rule explicitly mentions to do so as if it were a different phase than the current one (e.g. ‘that unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase), then any rules that are normally used in that phase (in the example, this would be the Shooting phase) apply when that unit shoots.

Strip this down to exclude the example, and we get:

If such a rule explicitly mentions to do so as if it were a different phase than the current one, then any rules that are normally used in that phase apply when that unit shoots.

Dammit GW! You were so close... but nope. End result is, the unit can only refer to the normal rules for that phase when it shoots. Essentially this breaks the entire point of this rule for any phase other than Shooting.
How hard would it have been to just put "any rules that are normally used in that phase apply." ?!

 Super Ready wrote:

If such a rule explicitly mentions to do so as if it were a different phase than the current one (e.g. ‘that unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase), then any rules that are normally used in that phase (in the example, this would be the Shooting phase) apply when that unit shoots.

Strip this down to exclude the example, and we get:

If such a rule explicitly mentions to do so as if it were a different phase than the current one, then any rules that are normally used in that phase apply when that unit shoots.

Dammit GW! You were so close... but nope. End result is, the unit can only refer to the normal rules for that phase when it shoots. Essentially this breaks the entire point of this rule for any phase other than Shooting.
How hard would it have been to just put "any rules that are normally used in that phase apply." ?!

Ahh, I see. That parentheses is misplaced in the sentence. It should be at the end of the sentence rather than after phase. I think we can all agree that is just a punctuation error.

Who am I kidding. This is Dakka Dakka. People are going to argue the obvious error is not obvious and must be how to read the rule

I think Alextroy's analysis seems correct. They treat the move as happening in the Movement phase so they have to select a type of move to make (following the restrictions in the stratagem itself). So it seems like they can make a Normal move using the strat.

 alextroy wrote:
Here is your proof:.

Sorry but no. If you keep reading a little further into the movement phase you will find that a "Normal Move" is a clearly defined thing, and not merely label you can slap on some other variety of movement. The RAW does not fit together properly so you have to agree something with your opponent.

Moosatronic Warrior wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Here is your proof:.

Sorry but no. If you keep reading a little further into the movement phase you will find that a "Normal Move" is a clearly defined thing, and not merely label you can slap on some other variety of movement. The RAW does not fit together properly so you have to agree something with your opponent.

This.

GW went overly specific in 9th ed, and the FAQs/erratas have yet to catch up to the level of specificity of 9th ed.

RAI: 'move 7"' probably just means 'make a Normal Move but limited up to 7" instead of up to it's normal M value, since all harlequin units have M of +7" anyways'
RAW: 'move 7"' != 'Normal Move' OR 'Advance' OR 'Fall Back'

But it's not move 7", it is 7" as if it were the Movement phase (it cannot Advance as part of this move). When you move in the Movement phase, you must either make Normal Move, Advance, Fall Back, or Remain Stationary. There is no option to Move 7".

 skchsan wrote:

Moosatronic Warrior wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Here is your proof:.

Sorry but no. If you keep reading a little further into the movement phase you will find that a "Normal Move" is a clearly defined thing, and not merely label you can slap on some other variety of movement. The RAW does not fit together properly so you have to agree something with your opponent.

This.

GW went overly specific in 9th ed, and the FAQs/erratas have yet to catch up to the level of specificity of 9th ed.

RAI: 'move 7"' probably just means 'make a Normal Move but limited up to 7" instead of up to it's normal M value, since all harlequin units have M of +7" anyways'
RAW: 'move 7"' != 'Normal Move' OR 'Advance' OR 'Fall Back'

Exactly this. Alextroy’s logic includes an inference not present yet he slaps “RAW” into the post to attempt to lend it credence. It’s a logical patch, but it’s HIWPI not RAW.

I mean, tell me how Wraithguard can make a Normal Move of 7”. They can’t. The Stratagem allows them to move 7”, but trying alextroy’s logic here fails due to the definition of Normal Move. Now obviously the Strat specified a movement distance, and it just hasn’t been brought up to date with 9th edition yet. You could try to say “the Strats allows them to make a Normal Move of 7” as an exception” and that’s a nice workaround, but it isn’t RAW. As these guys said, agree how to play it with your opponent and move on. As RAW doesn’t work right now we have only that as a solution.

 alextroy wrote:
But it's not move 7", it is 7" as if it were the Movement phase (it cannot Advance as part of this move). When you move in the Movement phase, you must either make Normal Move, Advance, Fall Back, or Remain Stationary. There is no option to Move 7".

In that case, "Move 7" as if it were the movement phase" means as much as "shoot as if it were the psychic phase" or "perform a charge as if it were the command phase" - it's not something you can actually do, as there is no option for "move" any more - only "Normal Move", "Advance", "Fall Back" or "Remain Stationary".

