88 replies to this topic

[Marshal Laeroth]

Q: If a unit that has gone to ground is then forced to move,
other than to fall back, do they return to normal or still
count as having gone to ground? (p24)
A: They will return to normal.

Some validation for my arguments in this thread. Don't worry, I still love you all.

[BigDunc]

Simply.... awesome.

Didn't realize there was a new BRB FAQ. Good stuff.

Edited by bigdunc, 18 November 2010 - 03:35 AM.

[Firepower]

I've been seein this argument pop up time and again (just like the lot of you) but I'mafraid I'm still too new to the gaming side of the hobby to understand the implications of this.

What does this mean to the Templars, exactly?

[Marshal Laeroth]

It has some big implications for players that weren't already using this (I was, however). A situation might come up where it might be beneficial. For example, you have several drop pods come down full of marines. They land in pretty much in your opponent's face. Your opponent decides that they don't like that situation, so they fire every low AP weapon they have at those marines, negating their armor saves. Well, you can say: "Hey. I don't like that. I want to at least get a chance at saving some. Go to ground!" Then you get the 6+ cover save (or 3+ if already in cover) to try and save your guys. If you save them without a death, you're kind of stuck and are forced to stay in GtG. However, if you lost guys, which is likely with only a 6+ cover save, you'll have to take a Righteous Zeal test. If you fall back, you return to normal. If you pass the test and move, you return to normal.

Basically, we gain a free situational 1+ cover save provided we lose somebody. It has its uses and has saved my butt numerous times in games. But its nice to not have to call a TO over to rule on this anymore.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Firepower:
Something like Killa Kanz just about to shoot you with ap3 rokkits. They WILL assault you [hopefully....] and so you don't lose next turn due to GtG. At least you get a 6+ save.

+++

Q: If my Codex includes some options (or other rules) that
seem to have no effect in the new edition, are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something else that
does work?
A: No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no effect, it simply
does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just leave it until the
next edition of the Codex rather than change its effects
through an errata.

This means target priority tests are gone, unequivocally.

[Marshal Laeroth]

Q: If my Codex includes some options (or other rules) that
seem to have no effect in the new edition, are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something else that
does work?
A: No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no effect, it simply
does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just leave it until the
next edition of the Codex rather than change its effects
through an errata.

This means target priority tests are gone, unequivocally.

That isn't an update, only the magenta items are new. And the rule still works because the BT codex gives you all of the information needed to take the test as we established here. Especially, since our own BT codex FAQ says it works perfectly well. Codex trumps the rulebook in all things. Logically, you can surmise that the codex FAQs also trump the rulebook FAQs.

But yeah, its a handy thing to have (6+ cover saves) if you know you'll lose at least one guy.

Edited by Marshal Laeroth, 18 November 2010 - 04:36 AM.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Q: If my Codex includes some options (or other rules) that
seem to have no effect in the new edition, are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something else that
does work?
A: No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no effect, it simply
does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just leave it until the
next edition of the Codex rather than change its effects
through an errata.

This means target priority tests are gone, unequivocally.

That isn't an update, only the magenta items are new. And the rule still works because the BT codex gives you all of the information needed to take the test as we established here. Especially, since our own BT codex FAQ says it works perfectly well. Codex trumps the rulebook in all things. Logically, you can surmise that the codex FAQs also trump the rulebook FAQs.

But yeah, its a handy thing to have (6+ cover saves) if you know you'll lose at least one guy.

Yes. True. My mistake.

Which is hypocritical as TP tests are not part of 5th ed. Had our FAQ not said so, TP tests would have gone. *wonders at the conflicting answers the FAQites give*

[Marshal Laeroth]

Yeah, there will be another question directly related to the Las/Plas Razorbacks for space marines. So I suppose it'll be nice to know "officially" that the Codex FAQ presides over the BRB FAQ.

Q: When a Damaged – Weapon Destroyed result is rolled
and a weapon is destroyed are any built-in, combi or coaxial
weapons attached to it also destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes.

According to this, Las/Plas weapons are destroyed with a single Weapon Destroyed result. Fortunately for Vanilla SM players, their FAQ says they are separate weapons. However...the Blood Angels and Space Wolf FAQs don't...

