A player at my local store is under the impresion that you can premeasure when you deepstrike. This sounded abit off to me, but as I beat him, it didnt matter. However, out of curiosity, I looked it up. There is no mention on way or another. All it says is "place one model where you would like the unit to arrive".
   
    Personally, I see this as saying, "just place, do not measure", however, since it does not specifically say this, I have to real backing to argue. To me there is no danger with the rule if you can make sure the 12" around where you wish to land is perfectly clear.

    Am I wrong, or has this player been cheating (or perhaps rather just misinformed).

As stated many, many, many, many, many times in the forums, 40k is a permissive rules set; If the rules don't say you can, then you can't. Hence, no premeasuring D.S.

bull

i alway make sure i am 12-14" away from anything that will kill me when i DS unless i use my homers

 

the only restriction for pre-measuring is shooting, unless your GK with a targeter.

 

not that you could not get around it anyway by watching shooting distances in the previous fire phase

 

 

i also find GW being designers in an british way view things with intent while many american players look for hard and clear rules which is why we complain about thier rules writing so much. we want a clear rule they say dice for it.

Posted By mughi3 on 01/28/2007 6:42 PM
the only restriction for pre-measuring is shooting, unless your GK with a targeter.

It's not a restriction that you should be looking for, but a rule that actually allows you to pre-measure in the first place.

The rules tell you what you can do. If they don't say you can do something, you can't do it.

So, did you have a page reference for the rule that allows you to measure before placing Deep Strikers?

 

do you have one to the rule that says i cannot?

the only pre-measure restriction says you cannot pre-measure shooting, you can do lots of "pre"measurements when you move a unit in the movement phase to decide where you want to go. there is no rule that says you can do that or cant do that,  but people would think you were crazy if you told them they couldn't measure the distance and direction they wanted to move until they decided thats the only way they want to go

even GW says that if thier is a question not covered in the rules-dice off for it

so if you have a problem with "pre" measuring the DS and want to make an issue out of it do what GW says to do-dice off for it.  or if your at a tournament ask a judge for a decision at that event.

 

nobody i have every played has had issues with measuring the DS zone on the rare occasion i use it and not bounce off a homer or land in a big open area.

 

mabey we are just a bunch of friends having to much fun actually playing the game instead of finding ways to @#$! with our opponant.

That's exactly the rule the Dakka league used while I was playing; you couldn't choose a direction, realize that you couldn't get to the cover/target/whatever, and then choose another direction. And it's perfectly reasonable, since your models don't have the god's-eye view that the player does.

Posted By mughi3 on 01/28/2007 8:00 PM
do you have one to the rule that says i cannot?

Yeah, it's on page 42, right beside the rule that says that my bolt-pistol equipped marine can't choose once per game to fire an auto-hitting S10 AP1 Ordnance Barrage.

The rules simply don't work like that.

If the rules don't say you can do something, you can't. "The rules don't say I can't" is never a valid argument for doing something.

If you can't find a rule that says it's allowed, it's not allowed.

Posted By mughi3 on 01/28/2007 8:00 PM
 but people would think you were crazy if you told them they couldn't measure the distance and direction they wanted to move until they decided thats the only way they want to go

That's actually exactly how the group I game with has been playing it for more than 10 years now...

Posted By mughi3 on 01/28/2007 8:00 PM
  Even GW says that if thier is a question not covered in the rules-dice off for it

So you would let my Marine take his single shot if we diced for it?

Somehow I doubt it...

They tell us to dice for unclear rules, not for things that the rules just don't allow in the first place.

It seems to me that this idea of the 40k rules being a permissive rule set is thrown around a bit too much.  There are plenty of rules in the book that are restrictive.  The movement rules don’t tell you <em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">where[/i] you <em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">can[/i] move; they just explain how movement works, and then tell you where you <em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">can’t[/i] move (through a space narrower than your base, within 1” of an enemy model, etc.).

 

Am I allowed to deep strike into difficult terrain?  The rules don’t <em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">permit[/i] me to.  But they list several places where I <em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">cannot[/i] deep strike.  Of course we assume that we can deep strike our models anywhere else even though we are not specifically permitted to.

 

Another example – The rules don’t seem to actually allow us to take multiple units of the same type (e.g., more than one tactical squad), at least not in the codices that I have.  They only tell us when we are limited in the number we can take.

 

The idea of permissive rules can get particularly silly as we move away from specific game dynamics.

 

Am I permitted to take 3 hours deciding where to move my pieces in one turn?  Of course I am allowed, even though the rules don’t specifically permit me to.

 

In my opinion, the idea of pre-measuring deepstrike straddles the line between specific rules and more general behavior.  I would probably agree that it’s against the spirit of the rules.  But the shooting and assault rules are written in such a way that the dangers of pre-measuring are explicated.  Why write the rules in such a way if pre-measuring would need to be permitted to be done at all?

 

Insaniak, I respect that your gaming group doesn’t allow the pre-measurement of movement.  It makes perfect sense to me as a house rule, for the exact reasons that Lord Sutekh pointed out.  But would you really <em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">insist[/i] that everyone play this way, stating that, as a permissive rule set, the rules effectively prohibit changing one’s mind after measuring possible movement directions?

 

And finally, where in the rule book does it say that the rule set is permissive?    (Boy, I’ll look stupid if it’s on page 36 )

Any set of game rules is permissive. That's not something that needs to be said in the rulebook... it's simply how game rules work, because the rules are what defines how the game works.

That doesn't mean that there are no rules saying you can't do certain things. It simply means that you can't do things that the rules don't say you can do, because those things fall outside the scope of the rules by simple virtue of not being included.

Basically, if it's not included in the rules, it's not a part of the game.


So far as Deep Strike is concerned, the rules say simply to place one model on the table in the position in which you wish it to arrive, and then they go on to detail how to determine the actual landing position.

Nowhere in that does it even hint that you can measure distances to other units, terrain features, or anything else, when placing that model.

The rules say to just place the model. So, all that you are allowed to do is place the model. There is no leeway to measure distances, any more than you can choose to place that model and then immediately shoot with it before bringing the rest of the models on.

The rules don't say you can do so, and so you can not.

 

But would you really <em style="">insist that everyone play this way, stating that, as a permissive rule set, the rules effectively prohibit changing one’s mind after measuring possible movement directions?

[/i]Not at all. The rules don't prohibit it, so I would never claim that they do so. If an opponent wanted to premeasure, I would simply ask for a rules reference that states that they can do so.

Just as I'm sure they would ask me for a reference if I tried to teleport a rhino from one side of the board to the other.

Here's the flip side..... is it legal to pre-measure a D.S. to make sure you are INSIDE 12", so you can ensure a rapidfire upon arrival? I know SEVERAL people who would take this risk if it were allowed, since the average scatter is going to be @ 7", any good mathhammer player could find the optimal range at which to place the D.S.'ing unit for rapidfiring success. Also, most vetereans can easily guess the range to the pre-measured enemy unit from his OTHER units on the board, using the information obtained through Deepstriking.

The rules specifically tell you when you can measure ranges between your units and your opponent's units. These are the ONLY times you measure the distance between those units.

I have to agree that you can NOT measure anything more than once.  And DS does not say anywhere that you may make a measurement to ensure your units safety.  If that were possible then what is the risk.

Same thing goes for movement I don't want my opponent to measure the exact radius of every unit he has to where it can move.  Once you have made a measurement you have to move there or shoot there (assuming its the shooting phase of course).  Anything else is cheating.

Swize, your concern is covered by a more precise understanding of how rules interact.

Overall the game consists of a lot of general rules, and then a bunch of special cases that explain how particular things fit into those general rules. The interaction of these two things allows you to find the place where the rules actually do tell you you can do things without saying it specifically. For example:



The rules say specifically that in order to deepstrike, you place the models on the table. Is the difficult terrain on the table? Yes it is--so in the absence of some specific restriction, the general rules say you can deepstrike into difficult terrain.



But the rules do say specifically that you can take, for example, up to 6 troop units. One unit of grunts is a troop, and then another unit of the same type of grunts is another troop. So the general rule says specifically that you can do this and, when there is no restriction, the general rules then in effect permit it.

Rules are written this way because, if it were necessary to enumerate every special case of everything, the codexes would be the size of unabridged dictionaries. Can you imagine just how many pages it would take to list all the different kinds of units that can take each piece of wargear from the wargear list (and in what combinations)? Instead the rules have a general rule that says, for example, IC's can take wargear. So one rule permits thousands of different possible combinations, even though it never specifically says anywhere that a librarian can take a lightning claw.

Do the rules forbid me from following you home and shagging your mum because you beat me? No. What about punching 75% of 40K players because they're rules loop holeing, power gaming dicks, forbidden? No. What about Petrol bombing all Tyranid players? Forbidden? Again no.

Should I do any of those things? No ['cept maybe the second one] I think most people should relax and think about what's intended and not find a way to *fudge* your opponent.

That being said - I'm going to go the other direction - I don't think premesuring deep strike should be allowed. The deep strike action is a risk and as such should remain so. Premeasuring the stike provides a Gods eye view of what going on that is not available in the heat of battle.

Also, I never thought about it but I never premeasured my movement. I always decided and then went that way before my measuring string ever hit the phelt.

Godspeed, Celtic Strike. You're one of the good ones.

Except for punching your fellow 40k players. 75% is thankfully not a ratio I can see as anything but amusing hyperbole.

If I didn't have exageration I wouldn't have anything.

eactly what i was trying to say

as per the rules until i say that i am done with the movement phase and start the shooting phase. it is still the movement phase where i move my models where i want them.  i can move my models when and where i want them (within terrain restrictons and such) , change my mind, move them in different orders etc....nowhere does it say i have to make a final decision where i am going to move before i masure it.

in some games i know specifically where i want to go with a unit, i measure it and move there. 

 in other games i will pull out the tape and measure off the distance i can possibly go, place it over the model(s) and see where it will get me then choose the best option. this is infact a game of strategy afterall.

 these are the ways i have moved models for years and it is the way everyone i have ever played with moves thier models.

 your house rules and narrow interpretation of the game makes me glad i do not play with some of you because i would not have a very fun game.  not in the aspect of winning or loosing mind you. some of the most entertaining games i have played i lost.  rather if you nitpicked every little thing that didn't fit your interpretation we would spend hourse just discussing/debating rules or lack there of....  i have watched games like that, even experienced a few with people more concerned about the "sport" aspect of the game VS the "fun" aspect of the game. those games were not even fun to watch much less play

Posted By mughi3 on 01/29/2007 8:05 PM
 i can move my models when and where i want them (within terrain restrictons and such) , change my mind, move them in different orders etc....