It's something you'll have to discuss if it comes up.

 alextroy wrote:
But it's not move 7", it is 7" as if it were the Movement phase (it cannot Advance as part of this move). When you move in the Movement phase, you must either make Normal Move, Advance, Fall Back, or Remain Stationary. There is no option to Move 7".

Exactly. Thus, we can only assume within the given set of information that 'move 7" as if it were the Movement phase' is a special, non-standard form of movement that happens in the movement phase that is not Normal Move, Advance, Fall Back or Remain Stationary.

Because rules for embarking specifically requires the units to have made a Normal Move, Advance or Fall Back, a unit that moved 7" via stratagem is not eligible to embark on a transport.

 skchsan wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
But it's not move 7", it is 7" as if it were the Movement phase (it cannot Advance as part of this move). When you move in the Movement phase, you must either make Normal Move, Advance, Fall Back, or Remain Stationary. There is no option to Move 7".

Exactly. Thus, we can only assume within the given set of information that 'move 7" as if it were the Movement phase' is a special, non-standard form of movement that happens in the movement phase that is not Normal Move, Advance, Fall Back or Remain Stationary.

Because rules for embarking specifically requires the units to have made a Normal Move, Advance or Fall Back, a unit that moved 7" via stratagem is not eligible to embark on a transport.

The rules for the movement phase specifically require that you declare what form of movement you are making. And "a move not listed here" is not an option you are permitted to declare.

Maethbalnane wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
But it's not move 7", it is 7" as if it were the Movement phase (it cannot Advance as part of this move). When you move in the Movement phase, you must either make Normal Move, Advance, Fall Back, or Remain Stationary. There is no option to Move 7".

Exactly. Thus, we can only assume within the given set of information that 'move 7" as if it were the Movement phase' is a special, non-standard form of movement that happens in the movement phase that is not Normal Move, Advance, Fall Back or Remain Stationary.

Because rules for embarking specifically requires the units to have made a Normal Move, Advance or Fall Back, a unit that moved 7" via stratagem is not eligible to embark on a transport.

The rules for the movement phase specifically require that you declare what form of movement you are making. And "a move not listed here" is not an option you are permitted to declare.

You're given a specific direction on how to move the said unit in this 'as if Movement phase' phase. The argument 'but move 7" isn't listed on the different methods of moving during the Movement phase, so you cannot move' is just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

In either case, the wording on the stratagem as a whole is not compatible with the 9th ed ruleset & the wording used in it, so this whole 'well, technically' argument is moot anyways.

For example, the part that says 'it cannot advance as a part of its move' in itself is not compatible because advance is no longer defined as 'regular move but with additional d6"', but as its own specific type of move (as in, advancing can no longer be considered to be a 'part' of move; you either make a Normal Move or Advance - Advance is not defined as [Normal Move] + d6). Again, this issue arises from GW going overboard with being specific in 9th ed.

So, cook up your own way of dealing with it for the time being, and worst case scenario invoke the TMIR and roll off.

A) You must declare what form of move you are making.
B) You cannot make an advance.
That's fine. Pick one of the options that isn't advance. Where is the incompatibility, there?

The issue is... its not the movement phase, you aren't picking a movement.. you are simply moving 7" as its own special snowflake rule.

Where we allowed to fire and fade into a transport in 8th?

Maethbalnane wrote:
A) You must declare what form of move you are making.
B) You cannot make an advance.
That's fine. Pick one of the options that isn't advance. Where is the incompatibility, there?

There's no "pick one of the options", you follow the instructions of the stratagem you played, which is a move of 7". Specific rules in things such as stratagems will override general rules where the specific rule mentions a thing (in this case, moving 7"). This declaration of movement falls outside the normal movement modes in the movement phase rules and supercedes the need to declare a type of move. You follow other movement phase rules as you are told to follow movement phase rules but the stratagem does not specify anything else that overrides normal movement rules except for the type of movement,.

Maethbalnane wrote:
A) You must declare what form of move you are making.
B) You cannot make an advance.
That's fine. Pick one of the options that isn't advance. Where is the incompatibility, there?

It says "move 7"... cannot advance as a part of this move". This implies that advancing is something that's done in addition to moving. In 8th ed, you basically had two choices of 'movement types': move or Fall Back (note, move here is intentionally not capitalized). This is also noted under the rules for falling back in 8th ed:

...If a unit Falls Back, it cannot Advance (see below), or charge later that turn.

Again, we see another example where advance is actually treated as if it was additional move in conjunction with either move or Fall Back and not as a separate 'type' of move.

