"However, while there is a single unused 'gate available, I must 'activate' both Guardians during the turn like any other on-table formation because they do have legal moves. "

Ginger, that is incorrect. If you had an open gate and there was nothing blocking it, you still would not have to move out of the Webway based on Neal's posting above. They simply would not do anything. No hold, no marshal, no activation of any type. They simply wouldn't. If you chose not to activate them you would simply move onto the next on-board formation or -if there was nothing left- end your turn. The wording seems perfectly clear.

You have brought this up before and for the life of me I don't understand why you don't get this. Please don't think of me trying to be disrespectful here as that is not my intent, but what can we do to get you past this mental block?

This is because, as I stated at the beginning of the post, RAW 1.6.1 prohibits a player from *Passing* if he can (legally) activate a formation.

The summary of 1.6 explains that players take turns in activating formations. The extension to that is that a player may not defer an activation (passing until later), which seems to be the interpretation of 1.6.1 placed by Neal and others.

I do understand the implication Neal reads into the rules, that a player may choose to pass the remainder of his activations, but I believe that is in direct contravention to the spirit of both 1.6 summary and 1.6.1 because in effect it permits the opponent to make several activations consecutively rather than the 'alternate activation' principle.

I have to agree with Ginger here. Without Neal's explanation on the previous page, I'd have interpreted it just as Ginger did.

Morgan Vening

The way I read the rules and play off-board fms is that they are an eligible fm for activating in a turn (other than teleporters), just like aircraft, so you can choose to activate them or not. They don't have to be activated, but you also can't use them to "pass" an activation (aircraft are the exception, where they can "stand down"). If you've activated all your on board fms and the only things left are off board you either activate them or end your turn.

There is no compulsion to activate off-board fms, but if you do, their action must bring them on board. There have been many games where I don't bring off board fms onto the board (exclusively units in the webway or me) until the 2nd or 3rd turn, but they're never used as stalling activations. I simply have fewer activations.

I don't see the confusion, it is simply:

"If you activate an off board fm is must move on board, but you don't have to activate an off board fm (therefore losing it's activation that turn)."

That covers stalling using off board fms (it would have to move on board), whether or not you have to activate an off board fm (you don't have to) and what you have to do once you have activated an off board fm (it moves on board).

ta da, simple

Actually Hena, I suspect that the air rules do assume that the air formations start and end the turn off-table. The point being that with several off-table air formations, you may not *pass* activating them either - though you may choose to 'stand-down' so not actually using them during the turn.

So basically, we need a clarification that states that off-board formations do not have to activate unless the scenario requirements state otherwise and can't be used to stall or "pass" with a faux activation no matter what.

So are we saying that also applies to aircraft? As things stand at the moment, an air formation can choose not to come on by declaring a "stand down" activation.

I agree that this whole question boils down to whether there should be a generalised 'stand down' activation available or not. There are two sides to this debate

• Some players consider off-table 'stalling' activations to be somehow 'unfair' (though they are less concerned where this is achieved by on-table activations).
• I maintain that forcing a player to choose between losing one or more activations or moving on-table into an unfavourable situation is also somewhat 'unfair'

The main issue over 'stalling' is the number of formations that can reasonably achieve this, and which races that this applies to. For example Marines could use 6x TBolts and inviting their opponent to go first to force the opponent to play their first 7x activations before doing anything on-table - is that 'unfair'? Likewise Eldar could use Vampires and gates to achieve something similar.

IMHO the opponent does have remedies to this 'stalling' tactic, one of the main ones being to set formations on OW. Equally it is a legitimate and recognised strategy to build 'high' activation armies to exploit an activation disparity - which would be impacted by the proposed approach.

So at the risk of re-opening the debate, why is 'stalling' considered so unfair?

That's how I've always interpreted it and never saw any confusion with it.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Aircraft: They have their own rules with explicit exceptions. Obviously, those override any sort of general purpose rule.

Stalling/Stand Down: The objection is less against stalling and more about not making a change to the existing game rules. The goal here is to smooth things out and clarify a situation that built up incrementally and without a single coherent concept behind it. We want to express the intent of the rules as they exist, not propose a new mechanic.

I second this.

I agree we need to smooth things out expressing the intent of the rules as they exist, and not propose a new mechanic.

The point is that, while the air rules override the general case, they do so by adhering to the inherent principles of the general game. Otherwise they would have stated some mechanism other than 'stand down' to avoid coming onto the table. So IMHO the underlying principles are:

• Every formation with a legal activation must be activated once each turn.
• Off-table formations must be permitted to avoid coming onto the table.

The question that we are not clear on is whether formations behind a gate have a ‘legal’ activation or not. If they do (and IMHO this is the case), we need to define the way that off-table troops with a legal activation may activate to remain off-table – and you know my views on how that is resolved.

I always used to play it like Ginger, but I can completely see how it's unfair on an opponent to have the opposition constantly stall by activating non-formations offboard, so I no longer play it that way.