[BigDunc]

This is a change for me.

To me, this is about complicating the game for my opponents and capitalizing on mistakes. Focusing firepower against a single unit until it is destroyed is important in combat, real world and 40k. It's even more important when fighting against Black Templars. I think we're actually THE army that teaches new players the importance of focusing fire ("I caused one casualty to each of your units and they're doing WHAT?!") They won't make the same mistake again.

This ruling gives you options during your opponent's shooting phase and complicates his decision making process. Against really smart players it won't matter. They can process information quickly enough already. Other players, though, are already borderline overwhelmed by the decisions they need to make in the shooting phase: what shoots where, what shoots first, what shoots last, what units have one potential target, what units have several potential targets. We all ask ourselves these questions during every turn, and everyone is bound to make mistakes. With this ruling, we're increasing the potential for mistakes.

Let me create a scenario. A reduced Crusader Squad (4 initiates and 2 neophytes) is in cover and is being targeted by a Long Fang squad, a Grey Hunter squad, and a Rhino. He's looking to wipe out that squad. Before this ruling it wouldn't really matter the order in which these units fired. Against the Long Fangs you'd get a 4+ cover save and against the other bolt weaponry you'd get 3+ and 4+ armor saves. If the Long Fangs had other targets they'll probably go last. The important thing to remember is not to remove casualties as to negate your cover save, but that's a Templar decision not an opponent's decision.

Now with this ruling, shooting order becomes a little more important. Your opponent has evaluated his shooting, the plan is in his head, and he starts shooting at the Crusader Squad. His Long Fangs have several potential targets so he holds their shooting until later. The Rhino shoots but does nothing. The Grey Hunters make you roll a small handful of saves. A Neophyte fails his cover against the melta shot and one Initiate dies to bolter fire. Now the Long Fangs, most of which hit and wound. Go to ground. Now you have 3+ cover against his krak missiles instead of 4+ and you're guaranteed a morale test. Maybe you're rolling like I am right now and everything still dies, or maybe it doesn't. Maybe you lose 1-2 model instead of 3-4. Maybe you have 2-3 models standing where he was expecting none and he has to divert other another unit of Long Fangs to try to kill that powerfist before it wrecks a nearby tank.

Even better, the Rhino kills a Neophyte. You go to ground against the Grey Hunters. Allocate wounds and stack multiple wounds against the remaining Neophyte who actually saves everything at 3+.

Of course, he could shoot with the Long Fangs first, but that's not optimal and you could still go to ground and risk not getting the morale check. Either way it adds more to computation to his shooting phase which could lead to mistakes.

Or maybe the opponent simply doesn't understand the rules. You've taken a casualty, go to ground against the second wave of incoming fire, and he shifts further fire thinking this unit is "immobilized" only to have it zeal forward with good combat power.

This could also lead to more use of 5 Initiate/5 Neophyte Crusader Squads, not sure.

Another way to look at this is, our entire army now has storm shields... provided you're in cover. Ghetto storm shields, yea.... but they're free and even Neophytes get them.

All in all, I think it's a good thing. Useful. Definitely something to exploit... err explore.

According to this, Las/Plas weapons are destroyed with a single Weapon Destroyed result. Fortunately for Vanilla SM players, their FAQ says they are separate weapons. However...the Blood Angels and Space Wolf FAQs don't...

Good to know.

Edited by bigdunc, 18 November 2010 - 05:34 AM.

[Th!rdeye]

Well this is epic. Thank you guys.

[Acebaur]

I have to disagree here. For one thing, both the BRB and BT FAQ's both say that "Gone to Ground" is pinning and vice versa. It is merely a matter of whether or not it was voluntary. Pinned units do not take RZ tests so this wouldn't be relevant.

Some of you may disagree but regardless the new FAQ specifically says when a unit is forced to move it breaks the pinning. As we've all said many times RZ is a consolidate move and therefore optional. So this doesn't apply to us because we aren't forced to move

[Drac0]

I have to disagree here. For one thing, both the BRB and BT FAQ's both say that "Gone to Ground" is pinning and vice versa. It is merely a matter of whether or not it was voluntary. Pinned units do not take RZ tests so this wouldn't be relevant.