This is precisely why the 8th ed fire 'n fade's wording worked in 8th ed. However, this isn't how things are done in 9th.

In 9th edition, when a unit is selected to move, it must chose from one of the four types of movements. These four types are distinct from one another and are not dependent on other types of movements in their definitions.

Hence, phrase such as "it cannot advance as a part of this move" no longer makes sense in the context of 9th edition ruleset because Advancing is not a part of anything. Advancing is Advancing, not Normal Move + d6" or Fall Back + d6"

TLDR: The whole stratagem is 8th ed artifact and needs grounds up revision to make it work as RAW.

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
The issue is... its not the movement phase, you aren't picking a movement.. you are simply moving 7" as its own special snowflake rule.

Where we allowed to fire and fade into a transport in 8th?

No, per and FAQ answer that is conspicuously absent from the 9th Edition FAQ.

 alextroy wrote:

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
The issue is... its not the movement phase, you aren't picking a movement.. you are simply moving 7" as its own special snowflake rule.

Where we allowed to fire and fade into a transport in 8th?

No, per and FAQ answer that is conspicuously absent from the 9th Edition FAQ.

Well that makes sense. The idea of 10 dark reapers popping out of a transport, firing and then using fire and fade to enter the same or different transport is all kinds gross.

Only Dakka can have a 2 page discussion about a rule that was cleared up in a faq because with a new edition the developers entire concept of space and time has changed and now they surely mean for your unit to be able to shoot and embark when they specifically said you cannot previously and without changing any of the rules involved...

 Ordana wrote:
Only Dakka can have a 2 page discussion about a rule that was cleared up in a faq because with a new edition the developers entire concept of space and time has changed and now they surely mean for your unit to be able to shoot and embark when they specifically said you cannot previously and without changing any of the rules involved...

An FAQ for an obsolete rule-set that has no bearing on the current rules. Or can we use random 5th edition FAQs now as well?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Only Dakka can have a 2 page discussion about a rule that was cleared up in a faq because with a new edition the developers entire concept of space and time has changed and now they surely mean for your unit to be able to shoot and embark when they specifically said you cannot previously and without changing any of the rules involved...

An FAQ for an obsolete rule-set that has no bearing on the current rules. Or can we use random 5th edition FAQs now as well?

Agreed. We dont know if a unit can still only embark in the movement phase, not "as if its the movement phase", like it was in 8th. I think they cant, otherwise GW would have put that in the 9th edition FAQ.

 alextroy wrote:

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
The issue is... its not the movement phase, you aren't picking a movement.. you are simply moving 7" as its own special snowflake rule.

Where we allowed to fire and fade into a transport in 8th?

No, per and FAQ answer that is conspicuously absent from the 9th Edition FAQ.

A FAQ 'conspicuously absent' from the current ruleset can hardly be said to be RAW for that ruleset

 p5freak wrote:
Agreed. We dont know if a unit can still only embark in the movement phase, not "as if its the movement phase", like it was in 8th. I think they cant, otherwise GW would have put that in the 9th edition FAQ.

You think that, if GW decided to change a rule with the changing of an edition they would so do by...saying so in a FAQ?
Did detachments go from granting CP to costing CP as a result of a FAQ? Or is that a consequence of simply reading the 9th ed rules?

Maethbalnane wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
The issue is... its not the movement phase, you aren't picking a movement.. you are simply moving 7" as its own special snowflake rule.

Where we allowed to fire and fade into a transport in 8th?

No, per and FAQ answer that is conspicuously absent from the 9th Edition FAQ.

A FAQ 'conspicuously absent' from the current ruleset can hardly be said to be RAW for that ruleset

In this case it is. Very few FAQ answers were dropped in the change from 8th to 9th. Only those that the rules around changed where.

In the case of embarking on a Transport, the rules changed from "during the Movement phase" to "If a unit makes a Normal Move, an Advance or it Falls Back". Therefore any time such a move is made (and other criteria are met) you can embark on a Transport. This rules change reverses the FAQ answer since F&F has you move as if the Movement phase.

I started this thread and, like I said at the beginning... I don't think this is intended but RAW you could embark on a transport after having moved 7" using f&f. I would respond to those people who claim that you aren't making any of the moves listed down in the movement phase, hence can't embark, that the strat has a clause that reads "as if it were the movement phase"... so you are effectively picking one. But don't get me wrong, I am not encouraging people to play the strat in this fashion... In fact I completely discourage people from doing so as I am almost fully certain this is not intended - based on "common sense" and the FAQ from the previous edition where we got to know how GW felt about this issue (ynnari dark reapers, etc.) -.