(s)hit and run

[NeilBrimelow]

During the doubles tournament one of our opponents that had a jump pack squad (with the hit and run USR) used it even though he was not engaged with anyone (his squad had made a normal move and was totally unengaged). This got him very close to our rear line in one turn.

I always assumed that the hit and run rule was specifically for letting units LEAVE COMBAT if they were engaged, and was not just a free "bonus move" like Eldar jetbikes. :confused:

I guess the question is "was this legal?" Can the hit and run USR be used a free "bonus move" if the unit is/was not engaged in any combat to actually "hit and run" away from? :eek:

[Connjurus]

No, that was NOT a legal move.

[SeattleDV8]

BRB pg. 75 "Units with this ability that are locked in combat......."
I fear the gentleman in question make an illegal move.

[Connjurus]

Not just that, but I thought Hit and Run was a fallback move? So he would've had to move towards his table edge even if he had done it right?

[NeilBrimelow]

As per the USR for Hit and Run

Units with this ability that are locked in combat may
choose to leave close combat at the end of the Assault
phase. The unit using the hit & run ability must take an
initiative test. If the test is failed nothing happens and
the models remain locked in the fight. If the test is
passed, the unit breaks from combat and immediately
moves up to 3D6" in a straight line in any direction
ignoring the units they are locked with. No sweeping
advance rolls are made Enemy units that are no longer
locked in combat may consolidate. A hit & run move is
not slowed by difficult terrain, but is affected by
dangerous terrain. It may not be used to move into
contact with the enemy. If there are units with this rule
on both sides, roll-off to determine who goes first and
then alternate disengaging them. If the last of these
ends up no longer in combat, it consolidates instead


Upon further review, if this "free move" was the case, then a unit with hit and run could actually cover 12 inches plus up to a maximum of 18, for a total move of 30 inches.

I agree that perhaps I was slightly cheated upon :) That said, it doesn't say that you HAVE to be in combat to use HAR, but I'm sure that GW never realized how "crafty" some players will be with RAR.

[Connjurus]

Yes it does. First sentence.

"Units with this ability that are locked in combat may choose to leave close combat at the end of the Assault phase."

[Inquisitor Hate Machine]

Yes it does. First sentence.

"Units with this ability that are locked in combat may choose to leave close combat at the end of the Assault phase."

Exactly what this guy says. Added emphasis is mine.

[Tynskel]

Hit n' Run has never been a fallback move, ever. All the rule has been is a way to leave close combat so your unit could be freed up to do something else.

The only thing that sucks with Hit n' Run is that there is a Initiative Check for the Unit involved (it didn't used to be that way). I don't understand why they put that in--- there are a fair amount of units with Hit n' Run that have crappy initiative.

[Leez]

Yes it does. First sentence.

"Units with this ability that are locked in combat may choose to leave close combat at the end of the Assault phase."Exactly what this guy says. Added emphasis is mine.

They guy that tried this would probably highlight:

"Units with this ability that are locked in combat may choose to leave close combat at the end of the Assault phase."p75, BRB.

Which implies you needn't be locked in combat. If that is the persons line of thought he probably would continue it with: "The entire rule is not written such that being locked in combat is required only written such that it can still be used if locked in combat and explains how it works when the unit is."

[Connjurus]

They guy that tried this would probably highlight:

"Units with this ability that are locked in combat may choose to leave close combat at the end of the Assault phase."p75, BRB.

Which implies you needn't be locked in combat. If that is the persons line of thought he probably would continue it with: "The entire rule is not written such that being locked in combat is required only written such that it can still be used if locked in combat and explains how it works when the unit is."

Which I would then counter with showing him the entire rest of the rule where it only talks about how you leave combat, ignore units you're locked with, etc.

If he continued to be an obstinate little prick I'd call a judge over.

[Tynskel]

Another example of taking rules out of context. I could make up all sorts of stuff if were I restrict my view point to single sentences, better yet, half sentences.

[Connjurus]

another example of taking rules out of context. I could make up all sorts of stuff if were i restrict my view point to single sentences, better yet, half sentences.

qft.

[Culven]

It seems that the opponent was viewing Hit and Run as a form of additional movement rather than as a skill possessed by some units which offers them the possibility to leave combat. If he could have this explained to him, perhaps he would understand why what he did is illegal.

[Duke]

Long Tory short, you got robbed... But in the end we can only blame ourselves for not understanding the rule enough to challenge it when it happens.

Duke

[Kevlarshark]

I believe some units can indeed move in the assault phase (when not assaulting) anything with the Eldar jetbike rule or jetpack....I suspect some of those sneaky eldar may also have HaR so there is some room for confusion as to which rule allows a model to do what. But only under very specific circumstances. I just checked the Hit and run description of Dark Eldar Hellions...and its even more open for abuse than the rule quoted earlier!

[Tynskel]

I believe some units can indeed move in the assault phase (when not assaulting) anything with the Eldar jetbike rule or jetpack....I suspect some of those sneaky eldar may also have HaR so there is some room for confusion as to which rule allows a model to do what. But only under very specific circumstances. I just checked the Hit and run description of Dark Eldar Hellions...and its even more open for abuse than the rule quoted earlier!

wait, what? People play Dark Eldar!?!?!?

[DarkLink]

Yeah, Buffo plays DE. There might be a second player out there somewhere, too:rolleyes:


They guy that tried this would probably highlight:

"Units with this ability that are locked in combat may choose to leave close combat at the end of the Assault phase."p75, BRB.

Which implies you needn't be locked in combat. If that is the persons line of thought he probably would continue it with: "The entire rule is not written such that being locked in combat is required only written such that it can still be used if locked in combat and explains how it works when the unit is."