Some of you may disagree but regardless the new FAQ specifically says when a unit is forced to move it breaks the pinning. As we've all said many times RZ is a consolidate move and therefore optional. So this doesn't apply to us because we aren't forced to move

Party pooper! lol (jk)

I see you point, and makes sense the way you put it. That's all I'll say as I gotta got some info on the matter before commenting properly, although as I've said you put your point forward very clearly.


Personally I'm more interested in two of the points in the FAQ an the benefits they might bring us:


Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as it moved flat out what happens to any embarked models? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

(DE just got redone nd they're already being )



And


Q: Who gets a cover save when two units are intermingled? (p21)
A: The unit with the model closest to the enemy that is firing does not have a cover save.

For those that still use Black Tide this last one can't be good news.
(One less piece o 'nid and Ork cheese)

[BigDunc]

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as it moved flat out what happens to any embarked models? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

There's a default meaning to "turn". BRB, pg 9, upper right corner. Turn in this situation means player turn, not game turn. Shooting during a different players turn would not cause this to happen. Consider this a sister Q&A to: If a skimmer is immobilized in its own movement phase whilst moving flat out is it still destroyed? Yes.

There is the possibility that not every GW "referee" knows about the default meaning of "turn" and this isn't the case, but ruling against fast armies like that really isn't good for sales, especially DE, so I don't think that's likely.


I disagree Acebaur. Though Pinned and GtG are very similar, they function differently. The difference being a failed LD test. This I think is the FAQ question you're referring to:

Q: If I find reference to a unit that is 'pinned', does it mean a unit that has gone to ground?
A: Yes, 'pinned' is simply a short way of saying 'gone to ground by failing a pinning test'.

Or this...

Q: What is a 'pinned' unit?
A: A pinned unit is simply a unit that has failed a pinning test and has gone to ground.

They both basically say the same thing.

Now if we take the underlined and put it into the RZ ruling it reads like this:
In the shooting phase, any infantry unit (not JI) that 'has gone to ground by failing a pinning test' or falling back.....

When you voluntarily go to ground you have not failed a pinning test and are therefore not considered 'pinned' for RZ.

And regarding the movement, RZ reads "...and passes it, then the unit must move towards the nearest visible enemy unit." The move is not optional but the distance is due to being a Consolidation move. Since 40k doesn't force you to move in 1" increments, this means you can move .00001" and call it good. This is technically how it works, but it's just easier to say the move is optional. Now if you go to ground and zeal forwards .00001" to break the GtG, that's pushing it and you'll probably get smacked, so IMO give it at least an inch.

Edited by bigdunc, 18 November 2010 - 03:23 PM.

[Roesor]

This to me is basically like having two vows, because I run with two big squads with two chaplins, so they can't be pinned, can now take a 6+ cover when shot at, and have AAC. So I essentially have Accept any challenge and Uphold the Hounor of the emperor.

Ahahahahaha.

[Acebaur]

The RZ rule says "this is identical to a Consolidation move and follows all the normal rules in the [BRB]".

The BRB says that during a cosolidation move the unit "may move up to D6 inches"

So the only thing that is restricted in RZ is the direction, not the distance.(because we wouldn't be very Zealous if we ran away ) "Up to" includes 0 inches which means that the unit is not forced to do anything, other than take the Ld check for Morale and go in a specified direction.


As far as GtG, it doesn't matter how they ended up in the "Gone to ground" status, they are still there. Lets look at it from a different angle. A unit of Space Marines loses combat and fails their Ld check, they try to run away but are caught. Now they have to take "No Retreat!" wounds. A similar unit of Black Templars loses combat by the same amount. We auto pass our test(fearless) and then have to take the same number of "No Retreat!" wounds. Are these NR! wounds different from the ones the normal Marines took? No, they aren't. So, it doesn't matter that both arrived by completely different ways, they still are affected in the same manner. GtG is the same. The first BT unit got there by failing a Ld check, much the same as in the combat. Whereas the second unit got there via a different means. They both are GtG and thus both Pinned, since the FAQ says they are basically one in the same.