And the rules say that you can do this where, again?


The rules say that you can move you models up to their movement distance. Nowhere does it state, suggest, or even hint that you can chose to move them back and go in a different direction or order, or that you can measure all over the table before moving them.

It gives a specific action that you can perform: Move them up to their movement distance.

Posted By mughi3 on 01/29/2007 8:05 PM
rather if you nitpicked every little thing that didn't fit your interpretation we would spend hourse just discussing/debating rules or lack there of.

It never ceases to amuse me that people make so many assumptions on how other people play, based solely on how they discuss rules on an online forum.

For the record, in just over 13 years of playing 40K, I've never had a serious argument over the table, and honestly can't remember a rules dispute that lasted more than about 30 seconds before we just rolled for it.

While standing at the table, you're there to play a game. So I prefer to just get on with it and play the game. If my opponent has a different opinion of how an unclear rule is played, 9 times out of 10 I'll just say 'Sure, let's play that way' (The other time is a player being snotty about it, in which case they get no quarter).

Rules discussions, however, are for discussing the rules. That's their sole purpose. We discuss the rules so that we gain a better understanding of how they work.

And then we take from that what we want, and go on playing the game however we prefer...

Posted By mughi3 on 01/29/2007 8:05 PM

 it is still the movement phase where i move my models where i want them.  i can move my models when and where i want them (within terrain restrictons and such) , change my mind, move them in different orders etc....nowhere does it say i have to make a final decision where i am going to move before i masure it.

in some games i know specifically where i want to go with a unit, i measure it and move there. 

 in other games i will pull out the tape and measure off the distance i can possibly go, place it over the model(s) and see where it will get me then choose the best option. this is infact a game of strategy afterall.

 these are the ways i have moved models for years and it is the way everyone i have ever played with moves thier models.

Y'know Mughi, I tend to play the exact same way as you. But what you have to understand is that if you and your opponents allow each other to move this way (go back and change a unit's movement once they've already been moved) you are being allowed to do this by the sportsmanship of your opponent, not because of what is actually allowed in the rules.

That is where coming to a forum and learning what the rules actually specifically allow you to do can be a very helpful tool. Since I like a more relaxed game I'll always quickly ask my opponent if they mind if I take back a move (and I let them know they'll have the same courtesy on their turn). If they are not used to playing this way then I suck it up and play the strictest interpretation of the rules.

In my experience, I have found that the players that actually turn out to be the worst sports of all are those that assume the way they have always played the game must be correct and therefore get angry whenever someone expects them to play differently.

While the rules don't tell you that you can only move a unit once and then you're finished with it, the rules also don't specifically allow you to move a unit mutiple times to find your prefered ending point. Since rules in a game are permissive, the strictest interpretation is that you may only move the models in a unit once before continuing on with another unit.

Knowing this to be true, you should attempt to be understanding in the case that another player wishes to play the game this way. That is what a good sport does.

then i guess i play a more relaxed game

my gaming group is is pretty much about having fun(its just a game afterall). i do also play in quite a few RTTs  and even have hit a GT.  in those settings i usually opt to let the other player decide unless it is something over the top(one guy tried to use the old guess rules from 3rd editon in 4th for ordinance and i was like hold up why are you making it harder on yourself?). most if not all rules debates have been ended by simply breaking out the BBB.  if it is needed there is always the tourny judge you can ask about unclear rules.

the way i see it in a relaxed setting measuring deepstrike location is part of the movement phase and snce there is only 1 prohibition on pre-measuring it is a non issue, at least in my group. but as you said if i do it i also expect my opponant to be able to do it as well.

Think about it like Chess or Checkers....you cant move a piece there and then expect to move it back....well not in a tournament setting at least.  Like Yakface said, being able to do that is from the sportsmanship of your opponent letting you.  In a tournament setting you might get away with a little of that because your opponent is nice but if your doing it on every move of every turn they are gonna get a little annoyed.

Posted By Vult on 01/30/2007 4:41 AM
Think about it like Chess or Checkers....you cant move a piece there and then expect to move it back....well not in a tournament setting at least.

Of course you can.  You can move chess pieces around as much as you want until you take your hand off of them.

To Flavius:

I think the two of us agree in practical game terms.  I of course would never advocate that you can't deep strike into difficult terrain or that you can't take more than one of each troop choice.  Common sense allows both.  Of course, covering every contingency in the rules would be much too cumbersome.  My point is just that the "permissive rule set"  arguement is relied on a bit too much.  Basically, I think the "permissive" arguement is a subset of common sense, but it doesn't always work on its own.

I think the troop choices is a good example.  The general rules say that (in a standard mission), you may select 6 choices from the troops section.  Perhaps I take a look in my codex's troops section.  I see 5 different choices.  I may conclude that I can take each of those 5 choices.  Taking two of the same choice is a... THING (for lack of a better word) that is not directly permitted.  Common sense says of course you can take multiple units of the same.  Many codices don't even have 6 troop selections.  Many other rules imply it, such as units that are specifically limited to 0-1, Necron rules about what happens when you exceed the compulsory number of troops with their single troop choice, etc.  But it's not actually permitted by the rules.

Look, you might disagree with my interpretation here.  I REALLY don't want to get into a debate about the troop issue, as I have no real interest in proving that I am correct.  I am just saying that "the rules don't say that you CAN" is a slippery slope that can at times lead to more rules laweyring than it might prevent.

 

To Insaniak, Yakface, and the others discussing movement:

I understand, in theory, what you are saying about the rules not permitting premeasurment of movement and changing one's mind.  But how do you measure movement then??  Move them blindly, then measure to see if they have exeeded their 6" allowance, and if so, move them back the minimum distance?  What if you move them only 5 inches, then measure, and see that you could have had another inch?  Is that inch lost?  Do you nominate a direction first, and the measure?  That would seem to add a rule that is not required.  How do you do it?  I am not attacking you here, I would really like to understand how you apply this strict understanding that the rules allow no premeasurement.

EDIT:  Just looked up the movement rules, and the thing is, they don't discuss measuring at all, just moving up to your maximum distance.  Do it seems to me that when rules define when measurement takes place, pre-measuring would be precluded.  But when actual measuring is not discussed at all, we are already making some common sense assumptions about how the measuring works, and there is little if any rules basis to criticize anyone's understanding of it.

Simple, you decide where you're going and then measure out their move. No measuring out this way and that to determine which way is the most beneficial.


Yet premeasuring is also adding a rule.

For all you premeasuring guys think on this.
Now the rules say you cant measure distance to a target in the shooting phase and then decide not to shoot them because they are out of range.
They dont say you cant measure 18in in the movement phase to see if your marines can walk forward and magically be in rapid fire distance in the shooting phase. But almost nobody would let you get away with that. I had a guy measure his charge range in the movement phase to decide if he wanted to move his bloodthirster out in the open or behind cover.

Premasuring is generally not allowed for anything because it significantally afects yoru decisions and is generally bad sportsmanship, not to mention being almost always thought to be illegal.

And no, i wouldnt let the guy premeasure the distance.
For a rules reference...The order of actions says in all instances to chose a unit, chose where it is going/what it is doing, then measure.

Posted By Ghaz on 01/30/2007 9:26 AM

To Insaniak, Yakface, and the others discussing movement:
I understand, in theory, what you are saying about the rules not permitting premeasurment of movement and changing one's mind. But how do you measure movement then??

Simple, you decide where you're going and then measure out their move. No measuring out this way and that to determine which way is the most beneficial.

But, the rules for movement are:

1. Choose a Unit

2. Move it up to its max distance.

You seem to be saying:

1. Choose a Unit.

2. Declare where it will move to.

3. Measure in that direction and move up to its max distance.

You seem to be adding a step that is not supported/required by the rules.

 

In a similar vein:

Would those of you arguing against pre-measurement of movement say that it would be illegal if I said, "Ok, you know what... I'm gonna shoot at your assault sqaud there... hmm, you know what, no, I'm not gonna shoot."  I've declared my target, and then I've taken that back, which is not permitted by the rules.  Yeah, I guess you guys WOULD say that I am not allowed to do that.

No, because you have to measure in order to know that you've only moved your legal distance. Your method looks something like this:

1. Choose a unit
2. Measure in all directions to see where the unit could possibly end it's move.
3. Move the unit up to its max distance.

Once again, you're the one adding a step to the rules and not us. You measure the unit's movement as you are moving them in order to make sure you don't illegally move them farther than allowed. You don't premeasure their move and then decide where they will be moving to.

Well, fair enough.  But we're both adding things that aren't actually there.

I am assuming that I am allowed to measure different directions before I move because the rules simply say move them anywhere you want (with certain restrictions) up to my max move.

You seem to be assuming that I am required to select my direction before I measure because it doesn't specifically allow you to measure different options.

If we were debating this in a game, you ask me where it says that I am allowed to premeasure, I ask you where it says I must  select one direction before measuring.

Hey, I'll agree to disagree.  And if someone insisted on playing with no pre-measurment, I'd be happy to do it, as it would effect both of us (although if my opponent was a big fan of the stand-and-shoot, I might be a bit more skeptical ).  But in the absence of clearly written rules on the subject, I think we are both making some assumptions.

Posted By swize1 on 01/30/2007 9:38 AM
Would those of you arguing against pre-measurement of movement say that it would be illegal if I said, "Ok, you know what... I'm gonna shoot at your assault sqaud there... hmm, you know what, no, I'm not gonna shoot."

Technically, yes, that is not allowed by the rules. Would I actually allow it in a game? Sure.

Completely different situation to premeasuring, though. Declaring a shot, and then changing your mind gives you nothing you didn't have before. At the end of it, nothing has changed.