He'd still be completely wrong. The "units locked in combat may choose to leave" still requires you to be locked in combat. Basically, the unit has the following choice;
1. If you are locked in combat, you may stay locked -or-
2. If you are locked in combat, you may leave combat

Both require you to be locked in combat.

[whitestar333]

Yeah, Buffo plays DE. There might be a second player out there somewhere, too:rolleyes:

Yeah, the other DE player is at my LGS and massacred everyone he played against in the last tournament. I lost half of my army before I even got to move.

I can't wait for Dark Eldar to get updated...

[BuFFo]

Yeah, the other DE player is at my LGS and massacred everyone he played against in the last tournament. I lost half of my army before I even got to move.

I can't wait for Dark Eldar to get updated...

Updated and stronger :)

As for the Hellion HnR rule.... No decent DE player will ever field those abominations so I doubt their HnR rule will ever come up in games...

[Leez]

He'd still be completely wrong. The "units locked in combat may choose to leave" still requires you to be locked in combat. Basically, the unit has the following choice;
1. If you are locked in combat, you may stay locked -or-
2. If you are locked in combat, you may leave combat

Both require you to be locked in combat.

Simply following a trail of reasoning the person may then try to further back his interpretation of the rules up with. I think it's actually the the lack of "Units not locked in combat may . . . etc. etc." that places the person the OP presented as being in the wrong. The rule itself merely restricts itself to only units locked in combat implicitly, it fails to do so explicitly.

[Tynskel]

Simply following a trail of reasoning the person may then try to further back his interpretation of the rules up with. I think it's actually the the lack of "Units not locked in combat may . . . etc. etc." that places the person the OP presented as being in the wrong. The rule itself merely restricts itself to only units locked in combat implicitly, it fails to do so explicitly.

If you are going to play devil's advocate, u should back up your reasoning--- what is the line of reasoning? One cannot use the 'it doesn't say: units not locked...' unless there is a precedent in the rulebook for this line of reasoning.

[Leez]

If you are going to play devil's advocate, u should back up your reasoning--- what is the line of reasoning? One cannot use the 'it doesn't say: units not locked...' unless there is a precedent in the rulebook for this line of reasoning.

You're mixing two lines of thought, the former was me simply replying as the I think the person that tried to use Hit & Run might and why one line of reasoning against him is wrong.

The later is my personal opinion as to why I think he was wrong and I think the best reply is a question. Are you suggesting one can do things the BRB does not say we can do?

I even find your demand for a precedent strange, as discussions of RaW are not effected by precedent. If we were to use precedents then the first precedent would be, that they write rules/faq without regard precedent.

[DarkLink]

The rule itself merely restricts itself to only units locked in combat implicitly, it fails to do so explicitly.

Hit and Run only works when a unit is locked in combat, because it says "when a unit is locked in combat it may do this...". That is, if the condition of "being locked in combat" is fulfilled, then you may make the move. If that condition is not fulfilled, you may not. It doesn't need to be any more explicit than that. Under any real scrutiny, there's no argument this guy could make to back himself up.

[Tynskel]

You're mixing two lines of thought, the former was me simply replying as the I think the person that tried to use Hit & Run might and why one line of reasoning against him is wrong.

The later is my personal opinion as to why I think he was wrong and I think the best reply is a question. Are you suggesting one can do things the BRB does not say we can do?

I even find your demand for a precedent strange, as discussions of RaW are not effected by precedent. If we were to use precedents then the first precedent would be, that they write rules/faq without regard precedent.

RaW does use precedents. One, for example, is the convention of 'order of operations'. Everything- a simple example: Space Marine Powerfist + Furious Charge. First double base strength, then add +1. Throughout the rules we apply an order of operations to what we read. In most cases, it is not formally written, but the one that I pointed out applies to almost all rules.

In fact, Darklink's last post is based upon the 'order of operations'. The rule first mentions 'locked in combat' then mentions 'may leave'.

[Leez]

RaW does use precedents. One, for example, is the convention of 'order of operations'. Everything- a simple example: Space Marine Powerfist + Furious Charge. First double base strength, then add +1. Throughout the rules we apply an order of operations to what we read. In most cases, it is not formally written, but the one that I pointed out applies to almost all rules.

In fact, Darklink's last post is based upon the 'order of operations'. The rule first mentions 'locked in combat' then mentions 'may leave'.

Wait, are you trying to support your point or undermine it? Perhaps you're mixing optional (and thus irrelevant) and binding precedents? That you acknowledge exceptions implies to me you think they are not binding. Your example is of situation were anything else then a precise order of events would result in confusion even if most people defaulted to BEDMASE.

If precedents is the language you prefer to use then lets look at the precedent GW has set up in the rules. Every rule written makes clear which unit can do what and when they can do it. There are no exceptions to this. We might even call this a binding (through weight of consistency) precedent as there is no rule in the BRB + codexes that fails this who, what, when formulation. The order stated isn't relevant to anything other then readability.

So how does Hit & Run accomplish this?

Units locked in combat may do the what and when. It does not say "units lock in combat can" which would be synonymous with "only units locked in combat can". The OP's friend possibly read may and then took it as an non-binding requirement, as being locked in combat might be the case but need not be the case. I won't argue about whether that's the right way or not to read it. I think DarkLink's point is that that is the wrong way to read it. My point is that that is one of two ways to read it. Now if this person agrees with DarkLink it ends there. But if it doesn't end there and I know people that wouldn't let it end there. So if that sentence isn't the sentence that tells us explicitly the crucial "who" from who, what, when then which one does? Well, none of them do, and if none of them do then the rule does nothing.

DarkLink and I disagree on the why the OP's friend was wrong not on that he was wrong. Is this really a conversation worth having?