Either way, it's definately a gray area, and until GW puts out a new BT FAQ, (which I don't see coming anytime soon) we're stuck arguing about it.(something I don't like to do, especially with my Battle-Brothers )

Ultimately, I don't think it is in the spirit of the rule because it only works if you lose a guy to shooting.

[smhf15]

I remember arguing that this was the case since 5th came out and even more so after the witch hunter FAQ describing IIRC sisters repentia with their RZ move. Nice to be vindicated all these years after 5th came out.

[BigDunc]

There is a gray area, yea.

That gray area for me is whether we have to move or not, which revolves around the "must" I quoted, and the "identical" and "may" you quoted. They directly contradict each other.

To me, there isn't a gray area for GtG and Pinned though. I think I see your point with the close combat example. The LD test doesn't matter because there's the same end result: NR saves. So is ATSKNF the same thing as Fearless? No, there's plenty of difference but in close combat they become very similar at the end result (NR saves). They arrive there differently though and therefore are distinctly different rules.

The same holds true for GtG and Pinned. While their rules overlap a great deal (more so than ATSKNF/Fearless) and the end result is the same (better cover save but can't move next turn), they are two rules that function differently and thus GtG is not synonymous with Pinned. Pinned is GtG but GtG is not Pinned. By that I mean all the criteria necessary to be GtG exists within being Pinned, while GtG lacks criteria that makes it Pinned: the failed LD test.

This is much like a morale test being a LD test but a LD test not necessarily being a morale test. They can be distinctly different.

True, only an updated BT FAQ will clarify the issue but it's still good to discuss, if only for the mental exercise.

Edited by bigdunc, 18 November 2010 - 09:23 PM.

[Marshal Laeroth]

Actually, we ARE forced into a move if we pass the Righteous Zeal test. The rule says that we must make a Consolidation Move if the test is passed. However, it is up to the player (by definition of the Consolidation Move) to decide whether or not to actually move any amount of distance.

That is why if you test, pass and decide to move your models...you were forced to make that decision and thus, removing GtG. On the other hand, if you choose NOT to move, you did not fulfill the required "move" that the FAQ specifies and thus, you remain in GtG even though you were forced to make that decision.

[Dannis]

Q: If a unit that has gone to ground is then forced to move, other than to fall back, do they return to normal or still count as having gone to ground? (p24) A: They will return to normal.

Death Company running behind other units for cover, going to ground for a 3+...then being 'forced to move' the following movement phase and unpinning?
So does this work for BT Righteous Zeal? Cause it if does, wow.


Again, the answer is no. You have to go back to what the rule for going to ground actually says:

"Whilst it has gone to ground the unit may do nothing of its own volition, but will react normally if affected by enemy actions (for example, it will take Morale tests as normal)."


So this FAQ question and ruling is in regard to that...if the unit is forced to move (which only happens when affected by enemy actions) the clarification is now that the unit immediately returns to normal.

But thins like Rage, or the Black Templar's Righteous Zeal would not fall into this category as the enemy is not affecting the unit...and therefore the unit is not allowed to move under its own volition.

This little piece is from dakka (yakface). Although it still leaves discussion, this looks quite logical to me when thinking about it.

[Marshal Gruldin]

Except that the enemy is affecting the unit, hence why we're taking morale tests (assuming, they killed one of the squad members, as death does tend to affect Black Templars more than most )

We have already established that Righteous Zeal is mandatory. The wording of the rule leaves no room for doubt there. However, the question comes due to the rule's reference to the move being identical to a consolidation move, which gives you the option to move 'up to' D6', which implies, by the use of 'up to', that you can feasibly choose not to move at all. If you choose not to move, you are not forced to move by the Righteous Zeal move. If you choose to move the 'up to' D6', you are forced to move by the wording of the Righteous Zeal move. The Consolidation rule determines the distance you may move, the Righteous Zeal rule determines in which direction you must move, assuming you took the Consolidation move.

[Acebaur]

You just contradicted yourself.

If you choose to move the 'up to' D6', you are forced to move by the wording of the Righteous Zeal move.