Premeasuring, on the other hand, gives you a more detailed image of the battlefield than you had before. A large part of the strategy of 40K is guessing who can reach what. Premeasuring gives you a (as I believe someone mentioned earlier) 'Godlike overview' that is not intended by the rules, and which, to my mind, actually removes a large part of the fun and spontaneity of the game.

Besides, your shooting declaration example... any individual models in the unit can chose not to shoot, so you could simply elect to not shoot with all of them...

Posted By swize1
I am assuming that I am allowed to measure different directions before I move because the rules simply say move them anywhere you want (with certain restrictions) up to my max move.

You seem to be assuming that I am required to select my direction before I measure because it doesn't specifically allow you to measure different options.

The difference being that your way, as Ghaz said, adds in a step. Our way, measurement is simply a part of the movement. The action performed is 'moving the model'... the measurement is not a seperate step, it's simply a way of making sure that you don't move the model further than you are allowed. That's why it's not specifically mentioned in the movement rules... it's not an action by itself... it's simply a tool for movement.

Get them Insaniak!

Premeasuring is cheating.

Moving models commits them to a course of action.

Choosing to take a move back is cheating and proves simply that one doesn't have enough foresight to see a mistake or enough integrity to endure a bad call.

Demanding to premeasure and take back moves, and forcing the issue on other players, is obstinately apauling.

Insaniak (and others),

Your arguements are all very sensible, and I'm not saying you are aboslutely wrong.

(Although, as an aside, I've never been all that fond of the "shouldn't have a godlike overview" argument.  It seems to tread dangerously close to fluff, and if so, hey... these models are generally battle-hardened combat veteran genetically engineered supermen/warp entities/powerful psykers/alien races/robots with technologically advanced equipment/sensors to boot.  They know how far away something is and how quickly they can get there.  Hell, when I went to court to fight my speeding ticket, the police provided her A+ certifcation or some such in estimating a car's speed through visual inspection alone...)

The only part I am having a problem with is the somewhat nebulous sounding idea that you have to commit to a certain direction of movement, then you may only move in that direction.  It might be a sensible conclusion to be drawn from the rules as you read them, but it seems to be restrictive and demanding in a way that the rules don't require.

What if I say, ok, I am moving these guys THIS way, then I measure, and then, seeing where the 6" mark lies on my ruler, it suddenly occurs to me that I might be in assault range of a different squad.  Can I choose not to move at all?  You'll probably say, sure, you can choose not to move, it's not like you've premeasured in several directions.  But I'm benefitting from that "premeasurment" by making decisions based on it, aren't I?  Or maybe you think I am committed?  What exactly have I committed to by measuring?  Where do you draw the line?  If I measure six inches straight in front of me, can I choose to veer off to the left a bit while clearly not moving the full 6"?  Must all models in the squad move in that exact direction?

Hey, I'm sure you'll have opinions on these scenarios based on your perceptions of this premeasuring issue.  I'm really not trying to debate them specifically, I am just saying I take exception to this commitment to move that you seem to be inferring in the text.  And also, I'm sure that when you play, 99% of the time these issues don't come up.  But this is the forum where we want iron clad answers that apply perfectly.  Perhaps it is just time to agree to disagree..  

Posted By swize1 on 01/30/2007 2:43 PM
(Although, as an aside, I've never been all that fond of the "shouldn't have a godlike overview" argument.  It seems to tread dangerously close to fluff,

It's nothing to do with fluff.

It's about your own ability to look at the battlefield, and formulate a strategy based on what you see, rather than on actual measurements. There's a lot more skill involved in estimating... it means that sometimes, things just don't work out the way you had planned.

Pre-measuring takes away that level of fallibility. Knowing the exact distances between everything on the board is kind of like giving yourself the ability to resolve your hits before choosing whether or not you shoot. If you knew that only 2 shots out of your 10 were going to hit, and only 1 of those was going to wound, you might have done something else instead. But no, you commit to a course of action, and you hope that you're in range and that your dice will cooperate

Likewise with the movement. You choose where you want to go, and then you move. If you don't actually make it to where you want to be, well, you'll just have to adjust your plans.

Pre-measuring is just one more step towards turning 40K into a board game instead of a strategy game. It's also open to all sorts of abuse, since it gives players the opportunity to measure weapon ranges at the same time.

Posted By swize1 on 01/30/2007 2:43 PM
What if I say, ok, I am moving these guys THIS way, then I measure, and then, seeing where the 6" mark lies on my ruler, it suddenly occurs to me that I might be in assault range of a different squad.

The whole point we were trying to make is that measurement is something that you do as you move. So once the tape is on the table, the model is already moving.

If it suddenly occurs to you that you're in assault range of another unit, well then you'll learn from that and look more closely at the battlefield around the unit next time...

Posted By insaniak on 01/30/2007 3:15 PM

Likewise with the movement. You choose where you want to go, and then you move. If you don't actually make it to where you want to be, well, you'll just have to adjust your plans.

Alright, this right here is the crux of my argument.  The rules don't tell you to choose where you want to go, then move, and see where you end up, as you say.  The rules tell you to select the unit that you want to move, and move them anywhere up to their maximum movement. 

Is your way more challenging? 

Yes.

Does your way make a certain amount of sense from a fluff perspective, a gaming perspective, and a strategic perspective?

Yes.

Is it supported by the rules? 

Well, I don't see it.  But I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me.

New piece of info I just stumbled upon:

"One you have started moving a unit you may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit" (BGB, p. 15).

For the record, I was not even arguing for being able to move a unit and the take the movement back.  Personally, I do find that frustrating when people do it frequently (although I will allow it).  I was simply arguing that the rules don't preclude measuring to see where your maximum movement distance will take you.  But this line seems to suggest pretty strongly that until you start moving unit #2, you are free to change the move that you made with unit #1.  Otherwise, it's pretty redundant.

Posted By swize1 on 01/30/2007 3:43 PM
The rules don't tell you to choose where you want to go, then move, and see where you end up, as you say.  The rules tell you to select the unit that you want to move, and move them anywhere up to their maximum movement.

Which is the exact same thing.

To turn that around, the rules don't tell you to choose a unit, measure any distances around them you choose, and then move them. The rules tell to select the unit that you want to move, and move them anywhere up to their maximum movement.

No pre-measuring is mentioned, so no pre-measuring is allowed.

Posted By swize1 on 01/30/2007 3:43 PM
 But this line seems to suggest pretty strongly that until you start moving unit #2, you are free to change the move that you made with unit #1.  Otherwise, it's pretty redundant.

That's one way to look at it. The other way is to realise that redundant statements do pop up from time to time in GW rules, and that since the rules don't specifically allow you to take back a model's movement and do it again in a different direction, it isn't allowed, despite what may be suggested.

Rules don't work by suggestion. They work by telling you what you can do and, when applicable, under what circumstances you can't do that.

The rules tell you that you choose a unit, and move them up to their movement distance. That's all they tell you that you can do, so that's all you can do.

Ok, that's several times now that I think I've pretty diplomatically stated that we are both determining our own list of what is and is not allowed in the movement phase given the lack of specific instructions.  I have never said that you are wrong, only that we should agree to disagree.  After all, there are clearly players in both camps.  Have a good night.

 EDIT:

Ok, I'm weak, I changed my mind. 

There are two similar issues we've been debating, one is pre-measuring movement, and the other is taking back movement.  Even though I think that quote I found is pretty definitive about taking back movement, I was never really interested in proving that.

But as to the former issue, all the rules say is that you pick a unit, and then move them 6" (or whatever their movement is).  Nothing is mentioned about measuring.  But you are saying that once I've layed down my tape measure on the table, I have committed to moving in that direction.  Please tell me where in the rules you are getting that from.  I don't see it.

Please don't respond with "where are you getting that you CAN premeasure?"  I am not making that argument right now.  I just want to know where you are getting the idea that once I lay the ruler down, I cannot move them in the opposite direction.  I would really like to understand.  And please don't tell me that it's implied, or a natural part of moving, it's a hell of a restriction to assume if there is no basis in the rules. 

Swize:

The point is, the rules state that you pick a unit, move the models, then pick another unit and continue. When you move a unit, each model may only move up to their maximum movement allowance.

So you move your models, period (there obviously isn't anything in the rules about laying down a tape measure). Now, a player can use any acceptable method to ensure that he isn't moving his models beyond their maximum distance, with the most popular by far being a tape measure.

However, the use of the tape measure is only to ensure that the models aren't moved beyond their maximum move. A player by the base of the rules is only allowed to move the model one time (it's "move).



But ultimately, I think we're arguing theoretical semantics. I highly doubt anyone on this forum (and very few world-wide) would acutally want to play the game with this kind of rigid restriction. All I've been trying to get across is that if someone does want to play the game this way you shouldn't get angry or begrudge them but instead suck it up and play the game because ultimately they're only wanting to play the game by the purest minimal interpretation of the rules.

Posted By swize1 on 01/30/2007 5:38 PM
Please don't respond with "where are you getting that you CAN premeasure?"  I am not making that argument right now.  

The problem is that, within the rules, that's the only argument that is actually relevant. In order to do something, you need a rule that says it is allowed.

As Yakface pointed out, how you determine the distance your model moves is up to you. But the distance your model actually moves is the only measurement that the rules allow you to make. Not because anything else is specifically forbidden, but simply because nothing else is listed as being allowed.

i am with swize on this one..we will have to agree to disagree

 

like the chess reference mentioned earlier when i have declared i am done with movement or have gone onto the next model to move the by the rules i cannot go back and move something. but until i in effect take my hand off that  model i can try and figure which direction to move is the best use of its max move without dedicating myself to one move or the other.  and to figure out its max move allowed in the rules i need to be able to measure all its possible move locations.

 

 

as for the oposition to the battlefield overview argument i seem to remember GW mentioning in one of the rulebooks that you are the general of the amry and your HQ model represents you commanding the army. the commander of the army is giving the orders because he does have the battlefield overview that allows him to tell his troops where to go and what to do.

