And let's do this without Augustus, Blood Angel or any home boys of either setting up a rumble in the parking lot.

Is it legal to pre-measure movement?

The main rulebook does not address this at all that I can see. The only argument I've seen on the issue is "the rules don't say you can, so you can't", but I'm not convinced of that yet.

So input?

The rules specifically rule out pre-measuring for shooting. To my mind, that means that pre-measuring for movement is allowed, or they would also rule it out. There are plenty of instances where pre-measurement is necessary but not specifically allowed, such as measuring deplyment zones. Are those to be outlawed by the "permissive rules" argument?

East Side, represent!

Ok.. my homeboy comments aside... I think this is going to come down to an almost personal ethics issue in the end. We've all got different things that we do.

I personally will almost 99% of the time have my movement planned out, and it absolutely will not matter if suddenly the 6" turns out to be not enough. I commit myself to a course of movement, and I move that way. I've taken back a move on extremely rare occasions, but for the most part I stick with what I originally planned. The fact that I don't voice those plans outloud falls back on the "ethics" of the situation.

Ragnar's statement in the last thread was probably the most extremely ethical stance I can imagine on movement. Most of his stuff I agree with, some of it I don't, but overall I guess I follow his "guidelines" without really realizing it.

One thing I'll defend harshly though (without rules to back me) is that I do NOT think you have the right to measure "effects", like checking to see if you're within 12" on Leadership, or to stay outside a Nurgle's Rot effect. I think you should move, and THEN live or die by your judgements in the subsequent phases. If you moved out of Synapse or LD range... tough. If you moved into Nurgle's Rot... tough as well. Learn to guestimate better next time!

At this point in the game's life, most of the players are pretty hardened veterens, and even the newer ones, after about a year or two can easily estimate 6", 12" etc at a glance. And if they can't... then getting smacked on the tabletop will teach you to start estimating MUCH faster!

This should be a pretty interesting thread since there's not a whole lot of RAW involved... the intent debates should be fun!

Thanks,

Well, I'm looking for rules on the issue. I think it's kind of hard to stand behind any ethical claims if the rules aren't standing there next to you.

(and having said that, I don't premeasure intentionally. I have taken moves back, but not because of the distance, but rather a change in tactics)

The rules are very sparse.

I don't even see it as ethics so much as a style of play. Ethics surely involves conduct which is unfair to the other player. If both sides are allowed to pre-measure, then how can it be unfair? It might annoy one player that he can quickly and accurately estimate distances by eye and the other can't, but I don't see that as a problem. I suppose it could become a problem if the game is time-limited and one player uses lots of measurement as a way of running out the time when he is losing.

My early wargames experience was boardgames where of course everything is pre-measured by the hex overlay. It was never an issue. You could always count the range for firing or movement. Perhaps that attitude has stayed with me.

OTOH, I can see where other people are coming from, wanting players to plan their moves in advance and get on and take the consequences if they go wrong. That's an equally valid style of play.

As far as I'm concerned you can measure and remeasure, within your zone, as much as you want during deployment as long as you don't reposition a unit other than the one currently being deployed.  This to me represents the fact that at the beginning of battle, you have whay you would consider optimal deployment.

As for premeasuring for powers and abilities -  if you do that, why not just place cut-out that shows the required radius.  Perhaps a 12' diameter paper circle around all your Guardians that shows how far they can shoot, or a 18' diameter around you Tau commander with Command and Control node.  If you aren't sure, get closer than you think you need (or further for negative effects). 

In tourney play I'll let you take back a small amount of moves, but no way would I allow premeasuring unless specifically stated in the rules.  The estimation of distance should, and often does, play a part in the game.  In casual play, I'm pretty much a pushover with everything except premeasuring.

 

It MUST be legal to pre-measure movement, and deployment distances. I have never seen a player declare his movement, move his models, then measure the distance from start position to end position. The player will lay his tape measure down next to the model, then move the model to the pre-measured distance. So the measuring has happened before the movement which is in effect pre-measuring. Is it annoying to watch a player orbit his tape measure around a single model for 30 seconds? Yes. Is it illegal? No.

I also don't see how it is illegal to measure deployment distances. The rulebook tells us to deploy in a certain 'pre-measured' area. Sometimes it also tells us that our models cannot be within a certain distance of the enemy. Without measuring beforehand this would be impossible. If the models were simply placed in the 'estimated deployment zone an 'estimated' distance from the enemy it would create a logical loop. The rulebook simply tells us that we "can't" place our models out of the deployment zone or within a certain distance of the enemy. But we already have! We placed them before we measured. The book doesn't give us any recourse for what to do next. Are the troops destroyed? Must their first move be back ionto the deployment zone, or away from the enemy? It doesn't say because the players "can't" have done it in the first place and they won't know for sure unless they have measured it before/during putting the models down.

The bottom line here is: what do the rules say.

So far no one's giving anything resembling a rules backed opinion, and certainly nothing that could be the basis of accusing someone of cheating.

And that's what I'd like to know: is it legal or not, regardless of local custom.

BGB pg 15. "Move any or all of the models in the unit up to their maximum move distance." It doesn't say to move them, then measure, then move them back to within their movement distance if over. It also, doesn't give us the option to move them, then measure, then move them again to get them up to the max if the estimation was short. Without putting a marker down where the model started there would be no way to measure after movement had occured anyways.

If it was possible the rulebook would have put a penalty effect like: If you declare the unit is shooting at targets out of range the unit's shooting is ineffective for that turn. There is no penalty effect for foot infantry moving 7". The rulebook doesn't tell us to move him back 1". So I guess the real question is: What happens if a foot infantry model is moved 7" because the estimation was 6"? There is nothing in the rulebook to account for this situation. So even though the rules do not explicitly tell us to pre-measure they leave us no other option.

P.S. Remember that stupid quote I used in the termy armor thread about success being measured in blood? Well, it's on page 15 of the BGB as well. I guess marines aren't the only ones who determine winners by body fluids!

There is nothing illegal or unethical about measuring the radius in which your unit/model can move.

However, measuring to check and see if you would get into assault rage by measuring beyond this radius would be the part I would argue as illegal and unethical.

So in review I would open up my tape up to the maximum range and make an invisible circle around the unit/model I am wanting to move. I would not measure to a spot and then check any ranges by measuring further than the distance my models can move.

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 03/29/2006 10:57 AM
"It MUST be legal to pre-measure movement, and deployment distances. I have never seen a player declare his movement, move his models, then measure the distance from start position to end position."

I've seen too many people measure "leadership range" when really they are just checking for shooting range or to see if they are within 12" to move then charge.  If you want to premeasure everything play a game on hex maps. 

My how to move instructions - You declare you move direction, measure within your move range in that direction, then place the figs there.

"I also don't see how it is illegal to measure deployment distances. The rulebook tells us to deploy in a certain 'pre-measured' area. Sometimes it also tells us that our models cannot be within a certain distance of the enemy. Without measuring beforehand this would be impossible. If the models were simply placed in the 'estimated deployment zone an 'estimated' distance from the enemy it would create a logical loop."

I don't think anyone is, or would, argue about premeasuring your deployment zone.  Although I always remove whatever I used to mark quarters or deployment before the game start so you don't know if you're in a quarter or deployment zone until the game ends.

It's not an area specifically covered by the rules. In some places it is forbidden and in other places it is not mentioned. Does the lack of mention mean it is forbidden? Typically, yes. However, we are moving out of the game a bit and into associated actions necessary for gameplay.

Traditionally in a RAW argument, the rules are permissive and anything else is 'cheating'. However a permissive ruleset for measuring would have to look like: hold the tape measurer with your right hand, extend the tape to the preset distance, lay it over the model in the direction you wish to move, pick up the model with your left hand, set the model down in the direction of the tapemeasurer at the set distance, and don't forget to keep breathing throughout!

What we are looking to define then, is where the RAW stops I guess?

Mauleed, this question is bordering the absurd.

¿Can you explain me how should i move units without allow me to pre-measure movement?.

The only rules about pre-measures in the rulebook are in the Shooting phase section, period.

Allowing me to premeasure with a circle radius would make the Tau command and control node AWESOME!  Every turn I'll measure 18" "leadership range" from my command squad that just happens to be loaded with rapidfire weapons (6" move + 12" shoot = 18").