If you choose to move, then you aren't forced, you made a choice. Something that is optional by it's defination cannot force you to do anything. RZ does not force you to move your models. It only forces you in a certain direction, which is irrelevant for this discussion.

[SKeeM]

Q: If a unit that has gone to ground is then forced to move, other than to fall back, do they return to normal or still count as having gone to ground? (p24) A: They will return to normal.

Death Company running behind other units for cover, going to ground for a 3+...then being 'forced to move' the following movement phase and unpinning?
So does this work for BT Righteous Zeal? Cause it if does, wow.


Again, the answer is no. You have to go back to what the rule for going to ground actually says:

"Whilst it has gone to ground the unit may do nothing of its own volition, but will react normally if affected by enemy actions (for example, it will take Morale tests as normal)."


So this FAQ question and ruling is in regard to that...if the unit is forced to move (which only happens when affected by enemy actions) the clarification is now that the unit immediately returns to normal.

But thins like Rage, or the Black Templar's Righteous Zeal would not fall into this category as the enemy is not affecting the unit...and therefore the unit is not allowed to move under its own volition.

This little piece is from dakka (yakface). Although it still leaves discussion, this looks quite logical to me when thinking about it.

WOW! How can you go and post that and not post this(takin from the next page in the same thred)

zeshin wrote:
How is Righteous Zeal voluntary? When a unit takes any casualties they have to take a test and either run away wetting themselves or charge toward the enemy whether I want them too or not.


You make a good point. Righteous Zeal is triggered by an enemy action (causing a casualty on the unit) and therefore does fall under this clarification. I still contend that 'Rage' does not, though.

[Dannis]

Wow didnt read that post though. Sorry!

[Marshal Gruldin]

Actually, I didn't contradict myself. I just said what the rules say. The rules contradict, not I. You are forced to make a Righteous Zeal movement if you pass the Morale test. However, because Righteous Zeal calls itself a Consolidate movement, we are governed by the terms of the Consolidation move rule, which states that we 'may' move 'up to' D6', which includes a movement of zero inches.

If you choose to actually move with your Consolidation move, you are forced to move (by the Righteous Zeal movement). If you choose not to move, you are still forced to make the move due to Righteous Zeal, but because you did not move (under the rules of the Consolidation movement), that 'forcing' is irrelevant as far as the GtG/back to normal question is concerned (as you did not move, and thus were not forced to move).

It is convoluted and perhaps not in the spirit of the rule, but it follows out logically by the wording of the rules and that FAQ bit.

Edited by Marshal Gruldin, 19 November 2010 - 05:27 PM.

[BigDunc]

In regards to the Dakka thread, I think that's pretty cut and dry. RZ is caused by enemy actions.


After further thought, I do not think there is a contradiction between RZ and Consolidation.

RZ tells us we must move and the required direction, while Consolidate allows the move to be up to the distance rolled. Consolidation by itself allows a unit to stand still. The problem is that Consolidate does not specifically tell us that we don't have to move (it's only theoretically implied with "up to D6") while RZ tells us we must move. Were Consolidate to say "You may choose not to move or move up to D6" in any direction" then there would be a direct contradiction with RZ and a problem. But it doesn't, so there's no contradiction and no problem. Furthermore, without contradiction, the "identical to Consolidate" argument falls apart.

Actually, "identical" does create a contradiction.... between the required direction of RZ and Consolidate's "any direction", but that's a pretty weak thing to fight for, I think most would agree.

Ultimately, since a minimum move isn't stated, the .00001" move technically fulfills the move requirement, which over time just leads people to shortening the answer/action to "I don't have to move" because in game terms that's effectively what's happening but it's not actually what's happening, which leads to misconceptions about the rules.


If you still feel there's a contradiction regarding having to move, consider consistency. Accepting one contradiction but not the other isn't right. It's better to be consistent and choose either:
Consolidation: You don't have to move, but if you do it can be in any direction and up to the distanced rolled.
RZ: You have to move and it must be towards the nearest enemy, but does not need to be the full distance rolled.

For me the deciding factor is that it's right that we should move toward the closest enemy, so I choose RZ.

Edited by bigdunc, 19 November 2010 - 08:26 PM.