Morollan Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 This topic came up on a certain well known blog lately. The original discussion is here. I really cannot be bothered to post comments on that blog so thought I'd bring it up here and get people's opinions in a more friendly atmosphere. So, is it legal? Personally I don't think it is as it seems to rely on saying that IC's are not part of the unit when they are moving (so as to get the 12" movement rate) but are still part of the unit when it comes to having a 'bridging' IC join them (to avoid the issue of having to choose a unit to join). Any opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appiah4 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 This topic came up on a certain well known blog lately. The original discussion is here. I really cannot be bothered to post comments on that blog so thought I'd bring it up here and get people's opinions in a more friendly atmosphere. So, is it legal? Personally I don't think it is as it seems to rely on saying that IC's are not part of the unit when they are moving (so as to get the 12" movement rate) but are still part of the unit when it comes to having a 'bridging' IC join them (to avoid the issue of having to choose a unit to join). Any opinions? Is that link intentional? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I think soneone's got their urls mixed up :D So if the OP wants to send me the correct one I'll sort it out. In the meantime ... and to save us all from a clutch of squirrell-based humorous answers ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Nihm Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 The correct link is here: http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2011/09/slingshot-how-to/ :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morollan Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 D'OH!! Yep, that's the wrong link alright. Meant to send that one to the wife earlier. I wonder if she's now pondering the mechanics of slingshotting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Tiberus Satio Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 D'OH!! Yep, that's the wrong link alright. Meant to send that one to the wife earlier. I wonder if she's now pondering the mechanics of slingshotting? This made my giggle for the first time today, thanks. I would be more surprised if she came back with her own theory and corrected the errors of properly slingshotting :D. This is the first I've ever seen this type of tactic, I am interested in the outlook and discussions to follow about it. It seems like a cheap move to how them bounce in and out of squads to fill a gap to get the 30" range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Seems legal. I have used a single jump pack character in the past to slightly extend the assault range of a unit on foot (they weren't Terminators, though, just some PA squad). I would feel cheap as hell using two, let alone three characters for such a purpose, that's all I can say to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Just to keep it in mind, when arriving from reserves this is an illegal tactic, according to the FAQ: Q: If an Independent Character is joined to a unit thatis outflanking, when can he leave the unit? (p94) A: If an independent character is arriving from reserve together with a unit, whether it is outflanking or not, he cannot leave the unit during the turn it arrives. He can, of course, leave it as normal from the following turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Tiberus Satio Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 So does this move only happen with Blood Angels per the example, given the nature of the 3 IC characters? I have never seen this performed so I am unaware of this tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Space Wolves can get multiple characters as well. Codex Marines would have to use Techmarines on bikes. However, the Blood Angels have the advantage of FnP for all the models involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Valerius Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Seems legal to me as well, but of dubious value considering that your slower unit (the Terminators, in his example) will be too far back to actually hit anything (since they're at least 3" away in his example). His rules knowledge is kind of shaky, though, as evidenced by his claim that you're cheating if you move a squad within 2" of an IC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 His rules knowledge is kind of shaky, though, as evidenced by his claim that you're cheating if you move a squad within 2" of an IC. yeah thats the first thing i picked up on too, the only thing that matters is whether or not your within 2" at the end of the turn, not which unit moved t make that happen. the thing that gets me, didnt we have a long winded dicussion a while back stating an Ic couldnt leave a unit and rejoin it in the same turn in order to gain extra movement.. surely hes not considered seperate of the unit until the end of the turn after all movement has been completed? surely if an IC can leave the unit and rejoin it at the end of the turn, the rulebook would have no reason to state "move at the slowest speed of the unit" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muadib02 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 to join a unit an IC must end its movement phase within 2" of a friendly unit (BRB, p48, first bullet) while part of the unit must remain in coherency, move at slowest pace (3rd bullet point) IC may leave unit by moving out of coherency (4th bullet) If he starts as part of the unit, and ends as part of the unit, I cannot see how he can ever be considered detached from it. Unless he ends his move more than 2" away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Valerius Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 The post argues that if he moves more than 2" away, then he can finish his move no longer subject to the slowest pace restriction (as he is detached the moment he leaves coherency). So he can move however far he himself can move, at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morollan Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 The post argues that if he moves more than 2" away, then he can finish his move no longer subject to the slowest pace restriction (as he is detached the moment he leaves coherency). So he can move however far he himself can move, at that point. Which I might