How about measuring total range for a fast vehicle then moving exactly 13" inches from the max distance to stay out of charge range. 

It also allows you to measure if opponent is in charge range.  "I'll premeasure my 12" tank movement.  Oh, you're squad is within 12" inches.  No, no, I'm not gonna tank shock, I'm gonna unload my Termi assault squad and move towards you....." 

I'll measure 12" for my Whirlwind move.  Huh, your Ork Boy squad is exactly 11" away.  Oh, no, I'm not gonna move the Whirlwind, but the Marine squad next to the Whirlwind will now move back 2 inches just to make sure......"

I guess that I just feel that premeasuring is too abusable.

So far no one's giving anything resembling a rules backed opinion, and certainly nothing that could be the basis of accusing someone of cheating

Well there is no rule stating either way in regards to movement. There are for shooting but not for moving.

So you are essentially asking a question that has no real answer other than opinion, much like what came first, the chicken or the egg? You have to have one to have the other, in this case what happens first the movement or the measuring? You can move the model without measuring, but it won't be very accurate. You can premeasure the move and then move but some claim that is cheating...

Now let's get crazy and add logic, logic is you can't determine the range of a model on the table without measuring first. So, by rule you can move your marine up to 6". You premeasure out from the model 6" and you are within the rules.

Allowing me to premeasure with a circle radius would make the Tau command and control node AWESOME! Every turn I'll measure 18" "leadership range" from my command squad that just happens to be loaded with rapidfire weapons (6" move + 12" shoot = 18").

How is that even remotely the same as measuring the radius for MOVEMENT ONLY? The Tau crisis suit can move 6", that is what you would measure out, not 18".....

I'll measure 12" for my Whirlwind move. Huh, your Ork Boy squad is exactly 11" away. Oh, no, I'm not gonna move the Whirlwind, but the Marine squad next to the Whirlwind will now move back 2 inches just to make sure......"

That would be simply petty and yes IMO abuse but there would be nothing against it rules wise.

Simple,

1> You declare move direction "I'm gonna move towards those woods"

2> THEN lay the tape measure THAT direction to check max distance

3> Move your first guy that direction within the max distance.

Or just lay the tape where you want to move, then move.  Not lay the tape, spin it in a circle, then move. 

That would be simply petty and yes IMO abuse but there would be nothing against it rules wise.

Yes there is. Anything you do that gives you insight into the range to target is, wait for it, pre-measuring range! Which is outlawed in RaW.

Also, do you guys pre-measure your assaults? Cute.

1> You declare move direction "I'm gonna move towards those woods"
2> THEN lay the tape measure THAT direction to check max distance
3> Move your first guy that direction within the max distance.
Or just lay the tape where you want to move, then move. Not lay the tape, spin it in a circle, then move.

Bingo! This is how I do my movement.

ironkodiak:
"My how to move instructions - You declare you move direction, measure within your move range in that direction, then place the figs there."

I think that is an honorable way to do it and I wouldn't mind doing it if you asked me to when we played together. Mauleed is looking for something that can be backed up by rules though. Unfortunately, the only thing you have to declare before measuring is shooting. Declaring everything would make the game more realistic and it would probably move it along quicker too. There would be less staring at the table and more moving minis. If you made a wrong move there's no going back now, so no need to worry about it!

Personally, I am annoyed when players orbit their tapes around their models during movement, deepstrike, leadership, etc. There's a point where the casual measurement becomes an opponent trying to squeeze every ounce of tactical movement out of his models. It's annoying, but is certainly isn't illegal. I'm also annoyed when a player wants to "take back" a move. I think this would happen more frequently if players couldn't measure beforehand.

I should probably note that in a casual game I wouldn't make a fuss. When I say I would get annoyed it doesn't mean I would be mad or never play the person again. It just means that I know I can use a certain amount of leeway later in the game to my advantage if I needed to. So, I would let an opponet take back a move, but later in the game it may be questionable if one of my tanks is obscured. We would just say it's obscured. Usually, it works for an advantage anyways. If I know an opponent wanted to move a certain way or what was deployed in his vehicle that in itself is worth the price to allow the opponent to take it back.

Getting down to Mauleed's basic question, is pre-measurement forbidden by the rules?

First let's define pre-measurement. It's checking distances on the table accurately (with a tape measure or range stick) before deciding to do something that depends on distances. In practice it is often impossible to distinguish between pre-measurement and measurement that occurs as you do things.

1. Movement
Pre-measurement is not forbidden in movement. The movement rules tell you to choose a unit and move its models up to their maximum distance. They also allow you to go back and change a unit's movement providing you haven't started to move another unit. This in effect allows you to pre-measure since you can do a move, measure it and then change it to a different move. In this circumstance, the distinction between pre-measurement and measurement is merely academic.

2. Coherency
You are not allowed to voluntarily move out of coherency. This requires you to measure for coherency as you move models.

3. Shooting
Pre-measurement is specifically forbidden, and units that wrongly guess ranges waste their fire. The fact that it is specifically forbidden in this phase implies that in other phases where it is not specifically forbidden, it is allowed.

4. Assault
Pre-measurement is not specifically forbidden but the rules imply that it is not allowed since you charge enemies you believe are in range, and if you assault a unit which is subsequently found to be out of range, your models return to their start positions.

5. Deployment
Pre-measurement is clearly essential although the rules do not specifically permit it. This case refutes the argument that the rules are "permissive."

If you agree with the above it is clear that pre-measurement is not forbidden throughout the game.

Posted By ironkodiak on 03/29/2006 11:56 AM

Simple,

1> You declare move direction "I'm gonna move towards those woods"

Thus, you are forcing me to declare the move direction of a unit before moving it.  Are you making up rules for the movement phase summary?

Posted By RussWakelin on 03/29/2006 11:57 AM

Also, do you guys pre-measure your assaults? Cute.

 

We are talking about pre-measurement in the Movement Phase, my friend.

In the Assault Phase i will use the assault phase rules  instead.

 

This is a different question. Clearly different players have different styles. It seems impossible to prevent a clever player with a good eye from pre-estimating ranges for shooting by using straightforward measurements during movement in order to gauge the battlefield. As such, perhaps it's silly to forbid pre-measurement during shooting.

However, if pre-measurement should be forbidden, it should be specifically forbidden in all circumstances where it's important.
That's simple rules clarity.

Posted By DaIronGob on 03/29/2006 11:53 AM

Allowing me to premeasure with a circle radius would make the Tau command and control node AWESOME! Every turn I'll measure 18" "leadership range" from my command squad that just happens to be loaded with rapidfire weapons (6" move + 12" shoot = 18").

How is that even remotely the same as measuring the radius for MOVEMENT ONLY? The Tau crisis suit can move 6", that is what you would measure out, not 18".....

One of the quotes earlier suggested premeasuring for powers/abilities like Nurgle's Rot or Leadership.

 

Please understand that I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.  Truthfully I'm probably the nicest guy you could ever play 40K with.  I really don't care about winnign or losing, as a matter of fact I quit playing my marines because I won what I felt was too much.  I cannot EVER recall a time when I got mad or even remotly upset at playing 40K (now Star Wars CCG is another matter......).  If you play what I would consider against the rules or unfairly, I'll let you know how and why I feel that way (usually after the game) and if you won't at least listen to my side, I'll find someone else to play next time.

"The main rulebook does not address this at all that I can see. The only argument I've seen on the issue is "the rules don't say you can, so you can't", but I'm not convinced of that yet." - Ed

Ed, I'm shocked that you have fallen in with the "it doesn't say I can't" line of reasoning.  This is a classic flawed argument.

The rules also don't say I can't pick your model up and move it where I'd like on the table. So why can't I?

I can't becase the rules state what I CAN do, not what I can not do. 

For shame dude, for shame.

3. Shooting
Pre-measurement is specifically forbidden, and units that wrongly guess ranges waste their fire. The fact that it is specifically forbidden in this phase implies that in other phases where it is not specifically forbidden, it is allowed.

By this line of reasoning...can't I premeasure the range of my lascannons in the Assault phase?

Guys, guys, you are totally loosing it here people.

