(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.

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?

[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.