accept if they weren't then arguing that he is part of the unit again at the end of the movement phase. That seems to go against the 'move at the pace of the slowest' bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Something Wycked Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 If he starts as part of the unit, and ends as part of the unit, I cannot see how he can ever be considered detached from it. Unless he ends his move more than 2" away. This nails it down for me. If you justify moving an IC faster than the unit it is attached to with "moving out of coherency" as the justification, you cannot then reattach the IC at the end of that movement phase to the unit it just left. If the IC starts and ends the movement phase attached to the same unit, then the IC was never detached from the unit at all and must still move at the speed of the slowest model in the unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Valerius Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 If he starts as part of the unit, and ends as part of the unit, I cannot see how he can ever be considered detached from it. Unless he ends his move more than 2" away. This nails it down for me. If you justify moving an IC faster than the unit it is attached to with "moving out of coherency" as the justification, you cannot then reattach the IC at the end of that movement phase to the unit it just left. If the IC starts and ends the movement phase attached to the same unit, then the IC was never detached from the unit at all and must still move at the speed of the slowest model in the unit. In terms of playing fair, yes. But as far as I can tell, having the IC leave (and then rejoin) the unit in the same movement phase is legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Something Wycked Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I don't even see it as legal. The intention of the rules is that if an IC is going to move with a unit, the IC moves with the unit at the speed of the slowest member, just like every other model of that unit. I can't even see how that intent is even debatable, monkeying with the RAW aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Valerius Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I can't even see how that intent is even debatable, monkeying with the RAW aside. It's not, but I was referring to RAW monkeying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Something Wycked Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 It's not, but I was referring to RAW monkeying. :P The snapping wasn't directed at you, brother, I apologize. Shenanigans like this really bother me. Ordinarily I'm proud of the groups of people I identify with, but then there are those like this blog author that embarass me. Edit: My ultimate point is this: play your opponent, play the board and the terrain, but don't game the system with cheap tricks like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Valerius Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 It's not, but I was referring to RAW monkeying. :P The snapping wasn't directed at you, brother, I apologize. Shenanigans like this really bother me. Ordinarily I'm proud of the groups of people I identify with, but then there are those like this blog author that embarass me. Edit: My ultimate point is this: play your opponent, play the board and the terrain, but don't game the system with cheap tricks like this. No apology needed, brother. I didn't think you were trying to snap at me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 oops looks like ive opened a can of worms <_< i dont think the slinshot is legal becuase in order for it to work you have to ignore one of the attached Ic rules.. (note i dont have my rulebook with me, so im going by memory) yes if you detach from a unit you can get your full movement, and yes if your a detached Ic you can join a unit at the end of the movement phase by being within 2" of it however the third point to be aware of is that if you stay with a unit you have to move at the speed of the slowest model.. and the third point is the kicker, becuase if the slingshot theory is correct it means an Ic never stays as part of a unit, he would leave and rejoin a unit every movement phase.. and thats incorrect! if your still part of a unit at the end of the movement phase then you cant claim to have left that unit during that same phase, and therefore you must move at the speed of the slowest model. tbh this whole RAW interpretation for specific gain is in breach of the moral contract inherant with a fair game, if you try to pull these things on your opponent you should be severly censured IMO edit: nor do i consider RAW interpretation for gain a 'tactic' on a related note the slinghot doesnt really gain you anything, becuase if those thunder teries couldnt reach a target without the slingshot then the couldnt reach it with, meaning your ICs at the front would have to fight the first combat alone.. anything with bite could wipe out those ICs first.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zincite Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 oops looks like ive opened a can of worms <_< You're surprisingly good at that GC08. :tu: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Tiberus Satio Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 So as I understand it (perhaps I just can't see someone doing this, even though people try new things out of interpretation), is that this player is trying to get extra movement by having an IC (in this case multiple ones) leave coeherency, have the terminators move and end the turn back in 2" coeherency with the IC's who originally left? This way they can claim that the IC can move it's full movement and then the terminators pmove to still gain the benefits? Or do I have it interpreted differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurglez Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 There was a post by spacecurves? on bell of lost souls about this, and GC08 you do gain an advantage by doing this, due to the 6 inch assault reaction move by the target being assaulted. However, the post on bell of lost souls did not mention detaching and then reataching the same IC, it just said how it was possible to do. I feel that re attaching an IC during the same phase is, well, wrong, as stated by a few people here. If you are part of the squad at the beginning of its movement, and at the end, you haven't left it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.