Posted By Shock_Commando on 03/29/2006 12:18 PM

Posted By ironkodiak on 03/29/2006 11:56 AM

Simple,

1> You declare move direction "I'm gonna move towards those woods"

Thus, you are forcing me to declare the move direction of a unit before moving it.  Are  you are making up rules for the movement phase summary?

Isn't placing your tape and making a raduis of movement "making up rules for the movement phase summary?" also?

 

Clearly there is no right or wrong answer.  I would be interested in how many of us on the "no premeasure" side are former RT and 2nd edition players.  I remember measuring of any type being more strict then.  I've noticed in my few months on Dakka that often the players with 10 plus years experience (ie pre 3rd edition players) tend to have same opinions as I.  Not that that's good or bad, it just gives us different biases based on past experiences.

Posted By RussWakelin on 03/29/2006 12:27 PM

< - yet.? that of convinced not I?m but can?t?, you so can, say don?t rules ?the is issue the on seen I?ve argument only The see. can I all at this address does rulebook main>

The rules also don't say I can't pick your model up and move it where I'd like on the table. So why can't I?

I can't becase the rules state what I CAN do, not what I can not do. 

 

That is because this is an area that is arguably outside the scope of the rules.  Such as what methods you use to move your models, the rules don't say you can pick them up with your hand!  Cheater!! 

Some other areas that aren't covered in RAW but could have an in-game effect:

Where do you store models that are inside transports?  In plain sight, under the table, labeled trays?

Where do you store your dead pile?  Hiding them could be advantageous when it comes to the end of the game and your opponent is weighing those heavy last few actions point-wise.

How much time can you take per turn?  Depending on your army and your opponent's, you can heavily manipulate the game outcome if you slow the game down to prevent a 6+ turn finish.

How do you handle tipped/cocked/leaning dice?  Reroll them always?  Only in your favor?

 

Premeasuring movement is arguably amongst these game-effecting but not spelled out in the RAW issues.  Leave it up to player agreement in each game and try not to be a butthead about it either way.  If your opponent really wants to do it: big deal, you get to use it yourself then for an equal advantage.

 

 

 

I agree with ironkodiak.  I've found that most problems I have are directly linked to my own preconcieved notions about the rules. "It's always been that way!" Although, I was largely absent for 2nd edition I still find myself being corrected by newer players when I have assumed something wasn't changed when in fact, it has. Or, my favorite, when a rule was actually written pretty tight in a previous edition is written badly enough now to make it ambiguous and the new player says something like "Show me in the rulebook where it says that." And I have to eat crow because the new rule IS ambiguous.

From what I can find in the Movement Section there is no "Declare movement" step and there is no "Pre-measure moves" step. Personally, I think that by RAW the move must be measured before/during movement, but I don't think there is a solid way to end this debate.

No, I also don't think there is an end to this debate either. As the rules don't say anything on this subject, it is open to a wild degree of interpretation. Similar to Ordnance weapons and what hits under their markers.

This is another of the little details to be agreed upon by the players before the game, or to be covered in the specific event rules in the case of tournaments.

-Hans

Here's why this debate is particularly interesting to me:

Piranha - fusion, array 70

It can move 24". Can I measure 24" towards an enemy unit, and if the unit happens to be within 24", change my mind about moving it 24", and instead move it 12" towards the unit, knowing the fusion is now in range? And on the flip side, if the enemy unit does not happen to be within 24", can I change my mind about the direction and move it elsewhere?

I'm having a lot of trouble finding anywhere that says I can use a tape measure to measure the allowed distance a model can move.

The following seems to imply that a tape measure is used: Page 15 BGB: "In his turn, a player may move all or some of his units up to their maximum movement distance".

There's nothing that seems to imply that you can change your mind.

So I'm going to say the rules don't support pre-measuring.

Measuring counts as moving the model, you must move your models in the premeasured direction by the premeasured the distance, where the premeasured distance is not allowed to be greater than the maximum movement distance.

It's become rather apparent that there's nothing cut-and-dry in the RAW to cover this sort of situation... everyone has their own take on it.

Maybe we should start trying to create a general rule all Dakkites would agree on that they can then try to encourage other players to follow... eventually spreading whatever method we decide on to as many players as possible.

Personally, between my roommate and I, we first declare that a unit/vehicle is moving. Even if we don't actually end up moving it, it still counts as having moved. We then measure up to 6" (we both kinda suck, so we allow you to measure, then decide which direction to move in) for infantry. With vehicles we decide whether the vehicle will move 6", 12", or more, then proceed to measure up to the maximum decided. Even if we don't end up moving the vehicle it still counts as having moved whatever it was declared as moving.

As far as our tape measures go, we only extend them to 1" farther than the maximum chosen (it can be hard to position the measure accurately if the rule is locked directly on the 6) and no more. Since all we're playing is friendly games we don't really worry too much about cheating on movement or anything.

As far as we're concerned, nothing else can be pre-measured.

What methods does everyone else use? It'd be beneficial for all of us to come up with a cionsensus on the fiarest way to measure movement, etc.

Things I dont' allow at the game table.

1. Measuring how far the table edge is for deepstriking units.

2. Measuring to see if you are in assault range during the shooting phase. This is also shady because someone can measure and then say I'm only shooting my assault weapons and pistols. "You should have said that before you measured."

-------------------------------------------------
Shady Tactics

1. Firing with a unit farther away first so you can see how far your closer units are to a target.
ie. Well if I'm 18 inches away and my close unit is 13 inches from me I can get a charge off.

2. Pulling your tape measure out way longer for a measurement. ie Moving 6 inches but 24 inches are showing.

3. I've seen this one before. Range of gun is 48 and the person stands with the tap measure out 48 inches over the board. Then points at the unit they want to fire at. "Of course you have range when you do that."

------------------------------------------------
Grey Area

1. Rolling FoF during the movement phase and then not moving at all.

2. Having a model that can move 24 inches and then swing the tape measure around it's possible directions. "Hey you have a unit next to your landspeeder with 24 inch range."

3. Measuring distance to shot at a target and then saying you are not shooting so you can assault instead.

There are others.

Ahoj!
1 - I measure my deployment zone, and distance from nearest enemy unit(s) if appropriate for scenario.
2 - I measure my movement distances
3 - I measure distance to units I declared I am shooting at (and I don' measure 60 inches from Bolt Pistol armed unit to enemy unit in oposiite corner of the table)
4 - I declare charges and check for range
5 - I measure Consolidation/ Run away! Run away! distances
6 - I also measure if I can rally

Hmm - what's more to measure?

ADDED LATER, AFTER READING ONE OF THE PREVIOUS POSTS:
7 -  I sometimes check coherency, if it looks off

Borys

Hi Boris,

The question is whether you should do all your measurement after declaring actions and take consequences if your estimated distances turn out to be wrong.

That is, follow the precedent of the Shooting phase for the other phases of the game. So you would declare some movement (towards a building, perhaps) and then measure the distance. If your troops cannot reach, they must stop outside the building.

In my opinion there is nothing inherently wrong with pre-measuring at any time. Clearly, thought, lots of players consider it an important part of gameplay not to pre-measure. As such, an agreed set of rules, even if they are only Dakka house rules, would be better than the current confused situation. I am not fussed about pre-measuring or not pre-measuring so much as being able to agree on the rules to be used.

Ahoj!
"So you would declare some movement (towards a building, perhaps) and then measure the distance. If your troops cannot reach, they must stop outside the building."

Isn't that covered by Difficult Terrain Rules?
I declare intention, roll, and I'm stuck with the rolled distance, even though the rules allow me to go somehere else.

Borys

What I meant is you estimate its six inches to cover, but your eye was wrong and it's actually seven. So your troops have to stop an inch short of the cover.

Posted By RussWakelin on 03/29/2006 12:27 PM

"The main rulebook does not address this at all that I can see. The only argument I've seen on the issue is "the rules don't say you can, so you can't", but I'm not convinced of that yet." - Ed

Ed, I'm shocked that you have fallen in with the "it doesn't say I can't" line of reasoning.  This is a classic flawed argument.

The rules also don't say I can't pick your model up and move it where I'd like on the table. So why can't I?