 

i think such a stringent interpretation of some of the rules,  at least to me,  violates the most important rule on page 5 of the BBB because i would not have a fun game with sombody who was this anal about the mechanics of playing the game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted By mughi3 on 01/30/2007 8:53 PM
like the chess reference mentioned earlier when i have declared i am done with movement or have gone onto the next model to move the by the rules i cannot go back and move something. but until i in effect take my hand off that  model i can try and figure which direction to move is the best use of its max move without dedicating myself to one move or the other.  and to figure out its max move allowed in the rules i need to be able to measure all its possible move locations.

The difference being that in Chess, you have a rule that actually says you can do that.

There is no such rule in 40K.

Posted By mughi3 on 01/30/2007 8:53 PM
as for the oposition to the battlefield overview argument i seem to remember GW mentioning in one of the rulebooks that you are the general of the amry and your HQ model represents you commanding the army. the commander of the army is giving the orders because he does have the battlefield overview that allows him to tell his troops where to go and what to do.

Right. So take a look at your Commander model. See a tape measure in his hands?

The Commander has to estimate. He has to think 'Ok, can that unit over there reach those trees before that enemy tank can bring its weapons to bear?' ... and make a decision based on nothing more concrete than what he sees before him.

Pre-measuring removes that from the game. You're giving your commander a pace stick and sending him wandering around the battlefield mapping it out before giving any orders...

Posted By mughi3 on 01/30/2007 8:53 PM
i think such a stringent interpretation of some of the rules,  at least to me,  violates the most important rule on page 5 of the BBB because i would not have a fun game with sombody who was this anal about the mechanics of playing the game. 

To each his own then. I find games that don't allow pre-measuring to be far more fun than those that do, because of the extra element of risk.

And frankly, that 'page 5' rule is the most frequently misunderstood and misquoted rule in the game.

It doesn't mean that you should be able to play the way you want, regardless of what the rules say... or that your opponent is somehow being unreasonable for not wanting to follow your house rules. It's simply saying that people should try to play against other players with a similar view to the game, in order to just have fun.

Wanting to play by the rules doesn't make someone 'anal'... it just means they want to play by the rules. If you want to play differently, that's your choice... but the insults are unneccessary.

I guess page 5 means that you have to run and get me a coke whenever I want, since I won't be having fun otherwise... It's a crock, and a bs overused "rule".

I like G.I Joes. I can sit in the sand pit in the back yard and scream "COOOOOOBBRRAAAAAAA!!!!" to my hearts content while I make sweet sweet love to lady J. Throwing firecrackers everywhere, hitting stupid newb kids who get in the way. great fun.

I also like to play 40K, because I can scream "Up yours, GW!!!!" to my hearts content while I make sweet sweet love to Sister Chastity of Convent Prioris. Throwing dice everywhere, hitting stupid newbs kids who refuse to understand the rules.

Some games are fun because they dont have rules, some games are fun because they do.

When I play games that dont have rules, then its a great free for all when someone shoots my Destro and I can say "Screw you Joe, I have a metal reflective mask! Your laser bounces off!".

When I play games that do have rules, Then its a great free for all when some cheating git tries to premeasure all over the place and I can say "Screw you newb, I have the elbow smash to the face rule that says youre gonna bleed!"

Seriously though, I have never once encountered a game, in all the states I have played in, where a person tries to premeasure before making movement, shooting, etc. Unless of course a targeter is involved. Or when charge is denied because of a special rule that dissallows the charge, and you are allowed to charge a different squad.

All that said, I dont think there is a rule either allowing or disallowing such actions. I think it is an accepted convention amongst player nearly universally to not do so. So many things cannot be premeasured in games, I think people assume that premeasuring for movement would be just as taboo. I still wouldnt premeasure though. Its far more challenging to play the game without nowing every single inch of the board for movement. if I wanted a premeasured game, I would play on a grided board.

What I can't personally believe is that there are people out there who actually _like_ the idiotic rules about when and where you are allowed to measure distances. We're supposedly dealing with a futuristic society with technology that's just a bit better than our current level, and you're telling me that every single helmet doesn't have a built-in laser rangefinder that automatically links to the commanders tactical display to build a real-time, accurate representation of the battlefield? I'd personally like to see all restrictions on measurement completely removed. It's particularly silly when you consider the capabilities of what is considered to be guess range weaponry in 40K compared to artillery today.

Yak, I appreciate your response.  Again, I don't fully agree with that interpretation of the rules (especially in light of the line on p. 15 which seems to liken 40k movement rules to chess, as described by Mughi), but I understand where it comes from.  If someone insisted on playing that way, again, I would be happy to, because when rules aren't clear at all, I am generally predisposed to play as my opponent prefers, because, after all, I am just trying to have fun and not get bogged down in pointless debates (that's what the forums are for ).  Thanks again.

 

I hate so many of you. I can't even read all of what you've written as it melts my brain.

So.... the rules don't say that I measure my movement before I do it
Does it say that I can't? NO.

As long as someone doesn't become an ass and 'accidentally' measure with an 18 inch tape. I can even imagin myself letting him take a move back. But only on a roll of 4+. Not every turn of course, every now and again.

It's called Sportsmanship. Who raised you guys?

This one is black and white. People play by the rules or they ask, "well it doesn't say I can't?"  

Some just won't ever get it. I think even Mauleed got sick of berating them.

It's not complex, if your on the "well it doesnt say I can't" side thats the wrong side.

What other rules do you want to make up?

It's called Sportsmanship. Who raised you guys?

Uh, wrong, it's called making up the rules, who raised you? ( I bet you like takey backs. Ever make a mistake you couldn't take back? Sometimes you have to live with those decisions.)

Yeah, making a mistake in real life is something you have to deal with. A failed marriage being one of them. I deal with it.

Making a 'mistake' in a game with friends should be allowed as I don't feel like dealing with the gak I have to deal with in real life. It's a game, I play it to be fun - in fact. I play it less and less and less because of people being rules lawyers. It's a game, let some gak slide - stop trying to be sooper competative in every aspect of life and it'll probably be way more fun. No one has fun when someone is a super competative arsehole. NO ONE - not even the person being the arsehole.

Most rules I'm all for and they should be respected and adherred to. But when it comes to a GAME! I stress again a GAME! Let some gak go in the name of flow. If the person's trying to cheat or get an unfair advantage then call them on it, if they're just a bit dittery or regret something within a decent amount of time of making the move [I.E removing a unit before the movement phase is over] then it's fine.

Posted By Celtic Strike on 01/30/2007 11:22 PM
It's called Sportsmanship. Who raised you guys?

Sigh... yet another person who can't tell the difference between he way peopole discuss rules and they way they actually play...



The whole point of YMTC is for people to discuss how the rules are actually supposed to work.

How we would actually act in game is another matter entirely... but understanding how the rules are supposed to work goes a long way towards giving you a proper basis for 'going with the flow'...

Simmer down a little and take the forum for what it is: A discussion forum for a game. Nothing more.

Let me state for a moment that I AM against the premesuring of deepstriking and movement.

However, I am simply responding to all the people who said "It didn't say I could so I can't" and various other things. I'm tired of all the rules lawyering and peoples God like certainty that they absolutely KNOW what the right interpretation of a very vague rule is.

I got a bit overworked. I hate bulletin boards mostly for the reason that people are idiots and I can't reach them. Hehe. It's a vauge rule and I don't think it needs further disscussion. I'm going.

Celtic Strike:

You apparently ignored all of my posts in this thread where I explained the difference between how I play the game and understanding what the core of the rules say.


Take some time and read the whole thread before you fly into a knee-jerk reaction.

Posted By Celtic Strike on 01/31/2007 12:23 AM
However, I am simply responding to all the people who said "It didn't say I could so I can't" and various other things. I'm tired of all the rules lawyering and peoples God like certainty that they absolutely KNOW what the right interpretation of a very vague rule is.

"It doesn't say you can, so you can't" is not rules lawyering... it's simply how a game works.

If you can find a rule that says you can do something, then you can do it.

So, if you can find such a rule, premeasure to your hearts content.

If you're going to participate in a discussion about premeasuring, then it's generally considered a good idea to actually contribute rules one way or the other, rather than simply insulting the people who disagree with you.

i take issue with that statement because there is no clear rule on the issue.

just some references that seem very chess like as swize pointed out.

you think your way is the right way and i think my way is the right way so we disagree.

 

when i discuss rules on here i discuss them as i would use them on the table. it may not be as narrow an interpretation  as some may play them but i see problems with people taking some of these norrow interpretations and trying to put them into play. call it rules lawyering, call it anal, sportmanship, or whatever else you want but if you make the game un-fun to play by being so narrow in your views you soon find people do not like playing you. fortunately i am not one of those people.

we have strayed way off topic so to the original poster-if you have a problem with the pre-measure feel free to discuss it with your opponant and find a friendly solution. if not use the "permisive" rules set as many here adhere to and do not give him permission to play you by refusing games with him.

Posted By mughi3 on 01/31/2007 6:36 PM
 i take issue with that statement because there is no clear rule on the issue.

That's because you seem to think that not having a rule specifically disallowing an action makes it possible.

'Playing by the rules' means playing by the rules. Not playing by the things the rules don't mention.

Posted By mughi3 on 01/31/2007 6:36 PM
when i discuss rules on here i discuss them as i would use them on the table.

And that may be where you're having some of your problems.

Rules discussions on Dakka tend to revolve around what the rules actually say, rather than how people would play it.

Adding how you play it is fine, so long as house rules aren't passed off as actual rules.

Posted By mughi3 on 01/31/2007 6:36 PM
call it rules lawyering, call it anal, sportmanship, or whatever else you want but if you make the game un-fun to play by being so narrow in your views you soon find people do not like playing you.

And that's why generalisations based on your perception of someone from their rules discussion don't work...

I have plenty of fun playing 40K. My opponents generally also have fun. In fact, the only opponent I can remember not having a fun game was a power gamer in a pick-up game who seemed rather offended that I didn't take the game as seriously as he did... and that was about 10 years ago.

I'll often agree to house rules if they're reasonable. I'll often allow opponents to take back a move, or go back and shoot with a unit they forgot.

But if an opponent wants to insist that the rules allow them to do something that I'm not aware of, then I'm going to appreciate being shown an actual rule that allows it.

If that makes me 'un-fun' to play against in your opinion, then so be it. Chances are you'll never find yourself across the table from me anyway.

