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.

Couple parts to this one:
Is there any reason a flyer, such as a Marauder Bomber, can't drop a bomb if they advance in a turn? I can't find anything that says they can't, but that doesn't mean that isn't a rule.

Part two:
With the new FAQ, a flyer can drop a bomb, then move off the table as stated here:

If a unit can move off the edge of the battlefield, it can still
resolve rules that are triggered at the end of its move before
being removed from the battlefield.

So if said Marauder Bomber turn one, Advanced it's full 65" move, dropped a bomb in the enemy lines, and then left the table, that's entirely legal?

As always with 40k, check the datasheet.

The rule for the Marauder Bomber's "Heavy bomb" ability simply says "immediately after the bearer has moved". As per the new errata to the Rules Glossary

*Page 366 – Rules Term Glossary
Add the following:
Move normally: Rules that refer to move/moves/moving normally are the same thing as making a Normal Move, e.g. a rule that states ‘instead of moving this unit normally’ means ‘instead of making a Normal Move with this unit’. If a rule simply tells you to make a move as if it were the Movement phase, but does not specify what kind of move is being made, it is a Normal Move.

As it does not say "move normally", but rather says "move", it can use the "Heavy bomb" ability after any form of move, including Advance.

I agree with BCB.

Hmm, "NORMAL MOVE" is defined as:

"When a unit makes a Normal Move, each model in that unit can move a distance in inches equal to or less than the Move (M) characteristic shown on its datasheet, but no model can be moved within Engagement Range of enemy models (pg 4)"

"Normal Move: Models move up to M"."

This is an entirely different definition than advance, remain stationary, and fall back.

So if it says move, as per the errata to the Rules Glossary "move" = "Normal Move" and Normal Move does not include fall back or advance.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Hmm, "NORMAL MOVE" is defined as:

"When a unit makes a Normal Move, each model in that unit can move a distance in inches equal to or less than the Move (M) characteristic shown on its datasheet, but no model can be moved within Engagement Range of enemy models (pg 4)"

"Normal Move: Models move up to M"."

This is an entirely different definition than advance, remain stationary, and fall back.

So if it says move, as per the errata to the Rules Glossary "move" = "Normal Move" and Normal Move does not include fall back or advance.

Please read the errata again. It does not say "move" = "Normal Move". It says "If a rule simply tells you to make a move as if it were the Movement phase, but does not specify what kind of move is being made, it is a Normal Move."

Show me in the "Heavy bomb" rule where it says "to make a move as if it were the Movement phase".

 DeathReaper wrote:
Hmm, "NORMAL MOVE" is defined as:

"When a unit makes a Normal Move, each model in that unit can move a distance in inches equal to or less than the Move (M) characteristic shown on its datasheet, but no model can be moved within Engagement Range of enemy models (pg 4)"

"Normal Move: Models move up to M"."

This is an entirely different definition than advance, remain stationary, and fall back.

So if it says move, as per the errata to the Rules Glossary "move" = "Normal Move" and Normal Move does not include fall back or advance.

Here's what the rule for Heavy Bomb says:

Once per turn, if the bearer has any heavy bombs remaining, it can drop one of them. Immediately after the bearer has moved, you can select one point on the battlefield the bearer moved across this phase. Roll one D6 for each unit within 6" of that point, subtracting 1 if that model is a CHARACTER (excluding VEHICLE and MONSTER units): on a 4-5, that unit suffers D3 mortal wounds; on a 6, that unit suffers D6 mortal wounds. Each heavy bomb can only be dropped once per battle.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Hmm, "NORMAL MOVE" is defined as:

"When a unit makes a Normal Move, each model in that unit can move a distance in inches equal to or less than the Move (M) characteristic shown on its datasheet, but no model can be moved within Engagement Range of enemy models (pg 4)"

"Normal Move: Models move up to M"."

This is an entirely different definition than advance, remain stationary, and fall back.