I can't becase the rules state what I CAN do, not what I can not do. 

For shame dude, for shame.

I don't think it's quite as clear as that, Russ. The rulebook is pretty quiet about movement - Page 15 BGB: "In his turn, a player may move all or some of his units up to their maximum movement distance".

The "maximum movement distance" for a model is nicely defined, depending on type. But it doesn't provide any sort of procedure for translating that ink-on-paper number into distance-on-battlefield. Presumably, we should all be using the (not accurately sized) whippy sticks included in the boxed set. If you didn't buy the boxed set, you don't get to move, as the stand-alone book doesn't have whippy sticks.

Given that we're told to move a unit up to its maximum allowable distance, there must, of necessity, be some measurement of distance involved. I don't see how the rules discriminate against measuring SOLELY in a single direction, vs. measuring in several directions.

Let's leave ethics and slipperly-slope arguments out of this.

Given that we're told to move a unit up to its maximum allowable distance, there must, of necessity, be some measurement of distance involved. I don't see how the rules discriminate against measuring SOLELY in a single direction, vs. measuring in several directions.

Exactly. There are no substantial rules to support the "premeasuring movement" IS illegal or unethical. You can't move until you measure, you get to decide where you want to move therefore you can measure where you want to move no matter which direction you are going in.

Maybe it would be better to implement a BloodBowl style grid board to warhammer 40k? That way you never have to "measure or premeasure" a thing!

I think its neat how this whole debate really supports the recent WD315 article that everyone is excited about. RaW can't even be used to determine how to measure movement!!!

Now, if you folks would allow common sense and intent into the equation, then this is a very simple thing to solve:

1) Clearly, the INTENT is that shooting and assault ranges should be guessed, never pre-measured.

2) Common sense dictates that a good sport would never do anything to give him extra insight into #1

3) Therefore, measure your movement however you like, as long as it is clear to your opponent that you are not attempting to violate #1 or #2 above.

Since common sense and intent is not available to you RaW purists, then I'll let you hash out how you get blood from a stone.

Russ this has nothing to do with RAW being inadequate. This is a bona-fide gray area in the rules and thus appropriate for interpretation.

The rules just say you move six inches, but they do not provide any form of mechanism to determine whether or not you've moved six inches. So our options are:
1) Never measure. Obviously a nonstarter.
2) Pre-measure your move. I actually think this is the best way to do it and it's how my group plays - we just extend a ruler six or seven inches, put the 6" mark over the edge of a base and put the end where we want to go. We might wiggle the ruler around some, but that's no big deal. A refinement is to nominate a general direction to move, but with the vagaries of movement (having to go around terrain) it isn't usually possible to be 100% precise.
3) Move and measure. Problem here is that nothing prevents me from putting my model right on top of yours, obviously out of six inch range, and then measuring to it. "What do you know that's actually twenty one inches, I'll just scoot my guy back..."

Russ this has nothing to do with RAW being inadequate. This is a bona-fide gray area in the rules and thus appropriate for interpretation.

The above statement can't be true.

1) Adequate RaW means no need for debate
2) We are debating

THEREFORE: RaW is inadequate.

Russ I think you're conflating three things.

1) The Rules as Written as taken literally - e.g. the rules as they appear on the page.
2) The Rules as Written in the YMDC sense, where all we care about is understanding exactly what the rules really say. This doesn't mean that you have to play that way, but when someone posts on YMDC the default assumption is that this is what we're looking for. For the most part going by RAW clears up most gray areas; the answer may not be immediately obvious but eventually it becomes clear. Occasionally it does leave some gray areas behind (including this measuring thing). Where RaW clashes with nebulous concepts like "intent" or "posts on the Eot" (for instance, the turbo-boosting bikers thing) the RAW win, period, end of story. When there is a genuine gray area (e.g. one that RAW cannot resolve, such as this measuring thing) then it can be useful to consider things like intent - but only then.
3) The Rules as Written as a play philosophy which means that your default mode of play is to follow the rules as written (within the confines of #1; the gray areas need to be decided upon ahead of time - e.g. discussed with your opponent

So which one are you saying is inadequate? I only see this measuring thing demontsrating that RAW is inadequate only when taken in the #1 sense, in which case you're right - but it's also a facile conclusion; there's not a serious player of 40k who will try to tell you with a straight face that there are absolutely no parts of the game that the rules simply do not cover.

My contention is that without interjecting either common sense and attempting to infer intent neither 1, 2, nor 3 are truly possible.<?

In any complex situation, even simple rules can break down.  And common sense must be applied.  Not common sense in a "what would happen in the real world" but "what is the fairest way to resolve this."

The problem comes when people can't understand that the same language can be read differently. 

Example:

A) No where do the RaW state that you may place your tape measure on a vehicle and rotate it to see all possilbe movement options.  Since this is not SPECIFICALLY stated as something you can do, my personal take on the RaW is that you may NOT do this.

B) Others argue, that basically because the RaW states you get to move, and doesn't state you can't sweep an arc with your tape measure, you can.

Both A and B are reading the same rules.  Both A and B are trying to follow RaW. 

You can't get to the real solution without common sense.  This goes beyond war gaming and editing and writing.  There are whole philosophical theories on the topic.  Ever read any Asimov?  3 VERY simple rules can be interpreted many different ways, depending on the complexity of the situation.

My argument is we all apply common sense and intent when we try to use RaW, just some refuse to admit it.  Effective communication is not possible without common sense on both sides of the communication stream.

 

I think its neat how this whole debate really supports the recent WD315 article that everyone is excited about. RaW can't even be used to determine how to measure movement!!!

Now, if you folks would allow common sense and intent into the equation, then this is a very simple thing to solve:

1) Clearly, the INTENT is that shooting and assault ranges should be guessed, never pre-measured.

2) Common sense dictates that a good sport would never do anything to give him extra insight into #1

3) Therefore, measure your movement however you like, as long as it is clear to your opponent that you are not attempting to violate #1 or #2 above.

Since common sense and intent is not available to you RaW purists, then I'll let you hash out how you get blood from a stone.

Russ? Trolling?!?

#1 is pretty clear, even in the text - barring wargear (hello, I.G. Targeters), you don't measure before declaring a shooting target.

#2...#2 is a bit over-broad, don't you think? My normal movement, provided I actually MEASURE the 6" move I'm entitled to, is going to give me extra insight into #1. So does basic geometry (Pythagorous did not live in vain). So does simple experience - I'm good for 1-2 inch accuracy out to about 6 feet, owing to too much time with actual "guess" range weaponry.

But what I distill from your post is not that you object to measuring multiple directions to determine allowable movement, but to the abuse of measuring movement, as a cover for shooting/assault pre-measuring. Correct summary?

This is classic mauleed! He comes in here. Stirs up the hornet's nest. Then leaves to make up an aternate FOC tournament in another section!

I like Russ's argument about not being able to do anything to gain measuring advantage during shooting, but I can't help but to go back to my beloved Storm Troopers. They've got to be the worst unit when it comes to rules anomalies. Is it unethical to use their targetter to meaure range to multiple units? I don't think so. In fact, I think that is what the rules mean for us to do. But, where do we draw the line? Is this any different than measuring multiple routes models can move through? The rules on the subject are pretty scant in this area, but the search continues.

Edit: Wow! Jantkin beat me to the Storm Trooper thing.  Figure the odds on two people using them in a thread at the same time.

But what I distill from your post is not that you object to measuring multiple directions to determine allowable movement, but to the abuse of measuring movement, as a cover for shooting/assault pre-measuring. Correct summary?

I don't care to see my opponent zip out his tape measure to 24" put it over his land speeder, sweep and arc, then pop it back saying something like "just checking where I can move."

'Taint cool man, 'taint cool.

We had a VERY simple house rule at Dakka for many years:

"You measure, you move."

But since we weren't RaW purests, we didn't have to write an 8 page disertation, we just worked out what the intent was, used common sense, and came up with a fair method.

A) No where do the RaW state that you may place your tape measure on a vehicle and rotate it to see all possilbe movement options. Since this is not SPECIFICALLY stated as something you can do, my personal take on the RaW is that you may NOT do this.

B) Others argue, that basically because the RaW states you get to move, and doesn't state you can't sweep an arc with your tape measure, you can.