Good stuff. Insaniak and Yak have articulated my feelings very well.

Mughi, I'm sure you're a great guy to play against.

That said, I hate premeasuring. Nothing annoys me more at the table than when an opponent swings his tape measure around in an arc (especially for a skimmer or a flying unit in Warhammer). It just feels seven shades of wrong. Gut level uncomfortable.

All THAT said, this happens very rarely. Much more common is someone making one or two "take backs" in a game. Generally I'm not happy about them, but I casually allow them.

My take. (Like it matters)

First off I do not like pre-measuring deepstrike. Only one person has ever done it to me and it was a GW employee droppodding a marine unit. Which scattered 11 inches towards the table edge and he ended up being safe by an inch. I had never seen anyone premeasure and I did not like it. I would have asked but figured since he was an employee it was right. In a tournament I would ask and if they resorted to "Well it doesn't say I can't." I would say ok then ding them on sports to avoid an argument. Hypocritically I tend to be a "doesn't say I can't" player. However I just don't see how you would be allowed to premeasure deep strike, in short maybe I just don't like it is all. Also in terms of movement I play it this way. You can measure and move all over for a unit. Once you move it and start moving another unit, that's it, no more going back.

I think the problem here is not what the rules say but basic philosophy about how rules work. There are those who belive rules are "permissive" and those who believe they are "restrictive" (The opposite.

Which are You?

Well look, people who belive game rules are permissive probably like boring games like baseball (Over 100+ rules!!), and football, where you cannot do ANYTHING out of the rules.

People who think rules are restictive probably like games like soccer, rugby and ice hockey, which in my opinion are more free and fun. The rules don't say I CAN hit the soccer ball with my, head, thigh, chest or even perform an upside-down bicycle kick, but people do. WHy? because the rules only say you cannot hit it with your arms or hands. So as long as i dont hit it with my hands/arms its ok. I think it makes it for a funner game.

Those that disagree can watch football, where a 300+lb guy who never ran a mile in his life is an athlete, or baseball, the only game you can play while taking a nap.

Is one better than the other? Not really, it just comes down to they way you view rules and you can go on in circles for days and nobody will get anywhere.

So if the guy tried to measure DS Id likely let him if he gave the "Can't" arguement. SO then I would do the same thing with all my DS squads but only while playing him/her, If I had no more units to DS then I would ding him on sports. I would never personally initiate measurement for DS cause I dont like it.

Posted By smart_alex on 01/31/2007 11:12 PM


I think the problem here is not what the rules say but basic philosophy about how rules work. There are those who belive rules are "permissive" and those who believe they are "restrictive" (The opposite.

Which are You?

Well look, people who belive game rules are permissive probably like boring games like baseball (Over 100+ rules!!), and football, where you cannot do ANYTHING out of the rules.

People who think rules are restictive probably like games like soccer, rugby and ice hockey, which in my opinion are more free and fun. The rules don't say I CAN hit the soccer ball with my, head, thigh, chest or even perform an upside-down bicycle kick, but people do. WHy? because the rules only say you cannot hit it with your arms or hands. So as long as i dont hit it with my hands/arms its ok. I think it makes it for a funner game.

Those that disagree can watch football, where a 300+lb guy who never ran a mile in his life is an athlete, or baseball, the only game you can play while taking a nap.

Is one better than the other? Not really, it just comes down to they way you view rules and you can go on in circles for days and nobody will get anywhere.

This is an incredibly faulty argument (even though it is masqueraded as an opinion).

All games have permissive rules. Every single one of them, period. No exceptions ever (nor could there ever be).

There are likely no rules in soccer, rugby and ice hockey that restrict players from driving their cars onto the field, using hand grenades, or letting waterfowl run wild across the field, yet no one is allowed to do those things in those games because they are not permitted by the rules.

A game starts as NOTHING until rules are created that allow things to happen within the framework of that game. If those rules aren't in place, then the game doesn't exist. There can still be restrictions constructed within that framework of those permissive rules (in fact there always are), but that doesn't change the basic fact that all games are created by permissive rules.


So believing that games are ruled by a restrictive set of rules isn't a matter of opinion, just a misconception.

and with that the argument ends.

That is a bit of an emtreme analogy. Within the context of the game nowhere does it say you can run, in soccer. Or hit the ball with your head. So then how does your arguement work.

Its still a difference of opinion. You think there is NOTING to start with until rules let you do somthing. Others belive there is CHAOS to start with which is then restricted by rules.

Im not saying you are wrong. I am saying different people view things differently. Neither one is better than the other.

Posted By smart_alex on 02/01/2007 2:45 AM
That is a bit of an emtreme analogy. Within the context of the game nowhere does it say you can run, in soccer. Or hit the ball with your head. So then how does your arguement work.

Honestly, I think you're stretching there.

Being able to run, or to kick the ball are an integral part of soccer. They are a part of the rules... but they're a part that generally isn't written down, as they're things that it is taken for granted that people know. Just like the rules of 40K take it for granted that you know how to roll dice and use a tape measure, rather than specifically telling you the 'correct' way to do so.

The idea of a game being 'chaos' that is then restricted simply doesn't work. There are too many things that would have to be restricted in order to get any sort of a stable system. Yakface gave a couple of good examples there... but that's not even scratching the edge of it.

Without an actual rules structure that outlines what you are allowed to do, a game is unplayable in any sort of stable form.

/Agreed

I have NEVER seen a ruleset for any game, no matter how simple or complex that runs from the principal "you cannot do this". It's ALWAYS "to play this game, this is what you do, this is how you do it." There is always at least one, and by only one I'm being generous, instance of "you may NOT do this", but they are much fewer than the instances of "You MAY do this."

How many times, when asked if you want to play a new game, be it Monoply, Life, Chess, Boggle, Scrabble, WH40K, Chutes and Ladders, Pictionary, or even House, was your first question "Sure! How don't you play it?"

Some rulesets have more restrictions written in them than others, but they ALL start with the premise that you can't just do anything you want, and that if you want to do something it must be in the rules. If it isn't you may not do it. Of necessity, no ruleset would be workable the other way. Any that tried would be 1,000's of pages long telling you that you couldn't color on all the game pieces to change their function to yourbenefit, or that you couldn't peek at the answer before you were asked the question, or that you couldn't "tell your mum on your opponent because they won't let you buy that property", etc. Some rulesets explicitly tell you that you may make up your own rules for them, others do not, but the option is there anyways, as ultimately, YOU determine how you play any given game; If you want to be able to play with other people, either they must know and agree with your alterations, or you must play by the boundaries written in the rules. Even if those Boundaries only tell you where you CAN go, and not where you CAN'T.

When this discussion first started I was put off. I had never even thought that "pre-measuring" movement was illegal. Terms like "rules lawyer" floated through my head an awful lot, but after settling down I realized that by a strict look at the rules, this is the way of things. Still, I think people are dismissing smart_alex's argument a little too quickly. Insaniak, even stated that running is integral to the games, but why? It is not written in the rules, so why is this assumed, but not other assumption in other games? By this logic that some things are just assumed, maybe the main assumption of players to pre-measure the distance they can travel is integral to the game of 40k. It is a stretch, but if you make one assumption, there is suddenly gray area to work with everywhere.

The Wraith

Actually, to comment on the soccer rule mentioned above about the rule being "restrictive" stating only that you can't use arms/hands.

I used to be a youth soccer ref, many years ago. The rule book we used (can't remember which federation it was) stated that any part of the body could be used except the arms and hands. So, in that soccer rule set at least, the rules are permissive, stating what part of the body can be used, as well as restricting which cannot be used.

Sal.

Its football not soccer, thats my contrabution to this argument. I personnaly dont measure when I deepstrike as I thought the point of the game was you were generally not allowed to premeasure anything.

It seems to me that there are three types of measurements that could come up in this game.

One is is the type where the rules specifically tell you to declare that you are performing the measurement-related action, measure how far away something is, and compare it to the defined range of whatever you are doing.  Consequences of being out of range are clearly spelled out in the rules.  Obviously, the two main exmaples of this are firing on an enemy unit and declaring an assault on an enemy unit.

Another type of would be measuring at a point in the game where nothing about measurement is even mentioned.  Like if I wanted to randomly measure to see how far away from something a unit of mine is during the movement phase (like, say, the center of the board for mission objectives).  This would clearly be disallowed, both by good sportsmanship, and the idea of the permissive rule set.  Based on this, pre-measuring to the board edge when deep striking is clearly illegal.  The rules tell you to place your models anywhere on the board (no distances of any kind mentioned), and roll for scatter.  If it goes off the board or into an enemy model, that's life.  There was no reason to believe you were allowed to lay down a tape measure at any point.

But the third type of measurement is the kind where the rules specify that the range of something is limited to a certain distance, but provide no information about how measurement is carried out.

Here's an example: Eldar Farseer Psychic Power Fortune.

"Nominate one Eldar unit with a model within 6" of the Farseer."

Now, everything I have read on this thread from the "no pre-measurement" camp tells me that members of that camp would argue that I may select one unit, and if they are not within 6", I may not choose another unit.  Would you guys agree?  After all, if I measured out to see how many units I have within 6" of my Farseer, I am "pre-measuring," aren't I?

But I would say of course I can "pre-measure" if that's what you want to call it.  I wouldn't call it "pre-measuring," which has come to sound like a dirty word, because it's not "pre-"anything.  The rules tell me to sleect a unit within 6", so I need to see who is in 6".

Contrast this with the shooting rules, which specifically say to select a target, and then measure to see if they are in range.  This is an important distinction.  Select something that is within "range" vs. select something and then SEE if it is in range.

It seems to me that movement works the same way.  The rules don't say to move your unit and then measure to see if they surpassed their maximum distance.  If the rules did say this, it would clearly be a "pre-measurement" if I measured before I moved my models.

