AoS LoSaT and EoTG summon combo

[Kurufinwe]

Quick rules question on the summoning and movement when using a Slann and EoTG. If on a roll of 14-17, I can summon in a unit of 3 Rippers, but "the summoned unit cannot move in the following movement phase." If a unit is summoned via the EoTG, and a roll of 5-6 for LoSaT for that unit is achieved, can I then move that unit in the following movement phase?

So in short, can a LoSaT roll trump the effect of EoTG summoning sickness?

 

[Chico]

I'm gonna go with no, as a 5-6 "also allows you to move in the next movement phase as normal".
As normal for that unit is not moving, as per the rules from the EotG.

That's my opinion though, I'll be more than happy to be contradicted

 

[Killer Angel]

Yes, the restriction still applies.

AFAIK it's not explicitly said nowhere, but i don't doubt that's the way it's intended. This is the kind of thing that, in the moment someone tries to use it at a tournament and the judges let it pass (and i doubt it), GW immediately releases a FAQ ... see the short-lived return of the infinite attacks by rippers.

 

[Kurufinwe]

Excellent points, and I feel like that is probably the way it was intended. Probably. But LoSaT does say "the unit is allowed to move in the next movement phase as normal."

So does that "as normal" mean "normal move" as in can run, move, and retreat as a normal move (per the new FAQ movement q and a)? OR does it just mean it can move based on its current status, which would include its current restrictions from EoTG. It's kind of abiguous.

 

[Putzfrau]

Excellent points, and I feel like that is probably the way it was intended. Probably. But LoSaT does say "the unit is allowed to move in the next movement phase as normal."

So does that "as normal" mean "normal move" as in can run, move, and retreat as a normal move (per the new FAQ movement q and a)? OR does it just mean it can move based on its current status, which would include its current restrictions from EoTG. It's kind of abiguous.

Your second interpretation would be correct. If "as normal" meant "normal move' the rule would simply read "the unit is allowed to move in the next movement phase." There would be no need for the qualifier "as normal" if they didn't intend for the unit to still be subjected to any of its current restrictions.