Both A and B are reading the same rules. Both A and B are trying to follow RaW.

You can't get to the real solution without common sense. This goes beyond war gaming and editing and writing.

Hence, this is a gray area. All Ed asked for was whether the text, on its face, was specific to one perspective or the other.

When playing this silly game, I hold to the "least advantage" principle - I self-interpret bad rules to the meaning that gives least advantage to me. I also apply the "intended effect" ideal from legal interpretation - a rule (or law) is intended to have its apparent effect, and interpretations that prevent that are absurd on their face.

But I don't see either applying here. Movement of a unit, as defined in the rules, involves knowing how far the unit can move. If you don't know how far the unit can move, then you cannot move. So, I don't care if someone swings their tape measure in an arc - I already know the distances to within a fair degree of both precision and accuracy.

But since we weren't RaW purests, we didn't have to write an 8 page disertation, we just worked out what the intent was, used common sense, and came up with a fair method.

I don't think ANYONE is that pure in application of RaW, when they actually game among friends. But you can't be - the rules DO NOT HOLD UP to RaW scrutiny in every situation.

The purpose to RaW is, was, and will be - what do the rules actually say? I never played at Dakka (and now I never can). I've never played at a lot of stores, or with most of the people who post here. If ever I DO play with them, the ONLY common ground we have to play from is the rules as they are written. With most people, we can add a veneer of sportsmanship to that.

But I played against a number of people this past weekend who were absolutely certain that a) a Leman Russ could not shoot over the back of a Chimera; and b) a Space Marine biker could move between two tanks 1.5" apart, to assault a squad on the other side. What was GW's intent with those rules? Couldn't care less - the written rules cover both situations well enough to play.

(Oh, and yes, I still firmly believe that decent editing and proper word selection would prevent nearly every single one of these discussions. I, too, am a lawyer; specifically, I write patents. Every word I use in an application may be subject to scrutiny that would make Ed wince, so I have to be extremely selective with my word choice. And that's why I get paid what I do.

GW gets paid for writing rules. They could do a better job, granted with a corresponding increase in effort required. They've chosen not to. If even reasonable people can disagree over what a rule means, it's not a good rule.)

When playing this silly game, I hold to the "least advantage" principle - I self-interpret bad rules to the meaning that gives least advantage to me. I also apply the "intended effect" ideal from legal interpretation - a rule (or law) is intended to have its apparent effect, and interpretations that prevent that are absurd on their face.

<?

Janthkin, you and I are on the same page with this, I do exactly the same.  I'm kind of bringing debates from other threads into this one, like the WD315 issue.  I think the pure RaW concept doesn't really allow for the 'least advantage' principle, because that is common sense and is applying more to the equation than RaW.  My whole argument is simply that you must have SOME additional guiding principal beyond RaW for rules interpretation to work.

I really am surprised so many dedicated, serious 40k gamers think pre-measuring movement is cool.  Oh, sure, sweeping a 6" arc may not seem like a big deal, but you got to look at the big picture.

Examples:

• Do you declare your vehicle is moving over 6" (thus loosing fire power) before you measure, or do you measure your various movement options, then decide how fast it will go?
• Can you measure how far your bikes will move before deciding if you will turbo boost?
• Are you cool with skimmers and other fast vehicles sweeping a 24" arc with a ruler (half the table width) just to check movement options?

This is the problem with RaW.  Analysis of isolated bits of text in an attempt to allow something without thought to overall game mechanics.  Without looking at the big picture, without common sense, with out a principle like 'least advantage' (which is very similar to the ethics issues implied in the WD315 article) pure RaW is not possible.

To be honest, I find the whole no pre-measuring rule very frustrating, precisely because it is very open to exploitation.  To me, games that allow measuring at any time are MUCH more enjoyable, as it eliminates so many issues like these.  This isn't just a 40k issue, WM has the same problem, where it is permissible to pre-measure some things and not others. 

I call to game designers everywhere: ALLOW PRE-MEASUREING.  Reduce GEEK stress! 

 

I agree Janthkin. Well said. Capt K

As Janthkin clearly explains, the RAW could be a lot better written, and it would vastly reduce the number of arguments.

But a claim (as Russ made) that the existence of disagreement over a rule means it is an unclear rule is clearly false. On several occasions I have had opponents argue to me that they could do something that the rules clearly and explicitly forbade. And I have (to my chagrin) been on the wrong side of the same situation more than once.

IMO premeasuring movement is against both the spirit and letter of the rules. Against the spirit because allowing it makes the rules which prevent premeasuring shooting and assault meaningless in many, many circumstances. Especially when Fast vehicles are involved.

P1: The rulebook states my models may move up to a certain distance.
P2: I must measure said distance in order to correctly move my models without exceeding the allowed distance.
P3: The rulebook does not state that I may make multiple measurements for a single move, for example, in multiple directions.
C1: I am allowed to measure my move distance.
C2: I may not make multiple measurements in different directions. Once I measure a given direction and distance I am committed.

But a claim (as Russ made) that the existence of disagreement over a rule means it is an unclear rule is clearly false. On several occasions I have had opponents argue to me that they could do something that the rules clearly and explicitly forbade. And I have (to my chagrin) been on the wrong side of the same situation more than once.

This is a fair point Ragnar.  I may have over simplified my point.  I wasn't trying to claim that if anyone ever has a debate, a rule is unclear. 

What I was trying to state was that if two people (or a bunch on a web site) can crack open a book, read it togeather, and NOT come to an easy conclusion, THEN the RaW are not enough.

But I completly agree with your point: 2 gamers at a table disagree, they both grab a book, both read, both come quickly to the conclusion that A is correct and B is incorrect, then it is indeed a victory for RaW.

(sorry for so many posts today folks, I'm just feel'n feisty)

Russ, you don't need to apologize. It's your forum.

But he does, because he'd like to make clear that he's a benevolent dictator.

As GW has often noted, the RAW is sometimes not enough. But just because there's disagreement in an online discussion betreen multiple people still doesn't mean it's an unclear rule. I'll be happy to link you to some of CaptAnderton's greatest hits if you like. Or you can go browse the Eye of Terror.

It took me some time to realize that the way the Dakka league played Piling In in 3rd edition was wrong, as I had pointed out to me in my fourth game at the 2001 Baltimore GT. I had to look at the book and read it multiple times to get what my opponent was explaining to me, which was that the way I had learned to play the rule with the league was wrong. Often times people are blinded by custom and their internal assumptions even when the rule is clear.  But I did get it after a few minutes, and we proceeded on with the game, playing it correctly.  And I learned from the experience, brought back what I had learned to the league, and we all played it correctly from then on.

Mannahnin, you've come to the same conclusion that I did earlier in this thread.

I'm having a lot of trouble finding anywhere that says I can use a tape measure to measure the allowed distance a model can move.

The following seems to imply that a tape measure is used: Page 15 BGB: "In his turn, a player may move all or some of his units up to their maximum movement distance".

There's nothing that seems to imply that you can change your mind.

So I'm going to say the rules don't support pre-measuring.

Measuring counts as moving the model, you must move your models in the premeasured direction by the premeasured the distance, where the premeasured distance is not allowed to be greater than the maximum movement distance.

Posted By onlainari on 03/30/2006 9:33 PM
Mannahnin, you've come to the same conclusion that I did earlier in this thread.

I'm having a lot of trouble finding anywhere that says I can use a tape measure to measure the allowed distance a model can move.

The following seems to imply that a tape measure is used: Page 15 BGB: "In his turn, a player may move all or some of his units up to their maximum movement distance".

There's nothing that seems to imply that you can change your mind.

So I'm going to say the rules don't support pre-measuring.

Measuring counts as moving the model, you must move your models in the premeasured direction by the premeasured the distance, where the premeasured distance is not allowed to be greater than the maximum movement distance.

Except...

P.15, last sentence of the paragraph after Movement Phase Summary box. "Once you have started moving a unit you may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit."

In other words, you clearly are permitted by the rules to decide a move, measure it out, do it, then change your mind, go back and do a different move which would also require measuring.