The rules tell me only to move up to 6 inches.  Since there's no specified measurement step, I don't see how there's pre-measurement.  But obviously, a specific distance has been evoked, and I need to measure somewhere.  I suppose we disagree on when the tape measure comes down.  I see no problem with it coming down before I decided where I actually want to move.  Others say once the tape measure comes down, you have committed to a course of action.  Once again, I don't see that supported by the rules.  But also, once again, I can see the merits of both view points because the rules are not clear.  If GW wanted to make a grand pronouncement, in the vein of "you may never re-roll a re-roll," such as "any time you measure any distance related to the specified range of an attack, power, ability, movement mode, etc., you have committed yourself to that course of action if it is permissible," that would be great.  But they didn't.  But they do have two types of measurments.  One where they specify that you declare your action and then measure to see if it's possible, and one with rules not nearly so strict.

Yes, I pick a unit to cast Fortune (and especially Doom) on before measuring. And I don't re-measure to a different unit if the first was in range. To do so would be gaining an unfair advantage.

Part of this is supposed to be context. Just as GW doesn't tell you how to roll a d6, coming from the perspective of playing other wargames, they also expect that players know premeasurement is verboten. It's gaining additional information for personal advantage. Unfortunately this is another case of GW not writing clearly enough for their actual audience. Many people play this as their FIRST wargame, and thus don't have that perspective of prior experience.

The rules tell me that I can move a unit up to a given distance. Again, however I determine that I'm moving that distance or less is up to me. I frequently see infantry units shuffled an inch or two without a tape measure coming out at all. Both players can easily tell that the unit moved less than 6". The measurement is just there to ensure that you don't move too far; not to give you foreknowledge about multiple possible courses of action before you commit to one.

There are also games out there in which you can premeasure. Warmaster is one of them. They tend to spell out explicitly (again, that permissive rules thing) that you ARE allowed to measure distances between units, etc, whenever you want to.

To stay with the American Football argument, forward passing wasn't done for a long time when the game started because the rule book didn't say you COULD do it. It didn't say you COULDN'T but it didn't say you could so people didn't do it. Of course they do it all the time now so the rules have changed or at least refined... that's an argument for another time.

Additionally, fowls that are commited in Rugby [admittedly minor ones] are let go in the name of keeping the game going and keeping it exciting.

I'd once again like to say that I am AGAINST the premesuring thing in most respects - if not all but I wanted to know WHY people think so.

WARNING MASSIVE CULTURAL GENERALIZATION AHEAD:

I think it's a culture thing as I play games on both side of the Atlantic and American's are more likely to be in the camp of - "It doesn't implicitly say that I can so I can't." Where as most Europeans [Irish and English anyway] are the opposite, believing, "It doesn't say that I can't so I can." Not just for 40K but for most things. My Generalization being over anyone going to the "Swollen Member's" Show in London in March?

Pre-measurement in terms of deep-strike... I'm guessing you are talking about measuring the distance to the boards edge so it's not possible to scatter off the table. Correct? Not in any way shape or form akin to measuring for movement.

As far as I know the only places in the rules that explicitly prohibit pre-measuring distances is in choosing targets and dropping an Indirect Blast templates. Any other time, at least according to RAW, it would be OK. But... This is just not the case and I think this whole discussion is turning into a good argument against RAW. It's simply not the way the game is played. It has nothing to do with some particularly poorly worded rule or contradiction from page X to Y or from Codex to Wargear. It may not in the rules but it's the way most, if not all, the people I see playing the game.

beefHeart

Yeah

Cheating is doing anything that breaks the rules.

The movment rules are bad. They expect you to know how to move them (pick them up, slide them, telekinises?) the appropriate distance. However, the deepstrike rules are clear. Place a model. Scatter it. It would be clearly cheating to measure out how far from the table edge it is.

There might be house rules letting you do that, but against someone at a tournament, or not in your regular group, you shouldn't expect to do it.

Posted By swize1 on 02/01/2007 10:55 AM
Here's an example: Eldar Farseer Psychic Power Fortune.

"Nominate one Eldar unit with a model within 6" of the Farseer."

Now, everything I have read on this thread from the "no pre-measurement" camp tells me that members of that camp would argue that I may select one unit, and if they are not within 6", I may not choose another unit.  Would you guys agree? 

Actually yes, I would agree with that.

Unless specified otherwise, Psychic Powers are subject to the usual Shooting rules (Psychic Powers, page 52)

So, since the rules for Fortune don't say otherwise, you would follow the usual shooting process to cast it... the only changes are those listed: You don't need LOS, it's cast at the start of the turn instead of the shooting phase, and your target is a friendly unit.

So within that structure, 'Nominate one Eldar unit with a model within 6" of the Farseer' is simply another way of saying 'This power has a range of 6", and is targetted at an Eldar unit'

I agree with Celtic in REAL football there is nothing that says you can run diagnally backwards, sideways, bicicle kick, (Yet some say bicycle kicks are illigal cause of the high kick rule, yet its allowed if no one is near), football only has about 20 rules. I think perhaps that is why it is more popular in Europe than in the states, because of CEltics arguement which I already thought of but didn't want to say earlier. Games like baseball tell you were to run, and along which path to run. Being tht 40K is a european game I would think the restrictive way of looking at rules as they do with rugby and soccer is more appropriate, as they made the game; likely with this mentality.

On a side note, all these examples of banging mom's and throwing grenades are just out of content. First there are other rules about throwing grenades that are emplaced by the government, banging moms is you own business. In short I dont care if you wanted to bend over and take a dump on the table as long as:

1) You do not try to say it blocks line of sight.
2) It does not land on my models, because that would be damage to my personal property and that's just rude hence a dock in sports.

Smart Alex, go buy a rulebook for Soccer. Or Football in whatever country you reside. $20 says it will be a great deal more explicit than you are presenting here. You are missing the point. The rules are indeed permissive. Same for every game.

ok i have read this entire post and thought about some of the answers abck and forth and i see both points of view

i am in the camp of you do not measure deepstrike shooting or charging ranges... but i have never had an issue of im going to see if i can move there or there or wherever..

but here i do have an issue with

"""That's because you seem to think that not having a rule specifically disallowing an action makes it possible."""

and you may disagree all you want but yes I do... if i can find something that i can use and it doesnt say anywhere in the book i can not do it who are you to say otherwise?

in the absence of a negative you can always assume a positive

case in point and this is just one example

techmarine w/ full servo harnes and jump pack/ bike.. yes or no?

i say yes.. nothing you can say can prove otherwise.. my proof and this doesnt quite fit the example but it helps... a tech marine may take any equipment in the space marine armory... last time i checked a bike and jump pack were in the armory

pete haines sticky doesnt hold any weight either.. its not official and not in the faq or print

so unless it says no you can not, there are some chapters you can not do that with i can ...

wish i could remember the last big thing we came across under this topic

Posted By The Drop Zone on 02/01/2007 4:58 PM
and you may disagree all you want but yes I do... if i can find something that i can use and it doesnt say anywhere in the book i can not do it who are you to say otherwise?

I don't know any different ways to say the same thing that we've been saying all along: that's just the way games work.

The lack of a rule saying you can't do something does not automatically allow you to do it. That would allow you to do anything that isn't specifically prohibited by the book, which is just patently ridiculous... as some of the examples that have been given in this thread should show.

Posted By The Drop Zone on 02/01/2007 4:58 PM
case in point and this is just one example

techmarine w/ full servo harnes and jump pack/ bike.. yes or no?

Under the current Marine Codex, yes, this is legal.

But not because there is no rule saying you can't. It's legal because the armoury rules say that models with access can take any allowed equipment and the Techmarine's rules say that you can select from the Armoury.

An actual relevant example would be if the Techmarine didn't actually have the line in his entry that specified that he could take items from the armoury.

  If his rules don't say he can't, does that mean he can?

Clearly not... or every model in the army would be able to do so.

I would not premeasure any movement, assualt or deepstrike. Its just not how the game is meant to be played. If somebody did that and said "its not against the rules" I would smack them in the mouth and say "neither is that"

Yet another Dakka rules debate that refuses to admit there's ambiguity. You guys are all wrong. Or all right. Or, whatever... The rules don't say you can pre-measure movement, they don't say you can't... Or, from the permissive ruleset angle, there's no "pre-measure" step, there's no "choose a movement vector" step.



No? What if you keep an eye on your opponent's reaction, and use that sort of waffling to determine which unit he's more worried about? Not that this is some huge advantage, but poker players wear hoods, sunglasses, all manner of gear, to conceal their reactions. It's a noteworthy component of that game. Now, you don't think you could gain an advantage using those tactics in 40K, where people don't traditionally pay attention to tells" as they play?



No, it really doesn't. You guys are basically talking about moving a model along a vector, and then measuring as far along that vector as is possible. That's fine. That's also not what the rules say you have to do, nor is it really exactly what you're going to do in practice.

The main reason I don't support your interpretation (from a playability perspective) is that it's a built in slippery slope. See, you can say that a unit is moving in a given direction... But you didn't lay out mathematically precise vectors for every model in the unit. You might, for example, want to move up to a building... So, you move the model, and it turns out you've got an extra inch, so you slide the model along the wall of the building to use it. You're no longer on your original vector. Now, maybe an inch is too much, and you'd say "hey, I said I was moving in this direction, and if I can only do 5", so be it..." So then what about a half inch? Or a quarter? It can make the difference...

The fact is, there's no way to precisely and consistently assure that your interpretation is being followed. I understand that some cases are far more obvious... Like, measuring one direction to charge, seeing it won't work, then instead moving 90 degrees off in another direction. Clearly that's a seperate thing from poking your guy an extra half inch along a wall... But, by allowing premeasuring, you assure that the rules are clear and consistent, every time.

Again, I think the rules are ambiguous... I just think allowing premeasuring is a better way to play.



Yeah, but premeasuring is not moving. It's measuring.



It really depends if you consider the skill of accurately estimating distances in the 3"-48" range to be relevant. I don't see why distance estimation should be an honored part of the wargaming skillset. It's not a tactical choice, it'd be like having two football teams guess how many jellybeans are in a jug in place of an opening coin toss. Sure, you can get good at it and gain an advantage from it. I don't think it's really what the game is about.



Ok... So can you move 2", adjust your direction, move 2", adjust your direction, move 2"? This might seem trivial, but what about, say, a Landspeeder going 24"? At that point, you're moving far enough that you might gain an advantage by moving part of the distance and adjusting.