So if it says move, as per the errata to the Rules Glossary "move" = "Normal Move" and Normal Move does not include fall back or advance.

it doesn't say that in the errata, though. It says "moving normally" or "move normally" = making a Normal Move, not that "move" = making a Normal Move.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Please read the errata again. It does not say "move" = "Normal Move".

Except it does. The errata says "Move normally: Rules that refer to move/moves/moving normally are the same thing as making a Normal Move" (Emphasis mine) This is proof that "move" = "Normal Move".

It literally says "move/moves/moving normally are the same thing as making a Normal Move"... It equates move with "making a Normal Move"

The "Heavy bomb" rule says "after the bearer has moved" moved is the past tense of move and means the same thing (albeit at some time in the past and not a current action like move would be)

I read the errata just fine the first time.

*Page 366 – Rules Term Glossary
Add the following:
Move normally: Rules that refer to move/moves/moving normally are the same thing as making a Normal Move, e.g. a rule that states ‘instead of moving this unit normally’ means ‘instead of making a Normal Move with this unit’. If a rule simply tells you to make a move as if it were the Movement phase, but does not specify what kind of move is being made, it is a Normal Move.

It says "Rules that refer to move/moves/moving normally are the same thing as making a Normal Move" So move or moved = Normal Move, and I defined "Normal Move" with the quote from the book in an earlier post (here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795213.page#11024833)

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Show me in the "Heavy bomb" rule where it says "to make a move as if it were the Movement phase".

I never said the "Heavy bomb" rule says "to make a move as if it were the Movement phase"... Where did you get that from, and why attribute that to me when I said nothing of the sort?

You said

As it does not say "move normally", but rather says "move", it can use the "Heavy bomb" ability after any form of move, including Advance.

Technically it says "moved", not move as you quoted, but that's the same thing as move. Just trying to be precise.
I was pointing out that the errata disagrees with that statement.

You can only use the heavy bomb when you make a normal move.

FAQ seems to be further clarifying what a normal move ISN'T, and not necessarily what normal move IS.

If you are told to move, and you've moved accordingly, you have made a Normal Move, and not Advance or Fall Back move.

In order for any movement to be considered as 'Normal Move', then it could not have been Advance or Fall Back move.

What we are not told is that 'having moved' =! 'having advanced or fall back'. BCB's counter camp's opinion looks like all squares are rectangle fallacy to me. As far as the FAQ goes, it's directed at rules that allow you move. If the said rule tells you to move/moves/move normally, and 'simply' tells you to move, (as in, does not specify you can Advance or Fall Back) then you cannot advance or fall back as part of that rule.

This puts the nail down on the edge case argument where two parties debate whether or not rules that allow you to move again after moving can use the advance dice roll value for the second movement, or a separate advance rolls needs to be made, or if it can advance at all in the first place.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Please read the errata again. It does not say "move" = "Normal Move".

Except it does. The errata says "Move normally: Rules that refer to move/moves/moving normally are the same thing as making a Normal Move" (Emphasis mine) This is proof that "move" = "Normal Move".

It literally says "move/moves/moving normally are the same thing as making a Normal Move"... It equates move with "making a Normal Move"

The "Heavy bomb" rule says "after the bearer has moved" moved is the past tense of move and means the same thing (albeit at some time in the past and not a current action like move would be)

I read the errata just fine the first time.

*Page 366 – Rules Term Glossary
Add the following:
Move normally: Rules that refer to move/moves/moving normally are the same thing as making a Normal Move, e.g. a rule that states ‘instead of moving this unit normally’ means ‘instead of making a Normal Move with this unit’. If a rule simply tells you to make a move as if it were the Movement phase, but does not specify what kind of move is being made, it is a Normal Move.

It says "Rules that refer to move/moves/moving normally are the same thing as making a Normal Move" So move or moved = Normal Move, and I defined "Normal Move" with the quote from the book in an earlier post (here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795213.page#11024833)

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Show me in the "Heavy bomb" rule where it says "to make a move as if it were the Movement phase".