That surely is the RAW no matter how unsatisfactory it may be.

rules used for chess

Article 4: The act of moving the pieces
4.1

Each move must be made with one hand only.
4.2

Provided that he first expresses his intention (e.g. by saying "j`adoube" or "I adjust"), the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares.
4.3

Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move deliberately touches on the chessboard

1.

one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved, or
2.

one or more of his opponent`s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched, which can be captured, or
3.

one piece of each colour, he must capture the opponent`s piece with his piece or, if this is illegal, move or capture the first piece touched which can be moved or captured. If it is unclear, whether the player`s own piece or his opponent`s was touched first, the player`s own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his opponent`s.

4.4

1.

If a player deliberately touches his king and rook he must castle on that side if it is legal to do so.
2.

If a player deliberately touches a rook and then his king he is not allowed to castle on that side on that move and the situation shall be governed by Article 4.3(a).
3.

If a player, intending to castle, touches the king or king and rook at the same time, but castling on that side is illegal, the player must make another legal move with his king which may include castling on the other side. If the king has no legal move, the player is free to make any legal move.
4.

If a player promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised, when the piece has touched the square of promotion.

4.5

If none of the pieces touched can be moved or captured, the player may make any legal move.
4.6

When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot then be moved to another square. The move is considered to have been made when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled.

1.

in the case of a capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his hand;
2.

in the case of castling, when the player`s hand has released the rook on the square previously crossed by the king. When the player has released the king from his hand, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to make any move other than castling on that side, if this is legal;
3.

in the case of the promotion of a pawn, when the pawn has been removed from the chessboard and the player`s hand has released the new piece after placing it on the promotion square. If the player has released from his hand the pawn that has reached the promotion square, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to play the pawn to another square.

4.7

A player forfeits his right to a claim against his opponent`s violation of Article 4.3 or 4.4, once he deliberately touches a piece.



Rules for Warhammer

1. Choose a unit to move
2. Move any or all of the models in the unit up to their maximum distance
3. Repeat the above until all movement is complete.



We see the difference between the 2 sets of rules and all the detail of the chess rules about moving something. Just rewrite the warhammer rules like that and then we can settle this issue

P.15, last sentence of the paragraph after Movement Phase Summary box. "Once you have started moving a unit you may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit."

This seems to imply you can change your mind, I change my stance and say premeasuring is supported by the rules.

It's been fun to watch this one develope.

A slight thread hijack here, since I don't think we're making any progress on the pre-measuring issue.

A notion that's being bandied about lately is that, since some areas of the rules aren't covered, like this, and that consensus must be reached (termed "common sense" by Russ), that all areas of the rules, even ones that are covered, require this consensus.

Hogwash. I simply refuse to accept it.

Russ, in the "how to have an intelligent rules discussion" article, Bill and I cover this: if both sides agree the rule is ambiguous or not covered, THEN common sense, as you term it, kicks in. But that's it. And even when it does kick in, it doesn't mean this consensus is going to be reached, and the game must go on.

So if I decide to measure a 24" arch from my speeders (which I would never do), there's nothing you can do to stop me but ding my sports score, because the rules simply don't cover it. (as evidenced by the fact that no one's provided anything resembling two premises and a conclusion that's going to carry).

But it's good that we found this and we can all note it for later discussion.

So if I decide to measure a 24" arch from my speeders (which I would never do), there's nothing you can do to stop me but ding my sports score, because the rules simply don't cover it. (as evidenced by the fact that no one's provided anything resembling two premises and a conclusion that's going to carry).

<?

 

But I argue this is hogwash, because if I reach over in the shooting phase and move your tank, there is nothing you can do to stop me (short of grabbing my wrist), because this is not covered in the rules. 

 

If your response to this is "The rules don't say you may move my models in the shooting phase"

 

Fine

 

Show me where, in the rules, it states you may sweep an arch with your tape measure in the moving phase?  There isn't. You've got to go to no less than 3 rules sections and try to infer something that is not clearly in RaW.

 

My point?  This whole concept is silly, and if folks would just allow a little common sense into their world WHILE actually reading and understanding the rules, life would be a better place.

 

Why does this relate to WD315?  Because this whole thread, the concept of 'manipulating the exact wording of the rules to gain a game advantage' is right here in this thread.  I'm sure someone out there will try to use some of the logic presented here to claim, that strictly by RaW, they can sweep measuring arcs during movement. 

 

Just as someone might push toward a D6 roll over a rule, someone may easily exploit weak or bad RaW to do the same.  If folks read RaW and determine that it is inarguably possible to premeasure anything in the movement phase, then you have found another example similar to the point the WD315 author was making.  Perhaps the rules read specifically a certain way, but it doesn't mean it is the correct interpetation.  There is always the possiblity of an error or unintentional consequence to a new rule. 

 

RaW is not black and white. Although some folks out there like to dream that it is.  Without common sense up front, RaW is only a rough guide, at best.

Russ, that is a very extremist point of view. comparing the moving of another person's model on their turn in their shooting phase is a very exaggerated comparrison to the premeasurment issue.

There is nothing in the rulebook that even starts someone along the path of doing what your example brings forth but the movement section does have rules in regards to how the movement phase works. While you are correct that the book doesn't come out and say "It's ok to premeasure where your unit can move" it does imply that you would have to do so.

In the case of premeasuring movement I have never actually had this become an issue, even when I worked for GW (briefly running a retail store locally) I had only one instance where it was questioned and that situation wasn't even entirely about premeasuring.

What I am trying to say is by definition of the movement phase it is permissible to premeasure distance for your unit... hell according to what was found it is obvious that you can move, and then move back as long as you don't move on to the next unit.

Now comes the "is it ethical and sportsmanlike" issue in regards to premeasurement, which IMO the entirety of this thread is actually discussing.

I would never have a problem with premeasuring movement distances as long as they aren't measuring outside of the unit's movement.

From what I gather at your posts you would not even consider premeasuring a unit's move until you have already announced where said unit is physically going to move.

From what I gather at your posts you would not even consider premeasuring a unit's move until you have already announced where said unit is physically going to move.

<?

 

That is correct.  You measure, you move.  That's how I play it.  The reason my example is so extreme is to illustrate a point.  The reason YOU think my example of moving an opponent?s model in his shooting phase is silly is because you are using common sense with what you know of the full rule set to understand that it is not permissible to do that.  Even though there is NO specific rule forbidding me from moving your model.

 

My argument is, that if you would extend this common sense to the movement phase, you would understand why it is not permissible to allow pre-measuring movement, even though there is no rule specifically forbidding it, there is also no rule specifically allowing it.  But you refuse to look at the examples given by other illustrating how it breaks other aspects of the game system to allow it.

 

Do not focus so narrowly on the rule you are trying to interpret, you must view the rule set as a whole.  "How will my reading of the rules affect the whole game?  How can my reading of the rules be exploited by others?  If there are obvious exploits, perhaps my reading is wrong."

 

Your and Ed's reading of the rule opens up LOTS of exploits.  My and Ragnar's reading open no exploits. 

 

The problem with strict RaW: "I dont' care about exploits, I'm just doing what the rules say..."

 

No, you're doing what YOU think the rules say.  Oh, and how convenient, your reading of the rules give you an edge. ;-)

Posted By DaIronGob on 03/31/2006 8:41 AM

From what I gather at your posts you would not even consider premeasuring a unit's move until you have already announced where said unit is physically going to move.

That's exactly how I am trying to get myself into the habit of playing. I declare I am moving "that way, to about right there" and then measure out the actual distance. It helps me be decisive, prevents me from second guessing myself, and keeps the game moving. Plus, it prevents any arguments about premeasuring and sportsmanship.

Its not too hard to simply visualize the model in the new position before you measure it.

 

Shouldn't this be moved out of YMDC at this point? Its obviously not covered in the rules, so how can it be successfully covered in the RAW forum. The whole thing is basically a "Playing Style and Sportsmanship" issue.

I suppose by RAW, you can never measure movement. You must simply know how far 6" (or whatever) is, and then move that distance. Of course, then you are risking disqualification if you ever move too far, your opponent calls you on it, and the judge measures the distance out and bans you for cheating.

