(s)hit and run

[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

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

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.