Somewhat. But I've played a lot of paintball in my life, and I can tell you that it doesn't work that way in practice. Very, VERY often, you'll look at a bunker, guess that you can make it, and start running for it. Then a guy starts shooting at you, and you shorten your run into a closer bunker.

The fact is, a commander doesn't say "squad 1, face 132.2 degrees on your compass, then run forward!" He says "move up, but stay in cover." Then the unit moves as best it can. But, of course, that's fluff.



Hahaahahahaahhaahahahahha... Wheee! A big soccer fan, I'm guessing. I'd love to see you try to run from a 300+lb defensive lineman. I don't think you'd get far enough to even be surprised at how fast he was on top of you. Not only do those guys run miles and miles and miles during their careers, they do it faster than about 99% of the population.

Phyrixis, it is part of wargaming, and it?s always been part of wargaming. To the extent that games which allow it explicitly say so. Distance estimation is considered one of the skills needed in the game. You can have a perfectly legitimate game designed with premeasuring in mind, but most are built with this lack of information intended. Warhammer and 40k are. Warmaster is the reverse.

It?s not considered legitimate around here to say ?the rules work this way because that?s a core assumption of wargames, carried over from other games the designers played before this?. So we have to make more elaborate explanations of how the rules implicitly disallow premeasuring where they do not do so explicitly. It is annoying that GW didn?t come right out and explicitly state at the beginning of the book that premeasuring is forbidden in all cases, as opposed to just mentioning it in a couple sections of the rules.

//OffTopic On

I have to back up Phryx on the football comment.

When I was in college, I worked in a Gold's Gym where Scott Adams (a former Atlanta Falcons offensive lineman) worked out. That guy would do his whole weight training routine, and then get on the stationary bicycle for 60+ minutes, and he did that every day.

People forget that cardiovascular endurance isn't just about being able to run long distances at relatively slow speeds, but it is also about the ability to recover quickly after sprint activities (like what lineman do every down).

Sal

//OffTopic Off

Posted By Phryxis on 02/02/2007 9:37 AM
 The rules don't say you can pre-measure movement,

And there you go then. No ambiguity after all.

Posted By Phryxis on 02/02/2007 9:37 AM
Now, you don't think you could gain an advantage using those tactics in 40K, where people don't traditionally pay attention to tells" as they play?

No, not really.

Posted By Phryxis on 02/02/2007 9:37 AM
You guys are basically talking about moving a model along a vector, and then measuring as far along that vector as is possible.

No, that's not what we're talking about at all. There is no requirement for a model to move in a straight line. The only restriction is that they don't move more than their movement distance. There is no 'vector' involved. Just movement up to their movement distance, measured as they move.

The rest of your argument from that point on is therefore irrelevant, as it's built on the faulty premise that we were saying something that we weren't... for example:

Posted By Phryxis on 02/02/2007 9:37 AM
You might, for example, want to move up to a building... So, you move the model, and it turns out you've got an extra inch, so you slide the model along the wall of the building to use it.

...This is perfectly legal. Again, there is no requirement to move in a straight line. So long as the model doesn't move more than his movement distance, he can change direction as often as he likes.

Posted By Phryxis on 02/02/2007 9:37 AM
The fact is, there's no way to precisely and consistently assure that your interpretation is being followed.

There is no way to 'precisely and consistently assure' that the model is moving no further than exactly 6" either, short of building some sort of laser-guided robot to move your figures.

A certain amount of leeway is going to be allowed by players, depending on just how nit-picky they choose to be with each other. But that applies to quite a few aspects of the game.

Posted By Phryxis on 02/02/2007 9:37 AM
But, by allowing premeasuring, you assure that the rules are clear and consistent, every time.

...but being, in your opinion, the better way to play doesn't make it the way that's actually supported by the rules...

Posted By Phryxis on 02/02/2007 9:37 AM
It really depends if you consider the skill of accurately estimating distances in the 3"-48" range to be relevant.

In a game that doesn't allow pre-measuring, how would it not be relevant? It's every bit as relevant as, to return to your own example, a poker player's ability to guess which cards his opponent has based on the twitching of his eyebrown.

Posted By Phryxis on 02/02/2007 9:37 AM
It's not a tactical choice,

Of course it's a tactical choice.

Can I reach this piece of cover here, or do I go for that slightly closer piece of cover over there...

If I move here, will they be in range to assault this unit... or do I hang back a little and shoot to try to stay out of range of that unit over there...


Pre-measuring removes almost all the element of risk from the game, because you already know the answers to those sorts of questions. And risk is a large part of what makes a wargame interesting.

Ok... So, here's the trick that this brings up:

I want to know if I can make it into assault range, or if I should run to cover. So, I start out by moving .0001" towards the unit I might want to charge. Since I measure as I move, I lay my tape down, move that .0001". I have pulled 12" out of my tape, and I note that it comes up short of the potential charge target. I then move 5.9999" into cover.

Another issue this brings up is the Skimmer problem. The rules specifically address Skimmers moving fast by "flying in circles" or whatever. I don't have my rulebook in front of me to check, but I think it'd be important to examine how this rule effects your proposition for how movement must be handled.



No, it doesn't. I was making two arguments... First I think the rules are ambiguous... That's my RAW interpretation. And when the RAW don't suffice, you go with what the players agree upon, and that's where my personal preference comes in.

As far as RAW are concerned, and the permissive ruleset, it only goes so far. At some point you're going to have to afford yourself permissions that aren't explicitly defined in the book in order to make sense of it. I'm not saying "it doesn't say I can't," I'm just saying that you'll have to expand on the meaning of what it does say you can do. For example, it says you can move models. It never says you can touch them, but we assume that we can pick them up and move them.



I'm not saying it isn't relevant, I'm saying I don't consider it a worthwhile variable in victory. If you enjoy having distance guessing as one of the skillsets that defines a player's skill in 40K, that's fine. The argument I was responding to was made based on the assumption that it's positive to require players to be skilled in distance estimation. I'm not debating that it's a relevant skill, I'm debating whether it should be. In my opinion, not really. Apparently you feel differently.



I'm speaking about distance estimation. Choosing the number of inches you think there are between two spots is not tactical. That's what I'm saying. If it's an uncertainty, then yes, you have to make tactical choices based upon that estimation, but the estimation itself is not a tactical choice.



Where I play, we use dice... And they don't always come up with the same results.

Posted By Phryxis on 02/02/2007 2:31 PM
Since I measure as I move, I lay my tape down, move that .0001". I have pulled 12" out of my tape, and I note that it comes up short of the potential charge target. I then move 5.9999" into cover.

That's not measuring the model's movement as it moves. That's measuring the model's movement and a section of the board in front of the model.

But seriously, how silly do you want to make this discussion?

How you actually do your measurement is between you and your opponent. But if you measure anything other than the part of the table that your model actually moves over, you're technically cheating.

That's really all it boils down to.

Posted By Phryxis on 02/02/2007 2:31 PM
Where I play, we use dice... And they don't always come up with the same results.

Hence 'almost all'... rather than 'all'...

I've played a lot of paintball in my life, and I can tell you that it doesn't work that way in practice

WHAT? GO play paintball then.  That has absolutely no bearing on what the 40k rules say.  (Well you know what, in issue number 47 when Batman was running from the Joker...) Nobody cares, stay OT.

The fact is, a commander doesn't say "squad 1, face 132.2 degrees on your compass, then run forward!" He says "move up, but stay in cover." Then the unit moves as best it can. But, of course, that's fluff.

What are you 12? Do you often make up stories to justify inventing rules? It's tough to read the continuing posts that basically make up fiction, once again, not relevant. (I knew this guy once, he was in the Army, and he said... whatever, it's all an abstract game, we have rules to explain things, not opinions and feelings.)

...another Dakka rules debate that refuses to admit there's ambiguity. You guys are all wrong....

Theres no ambiguity, atually Insaniac has spelled it out 5 times already. Your wrong, and are in the making up rules camp, and apparently in the rules dont say I can't camp also.  If you refuse to recognize the complete absurdity of  "the rules dont say I can't" argument, your just being obstinate at this point, or are genuinely ignorant.

I don't see why distance estimation should be an honored part of the wargaming skillset.

Of course you don't, that's because you're use to cheating, premeasuring, and making safe decisions with information you shouldn't have.

I just think allowing premeasuring is a better way to play.

Sure you do, because having the info removes the risk and makes things safe, It's clearly not in the rules, it's been beatten to death here, and not for the first time, but obviously you advocate it anyway for a lack of courage to make a call and live with it.

I don't think it's really what the game is about.

Certainly you don't because you premeasure.

As far as rules designs are concerened It's a less advantageous way to play, not to pre measure, and therefore, it carries the morale high ground.  Despite what camp a player thinks "feels" right, (Even if your incapable of understanding the basic concept of permissive rules.) it's empirical that premeasuring provides advantageous inteligence, and therefore of the two methods, premeasuring or not, not performing it is the correct one, because it is less advatageous. If you can't understand that, go play paintball...

 

...If somebody did that and said "its not against the rules" I would smack them in the mouth and say "neither is that"

Ha ha ha,

Superb Beef!

Posted By beef on 02/02/2007 3:47 AM
If somebody did that and said "its not against the rules" I would smack them in the mouth and say "neither is that"

HA! Sigged.

BYE

Personally I think pre-measuring is a cheat!

Could you honestly imagine a group of soldiers lying in wait in the bushes, and a guy with a huge tape measure running about checking how far their weapons can reach in real life.

"HEY LADS!!! We can shoot up to this hedge here!!"
errr No! don't think that would happen somehow

Or the General saying its 1mile to that building so shoot there. we know this because we got out our huge tape measures and measured it when they weren't looking!
err No! They would do what real people do, guess, shoot, re-position if first shot was off.

Same as in 40K


The general impression throughout the game(though I admit its not written) is that you nominate where your shooting, moving etc then measure.

I'm with Beef on this one. I'd smack-em!

Not to endorse the premeasure, but you HAVE heard of laser range finders, haven't you? The CHEAP ones (@ $50-$100 U.S.) are good up to one mile, small and cheap. Sure, footsloggers don't get the as standard equipment, but  any decently equipped army uses them to range in fire fields fast and relibly.