The reason YOU think my example of moving an opponent?s model in his shooting phase is silly is because you are using common sense with what you know of the full rule set to understand that it is not permissible to do that

Actually no I don't think it's silly, I think there is no premise to even use that example. There is nothing in the rulebook that would even begin to remotely consider that action.

You compared that to a discussion that actually has rules to at least begin to support the premeasurement issue. You made up a completely farse example and compared it to a discussion that has at the least 70% rule support.

No, you're doing what YOU think the rules say. Oh, and how convenient, your reading of the rules give you an edge. ;-)

True, experience would definitely give you that conclusion.

My thoughts are, actually this really hasn't come up before. I mean normally a 'general' has a game plan and is ready to move his models before it's even his turn and when it is his turn he already knows where he wants to move his units etc... so to me this whole discussion is a bit silly. But when given the information provided I feel that premeasuring movement ranges really isn't as bad as some are making it out to be.

I mean each situation is different and will have different results as to the ethics involved. I have read this thread and I found myself thinking "yea that would be cheating" and I find myself thinking "What's wrong with doing that"?

Denouncing a certain act because it has the possibility to be exploited would really kill the game IMO. I mean, what rule in this game CAN'T be exploited to some extent?

Posted By blue loki on 03/31/2006 9:03 AM

Posted By DaIronGob on 03/31/2006 8:41 AM

From what I gather at your posts you would not even consider premeasuring a unit's move until you have already announced where said unit is physically going to move.

That's exactly how I am trying to get myself into the habit of playing. I declare I am moving "that way, to about right there" and then measure out the actual distance. It helps me be decisive, prevents me from second guessing myself, and keeps the game moving. Plus, it prevents any arguments about premeasuring and sportsmanship.

Its not too hard to simply visualize the model in the new position before you measure it.

 

Shouldn't this be moved out of YMDC at this point? Its obviously not covered in the rules, so how can it be successfully covered in the RAW forum. The whole thing is basically a "Playing Style and Sportsmanship" issue.

I suppose by RAW, you can never measure movement. You must simply know how far 6" (or whatever) is, and then move that distance. Of course, then you are risking disqualification if you ever move too far, your opponent calls you on it, and the judge measures the distance out and bans you for cheating.

Beautifully put. I do the same thing really. I even go so far as to talk out the situation WITH my opponent that way we are both learning!

The last game I played was my Nids against a Conscript heavy guard army. I was saying things like, "now if I move too far out I will get hammered by those lasguns but if I don't move far enough I won't get into combat"... things like that. To me that is fun.

P1: The rulebook states my models may move up to a certain distance.
P2: I must measure said distance in order to correctly move my models without exceeding the allowed distance.
P3: The rulebook does not state that I may make multiple measurements for a single move, for example, in multiple directions.
C1: I am allowed to measure my move distance.
C2: I may not make multiple measurements in different directions. Once I measure a given direction and distance I am committed.

--------------------

Kilkrazy notes that page 15, the last sentence of the paragraph after Movement Phase Summary box tell us "Once you have started moving a unit you may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit."

The conclusion he draws from this is "you clearly are permitted by the rules to decide a move, measure it out, do it, then change your mind, go back and do a different move which would also require measuring."

I disagree. Simply because you are explicitly prohibited from going back and moving a previous unit again does not mean that you are permitted to move the same unit you are currently moving twice. Permission must be granted. The fact that a related act is explicitly forbidden does not mean that this act is implicitly sanctioned.

I maintain that my conclusions hold.

Counter arguments?

I'll counter, just for the heck of it:

P1: The rulebook states my models may move up to a certain distance.
P2: I must measure said distance in order to correctly move my models without exceeding the allowed distance.
P3: The rulebook does not state that I may make multiple measurements for a single move, for example, in multiple directions.
C1: I am allowed to measure my move distance.
C2: I may not make multiple measurements in different directions. Once I measure a given direction and distance I am committed.

C1 is a restatement of P2.

C2 is a restatement of P3

So, unless I'm mistaken, that's a text book "begging the question" (Including your conclusion in part of your premises).

And Ragnar, only one conclusion per set of premises please.

Careful Ragnar, Ed's whole trick here is to try to get you to prove a negative:  "You can't premeasure movement."

That's all BS.  It is incumbent upon him, or someone, to prove you CAN do something in a rule set, not the other way around.  Game rules only describe what you can do, they do not list what you can not do.  (Thus all my examples about moving opponent's models above).

No one has presented a logical argument for allowing premeasuring movement or sweeping a ruler. (Unless I missed it)

You must remember Russ, I'm not making a claim either way, since I think the rules do not cover the point. So it is not incumbent upon me to do anything but disprove any arguments given.

Which I did.

But if someone presents the counter argument I'll attempt to disprove that as well. (assuming I still think it's incorrect after I see it.)

No one has presented an argument that permits the players to breathe either. The measuring method is very arguably outside of the scope of the RAW, which therefore becomes a question of sportsmanship and gamer-ethics.

I don't see the connection to WD315 either, which deals with issues well within the scope of the RAW (and how we should just ignore it all so GW doesn't have to edit their product).

Additionally if your argument is that premeasuring is forbidden by intent and this is obviously common sense, I'll gladly challenge that notion. I think it's common sense that your little plastic guys know how far they can travel in a given period of time. It's certainly an easier concept than judging the maximum effective range of a projectile weapon. Shall we D6 for it?

 Russ, Ed, I don?t think either of you is reading very carefully. 

Kilkrazy made an effort to prove it is allowed by demonstrating that going back and moving a previously-moved unit is explicitly forbidden. This falls into the error of assuming that a prohibition against one thing equals permission to do something else. But it was a legitimate try.

Ed, I am drawing two very straightforward conclusions from three very straightforward premises. If the directions say "Turn left at the light" a valid conclusion which can be drawn is that "I should not turn right at the light."  This is basically what I'm doing. This is not the same as building on an unproven assumption. I can draw as many conclusions as I like from a given premise. If the sweater I am wearing is solid black, I can accurately draw conclusions about what colors it is NOT until the sun goes down.

Attack the premises. Is there anything false in them?  Or the conclusions.  Do they not follow from the premises? Let me add another premise to make it clearer:

P1: I may only do things which are explicitly allowed by the rules or implicitly required by the rules.

P2: The rulebook states my models may move up to a certain distance.
P3: I must measure said distance in order to correctly move my models without exceeding the allowed distance.
P4: The rulebook does not state that I may make multiple measurements for a single move, for example, in multiple directions.

C1: I am allowed to measure my move distance.
C2: I may not make multiple measurements in different directions. Once I measure a given direction and distance I am committed.

No one has presented an argument that permits the players to breathe either. The measuring method is very arguably outside of the scope of the RAW, which therefore becomes a question of sportsmanship and gamer-ethics.

I don't see the connection to WD315 either, which deals with issues well within the scope of the RAW (and how we should just ignore it all so GW doesn't have to edit their product).

Breathing is outside the scope of the game.  Measuring is withing the scope of the game, how you measure various things is in RaW, there are pages and pages on it in fact.  (coherency, where to measure range from, etc.)

The point from WD315 is that two folks can read the same text and derive two different meanings.  I don't believe he ever makes the statement that GW should not edit their work. 

On Common sense, you are mis-understanding my meaning, Common sense does not equal how does reality plug into the game.  Common Sense equals how does my reading of the rules fit into the over all game. 

Here's one for you to disprove Ed

 

P1: Models are allowed to move a specific distance in the movement and other phases (fleet).

P2: The only way to very legality is to mearuse that distance.

C1: Distance is measured at the time of the movement to verify legality.

 

Premeasuring would not be allowed under this logic as you don't verify your distance until you move. The only way to to it at the time of movement would be to lay down the ruler at the ending point and see if it is within the allowed movement distance. Yes you would be able to try to see if you can move 24" but that would simply be sportsmanship problems there. This owuld not allower premeasuring or that slowed "radius of possible movement" crap. It bugs me when people measure to see if they will be able to get behind the woods before they try.

I believe that P2 is false because there are multiple ways to verify legality, Premeasurement being one of them, but none of which are listed in the BGB.

Snoogums, Ragnar, good ones.  Adding the P1 is a solid addition Ragnar.  I think a lot of folks ignore that issue.