I never said the "Heavy bomb" rule says "to make a move as if it were the Movement phase"... Where did you get that from, and why attribute that to me when I said nothing of the sort?

You said

As it does not say "move normally", but rather says "move", it can use the "Heavy bomb" ability after any form of move, including Advance.

Technically it says "moved", not move as you quoted, but that's the same thing as move. Just trying to be precise.
I was pointing out that the errata disagrees with that statement.

The "move/moves/moving' part of the sentence is not separate from the "normally" that directly follows it, the "normally" refers to all 3 of those moving conditions. It is saying "move normally"/moves normally/"moving normally" is the same as making a Normal Move, as opposed to Advancing or Falling Back. It is NOT saying "moves" = Normal Move.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
FAQ seems to be defining what a normal move ISN'T, and not necessarily what normal move IS.

If you are told to move, and you've moved accordingly, you have made a Normal Move, and not Advance or Fall Back move.

In order for any movement to be considered as 'Normal Move', then it could not have been Advance or Fall Back move.

What we are not told is that 'having moved' =! 'having advanced or fall back'. BCB's counter camp's opinion looks like all squares are rectangle fallacy to me. As far as the FAQ goes, it's directed at rules that allow you move. If the said rule tells you to move/moves/move normally, and 'simply' tells you to move, (as in, does not specify you can Advance or Fall Back) then you cannot advance or fall back as part of that rule.

Your reading requires you to ignore the "normally" in "move/moves/moving normally"; you are reading the statement as "move/moves moving are the same thing as making a Normal Move." That's not what it says.It says "move/moves/moving NORMALLY are the same thing as making a Normal Move." There's a vast difference between the two statements.

 doctortom wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
FAQ seems to be defining what a normal move ISN'T, and not necessarily what normal move IS.

If you are told to move, and you've moved accordingly, you have made a Normal Move, and not Advance or Fall Back move.

In order for any movement to be considered as 'Normal Move', then it could not have been Advance or Fall Back move.

What we are not told is that 'having moved' =! 'having advanced or fall back'. BCB's counter camp's opinion looks like all squares are rectangle fallacy to me. As far as the FAQ goes, it's directed at rules that allow you move. If the said rule tells you to move/moves/move normally, and 'simply' tells you to move, (as in, does not specify you can Advance or Fall Back) then you cannot advance or fall back as part of that rule.

Your reading requires you to ignore the "normally" in "move/moves/moving normally"; you are reading the statement as "move/moves moving are the same thing as making a Normal Move." That's not what it says.It says "move/moves/moving NORMALLY are the same thing as making a Normal Move." There's a vast difference between the two statements.

No, I'm saying the whole debate on what move is and what it is not is moot because it's irrelevant to the discussion regarding the FAQ.

The FAQ isn't putting extra limitations on what constitutes as a Normal Move, but rather defining the extent of the permission granted by rules that direct you to move. Thus, there is no reason to argue over what a "move" is, because it's irrelevant to understanding what "move/moves/moving normally" means, which, as per the FAQ is clarified as "Normal Move, which is movement that is not Advance or Fall Back, unless specified otherwise".

So, yes, the marauder can drop bombs even if its movement (emphasis lower case) caused it to go off the board, whether or not the said movement was Normal Move, Advance or Fall Back.

All of this sidebar seems irrelevant to the OP’s question, no?

The FAQ BCB mentioned doesn’t apply, as he stated. So the bickering is unnecessary and off topic frankly.

The situation the OP describes is legal.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
All of this sidebar seems irrelevant to the OP’s question, no?

The FAQ BCB mentioned doesn’t apply, as he stated. So the bickering is unnecessary and off topic frankly.

The situation the OP describes is legal.

That's what I was hoping! I mean, the Marauder still sucks, but any kind of use for this damn flying brick of a model is what I was looking for.

 doctortom wrote:
The "move/moves/moving' part of the sentence is not separate from the "normally" that directly follows it, the "normally" refers to all 3 of those moving conditions. It is saying "move normally"/moves normally/"moving normally" is the same as making a Normal Move, as opposed to Advancing or Falling Back.