Posted By Lordhat on 02/04/2007 1:12 PM
Not to endorse the premeasure, but you HAVE heard of laser range finders, haven't you? The CHEAP ones (@ $50-$100 U.S.) are good up to one mile, small and cheap. Sure, footsloggers don't get the as standard equipment, but  any decently equipped army uses them to range in fire fields fast and relibly.

Yeah, theyre called "targeters" and only storm troopers use them.

I miss the days of 1 point targeters in 3rd ed IG codex....

I'm interested in bringing this discussion back to the real act performed while moving the models.  I know every game I've ever played both players intuitively extended the ruler about 6 inches, put it beside the model, maybe pan it around slightly and then move the model.  Once the model has been moved there can't really be any takebacks unless one player is willing to let it slide.  I would say that once the ruler was placed in a general direction that is the way the model should be moved, but realistically the ruler needs to be moved around a bit to place the model in its new position.

Is premeasuring waving the ruler around 360 degrees?  Or is it simply tracking the ruler until you find the right exact direction?  There is clearly an ambiguity, but how would the movement action look in reality for either side of the arguement? 

Amongst the group I game with, if you wind up a little to the side, that's fine. But the tape doesn't go out any further than the model actually moves, and no measuring is allowed in any other direction.

Our group allows a pre-measure prior to movement. The movement 'clause' in the rules is very generic. We debated from both sides (Yak/Insaniak vs. swizel) and decided that the yak/insaniak position is placing an unstated restriction on an otherwise open-ended rule (Pick unit, move up to max movement). With no restriction about measuring 360 degrees prior to moving the unit, we decided that we could do this.

Which again falls into the flawed 'it doesn't say that I can't, so I can' argument.

Indeed Ghaz! This is becoming circular.

Not quite.  I agree that the game rules are permissive.  Why then, does that mean that you only place the ruler when you are moving a unit (no premeasure)?  I've never read that, and I'm willing to wager that you've never read that.  Why are you placing this additional restriction on the Movment rule.  The definiton and mechanic of the movement rule appears to be very clear.   Pick a unit and physically move said unit up to its max movment.  That's it, end of story.  Of course there are model/unit rules that can affect where a model/unit can move, but that's irrelevant to this topic. 

So, I measure 360 around the unit, fine haven't broken the movement rule yet.  Pick the direction I want to move them and physically move them.  I don't see how the movement rule has been broken.  It doesn't say I can't  premeasure (my interpretation) and it doesn't say I must only place the ruler after I've picked the move direction (your intepretation).  If that's how you wish to play, fine with me.  You would not be breaking the Movement rule playing it your way, and neither would I playing it our way.  This brings me to an important point:  The two positions are both right.  Neither movement mechanic breaks the Movement rule.

...So, I measure 360 around the unit, fine haven't broken the movement rule yet.

So where does it say that (check 360)? Like everyone else in the doesn't say I can't camp your thinly veiled obfuscation is rather weak.

Though I suspect this will be entirely fruitless, by extension why not measure the whole board? For example your opponents moves, or charge distances from Demon prince, what if your opponent premeasured the distance between an assault unit of yours and his target unit in the movement phase and told you, well, you can not charge me next turn because I have just verified the closest models are 12.25 inches apart? It doesn't say you can't do that in the rules, so you can right?

Any hope you see where this is going?

Or why not measure more than one turn of movement, to ensure units in the right quadrant at the conclusion of the take and hold mission? Not against the rules right? Or how about pre measuring a move to make sure 50% of the models are in one quadrant or in another before moving them in such a mission? See?

Or the original scenario of this thread,  verifying that a Deepstriking unit is over 12 inches from any enemy ensuring it can not be destroyed in the drop, regardless of deviation, clearly not in the rules, and unfair, and a simple extension of the "well I can check 360 degrees concept" being advocated...

?

You say that while completely ignoring your own interpratation.  Namely the, 'I only place the ruler once I've picked the unit, direction, and physically move them'.  Why don't you try answering that?

Augustus, that was a really bad pun to say about the 360 argument.

The rule requires that we move no more than 6”. If you are just shuffling the models 2” to get into cover, both you and your opponent can easily tell than you are moving less than 6”, and you don’t even need to measure (unless you had a low difficult terrain roll, maybe). Assuming you want to move your maximum distance, a single measurement will be needed to verify that you are not moving more than 6”. It’s implicitly required by the rule, only because you need some way to verify that you’re not moving too far.

You could also do stage by stage measurements, as previously discussed. If I wanted to measure and move my Falcon 6”, then another 6”, that’s fine too. I’m not gaining any information I shouldn’t have.

Other than that, measuring has no purpose in the movement rules, unless you’re using it to gain information you shouldn’t have. Measuring a 6” arc around your unit gives you knowledge about your distance to other units and terrain that gives you an advantage.  12” or gods forbid 24” around a jump pack unit or skimmer gives you a huge amount of information.   The (very) few times I've seen someone pull this with a Fast moving unit I've wanted to punch them.

You say that while completely ignoring your own interpratation.  Namely the, 'I only place the ruler once I've picked the unit, direction, and physically move them'.  Why don't you try answering that?

Why would I? When you have eloquently done so:

Pick a unit and physically move said unit up to its max movment.  That's it, end of story.

Well said.

Note, the text is not:

Pick a unit and verify all possible locations to which it could move, evaluate the new position and decide on a course of action, check other distances once the unit has moved to its location put the unit back if necesary, and choose another location if desired, and eventually physically move said unit up to its max movment or decide not to after having seen all possible outcomes. 

Your ball.

Mannahnin> 12” or gods forbid 24” around a jump pack unit or skimmer gives you a huge amount of information.

Well spoken, and now, with new eldar wargear, it could be 36 inches! Excellent point, One could use that premeasuring 360 degree info, to verify all ranges (charges and balistics) on a 4 x6 board in one shot.

Think that's supported by the rules or fair?

Still think because it doesn't say you can't it's ok?

Posted By Augustus on 02/05/2007 11:38 AM

Think that's supported by the rules or fair?

It might not be supported by the rules, but then, that's hardly a valid argument as to whether it's fair, or even sensible given GW's spotty track record.  As a few people have pointed out, the ability to estimate distances visually really isn't a skill that we should consider to be related to one's ability to play the game.  Especially when dealing with a universe that's supposedly more advanced than our current one.  We can manage counter-battery artillery fire based on radar tracking of fired shells today, which makes guess range weapons particularly ridiculous in the context of 40K.

Posted By Buoyancy on 02/05/2007 3:42 PM
 Especially when dealing with a universe that's supposedly more advanced than our current one.

And that's the slightly flawed assumption that leads many people down the wrong path.

In many ways, yes, the 40K universe is more advanced than ours. And in many other ways, it's not... as is explained in the fluff.

The fact that artillery is less advanced on the game than in today's military isn't a sign of the rules being silly... it's a sign of the lower technology behind much of the equipment used by most armies in the game.

Likewise with the targetters that were mentioned earlier. Sure, we have access to laser rangefinders. Most models in the game do not, for whatever reasons.

The ability to estimate distances is a part of the game, just as the ability to plan out an entire game in your head is a part of the game of chess. Neither ability is strictly necessary to play their respective games... but the better you get at them, the better you usually get at the game.

Posted By insaniak on 02/05/2007 4:15 PM

The ability to estimate distances is a part of the game, just as the ability to plan out an entire game in your head is a part of the game of chess. Neither ability is strictly necessary to play their respective games... but the better you get at them, the better you usually get at the game.

And what I'm saying is that while it  estimating distances might be a part of the game, there's no particular reason for it to be.  Nor is your red herring that compares estimating distances to strategic ability particularly useful or enlightening.

That said, there's absolutely no excuse for the use fluff as a reason why the rules require you to assume that 40K technology is sometimes inferior to where we were 70 years ago, and sometimes several thousand years more advanced.  Especially when doing so requires you to ignore the fact that a plurality of the available armies are not suffering from a technological backslide (Chaos, Tau, Eldar, Necrons).

Posted By Buoyancy on 02/05/2007 4:54 PM
And what I'm saying is that while it  estimating distances might be a part of the game, there's no particular reason for it to be.

Of course there is... the whole structure of the game revolves around estimating distances.

That's just the way it is designed.

Yes, a game can be designed differently... but then it would be a different game.

Posted By Buoyancy on 02/05/2007 4:54 PM
 Nor is your red herring that compares estimating distances to strategic ability particularly useful or enlightening.

'Red herring'...? They're both skills useful to play their respective games. That's not meant to be particularly 'enlightening'. Just a clarification of the point.

Posted By Buoyancy on 02/05/2007 4:54 PM
That said, there's absolutely no excuse for the use fluff as a reason why the rules require you to assume that 40K technology is sometimes inferior to where we were 70 years ago, and sometimes several thousand years more advanced.

Of course there is. The game rules are designed, to a certain extent, to reflect the background of the game.

The rules don't require you to assume that... they simply provide a framework on which the game is played.

It's when you try to put those rules into a real-world context that the fluff needs to be considered. Because 40K isn't meant to be an accurate, real-world simulation. It's meant to be a game set in a fictional science fantasy universe.

Posted By Buoyancy on 02/05/2007 4:54 PM
 Especially when doing so requires you to ignore the fact that a plurality of the available armies are not suffering from a technological backslide (Chaos, Tau, Eldar, Necrons).

Chaos have one of the same technological handicaps as the Imperium: Lack of knowledge. And this is compounded by a lack of resources, and a lack of real organisation.

Eldar have a highly ritualised approach to war. They wage war with the same equipment they've used for milennia... not because they can't do better, but simply because that's how it's done.

Necrons are a stagnant culture. They have equipment that's millions of years old, and no real way (or need) to improve it.

Of them all, Tau are really the only ones with no real excuse for being less advanced in some areas... although you could argue that their incredibly rapid advancement in some areas has simply left gaps in others.


Really, the background fits the rules as well as you want it to. If you simply try to poke holes in it, sure, you'll find places to stick your finger. I'm honestly not sure why you would want to do so, though... if you like the game and it's background, surely it would be more productive to think of explanations that fit the background instead... which generally isn't that hard to do, given the depth of the fluff.