I did catch Killkrazy's post, but it wasn't in the simple Premise/Conclusion format we generally use, so harder to verify/pick appart. 

The fact that this is even a topic of debate staggers me. C'mon boys, are we this bored?

Let me change my stance, this is the dumbest argument ever.

Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game with some of these people. Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game with some of these people. Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game with some of these people. Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game with some of these people. Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game with some of these people...

Posted By blue loki on 03/31/2006 12:56 PM
I believe that P2 is false because there are multiple ways to verify legality, Premeasurement being one of them, but none of which are listed in the BGB.

 

Are you saying that "pre measuring" isn't measuring? P2 is simply saying that you have to measure the distance with something, not when it happens.

Posted By methoderik on 03/31/2006 12:57 PM

The fact that this is even a topic of debate staggers me. C'mon boys, are we this bored?

Let me change my stance, this is the dumbest argument ever.

Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game some of these people. Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game some of these people. Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game some of these people. Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game some of these people. Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game some of these people...

 

Oh where's the love methoderik?  This is fun.  I love a good argument...

 

"no you don't"

 

"Yes I do"

 

"No.."

 

"Yes.."

 

"oh damn."

I still remain utterly unconvinced.

And I want to be convinced. These arguments just aren't doing it.

We all agree that you have to, at some point, measure. So that being a given, I'm not following how you guys are saying that moving to the left, but reversing and moving to the right, all the while measuring, is somehow not legal.

I'm not saying it's explicitly legal, but you certainly haven't shown it to be illegal.

I'm not saying it's explicitly legal, but you certainly haven't shown it to be illegal.

But that's the point, thing's must be explicitly legal to be done.

Wouldn't that be trying to prove a negative, saying that the rules don't say you can't?

Ok I think this may break the camels back.

When you are moving a unit you must maintain unit coherency.

Also every model has the potential to move it's maximum distance and remain in coherency.

So I can move model a 6" Towards the enemy line but say I want to move model b 6" to the exact right of that?

Then I would need to move the rest of the models in between the two and as long as I maintain coherency this unit moves accordingly.

So in essence, per the rules, I can measure for each model in a 10 man unit. That is 10 separate measurements in any direction I wish to move each model...

 

EDIT: Let's see, I have a unit in a 2" coherency and the unit is shaped like an "O". If I move the unit I can then reshape the unit as I see fit but I must maintain coherency so I can measure the models out to shape the unit like an "L" as long as they have maintained coherency.

You have to measure. It's impossible to play without measuring. But nothing in the rule requires you to measure more than once. Thus you may not. It's really that simple.

Attack my argument. Right now you're playing Anderton, telling me you don't believe me but not playing by the rules to try and disprove my conclusions.

Yes, DaIronGob, the way I play you do indeed measure for each model.  But once you measure you are committed, so there is no abuse.

So you are saying that I must move 10 models with only measuring once?

Fine, I measure once for each model.

 

EDIT: I am questioning the statements of only being able to measure in one direction. As long as my 10 man squad remains in coherency I can move each model in a different direction.

 

In fact, getting really technical with this one, any measurement made after the intial measurement would be in a technically different direction and since the rules don't allow you to measure in a different direction it would be illegal to move more than one model at a time per unit.

Posted By snooggums on 03/31/2006 12:57 PM

Are you saying that "pre measuring" isn't measuring? P2 is simply saying that you have to measure the distance with something, not when it happens.

I misunderstood. In the context of your conclusion, "C1: Distance is measured at the time of the movement to verify legality.", it sounded like you were singling out measuring as a singluar act which did not include pre-measuring.

If we take, measuring to mean "measuring in all of its forms", then your P2 does indeed stand, however your conclusion does not, as "at the time of movement" rules out pre-measurement without being supported by a premise. Pre-measurement is not done "at the time of movement", it is done before hand.

Pre-measurement is ruled out if measuring is only done to verify the legality of your move. Premeasuring is not required to make that move, so it would not be allowed.

EDIT: I am questioning the statements of only being able to measure in one direction. As long as my 10 man squad remains in coherency I can move each model in a different direction.

In fact, getting really technical with this one, any measurement made after the intial measurement would be in a technically different direction and since the rules don't allow you to measure in a different direction it would be illegal to move more than one model at a time per unit.

Sure. You can measure once for each model. The legal procedure is to measure for one model, move it, then measure for the next, move it, and so on. Given that each model is committed to its move once measured, no premeasuring is happening and no abuses occur. Obviously in a normal casual game players may fudge the rules a little, moving the unit quickly and only making a couple of measurements. But as long as each measurement commits a model to a move, we are protected from premeasuring abuses.

Maleed, this is a discussion of designers intend and I present to you this:

FACT: Nowhere in the rule book does it say you can pre-measure anything

Rules state: You pick a unit to shoot, then measure.  You can't premeasure distance to shoot.

Rules state: You pick a unit to charge, then measure.  You can't premeasure distance to charge.

 

Inferrence: You pick a direction to move, then measure.  You can't premeasure distance to move.

 

Maleed, this is a discussion of designers intend

Your spelling errors aside, how do you intent to present any premises about dev intent?

Maleed, this is a discussion of designers intend

Your spelling errors aside, how do you intent

That was amusingly ironic.

Posted By Mannahnin on 03/31/2006 2:17 PM

Maleed, this is a discussion of designers intend

Your spelling errors aside, how do you intent

That was amusingly ironic.

Ironically that was coencidence.

 

Edit, haha coincidence is the correct spelling. How amusing

Bah! It was a Freudian slip I tell you!

EDIT: Or perhaps treachery is afoot!  Mannahin has uber mod powers, among them the ability to edit post.  And he's there to reap the laughs at my expense!  Treachery, intrigue, cabal, I say!

In my hands, I have the names of 125 known communists in the US department of state...

Posted By bigchris1313 on 03/31/2006 2:13 PM

Maleed, this is a discussion of designers intend

Your spelling errors aside, how do you intent to present any premises about dev intent?

 

The whole point of this discussion is designers intent, since, as we've pointed out, the designer didn't feel the need to let us in on this information.

EDIT**  I checked and re-checked my spelling so as to end the madness.....

In my opinion it is more ethical to allow pre-measuring at all times. Here is my argument.

If no-one is allowed to pre-measure distances and must take negative consequences for guessing wrong, this is a disadvantage to players who are not good at estimating distances by eye.

Judging distances by eye is a skill built up through experience.

Judging distances in inches depends on regular use of the inch in measurement, which is no longer the case except in the US. Even in the UK, most schools stopped teaching inches 10 years ago.

Consequently, to insist that players estimate in inches, rather than measure with a tape, discriminates against younger and european players.

This gives an advantage to experienced players.

There is no disadvantage to anyone if everyone is allowed to pre-measure. The only difference is that experienced players lose an advantage.

Therefore, pre-measurement should on ethical principles be allowed in all phases of the game.

It does depend on whether you consider estimation a key game skill (like tactics or list design, for example). If you do, then it's legitimate to say that pre-estimation should be forbidden in all cases.

Kilkrazy, I think you have veered off onto a sidetrack.

I think my premises and conclusions stand, demonstrating that premeasuring is not permitted by the rules. If you want to debate the rules, please make another argument based on them.

I think I have demonstrated that your previous point about the legality of premeasuring does not hold. Just because going back and moving another unit that you already moved is explicitly forbidden, does not mean that going back and moving the SAME unit you just moved a second time is permitted.

-------------

If you want to talk ethics and game skills, IMO Warhammer and 40k clearly descend from a long tradition of "sandtable" wargames in which distance estimation is indeed considered a core skill. Your ability to judge distances is supposed to be important. Premeasuring is antithetical to this tradition.

GW has branched off at times into designing games which do explicitly permit premeasuring (Warmaster) and has made games using a board with spaces (Blood Bowl), both of which are based off of different (though equally legitimate) design principles. Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are not members of either of these groups.

Personally I find the issue about people from different countries having difficult times with different units of measurement to be irrelevant to the discussion. Battlefleet: Gothic has guess range weapons and all the ranges are in centimeters. This is certainly more challenging for most American players, but does not mean than the rules are discriminatory or unfair. It's really only an issue if people from countries using different measurement systems play one another, which is certainly a tiny percentage of the games played.