Incorrect.

The sentence reads move/moves/moving normally...

The "moving normally" is a single phrase, same with the "move" and "moves" in that sentence.

It is not saying "move normally"/moves normally/"moving normally" because it would say [move normally] et al. since it does not we can not add normally to every word in that string.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The situation the OP describes is legal.

No, it is not. You can not advance, you need to make a move to drop a bomb, not an advance.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
The "move/moves/moving' part of the sentence is not separate from the "normally" that directly follows it, the "normally" refers to all 3 of those moving conditions. It is saying "move normally"/moves normally/"moving normally" is the same as making a Normal Move, as opposed to Advancing or Falling Back.

Incorrect.

The sentence reads move/moves/moving normally...

The "moving normally" is a single phrase, same with the "move" and "moves" in that sentence.

It is not saying "move normally"/moves normally/"moving normally" because it would say [move normally] et al. since it does not we can not add normally to every word in that string.

Your analysis is 100% wrong. "move/moves/moving normally" does in fact mean "move normally, moves normally, or moving normally". The use of a slash (/) in this matter is a way of using multiple words in that place of the sentence.

 alextroy wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
The "move/moves/moving' part of the sentence is not separate from the "normally" that directly follows it, the "normally" refers to all 3 of those moving conditions. It is saying "move normally"/moves normally/"moving normally" is the same as making a Normal Move, as opposed to Advancing or Falling Back.

Incorrect.

The sentence reads move/moves/moving normally...

The "moving normally" is a single phrase, same with the "move" and "moves" in that sentence.

It is not saying "move normally"/moves normally/"moving normally" because it would say [move normally] et al. since it does not we can not add normally to every word in that string.

Your analysis is 100% wrong. "move/moves/moving normally" does in fact mean "move normally, moves normally, or moving normally". The use of a slash (/) in this matter is a way of using multiple words in that place of the sentence.

It really does not matter though...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
The "move/moves/moving' part of the sentence is not separate from the "normally" that directly follows it, the "normally" refers to all 3 of those moving conditions. It is saying "move normally"/moves normally/"moving normally" is the same as making a Normal Move, as opposed to Advancing or Falling Back.

Incorrect.

The sentence reads move/moves/moving normally...

The "moving normally" is a single phrase, same with the "move" and "moves" in that sentence.

It is not saying "move normally"/moves normally/"moving normally" because it would say [move normally] et al. since it does not we can not add normally to every word in that string.

Your analysis is 100% wrong. "move/moves/moving normally" does in fact mean "move normally, moves normally, or moving normally". The use of a slash (/) in this matter is a way of using multiple words in that place of the sentence.

It really does not matter though...

Um... No?

If you're wrong, then it matters a lot to your point. And for what it's worth, you're not reading it correctly. It's not "move, moves, or moving normally," it's "move/moves/moving normally." Which parses to "move normally, moves normally, or moving normally."

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
The "move/moves/moving' part of the sentence is not separate from the "normally" that directly follows it, the "normally" refers to all 3 of those moving conditions. It is saying "move normally"/moves normally/"moving normally" is the same as making a Normal Move, as opposed to Advancing or Falling Back.

Incorrect.

The sentence reads move/moves/moving normally...

The "moving normally" is a single phrase, same with the "move" and "moves" in that sentence.

It is not saying "move normally"/moves normally/"moving normally" because it would say [move normally] et al. since it does not we can not add normally to every word in that string.

Your analysis is 100% wrong. "move/moves/moving normally" does in fact mean "move normally, moves normally, or moving normally". The use of a slash (/) in this matter is a way of using multiple words in that place of the sentence.

It really does not matter though...

Um... No?

If you're wrong, then it matters a lot to your point. And for what it's worth, you're not reading it correctly. It's not "move, moves, or moving normally," it's "move/moves/moving normally." Which parses to "move normally, moves normally, or moving normally."

It really doesnt.